Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-09-21 Resolution
Item Number: 7.a. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution approving an agreement with the Downtown District to allow the sale of beer under limited circumstances on City streets and parking lot for Oktoberfest. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: The City Code allows private entities to sell and persons to consume and possess alcohol on public right-of-way or other city ground under limited circumstances. The Downtown District would like to be able to sell beer on October 2, 2021 during Oktoberfest in an area on Market St. and N. Linn St. including the City parking lot as shown on the diagram attached to the agreement. This is substantially the same agreement as in years past. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description resolution agreement Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Resolution No. 21-252 Resolution approving an agreement with the Downtown District to allow the sale of beer under limited circumstances on City streets and parking lot for Oktoberfest. Whereas, section 4-5-3D of the City Code allows private entities to sell and persons to consume and possess alcohol in a city park, on public right-of-way or on a city ground under limited circumstances; and Whereas, the Downtown District would like to be able to sell beer on October 2, 2021 in a demarcated area on Market Street and N. Linn Street including the City parking lot; and Whereas, it is in the City of Iowa City's interest to execute the attached agreement. Now, therefore, be in resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that: The City Manager is authorized to sign the attached agreement and any needed amendments. Passed and approved this 21st Attest: day of September , 2021. Cit ffice (Su Dulek — 09/10/2021) Resolution No. 21-252 Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bergus X Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague X Thomas x Weiner the Drafted by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240;319/356-5030 2021 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN SELF - SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY AND LIMITED SALE, CONSUMPTION, AND POSSESSION OF BEER AND WINE DURING THE OKTOBERFEST This Agreement is made between Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District, d/b/a Iowa City Downtown District ("District") and the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation ("City"), in Iowa City, Iowa. WHEREAS, District is an "authorized entity" as that term is defined in section 4-5- 3D of the City Code; WHEREAS, District has applied for a license to sell beer and wine during the Northside Oktoberfest; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into an agreement to allow District to sell beer and wine and to allow persons to possess and consume beer and wine under limited circumstances on downtown City streets. THE PARTIES THEREFORE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Authorized Site. In consideration for District's promises herein, the City agrees to allow District control over the area in the 200 - 300 block of Market Street, the City parking lot in the 300 block, and 100-200 block of N. Linn St. on October 2, 2021 from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm as shown on the diagram which is attached, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein ("Oktoberfest authorized site" or "authorized site"). District must allow members of the public not participating in the event to walk through the Authorized Site on the sidewalk. 2. Term. This agreement shall be in effect only on October 2, 2021. 3. Access. District shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that only persons over twenty-one (21) years of age have access to beer and wine. Said reasonable steps include, but are not limited to, ensuring that: a) all persons over twenty-one (21) years of age shall be provided a wrist band and an approved container upon purchase of beer or wine; and b) no one may possess an open container of beer or wine unless it is in an approved container and the person is wearing a wrist band. Approved container means a glass or cup that is approved by the City prior to the event. If the District observes anyone in possession of an open container of beer or wine (or any type of alcohol) that is not in an approved container or anyone in possession of an approved container with beer or wine who does not have a wrist band, the District shall immediately request that the person pour out the liquid. If the person refuses to do so, the District shall immediately contact the Iowa City Police Department. 4. License. This agreement is void if District does not have a license to sell beer and wine on the Oktoberfest authorized site on October 2, 2021. 5. Sale of Beer/Wine and Alcohol Restrictions. District shall only sell beer and wine to a person who is over twenty-one (21) years of age. District acknowledges that the authorized sites are subject to all applicable alcohol restrictions in the City Code. 6. Advertisement. District shall not, nor shall it allow anyone to, erect or place any sign or other matter advertising any brand of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine upon the authorized site with the exception that signage may be placed on the interior and exterior tent walls. Sponsorship signage unrelated to businesses selling alcohol, beer, wine, or tobacco will be allowed. 7. Inspection. City staff, including the Iowa City Police Department, may periodically inspect the authorized sites without any prior notice to determine compliance with the terms of this agreement. 8. Debris and Trash. District shall be solely responsible for collecting all debris and trash from the authorized sites, and the City shall then remove the debris and trash. If District fails to do so and if City staff has to collect the debris and trash from the authorized sites, District may be responsible for the cost incurred by the City, including staff time, and shall pay the costs in full within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice. 9. No Smoking. Smoking is prohibited in the City parking lot, and District shall post two no - smoking signs in said lot for Oktoberfest. The signs shall comply with Iowa Code Section 142D.6 (2021). Additionally, the use of electronic cigarettes is prohibited in the parking lot. Electronic cigarette means vapor product as defined in Section 453A.1 of the Code of Iowa (2021). 10. Temporary Toilet Facilities and Hand Washing Stations. District shall provide at its sole cost sixty (60) temporary toilet facilities in the location shown on Exhibit A, including two (2) that are handicap accessible. District shall further provide at its sole cost thirty (30) hand washing stations adjacent to the facilities unless the facilities themselves are equipped with hand washing stations. 11. Anchoring and Drilling. District shall not drill any holes into the pavement or the sidewalk and shall not anchor a tent tie down or pole to the pavement or the sidewalk. 12. Fencing. The authorized site shall be enclosed by fencing as approved by the City. 13. Insurance. a) Premises Insurance. On October 2, 2021, District shall carry comprehensive general liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage on the authorized site in the amount of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) for each occurrence and $2,000,000 (two million dollars) in the aggregate and shall name the City as an additional insured. District shall furnish a copy of a certificate of insurance for same, satisfactory to the City at the time of execution of this agreement. District shall notify the City 1 week before cancellation of said insurance, and said cancellation shall automatically terminate this Agreement. b) Dram Shop Insurance. On October 2, 2021, District shall carry "dram shop" insurance in compliance with Iowa Code section 123.92 (2021) in the amount of $1,000,000 (one million dollars). District shall provide 1 week notice to the City before cancellation of said insurance and said cancellation shall automatically terminate this Agreement. c) Governmental Immunities Endorsement. District shall obtain a 2 governmental immunities endorsement that meets the requirements set forth on Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated herein. 14. Indemnification. District shall pay on behalf of the City all sums which the City shall be obligated to pay by reason of any liability imposed upon the City for damages of any kind resulting from the use of the authorized sight or sale, consumption, or possession of beer on the authorized site, whether sustained by any person or person, caused by accident or otherwise and shall defend at its own expense and on behalf of the City, its officers, employees and agents any claim against the City, its officers, employees, and agents arising out of the use of the authorized site or sale, consumption, or possession of beer on the authorized site. 15. Non -Discrimination. District shall not discriminate against any person in employment or public accommodation because of race, religion, color, creed, gender identity, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, marital status or age. "Employment" shall include but not be limited to hiring, accepting, registering, classifying, promoting, or referring to employment. "Public accommodation" shall include but not be limited to providing goods, services, facilities, privileges and advantages to the public. 16. Termination. The City may terminate this agreement upon written notice for violation of any provision of this agreement. 17. Assignment and Subletting. District shall not assign or sublet this agreement without prior written approval of the City. 18. Entire Agreement. This constitutes the whole agreement between the parties, and may be modified in writing only, duly signed by the parties. Dated. this 1/Z Z day. 5zp4tw\ kD: �-D. IOWA CITY AND IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIP 'L IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT an ¶ tird, Executive Direct THE CITY OF IOWA�IfiY -Geoff In, City Manager Appr a -30-a( City Attofney's Office 3 Northside Oktoberfest October 2nd, 2021 Se! up begins at 5am, Event starts at 10am, teardown begins al 9pm Streets reopen by 11 pm Green area indicates the event footprint that will not allow alcohol Liquor License through ICDD: Black area indicates the event footprint that will allow alcohol ty nt Blue and read pins indicate tables and chairs rket Si Blue area indicates portable toilets W E E HII]LI Q? ••1 1 . 1, Li E Bloomington St Jac t Wentz House Frt y'fr0�6b}10f E Markel St I � 0 e Union Brew;ery ".I Artifact z c) co rn 1S Uagll9 N Ur r Johns Grocery EXHIBIT B Governmental Immunities Endorsement 1. Non -waiver of Government Immunity. The insurance carrier expressly agrees and states that the purchase of this policy and the including of the City of Iowa City, Iowa as Additional Insured does not waive any of the defenses of governmental immunity available to the City of Iowa City, Iowa, under Code of Iowa Section 670.4 as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. 2. Claims Coverage. The insurance carrier further agrees that this policy of insurance shall cover only those claims not subject to the defense of governmental immunity under the Code of Iowa Section 670.4 as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time. Those claims not subject to Code of Iowa Section 670.4 shall be covered by the terms and conditions of this insurance policy. 3. Assertion of Government Immunity. The City of Iowa City, Iowa shall be responsible for asserting any defense of governmental immunity, and may do so at any time and shall do so upon the timely written request of the insurance carrier. Nothing contained in this endorsement shall prevent the carrier from asserting the defense of governmental immunity on behalf of the City of Iowa City. 4. Non -Denial of Coverage. The insurance carrier shall not deny coverage under this policy and the insurance carrier shall not deny any of the rights and benefits accruing to the City of Iowa City, Iowa under this policy for reasons of governmental immunity unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled in favor of the defense(s) of governmental immunity asserted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa. 5. No Other Change in Policy. The insurance carrier, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, agree that the above preservation of governmental immunities shall not otherwise change or alter the coverage available under the policy. 4 Item Number: 7.b. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution authorizing the procurement of Janitorial Services for the City of Iowa City Transportation Services Department. Prepared By: Mark Rummel, Associate Director Transportation Services Reviewed By: Darian Nagle-Gamm, Transportation Services Nicole Davies, Assistant Finance Director Director Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Funds for this purchase are available in the other building repair and maintenance services in the operating budget for the Transportation Services Department and Central Business District Maintenance. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: On June 21, 2021 a Request for Proposal for Janitorial Services for the City of Iowa City Transportation Services Department was posted to the City of Iowa City website. A Presubmission Conference was held on June 28, 2021. Vendors were required to submit all questions and clarifications regarding the Request for Proposal by June 30, 2021. Each vendor was required to submit a proposal no later than 2:30 p.m. on July 6, 2021. The City received completed proposals from ABM Industry Groups, LLC, Ecocare Supply, and Strooband-Weime Hospitality & Logistics, LLC. Proposals were distributed to an Evaluation Committee, which consisted of representatives from the Transportation Services Department. After a complete evaluation of all the submitted proposals, the Evaluation Committee recommended ABM Industry Groups, LLC to receive the contract award for Janitorial Services. Background /Analysis: Transportation Services is responsible for the cleaning of 6 parking facilities, 2 transit sites, and the downtown pedestrian mall (including the North Linn Street and East Market Street Area). Our current contract for janitorial services expires December 2021. Over the course of this 3 -year contract, the City expects to expend approximately $911,556. Funds for this purchase are available under 71810141 442010 through 71810145 442010, 71810221 442010, & 10810200 442010. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Prepared by: Mark Rummel, Associate Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5097 Resolution No. 21-253 Resolution authorizing the procurement of Janitorial Services for the City of Iowa City Transportation Services Department Whereas, a Request for Proposal was released to solicit the procurement of Janitorial Services for the City of Iowa City Transportation Services Department Whereas, the current contract will expire in December of 2021 and must be replaced: and Whereas, three proposals were received for these services; and Whereas, the evaluation committee has selected ABM Industry Groups, LLC; and Whereas, the city's purchasing policy requires City Council to approve purchases for commodities and services over $150,000; and Whereas, the City expects to expend approximately $303,852.00 per year over the three -years of this contract ($911,556.00) for the procurement of Janitorial Services for the City of Iowa City Transportation Services Department; and Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in the Transportation Services Accounts: 71810141 442010 through 71810145 442010, 71810221 442010, 71810245 442010, & 10810200 442010; and Whereas, approval of this purchase is in the public interest. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposed procurement as described is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized to sign the agreement with the vendor and take whatever steps are necessary to effectuate future purchases including any amendments or renewals of said agreement. Passed and approved this 21st day of September , 20 21 ATTEST: City CI rk c ( Approved bby G (�—� ne 's Office City Att y (Jennifer Schwickerath — 09/16/2021) Resolution No. 21-253 Page 2 It was move by Salih and seconded by Thomas the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bergus Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner Item Number: 7.c. 46,, CITY OF IOWA CITY � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution accepting the work for the Hawk Ridge Drive — Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project. Prepared By: Joe Welter, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Engineer's Report Resolution Executive Summary: Construction of the Hawk Ridge Drive — Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project has been completed by Lynch's Excavating, Inc. of West Branch, Iowa, in substantial accordance with the Project Manual developed by Watersmith Engineering of Muscatine, Iowa. The Engineer's Report and Performance and Payment Bond are on file with the City Engineer. • Project Estimated Cost: • Project Bid Received: • Project Actual Cost: $ 104,000.00 $ 90,609.50 $ 91,239.94 There were no change orders on this project. Background /Analysis: This project included installation of 200 feet of twelve -inch ductile iron water main, including valves, fittings, connections to existing water main, and sidewalk paving. The project was located at the intersection of Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1. ATTACHMENTS: Description Engineer's Report Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT September 1, 2021 City Council Iowa City, Iowa I 767147144:0641:7! CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826 (319) 356 - 5000 (319) 356 - 5009 FAX www.icgov.org Re: Hawk Ridge Drive — Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project Dear City Council: I hereby certify that the Hawk Ridge Drive — Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project has been completed by Lynch's Excavating, Inc. of West Branch, Iowa, in substantial accordance with the Project Manual developed by Watersmith Engineering of Muscatine, Iowa. The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $91,239.94. There were no change or extra work orders on this project. I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City. Sincerely, Jason Havel, PE City Engineer Prepared by: Joe Welter, Engineering Division, Public Works, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 356-5144 Resolution No. 21-254 Resolution accepting the work for the Hawk Ridge Drive — Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Hawk Ridge Drive - Highway 1 Water Main Repair Construction Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and Lynch's Excavating, Inc. of West Branch, Iowa, dated November 10, 2020, be accepted; and Whereas, the Engineer's Report has been filed in the City Clerk's office; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in Annual Sewer Main Replacement, Account Number V3101; and Whereas, the final contract price is $91,239.94. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 21st day of Se. tember , 2021 Attest: It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Approved by Cityf(ttorney's Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen - 09/14/2021) and seconded by Thomas Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner the Resolution be Item Number: 7.d. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution accepting the work for, sanitary sewer, water main, and certain sidewalk public improvements for Capital Subdivision, and declaring public improvements open for public access and use. Prepared By: Josh Slattery, Sr. Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Engineer's Report Resolution Executive Summary: Capital Subdivision is a single -lot, 3.20 -acre subdivision located west of Highway 1 and north of Moss Ridge Road. A convenience store/gas station and a car wash are built on Lot 1. Background /Analysis: The construction of the sanitary sewer, water main, and certain sidewalk improvements for Capital Subdivision have been completed in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City. ATTACHMENTS: Description Engineer's Report Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT September 8, 2021 Honorable Mayor and City Council Iowa City, Iowa Re: Capital Subdivision Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: I - i 1 .011LirAke au ;VT CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826 (319) 356 - 5000 (319) 356 - 5009 FAX www.icgov.org I hereby certify that the construction of the sanitary sewer, water main, and certain sidewalk improvements for Capital Subdivision have been completed in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City. The required maintenance bonds are on file in the City Clerk's Office for the sanitary sewer and water main improvements constructed by Maxwell Construction, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa. I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City. Sincerely, Jason Havel, P.E. City Engineer Prepared by: Josh Slattery, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5149 Resolution No. 21-255 Resolution accepting the work for, sanitary sewer, water main, and certain sidewalk public improvements for Capital Subdivision, and declaring public improvements open for public access and use. Whereas, the Engineering Division has certified that the following improvements have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Engineering Division. Sanitary sewer and water main improvements for Capital Subdivision, as constructed by Maxwell Construction, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa. Whereas, the maintenance bonds have been filed in the City Clerk's office; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City has notified those contractors listed previously of the date on which it will consider acceptance of the aforementioned public improvements; and Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa and that all dedications and public improvements previously set aside as not being open for public access are hereby formally accepted and declared open for public access and use. Passed and approved this 21st day of Attest: September , 2021 It was moved by Salih adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: City • ttorney's Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 09/14/2021) and seconded by Thomas Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner the Resolution be Item Number: 7.e. 1 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest an agreement between the City of Iowa City and Sharon Telephone Company to use a portion of public right-of-way way for the installation, operation and maintenance of a fiber optic communications system. Prepared By: Kim Sandberg, Program Assistant Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution License Agreement Executive Summary: This License Agreement, between the City of Iowa City and Sharon Telephone Company, will allow Sharon Telephone Company to install, operate and maintain a fiber optic communication system within public right-of-way. Background /Analysis: Sharon Telephone Company desires to provide internet services to a cell phone tower located off of Maier Road SW. In order to access the site, Sharon Telephone Company has requested to install underground fiber optic communication lines within Iowa City public right-of-way on Rohret Road. To enable Sharon Telephone Company to install said fiber optic communication lines, staff has drafted a License Agreement between the City of Iowa City and Sharon Telephone Company, which will allow Sharon Telephone Company to install, operate, and maintain underground fiber optic communication lines within City of Iowa City public right -of way. The agreement provides for the installation within Rohret Road public right-of-way and provides for the expansion at additional locations by submitting a written request for review and approval by the Public Works Director. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution Agreement STATE OF IOWA } ) SS } JOHNSON COUNTY IIIIIII 111111111 m 111 W 1111111111w 111111 III Doc ID' 028249570013 Type: GEN Kind: RIGHT OF WAY Recorded: 09/24/2021 at 11:10:43 AM Fee Amt: $67.00 Pape 1 of 13 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder 8K6290 PG370-382 trigrajalit 111 ,, City of I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Resolution attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 21-256 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of September 2021, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 23rd day of September 2021. (— I)1 A.11 Kellie K. Fruehling City Clerk \res 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 • FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Kimberly Sandberg, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5139 Resolution No. 21-256 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest an agreement between the City of Iowa City and Sharon Telephone Company to use a portion of public right-of-way way for the installation, operation and maintenance of a fiber optic communications system. Whereas, Sharon Telephone Company ("Network") desires to install a fiber optic communication system within Public Right -of -Way; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to enter into an agreement with Network providing for the use of the Public Right -of -Way for such purposes; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into an agreement with Network establishing the terms and conditions for the operation of this fiber optic communications system. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The attached agreement between the City of Iowa City and Sharon Telephone Company to use certain Public Right -of -Way set out in said agreement for the placement of fiber optic communication system is in the public interest, and is hereby approved as to form and substance. 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest the attached agreement, on behalf of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to record the resolution and agreement in the Johnson County Recorder's Office, at Network's expense. Passed and approved this 21st day of Attest: .t Q City Clerk September , 2021 Approve City Attofney's Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen -09/14/2021) It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: x Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner the Resolution be AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND SHARON TELEPHONE COMPANY, FOR USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. SECTION I. DEFINITIONS a. "City" shall mean the City of Iowa City, Iowa and, where appropriate, shall include its officers, employees and agents. b. "Public Improvements" shall mean any publicly -owned improvements on Public Right -of -Way, including but not limited to paving, sidewalks, grass, vegetation, trees, street lights, traffic signals, water mains, sewers, electrical transmission lines and equipment related thereto, communication lines and equipment related thereto. c. "Public Right -of -Way" shall mean the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, bridge, cartway, bicycle lane, or public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements. d. "Network"shall mean Sharon Telephone Company, a corporation registered to do business in the State of Iowa, that operates a Fiber Optic Communication System. e, "Fiber Optic Communication System" shall mean a system for the transmission of information through fiber optic cables. f. "Fiber Assets" shall mean the equipment owned, operated, leased, or subleased for the operation of a Fiber Optic Communication System by Network, and shall include the equipment minimally necessary to transmit signals in the form of light from one point to the other, including the transmitting and receiving circuitry, light source and detector devices necessary for the operation of a Fiber Optic Communication System, not including cable television systems to the public for compensation. SECTION 2. BASIC GRANT Network is hereby granted a license to install, maintain, inspect, protect, repair, and replace its Fiber Assets in, under, upon, along and across the Public Right -of -Way shown and identified in Exhibits 1-4 hereto, subject to the regulatory powers of the City, including the permitting process, and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth. SECTION 1 PLAN APPROVAL Before commencing any work authorized in Section 2 above, Network shall seek approval of detailed engineering plans from the Public Works Director by filing a written statement identifying the Public Right -of -Way upon, under or over which Network proposes to perform such work. Such statement shall be accompanied by a map, plan and/or specifications showing all components to be installed, existing site conditions, including all existing public utility facilities and streetscape features above ground, and any underground utilities where new foundations for ground -mounted equipment or underground components are proposed. The size and dimensions 1 of all Fiber Assets required for the work must be included in the detailed plans, as well as the underground depth(s) impacted by the proposed work. No Fiber Asset may be located in a manner that interferes with the reasonable and proper use, construction, reconstruction and maintenance of any public improvement or other structure upon, over or under the Public Right -of -Way. If the proposed plans show such an interference, as determined by the Public Works Director, the Public Works Director shall, within reasonable time after the filing of such written statement and supporting documentation, note the changes necessary to eliminate interference and refer the same back to Network for modification of the plans and resubmittal to the City. If Network cannot make the requested modifications for whatever reason, the City is under no obligation to approve the plans or issue an excavation permit for any work shown on such plans. Upon approval of the plans in writing by the Public Works Director, Network may apply for an excavation permit subject to the limitations set forth in Section 5 below. SECTION 4. PROTECIiON AND RESTORATION OF PROPERTY To protect the public and assure the safe and efficient movement of traffic, Network shall provide traffic control and properly barricade any work site to comply, at a minimum, with requirements set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices All pavement removed or damaged shall be properly and speedily replaced in accordance with the City's regulations, City's Municipal Design Standards and Standard Construction Specifications, and warranted for a period of five (5) years. As a condition to the use of Public Right -of -Way, Network shall, at its own expense, repair or cause repair to any public or private property damaged by Network. If Network fails to do so, the City may make such restoration at the expense of Network after providing Network with a written notice to its designated representative 30 days prior to the City's commencement of such restoration. Network shall pay such restoration costs within 60 days of receipt of invoice. Network shall restore and replace any disturbed surface vegetation with sod in conformance with City ordinances and standard local practices for placing sod. SECTION 5. EXCAVATIONS Nothing in this agreement waives Network's obligation to apply for and obtain an excavation permit prior to commencement of any work within the Public Right -of -Way, including the payment of any excavation permit application fee. Subject to an excavation permit, Network is authorized to make excavations in the Public Right -of -Way shown on Exhibits 1-4 for purposes of installation, repair, replacement, and maintenance of Fiber Assets by Network. SECTION 6. CITY RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The City reserves the right to lay, and permit to be laid, wires, pipes, cables, conduits, ducts, manholes and other appurtenances; to do, or permit to be done, any underground and overhead installation of public improvements; and to change any curb or sidewalk or the grade or width of any street or close or vacate any Public Right -of -Way, as such work may be deemed necessary or proper by the City in, across, along, over or under any Public Right -of -Way occupied by Network. In permitting others to do such work, the City shall not be liable to Network for any 2 damages arising out of the performance of such work by third parties. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to relieve other persons or corporations from liability for damage to Network's facilities and shall in no way limit the City's ability to own, maintain or operate its governmental functions within the Public Right -of -Way. SECTION 7. NETWORK CONTRACTORS The requirements of this agreement shall be binding upon and apply to all persons, firms or corporations performing work for Network under a contract, subcontract, time and materials arrangement or other type of work order. SECTION 8. CONDITIONS OF STREET OCCUPANCY; RELOCATION OBLIGATION The Fiber Assets installed by Network within the Public Right -of -Way pursuant to this agreement shall conform to established grades of streets, alleys and sidewalks, and be so located as to cause minimum interference with the rights or reasonable convenience of users of the Public Right -of - Way and property owners who own land adjoining Public Right -of -Way. All work performed under this agreement shall be done in accordance with the City Municipal Design Standards, Standard Construction Specifications, and the published Design Guidelines and Requirements for Installation of Pole -Mounted Utility Facilities Within City Right -of -Way, which may be amended from time to time as the City deems necessary and appropriate. Network shall conduct its work hereunder in such manner as to cause as little Interference as possible with pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and shall abide by scheduling directions, if any, given by the Director of Public Works. Network shall not place its Fiber Assets in the Public Right -of -Way where the same will interfere with the normal use or maintenance of any public improvement, including but not limited to streets, alleys, sidewalks, traffic control devices, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, storm drains or water mains, electrical transmission lines or any public utility facility. Network shall not place identification signs within the Public Right -of -Way, Network shall, upon reasonable notice and at its sole cost and expense, remove, locate and relocate any Fiber Asset in, on, over or under Public Right -of -Way in such manner as the City may at any time require for the purpose of facilitating the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair or change in grade of any public improvement on, in or about any such Public Right -of - Way, for the purposes of facilitating the vacation and/or redevelopment of public property or Public Right -of -Way by the City. In the event Network fails to act within a reasonably allocated time, the City may cause the Fiber Assets to be relocated, in which case the City shall not be responsible for any damage to the Fiber Assets or any disruption of communication, and the costs thereof shall be to Network paid as provided in Section 4 hereof. Claims for delay of work from contractors employed by the City that are a result of Network's failure to act within a reasonable time shall be the responsibility of Network. In the case of Public Works projects, reasonable time shall be defined as the six (6) week period from the date the project documents are made available to bidders. Upon request, Network agrees to assist in locating its underground Fiber Assets. Such assistance will be provided in a timely manner, but not more than forty-eight (48) hours after the time of request. As a condition of this agreement Network shall enroll as a member of the "Iowa One - 3 Call System" and shall respond to all requests and notifications placed to the toll-free "One -Call" number. SECTION 9. DAMAGED, DETERIORATED OR ABANDONED FIBER ASSETS Network shall repair or replace damaged or deteriorated Fiber Assets within 48 hours of notification from the City. Network shall notify the City when it intends to abandon its Fiber Assets. Within 30 days of abandonment, Network shall remove any and all abandoned Fiber Assets from the Public Right - of -Way unless the Director of Public Works expressly waives this requirement in writing, in which case such abandoned Fiber Assets become property of the City at no compensation to Network. SECTION 10. POWERS OF CITY OF IOWA CITY Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to abridge the right or power of the City to make or amend further ordinances, regulations or policies relative to the use of Public Right -of -Way by anyone using the same for the installation and maintenance of utility systems. This shall include, but be not limited to, establishment of a fee to recover the City's right-of-way management costs; establishment of any other fee allowed by law for use of Public Right -of -Way; and requirements deemed necessary for management of Public Right -of -Way such as the provision of a letter of credit, annual financial reports, service records, annual operations report. Any such ordinances, regulations, or policies shall apply to Network and to this agreement SECTION 11. RECORD KEEPING, ANNUAL REPORT Upon completion of the work, Network shall promptly furnish to the City as -built information related to its Fiber Assets located in the Public Right -of -Way in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format compatible with ArcGIS software, including either shapefiles or geodatabase information. The as -built information shall be 3 -meter accuracy or better and consistent with the Iowa State Plane South coordinate system. Provided attributes shall reflect the facility type, location and other information needed to identify the facilities. Network shall keep complete and accurate maps and records of the locations and operations of its facilities including buried abandoned facilities, in connection with this agreement, which shall be provided to the City annually on June 30 for the term of this agreement. SECTION 12. VIOLATIONS OF AGREEMENT In the event that Network violates any term of this agreement, Network shall be deemed in default and the City shall give written notice to Network of the default. Network shall cure such default within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of such notice; provided, however, where any such default cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period and Network proceeds promptly to cure the same and prosecute such cure with due diligence, the time for curing such default shall reasonably be extended for such period of time as may be necessary to complete such cure, as determined by the City. If the City determines that a breach of this agreement is an immediate danger to public health, safety or welfare that requires immediate action, the City may provide verbal or written notice of 4 said determination to Network and immediately remedy the default by doing the act Itself, or through a contractor, and charge the costs of such work to Network. If Network fails to cure a default within the time allowed, the City shall have the right to do any or all of the following: terminate this agreement; ii. seek specific performance; remedy the default by doing the act itself, or through a contractor, and charge the costs of such work to Network; and iv. seek damages of such default, including attorney fees. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, Including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. SECTION 13. LIABILITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Network covenants to indemnify, defend and save the City and its officers, agents and employees, harmless from any and all damages arising directly from the exercise of the rights granted herein. Network agrees to require contractors and subcontractors engaged in work for Network pursuant to this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage during the term of their work and to provide the City with certificates of insurance satisfactory to City. SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision or provisions hereof invalid or illegal, or direct a change by Network in any matter or thing herein contained, such invalidity, illegality or change shall be deemed severable and shall in no way affect the remaining provisions of this agreement or their validity or legality and this agreement in all other respects shall continue in full force and effect as if said provision or provisions had not been so adjudged invalid or illegal, or such change had not been directed. At the City's option, and upon a court's ruling of invalidity or illegality, the City may cause this agreement to be terminated. SECTION 15. ASSIGNMENT Neither party shall assign or otherwise transfer this agreement or any of its rights and interest to any firm, corporation or individual, without the prior written approval of the other party. Any assignment made without prior written approval shall be considered a default of this agreement. SECTION 16. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY The City may terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days notice provided to Network, if the City determines that the property is needed for a public purpose and should be cleared of any and all obstructions. When not in conflict with other City purpose, need or use, as 5 long as Network exercises the rights granted to it hereunder, the City will not, by ordinance or otherwise, vacate any right-of-way in which Network has installed its Fiber Assets without reserving such rights as necessary to allow continued use of such property for the said Fiber Assets in accordance with the terms of this agreement, provided that nothing herein shall limit the City's right to require Network to remove or relocate its Fiber Assets as provided in Section 8 hereof. SECTION 17. DELIVERY OF NOTICES Except as may be expressly provided herein, any notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered via certified mail and addressed as follows, unless indicated otherwise in the future: If to City: If to Network: Public Works Director City of Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 General Manager Sharon Telephone Company 100 E Main Street PO Box 280 Hills, IA 52235 319-679-2211 In case of an emergency, notices may be given verbally to the above-named persons. In such case, written confirmation should be provided. Nothing contained herein shall prevent other forms of notice if actually received by addressee. Notice shall be deemed given on date of mailing, or, if delivered otherwise, on the date actual notice is received. SECTION 18. RECORDATION This agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office, at Network's expense. Dated this 21st day of C F IOWA CITY September ,2021 NETWOR 0Q, ja.4.).S By: , e Teague, Mayor Attest: 1/ , L Q ) City Jerk Approved by: q-5. City Attorney's Office Print Name, Title: Sca& r 4ctie / t'f),e'``/ fr``koG 1c 6 CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This record was acknowledged before me on thise day of Set"2,mbQ r(, 2021, by Bruce Teague and Kellie Tuttle as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. h�e�+cs CHRISTINEOLNEY " Commission Comm 806232 = My Commission Expires IOWA STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) Notary Public in and for the Staf"of Iowa My commission expires: ' / 6/ 9 T, NETWORK ACKNOWLEDGMENT ) ss: This record was acknowledged before me on thisgl day of9-fidty, 2021 by %O Hayle- (Name(s) of ndividual(s)) as C—{•a tt'&& 1\lLLK04,€ v (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Sharon Telephone Comiany, KATIE MILLER oa %Commission Number 736955 My mission •Ives t- Not4ry Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: 1M-2623 7 52/21 - -ice - - - Sec 24 Caution: -- Bred Fibs 3 ., Powa In Area Contractor to place drops with mainline in ROW ✓ END COUNTY BEGIN CITY 110' BM60(1.25)O 52.02 filo. State: Iowa _ 'I N I 'County' Johncino Range: ZW Twsp: Z3d As Staked Sharon Telenho e Name: SIB. WO; VP`MFIFR)1 Exch: Irmo lay Route: S1 ROW'. Fielded By W Dat.t L Revised By: Date. Vantage:- -f Drawing Not to Scale Sheet 1 of 5 From To PType Units Feet BM W Remarks 52/21 F(B004) BDO 1 52/21 H8F0 1 52/21 H012R 4 52/21 52/22 BHf(24x36x36)T BFO48RW 1830 2(5/8)(8) 1 100' Coil in HH S2/22 53 1 52/22 55 1 52/22 60(1.25)0 110 As Staked Sharon Telenho e Name: SIB. WO; VP`MFIFR)1 Exch: Irmo lay Route: S1 ROW'. Fielded By W Dat.t L Revised By: Date. Vantage:- -f Drawing Not to Scale Sheet 1 of 5 V-- - T 5) M Contractor to place drops AREA BEING DEVELOPED Sec 24 4372 4362 4352 4342 Rant Rd SW 4:145 03 864 BM80(1.25)D Caution: Buried Fiber 8 - ---- ., Power In Area [ 374' 8M60(1.25)0] 254' 13M60(125)D 1 222' 13M60(1.25p I AState: Jowa 1/ County' Iohnion 3011, Range: ZYY Twsp: 79N As Staked Sharon Tet►phnro Name: 32.112 WO'. y1,4,MFIF11_,11 Eich: NWari9y Route: 52 ROW EL6Rc Fielded By: Date• 6.71 Revised By: Oats' VantagePoint Drnwulg Not to Scale Sheet 2 of 5 PType Units Feet BM HBFO HO ONT Remarks From To BHF (24.36,66)1 BF048RW 764 2(5/8)(8) 1 M 1 1 2 100' Col in HH (52/22) 52/23 55 1 52/23 60(1.25)D 664 52/23 360 83 1 HS S2/23 3305 5E804 SEGO 4 316 83 1 HS 52/23 3329 BHF(24x36x36)T 100488W 474 2(5/81(8) 1 01 1 2 100' Cal u1 HH 52/23 52/24 55 1 52/24 60(1.25)D 374 52/24 5E80 4 450 83 1 HS 52/24 3335 As Staked Sharon Tet►phnro Name: 32.112 WO'. y1,4,MFIF11_,11 Eich: NWari9y Route: 52 ROW EL6Rc Fielded By: Date• 6.71 Revised By: Oats' VantagePoint Drnwulg Not to Scale Sheet 2 of 5 57-02 Z • 4190) Sac 13 4132 'y (S2/261 S2/Th _ ,._ - T S2/29 p� , (1612) '( Contractor to place dreps I with mainline in ROW. Caution: Buried Fiber & Power In Area Ar 558' BM60(1 225)D1 Sec 13 J 494• 131.480(1.25)D S2-04 ie. State: Jowa /V County: Johnson 11, Range: Twsp: Z9N From To PType Units Feet BM HBFO HO ONT Remarks (52/77) 52/28 BHF(74x36x36)T BF048RW 658 2(5/8)(8) 1 M 1 1 2 100 ,n NH 52/28 55 1 52/28 60(1.25)0 558 S2/28 4115 5E80 4 390 83 1 H5 52/28 4017 5F804 312 831 HS S7/78 S2/29 BHF(24x36x36)T BF048RW 594 2(5/8)(8( 1 100' in tiN 52/29 53 1 52/29 GOO .25)0 494 As Staked Shinn TalaphnnR Nance 12-113 WO. vP`p aJFR 71 IOWA r•.y Route: S2 ROW' .22 1116‘ Fielded By Sl W Deb: alt Ravissd By Dee: 0Vantage ::!l Drawing Not to Scale Sheet 3 of 5 A00 `1 S2/ S2-05♦ 444' BM80(1.25)0 11 F9 t r Contractor to place drops with mainline m ROW. Il Caution Buried Fiber 8 Power In Area 528' BM80(1.25)D Sec 24 1 Sec 13 275 BM130(1.25)- I 1.25 °i 4021 2 Maier Ave SW Sec 19 L� 52-03 L380' BA480(125)D 1 1 3951 (S2/29)\ Sec 18 END CITY BEGIN COUNTY From To PType Units Feet BM HBFO HO ONT Remarks (S2/29) 52/30 8HF(24x36x36)T 1310 48R 460 215/8)18) 1 M 1 2 100 Cal in HH 52/30 53 1 52/30 55 1 52/30 6011.25)0 360 52/30 4003 66804 464 831 HS 51/30 3951 SEGO 4 318 83 1 52/30 52/31 BHF(24x36x361T BF048RW 396 2(5/8)(81 1 M 1 1 1 100' Cal in HH 52/31 55 1 52/31 60(1.25)0 291, 52/31 4006 5E804 240 83 1 H5 State: 102 63 County: Johnson Range: IW Twsp: 74N As Staked Charon Te(rphnw Name: 12.04 WO' yP5_MF IFFL Exch' NWS rite Route: 52 ROW: P++t,hr Fielded By'—St--L'—'9 Dain l2i Revised By: Date' Vantage: Drawing Not to Scale Sheet 4 of 5 Item Number: 7.f. 46,, CITY OF IOWA CITY � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Shive-Hattery, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa to provide consultant services for the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project. Prepared By: Alin Dumachi, Civil Engineer Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: $129,000 available in the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project account #S3965 Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Location Map Resolution Agreement Executive Summary: This agreement authorizes Shive-Hattery Inc. to provide preliminary and final design services and the preparation of construction documents for the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project. The project includes the removal and reuse of existing brick pavers on a concrete sub -slab and asphalt setting bed. The project also includes ADA compliance improvements at curb ramps, sidewalk patching, stormwater management and water main improvements. The consultant agreement is for $129,000 and will be funded by General Obligation Bonds. Background /Analysis: Due to severe deterioration of the brick surface of Fairchild Street, from Linn Street to Clinton Street, reconstruction of Fairchild Street was included in the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan. The project includes the following design elements: • Salvage and reinstallation of existing brick pavers • 7" concrete base • New drainage system under the road • New concrete curb and gutter. • New curb ramps at Dubuque/Fairchild and Linn/Fairchild intersections to meet ADA compliance • 8" water main replacement between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street and between Dubuque Street and Linn Street to replace existing 1900's -1920's water main ATTACHMENTS: Description Location Map Resolution Agreement VI 14 ri I , /14', 1 J4 _ E� o is ////Aj Prepared by: Alin Dumachi, Civil Engineer, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; (319) 356-5142 Resolution No. 21-257 Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Shive-Hattery, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa to provide consultant services for the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project. Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to replace Fairchild Street from Clinton Street to Linn Street; and Whereas, the project will include reconstructing Fairchild Street while preserving original brick pavers, with storm sewer and water main improvements and ADA compliant curb ramps; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires the services of a consulting firm to prepare preliminary and final design services for construction of the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project; and Whereas, the City issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) for consultant services for the Fairchild Street Reconstruction Project; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City has negotiated an Agreement for said consulting services with Shive-Hattery, Inc., to provide said services; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to enter into said Consultant Agreement with Shive-Hattery, Inc.; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Fairchild Street Reconstruction account #S3965. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The Consultant Agreement attached hereto is in the public interest, and is approved as to form and content. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached Consultant Agreement. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the Consultant Agreement as they may become necessary. Passed and approved this 21st day of Attest: September , 2021 Approved City Attor ey's Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen - 09/14/2021) Resolution No. 21-257 Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Bergus x Mims x Salih X Taylor x Teague x Thomas X Weiner the Consultant Agreement This Agreement, made and entered into this 21st day of September, 2021, by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and Shive- Hattery, Inc., of Iowa City, Iowa, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. Whereas, the City requires completion of public improvements to reconstruct the existing brick street along Fairchild Street from Clinton Street to Linn Street; and Whereas, reconstruction of Fairchild Street will provide ADA accessibility for pedestrians and increased safety for public roadway use while maintaining street aesthetics in this historic district; Whereas, the City has requested Qualifications from Consultants in July of 2020 for assistance with public improvement projects; and Whereas, the City has requested the services of Consultant to complete the design of public improvements on Fairchild Street , based on qualifications; and Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. Scope of Services Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. Project Description This project consists of improvements on Fairchild Street in Iowa City between Clinton Street and Linn Street. Improvements to include: Full street reconstruction from Clinton Street to Linn Street. Reconstruction consists of removal and resetting existing brick on a new 7" PCC pavement with drainable base. • Storm sewer replacement along Fairchild between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street • Storm sewer replacement along Fairchild between Dubuque Street and Linn Street • 6" subdrain tile installation • Curb ramp replacement at the Dubuque Street / Fairchild, and Fairchild Street / Linn Street Intersections. Curb ramps were recently replaced at Clinton Street by the City so will not be required. • 8" watermain replacement between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street • 8" watermain replacement between Dubuque Street and Linn Street • No sidewalk replacement except as needed for replacement through driveways and at Linn Street and Dubuque Street to match ADA improvements back to existing sidewalk No sanitary sewer replacement Included in Project Construction Document Development 1. Field Survey Services • Design Survey: The Consultant shall perform topographic and boundary survey of the project site. Topographic limits will include all of roadway and up to building face along project corridor. Survey shall be completed with total station equipment and used as a base map for project design. Survey will also include establishing control point monuments along the corridor of the project. Base Mapping: The Consultant shall prepare a base map to facilitate the project design to encompass the project site. The base map prepared will include existing topography features, right of way and easement lines, buried utilities based upon field locates, and above ground surface features. 2. Preliminary Design • Preliminary Plans: The Consultant will perform preliminary design services to develop a preliminary project plan set. Preliminary plan information will be used to discuss project impacts and begin discussions on project phasing. Project design information at the preliminary phase will be presented. Design Sheet Criteria The following sheets in the Preliminary Plans to include: o Cover and General Information (A Sheets) o Typical Cross Sections and Details (B Sheets) e Estimate of Quantities Tab (C Sheets) e Plan and Profile - Mainline (D Sheets) o Alignment Data and Control (G Sheets) o Right of Way Plan (H Sheets) o Traffic Control Plan (J Sheets) c Preliminary Water Main Plan and Profile (M Sheets) c Preliminary Storm Sewer Plan and Profile (M Sheets) o Site Preparation and Demolition Sheets o Preliminary Sidewalk Plan Only - No Tables (S Sheets) o Mainline Cross Sections (W Sheets) Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: The Consultant shall prepare a preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the Project. Preliminary cost estimates shall be based on representative major project elements and based on recent bid information. Detailed quantity takeoffs will not be developed for the preliminary cost estimate. • Utility Coordination Assistance: Consultant shall assist City with utility coordination by delivering project plans to Public and Private utilities during this phase to determine relocation needs and provide Utility coordination sheets. Consultant may be asked to attend monthly utility coordination meetings by City. • Field Exam: A Field Exam will be held with the City to discuss key issues such as storm drainage and reconstruction limits, and access control and traffic control/stage construction. The review will be completed to identify needed adjustments to minimize potential property impact and confirm the proposed staging plans. Revisions will be documented for preparation of the final design. Subsurface Investigation Consultant shall coordinate subsurface analysis and field investigation to complete pavement cores and soil analysis for purposes of completing pavement design and soil investigation. The work shall include (4) soil borings at 10' deep. Soil borings will include thickness of pavement and subsurface analysis with (2) soil boring between Clinton Street and (2) soil boring between Dubuque Street and Linn Street. • Review Meetings: o Conduct 1 review meeting with the City to review comments. o Conduct 1 design kick off meeting with City. • Preliminary Design Deliverables: o Electronic set of Preliminary Plans o Draft Temporary Construction Easements o Preliminary Cost Opinion. o Surface drainage flows to check storm sewer capacity. o Geotechnical Report 3. Easement Documents • Temporary Construction Easements: Consultant shall prepare legal descriptions and exhibits for acquisition or temporary construction easements. Twelve (12) parcels are assumed for temporary construction easements. 4. Utility Conflict Potholing • Potholing services will be coordinated with a sub -consultant to pothole with high pressure water jetting for identification of up to (6) pothole locations if necessary. Locations will be backfilled after potholing is complete. Separate utility survey will be coordinated during potholing by Consultant to identify horizontal and vertical location of utility at pothole location. 5. Check Plans After authorization from the City, the Consultant shall proceed with the development of Check Plans. Design Sheet Criteria: The following sheets in the Check Plans to include: • Cover and General Information (A Sheets) • Typical Cross Sections and Details (B Sheets) • Estimate of Quantities and Estimate Reference Information ;C Sheets) o Utility Contacts and General Information (C Sheets) o Plan and Profile - Mainline (D Sheets) o Alignment Data and Control (G Sheets) o Right of Way Plan (H Sheets) o Traffic Control and Staging and Detour (J Sheets) c Intersection, and Driveway Details (K Sheets) o Jointing Plan (L Sheets) o Water Main Plan and Profile (M Sheets) o Storm Sewer Plan and Profile (M Sheets) o Pavement Marking and Signage (N Sheets) o Site Preparation and Demolition Plan (R Sheets) o Sidewalk / ADA Compliance Plan (S Sheets) o Erosion Control Plan (T Sheets) c Details (U Sheets) o Mainline Cross Sections (VV Sheets) Incorporate Comments from Preliminary Plan Review: The Consultant will respond to comments resulting from the City's plan review and open house meeting. Recommended modifications will be incorporated into the plan set. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: The Consultant shall prepare an opinion of probable construction costs for the project. Utility Coordination Assistance: Consultant shall assist City with utility coordination by delivering project plans to Public and Private utilities during this phase to determine relocation needs and provide Utility coordination sheets. Consultant may be asked to attend monthly utility coordination meetings by City. • Quality Control - Plan Set: Involve ongoing quality control input from the City and the Consultant's staff throughout the development of Check Plans and documents for each Project segment including roadway and traffic phasing. Consultant shall perform a quality control review of the check plan set for technical accuracy, including general constructability and conformance with the project design criteria. • Review Meetings: Conduct (1) review meeting with the City to review comments. • Check Plan Deliverables: o Electronic set of Check Plans o Electronic copy of City preliminary review design comments and Consultant response. o Cost Opinion. o Draft Special Provisions and Project Manual (City provided template) 6. Final Plans After authorization from the City, the Consultant shall proceed with the development of final plans. • Incorporate Comments from Check Plan Review: The Consultant will respond to comments resulting from the City's plan review. Recommended modifications will be incorporated into the plan set. The following sheets in the final plans to include: • Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: The Consultant shall prepare an opinion of probable construction costs for the project. • Final Plan Deliverables: o Electronic set of Final Plan Documents. o Electronic copy of City Check design comments and Consultant response. o Cost opinion. o Special provisions and Project Manual. o Iowa DNR Water main construction permit applications. o Consultant to pay permit fee directly to IDNR and invoice City for reimbursement • Quality Control - Plan Set: Involve ongoing quality control input from the City and the Consultant's staff throughout the development of final plans and documents for each project segment including roadway and traffic phasing. Consultant shall perform a quality control review of the final plan set for technical accuracy, including general constructability and conformance with the Project design criteria. 7. Public Coordination Meetings • Neighborhood Open House meeting: Consultant will assist with public involvement by participating in three (3) neighborhood open house meeting and provide presentation material for project overview, along with aerial photos and preliminary plan information for public review. Meeting could be virtual or in person open house. Meetings are planned to be held following each of the plan development stages: Preliminary Plans, Check Plans, Final Plans • Private Property Coordination and Easement Review Meetings: Conduct six (6) on site meetings with property owners to assist City with project coordination or easement negotiations. 8. Bidding and Construction Services Letting Services: o The Consultant will respond to questions during the letting process, prepare Notice of Public Hearing and Notice to Bidders, provide plan clarification and issue required addenda. o The Consultant will attend Pre -Construction Meeting, facilitated by the CITY. City shall prepare agenda and meeting minutes. o Consultant shall review shop drawings and submittals as provided by the City. Construction Meetings: Consultant shall be available to attend up to three (3) construction meetings if requested by the City. 9. Additional Services The following items are not included in the contract at this time due to unknowns with extent of work required, however may be added as an amendment at a later date based on an estimate cost provided for each. In no event shall these additional services be performed, however, without prior written authorization in the form of an amendment hereto. Additional Property Owner Meetings: The Consultant may attend and provide plan sheets for property owner meetings during the project as requested by the City to discuss property acquisition details and impacts. Site visits shall be initiated by the City for specific construction related items. Additional estimated cost per visit = $450. • Additional Construction Site Visits: The Consultant may perform additional construction site visits during the project as requested by the City beyond those identified in the scope to review construction progress and general conformance to the plans and specifications or assist City with questions. Site visits shall be initiated by the City for specific construction related items. Additional estimated cost per visit = $450. • Re-establishment of Monuments: Disturbed or missing monuments shall be reset at their original location and a Monumentation Preservation Certificate in accordance with Iowa Code Section 355.6A shall be prepared and filed with the Recorder. Additional estimated cost per pin = $250. II. Time of Completion The project from design through project letting period, shall be performed by the Consultant in accordance with a tentative schedule mutually developed by the City and Consultant. The milestone schedule shall generally be as follows and could be modified as the project progresses. Milestone / Task Deadline City Council Approval 9/21/21 Project Kickoff Meeting 9/23/21 Complete Field Services Survey 10/14/21 Complete Preliminary Design 10/29/21 City Preliminary Plan Review Meeting 11/05/21 Neighborhood Meeting 11/12/21 Submit Easement Documents 11/19/21 Complete Check Plan Documents 12/17/21 City Check Plan Review Meeting 12/29/21 Final Construction Documents 1/28/22 City Final Construction Document Review Meeting 2/04/22 Acquisitions Complete (Based on 6 -month Acquisition Period) 5/20/22 Council Meeting -Set Public Hearing for June 07 5/17/22 Council Meeting -Public Hearing, Approve Plans, Advertise 6/07/22 Bid Letting 6/24/22 Council Award Project 7/05/22 Begin Project Construction 7/18/22 III. Compensation for Services The City shall pay the Consultant an hourly not -to -exceed fee of $129,000, based upon the Consultant Fee Schedule shown on ATTACHMENT A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. This fee includes a $1,000 allowance for reimbursable expenses, as described in said Attachment A. The table below provides an estimated budget summary. Hourly Not -to -Exceed Fee Estimate: 1. Field Survey Services Topographic Survey $12,000 2. Preliminary Plans Preliminary Plan Development $19,000 Subsurface Investigation $3,800 Utility Coordination Assistance $3 500 3. Easement Documents Temporary Construction Easements $6,000 4. Utility Conflict Potholing (BDC Group) Utility Potholing and Survey $3,000 5. Check Plans Check Plan and Manual Development $36,800 6. Final Plans Final Plan and Manual Development $28,000 Permit Documents $1,700 7. Public Coordination Meetings Neighborhood Meetings $5,500 Private Property Coordination and Easement Review Meetings $3 200 8. Project Bidding and Construction Services Letting Services $3,500 Construction Meetings 52,000 9. Expenses $1,000 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED FEE: $129,000 IV. General Terms A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "not -to -exceed" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City. Iowa. G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. H. The Consultant agrees to fumish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other projects. The Consultant agrees to fumish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional as required by Iowa law. J. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner, excepting, however, that failure of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform in accordance with this Agreement shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect. in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. 0. Indemnification 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury. including bodily injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultants negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers. agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000.000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice For the By: from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q. Standard of Care 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances. The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the generally accepted standards of the Engineering Profession. 4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant. R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. S. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Title: Mayor Date: 9/21/21 Attest: Y (Lk 1 For the Consultant By: Q>;n Title: Date: Project Manager 9/10/21 Approved by: Date Item Number: 7.g. r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 21, 2021 Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution CITY OF IOWA CITV70 i'•� COUNCILACTION REPORT September 21, 2021 Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Recommendations: Attachments: Marri VanDyke, Civil Engineer Jason Havel - City Engineer, Ron Knoche - Public Works Director Geoff Fruin - City Manager $ available in the Muscatine Ave Pedestrian/Transit Amenities account #T3065. Late Handouts Distributed Staff: Deferral Commission: N/A None (Date) Executive Summary: This project will provide a north -south pedestrian crosswalk in a heavily traveled commercial corridor in which there are very few ADA crosswalks. An MPOJC study identified this location as ideal for a mid -block crosswalk coupled with a pedestrian refuge island. As part of the project, new transit shelters will be installed to further improve pedestrian safety and amenities. With help from Iowa State University, the project will implement electrically -conductive concrete pavement. The Project Manual was approved at the August 17, 2021 Council Meeting, and the engineer's estimated cost for construction was $88,000. (3) bids were submitted prior to the September 14, 2021 deadline: Bidder Name City Base Bid Tricon General Construction Cedar Rapids, IA $227,124.00 All American Concrete West Liberty, IA $216,309.00 Midwest Concrete Peosta, IA Non -Responsive These bids also included an alternate amount that substituted standard concrete in place of the electrically -conductive concrete. The engineer's estimate for the alternate was $58,000. Bidder Name City Alternate Bid Tricon General Construction Cedar Rapids, IA $76,209.00 All American Concrete West Liberty, IA $64,024.00 Midwest Concrete Peosta, IA Non -Responsive Background / Analysis: Iowa State University researchers are developing electrically -conductive pavement (ECON) for the purpose of keeping roadways clear of ice and snow. ECON is made up of cement, sand, rock, and one percent carbon fiber. Stainless steel electrodes are spaced evenly within the slab and connected to a power supply. When powered on, the electrodes and carbon fiber 'r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY t-^ � COUNCIL ACTION REPORT conduct electricity, causing the pavement to heat up. Test slabs have been implemented at the Des Moines International Airport and at the Iowa Department of Transportation headquarter south parking lot in Ames, Iowa. The City of Iowa City expressed interest in using ECON for the bus stops in the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project. The ISU research team assisted in developing the plans and specifications needed for bidding purposes. Successful implementation is expected to result in more efficient and cost-effective snow removal, increased pedestrian safety, and a spurred interest in innovative technology. The base bids received were significantly higher than the engineer's estimate. This was largely driven by the inclusion of conductive concrete. The City is still interested in pursuing the conductive concrete option, so staff is consulting with the Iowa Highway Research board to explore the possibility of a greater financial contribution to continue their research. The Iowa Highway Research Board will consider the City's request at their September 24th meeting. Staff recommends deferring this item to the October 5 Council meeting. Following the decision from the Iowa Highway Research Board, staff will revise the resolution to include a recommendation to award the project utilizing either standard concrete or electrically -conductive concrete. Project Timeline: Set Public Hearing — July 27, 2021 Hold Public Hearing — August 17, 2021 Bid Letting — September 14, 2021 Award Date — October 5, 2021 Construction — October 2021— May 2022 Deferred to 10/5/21 Prepared by Marri VanDyke, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5044 Resolution No. Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project Whereas, of , has submitted the lowest responsible bid of $ for construction of the above-named project; and Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Muscatine Ave Pedestrian/Transit Amenities account # T3065; and Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above- named project. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to , subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. Passed and approved this day of , 2021 Mayor Approved by Attest : City Clerk City Attorney Office — 09/16/2021 It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner Item Number: 8.a. r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 21, 2021 Motion setting a public hearing for October 5, 2021 on an ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code and Title 15, Land Subdivision, creating form -based zones and standards as identified in the South District Plan. (REZ21-0005) ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to City Manager, September 14, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, July 1, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, August 5, 2021 ZCA21-0005 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, August 19, 2021 Proposed Form -Based Code Text Amendments Staff Summary - Stakeholder Input on Public Review Drafts Written Stakeholder Comments July & August Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes t �_,,.a , CITY OF IOWA CITY t.i.tuiv.,11.,-1_ N-,........,-gssk MEMORANDUM Date: September 14, 2021 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Overview of the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction The South District Plan, adopted in 2015, recommended the creation of a form -based code to manage new development, ensure a mix of housing, and encourage compact and connected neighborhoods. In 2019, the City contracted with Opticos Design to develop a form -based zoning code for the area identified in Figure 1. After over two years of planning work, staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission at meetings in July, August, and September 2021. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public hearing for October 5, 2021 for Council review and consideration of the proposed amendments. Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area September 14, 2021 Page 2 Overview of Form -Based Zoning The Zoning Code is one of the City's primary tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning regulates how land can be used and developed, including what structures can be built where. A form -based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated in Iowa City. While the City's current Zoning Code provides flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, form -based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than use, as the organizing framework. Form -based codes also regulate elements to create a high-quality place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from the City's current use -based standards. Form -based codes still regulate use secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. The intent of the code is to produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking; • Will preserve important environmental resources; • Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points. Summary of Proposed Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment To help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the South District Plan: 1. Updated descriptions of the City's development of form -based standards and changes throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form -based standards, specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. 2. New goals and objectives in the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss adoption of a form -based code. 3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which aligns with a more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi -family residential uses and provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types. Zoning Code Amendment The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed codes: 1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area, requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone. 2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape. 3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street area. However, parking must be setback from the front facade of the building. 4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly. September 14, 2021 Page 3 5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units, granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home. 6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way. 7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly interconnected network of streets and paths. 8. Design Sites: A new term "design sites" has been incorporated into the draft. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. 9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development. 10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing. 12. Thoroughfare Types and Standards: The proposed code includes a section on street standards, which regulates right-of-way width, pavement width, bicycle facilities, and landscaping types. 13. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other code requirements. Planning Process Since January 2019, staff has been working with Opticos Design to develop a form -based code for the area identified in Figure 1. Table 2 outlines the project timeline and a summary of the planning process. Table 1: Summary of Planning Process Date Milestone April 2019 Project Kick -Off with Focus Group Meetings July 2019 Residential Market Study Completed November 2019 Public Review Draft of Form -Based Code Released for Comment February 2020 Public Review Draft of Future Land Use Map Released for Comment March 2020 — May 2021 Ongoing Stakeholder Outreach; Code and Map Revisions June 2021 Revised Public Review Drafts Released July, August, and September 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Meetings During the formulation of the form -based code in 2019 and 2020, staff engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local development community, the Iowa City Community School District, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 2 provides a summary of the outreach conducted. September 14, 2021 Page 4 Table 2: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Group Date Approx. Attendance Focus Group Meetings (Local Builders & Development Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors & Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates) April 2019 25 Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners and Development Community July 2019 15 Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30 Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18 Iowa City Community School District Dec 2019 5 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019 June 2020 5 Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5 Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8 City Council Joint meeting w/ ICCSD Board Feb 2020 10 Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4 Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10 Home Builders Association June 2020 5 Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing Draft Code Review Meetings (Neighborhood Groups, Realtors, Landowners, etc.) Ongoing Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings & Stakeholder Comments At the Planning and Zoning Commission's August 19, 2021 meeting, 13 members of the public testified. Details of this testimony are included in the August 19 meeting minutes. Staff also received several written comments from stakeholders. All comments, as well as staff's summary and responses, are included in the agenda packet. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Next Steps At the City Council's meeting on September 21, staff is requesting that they set a public hearing for October 5, 2021 on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Approved by: i Danie e Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services t 1-_,,_;,g, CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Introduction to the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction The City has been working with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form -based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District, shown in Figure 1. The hope is to eventually apply these standards to other undeveloped, greenfield sites in the city. When applying the form -based code to new areas in the City, the district plans must first be updated to facilitate its adoption. The first such district plan update running concurrently with the zoning code amendment is the South District Plan amendment (CPA21-0001). Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area The Zoning Code provides rules for how land can be used and developed and is the City's main tool to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans. It outlines what structures can be built July 1, 2021 Page 2 where, and how they will be used. Conventional zoning dictates the density of dwelling units allowed, maximum heights, lot coverage, and minimum on-site parking, among other standards. Form -based codes differ from conventional zoning by focusing less on land use (e.g. single-family vs. multi -family) and more on the development's scale (e.g. bulk and height) and its relationship to the public realm (e.g. streets and sidewalks). The purpose of the form -based code is to implement the Comprehensive Plan's vision for walkable development through context -specific standards. It will help produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking • Will preserve important environmental resources • Contain a connected network of streets and paths • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points Overview of Stakeholder Outreach The form -based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlines the vision for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos Design to assess the feasibility of implementing a form -based code for undeveloped areas in the district with a goal of expanding their applicability in other undeveloped areas of the city over time. Completed in August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form -based Code Analysis included the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise for the South District. A residential market analysis was also completed in July 2019 to help inform the form -based code standards. These documents are available on the project website: https://www.icgov.org/project/form-based-zones-and-standards. Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form -based code in 2019 and 2020. The City engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 1 provides more detail on outreach conducted as part of this process. Table 1: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Group Date Approx. Attendance Focus Group Meetings: Local Builders & Development Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors & Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates April 2019 25 Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners and Development Community July 2019 15 Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30 Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019 June 2020 5 Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5 Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8 Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4 Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10 Home Builders Association June 2020 5 Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing July 1, 2021 Page 3 Amendment Framework The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (REZ21-0005) is coupled with a proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). Although the proposed changes to the code align well with existing goals and objectives in the South District and Comprehensive Plans, staff has also proposed amendments to the South District Plan to make these connections more explicit. Many of the proposed changes to the District Plan are intended to provide additional context and aid in the implementation of this proposed zoning code amendment. Most notably are the updated future land use maps for the planning area described in Figure 1 [Attachment 1]. As part of the proposed update to the future land use map, staff created new land use designations which directly align with the proposed Form -Based Zones included in the code amendment. The proposed code amendment includes changes to several chapters of the Zoning Code (Title 14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the new Form -Based Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). In addition, new standards are being proposed for Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form -based standards. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, they will be summarized in follow up memos so the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work together towards implementation of the new standards. Form -Based Zoning A form -based zoning code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the City's built environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, the proposed amendment utilizes the intended physical form, rather than use, as the organizing framework of the code. Further, it regulates elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The terminology in the proposed amendment reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. While the proposed code primarily regulates the intended physical form, it regulates use secondarily. The code allows a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. As a result, the use tables are simplified and categorized by use type, and clearly defined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision- making related to particular uses. The proposed amendment uses an organizing principle called the Natural -to -Urban Transect. This enables a customized framework of zones that are based on intended physical form. It uses a hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the most urban. The designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the physical character, form, intensity of development, and type of place, and secondly by the mix of uses within the area. This hierarchy of physical environments becomes the framework for the entire code, replacing use as the organizing principle. Each transect is used to reinforce existing or create new walkable environments. Figure 2 depicts the Natural -to -Urban Transect. July 1, 2021 Page 4 Figure 2. Natural -to -Urban Transects RURAL 1111111111 TRANSECT 111111111 I URBAN NATURAL TRANSECT ZONES IURBANTRANSECT ZONESDISIDISTRICT 4-10 -:-.J -‹ , . ;L.: 117 Mir COMM 4- 4 M :, Cu)Attj :D -- 1. r . • l - - �.2 -a-, T1 NATURAL T2 RURAL T3 SUB -URBAN T4 GENERAL URBAN T5 URBAN CENTER T6 URBAN CORE D DISTRICT Summary of Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment Although the proposed zoning code amendment aligns with many policies of the City's Comprehensive and District Plans, staff is proposing some amendments to the South District Plan to better align the plan with the proposed form -based code. To help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the South District Plan: 1. Updated descriptions of the City's development of form -based standards and changes throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form -based standards, specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. 2. New goals and objectives to the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss adoption of a form -based code. 3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which better aligns with a more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi -family residential uses and provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types. Zoning Code Amendment The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed codes: 1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area, requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone. 2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape. 3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street area. However, parking must be setback from the front facade of the building. 4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly. 5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units, granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home. 6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way. July 1, 2021 Page 5 7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly interconnected network of streets and paths. 8. Design Sites: A new term "design sites" has been incorporated into the draft. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. 9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development. 10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing. 12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other code requirements. Future memos to the Commission will provide a detailed outline of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. Justification for Amendments Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the community's goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While the City's current zoning code provides some flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts with a limited mix of uses. In order for development to achieve some flexibility to accommodate a diversity of housing types it typically requires a planned development overlay (OPD) rezoning, which can be a relatively burdensome tool. Additionally, the current code allows duplexes on corner lots in single-family zones; however, we have not seen a significant number of duplexes on corner lots be developed, and most subdivisions in greenfield sites still tend to be exclusively single-family. Requiring a mix of housing types and moving away from zoning that distinguishes single-family and multi -family building types is important to ensure a variety of housing options. Attachment 2 includes a more comprehensive analysis of recent greenfield development. The changes contemplated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments are broad because it is a new kind of zoning for greenfield sites in Iowa City, to first be applied to the South District. The changes are consistent with the long-term direction of the City, especially as it relates to goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City's strategic goals is to "advance social justice, racial equity and human rights". While land use decisions can reinforce existing inequities, they can also be a tool to actively promote equity. Additionally, Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action through implementation of its Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to enforce racial and class segregation. While courts invalidated explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones and large minimum lot sizes were often used an as exclusionary practice, along with other public and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of "slums" where persons of color lived. In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in 1968. A 2019 Fair Housing Study completed by the City found that 81% of residential land in the City is zoned for single-family development, and over half of single-family residential zoning is for low density development (RS -5). Prioritizing disadvantaged groups that are still recovering from generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment can help increase opportunity for all July 1, 2021 Page 6 members of the community. The adoption of a form -based code for new development helps address this issue by permitting a mix of housing types and price points for all members of the community. While this does not solve this complex issue, it removes one barrier to providing more variety in housing options and allows for a broader range of housing choices for residents. Furthermore, the City strives to demonstrate leadership in climate action, which has culminated in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The plan includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Conventional zoning contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because it produces neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Low density zoning encourages sprawl which reinforces an auto -oriented pattern of development and increases traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of the form -based code will seek to address this by improving the City's building and transportation systems through development of compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars. Next Steps For the Planning & Zoning Commission's two July meetings, staff will present the proposed changes to zoning and subdivision codes, including the new form -based standards. Additional memos will assist Commissioners and the public in their own review of the code by providing more detailed descriptions of proposed changes. The Commission will also receive a memo detailing changes to the District Plan prior to holding a public hearing. During this time, the public draft will be available for the public, and staff will be accepting comments throughout this adoption period. Attachments 1. Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan 2. Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019) Approved by: A Stinl..,_---.---.. D itzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Prepared by Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Neighborhood and Development Services Prepared July 2020 ATTACHMENT 2: Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019) Introduction This analysis aims to better understand how development occurs under the City's current zoning code by reviewing greenfield developments in Iowa City and summarizing the characteristics of units produced in new neighborhoods, including how affordability is affected. This analysis was completed in 2020 using data available through 2019. Building Types Approximately 51 residential subdivisions were developed on greenfield sites from 2010 to 2019 (Figure 1). Only around 18% of these subdivisions mix detached single-family lots with other building types, such as duplexes, townhomes, or multi -family buildings. However, the City has experienced a greater diversity in residential building types over time. Subdivisions platted after 2014 are nearly 4.5 times more likely to include another housing type with single-family detached homes compared to subdivisions before then (32% to 7% respectively). Infill subdivisions are also more likely to mix single-family detached homes with other residential building types (and are much more likely to include only duplex, townhome, or multi -family buildings). Over this timeframe, greenfield subdivisions include capacity for some 1,564 dwelling units. On average, 68% of units expected in these subdivisions are for single-family detached units, though this number varies by year from 27% in 2018 to 100% in 2011 and 2012. In terms of building form, another 4% of units are expected to be duplexes, 15% are expected to be townhomes, and 13% are expected to be multi -family buildings.' As with subdivisions, the diversity of housing types in greenfield sites increased most beginning in 2015. Figure 1: Greenfield Building Types: Dwelling Units by Type by Year 300 275 250 225 4 200 D 175 0'150 m 125 p 100 75 50 25 0 16 34 92 72 30 53 36 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year ■ Detached Single -Family ■ Duplex ■ Townhome Multi -family Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data, City of Iowa City Development Services data Note: No subdivisions had final plats approved in 2020 (as of June) 1 These numbers address building form rather than ownership structure. As such, two single-family attached homes are counted as a "duplex", single-family and multifamily properties with a run of units each with separate entrances are counted as "townhomes," and multiple units in a single building that don't have individual entrances are considered "multi -family." Lot Characteristics and Affordability Residential parcels in greenfield subdivisions platted between 2010 and 2020 provide additional information about the characteristics of recent developments in Iowa City. Around 1,468 parcels intended for future residential development are platted in greenfield subdivisions. 58% have structures built, while the other 42% are still vacant. Most parcels (78%) are intended for single, individual ownership (regardless of building form), with the remaining parcels structured as condominiums. Condominium parcels are more likely to have a structure but are less likely to be owner -occupied than individual lots, as evidenced by the use of Homestead Tax Credits (21 % compared to 74% of single lots). Fi. ure 2: Ownership Characteristics for Greenfield Lots Total Lots Single Lot Condominium Total 1,141 327 1,468 Vacant 558 61 619 With Structure Built 583 266 849 Homestead Credit 432 56 488 Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data Most individual greenfield lots are between 8,050 and 11,932 square feet, though lots ranged from 3,000 to 166,246 square feet (see Figure 3). Individual greenfield lots were mostly assessed between $285,400 and $419,270 with a median value of $340,810 (this includes the assessed value of the land and structure). Condominium properties tend to be more affordable with assessed values typically between $96,940 and $224,470 with a median value of $209,940. When looking at all ownership types, greenfield properties are primarily assessed between $217,960 and $382,560 with a median value of $293,080. Fi • ure 3: Greenfield Lot Sizes and Assessed Values Single Lot 2019 Assessed Value Area (sf) Single Lot Condominium Average 11,464 $361,222 $181,596 Minimum 3,000 $82,530* $83,850 25th Percentile 8,050 $285,400 $96,940 Median 9,472 $340,810 $209,940 75th Percentile 11,932 $419,270 $224,470 Maximum 166,246* $747,770* $325,050 Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data * Some outliers were excluded from the Single Lot minimum and maximum area and assessed value to better represent the data; they were included for the purpose of calculating average, median, and percentiles provided. Data about properties built and sold from 2015 to 2020 adds further clarity. Sales prices tend to be higher than assessed values, especially at lower home values, though some of this is due to the timeframes involved (assessed values are for properties platted from 2010-2020 vs. sales prices which are for properties built from 2015-2020). However, sales prices also contain information about the total living area of properties, which tend to be between 1,405 and 1,775 square feet, with a median of 1,669 square feet. On a price per square foot basis, this means that most properties sell for between $149 and $240 per square foot. 2 Fi• ure 4: Greenfield Residential Sales Characteristics Sales Price Lot Area (sf) Total Living Price per Area (sf) Square Foot Average $328,465 8,719 1,645 $201.82 Minimum $167,099 3,637 798 $102.16 25th Percentile $239,175 5,507 1,405 $148.95 Median $309,950 8,556 1,669 $211.36 75th Percentile $385,500 10,529 1,775 $240.06 Maximum $725,000 20,194 3,692 $319.63 Source: Iowa City Assessor residential sales data built and sold from 2015 to 2020 Discussion Iowa City's current zoning code is not a true "conventional" zoning code in that it has some avenues for flexibility built into its current regulations. This includes capabilities for planned development overlay (OPD) rezonings on greenfield sites, and form -based infill opportunities in Riverfront Crossings. However, many of these are not provided "by -right" and require discretionary processes including rezonings or design review which can add cost to projects. Based on this review, it is apparent that there is more demand for alternative housing types on greenfield sites. Some of this is likely due to the benefits that these types of buildings can provide in terms of variety of options and smaller unit size, which can lead to reduced price points. However, affordability is always a challenge with new construction given the higher costs of building new rather than rehabilitating existing units. While the City does not yet know what kinds of neighborhoods a form -based code will produce, the draft code is structured to reinforce the trend towards a wider variety of housing types. It will also help ensure there is a greater mix of unit types within individual subdivisions and will do so in a manner that provides more certainty for developers which should reduce total development costs and increase the speed with which developments can happen. Based on this analysis, it appears these measures will assist the City in its goal of providing a diversity of housing at a variety of price points in new neighborhoods, and denser developments also creates additional benefits related to sustainable neighborhoods. However, the City must continue to monitor housing development in the future to ensure the code is helping to achieve its goals. 3 t CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Follow-up to comments on the draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction At the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 1, 2021 meeting the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the draft form -based zones and standards. This memo provides a summary of those comments and staff's response. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Comment #1: Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations Staff Response: The City recently participated in a regional EV readiness study with representatives from multiple cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations. In June 2021, the Eastern Iowa Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan was finalized which identifies a number of key readiness strategies and actions. One action is to expand access to EV charging infrastructure by amending local zoning codes to allow EV charging as a permitted accessory use and to include requirements or incentives for the installation of charging infrastructure in new construction and major renovation projects. The City's zoning code currently allows EV charging stations within parking areas, but it does not require or incentivize EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends that changes to the regulation of EV charging stations be a city-wide endeavor and not be limited to the draft code. Comment #2: Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced Staff Response: Minimum parking standards are intended to provide off-street parking which accommodates most of the demand for parking generated by the use, particularly where sufficient on -street parking is not available. It also seeks to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods. In form -based zones, minimum parking standards were reduced in line with important City goals, especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate -income households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle. In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on -street parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on -street parking is almost always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in the minimum off-street parking required. July 1, 2021 Page 2 That being said, builders can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where desired by the market. The reduced parking minimum just places a floor on the amount of parking required. Table 1 provides a comparison of current parking minimums and proposed parking minimums in the draft form -based code. Table 1. Examples of Minimum Parking Calculations Comment #3: Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing Staff Response: There are two situations where a fee in -lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option: 1) Upon annexation of residential land; and 2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone. A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon annexation, this land would be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy, which allows a fee to be paid in -lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to re-examine the option to provide an in -lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing. These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income -restricted units provided on-site. Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system Staff Response: The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting. Transit service is not currently provided to the form -based code planning area. This is not surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths Current Standards Proposed Standards Greenfield Dev't T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS 4 -Unit Apartment Building (with differing # bedrooms) 1 BDR 4 4 4 4 4 4 Max 2 BDR 8 4 4 4 4 4 Max 3 BDR 8 8 8 6 6 6 Max Single -Family House (with differing # bedrooms) 2 BDR 1 1 1 NA NA NA 3 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA 4 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA Non -Residential 1,500 sf Restaurant 10 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 sf Salon 7 2 2 2 0 0 5,000 sf Office 17 9 9 9 7 2 Max 7,500 sf Retail 25 15 15 15 14 6 Max Note: Current standards are based on use and can vary greatly depending on zone, intended occupants, location, and number of occupants Comment #3: Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing Staff Response: There are two situations where a fee in -lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option: 1) Upon annexation of residential land; and 2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone. A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon annexation, this land would be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy, which allows a fee to be paid in -lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to re-examine the option to provide an in -lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing. These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income -restricted units provided on-site. Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system Staff Response: The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting. Transit service is not currently provided to the form -based code planning area. This is not surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths July 1, 2021 Page 3 and more street connections. The draft code also requires a diversity of housing types. Both of these requirements will result in a more compact development pattern than is not currently seen at the fringes of Iowa City. This compact development pattern is better able to support future transit service than typical suburban development. Additionally, the City recently completed a transit study. Attachment A provides a summary of the proposed changes, which include faster service, improved weekday evening service, and improved on-time performance. The proposed changes also result in more coordination with other transit agencies. Specifically, starting July 6, all passes and single -ride tickets can be used on both Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit. There are also free transfers between these two transit agencies. The attachment also includes a map showing the Iowa City Transit Preferred Alternative, which includes an extended South Gilbert route that provides service to Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, which is located just to the west of the form -based code planning area. Comment #5: Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations from the map will have on how the area develops Staff Response: During the development of the land use map we met with stakeholders, and the development community felt it was important to have a more detailed map. They had concerns with the unpredictability of the development process, including neighborhood opposition to higher density housing, and felt a more detailed map would provide some certainty to conforming projects. Staff originally examined rezoning this entire area to form -based zones and establishing a detailed regulating plan map (i.e. zoning map) identifying both zones and a street network. Unfortunately, this was not feasible because a City -initiated rezoning would have required an extensive survey of land and the creation of multiple legal descriptions. Additionally, any changes to a zoning map would require another rezoning, which defeats the purpose of a master rezoning aimed at streamlining the development process. Therefore, staff developed a workable solution to create a detailed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) where consistency with the map will be evaluated at the time of rezoning. To aid in this process, staff drafted specific rezoning criteria, which are outlined in 14-2H-1 Introduction. The approval criteria do the following: • Create a unifying set of standards that staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council must use. • Identify when variations from the FLUM can be made (e.g. sensitive areas). • Provide a system by which the zones must be organized. For example, including neighborhood centers and transitioning between zones within the block or across alleys. Additionally, new subdivision standards ensure that the required block lengths are met. If the street alignment shifts, which is likely, the block standards must still be met. Modifications to the location of streets and blocks can occur through the rezoning and subdivision process, but newly aligned blocks, zones, and streets must still meet similar standards to those which were used to develop the FLUM. Comment #6: How does this code work with the Housing Code and the City's regulation of rental housing? Staff Response: The zoning code does not regulate if a dwelling unit is owner -occupied or a rental unit. However, all rental units within the City need to comply with the Title 17, Chapter 5 Housing Code. There are portions of the housing code that reference the zoning code and staff will review the code to identify any necessary amendments to ensure compatibility between the two codes. July 1, 2021 Page 4 Comment #7: Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be incorporated into open space areas Staff Response: Planning staff relies on the expertise of Parks and Recreation and Forestry staff when it comes to landscaping requirements. The City aims for a higher diversity of species, both native and well- behaved non -natives, in order to create a more resilient urban forest. The code requires diversity, specifically it states: Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one species and maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the Director. Some natives also do not work well as street trees, which this code requires. Instead of requiring native plantings, staff recommends requiring a diversity of species and ongoing coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department in the review of landscaping plans to ensure that the species are diverse and work well in the Iowa City environment. As for stormwater, Planning staff relies on the expertise of Public Works staff, who ensure compliance with the City's stormwater management regulations. Staff wanted to provide the option to incorporate stormwater management facilities into civic spaces. However, there may be situations where stormwater management cannot be accommodated through civic spaces. Therefore, staff included this in the draft code as an option, but not a requirement. Comment #8: Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials Staff Response: The draft code helps achieve sustainability goals through standards which provide compact, pedestrian- and bike -friendly development. For example, reduced block lengths make it easier for pedestrians to navigate the area and as it develops, transit will also become a viable mode of transportation. In addition, ensuring a diversity of housing types and missing middle housing allows more development on a smaller land area, reducing the amount of land consumed for development. Since the draft code addresses sustainability through other methods, and requiring the use of local materials could impact other important City goals such as affordability, staff does not recommend requiring development to incorporate local materials. Comment #9: Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarity on how the provision of green space would be ensured Staff Response: There are three different ways that the draft code regulates open space: 1. 14-2H-6 Building Type Standards outlines requirements for private, on-site open space to be used by the residents. Staff will discuss Building Type Standards at the July 15 meeting. 2. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the comprehensive plan identifies several areas where additional civic space/open space needs to be provided as the area develops. Some areas will be privately owned and maintained, but must be accessible to the public. Other areas are identified as land the City would like to acquire for additional park space. These civic space areas will need to be developed consistent with the FLUM and 14-2H- 5 Civic Spaces through the rezoning and subdivision process. 3. The City's Neighborhood Open Space provisions require that developers of residential subdivisions either dedicate land to the City for public park purposes or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. This is a current regulation that applies city-wide. Figure 1 shows the amount of open space that exists within the South District. Currently, the planning area includes Wetherby Park, Sand Prairie Park, and Sycamore Greenway. This is approximately 20% of the land within the planning area. Additional parks adjacent to the planning July 1, 2021 Page 5 area include Kickers Soccer Park, Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, and Napoleon Park. In short, this area is relatively parks -rich and currently contains notably more acres of open space per resident than any other area of the City. Figure 2 is the draft FLUM. It identifies existing open space, areas where existing open may be expanded, new City open space, and new privately maintained/publicly accessible open space. Based on conversations with Parks and Recreation staff, they have identified areas where they would like to acquire additional parkland. Specifically, they identified a need for a park and playground area to the east of Sycamore Greenway, which is also articulated in the Parks Master Plan (pgs 46-47). The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed multi -use trail running diagonally to the west of Alexander Elementary School, which would ultimately connect with the Sycamore Greenway trail. Parks and Recreation staff also identified the area along this future trail as a linear City park space. For the rest of the area, Parks and Recreation staff expressed an interest in collecting in -lieu fee payments due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists and needs to be maintained by the City. Due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists in this area and the recommendations from Parks and Recreation staff, staff does not recommend additional civic space areas. Figure 1. Open Space Area within the South District Source: South District Plan, page 33 The Parks and Recreation Department Mas- ter Plan (completed in 2009) includes coni• munity interest Inventory for park and rec• reation facllities and services. Respondents indicated a desire For walking and biking trails (79%), nature center and trails (5896), small neighborhood parks (68%), large community parks {66%l, and wildlife and natural areas (66%). The South District is unique among Iowa City's 10 planning dis• tracts In that it provides alt of these facill- ties. South District Public Parks Z. Napoleon Park (softball] 2. Sand Prairie Park 3. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area 4. Kickers Soccer Park S. Sycamore Greenway 6. Whispering Meadows Wetland Park 7. Fairmeadows Park S. Wetherby Park July 1, 2021 Page 6 Figure 2. Draft Future Land Use Map \�a 5- F'),rJ 0 Open Space'. Public Civet Space hs.e- I- Private CINc Space (icastea - Extension of Existing Public Park/Open Space irnprmiLrk-bomiq oh/wpm/OWN Maybe wAavnd m rmpxm m tie uux�murdory rfn+hrrec Existing Public ParkrOpen Space Median - Existing Sewer Lagoon Ea.Potential Wetlands L'71 IT{ - 1 iusil `��aL. CSL -w fmrIr11N �IY, mhimo I _"I I I General Notes: 1. All development is required to be in compliance with Seaton 14-51 (Sensitive Lands and Features). 2. The location of streets, blocks and open space identified may be adjusted as provided in Sub -Section 14211-4E (Adjustments to Standards), to preserve regulated environmentally sensitive features that are identified through the process of designing each development. Ld Form -Based Zones: - 13 Neighborhood Edge I1421 -1-2C1 73 Neighborhood General (iszwnn 73 Neighborhood General -Open - T4 Neighborhood Sreau r iadweb 74 Neighborhood Sre b -Open - T4 Neighborhood Medium (iA,N. 7 ma T4 neighborhood Medium -Open - T4 Main Street d4ii Street and Block Network: TT New Blacks i15r-3-o Existing Blocks to Remain Vey (142k1 -9k) Passage 114,21-1-9L) Ma y tv ramved rf maw.. m,:« • New Roundabout Existing Roundabout v 300 envoi 4 Neighborhood Node Comment #10: Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes Figure 2 identifies the neighborhood nodes with a red circle. The planning area includes seven nodes. Two of these nodes are open space areas. Four are areas proposed to be an open sub - zone, which allows a greater variety of non-residential uses. One is the main street district, which includes a commercial area and civic space. Each of these nodes are located within a pedestrian shed, which is approximately a 5 -minute walk to the node. Based on how the nodes have been placed, all residents will be within a 5 -minute walk to either a civic space or a commercial node. In addition, the code allows for live -work uses in T4 zones, which also allow for a greater variety of non-residential uses than are typically allowed in those areas. Attachments: A. Iowa City Area Transit Study, Overview of Proposed Changes Approved by: SI+1111. Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Iowa City Area Transit Study (ICATS) Overview of Proposed Changes IOWA CITY AREA TRONSIT STUDY Study Goals Faster, more frequent, and more reliable service Make transit more dependable for those who rely on it, and an easier choice for others Better access to areas of high need Simplify the system to make it easier to understand Improve communications so riders have up-to-date information on bus location, arrival times, routes, fares, service alerts, and access to trip planning tools Make transit stops more comfortable and accessible Improve coordination across transit agencies More consistent fare and transfer policies between Iowa City and Coralville Summer 2021 Changes <> Fares & Passes Route Highlights Same routes days, nights, and weekends More direct routes, using main roads and fewer side streets More Saturday routes Improved access to key retail destinations/job centers Reduced duplication between Iowa City Transit, Coralville, and CAMBUS Service Highlights Faster, more direct service Improved on-time performance Improved weekday evening service More service during mid-day "Transit" app available to plan trips and find your bus Notice Some areas have longer Fewer one -seat rides to walks to service UIHC on Iowa City Transit Effective July 6, 2021 • All passes and single -ride tickets can be used on Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit • Transfers allowed at all bus stops in Iowa City, not just the interchange • Free transfers between Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit • Seniors (65+), disabled passengers, Medicare card holders, and SEATS card holders ride for free, any time of day • Youth fare (5-18 yrs) reduced from $0.75 to $0.50 • 31 -Day Youth Pass reduced from $27 to $16 • ICCSD students to use discounted 31 -Day Youth Pass • Saturday Family Fare no longer offered due to low demand Effective August 2, 2021 • 11 new or modified bus routes with new names, new schedules • Saturday service on all routes except Downtown Shuttle and Eastside Loop Evaluate on -demand options for late evening/ overnight transportation • Consolidated routes with overlapping service • Some bus stops consolidated to help improve reliability and on-time performance Coming Soon / Next Steps Improve bus stop amenities (ie: lighted bus shelters, benches, and trash cans) Improve accessibility and access to bus stops Late 2021: First electric buses hit the streets Late 2021/early 2022: Launch Sunday Service two-year pilot • • • • • ■ cR- Preferred Alternative uD Iowa City Transit 0 CJJ 111411 V Ashford pl_ --o� OoolbUv�b / / I 1 0 Commerce Dr vl 77,:',1 — _ _ LS'cl2.11BiLd ` 'I I •U W ,ai NScott Blvd '0 UJauuaX I I ` - N aAvUJLN1 S Jowano9 N S a•po0 N vl vl C1 �S wpm 1 1 // 1 x `also / 0 .01 a 1 1 :S1 J i i 1.4 w I 0) I O / Taylor Dr 1 • 'Broadway 11 I / Y� w y 0 Y O 0 Keokuk St a ' a Boyrum St v O I ,—N H JS anbnpnaN co• IS uoNIIJ N cucu 1SuosfPoWS t d N p iOdo/Sjddi 3 O u c � biy 0-0 � o —• 2 S Riverside Dr any /st a a T C C O o 0 0 >, H - >c>., V O in io M V V a u 3 CU - 7 r0 -0.1.,n:/0 -2 (n -O O M O 0 T, d O O N r0 L9 .rL.+ �' ▪ 01 C o c - tv c w �' � � L CeiltV t ▪ 0 J d Z 0 H>.>. 2 t O t ter' 0 4 a Westside Dr Mormon Trek Blvd n0 aq!OJd 111111011k_ . For more information visit www.icgov.org/transit, call Iowa City Transit at 319-356-5151, or email ICTransit@iowa-city.org. t CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 5, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Follow-up to 7/15 Commission comments on the draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction At the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 15, 2021 meeting, the Commission had a few questions and comments regarding the draft form -based zones and standards. This memo provides a summary of those comments and staff's response. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Comment #1: Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed regulatory incentives for voluntary affordable housing Staff Response: Housing is considered "affordable" if a household pays less than 30% of its gross annual income on rental or owner housing costs. Rental costs include the combined cost of rent and selected utilities, while homeowner costs refer to mortgage and insurance payments, and selected utilities. Because affordable housing depends on a household's income, it can change with every new occupant and increase or decrease over time. Income Limits Most affordable housing programs are targeted towards housing that is affordable to low-income households. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines households as low income if they make 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI) based on their household size. If households make less than 50% AMI, they are considered very low income, and if they make less than 30% AMI (which is close to the poverty line), they are considered extremely low income. Figure 1 shows 2021 income limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD. For example, a family of four is considered low-income if they make less than $79,750 annually. Figure 1: Income Limits Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low Income (80% AMI) $55,850 $63,800 $71,800 $79,750 $86,150 $92,550 Common Rental Limit (60% AMI) $41,880 $47,880 $53,880 $59,820 $64,620 $69,420 Very Low Income (50% AMI) $34,900 $39,900 $44,900 $49,850 $53,850 $57,850 Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) $20,950 $23,950 $26,950 $29,900 $32,300 $34,700 Rental Limits Many federal affordable housing programs use the Fair Market Rent (FMR), as calculated annually by HUD. In general, the FMR is the amount that would be needed to pay rental costs (rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest nature. This is typically set at the 40th percentile of the distribution of gross rents in the metro area. Figure 2 shows the 2021 FMR limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD. As an example, a 2 -bedroom unit with utilities included cannot cost more than $1,036 monthly, which is affordable to a August 5, 2021 Page 2 household making $41,440 ($1,036 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 1- or 2 -person household making at least 60% AMI, or a 3 -person household making at least 50% AMI. Figure 2: Rent Limits Program Design Different affordable housing programs use different income and rent limitations depending on if and how much of a subsidy is available, and the targeted income segment. It is often only possible to provide affordable housing to those making less than 30% AMI with deep subsidies. For affordable housing encouraged by the proposed Form -Based Code, income limitations of 80% AMI for owners and 60% AMI for renters imitates other affordable housing programs administered by the City. These include HOME, CDBG, Healthy Homes, the Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement, Public Housing (PH), and the economic development and affordable housing annexation policies. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program requires that participants earn no more than 50% AMI. A few programs also allow higher incomes limits, such as GRIP (110% AMI), UniverCity (140% AMI), and Historic Preservation grant assistance (140% AMI). While affordable housing projects can always require lower incomes, and often do, these are the base standards for these programs. Rents limits for most of these programs are based on, or informed by, Fair Market Rents. However, Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Programs instead base rents on 30% of a given household's income. Consistent, City-wide rent limits assist with ongoing monitoring and administration of affordable housing programs. In the case of the PH and HCV programs, these are funded federally to cover the costs of ongoing compliance requirements. For affordable housing encouraged in the draft Form -Based Code, the proposed rent limitation is Fair Market Rent. However, where a project is awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority, they may use LIHTC rent limits. A separate discussion on the LIHTC program is below. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides owners a reduction in tax liability in exchange for providing affordable rental housing for those with limited incomes. The amount of the credit is based on how much is invested. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the program nationwide in conjunction with state housing finance agencies. In Iowa, the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) directly allocates tax credits and routinely monitor compliance. To retain awarded tax credits, a development must rent to qualified households, keep rents affordable, and maintain the property in good repair for 30 years. There are two sub -programs which have different applications, compliance requirements, and levels of subsidy: • 9% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is applied for competitively and provides the highest level of subsidy. Applications are accepted and awarded annually. • 4% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is awarded on an ongoing, noncompetitive basis and provides a lower level of subsidy. Income limits vary, but one of the following tests must be met: 1. At least 20% of units must be occupied by those making less than 50% AMI; or 2. At least 40% of units must be occupied by those making less than 60% AMI; or 3. At least 40% of units may serve households earning up to 80% AMI, as long as the average income/rent limit in the property is 60% or less of AMI. Often income levels are lower than those required by these tests, especially for competitive proposals. Figure 3 shows three projects within Iowa City that were recently awarded through the SRO Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR Fair Market Rent $551 $735 $803 $1,036 $1,483 $1,794 $2,063 Affordable to HH Making... $22,040 $29,400 $32,120 $41,440 $59,320 $71,760 $82,520 Program Design Different affordable housing programs use different income and rent limitations depending on if and how much of a subsidy is available, and the targeted income segment. It is often only possible to provide affordable housing to those making less than 30% AMI with deep subsidies. For affordable housing encouraged by the proposed Form -Based Code, income limitations of 80% AMI for owners and 60% AMI for renters imitates other affordable housing programs administered by the City. These include HOME, CDBG, Healthy Homes, the Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement, Public Housing (PH), and the economic development and affordable housing annexation policies. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program requires that participants earn no more than 50% AMI. A few programs also allow higher incomes limits, such as GRIP (110% AMI), UniverCity (140% AMI), and Historic Preservation grant assistance (140% AMI). While affordable housing projects can always require lower incomes, and often do, these are the base standards for these programs. Rents limits for most of these programs are based on, or informed by, Fair Market Rents. However, Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Programs instead base rents on 30% of a given household's income. Consistent, City-wide rent limits assist with ongoing monitoring and administration of affordable housing programs. In the case of the PH and HCV programs, these are funded federally to cover the costs of ongoing compliance requirements. For affordable housing encouraged in the draft Form -Based Code, the proposed rent limitation is Fair Market Rent. However, where a project is awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority, they may use LIHTC rent limits. A separate discussion on the LIHTC program is below. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides owners a reduction in tax liability in exchange for providing affordable rental housing for those with limited incomes. The amount of the credit is based on how much is invested. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the program nationwide in conjunction with state housing finance agencies. In Iowa, the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) directly allocates tax credits and routinely monitor compliance. To retain awarded tax credits, a development must rent to qualified households, keep rents affordable, and maintain the property in good repair for 30 years. There are two sub -programs which have different applications, compliance requirements, and levels of subsidy: • 9% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is applied for competitively and provides the highest level of subsidy. Applications are accepted and awarded annually. • 4% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is awarded on an ongoing, noncompetitive basis and provides a lower level of subsidy. Income limits vary, but one of the following tests must be met: 1. At least 20% of units must be occupied by those making less than 50% AMI; or 2. At least 40% of units must be occupied by those making less than 60% AMI; or 3. At least 40% of units may serve households earning up to 80% AMI, as long as the average income/rent limit in the property is 60% or less of AMI. Often income levels are lower than those required by these tests, especially for competitive proposals. Figure 3 shows three projects within Iowa City that were recently awarded through the August 5, 2021 Page 3 9% tax credit process. While all provide some market rate units, most units are provided to households at or below 60% AMI, with some units also provided to those making 40% and 30% AMI. Figure 3: Iowa City LITHC Projects Developer The Housing Fellowship Iowa City Senior LLC Sand Development All Recent Projects Project Del Rey Ridge Diamond Senior Apartments NEX Apartments Address 628 S Dubuque 1030 William St 671 Nex Avenue Tenure Rental New Construction Rental New Construction Rental New Construction Unit Mix by Income Level Market Rate 4 4 4 12 60% AMI 20 20 17 57 40% AMI 5 12 11 28 30% AMI 4 4 4 12 Total Units 33 40 36 109 Rent limits for LIHTC projects are based on an affordable rent for each given household income level. Rents for each unit at a particular income level are thus theoretically affordable for the occupant of that unit, especially in lower income units. However, a lower income occupant may also live in a unit that is affordable to someone making 60% AMI, which may be higher than Fair Market Rent. Figure 4 shows LIHTC rent limits. As an example, gross rent for a 2 -bedroom, 60% AMI unit cannot cost more than $1,347 monthly, which is affordable to a household making $53,880 ($1,347 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 3 -person family making exactly 60% AMI. If that unit is occupied by a household with a lower income, it would be considered unaffordable. Figure 4: Iowa City LIHTC Rents Summary The goal of incorporating the voluntary regulatory incentives in the draft code is to incentivize the building of additional affordable housing in the community. Although it does not provide financial assistance, it offsets the loss of revenue for voluntary affordable units by allowing more units or density and decreased costs associated with parking reductions and flexibility from certain standards. Flexibility can also be used by other affordable housing providers that do not utilize the density bonus. Staff has structured the proposed incentives consistent with existing affordable housing policies administered by the City. This creates consistent expectations for owners and simplifies ongoing monitoring requirements. While these affordable housing incentives will not solve housing affordability in Iowa City, they will encourage the development of additional units that are affordable to low-income households. This is especially important in an area that will be entirely new construction, which is often unaffordable to low-income households. Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR 60% AMI Unit $1,047 $1,122 $1,347 $1,555 $1,735 $1,915 40% AMI Unit $698 $748 $898 $1,037 $1,157 $1,277 30% AMI Unit $523 $561 $673 $777 $867 $957 Summary The goal of incorporating the voluntary regulatory incentives in the draft code is to incentivize the building of additional affordable housing in the community. Although it does not provide financial assistance, it offsets the loss of revenue for voluntary affordable units by allowing more units or density and decreased costs associated with parking reductions and flexibility from certain standards. Flexibility can also be used by other affordable housing providers that do not utilize the density bonus. Staff has structured the proposed incentives consistent with existing affordable housing policies administered by the City. This creates consistent expectations for owners and simplifies ongoing monitoring requirements. While these affordable housing incentives will not solve housing affordability in Iowa City, they will encourage the development of additional units that are affordable to low-income households. This is especially important in an area that will be entirely new construction, which is often unaffordable to low-income households. August 5, 2021 Page 4 Comment #2: Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations? Staff Response: Gas stations are classified as a "quick vehicle servicing use" in the City's zoning code. Table 14- 2H -3B-1: Uses of the draft code lists the permitted uses, provisional uses, and uses allowed by special exception. Quick vehicle servicing uses are not allowed in any of the proposed zones. Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses Use Categories Residential Uses W 1 T3NE T3NG T3116-0 T4NS T4NS-0 T4NM T4NM-O T4MS Specific Standards Household Living lJses Detached Single -Family Dwellings Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings Group Households Live}Work Missinq Middle Housing P P F' PR PR PF. PF. PR 14 -4B -4A-4 PR PR PF. PF. PR PR PR PR2 14 -4B -4A-6 PF. PR PR PR PR2 14 -2H -3C-2 P P P F' P P P P2 Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living Independent Group Living Fraternal Grcup Li.ing Commercial Uses S S PR 2 14-4B-4A-8(RM-44) S S S2 14-4B-4A-g(RM-44) S S 52 14-4B-4A-14(RM- 44) Eating and Drinking Establishments PR/S ' - PR/S. ' PR/S 1 P 14-4B-4B-1D(CN-1) Office Uses General Office Medical/Dental Office PP' pi P P' - P' pi P Retail Uses Sales Oriented Personal Service Oriented Alcohol Sales Oriented Hospitality Oriented Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses General Animal Related Commercial Uses P' P' pi P P' P' P1 P PR 1 PR 1 PR/S 14 -4B -4B-15 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4B-18(CN-1) PR/S 14 -4B -4B-7 51 51 PR 14-4B-4B-2(CN-1) Commercial Parking PR 2 14 -4B -4B-9 ' Max 7,500 sjper building. 2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from the front of the design site. 3 Use must be completely within enclosed building. Comment #3: Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code. Staff Response: Zoning through a Form -Based Code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, FBCs utilize the intended August 5, 2021 Page 5 physical form and character of a context type, rather than use as the organizing framework of the code. Further, FBCs regulate a series of elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The terminology in FBCs reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, FBC also do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from previous use -based standards utilized by the City. While FBCs primarily regulate the intended physical form, they regulate use secondarily. FBCs allow a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses (inserted above) provides an overview of the uses allowed in the various zones. As is shown in the table, commercial uses, such as eating and drinking establishments, are only allowed in the open zones (i.e T3NG-O, T4NS-O, and T4NM- 0) and the Main Street Zone (T4MS). The draft future land use map [Attachment 1] includes a land use designation for open subareas. The open zones align with this open subarea. The draft future land use map identifies four areas where the open subareas are depicted; it also identifies the main street area. These are the areas that function as walkable, neighborhood centers and allow non-residential uses. In these open zones, the building types must comply with the base zone. For example, in a T4NS-0 zone the allowed building types include Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse. The most likely building type for non-residential uses in this zone would be Townhouse. There are other instances where non-residential uses are allowed outside of the Main Street zone and the open zones. These include home occupations and live/work uses. Home occupation regulations will not be changed with the draft code. The draft code does include live/work as a new use category. Live/work uses are allowed in T4NS, T4NS-0, T4NM, T4NM-0, and the T4MS zones. Live/work uses are subject to the following use specific standards: Specific Use Description General Standards Live/Work Combines residence • Non-residential uses limited to: sales oriented and place of business retail, personal service oriented retail (with for resident(s) with some exceptions), daycare, bed and "work" typically at breakfast homestays, and specified office ground level and uses "live" on upper levels • On -premises sales limited to goods made in the unit. Differs from home • No clients/deliveries before 7 AM or after 10 occupations in that PM work may be the • The "live" component must be the principal predominant use (ex. residence of at least one person employed in outside employees, a the live/work unit separate designated • Up to 3 additional outside employees entrance, signage, window displays, etc) • Cannot sublet part of unit as commercial/industrial space to someone not living there or as residential space for someone not working there • Limit of 10 clients/customers day August 5, 2021 Page 6 Correspondence to Date Staff has received some correspondence from stakeholders regarding the proposed amendment to the South District Plan and the draft form -based code. You can find those comments in Attachment 2. Staff will continue to collect comments and share those with the Commission. Approved by: . Sikoh.......---.--- Dame1e Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachments: 1. Draft South District Future Land Use Map 2. Correspondence received as of July 29, 2021 I r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2021 [Attachments 4, 5, & 6 Updated September 10, 2021] To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner Neighborhood and Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005) to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and District Plans Introduction At the Commission's July 1 and July 15 meetings, staff presented a comprehensive overview of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005), which will apply a form -based zoning code to a portion of the South District (see Figure 1). On August 5, the Planning and Zoning Commission had another opportunity to ask questions of staff related to the proposed amendment. During these meetings the Commission brought up several questions and concerns. Questions included transit availability, affordable housing, parking minimums, and open space, among others. Staff responded to these questions in multiple memos (see Attachments 1-3). Staff also incorporated comments from the Commission into a summary spreadsheet, along with other comments received on the draft (see Attachment 6). At the August 19 meeting, staff will ask the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005) to the City Council. Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area August 19, 2021 Page 2 Background The South District Plan guides the growth and development for a large amount of undeveloped land. To help manage new development in these areas, the Plan recommends that the City consider a form -based code to ensure that a true mix of housing at compatible scale can be achieved. A form -based code can also encourage the development of compact and connected neighborhoods. The City has worked with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form - based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District (the study area is shown in Figure 1). Through this process, staff also determined that amendments to the South District Plan were necessary before the City could consider adoption of a form -based code (CPA21-0001). The Zoning Code is one of the City's primary tools to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans by providing rules for how land can be used and developed, including what structures can be built where. A form -based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated in Iowa City. While the City's current Zoning Code provides flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use - based codes, form -based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than use, as the organizing framework. Form -based codes also regulate elements to create a high- quality place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from the City's current use -based standards. Form -based codes still regulate use secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. In addition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff is recommending adoption of form -based zoning standards to implement the Comprehensive Plan's vision for context -specific, walkable development that reflects Iowa City's distinct development patterns and community character. Although this proposed amendment would only apply to a portion of the South District, the goal is to apply it to other greenfield sites at the fringe of the community over time. The intent of the code is to produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking; • Will preserve important environmental resources; • Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points. Staff developed the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment (REZ21-0005) to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and District Plans. However, it also supports other goals of the City Council, especially those related to equity and climate action, as discussed in the memo for CPA21-0001. Overview of Stakeholder Outreach The form -based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlined the vision for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos Design to assess the feasibility of a form -based code for undeveloped areas in the district with a goal of expanding its applicability to other undeveloped areas of the city over time. Completed in August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form -based Code Analysis included the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise for the South District. A July 2019 residential market analysis also helped to inform the form -based standards. August 19, 2021 Page 3 Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form -based code standards in 2019 and 2020. The City engaged approximately more than 240 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Staff also had meetings with the Iowa City Community School District to better understand their future facility needs. Figure 2 provides more detail on outreach conducted as part of this process. Figure 2: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Group Date Approx. Attendance Focus Group Meetings (Local Builders & Development Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors & Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates) April 2019 25 Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners and Development Community July 2019 15 Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30 Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18 Iowa City Community School District Dec 2019 5 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019 June 2020 5 Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5 Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8 City Council Joint meeting with the Iowa City Community School District Board Feb 2020 10 Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4 Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10 Home Builders Association June 2020 5 Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing Draft Code Review Meetings (Neighborhood Groups, Realtors, Landowners, etc.) Ongoing Amendment Framework The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code is consistent with and intended to implement the recent amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). The South District future land use map (see Attachment 4) created new land use designations which directly align with the proposed Form -Based Zones in the amendment. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 5) includes changes to several chapters of the Zoning Code (Title 14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the Form -Based Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). Staff also proposes amending Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form -based standards. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, they are summarized in this memo so the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work together towards implementing the proposed standards. Together, the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment and these proposed code amendments should streamline the development process without compromising the breadth of review and ensure quality design. To that end, the proposed amendment encourages closer adherence to the future land use map in the Comprehensive and District Plans by better defining consistency with planning documents. August 19, 2021 Page 4 The following list summarizes the most substantive differences between the current and proposed codes: 1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, except in the main street area, requires at least two different building types. For example, a block could not have all single-family homes. At least one of the lots must contain a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone. 2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure visual variety along the streetscape. 3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required except along the proposed main street area. However, parking must be set back from the front fa9ade of the building. 4. Parking Ratios: The required minimum amount of parking has been reduced slightly. 5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current code only allows ADUs in conjunction with single-family homes. 6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way. 7. Block Length: Block lengths are shorter depending on the zone to ensure a highly interconnected network of streets and paths. 8. Design Sites: A new term "design sites" has been incorporated into the draft. A design site is an area of land that generally accommodates one primary building type. A platted lot may contain multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. 9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the current code which includes minimum lot size requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development. 10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Affordable Housing: The code does not include an affordable housing requirement, but it does include regulatory incentives (e.g. more units, height bonuses, etc.) for affordable housing that is provided voluntarily. 12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan will be used to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other code requirements. A comprehensive overview of the proposed amendment is outlined below. Comprehensive Overview of Proposed Amendment TITLE 14: ZONING CODE Title 14, Chapter 2, Article H — Form -Based Zones and Standards Article H (Form -Based Zones and Standards) sets forth standards for neighborhood design, building form, and land use within Form -Based Zones. It is a new Article to the Zoning Code and contains the bulk of changes to be reviewed. For clarity, staff integrated many of those changes in the final draft into other existing sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. This consolidated redundant and conflicting provisions. August 19, 2021 Page 5 Section 1— Introduction (14-2H-1) 14 -2H -1A: Intent This section introduces the form -based code and how it will implement the community's vision in the Comprehensive Plan by ensuring that development reinforces the character and scale of Iowa City's urban centers, neighborhoods, and corridors with a mix of housing, civic, retail and service uses in a compact, walkable, and transit -friendly environment. Specifically, the standards are intended to: • Improve the built environment and human habitat; • Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi -modal transportation options, including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit; • Reduce vehicle traffic and support transit by providing for a mixture of land uses, highly interconnected block and street network, and compact community form; • Provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and levels of affordability and accessibility to serve the needs of a diverse population; • Promote the health and sustainability benefits of walkable environments; • Generate pedestrian -oriented and pedestrian -scaled neighborhoods where the automobile is accommodated but does not dominate the streetscapes; • Reinforce the unique identity of the City and build upon the local context, climate, and history; and • Realize development based on the patterns of existing walkable neighborhoods. 14 -2H -1B: Zoning Districts The form -based code includes five new Form -Based Zones. The naming is based on a spectrum of context types as listed in Figure 3, derived from the model transect for American communities. Six individual transects are each given a number: Natural (T1), Rural (T2), Walkable Neighborhood/Sub-Urban (T3), General Urban (T4), Urban Center (T5), and Urban Core (T6), together with a District (D), designation for areas with specialized purposes (e.g., heavy industrial, transportation, or university districts, among other possibilities). Higher numbers designate progressively more urban environments, and lower numbers designate less urban and natural environments. These transects were used to help structure the proposed future land use map for the South District Plan. Figure 3: Natural to Urban Transect RURAL 1111111111 TRANSECT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 URBAN NATURAL TRANSECT ZONES • 'mit (URBAN TRANSECT ZONES As }1111 y LF �• } }; ,��`� r%■ �J - _ r CYC l� l •� __ - ` }~ I ■ow14�I■om ■E T1 NATURAL T2 RURAL T3 SUB -URBAN T4 GENERAL URBAN T5 URBAN CENTER T6 URBAN CORE August 19, 2021 Page 6 Because the proposed amendment is initially being adopted for greenfield locations on the edge of Iowa City, it includes only designations from the T3 Sub -Urban and T4 General Urban transects. Specifically, the Form -Based Zones (described in more detail in Section 2) are: • T3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE) • T3 Neighborhood General (T3NG) • T4 Neighborhood Small (T4NS) • T4 Neighborhood Medium (T4NM) • T4 Main Street (T4MS) The reference to Form -Based Zones should not be confused with the Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form Based Development Standards, which are regulated through Title 14, Article G. 14 -2H -1C: Applicability The standards in this Article apply to development on land rezoned to a Form -Based Zone. This is primarily intended to apply to new development. Table 14 -2H -1C-1 on page 4 of the proposed code amendment (Attachment 5) provides a thorough summary of how this Article interacts with other standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code), Title 15 (Land Subdivisions), and Title 18 (Site Plan Review). 14 -2H -1D: Rezoning to Form -Based Standards Rezoning to a form -based zone follows the same process for any other rezoning, but with defined approval criteria that provide higher levels of predictability for the community and developers. Where a proposed development generally matches what is shown in the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, including the location and type of proposed uses, streets, and civic spaces, then the development substantially complies. However, development may vary from the future land use map as long as the rezoning criteria in the code are met. Rezoning approval criteria include: • Conditions have changed, the proposed modification of the future land use map is in the public interest, and the change is necessary based on criteria such as the presence of sensitive areas or other situations discussed in the code; • Zones are organized to respond appropriately to the various site conditions, including intensity of uses and provision of a neighborhood node; • There is an appropriate transition between neighborhood Form -Based Zones; and • The design suits specific topographical, environmental, site layout, and design constraints unique to the site. Specifying rezoning approval criteria provides a more objective basis for analysis and helps ensure that rezonings are substantially consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans. As development continues through the subdivision, site plan, and building permit processes, standards will be reviewed to ensure compliance. 14 -2H -1E: Neighborhood Plan The proposed code requires submittal of a Neighborhood Plan at the time of a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan ensures compliance with building and frontage type mix, location of civic space, and other requirements of the proposed code. Staff will use this plan to check compliance with the code as the area begins to develop. If circumstances change and developers wish to update the plan, such as changing building types, those changes can be reviewed by staff for compliance with the zoning code upon submission of an updated Neighborhood Plan. August 19, 2021 Page 7 Section 2 — Zones (14-2H-2) 14 -2H -2A through 14 -2H -2B: Purpose and Sub -Zones This section provides standards for Form -Based Zones including general building and lot characteristics (including height limits), allowable frontage types, permitted sub -zones, and the amount and location of parking. The proposed neighborhood Form -Based Zones (T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM) are intended to provide a walkable neighborhood environment supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. The T4 Main Street zone is intended to provide a walkable, vibrant district with neighborhood -serving ground floor retail, food and services, including indoor and outdoor artisanal industrial businesses. The proposed amendment also incorporates "open" sub -zones, which provide additional flexibility near intersections to allow a neighborhood node with non-residential uses. In other words, it allows more uses than the base zone in a way that is consistent with its form and character, and/or more easily allows certain uses that are already allowed in the base zone. As compared to the City's current standards, T3 Form -Based Zones are more similar to single- family (RS) zones, neighborhood T4 zones are more similar to multi -family (RM) zones, and the T4MS zone and open subzones tend to be more similar to neighborhood commercial zones. 14 -2H -2C through 14 -2H -2G: Form -Based Zone Summary In the proposed Form -Based Zones, the amount and location of parking is dictated by each zone. One moderate change in this regard is that minimum required parking spaces tend to be equal to or less than those for current zones. In addition, parking must be set back further from front street lot lines than the building, which helps avoid large areas of garage doors with blank facades. For example, in a T3 Neighborhood General zone, the majority of the primary building must be set back 20 to 30 feet from the front lot line whereas parking must be set back at least 40 feet. This should improve the quality of the streetscape, which is comprised of both the public realm and the private realm. Other characteristics of Form -Based Zones are described in Figure 4. To understand where different zones may be appropriate, refer to the proposed South District future land use map (Attachment 4). Generally, Form -Based Zones that allow a higher intensity of uses are concentrated along major streets and intersection, neighborhood nodes, and along single -loaded streets or open space. August 19, 2021 Page 8 Figure 4: Zone Summary Zone Building Characteristics Building Types Lot Characteristics Frontage Types Sub - Zones 14 -2H -2C: Transect 3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE) • House -Scale • < 2.5 Stories • Detached • Footprint: small -to -large • Low -Intensity Residential House Large Duplex Side -by -Side Cottage Court • Design Sites: small -to- large • Front Setbacks: medium -to -large • Side Setbacks: medium Porch Dooryard Stoop None 14 -2H -2D: Transect 3 Neighborhood General (T3NG) • House -Scale • < 2.5 Stories • Detached • Footprint: small • Low -Intensity Residential House Small Duplex Side -by -Side Duplex Stacked Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse • Design Sites: small -to- medium • Front Setbacks: medium • Side Setbacks: medium Porch Dooryard Stoop Open (T3NG-O) 14 -2H -2E: Transect 4 Neighborhood Small (T4NS) • House -Scale • < 2.5 Stories • Detached and Attached • Footprint: small -to- medium • Moderate intensity Residential Cottage Court Multiplex Small Courtyard Building Small Townhouse • Design Sites: small -to- medium • Front Setbacks: small- to -medium • Side Setbacks: small -to- medium Porch Dooryard Stoop Open (T4NS-O) 14 -2H -2F: Transect 4 Neighborhood Medium (T4NM) • Primarily House- • Scale • < 3.5 Stories • Detached and Attached • Footprint: medium • Moderate Intensity Residential Multiplex Large Courtyard Building Small Townhouse • Design Sites: medium • Front Setbacks: small • Side Setbacks: small Porch Dooryard Stoop Forecourt Terrace Open (T4NM-O) 14-2H-2JG: Transect 4 Main Street (TOMS) • Block -Scale • < 3.5 Stories • Attached • Footprint: medium -to -large • Moderate Intensity Mixed- Use Townhouse (stacked) Courtyard Building Large Main Street Building • Design Sites: medium • Front Setbacks: small- to -none • Side Setbacks: small -to- none Dooryard Stoop Forecourt Maker Shopfront Shopfront Terrace Gallery Arcade None August 19, 2021 Page 9 Section 3 — Use Standards (14-2H-3) 14 -2H -3A through 14 -2H -3B: Purpose and Allowed Uses This section describes standards for the location, design, and operation of uses to assure they are developed consistently with the purpose of the zone where they are allowed. It does so through two tables that describe allowable primary and accessory uses. Compared to current zones, the use tables better incorporate missing middle housing types. Table 14 -2H -3B-1 (Uses) in the code indicates whether a principal land use is permitted for each zone by right, with provisions subject to certain standards, or by special exception subject to Board of Adjustment approval. Specific land uses are grouped into use categories and subgroups. Cross-references are provided to applicable specific standards for each use. Table 14 -2H -3B-2 (Accessory Uses) in the code indicates whether an accessory use is allowed for each zone. Again, cross-references are provided to applicable standards for each use. In many cases, accessory uses continue to be guided by the current accessory use standards in Section 14-4C-2. 14 -2H -3C: Standards for Specific Uses Two new uses that are not part of the City's current code are also defined in this section, including new standards: Community Gardens and Live/Work. They are described in Figure 5. Figure 5: New Specific Uses Specific Use Description Standards Community Land cultivated by multiple • On-site retail is only allowed for produce grown Gardens users for fruits, vegetables, plants, flowers, or herbs Also a civic space type on-site. • Limited structures are allowed (stands to sell produce, small storage sheds, greenhouses, and other small hardscape areas and amenities). • Outdoor storage of tools and materials it not permitted. Live/Work Combines residence and • Non-residential uses are limited to the place of business for following: sales oriented retail; certain personal resident(s) of the unit with service oriented uses; daycare uses; bed and "work" functions typically at breakfast homestays; and certain office uses. ground level and "live" • No clients/deliveries before 7 AM or after 10 functions on upper levels. PM. • On -premises sales limited to goods made in Differs from home the unit. occupations in that work • The "live" component must be the principal may be the predominant residence of at least one person employed in use with outside the live/work unit. employees, a separate • Cannot rent or sell part of the live/work unit as designated entrance, signage, and other features commercial/industrial space to someone not living on premises or as residential space for not custom in residential someone not working in the same unit. units (e.g. window displays; • Up to 3 additional outside employees. food handling, processing, or packing; etc) • Limit of 10 clients/customers per day. August 19, 2021 Page 10 Section 4 — Site Standards (14-2H-4) 14 -2H -4A: Purpose This section describes screening, landscaping, and parking standards to ensure development makes a positive contribution to the development pattern of the area. 14 -2H -4B: Screening Standards for screening, fences, and walls help conserve and protect property, assure safety and security, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and improve the visual environment of the neighborhood. In general, screening cannot exceed 4 feet on front and side streets and 8 feet on side and rear lot lines. Some Form -Based Zones, like T4MS, don't allow fencing or free standing walls. If mounted on a retaining wall, the total screen height cannot exceed 6 feet. Barbed and razor wire is not allowed. Mechanical equipment must also be screened. Generally, building parapets or other architectural elements must screen roof -mounted equipment with exceptions for solar equipment and taller vents. For existing buildings with no or low parapet heights, an opaque screen wall must surround mechanical equipment with paint, finish, and trim cap detail that matches the building. For wall - and ground -mounted equipment, it cannot be between the face of the building and the street. 14 -2H -4C: Landscaping Landscaping must be installed as part of the development and may include shrubs, street trees, ground cover, and some limited decorative non -living landscaping materials (i.e. sand, stone, water, etc.). Tree diversity is reinforced by only allowing up to 5% of any single species and 10% of any single genus, to be spatially distributed over the site, and mature on-site trees should also be incorporated into the landscaping. In addition, shrubs and ground cover should avoid large monoculture plantings. Landscaped areas must be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, and they must be maintained after planting in a neat, clean and healthy condition, including pruning, mowing, weeding, litter removal, watering, and replacement when necessary. 14 -2H -4D: Parking and Loading Parking and loading standards establish requirements to help reduce motor vehicle trips. The amount and location of on-site parking is determined by each Form -Based Zone. Parking lots must generally include a five-foot sidewalk between the building and parking area and a landscaped area for larger parking lots. Tandem parking is allowed in all Form -Based Zones. For residential uses, both stacked spaces must belong to a single dwelling unit. For non-residential uses, tandem parking must be subject to on-site parking management. On-site parking must have appropriate vehicular access to a street or an alley such that parking spaces are accessed from an on-site driveway, aisle, or a public alley or rear lane. On-site loading spaces are not required in Form -Based Zones, and parking for larger commercial vehicles must meet special standards. Portable cargo or freight storage containers may only be parked temporarily for loading or unloading. Inoperable or unlicensed vehicles and trailers must be parked indoors. Form -Based Zones also have standards to help minimize traffic. Carshare spaces are required where there are 50 or more residential units or at least 10,000 square feet of office space, to be made available to a carshare service at no cost. For office uses, 10% of spaces must be for carpooling if there are more than 10 parking spaces. Where provided, carpool parking spaces must be in preferred locations, such as near building entries. Bicycle parking is also required for buildings with three or more dwelling units. August 19, 2021 Page 11 Table 14 -2H -4D-3 (Required Parking Lot Landscaping) identifies landscaping, fencing and screening standards for parking areas in collaboration with the standards of Section 14 -2H -4B (Screening) and Sub -Section 14 -2H -4C (Landscaping). Parking lot landscaping must include a specified amount of landscaped medians and percentage of landscape coverage. Landscaping requirements increase with the number of parking spaces. Parking lots larger 0.25 acres must be broken into smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas to minimize the perceived scale. Trees are also required based on the site area and building footprint. Where solar panels are installed over a parking area, tree standards may be waived and shrubs and ground cover be planted instead. Parking and loading areas in the T4MS zone must generally be screened from adjacent zones by a wall, fence, or evergreen. 14 -2H -4E: Adjustments to standards This section describes flexibility for certain standards, to be processed as part of the preliminary and final plat processes or as minor adjustments during site plan and/or building permit review. Minor adjustments may be approved where findings as identified in the code are met, up to the allowable maximum adjustment. Figure 6 summarizes allowable adjustments. Figure 6: Allowable Minor Adjustments Standard Modified Amount Required Findings Modify design site depth/ width standards 10% of standard • Accommodates an existing feature • An existing or new design site can still be developed in compliance with the zone standards Modify amount of facade in fagade zone 20% of standard • Accommodates an existing feature • The development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone Modify building main body or wing depth/ width 10% of standard • Accommodates an existing feature • The wing(s) maintains a 5' offset from the main body • The building complies with the setbacks • The development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone Modify front parking setback 10% of standard • Accommodates an existing feature • If accessed from the street, the driveway complies with the zone standards • Ground floor space complies with zone standards Modify screen height Up to 33% of the standard • Little to no impact on the adjoining properties. • Height is necessary to achieve the objectives of the sub- section or is required for health and safety Flexibility for affordable housing Depends on request; see Section 10 • Request is reasonably required to provide affordable housing • Other specific standards depending on the request August 19, 2021 Page 12 Section 5 — Civic Space Type Standards (14-2H-5) 14 -2H -5A through 14 -2H -5B: Purpose and General Standards This Section establishes standards for civic spaces, which is public or private land used for civic gathering purposes. Where accepted by the City, civic spaces may help meet Neighborhood Open Space Requirements pursuant to Chapter 14-5K. Civic spaces must comply with these standards and the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies intended locations for such space. 14 -2H -5C through 14 -2H -5J: Civic Space Types The general characteristics of each civic space type is summarized in Figure 7. Figure 7: Civic Space Type Summar Civic Space Type Description Allowable Zones 14 -2H -5C: Greenway A linear space 3 or more blocks in length for community gathering, bicycling, running, or strolling, defined by tree -lined streets typically forming a one-way couplet on its flanks and by the fronting buildings across the street. Versions may have a street only on one side in response to site conditions that prevent the one-way couplet. Greenways serve an important role as a green connector between destinations and are often used for passive recreation. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -5D: Green A large space available for unstructured and limited structured recreation. Primarily defined as planted areas with paths to and between recreation areas and civic buildings, they are spatially defined by tree -lined streets and adjacent buildings. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -5E: Plaza A community -wide focal point primarily for civic purposes and commercial activities. They are generally more formal and urban in nature with hardscaped and planted areas. Spatial definition is achieved by buildings and tree -lined streets. T4MS 14 -2H -5F: Pocket Park/ Plaza A small-scale space, serving the immediate neighborhood, available for informal activities in close proximity to neighborhood residences, and civic purposes, intended as intimate spaces for seating or dining. All zones 14 -2H -5H: Playground A small-scale space designed for the recreation of children. They serve as quiet, safe places protected from the street, typically in locations where children do not have to cross major streets. An open shelter, play structures, or interactive art and fountains may be included. Playgrounds may be included in all other civic space types. All zones 14 -2H -5I: Community Garden A small-scale space designed as a grouping of garden plots available to nearby residents for small-scale cultivation. Typical uses include food production, passive recreation. Community gardens may be fenced and may include a small accessory structure for storage. Community Gardens may be included within all other civic space types. Additional standards are in 14 -2H -3C. All zones 14 -2H -5J: Passage A pedestrian pathway that acts as a thoroughfare type, extending from the public sidewalk into a civic space and/or across the block to another public sidewalk. The pathway is lined by non-residential shopfronts and/or residences. Passages tend to me a more formal, urban civic space type with a combination of hardscape and landscape planters, including trees and shrubs in planters. Accessory structures are not allowed. All zones August 19, 2021 Page 13 Section 6 — Building Type Standards (14-2H-6) 14 -2H -6A through 14 -2H -6B: Purpose and General Standards This section provides standards for the development of individual buildings. They are categorized into house -scale buildings, typically ranging from 25 feet up to 80 feet wide, and block -scale buildings, which are individually or arranged together along a street as large as most of a block or all of a block. Allowable types are determined based on the intended physical character of each Form -Based Zone. Except in the T4MS zone, at least two different building types are required within each block. Most building types require at least one frontage type along the front street, side street or a civic space. The lot/design site size standards for each building type, including both minimum and maximum sizes, are set in each Form -Based Zone. Most lots/design sites can only contain one primary building type. However, some (such as the Carriage House, Cottage Court, and Courtyard Building Small, or Courtyard Building Large types) may have more than one building. Building types also regulate the size of structures allowed on each lot/design site. Buildings consist of a main body, consistent with the standards in each building type, and they may also include additional wings. Unlike the City's current standards based on minimums, the proposed standards help ensure that the scale of the buildings remain consistent with adjacent properties. 14 -2H -6C through 14 -2H -6N: Building Type Summary The characteristics of each building type is summarized in Figure 8. August 19, 2021 Page 14 Figure 8 Building Type Summar Building Type Number of Units Description Maximum Width Allowable Zones & Height Frontage Types 14 -2H -6C: Carriage House 1 per building; 1 building per site Accessory house -scale structure at the rear of a design site, above the garage, that provides a small accessory apartment, home office space, or other small commercial or service use. 32' (body) All zones: 2 stories None 14 -2H -6D: House Large 1 per building; 1 building per site Medium -to -large-sized detached house -scale building with medium -to -large setbacks and a rear yard in low -intensity neighborhoods. 95' (55' body + 2 x 20' wings) T3NE: 2.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop 14 -2H -6E: House Small 1 per building; 1 building per site Small -to -medium-sized detached house -scale building with small -to -medium setbacks and a rear yard in low- intensity neighborhoods. 75' (35' body + 2 x 20' wings) T3NG: 2.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop 14 -2H -6F: Duplex Side -by- Side 2 per building; 1 building per site Small -to -medium-sized detached house -scale building with small -to -medium setbacks and a rear yard in lower -intensity neighborhoods. Consists of two side-by-side units in a single massing, both facing streets. The lot may be under one owner or two (as attached single-family units). 48' (body) T3NE & T3NG: 2.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop 14 -2H -6G: Duplex Stacked 2 per building; 1 building per site Small -to -medium-sized detached house -scale building with small -to -medium setbacks and a rear yard. The building consists of two stacked units, both facing the street and within a single building massing. This type has the appearance of a small -to -medium single-family home and is scaled to fit within lower -intensity neighborhoods. 66' (36' body + 2 x 15' wings) T3NG: 2.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop 14 -2H -6H: Cottage Court 1 per building (up to 3 in rear cottage); 3-9 buildings per site A grouping of small, detached buildings arranged to define a shared court open to the street. The shared court is common open space and takes the place of a private rear yard as an important community -enhancing element. This type is scaled to fit within low -to -moderate -intensity neighborhoods and in non-residential contexts. 40' (rear cottage) T3NE, T3NG, & T4NS: 1.5 stories Projecting Porch Dooryard Stoop 14-2H-61: Multiplex Small 3-6 per building; 1 building per site Medium detached house -scale building with side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically having one shared entry or individual entries along the front. It appears like a medium- sized single-family house 90' (50' body + 2 x 20' wings) T3NG & T4NS: 2.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop August 19, 2021 Page 15 and fits as a small portion of low- to moderate -intensity neighborhoods 14 -2H -6J: Multiplex Large 7-12 per building; 1 building per site Medium -to -large house -scale detached building with side- by -side and/or stacked units, typically having one shared entry or individual entries along the front for ground floor units. This type is scaled to fit in within moderate -intensity neighborhoods or as a small portion of lower -intensity neighborhoods. 100' (60' body + 2 x 20' wings) T4NM: 3.5 stories Projecting Porch Stoop Forecourt Terrace 14 -2H -6K: Townhouse 1 per building (3 in T4NM-0 & T4MS); 1 building per design site (3 in a row in T3NG or 8 in T4 zones) Small -to -Targe, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of side-by-side townhouses. This type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. Each townhouse consists of 1 unit or, up to 3 stacked units in higher intensity zones. This type is typically in moderate -to -high intensity neighborhoods, or near a neighborhood main street. Per Row: T3NG: 90' T4NS: 120' T4NM: 100' T4MS: 200' T3NG & T4NS: 2.5 stories T4NM & T4MS: 3.5 stories: Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Dooryard Stoop Terrace 14 -2H -6L: Courtyard Building Small 10-16 per site; 2 buildings per site House -scale building with attached and/or stacked units, accessed from a shared courtyard. The shared court is common open space and takes the place of a rear yard. This type is typically integrated as a small portion of lower- intensity neighborhoods or more consistently into moderate -to -high-intensity neighborhoods. 100' (body) T4NS: 2.5 stories T4NM: 3.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Stoop Terrace 14 -2H -6M: Courtyard Building Large 18-24 per site; 3 buildings per site Block -scale building with attached and/or stacked units, accessed from one or more shared courtyards. The shared court is common open space. This type is typically integrated into moderate -to -high-intensity neighborhoods and on Main Streets contexts. 100' (body) T4MS: 3.5 stories Projecting Porch Engaged Porch Stoop Shopfront Terrace Gallery 14 -2H -6N: Main Street Building As limited by Building Code; 1 building per site Small -to -large block -scale building, typically attached, which provides a vertical mix of uses with ground -floor retail, office or service uses and upper -floor service or residential uses. This type makes up the primary component of neighborhood and downtown main streets, therefore being a key component to providing walkability. 200' (body) T4MS: 3.5 stories Dooryard Stoop Forecourt Maker Shopfront Shopfront Terrace Gallery Arcade August 19, 2021 Page 16 Section 7 — Architectural Elements Standards (14-2H-7) 14 -2H -7A through 14 -2H -7B: Purpose and Overview This section helps ensure visually interesting, safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods, in conjunction with building and frontage type standards. Generally, they apply to facades on a street or civic space. On corner buildings, front and side street facades must have equal architectural treatment. There are also glazing requirements with ground floor residential requiring at least 30% glazing and shopfronts requiring at least 75% glazing. In addition, stairs must be integrated into the building space, similarly to what is required by the City's current multi- family site development standards. 14 -2H -7C through 14 -2H -7F: Architectural Elements Figure 9 provides a summary of each architectural element and when that treatment is applied. Figure 9: Architectural Element Summa Architectural Element Description Applicability Tripartite Facade Articulation Tripartite architecture uses architectural elements to delineate the base, middle and top. The ground floor facade composes the base. The building element and features above or including the uppermost floor (and parapet walls and eaves), compose the top. Building of at least 2 stories Architectural Recessions Architectural recessions modulate the apparent size and scale of a building by recessing a portion(s) of the facade from the plane(s). They may include a recessed entry, a loggia or recessed balcony cut into the plane of the facade. Buildings of at least 2 stories and over 50' long, except for the House Large, House Small, Duplex Side - by -Side, and Duplex Stacked building types. Corner Element A corner element that gives visual importance to corner and shapes the public realm. Optional architectural element for Main Street building types where the building is over 75' long Rooftop Room A small enclosed or unenclosed room on the uppermost roof of house -scale buildings. Optional architectural element as allowed by Item 3 (Building Size and Massing) of the building type. Section 8 — Frontage Type Standards (14-2H-8) 14 -2H -8A through 14 -2H -8B: Purpose and General Standards This section establishes standards for the components of a building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (yard or building). Each building must have at least one frontage type along the front street, side street, or a civic space, and there must be at least 2 different frontage types within each block. Frontage type names indicate their configuration or function, not the intended uses within the building. For example, a porch may be used by non-residential uses including a restaurant. The primary building entrance must be on the front of the building unless it is on a side street or passage. Ground floor dwellings and their entrances must be connected to adjacent public rights- of-way, to parking areas, and other on-site facilities. Access doors to individual dwelling units above the ground floor level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are not allowed as the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the ground floor. 14 -2H -8C through 142H -8L: Frontage Type Summary The characteristics of each frontage type is summarized in Figure 10. August 19, 2021 Page 17 Figure 10: Frontage Type Summar Frontage Type Description Allowable Zones 14 -2H -8C: Porch Projecting The main building facade is set back from the front design site line with a covered structure encroaching into the front setback. The resulting setback area can be spatially defined by a fence or hedge to. The porch may be one or two stories and is open on three sides. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -8D: Porch Engaged A portion of the main facade of the building is set back from the front design site line to create an area for a covered structure that projects from the facade. The porch may project into the front setback. The resulting yard may be spatially defined by a fence or hedge. The porch may be one or two stories and may have two or three adjacent sides that are engaged to the building with at least one side open. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -8E: Dooryard The main facade of the building is set back from the front design site line, which is defined by a low wall, hedge, or other allowed screening, creating a small private area between the sidewalk and the facade. Each dooryard is separated from adjacent dooryards. The dooryard may be raised or at grade. All zones 14 -2H -8F: Stoop The main facade of the building is near the front design site line with steps to an elevated entry. The stoop is elevated above the sidewalk to provide privacy along sidewalk -facing rooms. Stairs or ramps from the stoop may lead directly to or be parallel to the sidewalk. All zones 14 -2H -8G: Forecourt The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line and a portion is set back, extending the public realm into the design site for an entry court or shared garden space for housing, or as an additional shopping or seating area within commercial areas. T4NM T4MS 14 -2H -8H: Maker Shopfront The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line with an at -grade or elevated entrance from the sidewalk. This type is only allowed on side streets from the adjacent main street and is intended for industrial artisan businesses showing their activity to people on the sidewalk, as well as for retail sales of products made on-site. The maker shopfront may include a decorative roll -down or sliding door, glazing, and an awning over the sidewalk. T4MS 14-2H-81: Shopfront The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line with at -grade entrance along the sidewalk. This type is intended for service, retail, or restaurant use and includes substantial glazing between the shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk. T4MS 14 -2H -8J: Terrace The main facade is at or near the front design site line with steps leading to an elevated area providing public circulation along the facade. This type is used to provide outdoor areas along the sidewalk for housing or to accommodate an existing or intended grade change for retail, service or office uses. T4NM T4MS 14 -2H -8K: Gallery The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site line and an at -grade covered structure, typically articulated with colonnade or arches, covers an area not in the right-of-way. This type may be one or two stories. When used in nonresidential settings, should be used in conjunction with shopfront standards; when used in residential settings, should be used in conjunction with stoops, dooryards, and forecourts. T4MS 14 -2H -8L: Arcade The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site line and the upper floor(s) contain habitable space overlapping the area below not in the right-of-way. When used in nonresidential settings, should be used in conjunction with shopfront standards; when used in residential settings, should be used in conjunction with stoops, dooryards, and forecourts. T4MS August 19, 2021 Page 18 Section 9 — Thoroughfare Type Standards (14-2H-9) 14 -2H -9A through 14 -2H -9B: Purpose and General Standards This section describes the range of thoroughfare types that supports the intended physical character of each zone and ensures streets are multi -modal and interconnected to provide multiple routes. The individual standards of each thoroughfare type may be adjusted where a proposed adjustment supports the intended physical character of the zone abutting the thoroughfare and maintains multiple modes of transportation (transit, pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles), 6 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking for a majority of each block face, and regularly spaced street trees. Thoroughfare type locations are identified in the future land use map. Planning staff worked closely with the City Transportation Planner and staff from the Department of Public Works to develop the thoroughfare type standards. 14 -2H -9C through 14 -2H -9L: Throughfare Types The characteristics of each thoroughfare type is summarized in Figure 11. Figure 11: Thoroughfare Tvoes Summar Thoroughfare Type Standards Description Allowable Zones 14 -2H -9C: Main Street with Median 100' ROW 50' pavement (25' each side) 2 x 10' traffic lanes 2 x 7' bike lanes 2 x 8' parking lanes 10' median/turn pocket Sidewalks: 20' min. Provides for slow traffic flow appropriate for a main street area with heavy pedestrian activity. Trees should be planted every 30' in individual planters T4MS 14 -2H -9D: Main Street without Median 80' ROW 36' pavement width 2 x 10' traffic lanes 2 x 8' parking lanes Sidewalks: 20' min. Provides for slow traffic flow appropriate for a main street area with heavy pedestrian activity. Trees should be planted every 30' in individual planters T4MS 14 -2H -9E: Avenue 2 without Parking 100' ROW 35' pavement (17.5' each side) 2 x 11' traffic lanes 2 x 6' bike lanes 20' median/turn pocket Sidewalks: 6' min. on one side, 10' min. on the other Provides for slow traffic flow appropriate for a primary street. Trees should be planted every 30' in a 11-15' continuous planter. T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -9F: Avenue 2 with Future Parking 100' ROW 50' pavement (25' each side) 2 x 11' traffic lanes 2 x 6' bike lanes 2 x 7' parking lanes 20' median/turn pocket Sidewalks: 6' min. on one side, 10' min. on the other Provides for slow traffic flow appropriate for a primary street. Trees should be planted every 30' in a 4-8' continuous planter. T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -9G: Avenue 3 100' ROW 34' pavement width 2 x 11' traffic lanes 2 x 6' bike lanes Sidewalks: 5' min. on one side, 10' min. on the other Provides for slow traffic flow appropriate for a primary street. Landscaping: Trees should be planted every 30' in a 18-24' continuous planter. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -9H: Avenue 4 87' ROW 33' pavement width: 2 x 11' traffic lanes 11' painted median/turn lane Provides for free traffic flow appropriate for a primary street. Trees should be planted every 30' in a 24' continuous planter. T3NG T4NS T4NM August 19, 2021 Page 19 Section 10 — Affordable Housing Standards (14-2H-10) 14 -2H -10A through 14 -2H -10C: Purpose: Eligibility and Incentive Provisions, and Definitions. The draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement. However, around 50% of the land within the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County and when it is annexed it will be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy. To help incentivize the development of additional affordable housing, this section establishes regulatory incentives that may but utilized wherever affordable housing is voluntarily provided within a Form -Based Zone. Affordable housing provided pursuant to the City's affordable housing annexation policy or economic development policy (i.e. TIF) may not utilize these incentives. Incentives include: • Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by 25%. • Minor Adjustments to "Zone Standards". One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved: o Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up to 15'. o Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%. o Minimum amount of fa9ade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to 20%. • Minor Adjustments to "Building Type Standards". One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved: o Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%. o Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. Sidewalks: 5' min. on one side, 10' min. on the other 14 -2H -9I: Neighborhood Street 1 with Parking both sides. 70' ROW 28' pavement width 1 x 12' traffic lane (yield) 2 x 8' parking lanes Sidewalks: 5' min. Provides for traffic flow with the possible need to yield, appropriate for neighborhoods. Trees should be planted every 30' in a 14' continuous planter. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -9J: Neighborhood Street 2 with Parking one side 70' ROW 26' pavement width 1 x 18' traffic lane (yield) 1 x 8' parking lane Sidewalks: 5' min. Provides for traffic flow with the possible need to yield, appropriate for neighborhoods. Trees should be planted every 30' in a 14' continuous planter. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 14 -2H -9K: Alley 20' ROW 20' pavement width 1 x 20' traffic lane (yield) Sidewalks: none Provides for traffic flow with the possible need to yield, appropriate for immediate vehicular access to a site. It includes a shared travel lane with mountable shoulders and landscaping. Unlike other types, alleys provide secondary access to a lot. It allows modified lot dimensions and is required along McCollister and S. Gilbert unless vehicular access is otherwise provided. All zones 14 -2H -9L: Passage 20' ROW 10' pavement width: 1 x 10' pedestrian/bike path Provides for pedestrian and bicycle traffic appropriate as a midblock crossing, or as a street where vehicular access is otherwise provided. It is also a civic space and allows longer block lengths. All zones Section 10 — Affordable Housing Standards (14-2H-10) 14 -2H -10A through 14 -2H -10C: Purpose: Eligibility and Incentive Provisions, and Definitions. The draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement. However, around 50% of the land within the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County and when it is annexed it will be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy. To help incentivize the development of additional affordable housing, this section establishes regulatory incentives that may but utilized wherever affordable housing is voluntarily provided within a Form -Based Zone. Affordable housing provided pursuant to the City's affordable housing annexation policy or economic development policy (i.e. TIF) may not utilize these incentives. Incentives include: • Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by 25%. • Minor Adjustments to "Zone Standards". One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved: o Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up to 15'. o Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%. o Minimum amount of fa9ade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to 20%. • Minor Adjustments to "Building Type Standards". One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved: o Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%. o Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. August 19, 2021 Page 20 • Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards" and "Building Type Standards" may be administratively approved where Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50% of less than the area median income. For minor adjustment to be approved the proposed adjustment must fit the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood and demonstrate consistency with the intent of the standard being adjustment and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan Additionally, on-site parking is not required for affordable housing, including voluntary affordable housing and for affordable housing provided through the annexation policy or a TIF agreement. 14 -2H -10D: General Requirements This section sets administrative standards for voluntary affordable housing in Form -Based Zones, which may be accomplished by providing one of the following: • Onsite owner -occupied affordable housing; and/or • Onsite renter -occupied affordable housing. Such affordable housing must be deed -restricted as affordable housing for low- and moderate - income occupants for a minimum of 20 years. 14 -2H -10E: Owner Occupied Affordable Housing In addition to general requirements, owner -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the following: • Eligible households include those making no more than 80% area median income (AMI). • Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types. • Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of affordable housing. • Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings. • Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on occupancy and future sales. o Affordable owner -occupied housing must be an income -eligible household's primary residence and may not be rented out during the term of affordability; o The City must verify the household's annual income prior to sale; and o If sold before the end of the term of affordability, the home must be sold to another income -eligible household at either the original purchase price or the HUD homeownership sale price limit, excluding limited sales and improvement costs. 14 -2H -10F: Affordable Rental Housing In addition to general requirements, affordable rental housing must satisfy the following: • Eligible households include those making no more than 60% AMI. • Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types. • Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of affordable housing. • Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings. • Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on rents, occupancy, and reporting: o Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households at HUD fair market rents (or LIHTC rent limits if awarded by the Iowa Finance Authority); o Household income must be verified prior to lease and annually thereafter; and o The owner must annually verify to the City that it follows these requirements and provide all necessary documentation. August 19, 2021 Page 21 14 -2H -10G: Administrative Rules Administrative rules, similar to those of Riverfront Crossings, describe in more detail how affordable housing providers must operate those units to ensure they are affordable and provided to low income persons for the duration of their compliance period. These are adopted separately by Neighborhood and Development Services. Minor Miscellaneous Changes to Title 14 Zoning As part of the proposed amendment, staff also recommends a few minor changes to miscellaneous aspects of the code: • Introductory Provisions, Interpretation and Scope (14-1B): adds new clarificatory language. • Off Street Parking and Loading Standards (14-5A): applies provisions for single-family zones to T3 form -based zones. • Sign Regulations (14-5B): establishes standards regarding allowable signage types and specific requirements for Form -Based Zones; adds two new signage types which are appropriate for walkable neighborhood areas, the porch sign and post sign. • Outdoor Lighting Standards (14-5G): Includes T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones in the Low Illumination District and T4MS zones in the Medium Illumination District. • Woodland Retention and Replacement Requirements (14 -5I -9C): Requires 50% woodland retention for T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones (which is required for RS zones) and 20% woodland retention for T4MS zones (which is required for RM zones). • General Definitions (14-9A): Incorporate new definitions that clarify provisions of the form -based standards. Examples include building fagade, missing middle housing, half story, and principal street frontage. These not only define new methods of regulating the form of housing, but they also further explain important new concepts and categories in the form -based code, including missing middle housing and how it differs from other multi- family uses. • Sign Definitions (14- 9C): Adds definitions for the new porch and post signage types. TITLE 15: SUBDIVISION CODE Title 15, Chapter 2 Plats and Platting Procedures Changes ensure that staff can review compliance with the new form -based zoning standards throughout the entitlement process. 15-2-2: Preliminary Plat For preliminary plats, staff recommends amending the code to require that all preliminary plats identify proposed non -platted design sites, thoroughfare types, civic space types, and building types. A concept plan for any private civic space must also be submitted with the preliminary plat. 15-2-3: Final Plat For final plats, staff recommends that submittal of a Neighborhood Plan be required as a separate exhibit with the final plat. The Neighborhood Plan must identify the Form -Based Zones, lot and design site lines, building and frontage types, thoroughfare types, civic space types, and compliance with landscaping and other required provisions in the Form -Based Zones. The Neighborhood Plan must be updated to reflect all approved adjustments as part of the building permit and site plan review processes. Title 15, Chapter 3 Design Standards and Required Improvements Changes to this chapter include new development standards for subdivisions that occur in Form - Based Zones, specifically changes to sections on streets and circulation, blocks, and lots. August 19, 2021 Page 22 15-3-2: Streets and Circulation The current Subdivision Code requires the continuation and extension of arterial, collector, and local streets, sidewalks, and trails to promote connectivity. For example, arterial streets must comply with Iowa City's arterial street plan and all streets, sidewalks, and trails must connect within the development and be extended to the property line. However, the proposed code supplements these requirements in Form -Based Zones. Generally, thoroughfares must be arranged to provide for the alignment and continuation of thoroughfares into adjoining properties where they are undeveloped and intended for future development. Thoroughfare rights-of-way must also be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries for each direction (north, south, east, and west) abutting vacant land to provide a roadway connection in compliance with block standards discussed below. The largest proposed change for areas subject to Form -Based Zone standards is additional guidance for the design of the street network. First, the thoroughfare network must substantially comply with future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, including compliance with its Thoroughfare Type standards. Where multiple thoroughfare types are allowed, the developer must identify the selected thoroughfare type in plat documents. Thoroughfares that pass through multiple zones may transition appropriately. For example, a thoroughfare in a more urban, commercial zone (e.g.,T4MS) may have wide sidewalks with trees that transitions to narrower sidewalks with a planting strip in a less urban residential zone (e.g., T4NM). Any proposed adjustments must comply with the rezoning criteria for Form -Based Zones found at 14-2H-1. Similarly, pedestrian passages may replace a required street if the site has vehicular access. However, thoroughfare types on major streets (i.e. S. Gilbert Street, Sand Road SE, McCollister Boulevard, Sycamore Street, and Lehman Avenue) may not be substituted. In addition, single - loaded streets shown on the future land use map must continue to be adjacent to a civic or open space even if the street alignment changes. Alleys may be added or removed in compliance with its thoroughfare standards, except where required for vehicular access in the T4 Main Street zone. 15-3-4: Layout of Blocks and Lots The Subdivision Code requires that all blocks be limited in size and laid out in a pattern that ensures street connectivity, efficient provision of services, and efficient and logical routes between destinations. Typically, this means that block faces are 300 to 600 feet with enough width to accommodate two tiers of lots. However, the block network in Form -Based Zones must substantially comply with the future land use maps in the Comprehensive Plan. Substantial compliance is defined as ensuring the location, shape, and design of blocks is similar to that in the maps with individual blocks complying with the block length and perimeter standards (shown in Figure 12). These standards vary by zone where more urban zones require smaller block lengths and perimeters. Where a block contains multiple zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the size. Blocks may exceed the base maximums if a pedestrian passage bisects the block to provide pedestrian connectivity. Figure 12: Block Size Standards Zone Max. Length Max. Length with Passage Max. Perimeter Length Max. Perimeter Length with Passage T3NE 500' 800' 1,600' 2,200' T3NG 500' 800' 1,600' 2,200' T4NS 360' 600' 1,440' 1,950' T4NM 360' 600' 1,440' 1,950' T4MS 360' 500' 1,440' 1,950' Similarly, lots must be platted in appropriate sizes to accommodate other form -based standards including buildable area and setbacks, off-street parking, and service facilities required by the use. However, developers in Form -Based Zones may instead use design sites which are not platted. As long as the design site can accommodate the zone and building type standards, a lot can contain multiple design sites. When a zone has a range of design site widths or depths for August 19, 2021 Page 23 different building types, the applicant may choose the shortest minimum with an acknowledgement that it may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed. Analysis Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics, goals, and objectives of the community. While the City's current Zoning Code provides flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Adopting a form -based code seeks to ensure neighborhoods include a variety of housing types at different price points with the ultimate goal to create more equitable communities. Conventional zoning also contributes to unsustainable practices by creating neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car due to low densities and distance from services and amenities. This auto -oriented pattern of development increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Higher minimum parking standards also assume car -ownership and increase the price of housing. The changes are consistent with the long-term direction of City policy, especially as it relates to goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City's strategic goals is to "advance social justice, racial equity and human rights". Land use decisions can be a tool to actively promote equity. Prioritizing a variety of housing types and price points creates opportunities for all members of the community to live together. Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action. As part of the City's Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, the City has set goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. An important component of that goal is to improve the building and transportation systems by creating neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars. While form -based development standards will not fix these complicated issues, they are an important step in implementing the City's vision for equitable, sustainable, and walkable communities. They reflect a context -specific approach to community character and are based on Iowa City's distinct development patterns in its historic neighborhoods near downtown. They will also help protect natural areas, including waterways. Anticipated Outcomes Due to the structure of the code, the proposed amendment will help promote, preserve, and enhance community design and character in support of the community's vision of a community with a variety of neighborhoods and neighborhood centers along pleasant and convenient corridors that connect the city. Anticipated outcomes include appropriately -scaled development for a variety of physical contexts, a diversity and wide variety of housing choices appropriate to their location, buildings which play a role in creating a better whole, and development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi -modal transportation options for all users and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In residential neighborhoods, the proposed amendment will encourage walkable neighborhood patterns through highly interconnected networks of multi -modal streets that are safe for pedestrians and bicycles. It will also create neighborhoods with quality housing and a diversity of context -sensitive housing choices while protecting the character of established neighborhoods and building upon and reinforcing the unique physical characteristics of the city's neighborhoods. Within districts, corridors, and employment centers, the proposed amendment will lead to neighborhood main streets as centers that act as vibrant social and commercial focal points, with services and amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods within a safe, comfortable walking distance of homes. New districts and centers will accommodate appropriately scaled housing, mixed -uses, and cultural development which will balance pedestrian comfort and place -making with traffic efficiency and encourage and accommodate high-quality community design. Through this process, it will promote a wide variety of housing choices and small local businesses as an important part of the City's economy. Over time, it will facilitate transitions from single -use August 19, 2021 Page 24 employment centers to mixed-use districts that are compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment supports several goals from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan: • Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. • Encourage pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. • Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. • Support preservation of valuable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street. • Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. Similarly, many current goals of the South District Plan align with the proposed amendment: • Preserve environmentally sensitive features and ensure long-term stewardship for the benefit of the neighborhood and the community. • Consider opportunities for small neighborhood commercial or mixed use nodes at key intersections...and encourage quality design and construction that enhances adjacent residential or public open space areas. • As residential development extends south toward the school, ensure multiple safe and logical walking routes to the school, including well -marked crosswalks for schools. The proposed amendment also is supported by three new goals recommended as part of the concurrent South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001): • Adopt a form -based code for the South District to encourage a diversity of housing types. • Adopt a form -based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. • Adopt a form -based code that provides for a compatible mix of non-residential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. In addition to being compatible with the Comprehensive and South District Plan, the proposed amendment aligns well with other more recent policy efforts of the City, including the City Council's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the City's Black Lives Matter & Systemic Racism Resolution. In June 2020, the City adopted Resolution 20-159 outlining actions to enhance social justice and racial equity in the community. The City also seeks to demonstrate leadership in climate action, culminating in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. An important component of achieving these goals is developing walkable neighborhoods with a diversity of housing types and price points, which will be assisted with the adoption of the form - based standards. Incorporating these elements into the Zoning Code is an essential next step after amending City documents. Public Comment Staff received comments regarding the proposed Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Staff has summarized specific comments and requests, and staff responses, in Attachment 6. Written comments received are in Attachment 7. Based on this feedback, staff made the following changes to the public comment code draft: August 19, 2021 Page 25 1. Allow Alcohol Oriented Retail Sales (e.g. liquor stores) only by special exception in Form - Based Zones. This includes the T4NS-O, T4NM-O, and T4MS zones. 2. For the open zones, add limitations on operating hours for non-residential uses. Specifically, non-residential uses shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 5 to adopt form - based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and District Plans (REZ21-0005). Attachments 1. Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; July 1, 2021 2. Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; July 15, 2021 3. Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; August 5, 2021 4. Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan 5. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments 6. Staff's Summary of Stakeholder Input on the Public Review Drafts 7. Stakeholder Comments Received as of August 12, 2021 Approved by: 1• �l Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services /4041, .-:;;;+_1 a 'AVO ...\YONV. liVi • 3• •• 1 ..,:cr;n: 11.61L1.1. " "4 •• 0', , "' :MI TiMenon 667 • *. .qiiIR 2r17E1 -rall CPV-Iiiiirj -viventli 4.4,77-7e - 41tts — ,,.• s 6; ILwz;i: G....66.6;itthill.1 c ; g la!":14,rirra2223 1 udr, MM 000 i 1 it'i ,..2411, Miliii;a`St.,S,;1411i3 I 1111 .1,, , ,traatico9311 . ! 774 -°R;0,4 -4-J1 'inni III c:019 c;w::;.."•41 lirGiGGGi 6:::c• • 2 I n E-1 6111 4!! :.? •• 1 • 1- iI 1;11111.: ------------------ I5 !IL r.T.TrITTI *01 . =la . iiiirmsfil kb P4h. BMW ISE51:115rEn: 'mini 120012113121E1115 I jKkt, rtiot..: *a. N.*, J4 ,,,ktaTe.c t:L.ZD 1 VIII 11111111111 111111a7[7;-: "fr• ,i " *foAT ' 1.' "IT' ntAc'sAlft.i4f.i c.,',1, 0 .u. :um 41 ' ".‘ '14' r.• •tinumminwA•Wl ci ----- LA v•m•Ei um[7. I Id ' L11,00-3,0. k Ecasmancar 0171610212011161 500 1000 FT Form - Article H: 3ased Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 LWC Prepared For Iowa City, Iowa Prepared By: 0171(05 Form -Based Zones and Standards This page intentionally left blank ii Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Table of Contents Section 14-2H-1: Introduction 1 14 -2H -1A Intent 1 14 -2H -1B Zoning Districts 1 14 -2H -1C Applicability 2 14 -2H -1D Rezoning 5 14 -2H -1E Neighborhood Plan 6 Section 14-2H-2: Zones 7 14 -2H -2A Purpose 7 14 -2H -2B Sub -Zones 7 14 -2H -2C T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) 8 14 -2H -2D T3 Neighborhood General Zone (T3NG) 14 -2H -2E T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS) 14 -2H -2F T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone (T4NM) 14 -2H -2G T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 12 16 20 24 Section 14-2H-3: Use Standards 29 14 -2H -3A Purpose 29 14 -2H -3B Allowed Uses 29 14 -2H -3C Standards for Specific Uses 33 Section 14-2H-4: Site Standards 14 -2H -4A Purpose 14 -2H -4B Screening 14 -2H -4C Landscaping 14 -2H -4D Parking and Loading 14 -2H -4E Adjustments to standards 35 35 36 38 39 Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards ii 43 Table of Contents Section 14-2H-5: Civic Space Type Standards 47 14 -2H -5A Purpose 47 14 -2H -5B General Civic Space Type Standards 47 14 -2H -5C Greenway 49 14 -2H -5D Green 50 14 -2H -5E Plaza 51 14 -2H -5F Pocket Park/Plaza 52 14 -2H -5G Playground 53 14 -2H -5H Community Garden 54 14 -2H -5I Passage 55 Section 14-2H-6: Building Type Standards 57 14 -2H -6A Purpose 57 14 -2H -6B General Building Type Standards 57 14 -2H -6C Carriage House 60 14 -2H -6D House Large 62 14 -2H -6E House Small 64 14 -2H -6F Duplex Side -by -Side 66 14 -2H -6G Duplex Stacked 68 14 -2H -6H Cottage Court 70 14 -2H -6I Multiplex Small 72 14 -2H -6J Multiplex Large 74 14 -2H -7K Townhouse 76 14 -2H -6L Courtyard Building Small 78 14 -2H -6M Courtyard Building Large 80 14 -2H -6N Main Street Building 82 iv Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Table of Contents Section 14-2H-7: Architectural Element Standards 85 14 -2H -7A Purpose 85 14 -2H -7B Overview 85 14 -2H -7C Tripartite Facade Articulation 86 14 -2H -7D Architectural Recession(s) 87 14 -2H -7E Corner Element 88 14 -2H -7F Rooftop Room 89 Section 14-2H-8: Frontage Type Standards 91 14 -2H -8A Purpose 91 14 -2H -8B General Frontage Type Standards 91 14 -2H -8C Porch Projecting 92 14 -2H -8D Porch Engaged 94 14 -2H -8E Dooryard 96 14 -2H -8F Stoop 98 14 -2H -8G Forecourt 100 14 -2H -8H Maker Shopfront 102 14 -2H -8I Shopfront 104 14 -2H -8J Terrace 106 14 -2H -8K Gallery 108 14 -2H -8L Arcade 110 Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards v Table of Contents Section 14-2H-9: Thoroughfare Type Standards 113 14 -2H -9A Purpose 113 14 -2H -9B General Thoroughfare Type Standards 113 14 -2H -9C Main Street with Median 114 14 -2H -9D Main Street without Median 115 14 -2H -9E Avenue 2 without Parking 116 14 -2H -9F Avenue 2 with Future Parking 117 14 -2H -9G Avenue 3 118 14 -2H -9H Avenue 4 119 14 -2H -9I Neighborhood Street 1 with Parking both sides 120 14 -2H -9J Neighborhood Street 2 with Parking one side 121 14 -2H -9K Alley 122 14 -2H -9L Passage 123 Section 14-2H-10: Affordable Housing Incentives 125 14 -2H -10A Purpose 125 14 -2H -10B Eligibility and Incentive Provisions 126 14 -2H -10C Definitions 127 14 -2H -10D General Requirements 127 14 -2H -10E Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing 128 14 -2H -10F Affordable Rental Housing 129 14 -2H -10G Administrative Rules 129 vi Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Table of Contents Appendix 1: Changes to Title 14 Zoning 14-1B Introductory Provisions 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards 14-5B Sign Regulations 14-5G Outdoor Lighting Standards 14-5I Sensitive Lands and Features 14-9A General Definitions 14-9C Sign Definitions Appendix 2: Changes to Title 15 Land Subdivision 15-2-1 Concept Plan 15-2-2 Preliminary Plat 15-2-3 Final Plat 15-3-1 General Requirements 15-3-2 Streets and Circulation 15-3-3 Sidewalks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connections 15-3-4 Layout of Blocks and Lots 15-3-5 Neighborhood Open Space Requirements 15-3-8 Stormwater Management Appendix 3: Changes to the South District Plan Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards vii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank viii Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-1: Introduction 14 -2H -1A Intent 1. Article H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), herein after referred to as this Article, sets forth the standards for neighborhood design, building form, and land use within the Form -Based Zones listed herein. 2. These standards reflect the community's vision for implementing the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure development that reinforces the highly valued character and scale of Iowa City's urban centers, neighborhoods, and corridors with a mix of housing, civic, retail and service uses in a compact, walkable, and transit -friendly environment. 3. Specifically, these standards are intended to: a. Improve the built environment and human habitat; b. Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi -modal transportation options, including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit; c. Reduce vehicle traffic and support transit by providing for a mixture of land uses, highly interconnected block and street network, and compact community form; d. Provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and levels of affordability and accessibility to serve the needs of a diverse population; e. Promote the health and sustainability benefits of walkable environments; f. Generate pedestrian -oriented and pedestrian -scaled neighborhoods where the automobile is accommodated but does not dominate the streetscapes; g. Reinforce the unique identity of the City and build upon the local context, climate, and history; and h. Realize development based on the patterns of existing walkable neighborhoods. 14 -2H -1B Zoning Districts 1. The full names and map symbols of the Form -Based Zones are listed below. When this Article refers to Form -Based Zones, it is referring to all zones listed in this section. When this Article refers to Neighborhood Form -Based Zones, it is referring to the T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones. a. T3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE) b. T3 Neighborhood General (T3NG) c. T4 Neighborhood Small (T4NS) d. T4 Neighborhood Medium (T4NM) e. T4 Main Street (T4MS) 2. The standards applicable to the Riverfront Crossings Districts and Eastside Mixed Use District are regulated through the provisions in Title 14, Article G. These are not considered Form -Based Zones. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 1 Introduction 14 -2H -1C Applicability 1. Table 14 -2H -1C-1 outlines when other Chapters and Articles of Title 14 and other Titles of the municipal code apply to development and improvements within Form -Based Zones. 2. Neighborhood Design. a. Blocks and Streets. Streets are required in the approximate locations identified in the future land use map of the comprehensive plan in compliance with Section 15-3-2 (Streets and Circulation). When designing a new street or reconstructing an existing street, the design must meet the standards in Section 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards). b. Design Sites. (1) Buildings shall be designed in compliance with the design site width and depth standards of the zone set forth in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones). (2) This Article does not require that design sites be platted. The design site width and depth standards are for the purpose of consistently achieving pedestrian -oriented and scaled buildings. 3. Building, Frontage, and Use Types. a. The following shall be selected for each lot and design site as allowed in the zone in compliance with the standards listed therein: (1) Only one building type, except for certain building types as outlined in Section 14-2H-6 (Building Types Standards); (2) At least one frontage type; and (3) At least one use type. b. Building Types, Frontage Types, and uses not listed in the zone are not allowed in that zone. c. There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in Sections 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 4. Site Standards. When a development requires Site Plan Review in compliance with Title 18 (Site Plan Review) or when otherwise required by Section 14-2H-4 (Site Standards), site standard sub -sections apply as follows: a. Screening Standards. The following shall comply with Sub -Section 14 -2H -4B (Screening): (1) All new development, and (2) Improvements to existing development. b. Landscaping and Tree Standards. The following shall comply with Sub -Section 14 -2H -4C (Landscaping) and Article 14-5E (Landscaping and Tree Standards): (1) All new development, and (2) Improvements to existing development. c. Parking and Loading Standards. The following shall comply with Sub -Section 14 -2H -4D (Parking and Loading): (1) All new development; 2 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Introduction (2) Changes in land use; and (3) Changes in intensity of buildings or structures made after the effective date of this Article that cause an increase or decrease of 25 percent or greater in: (a) Gross floor area; (b) Seating capacity; (c) Units; and/or (d) Parking spaces. 5. Civic Space Type Standards. Development is required to create civic space(s) in the approximate locations identified on the comprehensive plan future land use map in compliance with the standards of Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards). 6. Building Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards): a. New buildings (except public safety buildings and utility buildings); b. Additions over 15 percent of the gross floor area (except public safety buildings and utility buildings); and c. Facade renovations along front or side street facades (except public safety buildings). 7. Massing, Facade Articulation and Architectural Elements. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards): a. New buildings; and b. Building facade renovations facing a street or civic space (except public safety buildings). 8. Frontage Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards): a. New buildings; b. Building facade renovation facing a street or civic space (except public safety buildings); c. Private property improvements along front or side street; and d. Modifications of pedestrian entrance(s) along front or side street. 9. Sign Type Standards. All signs, regardless of their nature or location, unless specifically exempted, which are intended to be viewed from a public right-of-way and from outdoors in areas of public and private property used for public pedestrian access shall comply with Sub -Section 14 -5B -8H (Sign Standards and Types for Form -Based Zones). 10. Thoroughfare Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards): a. The construction of a new thoroughfare and/or when an application for a plat is proposed. b. Existing privately -owned thoroughfares: (1) Improvement or modification to curb return, pedestrian crossing, landscaping, or sidewalk; (2) Improvement or modification to on -street parking, or lane striping; and/or (3) Improvement or modification to right-of-way. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 3 Introduction Table 14 -2H -1C-1: Application of Standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code), Title 15 (Land Subdivisions), and Title 18 (Site Plan Review) Title 14 (Zoning Code) Chapter Description/Article Applicability to Article H (Form -Based Zones and Standards) J 1 Introductory Provisions Standards in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones. 2 Base Zones Standards in this Chapter do not apply to Form -Based Zones. They are replaced by zones as identified in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) and uses as identified in Section 14-2H-3 (Uses). 3 Overlay Zones Standards in this Chapter do not apply to Form -Based Zones, except for those related to protection of sensitive features or historic resources. Other standards are replaced by zones as identified in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones). 4 Use Regulations Standards in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones, except where use standards are replaced within this Article. 5 Site Development Standards A. Off -Street Parking and Loading B. Sign Regulations C. Access Management Standards D. Intersection Visibility Standards E. Landscaping and Tree Standards F. Screening and Buffering Standards G. Outdoor Lighting Standards H. Performance Standards I. Sensitive Lands and Features J. Floodplain Management Standards K. Neighborhood Open Space Requirements Standards in this Article do not apply to Form -Based Zones unless stated otherwise. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones unless stated otherwise. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones unless stated otherwise. Standards in this Article do not apply to Form -Based Zones unless stated otherwise. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. Standards in this Article apply to Form -Based Zones. 6 Airport Zoning Standards in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones. 7 Administration Standards in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones. 8 Review and Approval Procedures Standards in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones. 9 Definitions Definitions in this Chapter apply to Form -Based Zones. Title 15 (Land Subdivision Chapter Description Status All Land Subdivision Standards in this Title apply to Form -Based Zones. Title 18 (S Chapter Description Status All Site Plan Review Standards in this Title apply to Form -Based Zones. 4 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Introduction 14 -2H -1D Rezoning 1. Rezoning to a Form -Based Zone shall follow the zoning map amendment process (14-8D-5). Any application for such a rezoning should be submitted concurrently with an application for a preliminary plat (15-2-2). 2. Approval Criteria. The following criteria must be met or determined to not be applicable to rezone to a Form -Based Zone: a. The rezoning demonstrates compliance with the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and any district plan, as applicable, including consistency between the land use designations and the proposed zones. Variations from the future land use map may be approved for Form -Based Zones where sensitive areas are present, or where circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. b. The rezoning demonstrates that the zones are organized in such a manner to respond appropriately to the various site conditions. When amending zone boundaries, more intense zones shall be organized around a neighborhood feature. Examples include a major street (such as a main street or edge drive), civic space, a transit stop, a civic building, or other locations suitable for greater intensities. c. The rezoning demonstrates that transitions are appropriate between Form -Based Zones, such as zone transitions occurring within the block or across alleys to provide the same zoning on facing blocks. d. The rezoning demonstrates it is designed to suit specific topographical, environmental, site layout, and design constraints unique to the site. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 5 Introduction 14 -2H -1E Neighborhood Plan 1. The Neighborhood Plan, submitted as an accompanying document with the final plat, ensures compliance with the standards in this Article. It shall substantially conform to the future land use map included in the comprehensive plan and district plan, as applicable. 2. The Neighborhood Plan shall include the following components in plan view on application forms provided by the Department, along with any additional information as requested by the City: a. Identify all applicable Form -Based Zones, lots, and design sites. b. Identify all proposed building types pursuant to Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and proposed frontage types pursuant to Section 14-2H-8 (Frontages) for each lot and/or design site. c. Apply thoroughfares in an interconnected network and identify proposed thoroughfare types pursuant to Sections 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards) and 15-3-2 (Streets and Circulation), including all proposed Passages (14 -2H -9L) and/or Alleys (14 -2H -9K). d. Identify natural open space and civic space types pursuant to Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards) and delineate all proposed buildings, paved areas, trees, and/or landscaping in civic spaces. e. Identify all connections to existing streets and sidewalks and lots and design sites on adjacent properties in conformance with block standards pursuant to Section 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots). 3. Following adoption of the final plat, the following changes to the Neighborhood Plan may be administratively approved concurrently with building permit or site plan review. Where changes are requested, an updated Neighborhood Plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to site plan or building permit approval. a. Substituting one building type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the requirements of Sections 14-2H-2 (Zones) and 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and where the change does not limit the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or maintain their building type. b. Substituting one frontage type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the requirements of Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) and where the change does not limit the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or maintain their frontage type. c. Substituting one civic space type for another, including changes to the design of said civic spaces, where the civic space type meets the requirements of Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards). d. Changing the number, size, and layout of design sites within a single lot where all modified design sites meet the size and shape requirements of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones). 6 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-2: Zones 14 -2H -2A Purpose This Section establishes the Form -Based Zones that implement the City's Comprehensive Plan to generate and support the intended variety and physical character. 14 -2H -2B Sub -Zones Sub -zones are slightly modified versions of the base Form -Based Zone. This Article includes one type of sub -zone: 1. Open. The open sub -zone can provide additional flexibility to Design Sites located at or near intersections that function or can function as a neighborhood node of non-residential uses. The open sub -zone is indicated in the future land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan and is used for either or both of the following purposes: a. To allow more uses than the base zone allows in specific areas but within the same form and character of the base zone; and/or b. To more easily allow certain uses that are already allowed in the base zone. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 7 Zones 14 -2H -2C T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. 1. Intent a. A walkable neighborhood environment of detached, small -to - large building footprint, low -intensity housing choices from House Large, Duplex Side -by -Side to Cottage Court, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood - serving retail, food and service uses. b. The following are appropriate form elements in the zone. (1) House -Scale Buildings (2) Detached Buildings (3) Medium -to -Large Design Site Width (4) Small -to -Large Building Footprint (5) Medium -to -Large Front Setbacks (6) Medium Side Setbacks (7) Up to 2.5 Stories (8) Porch, Dooryard and Stoop Frontage Types 2. Sub-Zone(s) None 8 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line ilding Types Primary Design Site Building Type F Width Depth 0 Standards a. House -Scale House Large 60' min.1 95' max. 110' min.2 14 -2H -6D 180' max. Duplex Side-by-Side3 60' min.' 75' max. 100' min.2 14 -2H -6F 180' max. Cottage Court 90' min.' 120' max. 120' min.2 14 -2H -6H 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. ROW Line Key -••- ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof a. Height Primary Building' Stories To Roofline3 2.5 stories max.2 30' max. 0 Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max. Other 1 story max. Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min. 0 b. Footprint Depth, Ground -Floor Space 30' min.4 0 c. Standard (1) Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and Carriage House per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for massing and height standards. 2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). 412' min. for Cottage Court Building Type. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 9 0 min. min. O� min. L___—__— EasementArea Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line . Buildable Area 0 Accessory Structure(s) Facade Zone 5. Building Placemen a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)1,2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 25' min.; 35' max. 25' min.; 35' max. co Side Street (Facade Zone)12 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 20' min.; 25' max. 0 20' min. 10' min. Q 5' min. 25' min. 5' min. b. Building within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 50% min. Side Street 40% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 10 Article H: Zones and Standards Zones 0 L„_,15'UtilityEasementArea •.� ••_••_J CO -› Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line Encroachment Area 6. Encroachments into Setbacks 0 © 0 0 a. Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear Architectural Features 5' max. 5' max. 5' max. 5' max. Stairs X 5' max. 5' max. 5' max. b. Standards (1) Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on Front and Side Street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line --- Building Setback Line ▪ Parking Area ▪ Frontage Type 7. nglial a. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit 3 or More Bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses <_ 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) 1 Front1 House Large All other Building Types 15' min. behind face of Frontage Type or building whichever is closer to street. 50' min. 7. Parking (Continued) (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 8. Frontages a. Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards Porch Projecting A A 14 -2H -8C 0 Porch Engaged 0 Side Street 20' min. 0 Side 5' min. A A 14 -2H -8D Dooryard A A 14 -2H -8E Stoop A A 14 -2H -8F 9. Signage a. Sign Type O Temporary Sign Rear 5' min. 0 • c. Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max.2 0 Distance between Driveways 40' min. 0 d. Standards (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). Public Review Draft - September 2021 Standards 14-5B-9 Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 11 Zones 14 -2H -2D T3 Neighborhood General Zone (T3NG) General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. 1. Intent a. A walkable neighborhood environment of small footprint, low - intensity housing choices from House Small, Duplex Side -by -Side, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Multiplex Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. b. The following are appropriate form elements in the zone. 12 Article H: Zones and Standards (1) House -Scale Buildings (2) Detached Buildings (3) Small -to -Medium Design Site Width (4) Small Building Footprint (5) Medium Front Setbacks (6) Medium Side Setbacks (7) Up to 2.5 Stories (8) Porch, Dooryard and Stoop Frontage Types 2. Sub-Zone(s) a. T3NG-Open. See Section 14-2H-3 for additional allowed uses. Public Review Draft - September 2021 J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Primary Design Site Building Type Width 0,mijeDth 0 Standards a. House -Scale House Small 50' mina 75' max. 100' min.2 14 -2H -6E 180' max. Duplex Side -by - Sides 60' min.' 75' max. 100' min.2 14 -2H -6F 180' max. Duplex Stacked 50' min.' 100' min.2 14 -2H -6G 70' max. 180' max. Cottage Court 90' min.' 120' max. 120' min.2 14 -2H -6H 180' max. Multiplex Small 70' min.' 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150' max. Townhouses 25' min.3 100' min.2 14 -2H -6K 125' max.4 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 Townhouse. 4 Represents 3 Townhouses side-by-side or attached. s For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. ROW Line Key -••- ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof 4. Building Form a. Height Primary Building' Stories To Roofline3 2.5 stories max.2 30' max. • 0 Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max. Other 1 story max. Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min. 0 b. Footprint Depth, Ground -Floor Space 30' min.4 Q MIF c. Standard (1) Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and Carriage House per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 'See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. 2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). 412' min. for Cottage Court Building Type. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 13 MITIMMEiNiEN 0 0� IMINININOM j max Q L _ 15'yEaementArea�_ 0max� T. Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line ■ Buildable Area 0 Accessory Structure(s) Facade Zone 5. Building Placem a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)1,2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 20' min.; 30' max. 20' min.; 30' max. 0 Side Street (Facade Zone)12 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max. 0 15' min. 7' min. 5' min. 20' min. 5' min. Q b. Building within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 60% min. 50% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). I j L ,15'Utility ernentArea . 0 L Zones v Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line III Encroachment Area 6. Encroachments into Setbacks © © 0 0 a. Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. b. Standards (1) Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed 14 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line --- Building Setback Line ▪ Parking Area ▪ Frontage Type a. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit 3 or More Bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses <_ 1,500 sf. None > 1,500 sf. 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front1 House Small All other Building Types Side Street 15' min. behind face of Frontage Type or building whichever is closer to street. 40' min. 15' min. 7. Parking (Continued) d. Standards JIM. (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 0 (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 0 0 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 8. Frontages a. Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards Porch Projecting A A 14 -2H -8C Side 5' min. 0 Porch Engaged A A 14 -2H -8D Rear 5' min. c. Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max.2 0 0 Distance between Driveway 40' min. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Dooryard A A 14 -2H -8E Stoop A A 14 -2H -8F 9. Signage a. Sign Type Standards Awning Sign1 14 -5B -8C Porch Sign1 14 -5B -8H -4a Portable Sign 14 -5B -8E Post Sign1 14 -5B -8H -4b Temporary Sign 14 -5B -8B Only in Open Sub -Zone Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 15 Zones 14 -2H -2E T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (TONS) General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. 1. Intent a. A walkable neighborhood environment of small -to -medium - footprint, moderate -intensity housing choices from Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. b. The following are appropriate form elements in the zone. 16 Article H: Zones and Standards (1) House -Scale Buildings (2) Detached and Attached Buildings (3) Small -to -Medium Design Site Width (4) Small -to -Medium Building Footprint (5) Small -to -Medium Front Setbacks (6) Small -to -Medium Side Setbacks (7) Up to 2.5 Stories (8) Porch, Dooryard and Stoop Frontage Types 2. Sub-Zone(s) a. T4NS-Open. See Section 14-2H-3 for additional allowed uses. Public Review Draft - September 2021 J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line 1_ Primary Iuilding Type Design Site • Deg, *, Standards a. House -Scale Cottage Court 90' mina 120' min.2 14 -2H -6H 120' max. 180' max. Multiplex Small 60' min.' 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150' max. Courtyard Building 100' min.' 150' min.2 12 -2H -6L Small 130' max 180' max. b. Block -Scale Townhouses 18' min.3 100' min.2 14 -2H -6K 160' max.4 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 Townhouse. 4 Represents 4 Townhouses side-by-side or attached. 5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. ROW Line Key -••- ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof 4. Building Form a. Height Primary Building' Stories To Roofline3 2.5 stories max.2 30' max. 0 Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max. Other 1 story max. Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min. 0 b. Footprint Mir NM Depth, Ground -Floor Space 30' min.4 0 c. Standard (1) Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and Carriage House per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 'See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. 2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). 412' min. for Cottage Court Building Type. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 17 I J T I EasementArea _—__----J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) w v N _ J5' Utility L1s' Utility Easement Area • _ • , _J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Zones -o Key ■ Buildable Area Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line 0 Accessory Structure(s) -••- ROW/ Design Site Line • Encroachment Area --- Setback Line II Facade Zone --- Setback Line a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)1,2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 30' max. 15' min.; 30' max. O Side Street (Facade Zone)1,2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max. 15' min. Side 6. Encroachments into Setbacks 0 4► 0 0 a. Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. b. Standards (1) Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street Primary Building 5' min. Q require 8' min. of clearance. Accessory Structure(s) 3' min. 0 (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and Rear Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further Primary Building 15' min. O refinements. Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. O b. Building within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 65% min. Side Street 55% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 18 Article H: Zones and Standards Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 • Zones min. II O min. L J I L min. min. JI I L JI Street (Front: Narrowest Side) v Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line --- Building Setback Line Parking Area a. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit 3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses <_ 1,500 None > 1,500 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. a. Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards Porch Projecting A A 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged A A 14 -2H -8D Dooryard A A 14 -2H -8E Stoop A A 14 -2H -8F 9. Signage a. Sign Type Standards Awning Sign1 14 -5B -8C b. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Porch Sign1 Front' 40' min. 0 Portable Sign Side Street 15' min. 0 Post Sign Side 5' min. 14 -5B -8H -4a 14 -5B -8E 14 -5B -8H -4b O Small Identification Sign1 14 -5B -8B Rear 5' min. O Temporary Sign c. Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max.2 0 Distance between Driveway 40' min. 0 d. Standards (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 14-5B-9 1 Only in Open Sub -Zone Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 19 Zones 14 -2H -2F T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone (T4NM) General note.• the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. a. A walkable neighborhood environment with medium -footprint, moderate -intensity housing choices from Multiplex Large, Courtyard Building Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. b. The following are appropriate form elements in the zone. 20 Article H: Zones and Standards (1) Primarily House -Scale Buildings (2) Detached and Attached Buildings (3) Medium Design Site Width (4) Medium Building Footprint (5) Small Front Setbacks (6) Small Side Setbacks (7) Up to 3.5 Stories (8) Porch, Dooryard, Stoop, Forecourt and Terrace Frontage Types 2. Sub-Zone(s) a. T4NM-Open. See Section 14-2H-3 for additional allowed uses. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line 3. Building Types Primary Building Type Design Site .atijah 0 Depths&tandar a. House -Scale Multiplex Large 75' mina 100' max. 130' min.2 14 -2H -6J 150' max. Courtyard Building 100' min.' Small 130' max 150' min.2 12 -2H -6L 180' max. b. Block -Scale Townhouse6 18' min.3 130' max.45 100' min.2 14 -2H -6K 180' max.. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 Townhouse. 4 Represents 4 Townhouses side-by-side or attached. 5 In the Open Sub -Zone, each Townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 6 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. ROW Line Key -••- ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof 4. Building Form a. Height Primary Building' Stories To Roofline3 3.5 stories max.2 40' max. 0 Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max. Other 1 story max. Ground Floor Ceiling b. Footprint 9' min. 0 Depth, Ground -Floor 30' min. Q Space c. Standards (1) Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and Carriage House per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 'See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. 2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 21 0-> 0 © 0 P a. Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear i i 0 'max. 0 L_------_—J5.UflttY min. emensNea_---------J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line . Buildable Area 0 Accessory Structure(s) II Facade Zone 5. Building Placeme a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)1,2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 25' max. 15' min.; 25' max. 0 Side Street (Facade Zone)1 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max. 0 15' min. Ifl 5' min. 3' min. 15' min. Ifl 5' min. Q b. Building within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 65% min. 55% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 6. Encroachments into Setbacks 22 Article H: Zones and Standards L Zones ±-- 0-> L 0 L .15' UtiLit Easement Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line Encroachment Area Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max. b. Standards (1) Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (1) Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street require 8' min. of clearance. (2) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones min. I O I 0- I'r, min. I I L min. i t J I L JI L - Street (Front: Narrowest Side) v Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line --- Building Setback Line Parking Area a. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit 3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses <_ 2,000 > 2,000 None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 2,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front' 40' min. a. Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards Porch Projecting A A 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged A A 14 -2H -8D Dooryard A A 14 -2H -8E Stoop A A 14 -2H -8F Forecourt A A 14 -2H -8G Terrace A A 14 -2H -8j 9. Signage a. Sign Type O Awning Sign' Standards Side Street 15' min. O Porch Sign1 Side 5' min. 14 -5B -8C O Portable Sign Rear 5' min. c. Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max.2 O Post Sign' 14 -5B -8H -4a 14 -5B -8E 111 Small Identification Sign1 Storefront Projecting Sign1 Distance between Driveways 40' min. O Temporary Sign d. Standards (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 14 -5B -8H -4b 14 -5B -8B 14 -5B -8C 14-5B-9 Window Sign1 14 -5B -8E Only in Open Sub -Zone Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 23 Zones 14 -2H -2G T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. a. A walkable, vibrant district of medium -to -large -footprint, moderate -intensity, mixed-use buildings and housing choices from Townhouse and Courtyard Building Large to Main Street Building, supporting neighborhood -serving ground floor retail, food and services, including indoor and outdoor artisanal industrial businesses. b. The following are appropriate form elements in the zone. (1) Block -Scale Buildings (2) Attached Buildings (3) Medium Design Site Width (4) Medium -to -Large Building Footprint (5) Small -to -None Front Setbacks (6) Small -to -None Side Setbacks (7) Up to 4 Stories (8) Dooryard, Stoop, Forecourt, Maker Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace, Gallery and Arcade Frontage Types. 2. Sub-Zone(s) None 24 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line 3. Building Types Primary Building Type a. Block -Scale Design Site Width 0 Depth Stands Townhouse4 18' min. 1 100' min. 14 -2H -6K 220' max.2,3 180' max. Courtyard Building 100' min. 180' min. 14 -2H -6M Large 150' max. 200' max. Main Street Building 25' min. 150' max. 100' min. 14 -2H -6N 200' max. b. Standards (1) Min. depth may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts a new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. (2) Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25' total. 1 Represents 1 Townhouse. 2 Represents 8 Townhouses side-by-side or attached. 3 Each Townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 4 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. 0 ROW Line Key -••- ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof 4. Building Form a. Height Primary Building' Stories To Roofline2 4 stories max. 45' max. 0 Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max. Other 1 story max. Ground Floor Ceiling 14' min. 0 b. Footprint Depth, Ground -Floor Space 30' min. 0 c. Standards (1) Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and Carriage House per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. 2Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 25 mi Pler:111141Ir_ L min. 0 - min. max. 0 max. T T Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line ■ Buildable Area 0 Accessory Structure(s) Facade Zone 5. Building Placeme a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone) Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 0' min.; 10' max. 0' min.; 10' max. 0 Side Street (Facade Zone) Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) lb. Building within Facade Zone 0' min.; 10' max. 0' min. 0 0 0' min. 3' min. 0 0 10' min. 5' min. 0 0 Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 80% min. 70% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Utility Easement required in Alley as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Setback Line Encroachment Area 6. Encroachments into Setbacks 0 0 0 0 a. Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. Stairs X 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. b. Standards (1) Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed 26 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Zones Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line --- Building Setback Line Parking Area 7. Parki a. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 max. per unit 3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 max. per unit Non -Residential Uses <_ 5,000 > 5,000 0 max. 2 max./1,000 sf. after first 5,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front 40' min. 0 Side Street 75' from Front > 75' from Front 25' min. 5' min. 0 0 Side 0' min. 0 Rear 5' min. 8. Frontages a. Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards Dooryard X Al 14 -2H -8E Stoop X A ,2 14 -2H -8F Forecourt A A 14 -2H -8G Maker Shopfront A Al 14 -2H -8H Shopfront A A2 14-2H-81 Terrace A A 14 -2H -8J Gallery A A 14 -2H -8K Arcade A A 14 -2H -8L 'At 60' min. from front of design site. 2Also allowed within open space in Courtyard Building Large 9. Signage a. Sign Type II 1 Standards Awning Sign 0 Canopy Sign c. Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max.1 d. Standards 1 (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. (4) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1With 2' planting strip on each side. 14 -5B -8C 14 -5B -8C Directional Sign 14 -5B -8C Masonry Wall Sign 14 -5B -8E Porch Sign 14 -5B -8H -4a Portable Sign 14 -5B -8E Post Sign 14 -5B -8H -4b Small Identification Sign 14 -5B -8B Storefront Projecting Sign 14 -5B -8C Temporary Sign 14-5B-9 Wall Mural Painted Sign 14 -5B -8E Window Sign 14 -5B -8E Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 27 Zones 28 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-3: Use Standards 14 -2H -3A Purpose 1. It is the intent of this Section to establish appropriate standards for location, design, and operation of uses to assure that they will be developed in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Form -Based Zone where they are allowed. 2. This Section provides additional standards for certain uses and activities to ensure compatibility with site features and existing uses. 14 -2H -3B Allowed Uses 1. Uses Allowed a. Table 14 -2H -3B-1 (Uses) indicates for each Form -Based Zone whether a principal land use is permitted (P), allowed with provisions (PR), or allowed by special exception (5). Specific land uses are grouped into the categories and subgroups listed in Table 14 -2H -3B-1 (Uses). b. Table 14 -2H -3B-1 (Uses) includes cross-references to applicable specific use standards for each use. Where necessary and appropriate, the cross-reference indicates the conventional zone use standards that must be followed. c. Each use listed in Table 14 -2H -3B-1 (Uses) is defined in Chapter 4 (Use Regulations) of Title 14 (Zoning Code). If a use is only applicable within areas established in compliance with this Article, the use is defined in Chapter 14-9 (Definitions). 2. Accessory Uses Allowed a. Table 14 -2H -3B-2 (Accessory Uses) indicates for each Form -Based Zone where accessory uses are allowed. b. Table 14 -2H -3B-2 (Accessory Uses) includes cross-references to applicable specific use standards for each use. Where necessary and appropriate, the cross-reference indicates the conventional zone use standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code) that apply. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 29 Use Standards Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG-0 T4NS T4NS-0 T4NM T4NM-0 T4MS Specific Standards Residential Uses Household Living Uses Detached Single -Family Dwellings Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings Group Households Live/Work Missing Middle Housing P P P PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4B -4A-4 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR2 14 -4B -4A-6 PR PR PR PR PR2 14 -2H -3C-2 P P P P P P P p Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living Independent Group Living Fraternal Group Living S S S S PR 14-4B-4A-8(RM-'l'l) S S S2 14-4B-4A-9(RM-'I'I) S S Sz 14-4B-4A-10(RM- 44) Commercial Uses Eating and Drinking Establishments PR/Si PR/S PR/S 1 P 14-4B-4B-10(CN-1) Office Uses General Office Medical/Dental Office P1 P1 P1 P p1 P1 P1 P Retail Uses Sales Oriented Personal Service Oriented Alcohol Sales Oriented Hospitality Oriented Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses General Animal Related Commercial Uses P1 P1 P1 P p1 p1 P1 P Si S 1 S 14 -4B -4B-15 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4B-18(CN-1) PR/S 14 -4B -4B-7 S S PR 14-4B-4B-2(CN-1) Commercial Parking PR 14 -4B -4B-9 1 Max 1,500 sf per building; shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. 2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from the front of the design site. 3 Use must be completely within enclosed building. 30 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Use Standards Table 1 -2H-3B-1: Uses (Continued) Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG-0 T4NS T4NS-0 T4NM T4NM-0 T4MS Specific Standards Institutional and Civic Uses Community Service Uses Community Service - Long Term Housing Community Service - Shelter General Community Service Day-care Uses S S S S S 2 14-4B-4D-6(CO-1) S S S S S 2 14-4B-4D-5(RM-44) S S S S PR 14-4B-4D-3(CN-1) S S S PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4B -4D-7 Educational Facilities General S S S PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4B -4D-10 Specialized PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-12(CN-1) Park and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4B -4D-15 Uses Religious/Private S S S PR PR PR PR PR 2 14-4B-4D-16(CO-1) Group Assembly Uses Other Uses 1 Temporary Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4D-2 Community Garden PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -2H -3C-1 Communication Transmission Facility PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4B -4E -4a Uses Basic Utility Uses PR 3 PR3 PR3 PR3 - 14-4B-4D-1(CN-1) 1 Max 1,500 sf per building; shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A. M. 2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from the front of the design site. 3 Use must be completely within enclosed building. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 31 Table 14 -2H -3B-2: Accesso Uses Megories Use Standards T3N • . t 4MS Specific Stan Accessory Apartments' PR PR PR Accessory Retail Sales Accessory Uses Within Parks and Open Spaces Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2B 14 -4C -2C Bed and Breakfast Homestays PR PR PR 14 -4C -2D Bed and Breakfast Inns Childcare Homes PR PR PR _ _ 14 -4C -2E PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2G Communications Towers, PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2H Antennas, and Satellite (residential) Receiving Devices Daycare PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-21 Decks and Patios. PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2J-2 Uncovered Fences, Walls, and PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -2H -4B Hedges Home Occupations PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2M Mechanical Structures PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2N Off Street Loading PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-20 Outdoor Dumpster Areas PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2Q Outdoor Lighting PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -4C -2R Outdoor Service Areas PR - PR - PR PR 4-3-1 (RFC -G within 100' of a residential zone) Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, and Tennis Courts Signs PR PR PR PR PR PR PR - 14 -4C -2T (Residential Zones) PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14 -5B -8H Small Wind EnergyPR 14 -4C -2Y (CC -2) Conversion Systems Rooftop Services Areas PR 14-4C-2AA (CN -1) 1 Accessory Apartments attached to the primary building must comply with Sub -Section 14 -4C -2A. Accessory Apartments that are detached from the primary building units must comply with the Carriage House requirements, see Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C. 32 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Use Standards 14 -2H -3C Standards for Specific Uses 1. Community Gardens a. General Standards (1) Only the following buildings and structures are allowed on-site: (a) Stands for sale of produce grown on-site limited in size to 120 square feet; (b) Sheds for storage of tools limited in size to 120 square feet; (c) Greenhouses, consisting of buildings made of glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are cultivated, limited in size to 120 square feet and designed in compliance with setbacks for accessory structures; and (d) Other small hardscape areas and amenities (including, but are not limited to, benches, bike racks, raised/accessible planting beds, compost or waste bins, picnic tables, seasonal farm stands, fences, garden art, rain barrels, and children's play areas). (2) The combined area of all structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the community garden site area. (3) On-site storm water systems and irrigation shall be consistent with applicable City standards. (4) See Sub -Section 14 -2H -5H (Community Garden) for additional standards. b. Limitations on Use. (1) Retail is allowed on-site but only for retail of produce grown on-site. (2) Outdoor storage of tools and materials is not permitted. c. Maintenance Required. Maintenance of community gardens shall ensure that no conditions constituting a nuisance are created, including that water and fertilizer will not drain onto adjacent property. If conditions constituting a nuisance are created, the owner or other individual(s) responsible for the community garden shall ensure that it is replaced with landscaping in compliance with all applicable standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code) and/or seeded. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 33 Use Standards 2. Live/Work a. General Standards. These standards establish regulations for the construction and operation of live/work units and for the reuse of existing commercial and industrial buildings to accommodate live/work opportunities where allowed in the zone. Live/work differs from home occupations in that the "work" component of the live/work occupancy may: (1) Include employment of persons not living in the residential portion; (2) Function predominately as work space with limited living facilities; (3) Have a separate designated access or private entrance specifically for the business use; (4) Include alterations or features not customarily found in residential units; (5) Have window displays; and (6) Include food handling, processing, or packing. b. Limitations on Use. The non-residential component of a live/work unit shall be one of the following uses: (1) Sales Oriented Retail; (2) Personal Service Oriented Uses, except for dry cleaners, taxidermists, and crematoriums; (3) Daycare Uses; (4) Bed and Breakfast Homestays; or (5) Office Uses limited to dental practices, general medical practices, insurance, real estate or travel agencies, accounting practices and law offices. c. Occupancy Standards. The "live" component of a live/work unit shall be the principal residence of at least one individual employed in the business conducted within the live/work unit. d. Operation Standards (1) No clients or deliveries to the live/work unit are permitted before 7:00 A.M. or after 10:00 P.M. (2) Sale or Rental of Portion of Unit. No portion of a live/work unit may be separately rented or sold as a commercial or industrial space for any person not living in the premises or as a residential space for any household where no members of said household work in the same unit. (3) Noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial properties in the applicable zone. However, storage of flammable liquids or hazardous materials beyond what is normally associated with a residential use is prohibited. (4) On -Premises Sales. On -premises retail sales must clearly be subordinate to the primary use of the live/work unit. On -premises sales are limited to products manufactured, processed, or fabricated in the live/work unit or associated with the principal use of the live/work unit. Occasional open studio programs and gallery shows are also allowed. (5) Nonresident Employees. Up to three persons who do not reside in the live/work unit may work in the unit. (6) Client and Customer Visits. Client and customer visits to live/work units are limited to ten (10) per day to ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial or industrial uses, or adjacent residentially - zoned areas. 34 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-4: Site Standards 14 -2H -4A Purpose 1. General. This Section is intended to ensure that development of property within Form -Based Zones accomplishes the following: a. Makes a positive contribution to the development pattern of the area; b. New or altered structures are compatible with the design and use of existing structures on neighboring properties; c. Respects the existing conditions and safety of neighboring properties; and d. Does not adversely affect neighboring properties, with "adversely affect" meaning to impact in a substantial, negative manner the habitability or enjoyability of these properties. 2. Screening. Standards for screening, fences, and walls are adopted to help conserve and protect property, assure safety and security, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and improve the visual environment of the neighborhood. 3. Landscaping. Standards for landscaping are adopted to help protect and enhance the environmental and visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, and control dust. 4. Parking and Loading. Standards for and limits on the development of motor vehicle and bicycle parking, and loading and access drives, are adopted to help ensure that development accomplishes the following: a. Establishes and/or reinforces the character and scale of walkable, urban neighborhood environments, where development supports and is within a short walking distance of shopping, food and services; b. Ensures the provision of appropriately designed bicycle parking, in order to increase bicycle trips and reduce motor vehicle trips per capita; c. Appropriately limits, screens and landscapes motor vehicle parking, to protect and enhance the environmental and visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and control dust; and d. Reduces motor vehicles trips per capita to and from development. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 35 Table 14 -2H -4B-1: Maximum Screening Height Zone Item Maximum Height Allowed Front Side St. Side Rear Site Standards 14 -2H -4B Screening 1. Applicability. Screening in all Form -Based Zones is subject to the standards set forth in in this this Sub - Section and in Section 14 -4C -2L (Fences, Walls, And Hedges). Standards in Article 14-5F (Screening and Buffering Standards) only apply where stated otherwise. 2. Design Standards for Screening. Screening shall comply with the following: a. Height Maximums. Screening shall not exceed the maximum height identified in Table 14 -2H -4B-1 (Maximum Screening Height). b. Screening Height Measurement. Screening height shall be measured as the vertical distance between the finished grade at the base of the screen and the top edge of the screen material. T3 Neighborhood Edge Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max. T3 Neighborhood General Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max. T4 Neighborhood Small Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max. T4 Neighborhood Medium Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max. Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max. T4 Main Street Fences X X 10' max. 10' max. Free Standing Walls X X 10' max. 10' max. Landscaping 3' max. 3' max. No max. No max. Key X = Not Allowed lir 1111MIT,._ 3. Screening on Retaining Walls. The total height of screens and the retaining walls that they are mounted on or attached to is up to six feet. 4. Mechanical Equipment Screening. a. Mechanical equipment exempt from screening: (1) Free-standing or roof -mounted solar equipment; and (2) Vents over 30 inches in height and located on a roof. b. New installation or relocation of existing mechanical equipment shall be screened in compliance with this Sub -Section. 36 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Site Standards (1) Roof -Mounted Equipment. Building parapets or other architectural elements in the building's architecture style shall screen roof -mounted equipment. (a) New buildings shall be designed to provide a parapet or other architectural element that is as tall or taller than the highest point on any new mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of the building; (b) For existing buildings with no or low parapet heights, mechanical equipment shall be surrounded on all sides by an opaque screen wall as tall as the highest point of the equipment. The wall shall be architecturally consistent with the building and match the existing building with paint, finish, and trim cap detail; and (c) All new roof screens are subject to Title 18 Site Plan Review. (2) Wall- and Ground -Mounted Equipment: (a) Shall not be located between the face of the building and the street; (b) All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened. Equipment and screening shall be in compliance with the setbacks of the zone; screening shall be architecturally compatible and include matching paint, finish and trim cap of the building; and (c) All new mechanical screens for ground or wall -mounted equipment are subject to Title 18 Site Plan Review. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 37 Site Standards 14 -2H -4C Landscaping 1. Applicability. Landscaping in all Form -Based Zones is subject to the standards set forth in this this Sub - Section and to the general landscaping standards located in Article 14-5E (Landscaping and Tree Standards). Standards for landscaping in parking areas shall be in combination with Sub -Section 14 -2H -4D (Parking and Loading). 2. Landscape Plan and Timing. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted for developments either at Site Plan Review or Building Permit processes. The landscaping required by this Sub -Section shall be installed as part of the development or improvement requiring the landscaping. 3. Design Standards. a. Acceptable required landscaping materials are defined as follows: (1) Shrubs, of one -gallon size or larger; (2) Street trees, of 15 -gallon size or larger, and double -staked; (3) Ground cover; and (4) Decorative non -living landscaping materials including, but not limited to sand, stone, gravel, wood or water may be used to satisfy a maximum of 25 percent of required landscaping area when approved by the Director. b. Species Selection. Native and drought tolerant species are encouraged to increase native plants and pollinator species. Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one species and maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the Director. Trees should also be spatially distributed to avoid monoculture rows or blocks of any one species or genus. Shrubs and ground cover should also be diverse and spatially distributed to avoid large monoculture plantings. c. Separation. Any landscaped area shall be separated from an adjacent vehicular area by a wall or curb at least six inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area. d. Existing Vegetation. Every effort shall be made to incorporate mature on-site trees into the required landscaping. e. Maintenance. Required landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condition. This shall include pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary, and the appropriate watering of all plantings. 38 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Site Standards 14 -2H -4D Parking and Loading 1. Applicability. On-site parking is allowed in all Form -Based Zones subject to the standards set forth in this this Sub -Section. Standards in Article 14-5A (Off -Street Parking and Loading) apply, except where superseded by this Sub -Section or Section 14-2H-2 (Zones). 2. Number of Parking and Loading Spaces. a. The number of motor vehicle parking spaces required is listed in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone pursuant to Section 14-2H-2 (Zones). b. On-site loading space(s) is not required. 3. General Parking Standards. a. Sharing of Non -Residential Parking Required. (1) If on-site parking spaces for non-residential uses are provided, such spaces shall be made available for use by the general public during at least one of the following time periods: (a) Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM; or (b) Monday through Friday, 5 PM to 11 PM and all day on Saturdays and Sunday. (2) Owners and operators of these shared spaces are required to post a sign identifying that the spaces are shared along with other information as needed by the owner/operator. b. Larger Vehicle Parking. Commercial vehicles more than seven and one-half feet (71/2') in height may not be stored in any Form -Based Zone unless the standards of Special Vehicle Parking and Storage Requirements are met pursuant to Sub-Sectionl4-5A-5L (Special Vehicle Parking and Storage Requirements). c. Storage of Unregistered or Inoperable Motor Vehicles. Automotive vehicles, trailers, or vehicles of any kind or type, requiring licenses, but without current plates or inoperable, shall be only parked within completely enclosed buildings. d. Cargo or Freight Container. Portable cargo or freight storage containers in any Form -Based Zone for purposes of loading or unloading, may be parked or stored on -premise for a period not to exceed 10 days in any one calendar year. 4. Traffic -Minimizing Parking Standards. a. Carshare Parking Spaces. (1) Carshare spaces shall be provided in the amounts specified in Table 14 -2H -4D-1 (Required Carshare Parking Spaces). Table 14 -2H -4D-1: Re.uired Carshare Parkin S.ac IFUse IM''hare Parking Spaces Required Residential 0-49 units None 50-100 units 1 101 or more units 2 + 1 per additional 200 units Office -General, Office-Medical/Dental <_ 10,000 sf None > 10,000 sf 1/10,000 sf Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 39 Site Standards (2) The required carshare space(s) shall be made available, at no cost, to a carshare service for purposes of providing carshare services to its members, except as provided in this subsection. At the election of the property owner, the carshare spaces may be provided: (a) On the design site; or (b) On another off-street site within 800 feet of the design site. (3) Required carshare space or spaces shall be designed in a manner that will make the spaces accessible to non-resident subscribers from outside the building as well as building residents. (4) Carshare spaces shall be identified by signage approved by the City. (5) If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City that no carshare service can make use of the dedicated carshare parking spaces, the spaces may be occupied by non-carshare vehicles; provided, however, that upon 90 days of advance written notice to the property owner from a carshare service, the property owner shall terminate any non-carsharing leases for such spaces and shall make the spaces available to the carshare service for its use of such spaces. (6) Carshare spaces shall be dedicated for current or future use by a carshare service through a deed restriction, condition of approval, or license agreement. Such deed restriction, condition of approval, or license agreement shall grant priority use to any carshare service that can make use of the space, although such spaces may be occupied by other vehicles so long as no carshare organization can make use of the dedicated carshare space(s). b. Carpool Spaces. If parking is provided at a development, parking spaces reserved for use by carpool/vanpool vehicles shall be designated in preferred locations (including, but not limited to closest to building entries). The locations of these spaces shall be approved by the City through the Site Plan Review or Building Permit processes. The required number of carpool spaces is listed in Table 14 -2H -4D-2 (Required Carpool Parking Spaces). Table 14 -2H -4D-2: Re•uired Car•ool Parkin: S•aces Carpool Parking Spaces Required Office -General, Office-Medical/Dental <_ 10 parking spaces None > 10 parking spaces 10% of the total number of spaces All other uses All Other Uses None 5. Parking Spaces, Design Site Design and Layout. a. Access. Parking lot access and design is subject to the following standards: (1) All on-site parking facilities shall be designed with an appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or an alley to cause the least interference with traffic flow. (2) Parking spaces in any parking lot or parking structure shall not be designed or located so as to allow a vehicle to enter or exit a parking space directly from a public street. Ingress to and egress from parking spaces shall be from an on-site aisle or driveway, except parking spaces within design sites may be designed or located so as to allow a vehicle to enter or exit a parking space directly from a public alley or rear lane. b. Driveways. (1) Access to Driveways. 40 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Site Standards (a) Driveway access to and from developments of two or fewer dwelling units onto public streets shall be where practical by forward motion of the vehicle; and (b) Driveway access to and from developments of three or more dwelling units onto public streets shall be by forward motion of the vehicle. (2) Driveways shall extend to and include the area between the design site line and the edge of the street pavement. c. Materials. (1) All on-site parking areas and driveways shall be surfaced with materials as approved by the City Engineer and maintained in compliance with the City Standards. (2) The use of pervious or semi -pervious parking area surfacing materials, include, but are not limited to "grasscrete," or recycled materials including, but not limited to glass, rubber, used asphalt, brick, block and concrete, is subject to approval by the Director and City Engineer. Where possible, such materials should be used in areas in proximity to and in combination with on-site stormwater control devices. d. Landscaping, Fencing, and Screening. The landscaping, fencing and screening standards identified in Table 14 -2H -4D-3 (Required Parking Lot Landscaping) shall be applied with the standards of Sub - Section 14 -2H -4B (Screening) and Sub -Section 14 -2H -4C (Landscaping). (1) Table 14 -2H -4D-3 outlines required parking lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping must include the required minimum landscaped medians and must meet the minimum percentage landscape requirement. The landscaped medians can count toward the minimum percentage requirement. Table 14 -2H -4D-3: Re•uired Parkin: Lot Landscasin: _Number of Parking Spanffercent of Gross Parking Area Required to be Landscapecj 6 or fewer Curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s). 7 to 15 4%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s). 13 to 30 8%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s). 31 to 70 12%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s). 71 and over 16%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s). Re. wired Shade Trees Amount 1 tree per 2,700 sf of gross design site area, minus building coverage (footprint). Pot Size 15 gallon Caliper 1.25" minimum. Height at Installation 6'-8' minimum. Characteristics High branching, broad headed, shading form. Location Required Border Evenly spaced throughout parking lot to provide uniform shade. 6" high curb or equivalent. Border and Stormwater Curb shall include breaks every 4' to provide drainage to retention and filtration areas. Tree Well Size 5' min. in any direction; Any vehicle overhang requires the minimum planter area width to be expanded by an equivalent dimension. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 41 Site Standards Car Overhangs Shall be prevented by stops. (2) Parking and loading areas in the T4MS zone shall be screened from adjacent zones by a six foot wall, fence, or evergreen. (3) Parking area screening is not required when adjacent to an alley. (4) For the portion of a parking area over which photo -voltaic solar collectors are installed where they also function as shade structures, the minimum standard for trees shall be waived, and shrubs and ground covers shall be planted for every eight parking spaces. e. Location. Location of on-site parking areas in all Form -Based Zones is regulated by minimum setbacks in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) and the following: (1) Parking lots with 20 or fewer spaces shall include a minimum five foot wide sidewalk between the building and parking area; and (2) Parking lots with more than 20 spaces shall include a minimum five foot wide sidewalk, and minimum five foot wide landscaping between the building and the parking area. (3) The above does not apply to the rear of buildings in areas designed for unloading and loading of materials. f. Size of Parking Lot. Parking lots larger than one-quarter of an acre in size shall be broken down into smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas with a minimum width of 15 feet between them to minimize the perceived scale of the total field of stalls. g. Tandem Parking. Tandem parking is allowed in all Form -Based Zones for all uses as follows. (1) Tandem spaces shall comply with size requirements in Sub -Section 14 -5A -5C (Parking, Stacking Space Size, And Drive Dimensions); (2) For residential parking, tandem parking only allowed for the spaces assigned to each unit; and (3) For non-residential parking, tandem parking allowed subject to on-site parking management. 6. Bicycle Parking Standards. a. Applicability. Bicycle parking standards apply in all Form -Based Zones. b. Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces and Standards. Bicycle parking shall be provided in compliance with the standards of Article 14-5A (Off Street Parking and Loading Standards). (1) Buildings with three or more units are subject to the multi -family use bicycle parking standards. (2) Bicycle parking is not required of single family and two family uses, and Cottage Court developments, see Sub -Section 14 -2H -6H (Cottage Court). 42 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Site Standards 14 -2H -4E Adjustments to standards 1. Allowed Adjustments. This Sub -Section allows flexibility to adjust certain standards of this Article. Adjustments shall be processed as part of the preliminary plat and final plat processes per Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) or as minor adjustments during the Site Plan and/or Building Permit Review process, as applicable. Minor adjustments may be approved where the required findings are met as identified in Table 14 -2H -4E-1. Standards may be adjusted as identified in this Sub -Section. 2. Minor Modifications. Additional flexibility is provided through the minor modification process subject to standards at Section 14-4B-1 (Minor Modifications). Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 43 Table 14 -2H -4E-1: Adjustments to Standards a tan.ar.s an. Allowed Adjustments Required Findings Adjustment/ Amount of Adjustment Design Site Site Standards Design Site Dimensions (Depth/Width) Decrease in the minimum required or increase the maximum allowed. 1 The adjustment accommodates an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility; and 2 An existing or new design site can still be developed in compliance with the standards of the zone. Up to 10% of the standard Building Setbacks Facade within Facade Zone Reduction of the minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone. 1 The adjustment accommodates an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. Up to 20% of the standard Building Footprint Size of Main Body or Wing(s) Increase in the allowed length or width. 1 The adjustment accommodates an existing Up to 10% of the standard feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 The wing(s) maintains the required 5' offset from the main body. 3 The building complies with the setbacks of the zone. 4 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. 1 In compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Standards). 2 In compliance with Section 14-2H-10 (Affordable Housing Incentives). 3 This may be combined with other reductions in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25' ' With this adjustment, the Building Height may exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form; Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5' 44 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Table 14 -2H -4E-1: Adjustments to Standards (continued) a tan.ar.s an. Allowed Adjustments Required Findings Adjustment/ Amount of Adjustment Site Standards Parking Location 1 Front setback Reduction in the required parking setback. 1 The adjustment accommodates an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 If accessed from the street, the driveway complies with the Form -Based Zone standards. 3 The ground floor space is in compliance with the Form -Based Zone standards. Up to 10% of the standard Screening Maximum Screening Height Increase in the total height of screens and the retaining walls that they are mounted on or attached to beyond 6 feet. There will be little or no impact on the adjoining 1 properties or the surrounding neighborhood. The height is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Sub -Section or is required for 2 health and safety. Up to 33% of the standard Affordable Housing Zones (14-2H-2) Select one of the following minor adjustments. The adjustment is in a building that contains 1 Affordable Housing units.2 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the 2 site and the surrounding neighborhood. The adjustment is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans. 3 Building Type Standards (14-2H-6) Select one of the following minor adjustments. Additional Minor Adjustments Select an additional minor adjustment each for the two sets of minor adjustments for affordable housing described above. The adjustment is in a building that contains 1 Affordable Housing units.2 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the 2 site and the surrounding neighborhood. The adjustment is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the 3 Comprehensive and District Plans. 1 The Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50% or less of the Area Median Income. 2 Building type design site depth may be adjusted by up 15';3 or Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%; or Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to 20%. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%; or Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories.4 An additional minor adjustment to each of the minor adjustments described for affordable housing above. 1 In compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Standards). 2 In compliance with Section 14-2H-10 (Affordable Housing Incentives). 3 This may be combined with other reductions in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25' 4 With this adjustment, the Building Height may exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form; Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5' Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 45 Site Standards 46 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-5: Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5A Purpose This Section establishes the standards applicable to land in the public realm (publicly or privately owned) for civic gathering purposes, including civic spaces and civic buildings. These standards supplement the standards for each Form -Based Zone. 14 -2H -5B General Civic Space Type Standards 1. Standards and Characteristics. Each civic space is described as to its purpose and intent along with standards and characteristics regarding general physical character, uses, size and location. Characteristics are considered standards unless stated otherwise. 2. Process. Civic spaces are delineated during the subdivision process (Title 15) and are finalized in the Neighborhood Plan (14-2H-1 D). These areas shall comply with the future land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Open Space Required. As required by Chapter 14-5K (Neighborhood Open Space Requirements), development sites are required to dedicate land to the City for public open space or pay a fee in -lieu to be determined with the City. Civic space may be privately or publicly owned. However, private civic space does not satisfy Neighborhood Open Space obligations. 4. Public Access and Visibility. Public access and visibility are required along public parks, civic uses, and natural open spaces, including creeks and drainages and stormwater management areas as required through access easements granted during the subdivision process. Civic spaces shall be fronted by: a. Single -loaded frontage streets (with development on one side and open space on the other); b. Bike and pedestrian paths; or c. Other methods of frontage that provide similar access and visibility to the open space allowed in the zone. 5. Building Frontage Along or Adjacent to a Civic Space. The facades on building design sites attached to or across a street from a civic space shall be designed as a "front" on to the civic space, in compliance with Item 5 (Building Placement) and Item 8 (Frontages) of the zone. Figure 14-2H 5B-1 Building Frontage Adjacent to a Civic Space ■ Bui ding Frontage ■ Bui ding adjacent to Civic Space Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 47 Civic Space Type Standards 6. Stormwater Management Through Civic Space. Civic spaces in Form -Based Zones should serve the additional purpose of helping to contribute to stormwater management of new development. This may be accomplished as follows: a. Stormwater is to be directed to civic space(s). b. Except for Plazas, Playgrounds, and Passages, each civic space should accommodate stormwater while primarily being designed as a gathering space for people. 7. Commercial Uses and Civic Spaces. Commercial use of civic spaces may be allowed for Outdoor Service Areas (4-3-1). 8. Photos. All photos are illustrative, not regulatory. 48 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5C Greenway Greenway with formal design. 1. Description A linear space three or more blocks in length for community gathering, bicycling, running, or strolling, defined by tree -lined streets typically forming a one-way couplet on its flanks and by the fronting buildings across the street. Versions of this civic space type have a street only on one side in response to site conditions that prevent the one-way couplet. Greenways serve an important role as a green connector between destinations. T4MS Key 1# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Formal or informal dominated by landscaping and trees with integral stormwater management capacity. b. Hardscape path c. Spatially defined by tree -lined streets and adjacent buildings. d. Typical uses include passive recreation, walking/running, and formal or informal seating 3. Standards a. Size Min. 3 continuous blocks in length b. Width 50' min. c. Shall be flanked by one-way streets on two longest sides. This standard is not required where the Greenway is adjacent to an existing arterial. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Wide Greenwav with informal design. Greenway with informal design. Article H: Zones and Standards 49 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5D Green Green shaped by adjacent 2 -story buildings. 1. Description A large space available for unstructured and limited amounts of structured recreation. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Accessory Structure(s) <5,000 gsf; fountains, benches b. Informal or formal with integral stormwater management capacity. c. Primarily planted areas with paths to and between recreation areas and civic buildings. d. Spatially defined by tree -lined streets and adjacent buildings. e. Typical uses include unstructured passive and active recreation, civic uses, and temporary commercial uses a. Size 300' x 300' min. b. Streets required on at least two sides of the Green. c. Facades on design sites attached to or across a street shall "front" on to the Green. 50 Article H: Zones and Standards --I Green with trees at edges. Green with trees throughout and small snack sales. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5E Plaza with higher -traffic uses. 1. Description A community -wide focal point primarily for civic purposes and commercial activities. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed a. Accessory Structure(s) <1,500 gsf; fountains, benches b. Formal, urban c. Hardscaped and planted areas in formal patterns. d. Spatially defined by buildings and tree -lined streets. e. Typical adjacent uses include civic uses and commercial uses in support of civic uses. Typical uses include civic uses and passive recreation. 3. Standards a. Size 100' x 100' min. b. Streets required on two of the Plaza's sides. c. Facades on design sites attached to or across a street shall "front" on to the Plaza. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Plaza fronted by commercial uses. Plaza flanked by civic and commercial uses. Article H: Zones and Standards 51 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5F Pocket Park/Plaza Pocket Plaza at a street corner fronted by commercial uses. 1. Description A small-scale space, serving the immediate neighborhood, available for informal activities in close proximity to neighborhood residences, and civic purposes, intended as intimate spaces for seating or dining. T3NE T3NG T4NS �_ T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Accessory Structures <200 gsf b. Informal or Formal, with integral stormwater management capacity. c. Combination of planted areas and hardscape. d. Spatially defined by building frontages and adjacent street trees. e. Walkways along edges or across space. f. Typical adjacent uses include civic uses, commercial uses in support of civic uses, and residential uses. Typical uses include civic uses and passive recreation and outdoor seating. andards a. Size 50' x 100' min. 52 Article H: Zones and Standards Pocket Park fronted by housing.. Pocket Plaza fronted by commercial and civic uses. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5G Playground Playground located as neighborhood amenity. 1. Description A small-scale space designed and equipped for the recreation of children. These spaces serve as quiet, safe places protected from the street and typically in locations where children do not have to cross any major streets. An open shelter, play structures, or interactive art and fountains may be included. Playgrounds may be included within all other civic space types. 1N T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Focused toward children b. Play structure, interactive art, and/or fountains c. Shade and seating provided d. May be fenced e. Spatially defined by trees with integral stormwater management capacity. f. Typical uses include active and passive recreation and casual seating. 3. Standards a. Size 40' x 60' min. Public Review Draft - September 2021 II:1 - I 1 0 1 illv 'illll�Ill1111 I I Playground within a neighborhood gathering area, fronted by houses. Playground with a neighborhood gathering area. Article H: Zones and Standards 53 Civic Space Type Standards 14 -2H -5H Community Garden Community Garden in a mid -block location. 1. Description A small-scale space designed as a grouping of garden plots available to nearby residents for small-scale cultivation. Community gardens may be fenced and may include a small accessory structure for storage. Community Gardens may be included within all other civic space types. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Accessory Structures <2,000 gsf b. Plant beds (in -ground or raised) c. Decorative fencing, when fencing is present d. Spatially defined by adjacent buildings and street trees. e. Typical uses include food production, passive creation. 3. Standards a. Size No minimum; within any design site as allowed by the zone. b. See Section 14 -2H -3C-1 (Community Garden) for use standards. 54 Article H: Zones and Standards Community Garden with at grade planting beds. Community Garden fronted by a variety of buildings. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Civic Space Type Standards 14-2H-51 Passage Passage providing access to residences. 1. Description A pedestrian pathway that extends from the public sidewalk into a civic space and/or across the block to another public sidewalk. The pathway is lined by non-residential Shopfronts and/or residential ground floors and pedestrian entries as allowed by the zone. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 2. General Character a. Formal, urban b. No accessory structure(s) c. Combination of hardscape and landscape planters d. Spatially defined by building frontages e. Trees and shrubs in containers and/or planters f. Typical adjacent uses include civic uses and commercial uses in support of civic uses in T4MS or ground floor residential uses in T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4NM; moveable seating and/or outdoor dining may be used in T4NM-0 and T4MS. Er- IMF a. Size 20' min. overall with 15' min. dear width between or through buildings b. Dooryards, porches, patios, and sidewalk dining not allowed to encroach into the minimum required width. c. See Sub -Section 14 -2H -9L (Passage) for additional standards. d. Ground floor residential in T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4MS (side street only and 60' min. from front of design site. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Passage providing access to retail shopfronts. #IA hill Illlllllllllllllll111 Passage linking residential design sites. Article H: Zones and Standards 55 Civic Space Type Standards 56 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-6: Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6A Purpose This Section sets forth standards for development of individual building types to achieve the intended physical character of each zone and provide housing choices and small businesses as amenities within walkable neighborhoods. 14 -2H -6B General Building Type Standards 1. Scale. Building Types are categorized into House -Scale buildings and Block -Scale buildings. The individual types within these two categories are determined by the intended physical character of each Form -Based Zone. See Figure 14 -2H -6B-1 (Example of House -Scale and Block -Scale Buildings) for further details. 2. Design Site Size. The design site size standards for each building type in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) generate pedestrian -oriented buildings that accommodate the automobile while not letting it visually dominate the fronts of buildings and streetscapes. The design site size standards identify the range of design site sizes on which the given building type is allowed to be built. 3. Building Types Per Design Site. Each design site shall contain only one primary building type, except as follows: A. Where allowed by the zone and as allowed in Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House), one Carriage House is allowed in addition to the primary building type; B. Certain building types may consist of multiple individual buildings per design site as specified in Item 2 of each building type. For an example of a building type where a design site may include multiple individual buildings, see Cottage Court (14 -2H -6H). 4. Building Types Per Parcel. More than one building type is allowed on a parcel that contains multiple design sites that meet the standards of this Section. See Figure 14 -2H -6B-2 (Example of Multiple Design Sites on an Existing Parcel). 5. Location of Frontage. Each building type shall have at least one frontage type along the front street, side street or a civic space. The Cottage Court building is only required to have a frontage type on the court. The primary building entrance shall be through said frontage type. 6. Diversity of Building Types. Except in the T4 MS zone, there shall be a mix of at least 2 different primary building types within each block, using only the types allowed in the zone. 7. Number of Units. The standard regarding the minimum number of units per building listed in Item 2 (Number of Units) only applies to residential uses. Where a building type is occupied by a nonresidential use, only the maximum number of units per building listed in Item 2 (Number of Units) applies. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 57 1 Building Type Standards House -Scale Buildings Main Body with side and rear Wings Block -Scale Buildings Main Body with rear Wing Main Body only Figure 14 -2H -6B-1: Example of House -Scale and Block -Scale Buildings 58 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front cu 12L a L Front I I I I I I I I I Front Existing parcel. Existing parcel proposed for three design sites. Existing parcel with three resulting primary buildings and accessory structures. The individual design sites are not required to be recorded as new parcels. Key - - Design Site Line Primary Building Type n Accessory Structure Figure 14 -2H -6B-?: Example of Multiple Design Sites on an Existing Parcel Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 59 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6C Carriage House A Carriage House utilizes a large dormer to create a unit over the garage. Carriage House with unit accessed off of a side street. Carriage House with unit accessed off a back yard. 60 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. An accessory structure located at the rear of a design site, above the garage, that provides a small residential unit (accessory apartment), home office space, or other small commercial or service use, as allowed by the zone. The Carriage House is an accessory building type, not a primary building type. b. Not allowed with a Cottage Court (14 -2H -6H) 2. Number of Units Units per Building 1 max. Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front Key -•-- ROW / Design Site Line • Accessory Structure ----- Setback Line Building Type 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height Max. Number of Stories T3NE T3NG 2 2 T4NS T4NM 2 2 T4MS 2 b. Main Body' • Width 32' max. Depth 24' max. 0 0 Separation from Primary 15' min. 0 Building2 c. Standards (1) Carriage House shall not be taller or have a larger footprint than the primary building to which it is accessory. (2) Carriage House must comply with the ownership and occupancy standards of Sub -Section 14 -4C -2A (Accessory Apartments). 1 Includes garage story. 2 Carriage House may be connected to primary building by an uninhabitable space including, but not limited to a breezeway. Front 4. Allowed Frontage Types Frontage type not required Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Side Street, alley or internal Q to design site. b. The main entrance shall not be through a garage. a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. Open Spac a. Private Open Space Not required. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 61 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6D House Large Two -and -a -half -story House Large with a wing. House Large with a projecting porch. House Large with engaged, wrap-around porch. 62 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A medium -to -large-sized detached building with one unit, medium -to -large setbacks, a rear yard, and located in a low - intensity walkable neighborhood. 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 1 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards 04 0 A 0 Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line ▪ Building Type ▪ Accessory Structure 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T3NE Max. Number of Stories 2.5 b. Main Body' Width 55' max. 0 Depth2 55' max. 0 c. Wing(s)' Width 20' max. 0 Depth 20' max. 0 Separation between wings 41) Front ru 171 Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type LJ Private Open Space 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or Passage. 0 6. Vehicle Access and Parking 15' min. a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with CO standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Offset from Main Body 5' min.3 d. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub - Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Public Review Draft - September 2021 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. Open Space a. Private Open Space Area Per Unit 400 sf min. 0 b. Standards (1) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (2) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (3) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Article H: Zones and Standards 63 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6E House Small IIIIfi aiiliiiii� Two-story House Small with a gable roof and projecting porch. Two-story House Small with engaged porch. Example of House Small with front stoop. 64 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A small -to -medium-sized detached building with one unit, small -to -medium setbacks, a rear yard, and located within a low -intensity walkable neighborhood. 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 1 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line ▪ Building Type ▪ Accessory Structure 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T3NG Max. Number of Stories 2.5 b. Main Body' Width 35' max. 0 Depth2 45' max. Q c. Wing(s)' Width 20' max. 0 Depth 20' max. 0 Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from Main Body 5' min.3 0 d. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub -Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Front v Ln Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type LJ Private Open Space 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or o Passage. 6. Vehicle Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. Open Space a. Private Open Space Area Per Unit 300 sf min. 0 b. Standards (1) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (2) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (3) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 65 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6F Duplex Side -by -Side A distinct gable roof gives variety to this Duplex Side -by -Side. This Duplex's raised porch sits between two bay windows Example of Duplex Side -by -Side. 66 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A small -to -medium-sized detached building with small -to - medium setbacks and a rear yard. The building consists of two side-by-side units, both facing the street and within a single -building massing. This type has the appearance of a small -to -medium single-family home and is scaled to fit within lower -intensity neighborhoods. 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 2 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS ■T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 0 F Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T3NE T3NG Max. Number of Stories 2.5 2.5 b. Main Body' Width 48' max. 0 Depth2 40' max. 0 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub -Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F / \ Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main entrance location at Front Street, Side Street, or 0 Passage. b. Each unit shall have an individual entry facing the street on, or within 10' of the front facade. 6. Vehicle Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. a. Private Open Space Area Per Unit 225 sf min. 0 Dimension 15' min. b. Standards (1) Open space not required if building is located within 1,500 linear feet of a civic space. (2) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (3) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (4) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 67 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6G Duplex Stacked Example of Duplex Stacked. Example of Duplex Stacked. Example of Duplex Stacked. 68 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A small -to -medium-sized detached building with small -to - medium setbacks and a rear yard. The building consists of two stacked units, both facing the street and within a single - building massing. This type has the appearance of a small - to -medium single-family home and is scaled to fit within lower -intensity neighborhoods. 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 2 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front Side Street Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height Building Type Max. Number of Stories T3NG 2.5 b. Main Body' Width Depth2 c. Wing(s)1 Width Depth Separation between wings Offset from Main Body 36' max. 40' max. 0 0 15' max. 20' max. 15' min. 5' min. 0 d. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub - Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F Y Front Side Street 0 Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type Li Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main entrance location at Front Street, Side Street, or Q Passage. b. Each unit shall have an individual entry facing the street on, or within 10' of the front facade. a. Driveway and parking location shah comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. a. Private Open Space Area Per Unit 225 sf min. 0 Dimension 15' min. b. Standards (1) Open space not required if building is located within 1,500 linear feet of a civic space. (2) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (3) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (4) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 69 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6H Cottage Court Small one-story Cottages are arranged around a well -landscaped space, creating an intimate court. Entries are arranged around a common space. One-story Cottage Court with small porches along court. 70 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A grouping of 3 to 9 small, detached buildings arranged to define a shared court open to the street. The shared court is common, private open space and takes the place of a private rear yard, thus becoming an important community -enhancing element. This type is scaled to fit within low -to -moderate -intensity neighborhoods and in non-residential contexts. b. Synonym: Bungalow Court 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 1 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 3 min.; 9 max. 1 Most Rear Cottage (i.e. Cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with up to 3 units House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M Key T# Allowed T# T4MS Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards A B D C 41) m0 A B A B irs A Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T3NE T3NG T4NS Max. Number of Stories 1.5 1.5 1.5 Max. Height to Mid -Point of Roof 18' 18' 18' b. Main Body' All Cottages Width 32' max. Depth 24' max. Most Rear Cottage 0 Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type U Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Access a. Shared court shall be accessible from front street. Q b. Main entrance location to units from shared court, Fro), Street, Side Street, or Passage. c. Pedestrian connections shall link all buildings to the public ROW, shared court, and parking areas. 6. Vehicle Access and Parking 0 a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Width 40' max. 0 Depth 24' max. b. Alley access is required if alley exists. O c. Spaces may be individually accessible by the units and/or a common parking area located at rear side of design site. Separation between Cottages 10' min. 0 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub - Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F 7. 0 e S•ace a. Private Open Space Width 15' min. 0 Depth 60' min. (3-4 units); 0 Size 70' min. (5-9 units) b. Standards (1) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (2) Shared court(s) may be used for stormwater management if designed as integral site element (rain garden or bioswale) and does not visually detract from the frontage of each cottage facing the court. (3) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 71 Building Type Standards 14-2H-61 Multiplex Small This Multiplex Small shares a single entry off of a forecourt, allowing maximum natural light and ventilation to the four units. Multiplex Small with a raised porch entry. Multiplex Small with stoop entry and balcony above. 72 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A medium-sized detached building that consists of 3 to 6 side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with one shared entry or individual entries along the front. This type has the appearance of a medium-sized single-family house and is scaled to fit as a small portion of low- to moderate -intensity neighborhoods. b. Synonym: Triplex to Sixplex 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 3 min.; 6 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front trl CU Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T3NG T4NS Max. Number of Stories 2.5 2.5 b. Main Body' Width 50' max. 0 Depth2 50' max. 0 c. Wing(s)' 1 Width 20' max. 0 Depth 30' max. 0 Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from Main Body 5' min. 0 d. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard 14 -2H -8E Stoop 14 -2H -8F Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type U Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or Passage b. Each unit may have an individual entry from the sidewalk Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. E a. Private Open Space • Area 225 sf min. 0 Dimension 15' min. b. Standards (1) Open space not required if building is located within 750 linear feet of a civic space. (2) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (3) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (4) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 73 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6J Multiplex Large This Multiplex Large is to read as a house, while using the corner to provide two separate entries. Multiplex Large with a recessed stoop entry. ,11RO 4R[ Multiplex Large with a projecting porch and balconies above. 74 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A medium -to -large-sized detached building that consists of 7 to 12 side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with one shared entry or individual entries along the front for the ground floor units. This type is scaled to fit in within moderate -intensity neighborhoods or as a small portion of lower -intensity neighborhoods. b. Synonym: Mansion Apartment 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 7 min.; 12 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height T4NM Max. Number of Stories 3.5 b. Main Body' Width 60' max. 0 Depth2 60' max. v v 17) v Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type Li Private Open Space EL) Ulv in 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or Passage b. Units located in the main body shall be accessed by a common entry along the front street. c. On corner design sites, units in a secondary wing may 0 enter from the side street. c. Wing(s)' 1 Width 20' max. 0 Depth 40' max. Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from Main Body 5' min. d. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 0 (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Stoop 14 -2H -8F Forecourt 14 -2H -8G Terrace 14 -2H -8J 6. Vehicle Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. a. Private Open Space Area 225 sf min. 0 Dimension 15' min. b. Standards (1) Open space not required if building is located within 750 linear feet of a civic space. (2) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (3) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (4) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 75 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6K Townhouse The massing of these Townhouses visually breaks up the facade. Four Townhouses joined under one hip roof. Townhouses with minimal separations between each. 76 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description A small -to -large-sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of 3 to 8 Townhouses placed side-by-side. Each Townhouse consists of 1 unit or, up to 3 stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. This type is typically located within moderate -to - high intensity neighborhoods, or near a neighborhood main street. Synonym: Rowhouse 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 1 max. 3 max. in T4NM-O; T4MS Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. House -Scale Building, 2-3 individual Townhouses max. per row T3NE T4NS T4N M T4MS Block -Scale Building, 4-8 individual Townhouses max. per row T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key I T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards 0 4-0 Front Street Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Building Type Accessory Structure 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height Max. Number of Stories T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 0 Front Street Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Frontage Type Setback Line I:i Private Open Space 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Dooryard b. Main Body' Stoop 18' min.; 30' max. Width 0 Depth2 50' max. 0 Max. Width per building 90' 120' 100' 200' 0 c. Wing(s)1 Width 15' max. 0 Depth 15' max. 0 Separation between wings 8' min. d. Standards 14 -2H -8E 14 -2H -8F Terrace 14 -2H -8j 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or Q Passage b. Each unit shall have an individual entry facing a street. 6. Vehicle Access and Pa 0 a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. i d (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) In T4NM-0 and T4MS, each Townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet Public Review Draft - September 2021 Q b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. 0 e S•ace a. Private Open Space Area Per Primary Building 64 sf min. 0 Dimension 8' min. b. Standards (1) Driveways shall not be included in private open space calculation. (2) Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building. (3) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Article H: Zones and Standards 77 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6L Courtyard Building Small Single -story Courtyard Building with entries at a common space that is well landscaped. Single -story Courtyard Building. Two-story Courtyard Building. 78 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A building that consists of multiple attached and/or stacked units, accessed from a shared courtyard. The shared court is common, private open space and takes the place of a rear yard. This type is typically integrated as a small portion of lower -intensity neighborhoods or more consistently into moderate -to -high-intensity neighborhoods. b. Synonym: Courtyard Apartment 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 10 min.; 16 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.1 1 Primary building may be designed as up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. House -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM Key T# Allowed T4MS T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards L_ Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing c. Height T4NS T4N M Max. Number of Stories 2.5 3.5 d. Main Body' Width 100' max. 0 Depth2 100' max. 0 e. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub -Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by five feet 4. Allowed Frontage Types Porch Projecting 14 -2H -8C Porch Engaged 14 -2H -8D Stoop 14 -2H -8F Terrace 14 -2H -8J The above frontage types are also allowed within courtyard(s) in compliance with courtyard size requirements. I/iN 0 Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type U Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Access a. Main Entrance Location at Courtyard, Front street, Side Q Street or Passage a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. 0 e S•ace a. Private Open Space Width Depth 30' min. 50' min. 0 b. Standards (1) Courtyard(s) shall be accessible from the front street. (2) Multiple courtyards are required to be connected via a passage through or between buildings. (3) Building shall define at least three sides of the courtyard. (4) Courtyard(s) may be used for stormwater management if designed as integral site element (rain garden or bioswale) and does not visually detract from the frontage of each building facing the courtyard. (5) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 79 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6M Courtyard Building Large Three-story Courtyard has unique entries on ground floor and second floor; common space is well landscaped. Two-story Courtyard Building. Two-story Courtyard Building. 80 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A building that consists of multiple attached and/or stacked units, accessed from one or more shared courtyards. The shared court is common, private open space. This type is typically integrated into moderate -to - high -intensity neighborhoods and on Main Streets contexts. b. Synonym: Courtyard Apartment 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building 18 min.; 24 max. Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.1 Primary building may be designed as up to three adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. Block -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Building Type Standards Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Buildin: Size and Massing a. Height T4MS Max. Number of Stories 3.5 b. Main Body' Width 100' max. 0 Depth 140' max. 0 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 4. Allowed Frontage Types Stoop 14 -2H -8F Shopfront 14-2H-81 Terrace 14 -2H -8J Gallery 14 -2H -8K The above frontage types are also allowed within courtyard(s) in compliance with courtyard size requirements. Front Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Setback Line Frontage Type H Private Open Space 5. Pedestrian Acces a. Main Entrance Location at Courtyard, Front street, Sidee Street or Passage 6. Vehicle Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. b. Alley access is required if alley exists. a. Private Open Space Width 30' min. a Depth 70' min. 0 b. Standards (1) Courtyard(s) shall be accessible from the front street. (2) Multiple courtyards are required to be connected via a passage through or between buildings. (3) Building shall define at least three sides of the courtyard. (4) Courtyard(s) may be used for stormwater management if designed as integral site element (rain garden or bioswale) and does not visually detract from the frontage of each building facing the courtyard. (5) Required private open space may only be paved with decorative paving. (6) Ground floor of building(s) shall align with at least 75% of the courtyard(s) perimeter. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 81 Building Type Standards 14 -2H -6N Main Street Building MAN -ti Multiple Main Street Buildings join to form a block, with retail below and residential uses above encouraging walkability. Awnings articulate ground floor retail, with offices above. Example of a Main Street Building. 82 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description a. A small -to -large-sized building, typically attached, but may be detached, intended to provide a vertical mix of uses with ground -floor retail, office or service uses and upper -floor service or residential uses. This type makes up the primary component of neighborhood and downtown main streets, therefore being a key component to providing walkability. 2. Number of Units Units per Primary Building Unrestricted Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max. 1 Number of units restricted by Iowa City's adopted Building Code, Fire Code , and Housing Code standards. Block -Scale Building T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 T4MS • Building Type Standards A 0 ( A ) ( Front Street Side Street Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line • Building Type Setback Line 3. Building Size and Massing a. Height ■ Max. Number of Stories 3.5 b. Main Body' 1 Width 200' max. 0 Depth 120' max. 0 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub -Section 14 -2H -6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 4. Allowed Frontage Types Dooryard' 14 -2H -8E Stoop' 14 -2H -8F Forecourt 14 -2H -8G Maker Shopfrontl 14 -2H -8H Shopfront 14-2H-81 Terrace 14 -2H -8J Gallery 14 -2H -8K Arcade 14 -2H -8L 1 Only on Neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60' from front of design site. V Front Street ✓ v (1) Key ---- ROW / Design Site Line Frontage Type Setback Line 5. Pedestrian Access a. Upper floor units shall be accessed by a common entry 0 along the front street. b. Ground floor units may have individual entries along the° Neighborhood (side) street if min. 60' from Main Street. c. On corner design sites, units may enter from the side 0 street. 6. Vehicle Access and Parking a. Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 0 b. Alley access is required if alley exists. 7. 0 e S•ace a. Private Open Space Not required Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 83 Building Type Standards 84 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-7: Architectural Element Standards 14 -2H -7A Purpose This Section establishes standards that supplement the zones standards to further refine the intended building form and physical character. 14 -2H -7B Overview 1. Massing and Facade Articulation Standards. Facades on a street or civic space shall be designed in compliance with the standards of this Section. 2. General Standards. a. On corner buildings, front and side street facades shall have equal architectural treatment. b. Ground floor glazing on residential buildings shall be 30% minimum and on Shopfronts 75% minimum. c. Stairs must be integrated into the conditioned floor area of the building, as defined in the Iowa City Building Code, and cannot protrude beyond the building footprint. In addition, stairs must be designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Types). 3. Photos. All photos are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 85 Architectural Element Standards 14 -2H -7C Tripartite Facade Articulation fxrnr111ie trip arrte facade rtirik Gan. A distinct base, middle, and top. Figure 14 -2H -7C-1 • Diagram of Tripartite Facade 86 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description Tripartite architecture uses architectural elements to delineate the base, middle and top. The ground floor facade composes the base. The building element and features above or including the uppermost occupied floor, including parapet walls and eaves, compose the top. 2. Applicability Buildings of at least 2 stories 3. Standards / General Character Requires three distinct sections: a. Base. The base of a building shall be distinguished Q from the middle through the use of string courses, cornice expression, or installation or awnings or canopies. b. Middle. For a building that is 2 stories or less, a middle section is not required; only a top and a base. 0 c. Top. For a building that is 3 or more stories, the top Q shall be delineated with some form of cornice expression, either with trim material, brackets and panels, eave details, or accentuated masonry. d. Where the exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of a building, the materials must be separated by a horizonal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, or band board or other trim appropriate to the building materials being used. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Architectural Element Standards 14 -2H -7D Architectural Recession(s) Example of architectural recessions that extend from base to top. Example of a modulated facade. Figure 14 -2H -7D-1: Diagram of Architectural Recessions Public Review Draft - September 2021 1. Description Architectural recessions modulate the apparent size and scale of a building by recessing a portion(s) of the facade as an architectural elements) or space(s) from the plane(s): a recessed entry from the sidewalk, a loggia or recessed balcony cut into the plane of the facade. 2. Applicabilit Buildings of at least 2 stories and over 50' long, except for the House Large (14 -2H -6D), House Small (14 -2H -6E,) Duplex Side -by -Side (14 -2H -6F), and Duplex Stacked (14 -2H -6G) building types. 3. Standards / General Character Recession Height If ground floor is recessed, 0 recession shall extend through the building mass Recession Width Buildings 50'-100' long Buildings > 100' long 12' min. (distributed in up to 2 Q locations) 20' min. (distributed in at least 2 locations) Depth 16" min. Article H: Zones and Standards 87 0 Architectural Element Standards 14 -2H -7E Corner Element Mixed-use building with a Corner Element. r 111 11 ill I. It. Div 11 fll II II Ilk, 1111111 Ilgip! .L. ■ter Residential building with a Corner Element. 0 Figure 14 -2H -7E- 7: Diagram of Corner Element 88 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description A corner element gives visual importance to corner and further shape the public realm. 2. Applicability Optional architectural element for Main Street Building Types (14 -2H -6N) where the building is over 75' long 3. Standards / General Character Footprint 10'x10'min. 0 Projection from facade 3' min. 0 Top story height 14' max.1 0 1 Corner element may exceed maximum height allowed by the zone by up to 10'. when the highest story on the building is at the maximum height allowed by the zone. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Architectural Element Standards 14 -2H -7F Rooftop Room Example of a Rooftop Room. Example of a Rooftop Room. 1. Description A Rooftop Room is a small enclosed or unenclosed room on the uppermost roof of house -scale buildings. 2. Applicability Optional architectural element as allowed by Item 3 (Building Size and Massing) of the building type. 3. Standards / General Character a. Standards Interior clear dimensions 12' max. 0 Floor -to -Ceiling Height 10' max. 0 Overall Height 14' max. 0 Side setback from building edge 5' min. 0 Rear setback from building edge 15' min. 0 Opening or glazing on each side 75% min. of room b.General Character I. (1) Materials shall be consistent with the primary building. (2) Exterior access allowed in compliance with Title 17 Building and Housing Code, and Title 7, the Fire Code, Chapter 7-1 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances. VOMP Figure 14 -2H -7E-7: Diagram of Rooftop Room (3) Roof shall be consistent with roof style of primary building. (4) Openings shall be vertically proportioned or square. (5) Openings may be glazed. (6) Shutters, when present, shall be of sufficient width to cover the adjacent opening. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 89 Architectural Element Standards 90 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-8: Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8A Purpose This Section establishes standards for all frontages. Frontages are the components of a building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (yard or building). 14 -2H -8B General Frontage Type Standards 1. Nomenclature. The names of the frontage types indicate their particular configuration or function and are not intended to limit uses within the associated building. For example, a porch may be used by non-residential uses including, but not limited to a restaurant or office as allowed by the zone. 2. Allowable Frontage Types. a. Frontage types not listed in Item 8 (Frontages) of the zone are not allowed in that zone. b. Each building may have multiple frontage types in compliance with the allowed types in Item 4 (Allowed Frontage Types) of each building type. Frontage types not listed in Item 4 (Allowed Frontage Types) of the building type are not allowed on that building type. 3. Location. Each frontage type shall be located in compliance with the facade zone per Item 5 (Building Placement) of the zone (Section 14-2H-2) and with the building type location of frontage standard (Sub -Section 14 -2H -6B-5). 4. Entries and Access. a. b. Along street frontages and passages, sliding doors are prohibited as building entries. Sliding doors may not be used as a primary means of entrance to any building or residential unit. Access to entrance doors of individual dwelling units located above the ground floor level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are not allowed as the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the ground level floor of the building. This provision does not preclude the use of fire egress structures. c. Dwelling units on the ground floor and their entrances must be connected to adjacent public right of ways, and to parking areas and other on-site facilities. 5. Diversity of Frontage Types. Except in the T4MS zone, there shall be a mix of at least two different frontage types within each block, using only the types allowed in the zone. 6. Standards. Standards are stated for the front of a design site and are to be adjusted for side street facades in compliance with the setbacks of the zone. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 91 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8C Porch Projecting Example of a Projecting Porch. Example of a Projecting Porch. Example of a glassed -in Projecting Porch. 92 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is set back from the front design site line with a covered structure encroaching into the front setback. The resulting setback area can be defined by a fence or hedge to spatially define the edge of the street. The Porch may be one or two stories and is open on three sides. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM Key T# Allowed T4MS T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 • Frontage Type Standards Setback 14-0 ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Width, Clear 15' min.' CO Depth, Overall Elevated <12" from average finish grade Elevated >_12" from average finish grade 8' min. 6' min. 0 Height, Clear 8' min. 0 Stories 2 stories max.1 Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. 0 Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). 0 1 Clear width reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14 -2H -6H) building type. Story height maximum reduced to 1 story. Setback 0 0 ROW Street 3. Miscellaneous a. Porch shall be open on three sides and have a roof. Clear glass may be installed between the porch columns if the minimum size of individual panes is 12". Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 93 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8D Porch Engaged Example of an Engaged Porch. Example of a 2 -story Engaged Porch. Example of an Engaged Porch. 94 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description A portion of the main facade of the building projects into the front setback to create an area for a covered structure that projects from the rest of the facade. The Porch may project into the front setback. The resulting yard may be defined by a fence or hedge to spatially define the edge of the street. The Porch may be one or two stories and may have two or three adjacent sides that are engaged to the building with at least one side open. 1N T3NG T4NS T4NM Key T4MS T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Width, Clear 15' min. Depth, Overall Elevated <12" from average finish grade Elevated >_12" from average finish grade Height, Clear Stories Q 8' min. 6' min. I I I I Setback 0 0 ROW Strees 3. Miscellaneous a. Up to 20% of the building facade and porch may project beyond the front setback line into the encroachment area for the zone. b. Porch shall be open at least on one side and have a roof. 0 c. Clear glass may be installed between the porch columns 8' min.if the minimum size of individual panes is 12". 2 stories max. Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. Q Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). 4 Encroachment Area of Building Facade Depth 6' max. Width 1/3 min. of Q overall build- ing facade' 1 May not exceed Porch clear width ( Q ) Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 95 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8E Dooryard Example of residential Dooryard. Example of commercial Dooryard. Example of residential Dooryard. 96 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is set back from the front design site line, which is defined by a low wall, hedge, or other allowed screening, creating a small private area between the sidewalk and the facade. Each Dooryard is separated from adjacent Dooryards. The Dooryard may be raised or at grade. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 A Frontage Type Standards Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line 2. Size Depth, Clear 10' min.' 0 Length 15' min. 0 Distance between Glazing 4' max. Depth of Recessed Entries 12" max. Q Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. 0 Height of Dooryard Fence/Wall 36" max. above Finish Level Utility Easement Area as identified by the Q applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). 1 Reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14 -2H -6H) building type. Setback ROW Street 3. Miscellaneous a. For live/work, retail, service, and restaurant uses, the Shopfront Frontage Type is to be applied. b. Each Dooryard shall provide access to only one ground floor entry. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 97 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8F Stoop Example of a Stoop with paired entries. Example of Stoops both perpendicular and parallel to the ROW Example of Stoop providing access to multiple units. 98 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is near the front design site line with steps to an elevated entry. The Stoop is elevated above the sidewalk to provide privacy along the sidewalk - facing rooms. Stairs or ramps from the Stoop may lead directly to the sidewalk or may be parallel to the sidewalk. T3NE T3NG 14NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Width, Clear 5' min. Q Depth, Clear Height, Clear Stories 3' min. 0 8' min. b. Ramps shall be parallel to facade or along the side of the Q building. Setback ROW Street 3. Miscellaneous a. Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building facade. 1 story max. Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" min. c. Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter Q from the elements. Depth of Recessed Entries 12" max. 0 d. Gates are not allowed. Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). e. All doors shall face the street. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 99 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8G Forecourt Example of a Forecourt with Shopfronts. Example of a Forecourt in a mixed-use building. Example of a Forecourt. 100 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line and a portion is set back, extending the public realm into the design site for an entry court or shared garden space for housing, or as an additional shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and service areas. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Width, Clear 15' min. Q Depth, Clear 15' min. Ratio, Height to Width 2:1 max. Height from Sidewalk 12" max. co Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). Figure 14 -2H -8G-1: Diagram for Solar Orientation width (w) Setback ROW Street 3. Miscellaneous a. May be utilized to group several entries at a common elevation in compliance with the zone ground floor finish level standards. b. The proportions and orientation of these spaces shall comply with Figure 14 -2H -8G-1 below for solar orientation and user comfort. c. Other frontage types as allowed in the zone may be applied to the front of the building and/or within the Forecourt. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 101 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8H Maker Shopfront Example of a Maker Shopfront. Example of a Maker Shopfront. Example of a Maker Shopfront. 102 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line with an at -grade or elevated entrance from the sidewalk. This type is only allowed on side streets from the adjacent main street and is intended for industrial artisan businesses to show their activity to people passing by on the sidewalk, as well as for retail sales of products made on-site. The Maker Shopfront may include a decorative roll -down or sliding door, including glazing and an awning that overlaps the sidewalk. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM E Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback/ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Distance between Glazing 10" max. Q Ground Floor Glazing between 50% min. Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling Height Depth of Recessed Entries 3. Awning Depth No max. 5' min. 0 Setback from Curb 2' min. O Height, Clear 8' min. 0 1 1 1 Setback/ROW Street 4. Miscellaneous AIM a. Rounded and hooped awning are not allowed. b. Glazing shall be clear and highly transparent. Reflective (mirrored) or colored glass is not permitted. Low -E glazing will reduce transparency, so is discouraged, but if used, the glass chosen should have a high visible light transmittance and low reflectivity. Such windows must allow views into the interior space Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 103 Frontage Type Standards 14-2H-81 Shopfront Example of Shopfronts. Example of a Shopfront. Example of a Shopfront. 104 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line with at -grade entrance along the sidewalk. This type is intended for service, retail, or restaurant use and includes substantial glazing between the Shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback/ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Distance between Glazing 2" max. Ground Floor Glazing between Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling Height 75% min. Depth of Recessed Entries 5' max. Shopfront Base 6" min.; 30" ma() Depth 5' min. 0 Setback from Curb 2' min. 0 Height, Clear 8' min. Setback/ROW Street 4. Miscellaneous a. Residential types of windows are not allowed. b. Rounded and hooped awning are not allowed. c. Glazing shall be clear and highly transparent. Reflective (mirrored) or colored glass is not permitted. Low -E glazing will reduce transparency, so is discouraged, but if used, the glass chosen should have a high visible light transmittance and low reflectivity. Such windows must allow views into the interior space Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 105 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8J Terrace Example of a Terrace with low -wall seating. Example of a Terrace. Example of a residential Terrace. 106 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade is at or near the front design site line with steps leading to an elevated area providing public circulation along the facade to connect multiple entrances. This type is used to provide outdoor areas along the sidewalk for housing or to accommodate an existing or intended grade change for retail, service or office uses. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 1 J Frontage Type Standards Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line 2. • 1 Depth of Terrace Residential Non-residential Setback 0 ROW Street 3. Miscellaneous O a. Terrace shall also follow the standards for the Shopfront 8' min. Frontage Type, when the Shopfront Frontage Type is an allowed frontage type in the zone. 12' min. Finish Level above Sidewalk 24" max. O b. Where the frontage type requires the ground floor to be Distance between Stairs 25' max. Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9). (.� flush with the sidewalk, the terrace shall be considered to O be the sidewalk. c. Low walls used as seating are allowed. d. Terrace shall be along the facade to connect multiple entrances. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 107 14 -2H -8K Gallery Frontage Type Standards A deep one-story Gallery providing covered outdoor dining. Example of a Gallery. A two-story Gallery with second story uncovered. 108 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site line and an at -grade covered structure, typically articulated with colonnade or arches, covers an area not in the right-of-way. This type may be one or two stories. When used in nonresidential settings, the Shopfront Type is included; when used in residential settings, Stoops, Dooryards, and Forecourts are included. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Setback Sidewalk I Sidewalk Street ROW Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Depth, Clear 8' min. Ground Floor Height, Clear Setback • ■I Sidewalk i Sidewalk Street ROW 3. Miscellaneous 0 a. Galleries shall also follow the standards for the 12' min. Q Shopfront Frontage Type. Height 2 stories max. 0 b. Habitable space 0 0 c. Second story of Gallery may be used as deck and may be covered by a roof. 0 d. Galleries shall have a consistent depth. e. Galleries are not allowed to project over the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 109 Frontage Type Standards 14 -2H -8L Arcade Example of an Arcade. Example of an Arcade. Example of an Arcade. 110 Article H: Zones and Standards 1. Description The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site line and the upper floor(s) contain habitable space overlapping the area below not in the right-of-way. When used in nonresidential settings, the Shopfront Type is included; when used in residential settings, Stoops, Dooryards, and Forecourts are included. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Frontage Type Standards Sidewalk I Sidewalk Street ROW Key ---- ROW / Property Line Setback Line Depth, Clear 10' min. 0 Ground Floor Height, Clear 12' min. a Height 3 stories max. 0 3. Miscellaneous a. Arcades shall also follow the standards for the Shopfront Frontage Type. Q b. Habitable space c. Arcades shall have a consistent depth. d. Arcades are not allowed to project over the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Public Review Draft - September 2021 ■ ■ Sidewalk j Sidewalk Street ROW Article H: Zones and Standards 111 112 Article H: Zones and Standards Frontage Type Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Section 14-2H-9: Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9A Purpose 1. The provisions of this Section are established to accomplish the following: 2. Provide a range of thoroughfare types to support the intended physical character of each zone. 3. Provide only thoroughfares that are multi -modal and interconnected in a network that disperses vehicular traffic with multiple routes to destinations. 4. Ensure that streets serve the needs of all users (automobiles, transit and service vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists). 14 -2H -9B General Thoroughfare Type Standards 1. This Section identifies the allowed thoroughfare types consistent with the intended physical character of each Form -Based Zone. 2. The individual standards of each thoroughfare type in this Section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision process. In considering adjustments, the Director of Public Works and the Director shall find that the proposed adjustment meets the following criteria: a. Supports the intended physical character of the zone abutting the thoroughfare(s). b. Maintains multiple modes of transportation (transit, pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles). c. Maintains sidewalks at least six feet wide. d. Maintains on -street parking for a majority of each block face. e. Maintains regularly spaced street trees. 3. Street trees shall be installed in the right-of-way by the owner. a. Where adjacent property will remain undeveloped, street trees shall be planted prior to acceptance of public improvements. b. Where adjacent property will be developed, trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each adjacent lot, with the following exception: (1) Where street trees cannot be installed prior to occupancy or commencement of a use due to seasonal conditions that may reduce survivability, the building official may grant a delay of installation until the seasonal calendar dates of June 1 or November 1, whichever occurs first, and the property owner must place in an escrow account, established with the City, an amount which will cover one hundred ten percent (110%) of the estimated cost of plants and installation. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 113 14 -2H -9C Main Street with Median 1. Application Movement Type Slow 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 100' Q Pavement Width 50' (25' each side) Q T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS 114 Article H: Zones and Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@ 10' 0 Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 7' 0 Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', marked 0 Median/Turn Pocket 10' 0 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter Planter Type 7' x 10' tree well Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type 20' min. sidewalk 0 Curb Type Key T# Allowed Raised T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9D Main Street without Median 0 0 0 0 0 K ) t 0 1. Application Movement Type Slow 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 80' 0 Pavement Width 36' 0 T3NE T3NG T4NS T4N M T4MS Public Review Draft - September 2021 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@ 10' 0 Bicycle Lanes None Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', marked 0 Median/Turn Pocket None 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter Planter Type 7' x 10' tree well Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type 20' min. sidewalk 0 Curb Type Key T# Allowed Raised T# Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 115 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9E Avenue 2 without Parking 0 South sr 0 0 t at at at i 0 O 0 Fy 0 0 4 1. Application Movement Type 0 i North 4. Public Frontage Assembly Slow Drainage Collection Type 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 100' 0 Pavement Width 35' (17'-6" each side) 0 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@ 11' Bicycle Lanes 2@6' 0 Parking Lanes None Median/Turn Pocket T3NE 20' T3NG T4NS T4NM 116 Article H: Zones and Standards T4MS Curb and gutter Planter Type Continuous planter; 15'-6" min. one side; 11'-6" min. one side 0 Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type Sidewalk; 6' min. one side'; 10' min. one side' 0 © Curb Type Raised Utility Easement 15' from ROW 0 1 Plus 1' clearance from utility easement. Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9F Avenue 2 with Future Parking 0 South r 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 } 1. Application Movement Type Nora 4. Public Frontage Assembly Slow Drainage Collection Type 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 100' Pavement Width 50' (25' each side) 0 0 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@ 11' Curb and gutter Planter Type Continuous planter; 8' min. one side; 4' min. one side Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. 0 Walkway Type Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 6' 0 Parking Lanes (Future) 2 @ 7' 0 Median/Turn Pocket T3NE 20' `T3NG T4NS T4NM Public Review Draft - September 2021 T4MS Sidewalk; 6' min. one side'; 10' min. one side' 0 Curb Type Raised Utility Easement 15' from ROW ' Plus 1' clearance from utility easement. Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 117 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9G Avenue 3 West 1. Application Movement Type Slow 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 100' 0 Pavement Width 34' 0 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@ 11' 0 Bicycle Lanes 2@6' 0 Parking Lanes None Median/Turn Pocket None T3NG T4NS T4NM 118 Article H: Zones and Standards T4MS East 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter Planter Type Continuous planter; 24' min. one side; 18' min. one side 0 Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type Sidewalk; 10' min. one side; 5' min. one side 0 Sidewalk/Planting' 34' min. one side; 20'-6" min. one side 0 Curb Type Raised Utility Easement 15' from ROW 0 1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement. Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9H Avenue 4 West 0 0 < > 0 0 0 < > 0 0 0 0 1. Application Movement Type Free 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 87' 0 Pavement Width 33' 0 T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM Public Review Draft - September 2021 T4MS East 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 2@11' 0 Bicycle Lanes None Parking Lanes None Median/Turn Pocket 11', painted 0 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Swale Planter Type 24' min. continuous planter 0 Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type Sidewalk; 10' min. one side; 5' min. one side 0 Curb Type None Utility Easement Key T# Allowed 15' from ROW T# 0 Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 119 14 -2H -9I Neighborhood Street 1 with Parking both sides Thoroughfare Type Standards 0 0 0 0 < >< 0 0 0 < >< 0 1. Application Movement Type Yield 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 70' a Pavement Width 28' 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 1 @ 12' 0 < ) 0 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter Planter Type 14' min. continuous planter 0 Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type 5' min. sidewalk' 0 0 Curb Type Bicycle Lanes None Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', unmarked Median/Turn Pocket None T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM 120 Article H: Zones and Standards T4MS Raised Where required, one side is open space without 0 buildings in compliance with the Regulating Plan maps in the comprehensive plan. 0 Utility Easement 10' from ROW 0 1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement. 2 6 feet minimum if near park, civic space or school. Key „ Allowed T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9J Neighborhood Street 2 with Parking one side 1 0 0 0 0 0 1. Application Movement Type Yield 2. Overall Widths ROW Width 70' 0 Pavement Width 0 0 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter Planter Type 14' min. continuous planter a 26' 0 Landscape Type 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 1 @ 18' Bicycle Lanes None Parking Lanes 1 @ 8', unmarked Median/Turn Pocket None T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM Public Review Draft - September 2021 T4MS Trees at 30' o.c. avg. Walkway Type 5' min. sidewalk' 0 Curb Type Raised Where required, one side is open space without 0 buildings in compliance with the Regulating Plan maps in the comprehensive plan. 0 Utility Easement 10' from ROW a 1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement. 2 6 feet minimum if near park, civic space or school. Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 121 14 -2H -9K Alley 1. Application Movement Type 2. Overall Widths a. Widths Yield Pavement Width 20' 0 b. Additional Standards • ' (1) A chamfered corner of 5' is required where two alleys connect. (2) Garage doors shall be setback min. 3' from ROW; max. 5' (3) Pedestrians share 20' section with vehicles and bicycles. T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS 122 Article H: Zones and Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes 1 @ 20' 0 Bicycle Lanes None Parking Lanes None Median/Turn Pocket None 4. Public Frontage Assembly Drainage Collection Type Valley gutter Planter Type Planter min. 5' x 10' between driveways 0 Landscape Type Trees at 50' o.c. avg. Walkway Type None 0 Curb Type Key T# Allowed Rolled or flush T# Not Allowed Public Review Draft - September 2021 Thoroughfare Type Standards 14 -2H -9L Passage 1. Application Movement Type 2. Overall Widths Pedestrian/Bicycle ROW Width 20' a Pavement Width 10' a b. Additional Standards (1) Side/front street adjoining design sites to comply with Section 14-2H-9 (Frontage Standards). (2) Pedestrians share 10' section with bicycles. (3) See Sub -Section 14 -2H -6J (Passage) for additional standards. (4) Passage shall be open to the public at all times. T3NE T3NGEMI T4NM T4MS Public Review Draft - September 2021 3. Lane Assembly Traffic Lanes None Bicycle Lanes 10', unmarked 0 Parking Lanes None Median/Turn Pocket None 4. Public Frontage Assembly Planter Type Continuous planter min. 5' wide between access to design sites 0 Landscape Type Trees at 50' o.c. Walkway Type Key T# Allowed Multipurpose path T# Not Allowed Article H: Zones and Standards 123 124 Article H: Zones and Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 14-2H-10: Affordable Housing Incentives 14 -2H -10A Purpose The purpose of this section is to: 1. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City; 2. Encourage the distribution of affordable housing throughout all areas of the City; 3. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce; 4. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels; 5. To reduce the number of housing cost -burdened households; and 6. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 125 Affordable Housing Incentives 14 -2H -10B Eligibility and Incentive Provisions Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this Section shall apply in all Form - Based Zones that allow residential uses. Owners that provide Affordable Housing not required pursuant to the Affordable Housing Annexation Policy or the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policies may utilize the following incentives: 1. Parking Reduction. No parking spaces shall be required for Affordable Housing. 2. Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by 25% if all additional units are Affordable Housing. 3. Minor Adjustments to certain "Zone Standards" (14-2H-2). One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved in buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up 15'. This provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new Civic Space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of 25'. b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%. c. Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to 20%. 4. Minor Adjustments to certain "Building Type Standards" (14-2H-6). One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%. b. Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the Building Height to exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form; Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5'. 5. Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards" described in subsection B2c and "Building Type Standards" described in subsection B2d may be administratively approved where Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50 percent (50%) or less of the Area Median Income. 126 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 Affordable Housing Incentives 14 -2H -10C Definitions For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms: 1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner -occupied affordable housing" and/or "affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein. 2. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household. 3. INCOME -ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner -occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets, excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households. 4. OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an income eligible household. 5. RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and TIM-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the assets. 14 -2H -10D General Requirements 1. Methods of Achieving Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing may be provided through one or both of the following methods: a. Onsite owner -occupied affordable housing; or b. Onsite affordable rental housing. 2. Affordable Housing Agreement and Deed Restriction. Upon approval of an affordable housing incentive, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize and detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing incentive. The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction memorializing these obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at the Owner's cost. 3. Term of Affordability. An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than twenty (20) years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed restriction described below. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 127 Affordable Housing Incentives 4. Remedy. Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules of this Article is a violation of this Article. 14 -2H -10E Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing Owner -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14 -2H -10D and the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements. a. Dwelling Unit Size and Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City Manager or designee. Where a housing development contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit, the percentage of affordable dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal to the percentage of non -set-aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms. b. Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee. c. Timing of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the development. 2. Program Requirements. a. Occupancy. An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence. b. Income Verification. The Owner shall determine annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified by the City prior to close of the sale. c. Rental Restriction. An owner -occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit. d. Sale Restrictions. The following sales restrictions apply to all owner -occupied affordable housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the sale. (1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an income -eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. (2) Sale Price: The sale price of any owner -occupied affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the original income -eligible household purchaser or the HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions: 128 Article H: Zones and Standards (a) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale. (b) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a licensed real estate agent. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Affordable Housing Incentives (c) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly issued building permit. (d) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this chapter. 14 -2H -10F Affordable Rental Housing Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14 -2H -10D, the development requirements for owner -occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection El of this section, and the following: 1. Program Requirements. a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either: (1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or (2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually. b. Occupancy. Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households. If a tenant household is initially deemed an income -eligible household, but is subsequently deemed to no longer be income -eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant household shall still be considered an income -eligible household until they vacate that unit. However, upon the vacation of that unit, the subsequent tenant must be an income -eligible household. c. Income Verification. Owner shall annually verify that the affordable rental housing units are occupied by income -eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, Owner shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, Owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household. d. Owner Verification of Compliance. The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit. 14 -2H -10G Administrative Rules: The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website. Public Review Draft - September 2021 Article H: Zones and Standards 129 Affordable Housing Incentives 130 Article H: Zones and Standards Public Review Draft - September 2021 TITLE 14. ZONING CODE CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS ARTICL = . INT - PRETATION AND SCOPE 14-1B-1: INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS: A. In interpreting and applying the provisions of this title, such provisions shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare. B. This title is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between parties, except if this title imposes a greater restriction, this title shall control. C. In case of any inconsistency between the text of this title and any heading, drawing, table, figure, or illustration, the text shall control. D. If the provisions of this title are inconsistent with those of the state or federal government, the more restrictive provision will control to the extent permitted by law. E. If the provisions of this title are inconsistent with one another or if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the city, the provision that is more specific to the situation will control. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, the more restrictive provision will control. F. Whenever reference is made to a resolution, ordinance, statute, regulation, or document, it shall be construed as a reference to the most recent edition of such regulation (as amended), resolution, ordinance, statute, regulation or document, unless otherwise specifically stated. G. Whenever a provision appears requiring the head of a department or another officer or employee of the city to perform an act or duty, that provision shall be construed as authorizing the department head or officer to delegate that responsibility to others over whom they have authority. H. The applicable standards of this Title apply so as to not require stating the phrase "and all applicable standards" throughout this Title. 14-1B-2: RULES OF WORD CONSTRUCTION: A. Unless otherwise specifically indicated, lists of items or examples that use terms such as "including", "such as", or similar language are intended to provide examples, not to be exhaustive of all possibilities. B. Words in the present tense include the future tense. The reverse is also true. Words in the singular include the plural. The reverse is also true, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. 14-1B C. The words "shall", "shall not", "must", "must not", "will", "will not", and "may not" are mandatory. The word "may" is permissive. The word "should" is advisory and identifies guidance provided by the City in implementation of these standards. D. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following conjunctions shall be interpreted as follows: 1. "And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply; 2. "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply; and 3. "Either/or" indicates that the connected items or provisions apply singly but not in combination. 14-1B-3: SCOPE: Except as otherwise provided in this title, the use of premises and structures in the city shall be in accordance with the minimum standards hereinafter established: A. No use shall be established nor shall any structure be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity with the regulations and standards of this title. B. No land shall be used or divided, and no structure shall be occupied, constructed, installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered until: 1. All applicable review and approval procedures have been followed; 2. All applicable approvals have been obtained; and 3. All required permits or authorizations to proceed have been issued. C. The lot area required for one structure or use under this title cannot be used to meet the requirements for another structure or use. D. Every use established or structure installed or structurally altered shall be located on a "lot" as defined in this title. The number of principal uses and structures permitted on a lot shall be as follows: 1. In RS zones and the RNS-12 zone, there shall not be more than one principal use or building per lot, except as permitted through a board of adjustment approval of a special exception to establish or expand an educational facility or religious/private group assembly use. 2. In all other zones, there may be more than one principal use, building or structure on a lot. 3. In the RR -1 zone, there shall not be more than one principal dwelling per lot. E. Except as specifically allowed by this title, no use permitted as a special exception under this title shall be established or enlarged except as permitted by the board of adjustment. 14-1B-4: ZONING MAP; DETERMINATION OF ZONING BOUNDARIES: 14-1B TITLE 14. ZONING CODE CHAPTER 2. BASE ZONES ARTICLE H. FORM -BASED ZONES AND STANDARDS [INSERT ARTICLE H (FORM -BASED ZONES AND STANDARDS) HERE] 14-2H TITLE 14. ZONING CODE CHAPTER 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARTI TRE - ARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS 14-5A-2: USE AND RESTRICTIONS: A. The use of required off street parking is reserved for vehicle parking. Other uses of a required parking area are not permitted, except as approved for a temporary use. (See chapter 4, article D of this title.) B. Unless otherwise exempted, motor vehicles must be parked on an improved surface, as specified in this article. C. The storage of merchandise, materials, equipment, refuse containers, obsolete or junk vehicles or the major repair of vehicles in required off street parking and stacking spaces is prohibited. D. Except for the purpose of making local deliveries, vehicles designed for the shipment of detonable or flammable solids, liquids or gases may not be parked or stored in any residential zone. E. Commercial vehicles more than seven and one-half feet (71/2') in height may not be stored in any residential zone. 14-5A-5: CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS: L. Special Vehicle Parking And Storage Requirements In Single- Family Zones, T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone, and T3 Neighborhood General Zone: The provisions of this subsection apply in all single-family residential zones and the above listed Form - Based Zones. For purposes of this subsection, a "special vehicle" is defined as any device, more than seven and one-half feet (7.5') in height and more than twenty feet (20') in length, which is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, street, or body of water, including, without limitation, any motor vehicle, truck, trailer, tractor, wagon, watercraft or any combination thereof exceeding these dimensions. A storage area for a special vehicle includes any space equal in size to the outer perimeter of the subject special vehicle that is used for storage of such a vehicle. The following provisions apply to all such special vehicles: 1. A special vehicle may be stored inside any building, provided it is not stored in a required parking space. 2. A special vehicle stored outside a building must comply with the following standards: a. The vehicle must be in operational condition and properly licensed as required by state and federal law. 14-5A b. The special vehicle must belong to the owner or tenant of the property on which the vehicle is located, except for special vehicles of guests, as provided in subsection L2c of this section. c. A special vehicle may not be used for dwelling purposes except as temporary lodging for guests of the property owner or tenant. Such temporary lodging may occur for no more than twenty one (21) consecutive days nor may temporary lodging exceed a total of forty five (45) days in any calendar year. An extension may be approved by the city manager or designee. d. The special vehicle may not be used for storage of items other than those considered to be part of the unit. e. The storage area must be surfaced with crushed rock, asphalt, concrete or a similar surface designed and maintained to prevent muddy conditions, erosion from the flow of water onto adjoining property and weed growth. In cases where crushed rock is used, the perimeter of a storage area must be lined with bricks, landscape timbers or similar material that will effectively contain the crushed rock. f. (1) A special vehicle may not be parked or stored on a vacant residential lot. (2) No special vehicle may be stored in a front setback, except on a regularly constructed aisle for a period of no more than four (4) days for the purpose of loading and unloading. (3) A special vehicle may be stored in the required rear setback or the required side setback, provided the outer edge of the storage area is no closer than three feet (3') to a side lot line or to a rear lot line of a reversed corner lot. (4) The city manager or designee may permit outside storage of a special vehicle in the required front setback or the required side setback along a street, provided: (A) Storage space is not available in the side or rear setback or there is no access to either the side or rear setback. For purposes of this provision, a corner lot will always be deemed to have access to the rear setback. Accessory structures and buildings less than one hundred sixty (160) square feet in area and vegetation that is transplantable are not deemed to prevent access. (B) Inside storage is not possible because the size of the special vehicle exceeds either the space available or the size of the entrance available in any existing building, or both. (C) The special vehicle is parked perpendicular to the street. (D) The special vehicle storage area is screened from view of the street using landscaping, a fence or a wall. Fences, walls, and hedges must meet the applicable standards specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. (E) No part of the special vehicle extends beyond the property line or over a public right of way. 14-5A ARTICLE B. SIGN REGULATIONS SECTION: 14-5B-1: Findings, Purpose And Interpretation 14-5B-2: General Rules And Applicability 14-5B-3: General Location Standards 14-5B-4: Construction And Maintenance Requirements 14-5B-5: Nonconforming Situations 14-5B-6: Prohibited Signs 14-5B-7: Measurement Standards 14-5B-8: Signs Permitted By Zone 14-5B-9: Off Premises And Temporary Signs 14-5B-10: Privately Owned Signs In Public Places 14-5B-1: FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND INTERPRETATION: Signs can obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. The purpose of this article is to regulate the size, illumination, movement, materials, location, height and condition of all signs placed on private property meant to be visible to the public from a street or other public right of way thus enhancing and protecting the physical appearance and safety of the community, protecting property values and the character of the various neighborhoods, and preserving Iowa City's areas of natural, historic and scenic beauty. These regulations are intended to reduce distractions and obstructions contributing to traffic accidents; reduce hazards caused by signs projecting over the public right of way; provide a reasonable opportunity for all sign users to display signs without interference from other signage. These regulations are further intended to provide fair and equitable treatment for all sign users; to allow for creative design; to encourage economic development; to distinguish between areas designed primarily for auto oriented commerce and areas designed for residential living or pedestrian oriented commerce; and to establish a reasonable period of time for the elimination of nonconforming signs. This article allows adequate communication through signage while encouraging aesthetic quality and creativity in the design, location, size and purpose of all signs. This article must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the first amendment guarantee of free speech. A sign placed on land or on a building for the purpose of identification, protection or directing persons to a use conducted therein must be deemed to be an integral but accessory and subordinate part of the principal use of land or building. Therefore, the intention of this article is to establish limitations on signs in order to 14-5B ensure they are appropriate to the land, building or use to which they are appurtenant and are adequate for their intended purpose while balancing the individual and community interests identified above. These regulations are intended to promote signs that are compatible with the use of the property to which they are appurtenant, landscape and architecture of surrounding buildings, are legible and appropriate to the activity to which they pertain, are not distracting to motorists, and are constructed and maintained in a structurally sound and attractive condition. The regulations are not intended to and do not apply to signs erected, maintained or otherwise posted, owned or leased by the city, state or federal government. A sign displaying a noncommercial message of any type is allowed anywhere that commercial signs are allowed, subject to the same regulations applicable to such commercial signs to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over noncommercial speech, or favoring of any particular commercial message over any other noncommercial message. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B-2: GENERAL RULES AND APPLICABILITY: A. Applicability: All signs on private property must be installed, maintained, and/or removed according to the provisions of this article, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions of this title. B. Permit Required: 1. No sign requiring a permit in accordance with the requirements of this article shall be installed, altered, moved, improved or converted without first obtaining a sign permit from the building official or designee according to the procedures specified in chapter 8, "Review And Approval Procedures", of this title. A permit is not required for incidental repairs or routine maintenance. 2. Certain types of signs are allowed without a permit and such exemption from the sign permit requirements is clearly specified in the tables included in sections 14-5B- 8 and 14-5B-9 of this article. A permit is required for any sign that is not specifically exempted from the permit requirements. C. Sign Installer's License Required: 1. Except for those signs not requiring a permit, as listed in sections 14-5B- 8 and 14-5B-9 of this article, it shall be unlawful for any person to install, alter, move, improve, remove or convert any sign without having a sign installer's license in good standing issued by the city. A onetime sign installer's license shall be available to a tenant or owner of a building to permit the tenant's or owner's own sign to be installed. 2. The license to install, alter, move, improve, remove or convert any sign as required herein shall be known as a "sign installer's license" and shall be issued by the city to the person desiring to perform the work indicated above. No such license shall be issued to any person until such person shall have paid to the city a license fee as established by resolution of city council and shall have filed with the department of housing and inspection services a copy or a certificate of a contractor's public liability insurance policy with coverage limits as set out in this code. The city shall be 14-5B designated as an additional insured, and the policy shall provide that the city is to be notified thirty (30) days in advance of the termination of the policy. The license shall indemnify and save harmless the city from any and all damage, judgment, cost or expense which the city may incur or suffer by reason of said license issuance. 3. All sign installer's licenses shall expire on December 31 of each year. Renewal fees and reinstatement fees shall be as established by resolution of the city council. Any license that has expired may be reinstated within sixty (60) calendar days after the expiration date upon payment of an additional reinstatement fee. 4. A onetime sign installer's license shall be valid for thirty (30) days from the date of issuance. 5. The building official or designee is responsible for enforcement of these provisions and is empowered to suspend or revoke a sign installer's license for a violation of the sign regulations or if the license was obtained by fraud or if the license allows any person not employed by the sign installer without a valid installer's license to do or cause to be done any work requiring a license. 6. A person aggrieved by the revocation, suspension or denial of a license may appeal said action to the board of adjustment. 7. If a license is revoked for any reason, another installer's license shall not be issued to such person for twelve (12) months after revocation. D. Application Of State Law: In any case in which the code of Iowa, as amended, contains more restrictive requirements than the regulations contained herein, the code of Iowa, as amended, will govern. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 20-4833, 11-17- 2020) 14-5B-3: GENERAL LOCATION STANDARDS: A. Location Standards For All Zones: 1. No sign shall be located in violation of the intersection visibility standards set forth in article D of this chapter. 2. All nonbuilding signs, and all parts thereof, must be set back at least five feet (5') from any property line, with the following exception: Signs may be located closer than five feet (5') to a property line at ten feet (10') or more above grade, provided no part of the sign or sign support overhangs any property lines. In addition, freestanding wide base signs must not be located closer than ten feet (10') to any right of way or closer than thirty feet (30') to any street curb. 3. Building signs must comply with the building setback requirements of the base zone. No part of a building sign or sign support may overhang a property line, unless specifically allowed in this article. 4. For any sign that is allowed to project over the public right of way according to the provisions of this article, a use of public right of way agreement must be signed by the property owner as a part of the permitting process. 14-5B 5. No sign shall obstruct ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. B. Signs Adjacent To Residential Zones: 1. Any sign located in a nonresidential zone, but within one hundred feet (100') of a residential zone is subject to the standards and limitations of subsection 14 -5B -8C, "Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones", of this article. 2. Electronic changeable copy signs are not allowed within one hundred feet (100') of a residential zone, except for allowed time and temperature signs, as defined in chapter 9, article C, "Sign Definitions", of this title. 3. In nonresidential zones, except for fascia signs, no sign shall be located in the required front building setback area within fifty feet (50') of a residential zone. 4. Fascia signs located in nonresidential zones and within fifty feet (50') of a residential zone on the same side of the street shall not be placed on the wall of the building facing the residential zone. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B-4: CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: A. Construction: All signs, except for temporary signs, shall be designed and constructed to withstand a wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot of area and loads as required by the building code. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) B. Minimum Clearance Height: The minimum clearance height is measured from ground level to the lowest point on the sign. The minimum clearance height for freestanding, banner, and time and temperature signs is ten feet (10'). For freestanding wide base signs, the bottom of the sign face must be a minimum of ten feet (10') above ground level, except if the sign is fifteen feet (15') or less in height. For these shorter wide based signs, the bottom of the sign face must be a minimum of three feet (3') above ground level. For storefront projecting signs and canopy signs, the minimum clearance height is eight feet (8'). Minimum clearance height is ten feet (10') for entranceway signs across driveways and eight feet (8') for entranceway signs across walkways. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) C. Maintenance: All signs shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid becoming a hazardous sign. D. Changeable Copy: 1. Copy Changed Manually: Any sign may contain copy that is changed manually, unless precluded by definition or specifically prohibited herein. 2. Copy Changed Electronically: Signs where the copy is changed by electronic means are only allowed as specified below: a. The sign must be located in a commercial zone or in a public zone. However, electronic changeable copy signs are not allowed within one hundred feet (100') of a residential zone, except for allowed time and temperature signs, as defined in chapter 9, article C, "Sign Definitions", of this title. On properties zoned public, electronic 14-5B changeable copy signs are not allowed where said sign would be visible from any adjacent residential zone. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) b. Electronic changeable copy is allowed on only one sign per lot. In the CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 zones, a "time and temperature sign", as defined in chapter 9, article C, "Sign Definitions", of this title, shall not count toward the one sign limit. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) c. The changeable copy may not be animated. (See definition of "animated sign" in chapter 9, article C, "Sign Definitions", of this title.) The copy may be changed no more than once per hour, except for designation of the time and temperature, which may be changed more frequently. d. The sign may not contain images or be of a brightness that will interfere with, obstruct the view of, or confuse traffic. The sign may not contain images that may be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device. The sign may not make use of the words, "stop", "go slow", "caution", "drive-in", "danger", or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a way as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. e. The sign must comply with the illumination standards as specified in subsection E of this section. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) f. In the MU, CO -1, and CN -1 zones, electronic changeable copy is only allowed on a time and temperature sign. (See definition of "time and temperature sign" in chapter 9, article C of this title.) The electronic changeable copy portion of the sign is limited to the display of the time and/or temperature and may not exceed forty percent (40%) of the area of the sign face. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11- 15-2016) g. In public zones and in CH -1, CI -1, and CC -2 Zones, electronic changeable copy is only allowed on time and temperature signs, freestanding signs, freestanding wide base signs, and monument signs. On time and temperature signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign is limited to the display of the time and/or temperature and may not exceed forty percent (40%) of the area of the sign face. On freestanding and freestanding wide base signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign may not exceed forty percent (40%) of the area of the sign face. For monument signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area of the sign face. h. In the CB -2 and CB -5 Zones, electronic changeable copy is only allowed on time and temperature signs and monument signs. On time and temperature signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign is limited to the display of the time and/or temperature and may not exceed forty percent (40%) of the area of the sign face. On monument signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign may not exceed seventy five percent (75%) of the area of the sign face. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) i. In the CB -10 Zones, electronic changeable copy is only allowed on time and temperature signs and window signs as permitted for indoor recreational uses in section 14-5B-8, table 5B-4 of this article. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B E. Illumination Requirements: Illuminated signs must conform to the following requirements: (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 1. Except for signs in the ID and Residential Zones, all permitted signs may be internally or externally illuminated. All signs permitted in the ID and Residential Zones may only be externally illuminated with white light, except that institutional uses in the PRM Zone may have one sign internally illuminated. (Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) 2. Illumination through the use of exposed lamps or inert gas tubes is allowed, provided the exposed lamp does not exceed eleven (11) watts or that an inert gas tube does not draw more than sixty (60) milliamps. When inside frosted lamps or exposed lamps with a diffusing screen are used, no lamp shall exceed twenty five (25) watts. 3. Illumination through the use of LEDs is allowed only as specified for electronic changeable copy. All signs using LEDs must have installed ambient light monitors and must at all times allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the electronic sign based on ambient light conditions. At no time shall the sign be operated at a brightness level greater than the manufacturer's recommended levels. The electronic changeable copy must be monochromatic. It must utilize a dark background with only the message or image lit in a single color. 4. Artificial external light sources used to illuminate a sign face must be located and shielded such that the bulb is not directly visible from any adjacent residentially zoned property or public right-of-way and must use a narrow cone of light that does not extend beyond the illuminated sign face. 5. Illumination on a property, including illumination from signs, must not exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candle and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles as measured at any point along a property boundary that is adjacent to or across the street from properties that are zoned residential, CN -1, or CO -1. 6. All illuminated signs are subject to the provisions of the Electrical Code, including any permit fees. 7. Permit applications for electronic changeable copy signs must include a copy of the manufacturer's operating manual, including any recommended standards for brightness and other display operations. 8. For electronic changeable copy signs, whether the sign is programmed from the site or from a remote location, the computer interface that programs the sign shall be made available to City staff for inspection upon request. If the computer interface is not immediately available, the sign shall cease operation until such program can be provided. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B-5: NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS: A. Nonconforming Signs: All legally nonconforming signs must comply with the provisions specified for nonconforming signs in chapter 4, article E, "Nonconforming Situations", of this title. Signs deemed "historic" may be eligible for a special exception according to the provisions specified in chapter 4, article E, "Nonconforming Situations", of this title. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B B. Signs For Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming use is permitted to have the same amount and type of signage as would be allowed for such use in the most restrictive zone in which such use is allowed. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B-6: PROHIBITED SIGNS: A. Regulations Are Exclusionary: These regulations are intended to be exclusionary. Any type of sign not specifically listed in this article is prohibited. In addition, the following signs are specifically prohibited in all zones: 1. Animated signs, except for barbers' poles and three- dimensional storefront projecting signs as expressly permitted by this article. 2. Hazardous signs. 3. Obsolete signs. 4. Painted wall signs except for wall mural painted signs. 5. Portable signs, including signs on wheels, trailers, and truck beds, but excepting those portable signs expressly permitted by this article. 6. Roof signs. 7. Searchlights. 8. Spinners, balloons, pennants, or other similar devices. 9. Swinging signs except for storefront projecting signs. 10. Banners except for banner projecting signs as expressly permitted in this article and banners permitted in section 14-5B-8, table 5B-4 of this article. 11. No vehicle, including trailers, shall be parked so that it functions primarily as a sign. A vehicle will be considered in violation of this provision if the questions in subsections Al 1 a through Al 1 c of this section can be answered in the affirmative, and there is no compelling answer to the question in subsection Al 1d of this section to justify the parking location as opposed to some less conspicuous location. a. Is the vehicle parked at a prominent location? b. Can people driving by the sign easily read the sign? c. Is the vehicle in the same or similar locations for several hours during the same day or for several days during the same week? d. Are there any stated or apparent reasons, other than for signage purposes, that justify the vehicle being at that location? (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) B. Removal Of Prohibited Or Illegal Signs: In accordance with the following procedure, the building official or designee is authorized to require the removal of any illegal or prohibited sign: 14-5B 1. Before taking action to require the removal of any illegal or prohibited sign, the building official or designee will provide written notice to the owner or operator of the business to which the sign relates. 2. The notice will specify that the illegal or prohibited sign must be removed or brought into compliance with this article within a reasonable time of such notice. 3. If the sign is not removed or repaired, as the case may be, within the time allowed, the building official or designee is hereby authorized to have the sign removed to be used as evidence and assess the costs of removal against the property for collection in the same manner as a Property Tax. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B-7: MEASUREMENT STANDARDS: A. Maximum Sign Area: 1. Where the size of a sign is regulated by the area of a wall, an awning or a canopy, the maximum sign area is calculated as a percentage of the total area of the wall, the awning, or the canopy on which the sign is affixed. 2. For entranceway signs located on the front elevation of the subject archway, the maximum sign area is calculated as a percentage of the total area delineated by the archway. For entranceway signs located on the side of the archway, the maximum sign area is calculated as a percentage of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. Figure 5B.1 of this section illustrates how to measure the total area delineated by the archway and the surface area of the side of the archway support. The total area delineated by the archway in figure 5B.1 of this section equals x(y). The surface area of the side of the archway support in figur 5B.1 of this section equals a(b). FIGURE 5B.1 I 1 I I 1. l } �,{ I 1 F J L 1 I 1 t 3. The total building signage on a wall, canopy, or awning shall not exceed the maximum sign allowance for that wall, canopy, or awning, regardless of the number of 14-5B uses or occupants in the building. For example, if the maximum sign area for fascia signs is fifteen percent (15%), then no more than fifteen percent (15%) of any single wall of the building may be covered by fascia signs, regardless of how many businesses are located in the building. B. Measuring Sign Area: The area of each sign, regardless of shape, shall be computed by determining the area of a triangle, rectangle or circle that completely encloses the outer perimeter of the sign face. In the case of a sign composed of characters or words that are attached directly to a building, an appurtenance to a building, or a masonry wall, the area of the sign will be computed by determining the area of a triangle, rectangle, or circle that completely encloses the whole group of characters or words. C. Measuring Sign Height: The maximum height of a sign shall be the measurement from grade to the highest point on the sign. In the case where a minimum height is established, the minimum height shall be measured from grade to the lowest point on the sign. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B-8: SIGNS PERMITTED BY ZONE: A. Sign Standards For ID And OPD Zones: 1. Permitted Signs: a. Single-family uses and two-family uses are not allowed to install permanent signs, except for one small identification building sign and one integral sign, as specified in table 5B-1 of this section. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) b. Institutional uses in ID -RS and ID -RM Zones are permitted two (2) identification signs from the following types: fascia, awning, canopy, monument or masonry wall sign. One sign for an institutional use may also include copy announcing its services or activities. All other nonresidential uses in the ID -RS and ID -RM Zones are permitted one identification sign from the following types: fascia, awning, canopy or monument sign. (Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) c. Signage for nonresidential uses in the ID -C, ID -I, and ID -RP Zones must comply with the sign regulations contained in subsection C, "Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones", of this section. d. Residential uses in any OPD Zone are permitted signage in accordance with the requirements of the underlying residential zone. Nonresidential uses approved as part of a planned development are permitted signage in accordance with the sign regulations contained in subsection C, "Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones", of this section. 2. Sign Specifications And Provisions: a. All signs for residential uses in the ID and OPD Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-1 of this section. b. All signs in the ID -RS and ID -RM Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-1 of this section. 14-5B c. All signs for nonresidential uses in the ID -C, ID -I, and ID -RP Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-2 of this section. d. In the OPD Zone, all signs for nonresidential uses approved as part of a planned development are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-2 of this section. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) B. Sign Standards For All Residential Zones: 1. Permitted Signs: a. Principal uses, other than single-family uses and two-family uses, are permitted one identification sign from the following types: fascia, awning, canopy or monument sign. Institutional uses are permitted two (2) identification signs from the following sign types: fascia, awning, canopy, monument or masonry wall sign. One sign for an institutional use may also include copy announcing its services or activities. (Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) b. Parks and open space uses are permitted entranceway signs as specified in table 5B-1 of this section. c. Single-family uses and two-family uses are not allowed to install permanent signs, except for one small identification building sign and one integral sign as specified in table 5B-1 of this section. d. One monument sign is permitted at each street entrance of a subdivision or development of two (2) acres or more. The maximum sign area is thirty two (32) square feet per side - may be double faced for a total of sixty four (64) square feet - maximum height is five feet (5'). All other monument signs are permitted as specified in table 5B- 1 of this section. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 2. Sign Specifications And Provisions: All signs in residential zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-1 of this section. 14-5B Table 5B-1: Sign Specifications And Provisions In Residential And The ID And OPD Zones Permitted Signs Zone Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height And Special Provisions Awning signs' ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID- RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 12 sq. ft. or 25% of awning surface, whichever is less Maximum height: Top of first story Limited to identification only Not allowed for single-family and two-family uses Canopy signs' ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID- RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM Sign cannot exceed 90% of street -facing canopy length and no more than 15 inches in height Signs may be mounted on the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not extend beyond the edges of the canopy. Signs mounted on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 15" in height above or below the canopy. The bottom of the canopy or any letter forms attached underneath the canopy must be, at minimum 8' above the level of the adjacent grade Canopy signs may not be illuminated Directional signs ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID - RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 2 sq. ft. per face May be double faced for total area of 4 sq. ft. -- Entranceway signs Allowed for parks and open space uses in any residential zone, ID Zone, or OPD Zone For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the area delineated by the subject archway Maximum height: 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the subject archway The sign may not contain changeable copy For a sign located on the side of the archway, the Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure 14-5B 14-5B area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14-5B-7, Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways Entranceway signs are not allowed if the subject lot or tract already has a monument sign located at the subject entrance "Measurement Standards", of this article.) Fascia signsl ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12 4 sq. ft., except institutional uses are allowed 12 sq. ft. Maximum height: Top of first story Limited to identification only, except as allowed for institutional uses Not allowed for single-family and two-family uses ID -RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 12 sq. ft. Integral signs ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID - RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 2 sq. ft. Up to 1 of these signs is allowed per building No permit is required Masonry wall signs ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID - RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 12 sq. ft. 1' less than the height of the masonry wall Limited to institutional uses Monument signsl ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12 12 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 24 sq. ft. Maximum height: 5' Limited to identification only, except as allowed for institutional uses Not allowed for single-family and two-family uses ID -RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 24 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 48 sq. ft. Maximum height: 5' Limited to identification only, except as allowed for institutional uses 14-5B Note: 1. See subsections Al b and B1 a of this section for the number of signs allowed. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016; amd. Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) 14-5B Not allowed for single-family and two-family uses Small identification signs ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, RNS-12, ID - RM, RM -12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 2 sq. ft. The sign must be a building sign Up to 1 of these signs is allowed per building No permit is required Note: 1. See subsections Al b and B1 a of this section for the number of signs allowed. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016; amd. Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) 14-5B C. Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones: 1. All signs in the CO -1, CN -1, and MU Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-2 of this section, except signage for residential uses must comply with the requirements for residential uses in the RM Zones as stated in table 5B-1 of this section. 14-5B Table 5B-2: Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CO -1, CN -1, And MU Zones Permitted Signs Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Provisions Awning signs 25% of awning surface Top edge of first story awning Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. Awning signs are only allowed on first story awnings Barbers' poles -- -- Maximum diameter: 9" Maximum length: 3' Canopy signs Sign cannot exceed 90% of street- facing canopy length and no more than 24" in height Top edge of first story canopy Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs Signs may be mounted on the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. See applicable dimensional provisions for each type Signs mounted under a canopy with the face perpendicular to the building will be considered storefront projecting signs and regulated accordingly. Said signs may not project beyond the outer edge of the canopy Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not project beyond the edges of the canopy Signs mounted on the top of the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 24" in height above the canopy Canopy signs may be internally or externally illuminated or halo backlit Directional signs 3 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for total area of 6 sq. ft. -- -- 14-5B Entranceway signs For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the area delineated by the subject archway For a sign located on the side of the archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14-5B-7, "Measurement 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the subject archway The sign may not contain changeable copy Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways Entranceway signage as specified herein will count as 1 sign toward the total limit for monument signs on a lot or tract. Entranceway signs are not allowed if the subject lot or tract already has a monument sign located at the subject entrance Standards", of this article.) Fascia signs 15% of sign wall area Top of first story Parapet signs are allowed only on one-story buildings Flags -- -- 1 additional flag may be displayed in conjunction with any city, county, state or federal flags No permit is required Identification and integral signs 2 sq. ft. except as allowed in provisions -- No permit is required A larger integral sign may be allowed when said sign delineates the name of the building. Size shall be regulated as a fascia sign. A permit is required Monument signs Up to 2 sq. ft. of sign area per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 100 sq. ft. per sign 5' 2 or more uses on a single lot may share a common monument sign The number of monument signs on a lot or tract is limited as follows: 14-5B 14-5B • For lots or tracts with less than 160' of frontage on a single street, only 1 monument sign is permitted along that frontage • For lots or tracts with 160 to 300' of frontage along a single street, up to 2 monument signs are permitted. The monument signs must be at least 150' apart as measured along the frontage • For lots or tracts with frontage in excess of 300' along a single street, up to 3 monument signs are permitted, provided the signs are at least 150' apart as measured along the frontage • For lots or tracts with frontage along more than 1 street, each frontage is allowed signs based on the formulas stated above up to a maximum of 5 signs. Any sign that is located within 25' of a corner (at the point where property lines intersect) will count as 2 signs; 1 toward the sign allowance for each frontage Storefront projecting signs 9 sq. ft. May be double faced for a total of 18 sq. ft. The size may be increased up to 18 sq. ft. (may be double faced for a total area of 36 sq. ft.) if the sign and storefront meet the following criteria: The floor to ceiling height of the ground level floor is a minimum of 18' and the sign is vertically proportioned Top of the first story, located below any second floor windowsill Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. There must be at least 12' between projecting signs May not project more than 4' from the building wall Allowed to be a three- dimensional model of an object, such as a globe or book. If three-dimensional, the sign may rotate External illumination is permitted provided there are no more than 2 spotlights of no more than 2000 lumens shining directly on the sign and provided they meet the light trespass standards in article G of this chapter Internal illumination is allowed for halo backlit or neon letters. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letters and internally illuminated cabinet signs where the entire face of the cabinet is illuminated are prohibited Shall not project more than 6' into public right of way If located on or in required storefront windows, window signs shall be displayed or affixed in a manner that does not block 14-5B 14-5B views into the interior of the storefrontTime and temperature signs25 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total of 50 sq. ft. -- Window signs 25% of window area -- 14-5B D. Sign Standards In CH -1, CC -2 And CI -1 Zones: 1. All signs in the CH -1, CC -2, and CI -1 Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-3 of this section except that signage for residential uses must comply with the requirements for residential uses in the RM Zones as stated in table 5B- 1 of this section. 2. The total number of freestanding signs, freestanding wide base signs and monument signs on a lot or tract is limited as follows. Any combination of these three (3) types of signs is allowed within the stated limits. a. For lots or tracts with less than one hundred sixty feet (160') of frontage on a single street, only one (1) such sign is permitted along that frontage. Freestanding wide base signs are not permitted on lots or tracts with less than one hundred sixty feet (160') of frontage. The City Engineer will determine that the location of a wide base freestanding sign will not obstruct the visibility of vehicles entering or exiting the property. b. For lots or tracts with one hundred sixty feet to three hundred feet (160' - 300') of frontage along a single street, up to two (2) such signs are permitted, provided the signs are at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart as measured along the frontage. c. For lots or tracts with three hundred one feet to six hundred feet (301' - 600') of frontage along a single street, up to three (3) such signs are permitted, provided the signs are at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart as measured along the frontage. d. For lots or tracts with frontage in excess of six hundred feet (600') along a single street, up to three (3) such signs are permitted, provided the signs are at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart as measured along the frontage. One (1) additional monument sign is allowed, provided the sign is at least one hundred fifty feet (150') from any other monument, freestanding, or freestanding wide base sign. e. For lots or tracts with frontage along more than one (1) street, each frontage is allowed signs based on the formulas stated in subsections D2a through D2d of this section. However, a maximum of five (5) such signs are allowed on any one (1) lot or tract. Any sign that is located within twenty five feet (25') of a corner (the point where property lines intersect) will count as two (2) signs; one (1) toward the sign allowance for each frontage. 14-5B Table 5B-3: Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CH -1, CC -2, And CI -1 Zones Permitted Signs Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Provisions Awning signs 25% of awning surface Top edge of first story awning Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. Awning signs are only allowed on first story awnings Barbers' poles -- -- Maximum diameter: 9" Maximum length: 3' Canopy signs Signs cannot exceed 90% of street -facing canopy length and be no more than 24" in height Top edge of first story canopy Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs Signs may be mounted on the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. See applicable dimensional provisions for each type Signs mounted under a canopy with the face perpendicular to the building will be considered storefront projecting signs and regulated accordingly. Said sign may not project beyond the outer edge of the canopy Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not project beyond the edges of the canopy Signs mounted on top of the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 24" in height above the canopy Canopy signs may be internally or externally illuminated or halo backlit Directional signs 3 sq. ft. per sign face -- -- 14-5B 14-5B May be double faced for total area of 6 sq. ft. Entranceway signs For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the area delineated by the subject archway For a sign located on the side of the archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14- 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the entranceway arch The sign may not contain changeable copy Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways Entranceway signage as specified herein will count as 1 sign toward the total limit for freestanding, freestanding wide base signs and monument signs on a lot or tract. Entranceway signs are not allowed if the subject lot or tract already has a monument sign, freestanding sign, freestanding wide base sign, or masonry wall sign located at the subject entrance 5B-7, "Measurement Standards", of this article.) Fascia signs 15% of sign wall area -- -- Flags -- -- 1 additional flag may be displayed in conjunction with any city, county, state or federal flags No permit is required Freestanding signs Individual sign in CC -2 and CI- 1: Up to 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 125 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 250 sq. ft. 25', however, in the CH -1 District, property within 1,000' of an interstate highway right-of-way may have 1 freestanding sign with a maximum When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common sign may be installed 14-5B 14-5B Individual sign in CH -1: For property within 1,000' of an interstate highway right-of-way, 1 of the property's allotted freestanding signs is allowed to be up to 250 sq. ft. per sign face, which may be double faced for a total area of 500 sq. ft. height not to exceed 65' Common sign: The maximum area of a common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed Freestanding wide base signs Individual sign: Up to 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 125 sq. ft. per sign face 26' Maximum width: 10' When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common sign may be installed May be double faced for a total of 250 sq. ft. Common sign: The maximum area of a common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed Identification and integral signs 2 sq. ft. except as allowed in provisions -- No permit is required 14-5B 14-5B A larger integral sign may be allowed when said sign delineates the name of the building. Size shall be regulated as a fascia sign. A permit is required Masonry wall signs Up to 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. per sign In addition, the sign may not exceed 15% of the total area of the face of the masonry wall 1' less than the height of the masonry wall, not to exceed 12' 1 masonry wall sign is allowed in lieu of a monument, freestanding, or freestanding wide base sign Monument signs Individual sign: Up to 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 100 sq. ft. Common sign: The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed 5' When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common sign may be installed Storefront projecting signs 9 sq. ft. May be double faced for a total of 18 sq. ft. The size of a storefront projecting sign may be increased up to 18 sq. ft. (may be double faced for a total area Top of the first story located below any second floor windowsill Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. There must be 12' between projecting signs May not project more than 4' from the building wall External illumination is permitted provided there are no more than 2 spotlights of no more than 2000 lumens shining 14-5B 14-5B of 36 sq. ft.) if the sign and storefront meet the following criteria: The floor to ceiling height of the ground level floor is a minimum of 18' and the sign is vertically proportioned directly on the sign and provided they meet the trespass standards in article G of this chapter Internal illumination may be permitted for halo backlit or neon letters. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letters and cabinet signs where the entire face of the cabinet is illuminated are prohibited Permitted to be a three- dimensional model of an object, such as a globe or book. If three-dimensional, the sign is permitted to rotate Time and temperature signs 25 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 50 sq. ft. -- Permitted only in the CC -2 Zone Signs must not project more than 6' into the public right -of - way Upper level projecting signs 2 story: 30 sq. ft. with maximum 4' projection from the face of the building 3 story: 80 sq. ft. with maximum 5' projection from the face of the building 4 story and taller: 150 sq. ft. with a maximum of 6' from the face of the building May be double faced Cannot extend above the bottom of the cornice and/or roofline at the top of the building and no lower than the bottom of the second floor windowsill Only permitted when the use occupies the entire building and the building frontage is greater than 60' or when the use is an indoor commercial recreational use or hospitality oriented retail use Sign can be no closer than 5' from adjacent buildings and no closer than 15' from adjacent upper level and storefront projecting signs Internal and external illumination is allowed except internally illuminated plastic trim cap letters and internally illuminated cabinet signs are prohibited Window signs 25% of window area -- If located on or in required storefront windows, window signs shall be displayed in a manner that does not block views into the interior of the storefront 14-5B E. Sign Standards In CB -2, CB -5 And CB -10 Zones: 1. All signs in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-4 of this section. 2. The maximum sign area for each type of sign, special provisions, and any restrictions on the number of signs allowed are specified in table 5B-4 of this section. Unless specifically limited in table 5B-4 of this section, any number of signs may be installed. 3. Signage for residential uses must comply with the requirements for residential uses in the RM Zones as stated in table 5B-1 of this section. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15- 2016) 4. Cabinet signs where the entire face of the cabinet is internally illuminated are prohibited. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letters are prohibited, except as specifically allowed in table 5B-4 of this section. (Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) 14-5B Table 5B-4: Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CB -2, CB -5 And CB -10 Zones Permitted Signs Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Provisions Awning signs 25% of awning surface Top edge of first story awning Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. Awning signs are only allowed on first story awnings Note: See subsection 14 -3C -3C of this title for awning and canopy design standards Banner projecting signs Same allowances as upper level projecting signs Same restrictions as upper level projecting signs Only permitted on multiuse buildings where access to uses is primarily through a common lobby from the street such as an indoor shopping mall or where a single use occupies a large multi- story building with more than 100' of frontage Banners must be mounted perpendicular to the building with permanent brackets at both top and bottom Banners can be no closer than 5' from adjacent buildings and no closer than 15' from adjacent upper level and storefront projecting signs A minimum of 3 banners is required to establish a consistent rhythm and visual impact Barbers' poles -- -- Maximum diameter: 9" Maximum length: 3' 14-5B Canopy signs Sign cannot exceed 90% of Top edge of first story Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs street -facing canopy length and no more than 24" in height canopy from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs Signs may be mounted on the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. See applicable dimensional provisions for each type Signs mounted under a canopy with the face perpendicular to the building facade will be considered storefront projecting signs and regulated accordingly. Said signs may not project beyond the outer edge of the canopy Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not project beyond the edges of the canopy Signs mounted on the top of the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 24" in height above the canopy Canopy signs may be internally or externally illuminated or halo backlit Directional signs 3 sq. ft. per sign face -- -- May be double faced for total area of 6 sq. ft. Entranceway signs For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the entranceway arch The sign may not contain changeable copy 14-5B 14-5B area delineated by the subject archway For a sign located on the side of the archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14-5B-7, Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways An entranceway sign is not allowed if the property has a masonry wall sign, monument sign, or freestanding sign "Measurement Standards", of this article.) Fascia signs Square footage equal to 1.5 times the length of the sign wall -- No longer than 90% of the length of the sign wall, sign band or storefront, whichever is most applicable to the location of the sign Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letter forms are prohibited except for buildings of more than 5 stories when the sign is above the 5th story. Limited to identification only Flags -- -- 1 additional flag may be displayed in conjunction with any City, County, State or Federal flags No permit is required Freestanding signs 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 40 sq. ft. per sign face 20' Allowed only in the CB -2 Zone Only 1 freestanding sign is allowed per lot 14-5B 14-5B Allowed only through approval of a minor modification. Applicant must provide convincing evidence that the existing configuration of the site and location of the building or buildings on the site make it practically difficult to install a monument sign and that other types of allowed signage would not be readily visible from the street due to the location of building(s) or other unique site characteristics A freestanding sign is not allowed if the property has a monument sign, entranceway sign, or masonry wall sign Identification and integral signs 2 sq. ft. except as allowed in provisions -- No permit is required A larger integral sign 1.5 times the length of the street -facing facade may be allowed when said sign delineates the name of the building. A permit is required Masonry wall signs 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. In addition, the sign may not exceed 15% of the total area of the face of the masonry wall 1' less than the height of the masonry wall, not to exceed 12' Only 1 masonry wall sign is allowed per lot A masonry wall sign is not allowed if the property has a monument sign, entranceway sign or freestanding sign Monument signs 24 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 48 sq. ft. 5' Only 1 monument sign is allowed per lot or tract When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument sign may be installed. A 14-5B 14-5B common monument sign may identify up to 4 uses per sign face A monument sign is not allowed if the property has a freestanding sign, an entranceway sign, or a masonry wall sign Portable signs 6 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 12 sq. ft. 4' Up to 1 nonilluminated portable sign is allowed per storefront. A maximum of 1 additional sign is allowed for businesses not located on the ground floor, which may be for 1 or more of those businesses The entire sign must be placed: 1) on private property; 2) within or on the fenced delineated area of a sidewalk cafe; or 3) on City right-of-way within an area no more than 30" from the front facade wall and/or front property line of the building containing the business The sign may not block access to any doorway When placed on City right -of- way, a clear, unobstructed 8' path between the sign and any streetscape amenities, planters, delineated sidewalk cafe areas or obstructions must be maintained The sign must be moved inside the business when the business is closed The sign must be constructed of durable materials and weighted to provide stability in all weather conditions. Plastic signs are prohibited 14-5B 14-5B External weights separate from the sign itself, such as sandbags, are not permitted A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign. Sign faces can be separated if placed on a fence for sidewalk cafe permitted Storefront 9 sq. ft. Top of the first story located Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs projecting signs May be double faced for a total of 18 sq. ft. below any second floor windowsill from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. There must be at least 12' between projecting signs The size of a storefront projecting sign may be increased up to 18 sq. ft. (may be double faced for a total area of 36 sq. ft.) if the sign and storefront meet the following criteria: The floor to ceiling height of the ground level floor is a minimum of 18' and the sign is vertically proportioned A projecting sign may not project more than 4' from the building wall Storefront projecting signs are permitted to be a three- dimensional model of an object, such as a globe or book. If three- dimensional, the sign is permitted to rotate External illumination is permitted provided there are no more than 2 small spotlights of no more than 2000 lumens shining directly on the sign and provided they meet the light trespass standards in article G of this chapter Internal illumination may be permitted for halo backlit or neon letters Time and temperature signs 25 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 50 sq. ft. -- Signs must not project more than 6' into the public right -of- way 14-5B Upper level 2 story: 30 sq. ft. with Cannot extend above the Only permitted when a use occupies the entire projecting signs maximum 4' projection from bottom of the cornice and/or building and the building frontage is greater than the face of the building 3 story: 80 sq. ft. with roofline at the top of the building and no lower than the bottom of the second 60' or when the use is an indoor commercial recreational use or a hospitality oriented retail use maximum 5' projection from the face of the building floor windowsill Sign can be no closer than 5' from adjacent buildings and no closer than 15' from adjacent upper level and storefront projecting signs 4 story and taller: 150 sq. ft. with a maximum of 6' from the face of the building Internal and external illumination is allowed except as set forth in subsection E4 of this section May be double faced Wall mural 1.5 times the length in feet of -- Sign must be incorporated into a larger mural and painted sign the street- facing facade of the building can only be placed on an alley facade or a nonstreet-facing facade when it contains a public entrance to a business Window signs 25% of window area -- Only permitted in first floor windows If located on or in required storefront windows, window signs shall be displayed or affixed in a manner that does not block views into the interior of the storefront In CB -10 Zones, an indoor recreational use may have an electronic changeable copy window sign. Maximum size permitted is 75 sq. ft. or 25% of the window area, including all other window signs, whichever is less. Subject to all regulations found in section 14-5B-4 of this article (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016; amd. Ord. 17-4702, 4-18-2017; Ord. 18-4735, 1-2-2018) 14-5B F. Sign Standards In Industrial And Research Park Zones: 1. All signs in the 1-1, 1-2, RDP, and ORP Zones are subject to the standards specified in able 5B- of this section. 2. The total number of freestanding signs and monument signs on a lot or tract is limited as follows. Any combination of these types of signs is allowed within the stated limits. a. For lots or tracts with less than one hundred sixty feet (160') of frontage on a single street, only one such sign is permitted along that frontage. b. For lots or tracts with frontage in excess of one hundred sixty feet (160') of frontage along a single street, up to two (2) such signs are permitted, provided the signs are located at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart as measured along the frontage. c. For lots or tracts with frontage along more than one street, each frontage is allowed signs based on the formulas stated in subsections F2a and F2b of this section. 3. Masonry wall signs and entranceway signs are limited according to the provisions specified in table 5B -E of this section. 4. Other than for the types of signs listed in subsections F2 and F3 of this section, any number of signs may be installed, provided the maximum sign area for each type of sign is not exceeded and the provisions specified in table 5B -F of this section, are met. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 14-5B Table 5B-5: Sign Specifications And Provisions In The Industrial And Research Park Zones Permitted Signs Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Provisions Awning signs Must not exceed 25% of awning surface or 12 sq. ft. per sign, whichever is less Top of first story -- Canopy signs Sign cannot exceed 90% of street- facing canopy length and no more than 24" in height Top of first story Signs may be mounted on the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. See applicable dimensional provisions for each type Signs mounted under a canopy may not project beyond the outer edge of the canopy Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not project beyond the face of the canopy and must not extend above or below the top and bottom edges of the canopy Signs mounted on the top of the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 24" in height above the canopy Canopy signs may be internally or externally illuminated or halo backlit Directional signs In industrial zones: 15 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for total area of 30 sq. ft. In research park zones: 3 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for total area of 6 sq. ft. -- -- 14-5B Entranceway signs For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the area delineated by the subject archway For a sign located on the side of the archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14- 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the entranceway arch The sign may not contain changeable copy Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways An entranceway sign is not allowed if the property has a masonry wall sign 5B-7, "Measurement Standards", of this article.) Fascia signs 15% of sign wall area -- -- Flags -- -- 1 additional flag may be displayed in conjunction with city, county, state and federal flags No permit is required Freestanding signs 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. except as allowed in provisions for common signs May be double faced for a total of 100 sq. ft. or as allowed in provisions for common signs 25' When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common sign may be installed. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed Freestanding signs are limited to identification only Identification and integral signs 2 sq. ft. -- Up to 1 of these signs is allowed per building No permit is requiredMasonry wall signsUp to 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. per sign face 14-5B (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B May be double faced for a total area of 150 sq. ft. In addition, the sign may not exceed 15% of the total area of the face of the masonry wall l' less than the height of the masonry wallAt each entranceway, up to 2 masonry wall signs may be established, if no freestanding, entranceway, monument or other nonbuilding signs are located at that entranceway In the ORP Zone, masonry wall signs up to 12' in height may be established in the required front setback, provided the signs are located a minimum of 20' back from street right-of-way lines Monument signs Up to 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of lot frontage, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. per sign face May be double faced for a total area of 150 sq. ft. 5' When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common sign may be installed. The maximum area of the common sign may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum individual sign allowed Monument signs are limited to identification only Window signs 25% of window area -- -- (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B G. Sign Standards For Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Zones: 1. In the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert Subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Zone, signage on mixed use and nonresidential buildings shall be allowed according to the standards that apply in the CB -10 Zone, except that in the South Gilbert Subdistrict the maximum sign area for fascia signs for Cottage Industries and associated uses located in existing buildings that are legally non-compliant with storefront frontage standards is fifteen percent (15%) of the sign wall. 2. In the Gilbert Subdistrict, signage for mixed use and nonresidential buildings shall be allowed according to the standards that apply in the CN -1 Zone. 3. In the West Riverfront Subdistrict, signage on mixed use and nonresidential buildings shall be allowed according to the standards that apply in the CC -2 Zone, except that new freestanding signs shall be limited to fifteen feet (15') in height. 4. Signage for residential buildings shall be allowed according to the standards that apply in residential zones. For multi- family buildings, the larger sign area for fascia and monument signs as specified in multi -family zones applies. 5. Signs shall be integrated into the architectural design of the building and not dominate the facade or interfere with adjacent buildings. For buildings with multiple storefronts, a sign plan is required at the time of development that ensures that signage allowances are fairly apportioned according to the relative width of the individual storefronts and that the signage type and designs are consistent and complementary along the building frontage. 6. On storefront and urban flex frontages, storefront level signs shall be primarily oriented to pedestrians and scaled appropriately. Window signs and temporary signs in windows shall not block views into the interior and shall not cover more than twenty five percent (25%) of the storefront window area. 7. Sign installations shall comply with all other generally applicable sign regulations, standards, and requirements as set forth in this article. (Ord. 17-4702, 4-18-2017) H: Sign Standards and Types for Form -Based Zones 1. Purpose: This Section ensures that all signs installed in Form -Based Zones subject to Article 14-2H are compatible with the intended physical character, and in compliance with all applicable plans of the City. This Section promotes public health, safety, and welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, effective, consistent, content -neutral, and nondiscriminatory sign standards to: a. Promote and accomplish the goals, policies, and actions of applicable City plans; b. Balance public and private objectives by allowing adequate avenues for effective messaging; c. Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety from injury or property damage caused by, or which may be fully or partially attributed to, cluttered or distracting signage; d. Prevent property damage, personal injury, and litter caused by signs that are improperly constructed or poorly maintained; e. Protect property values, improve the local economy and quality of life by preserving and enhancing the appearance of the streetscape; and f. Provide clear and unambiguous sign standards that enable fair and consistent enforcement of these sign standards. 2. The sign types established in this Section are intended to be viewed from the public right- of-way and from outdoors in areas of public and private property used for public pedestrian access. 3. Sign Types: Table 14 -5B -8H-1 (Sign Types Allowed in Form -Based Zones) establishes the allowed sign types and standards for the identified zones. Any allowed sign type may be established on any design site within the zone, subject to a Sign Permit in compliance with Section 14-8B-9 (Sign Permit). Sign Type T3 111 T4 Sign Standards +E NG NG -O NS NS -O NM NM -O MS Awning Sign Canopy Sign Directional Sign Masonry Wall Sign Monument Sign Porch Sign Portable Sign Post Sign Small Identification Sign Storefront Projecting Sign Temporary Sign Wall Mural Painted Sign P1 Pi P1 - p- 1 PI - p1 p- 1 p- 1 p1 P2 p2 p2 p2 p- 1 PI p1 p2 p2 p1 p1 p1 P- 1 P- 1 p- 1 p- 1 p- 1 p- 1 p1 p1 p1 p1 p2 p2 p2 p2 p2 Window Sign _ P1 P2 14 -5B -8C 14 -5B -8C 14 -5B -8C 14 -5B -8E Not Applicable 14 -5B -8H -4a 14 -5B -8E 1 4 -5B -8H -4b 14 -5B -8B 14 -5B -8C 14-5B-9 14 -5B -8E 14 -5B -8E 1 Illumination shall be consistent with Section 14-58-4E (Illumination Requirements) and the applicable provisions in Table 58-1 (Sign Specifications And Provisions In Residential And The ID And OPD Zones). 2 Illumination shall be consistent with Section 14-58-4E (Illumination Requirements) and the applicable provisions in Table 58-2 (Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CO -1, CN -1, And MU Zones). Key P = Allowed with a Sign Permit - = Not Allowed 4. Certain sign types are only allowed in Form -Based Zones Those sign types and their applicable standards are as follows. a. Porch Sign 11 A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade, pedestrian -scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk. Signable Area 6 sf max. total Width 4' max. 0 Height 2' max. 0 Max 1 sign per building. a. Mounted on a beam of other structure parallel to the face of the building. Clear Height If located above a pedestrian walkway 6'8"min. Q 8' min. General Note: Photos on this page are illustratii not regulatory. Example of a Porch Sgn. Example of a Porch Sgn. L SI b. Post Sign A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade, pedestrian -scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk. Signable Area 12 sf max. per side; 2 sides max Width 4' max. Height 3' max. Overall Height 5' max. Signs per building. 1 max. 0 0 0 Clear Height 2' min. 0 Setback from sidewalk T4MS 5' min. T3NG-0' 15' min. T4NS-0' 15' min. T4NM-O' 15' min. 0 ' If utility easement along alley, 8' min. General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. SK3N - MESSAGE Example of a Post Sign. Example of a Post Sign. 14-5B-9: OFF PREMISES AND TEMPORARY SIGNS: A. In addition to the signage permitted in each zone, as described in section 14-5B- 8 of this article, the following signs may be installed in any zone according to the specifications and provisions contained in table 5B-6 of this section. These signs shall not be applied toward the maximum sign area specified in section 14-5B-8 of this article, except as otherwise indicated in table 5B-6 of this section. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) Table 5B-6: Sign Specifications And Provisions For Off Premises And Temporary Signs Permitted Signs Maximum Sign Area Maximum Height Provisions Billboards and other off premises signs Not to exceed the maximum sign area for the subject sign type as specified in the applicable zone and will be deducted from the maximum sign allowance for the subject property Billboards: 72 sq. ft. May be double faced for a total area of 144 sq. ft. Not to exceed the maximum sign height for the subject sign type as specified in the applicable zone Billboards: 25' Not permitted in residential, CO -1, CN -1, CB -5, CB -10, ORP and RDP Zones May take the form of any type of sign allowed in the zone in which the sign is located and must comply with all other provisions specified for the subject zone Only 1 off premises sign is allowed per lot or tract 2 or more uses may install a common off premises directional sign Shall not be located within 300' of another off premises sign Shall not be located within 120' of a residential zone, parks and open space use, educational facility, religious/private group assembly use, public museum or government administrative or judicial office Billboard signs shall not apply toward maximum sign allowance for the lot or tract Temporary signs -- -- No permit is required No illumination is allowed In ID and residential zones: 4 sq. ft. In all other zones: 32 sq. ft. In residential zones: 5' In all other zones: 10' 1 sign may be located on a lot and/or parcel when being advertised for sale or lease Must be displayed in yard or window. Cannot be affixed to building (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) May be double faced for a total of 8 sq. ft. and 64 sq. ft. respectively Must be removed 48 hours after the sale or lease of property All zones: 32 sq. ft. May be double faced for a total of 64 sq. ft. In residential zones: 5' In all other zones: 10' 1 sign may be located on a lot and/or parcel when construction and/or development is occurring on said lot or parcel. Must be removed upon issuance of certificate of occupancy or upon completion of construction All zones: 32 sq. ft. May be double faced for a total of 64 sq. ft. In residential zones: 5' In all other zones: 10' 1 sign may be located on a development area of 2 acres or more. Must be removed upon the sale or lease of 50% of the lots or units in the development 100 sq. ft. allowed in all zones except residential zones 10' 1 sign may be located on a lot and/or parcel for a period not to exceed 60 days when a business has recently opened or is in the process of closing or when events of civic interest, a philanthropic or nonprofit organization are occurring on the property Banners are permitted for these situations 4 sq. ft. May be double sided for a total of 8 sq. ft. In all zones: 5' 1 sign may be located on a lot and/or parcel for a period not to exceed 14 days and no more than 2 occasions in any calendar year Temporary signs in windows -- -- No permit is required Posters and other nonpermanent signs in windows are allowed, but may only be displayed for a temporary period of time, not to exceed 60 days. If located in or on required storefront windows, window signs shall be displayed in a manner that does not block views into the interior of the storefront (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-5B-10: PRIVATELY OWNED SIGNS IN PUBLIC PLACES: A. Purpose: In order to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the population, no privately owned signs shall be placed on or over a "public place", as defined in chapter 9, article C of this title, except as permitted by this Code. B. Removal: Existing privately owned signs currently located on or over a public place that are not in compliance with this Code shall be eliminated and removed. If the sign owner fails to remove the sign after so ordered by the City, the City may remove the sign and assess the costs against the sign owner. C. Special Provisions: 1. Signs associated with parades, marches, public entertainment, public demonstrations, or the commercial use of sidewalks that are located on or over a public place are subject to the provisions of title 10, chapters 1, 2, and 3 of this Code. Any signs located on or over the City Plaza are subject to the provisions of title 10, chapter 5 of this Code. 2. The City Manager or designee may approve and execute applications on the City's behalf for the placement of privately owned signs on or over a public place upon finding that the signs: a. Provide information and guidance to locations of general public interest; and b. Will not create a hazard to movement along or within a public place, restrict access to a public place, or interfere with the convenience and tranquility of the area adjacent to a public place. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) ARTICLE G. OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS 14-5G-1: PURPOSE: 14-5G-2: APPLICABILITY: 14-5G-3: STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY USES: 14-5G-4: PHYSICAL CONTROLS: A. Height Limitations: 1. Light fixtures located within three hundred feet (300') of a residential zone, Neighborhood Form -Based Zone, riverfront crossings zone, or the eastside mixed use district must be mounted no higher than twenty five feet (25') above grade. 2. Light fixtures located farther than three hundred feet (300') from a residential zone, Neighborhood Form -Based Zone, riverfront crossings zone, or the eastside mixed use district must be mounted no higher than thirty five feet (35') above grade. B. Glare Control: 1. All bulbs that exceed two thousand (2000) lumens must be fully shielded as installed. 2. Unshielded or partially shielded bulbs that are two thousand (2000) lumens or less must be frosted glass or be installed behind a translucent cover. 3. All under canopy lights or lights mounted in eaves must either be recessed into the canopy/eave and fully shielded or use flat lenses instead of drop lenses. 4. The city may permit the use of light reflectors, refractors or house shields as a substitute for fully shielded light fixtures on lower wattage or low voltage ornamental or pedestrian light fixtures. The shielding on such fixtures must control for uplighting. These substitute shielding options are not permitted for general illumination of large areas, such as parking, service, or outdoor product display areas. Fixtures used to illuminate such areas must be fully shielded. C. Light Trespass: The trespass standards are intended to prevent light from one property extending beyond the property line onto adjacent properties. Compliance with this subsection is achieved with fixture shielding, directional control designed into the fixture, fixture location, fixture height, fixture aim, or a combination of these methods. 1. Except for lighting of loading areas, service areas, and for architectural emphasis, floodlighting is prohibited. Floodlights are not permitted for the illumination of parking or outdoor product display areas. 2. Floodlights, when permitted, are exempt from subsection B2 of this section, but must be aimed no higher than forty five degrees (45°) from vertical. Floodlights must also comply with subsections C3, C4 and C5 of this section. 14-5G 3. Lighting fixtures must be located and shielded such that the bulb is not directly visible from any adjacent residential use or public right of way. The right of way trespass standard does not apply in the CB -2, CB -5, or CB -10 zones. 4. Illumination must not exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot- candle and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles as measured at any point along a property boundary that is adjacent to or across the street from properties that are zoned residential, CN -1, or CO - 1, or is adjacent to or across the street from a Neighborhood Form -Based Zone. The city may increase the maximum up to 1.0 horizontal foot- candle for building code required lighting on buildings located on or close to the property line. However, lighting must be located and shielded in a manner that will be least obtrusive to any abutting residential properties. 5. On any property containing multi -family uses or group living uses, lighting fixtures must be located and shielded such that the bulbs are not visible from any residential window on the property. 6. Light fixtures used to illuminate flags, statues, or objects mounted on a pole or pedestal must use a narrow cone of light that does not extend beyond the illuminated object. Lights that are intended to architecturally highlight a building or its features must use a limited pattern of light that does not extend beyond the wall of the building. 14-5G-5: TOTAL OUTDOOR LIGHT OUTPUT STANDARDS: A. Maximum Outdoor Light Output: 1. Total Outdoor Light Output Defined: The "total outdoor light output" on a property is the total amount of light, measured in initial lumens, from all bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. It includes all lights and luminous tubing used for display lighting, general illumination, architectural/accent lighting, and lights used for external illumination of signs, but does not include lights used to illuminate internally illuminated signs or luminous tubing used in neon signs. For bulb types that vary in their output as they age, such as high pressure sodium, fluorescent and metal halide, the initial lumen output, as defined by the manufacturer, is the value to be considered when calculating total outdoor light output. 2. Applicability: The total outdoor light output on any property that is subject to the provisions of this article may not exceed the limits in table 5G-1 of this section, except for those that are exempted in subsection A3 of this section and in section 14-5G-7 of this article. The values in this table are upper limits and not design goals; design goals should be the lowest light levels that meet the requirements of the task. 3. Exemptions: a. Seasonal decorations, permitted between Thanksgiving and the end of January, are not counted toward the total outdoor light output. b. In the E2 and E3 districts, properties where the building coverage is eighty percent (80%) or greater are exempt from the maximum total outdoor light output standard, but are subject to the limitation on unshielded fixtures, as stated in table 5G- 1 of this section. 14-5G B. Lighting Environment Districts: All zones, except public (P) zones, are grouped into three (3) lighting environment districts that control lighting output on applicable lots in each zone. Uses, for which the lighting standards are applicable, located within the public (P) zone must comply with the lighting requirements of the adjacent zone; those on the border between two (2) or more zones must comply with the standards of the strictest adjacent zone. Zones are grouped into the lighting environment districts as follows: 1. Low illumination district, El: Areas of low ambient lighting levels. This district includes single-family and low density multi -family residential zones. This district applies to the following zones: ID -RS, ID -RM, RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, and RNS-121 T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM. 2. Medium illumination district, E2: Areas of medium ambient lighting levels. This district includes higher density multi- family zones and lower intensity commercial and office zones. This district applies to the following zones: ID -C, ID -I, ID -RP, CN -1, CO -1, PRM, RM -20, RM -44, RNS-20, MU, T4MS, EMU, and all RFC zones, except the RFC - WR. 3. High illumination district, E3: Areas of high ambient lighting levels. This district includes higher intensity commercial, industrial, and research zones. This district applies to the following zones: CC -2, CH -1, CI -1, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10, 1-1, 1-2, RDP, ORP, and the RFC -WR. C. Measuring Total Outdoor Light Output: 1. The maximums in table 5G-1 of this section are based on a calculation of initial lumens per net acre. The lot size Tess the total building coverage of the lot determines the number of net acres used for this calculation. 2. Lumen output from an under canopy or under eave light fixture mounted fifteen (15) or more feet from any edge of the eave or canopy will be measured at 0.5 its full value. Table 5G-1: Maximum Outdoor Light Output Standards Shielding Combinations Lighting Environment District El, Low Ambient Lighting (In Initial Lumens Per Acre) E2, Medium Ambient Lighting (In Initial Lumens Per Acre) E3, High Ambient Lighting (In Initial Lumens Per Acre) Maximum total outdoor light output (including both fully shielded and unshielded fixtures) 50,000 100,000 200,000 Maximum outdoor light output from unshielded fixtures 4,000 10,000 10,000 14-5G 14-5G-6: PROHIBITED LIGHTING AND BULBS: The following types of lighting are prohibited: 14-5G-7: EXEMPTIONS FOR SPECIAL USES: 14-5G-8: MEASUREMENT: 14-5G ARTICLE I. SENSITIVE LANDS AND FEATURES 14-51-9C. Woodland Retention And Replacement Requirements: Regulated woodlands must be retained according to the following provisions. The percentage of the regulated woodland that must be retained is specified in table 51-1 of this section according to the underlying base zone. Table 51-1: Woodland Retention Requirements Base Zone Retention Requirement ID, RR -1 70 percent RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RNS-12, T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4NM 50 percent RM -12, RM -20, RM -44, RNS-20, T4MS 20 percent RDP, ORP 20 percent C and I 10 percent 1. The required woodland area to be retained must include a buffer area that extends fifty feet (50') outward from the trunks of the trees to be preserved, unless otherwise allowed by subsection C2 of this section. This buffer area is intended to protect the trees within the specified retention area. Since trees within this buffer area may be prone to damage during construction, they may not be included when calculating the required retention area. 2. Alternatively, a fifty foot (50') buffer area need not be provided if an on site tree survey is completed and the construction limit line is established at least five feet (5') beyond the drip line of trees to be preserved. The tree survey must identify the species, size and location of trees at the perimeter of the woodland to be protected. Said on site tree survey and a map delineating the drip line of the trees located near the construction limit line must be submitted to the city for verification by the city forester or designee. Additional spacing from the drip line (beyond the minimum 5 feet) may be required if needed to protect the health of trees specified for protection, as determined by the city forester or designee. 3. All efforts shall be made during construction to protect the woodlands and groves designated for retention, including placement of durable fencing or other sturdy barrier along the designated construction limit line. 4. If the city determines that the required woodland area cannot be retained due to site constraints or infrastructure requirements, replacement trees must be planted. At the discretion of the city, replacement trees may also be allowed in cases where woodlands are determined to be of low quality, such that planting replacement trees would improve the health of a wooded area or create a new grove or wooded area of 14-51 higher quality. One tree must be planted for every two hundred (200) square feet of woodland removed from the otherwise required retention area. Existing healthy trees (not located within the woodland) may be counted as replacement trees, at the discretion of the city, based on the health, species, maturity, location, and likelihood of survival during and after construction. Existing trees approved for preservation will count toward the required replacement trees at the ratio of substitution stated in table 5E- 2 within article E, "Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this chapter. (Ord. 13-4530, 5- 14-2013) 5. Where it is not feasible to replace trees on site, replacement trees may be planted to supplement reforestation of an off site woodland approved by the city. Any designated off site woodland must be either publicly owned property or property subject to a conservation easement. 6. Replacement trees must be approved by the city, and to the extent possible, should be of the same or equivalent species as the trees being removed, unless it is determined that the trees being removed are of a species that is considered low quality. In such a case, alternative tree species will be considered by the city. 7. Replacement trees must meet the specifications set forth in general tree planting requirements contained in article E, "Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this chapter, and must be secured by a performance guarantee for a period of twelve (12) months. D. Design Standards For Wooded Areas: 1. Woodlands, groves, and existing trees designated for protection according to the approved sensitive areas site development plan, shall be protected from construction activity with durable fencing or other sturdy barrier approved by the city. Said protective fencing shall be placed a minimum of five feet (5') beyond the drip line of the tree or trees to be preserved. Additional spacing of protective fencing from the drip line (beyond the minimum 5 feet) may be required if needed to protect the health of trees specified for protection, as determined by the city forester or designee. The drip line is an imaginary circle that could be drawn on the soil around a tree directly under the tips of its outermost branches. The drip line encompasses the ground area under the entire spread of the tree canopy. 2. Measures must be taken to protect and retain groves of trees, as defined in this title, to the extent practicable. 3. Trees preserved within groves may be counted as replacement trees, if it is determined that the required woodland retention ratio on a site cannot be met as allowed in subsection C4 of this section. Preserved trees within groves may count toward replacement trees at the ratio of substitution stated in table 5E-2 within article E, "Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this chapter. 4. When other environmentally regulated sensitive features are present in combination with a regulated woodland, the regulations related to all the sensitive areas contained on the property will be considered, with the most stringent regulations applying. 14-51 5. To the extent possible, woodlands located on steep or critical slopes or within 100 -year floodplains must be given the highest retention priority when meeting the woodland retention and replacement requirements. 6. Street right of way, public utility corridors and building sites should be located so as to minimize their impact on woodlands and groves. 7. Where possible, woodlands and groves to be protected should be located within designated public or private open space, either through dedication, a conservation easement, or control by a homeowners' association. 14-51 GENERAL DEFINITIONS CHAPTER 9: DEFINITIONS SECTION: 14-9A-1: Definitions 14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS: Except when alternate definitions apply as specified in articles B through F of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply to terms used in this title. Descriptions and definitions of land use categories are set forth in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title; although, where it is deemed necessary for clarification, more specific definitions of certain land use category subgroups and specific land uses are defined in this section. ABUT/ABUTTING: Contiguous; having a common boundary, wall, or property line. ACCESS: The place, means or way by which pedestrians or vehicles have ingress and egress to a property or parking area. ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: A temporary accessory dwelling unit located within an owner occupied, single-family home or in an accessory building and meeting the requirements of this title. ACCESSORY BUILDING/USE/STRUCTURE: A building, structure, or use which: A. Is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants, customers, or employees of the principal use; and B. Is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property; and C. Does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent with the uses to which they are accessory; and D. Except for off street parking located on a separate lot as approved through a special exception, is located on the same lot as the principal use or uses to which it is accessory. ADDITION: An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure. ADULT: A person that is eighteen (18) years of age or older. ADULT BUSINESS USE: See "adult business use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. ADULT DAYCARE: An organized program of short term supportive daycare in a group environment for adults who need supervision, assistance or both. Services may include, but shall not be limited to, nursing and rehabilitative services, personal care, transportation services, social or recreational activities and preventative or restorative services. See "daycare uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. 14-9A AGRICULTURE USE: See "agricultural uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. AISLE: A permanent, durable surface connected directly to a parking or loading space and designed to permit ingress or egress of a vehicle. An "aisle" is not the same as a drive. (See definition of drive/driveway.) ALCOHOL SALES ORIENTED RETAIL USE: See "retail uses" as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. ALLEY: An open public way intended for use as a means of vehicular access to abutting property. ALTER/ALTERATION: A structural alteration, enlargement or remodeling of a building or the moving of a building from one location to another. ANIMAL DAYCARE: A nonresidential facility offering care for domestic animals during daytime hours, not during overnight hours. ANIMAL RELATED COMMERCIAL USE: See "animal related commercial use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. APARTMENT HOUSE: See "household living, multi -family uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. ARCADE: A continuous, covered passageway parallel to and open to a street, private or public open space, or building, and typically accessible and open to the public. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. Exterior building elements intended to provide ornamentation to the building massing, including, but not limited to: eaves, cornices, bay windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT. Exterior finish(es) applied to a building facade and intended for ornamentation or to reduce the visual size and scale of a building. ARTERIAL STREET: See definition of street, arterial. ARTISANAL INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. A business that makes food and/or products by hand. ASSESSED VALUE: The value of real property as established by the City Assessor. It is the value upon which the next fiscal year's Real Estate Taxes are based. AVIATION RELATED USE: See "aviation related uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. BALCONY: A covered or uncovered platform area projecting from the wall of a building, enclosed by a railing, accessible from above grade and not attached to the ground. 14-9A BASEMENT: A portion of a building located partially underground but having three and one-half feet (3.5') or more of its floor to ceiling height above grade. A "basement" is counted as a story for the purpose of height and setback regulations. BASIC UTILITIES: See "basic utility uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. BAY WINDOW. A window that projects from the building facade or elevation that begins on the ground floor and can extend to upper floors. BED AND BREAKFAST HOMESTAY: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family dwelling unit, in which no more than three (3) bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. BED AND BREAKFAST INN: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single- family dwelling unit with a maximum of five (5) bedrooms provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. BLOCK FACE. The aggregate of all the building facades on one side of a block. BLOCK LENGTH. The horizontal distance measured from one end of the block to the other end along the same street. Typically measured from one right-of-way to another right-of-way. BLOCK PERIMETER. The aggregate of all sides of a block measured along the adjacent streets. BLOCK SCALE, BUILDING. A building that is individually as large as a block or individual buildings collectively arranged along a street to form a continuous facade running the length of most or all of a block. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: A quasi-judicial board, the creation of which is authorized by the Code of Iowa, as amended. The "Board of Adjustment" is authorized to grant variances and special exceptions and is authorized to hear appeals of administrative decisions of the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. BUILD: To construct, assemble, install, convert, enlarge, reconstruct or structurally alter a building or structure. BUILDABLE AREA: The area remaining on a lot after the minimum open space requirement for setbacks has been met. BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or protect persons, animals or property. BUILDING AREA: Sometimes referred to as building footprint The area of a building within its largest outside dimensions, computed on a horizontal plane at the first floor level, exclusive of open porches, breezeways, terraces and exterior stairways. BUILDING COVERAGE: The amount of land covered or permitted to be covered by building area, usually measured in terms of lot percentage. 14-9A BUILDING, DETACHED: A building that is not connected to another building. BUILDING FACADE. The exterior wall of a building adjacent to a street, the front or side along a private street, or civic space. BUILDING FORM. The overall shape and dimensions of a building. BUILDING FRONTAGE. The length of the design site line of any one premises parallel to and along each street and/or open space which it borders. BUILDING HEIGHT: 1. General: The vertical distance from grade to the roofline. (See definitions of grade and roofline.) 2. In Form -Based Zones subject to Article 14-2H: The vertical distance between the point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk within the area between the building and the streetside property line(s), or when the streetside property line is more than five feet (5') from the building, between the building and a line five feet (5') from the building, and the roofline. (See definition of roofline.) Grade shall be calculated measuring the level of the surface of the ground at least every 20' along the entire frontage of the property. BUILDING LINE: The front setback line as specified for principal buildings. BUILDING OFFICIAL: The city employee designated to enforce this title. BUILDING PERMIT: Official certification that a proposed improvement complies with the provisions of this title and other applicable ordinances. A "building permit" is required for new construction, demolition, and for alterations or additions to existing structures, prior to commencement of construction or demolition. (See title 17, "Building And Housing", of this code.) BUILDING TYPE. A structure defined by its combination of configuration, disposition and function. CARSHARE PARKING SPACE. A parking space dedicated for use by a carshare service. CARSHARE SERVICE. A service that provides a network of motor vehicles available to rent by members by reservation on an hourly basis, or in smaller intervals. CEILING HEIGHT, UPPER FLOOR(S). The height from finished floor to finished ceiling of primary rooms on the floor(s) above the ground floor, not including secondary rooms including, but not limited to: bathrooms, closets, utility rooms, and storage spaces. CELLAR: A portion of a building located partially or wholly underground and having less than three and one-half feet (3.5') of its floor to ceiling height above grade. A "cellar" is not counted as a story for the purpose of height and setback regulations. 14-9A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Official certification that a premises conforms to provisions of this title and other applicable ordinances and may be used or occupied. A "certificate of occupancy" is granted upon completion of new construction or completion of alterations or additions to existing structures. CHAMFERED CORNER. An external wall of a building joining two perpendicular exterior walls, typically at a symmetrical, 45 degree angle creating a beveled edge to the building rather than a 90 degree corner. CHILDCARE CENTER: A nonresidential daycare use which provides less than twenty four (24) hours' per -day care or supervision for twelve (12) or more children, and is licensed by the state. (See "daycare", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) CHILDCARE HOME: A daycare use that is accessory to a household living use, which provides less than twenty four (24) hours' per- day care or supervision in a residence for a maximum of sixteen (16) children at any one time. (See "daycare", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) CITY: The city of Iowa City, Iowa. CITY COUNCIL: The city council of Iowa City, Iowa. CIVIC. A term defining not-for-profit organizations that are dedicated to arts, culture, education, religious activities, recreation, government, transit, and public parking facilities. CIVIC BUILDING. A structure operated by governmental or not-for-profit organizations and limited to civic and related uses. CIVIC SPACE. Open space that is accessible and dedicated for public use. Civic spaces may be privately or publicly maintained. CIVIC SPACE TYPE. One of the allowed types in Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Types Standards) of this Article. COLLECTOR STREET: See definition of Street, Collector. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: See "colleges and universities", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. COMMERCIAL PARKING: See "commercial parking uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USE: See "commercial recreational uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. COMMUNICATIONS/BROADCAST TOWER: A structure that is intended to support equipment used to transmit or receive telecommunications signals. Examples of such towers include monopoles and lattice steel structures. (See "communication transmission facility uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) 14-9A COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION FACILITY USES: See "communications transmissions facility uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. COMMUNITY SERVICE USE: See "community service uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. CONFINEMENT FEEDING OPERATIONS: One or more roofed or partially roofed enclosures intended to confine animals for feeding and growth prior to slaughter and which are designed to contain liquid or semiliquid animal waste. CONSERVATION DISTRICT: See section 14-3B-2, "Conservation District Overlay Zone", of this title for a detailed definition of a "conservation district". CONSIGNMENT STORE: A retail establishment engaged in selling used merchandise, such as clothing, furniture, books, shoes or household appliances, on consignment, or a retail establishment engaged in selling donated used merchandise which is operated by an organization granted federal tax exemption pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code, as amended. Merchandise is brought to the establishment and processed by marking, cleaning, sorting and storing as a major part of the principal use. Such stores do not include those selling vehicles, auto parts, scrap or waste. CONVERSION: Any change from one principal use to a principal use in another use category. "Conversion" also includes any change from one principal use to another principal use in a different use category subgroup. For example, it is considered a "conversion" if the use of a site is changed from a single-family use to a multi -family use or if a sales oriented retail use is changed to a repair oriented retail use. CORNER ELEMENT. A physical distinction in a building at the corner of two streets or a street and public space. The physical distinction is from the ground floor through the top of the facade. COTTAGE INDUSTRY: A firm that manufactures and/or assembles goods that are intended for retail sale to the general public. The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other outlets or firms, but retail sales is a significant component of the operation. The manufacturing component for such a firm is small in scale. Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial zones to keep the uses in scale and character with surrounding land uses. COURTYARD. An unroofed area that is completely or partially enclosed by walls or buildings on at least two sides and often shared by multiple residential units or non-residential suites. CREMATORIUM/CREMATORY: A furnace or establishment for the cremation of corpses. "Crematoriums" for human corpses are sometimes established as accessory uses to a cemetery, mortuary, funeral home, or hospital; however, if established as a principal use on a property, will be considered a personal service oriented retail use for purposes of this title. "Crematoriums" for pets are sometimes established as an accessory use to a cemetery, mortuary, funeral home, or veterinary clinic; however, if 14-9A established as a principal use on a property, will be considered a general animal related commercial use for purposes of this title. CUL-DE-SAC: See definition of Street, Cul -De -Sac. DAYCARE: See "daycare uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. DECK: A covered or uncovered platform area abutting the wall of a building, accessible at or from above grade and attached to the ground. DELAYED DEPOSIT SERVICE USE: An individual, group of individuals, partnership, association, corporation, or any other business unit or legal entity, who for a fee accepts a check dated subsequent to the date it was written or a check dated on the date it was written and holds said check for a period of time prior to deposit or presentment pursuant to an agreement with, or any representation made to, the maker of the check, whether express or implied. For purposes of this title, this definition includes only those individuals and entities to which Iowa Code chapter 533D is applicable. For the purposes of this title, "check" means a check, draft, share draft, or other instrument for the payment of money. DENSITY, GROSS: The number of dwelling units per unit area of land, usually expressed as "dwelling units per acre". DEPTH, GROUND -FLOOR SPACE. The distance from the street -facing facade to the rear interior wall of the ground -floor space available to an allowed use. DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT: An area designated by the city council that contains contiguous parcels of real property, the built portions of which: A. Are expressive of the defining architectural and other physical and aesthetic properties that give evidence to the physical traditions of Iowa City and/or unique features of the area; or B. Lack any defining physical or aesthetic qualities but constitute areas in which the city wishes to establish such qualities. DESIGN SITE. A portion of land delineated on a preliminary plat and neighborhood plan from others to accommodate no more than one primary building type (except as allowed by Article 14-2H). A lot may have multiple design sites when each design site meets the minimum width and depth required by the zone. DESIGN SITE DEPTH. The horizontal distance between the front design site line and rear design site line measured perpendicular to the front design site line. DESIGN SITE LINE. The perimeter and geometry of a parcel of property demarcating one design site from another. DESIGN SITE LINE, FRONT. The design site line that abuts a civic space or thoroughfare other than an alley and is the narrowest of the design site's sides. 14-9A DESIGN SITE WIDTH. The horizontal distance between the design site lines measured parallel to the front design site line. DETENTION FACILITIES: See "detention facilities", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: Any humanmade change to improved or unimproved property, including, but not limited to, placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures, construction, demolition, clearing, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavating or drilling. "Development activity" does not include transfer of ownership. DIRECTOR. Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, or designee. DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, a verifiable physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities and is expected to be long continued and of indefinite duration. DOWNZONING: A change in the zoning classification of land to a classification permitting less intensive or less dense development, such as from a multi -family zone to a single-family zone or from a commercial or industrial zone to a residential zone. DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: See "eating and drinking establishments" as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. DRIVE/DRIVEWAY: A permanent, durable surface designed to provide vehicular access from a street to a lot or to provide vehicular access between different parts of a lot or parking area. A drive that is internal to a parking area is not the same as an aisle. (See definition of aisle.) DWELLING: A building wholly or partially used or intended to be used for residential occupancy. DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A single-family use that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. (See "single-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) DWELLING, DUPLEX: A "two-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. Or as outlined in Sub -Section 14 -2H -6F (Duplex Side -by - Side) or Sub -Section 14 -2H -6G (Duplex Stacked). DWELLING, FARM: A detached single family dwelling located on a farm and occupied by the household that maintains and operates, owns or leases the farm on which the dwelling is located. DWELLING, MULTI -FAMILY: See "multi -family uses", as defined in chapter 4, article , "Use Categories", of this title. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: See "single-family uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. 14-9A DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. Multiple dwelling units exist if there is more than one meter for any utility, more than one address to the property, more than one kitchen, and/or if there is a lockable, physical separation between rooms within the dwelling unit such that a room or rooms on each side of the separation could be used as a dwelling unit. DWELLING UNIT, EFFICIENCY: A dwelling unit within a multi -family use consisting of one principal room, in addition to a bathroom, hallway and closets, which serves as the occupant's living room and bedroom. The kitchen may be located in this principal room or may be located in a separate room. DWELLING, ZERO LOT LINE: A single-family use with one or more walls located on a side lot line that is not a street or alley right-of-way line. Zero lot line dwellings may be attached or detached. (See "single-family uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) EASEMENT: A right given by the owner of land to another person or persons for specific limited use of that land, e.g., to allow access to another property or for utilities. EATING ESTABLISHMENT: See "eating and drinking establishments" as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, GENERAL: Elementary and secondary schools below university grade (ordinarily grades 1 through 12), including denominational and sectarian schools, kindergartens and military academies. (See "educational facilities", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, SPECIALIZED: Schools primarily engaged in offering specialized trade, business, or commercial courses, but not academic training. Also specialized nondegree granting schools, such as music schools, dramatic schools, dance studios, martial arts studios, language schools and civil service and other short term examination preparatory schools. (See "educational facilities", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) ELDER: A person at least fifty five (55) years old. ELDER APARTMENT HOUSING: A multi -family use intended for use and occupancy by elders and persons with disabilities. ELDER FAMILY HOME: A group household that is managed or owned by a responsible party and offers a social living arrangement for at least two (2), but for no more than eight (8), persons living in the residence, the majority of whom are elders, who are essentially capable of physical self-care. ELDER GROUP HOME: A group household that is the residence of a person who is providing room, board and personal care for up to five (5) elders who are not related to the caregiver. Personal care, in this case, means assistance with the essential activities of daily living which the recipient can perform personally only with difficulty, and may 14-9A include bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, grooming and the supervision of self- administered medications, but does not include the administration of medications. ELDERLY HOUSING: A multi -family use, group household use, or group living use intended for use and occupancy by elders and persons with disabilities. ENCROACHMENT. Any architectural feature, structure, or structural element that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit extending into a setback, or beyond the build -to -line into the public frontage, or above a height limit. ENLARGEMENT/EXPANSION: An increase in the volume of a building, an increase in the area of land or building occupied by a use, an increase in the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit or an increase in the number of dwelling units. For nonresidential buildings, an increase in the occupancy load of a building is considered an enlargement/expansion. For alcohol sales oriented retail uses, any change in the type of liquor license that would increase the types of alcohol or alcoholic beverages that can be sold is considered an enlargement/expansion of the use. For group living uses, any alteration that allows an increase in the number of residents is considered an enlargement/expansion of the use. For nonconforming drinking establishments, neither sidewalk cafes nor any alteration or addition to a commercial kitchen that does not result in an increase in the allowable occupancy load shall be considered an enlargement/expansion of the use. EXTRACTION USE: See "extraction uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. FACADE. See Building Facade. FACADE ZONE. The area between the minimum and maximum setback lines along the front of a design site and along the side street of a corner design site where a specified amount of the building facade is required to be placed. FAMILY: One person or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization. A "family" may also include the following: A. Two (2), but not more than two (2), persons not related by blood, marriage or adoption; or B. Up to eight (8) persons with verifiable disabilities, as defined by the fair housing amendments act of 1988, who are occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization. FAMILY CARE HOME: A type of group household, such as a residential care facility, a child foster care facility, a supervised apartment living arrangement or other small group residential arrangement for not more than eight (8) persons with verifiable disabilities, as defined by the federal fair housing act, as amended, that are occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit. Certain types of "family care homes" may require a government license or approval and may provide room and board, personal care, rehabilitation services, and supervision by counselor(s) or a resident family. An 14-9A individual foster care family home licensed under chapter 237 of the code of Iowa, as amended, is not considered a "family care home"; such a living arrangement would be considered a "family" under this title. Alternatives to incarceration, such as halfway houses, where residents of the facility are placed by order of the court and are under twenty four (24) hour supervision of employees or contractees of the Iowa department of corrections are classified under this title as "detention facilities" and not as "family care homes". FARM: An area of not less than ten (10) acres for which the principal use is growing farm products, such as vegetables, fruits and grain, for sale and storing those products on the land. The term "farm" includes the necessary accessory uses and buildings for treating and storing the food produced. FEEDLOT: A lot, yard, corral or other area where livestock are confined, primarily for the purposes of feeding and growth prior to slaughter. The term does not include areas which are used for raising crops or other vegetation or upon which livestock are allowed to graze. FINISH LEVEL, GROUND FLOOR. Height difference between the finished floor on the ground floor and the adjacent sidewalk. In the case of a terrace frontage that serves as the public right-of-way, the floor finish level is the height of the walk above the adjacent street. Standards for ground floor finish level for ground floor residential uses do not apply to ground floor lobbies and common areas in buildings. FLOOR AREA: The total area of all floors of a building, or a portion of a building, measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of walls of attached buildings or uses. Floor area includes all space within the building, including space in the basement or cellar, if such space is used for a principal or accessory use. However, floor area does not include the area of porches, balconies and other appurtenances. When calculating the floor area of a principal dwelling, the area of any attached garage is excluded. Floor area of basements and cellars is excluded from the calculation of FAR. (See definition of Floor Area Ratio.) FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): The numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area within a building or buildings on a lot by the area of such lot. The floor area of a basement or cellar is not included in this calculation. FORM -BASED ZONES: Zones listed in Article 14-2H "Form -Based Zones and Standards". It does not include Article 14-2G "Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards". Neighborhood Form - Based Zones include the T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones. FRATERNITY/SORORITY: A fraternal group living use used as a residence and as a center for activities and operations by a chapter of a nonprofit fraternity or sorority recognized by a "college" or "university", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. This definition does not include a rooming house. FREE STANDING WALL. A wall that is separate from a building and supported by independent means. 14-9A FRONT. See Design Site Line, Front. FRONTAGE: The distance as measured along a right of way line from one intersecting street to another, from one intersecting street to the end of a dead end street or from one intersecting street to the end of a cul-de-sac. � I t i 1 i I -- STREET RCM r r FRONTAGE, PRIVATE. The area between the building facade and the back of the sidewalk abutting a street or public open space. FRONTAGE, PUBLIC. The area between the on -street parking and the back of the sidewalk. FRONTAGE TYPE. Physical element(s) configured to connect the building facade to the back of the sidewalk abutting a street or public open space. FUNERAL HOME: A personal service oriented retail use where the deceased are prepared for burial, funerals are conducted, and which provides for viewing of the deceased. Funeral homes may include crematoriums as an accessory use subject to compliance with any state or federal regulation. GABLE. A vertical wall in the shape of a triangle formed between the cornice or eave and the ridge of the roof. GARAGE, PRIVATE: An accessory building that is used primarily for storing motor vehicles and which is under the control of and used by the occupants of the principal building on the site. GLAZING. Openings in a building in which glass is installed. GRADE (Adjacent Ground Elevation): The average point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than five feet (5') from the building, between the building and a line five feet (5') from the building. When the finished surface of the ground has been raised by adding fill to create a higher grade around a building, the slope of the fill within twenty feet (20') of the building shall not exceed four (4) horizontal to one vertical or twenty five percent (25%). GROSS FLOOR AREA. The total floor area inside the building envelope, including the external walls, but not including the roof. 14-9A GROUND FLOOR/FIRST FLOOR: The lowest floor of a building having its floor to ceiling height at or above the grade. GROUP CARE FACILITY: An assisted group living use that is government licensed or approved and that provides services in a residential setting to more than eight (8) individuals, not including resident staff. These individuals are persons with one or more disabilities, as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, who are in need of adult supervision and who are provided services in accordance with their individual needs. This definition also includes facilities, such as nursing homes, that provide residential services and skilled care to convalescents or the elderly. GROUP HOUSEHOLD: A "family care home", "elder family home", "parental group home", or "elder group home", as defined in this title, wherein a collective number of individuals live together in one dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit, where the relationship between the individuals is of a regular and permanent nature and has a distinct domestic character, similar to a family. GROUP LIVING USE: See "group living uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. "Group living uses" include assisted group living uses, independent group living uses, and fraternal group living uses. GUEST: An individual who shares a dwelling on a temporary basis for not more than thirty (30) days in any given calendar year; or a person who stays in a hospitality oriented retail use. GUESTHOUSE: A small hospitality oriented retail use containing nine (9) or fewer bedrooms providing lodging for guests, which is licensed as a hotel by the State and subject to City inspection and compliance with the Iowa City Housing Code. HEDGE: A boundary formed by a row of closely planted shrubs or bushes. HEIGHT. See "Building Height". HISTORIC DISTRICT: See definition of "historic districts" in section 14-3B-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title. HISTORIC LANDMARK: See definition of "historic landmark" in section 14-3B-1, "Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title. HOME OCCUPATION: An accessory use consisting of an occupation or profession carried on by a person residing on the premises. HOSPITAL: See "hospitals", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. HOSPITALITY ORIENTED RETAIL USE: See "retail uses, hospitality oriented", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. HOTEL: A hospitality oriented retail use that is licensed by the State and occupied and used principally as a place of lodging for guests. "Hotels" may or may not provide meals and there are usually no cooking facilities in the guestrooms. 14-9A HOUSE SCALE, BUILDING. A building that is the size of a small -to -large house and detached from other buildings, typically ranging from 24 feet to as large as 80 feet overall, including secondary wings. HOUSEHOLD: An individual or group of individuals that reside within a single family dwelling or within a dwelling unit of a two family dwelling or multi -family dwelling as a single housekeeping organization, where the responsibilities and expenses of maintaining the household are shared among the members; also a group of individuals that meet the definition of a group household, as defined in this title. HOUSEHOLD LIVING USE: See "household living uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. INDOOR ANIMAL RECREATION: An indoor facility used for the exercise, recreation, or training of domestic animals. INDUSTRIAL SERVICE USE: See "industrial service uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. KENNEL: An establishment where small animals are bred, raised, trained, groomed, or boarded for compensation, sale or other commercial purposes. LIVE/WORK. A unit that combines and accommodate both residential and the place of business for the resident(s) of the unit. Typically characterized with having the "work" function at the ground level and the "live" function on upper levels. LIVESTOCK: Cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and other animals or fowl that are produced primarily for use as food or food products for human consumption. LOADING SPACE, OFF STREET: Space logically and conveniently located and designed for bulk pick ups and deliveries and accessible to delivery vehicles from aisles. LOCAL STREET: See definition of Street, Local. LODGING HOUSE: See definition of Rooming House. LONG TERM CARE FACILITY: See definition of Group Care Facility. LOT: A plot, separate tract or parcel of land with fixed boundaries suitable for occupancy by a use. LOT AREA: The total area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding any public or private street rights of way. LOT, CORNER: A lot located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets. LOT COVERAGE: The percentage of the lot area covered by certain specified elements of development. There are a number of lot coverage standards within this title, including building coverage standards, setback coverage standards, and standards related to the amount of land that can be covered by accessory uses. 14-9A LOT DEPTH: The average horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line or the distance between the midpoint of the front lot line and the midpoint of the rear lot line. On a double frontage lot, lot depth is the average horizontal distance between the two parallel or approximately parallel front lot lines. LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE: A lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets. LOT FRONTAGE: The continuous width of a lot measured along the street right of way line. 1.01- Ftont-i ± ui math E.Fris. i f I 1 I I � I � STREET .-.�if RWO' LIKE 3 ffiCL 1 I C:re LIN! FPOHI(IOL 1 :SLI SI;:ICLN! LOT, INTERIOR: A lot bounded by a street on only one side. LOT LINE: A line oriented by stable points of reference which establishes one boundary of a lot. LOT LINE, FRONT: A lot line separating a lot from the street right of way. On corner lots, the front lot line is the shortest street dimension, unless the lot is square or almost square, having dimensions at a ratio between three to two (3:2) and three to three (3:3). In that case, the front lot line may be along either street. On double frontage lots, there are two (2) front lot lines. LOT LINE, REAR: The lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, it is an imaginary line within the lot, ten feet (10') long, parallel to and farthest from the front lot line. However, on a double frontage lot, there is no rear lot line. LOT LINE, SIDE: Any lot line that is not a street -side lot line, front lot line or rear lot line. LOT LINE, STREET -SIDE: Any lot line that separates a lot from a public or private street (not including alleys or private rear lanes). 14-9A g rn M 5 5 REAR LOT LINE REPRtCliT INET REAR LOT LI E FPc 1T LOT LIRE F RORT LAT LINE FRONT LOTLrNE S7I!!Y- Ioe LOT LITE STRrfsT-iIDG LOT Li/1E STRWY-Mln IAr UNE STREET 31nii�❑�s REAR LOT UNE } FRONT LOT LIKE STREET -SIDE LOT LIKE LOT, REVERSED CORNER: A corner lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot. 14-9A STREIT INTERIOR LOT CARIJER LOi I J INTERIpF2 cXPRHER LOT LOT :TkCLr 1RE,ERREO CORNER LOT IIITER14R 1 IN1!RIOR I - - - - - INTERIOR Liar RE4ER8ED CORNER LOT L----TL�T�:r s1REET 87REIr LOT WIDTH: The length of the front setback line. On corner and double frontage lots, the "lot width" is measured along the shortest street frontage, unless the lot is square or almost square, having dimensions at a ratio between three to two (3:2) and three to three (3:3). In that case, the lot width may be measured along either street. MAIN BODY. The primary massif of a main building. MAIN FACADE. The front facade of a primary building. MAIN ENTRANCE (To A Residential Use): The primary entrance located on the exterior wall of a building used by residents of a dwelling to gain access to their dwelling unit. Such an entrance is typically located on a street -facing wall of the dwelling. An entrance to a dwelling from a parking garage is not a "main entrance". MANUFACTURED HOME: A detached single-family dwelling which is manufactured or constructed under the authority of 42 USC section 5403, federal manufactured home construction and safety standards, as amended, which is not constructed with a permanent hitch or other device allowing it to be moved other than for the purpose of moving to a permanent site and which does not have permanently attached to its body or frame any wheels or axles. A mobile home constructed to the federal manufactured home construction and safety standards, as amended, is not a "manufactured home" unless it has been converted to real property and is taxed as a site built dwelling as provided in the code of Iowa, as amended. MANUFACTURED HOUSING LEASE LOT: A plot of ground in a manufactured housing park designed to accommodate one dwelling unit and which is leased to the owner or tenant of the dwelling unit. MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK: A tract of land which has been planned and improved for the placement of manufactured homes, mobile homes or modular homes on leased lots. MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION USE: See "manufacturing and production uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. MASSING. The overall shape or arrangement of the bulk or volume of a building. MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. House -scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods. MIXED USE BUILDING: A building that contains a mix of residential dwelling units and commercial or institutional uses. MOBILE HOME: Any vehicle without motive power used, manufactured or constructed so as to permit its conveyance upon the public streets and highways and designed, constructed or reconstructed so as to permit its use for year round occupancy as a dwelling. The vehicle must contain water supply, waste disposal, heating and electrical conveniences. A "mobile home" is factory built housing built on a chassis. A "mobile home" shall not be construed to be a travel trailer or other form of recreational vehicle. A "mobile home" shall be construed to remain a "mobile home", subject to all regulations applying thereto, whether or not wheels, axles, hitch or other appurtenances of mobility 14-9A are removed and regardless of the nature of the foundation provided. "Mobile homes" are classified as detached single-family dwellings if converted to real property and taxed as a site built dwelling, as provided in the code of Iowa, as amended, or if they are located within a manufactured housing park approved through a planned development overlay rezoning process. MODEL DWELLING UNIT: A permanent structure within a residential zone, which is primarily intended to be used as a dwelling unit, but which is temporarily being used for marketing purposes as an example of other units to be built in the same development. "Model dwelling units" are considered provisional temporary uses as set forth in chapter 4, article D, "Temporary Uses", of this title. MODULAR HOME: Any detached single-family dwelling manufactured, in whole or in components, at a place other than the location where it is to be placed; which is assembled, in whole or in components, at the location where it is to be permanently located; which rests on a permanent foundation or slab; which does not have wheels or axles affixed as a part of its normal construction; and which does not require a license by any agency as a motor vehicle, special equipment, trailer, motor home or mobile home. MOTEL: A hospitality oriented retail use that is licensed by the State, usually located along highways, occupied by and used principally as a place of lodging for guests. The term "motel" includes "motor hotel". MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITY: A commercial parking facility owned and operated by the City, and designed to accommodate the off street parking of motor vehicles as a capital improvement. Such parking may be located in a structured parking facility, a surface lot or a combination thereof. NEAR SOUTHSIDE PARKING FACILITY DISTRICT: That area of Iowa City bounded by Burlington Street on the north, Gilbert Street on the east, the Iowa Interstate Railway Main Line on the south and Madison Street on the west, except for Blocks 10 and 21 of County Seat Addition; Lots 5 and 6 of Block 13, County Seat Addition; Lots 3, 4, 5, the east 50 feet of Lot 6, and the south 40 feet of Lot 2, Block 11, County Seat Addition; and Lots 10-15, Lyon's First Addition. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: A use owned and operated by a nonprofit organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, providing a place for social services, such as childcare, supervised recreation, counseling referral for children and adults or support groups for children and adults. Such services should be intended primarily, though not exclusively, for those persons living within a mile radius of the center. NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT: An element of a development, such as a parking area, a loading area, outdoor lighting, landscaping, screening, or signage, that was established in conformance with this title, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zoning or to the requirements of this title, is no longer in conformance with the current applicable standards. 14-9A NONCONFORMING LOT: A lot of record that was established in conformance with the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirement of this title, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or the requirements of this title, is no longer in conformance with one or more of these requirements. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE: A structure or portion of a structure that was established in conformance with the setback, building height, building width, and lot coverage standards, or other requirements or standards of this title that relate to the design of the building or structure, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of this title, is no longer in conformance with one or more of these standards. NONCONFORMING USE: A use that, when established, was a permitted use, was allowed as a provisional use, or was approved as a special exception, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of this title, is no longer allowed. This definition includes residential uses that exceed the allowable residential density of a zone (minimum lot area per unit requirements) and uses that exceed the maximum floor area ratio or maximum floor area standards specified for a particular use or zone. NURSING HOME: See definition of group care facility. OFFICIALLY APPROVED PLACE: A private street permitted prior to 1984. Such streets were established either by the City Council or by the Board of Adjustment as a variance to the requirement that a lot front on a public street. OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE: Open space used by occupants of the dwelling unit or units on one lot or design site. Such open space and any private recreational facilities located therein are considered an accessory use to the principal use of the property. OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE, SHARED: Open space, the use of which is shared by occupants of an entire subdivision or planned development, but which is not generally open to the public. Such open space is typically managed and maintained by an owners' association. OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC: Open space that has been dedicated for public use or for which an easement has been granted for public use. OPEN SPACE USE: See "parks and open space uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. ORIEL WINDOW (Syn Upper Story Bay Window). A window that projects from the building facade or elevation, located on upper floors and may extend for multiple stories. OUTDOOR DISPLAY: Includes the outdoor display of products, vehicles, equipment, and machinery for sale or lease. "Outdoor display" is an outdoor showroom for customers to examine and compare products. There is variety or a distinction among the goods on display, through different products, brands, or models. The display area does not have to be visible to the street. "Outdoor display" does not include goods that are being stored or parked outside. It does not include damaged or inoperable vehicles, 14-9A vehicles or equipment being serviced, bulk goods and materials, and other similar products. Examples of uses that often have "outdoor display" are car and boat sales, and plant nurseries. See also definition of outdoor storage. OUTDOOR STORAGE: Includes the outdoor storage of goods that generally have little or no differentiation by type or model. The goods may be for sale or lease, but if so, they are the type that customers generally do not inspect and compare. "Outdoor storage" includes the storage of raw or finished goods (packaged or bulk), including gravel; mulch; building materials, packing materials, salvage goods; machinery, tools and equipment; and other similar items. Examples of uses that often have "outdoor storage" are lumberyards, vehicle repair; tool and equipment rental, bark chip and gravel sales, salvage yards; and recycling processing facilities. See also definition of outdoor display. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY ORIENTED RETAIL: See "retail uses, outdoor storage and display oriented", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. OVERLAY ZONE: A set of zoning requirements imposed in addition to those of the underlying base zone. Development in overlay zones must conform to the requirements of the overlay zone as well as those of the underlying base zone, unless modifications to base zone requirements are approved as a part of the overlay rezoning process. OWNER: The person holding fee simple or equitable title to the property. PARAPET. A wall along the edge of a roof or the portion of a wall that extends above the roof line. PARCEL: See definition of lot. PARENTAL GROUP HOME: A type of group household containing not more than three (3) teenagers or adults and up to four (4) children under five (5) years of age, each of whom is related by blood to at least one of said teenagers or adults, placed in a residential dwelling unit by a government or social service agency and occupying said dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit for purposes of social and/or economic support. PARKING AREA: An off street facility intended and designed for the parking of more than four (4) motor vehicles. A parking area includes parking spaces, aisles, landscaped islands and medians, and drives that provide circulation within a parking area or around the perimeter of a parking area. Drives that are external to a parking area are not considered a part of the parking area. PARKING DRIVEWAY WIDTH. The horizontal measurement of an access driveway to a parking area, beginning at the sidewalk, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel. PARKING SPACE: A permanent, durable surface intended for off street vehicular parking. 14-9A PARKING, SHARED. Any parking spaces assigned to more than one user, where different persons utilizing the spaces are unlikely to need the spaces at the same time of day. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE USES: See "parks and open space uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. PATIO: A covered or uncovered, surfaced outdoor living area located at grade, adjacent to and accessible from a dwelling. PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED: "Pedestrian oriented" streets and developments are those that are designed to provide a safe, comfortable environment for pedestrians. Important elements include sidewalks that are separated and buffered from vehicular traffic with limited interruption from driveways; the provision of street trees and appropriate street furniture; and buildings that visually address the street with visible entranceways and windows, and, in the case of commercial buildings, may include awnings or canopies that protect pedestrians from the weather. Buildings with blank facades along the street, long stretches of repetitive building designs, entranceways that are difficult to find or identify, unscreened surface parking lots, and other expanses of paving are contrary to a "pedestrian oriented" design. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: Regulatory language stating the minimum requirement or the maximum allowable limit on the effects or characteristics of a use. PERMITTED USE: A principal use allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance with the dimensional requirements, development standards, and any other special requirement of the zone and the general requirements of this title. PERSON: Any individual or group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association or any entity, including state and local governments and agencies. PERSONAL SERVICE: See "retail uses, personal service oriented", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. PLANTING AREA: An unpaved pervious area intended or used for the placement of a tree or other required landscaping elements. PLANTING STRIPS. A landscaped or grassy area located between a street and a sidewalk. PORCH: A covered entrance to a building consisting of a platform area, with open or enclosed sides, projecting from the wall of a building. PREMISES: See definition of Lot. PRIMARY BUILDING. The building that serves all activities related to the principal use of the design site. PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE: The frontage of a lot to which the address is assigned. PRINCIPAL BUILDING: A building containing the principal use. 14-9A PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of land or a structure as distinguished from an accessory use, e.g., a dwelling is a principal use on a lot in a residential zone, while a garage or pool is an accessory use. PRIVATE OUTDOOR ANIMAL RECREATION: An outdoor facility used for the exercise, recreation, or training of domestic animals. PROJECTIONS (INTO SETBACKS): Parts of buildings, such as architectural features, which protrude into required setback areas. PROVISIONAL USE: A principal use allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance with the specific requirements mentioned with the use and all other dimensional and development requirements and special requirements, if any, of the zone as well as the general requirements of this title. PUBLIC REALM. The combined area along the front and side street portions of design sites, visible to the pedestrian, that is between the facades of buildings on both sides of a thoroughfare or between the facades on one side of the thoroughfare and the edge of the adjacent open or civic space. PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: Property dedicated to public use and intended for the movement of the public. PUBLIC UTILITY: A system owned and operated by a licensed public utility company or by a railroad company. Such systems do not include those owned and operated by the city of Iowa City or other governmental agency. PUBLIC VIEW, WITHIN: Visible from a public street, public sidewalk, public access easement, or other public way, or from a public park or other public open space area. QUARRY: Land used for excavating stone or slate. QUICK VEHICLE SERVICING USES: See "quick vehicle servicing uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. REAL ESTATE SALES CENTER: A provisional temporary use consisting of an on site office within a model dwelling unit that is used as a real estate office for the sale of dwelling units or lots within the same subdivision or development in which the sales center is located. REAR. Opposite of front. REAR -LOADED (REAR ACCESS). Design sites that provide vehicular access from the rear of the design site. RECESSED ENTRY. An entrance to a building that is set back from the facade of the building. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: Reusable materials including, but not limited to, metal, glass, plastic, cardboard, and paper products which are intended for reuse, remanufacture or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form. "Recyclable materials" does not include automobiles or other vehicles or machinery and their components, structural steel materials and equipment, hazardous chemicals or 14-9A materials such as used motor oil and discarded automobile batteries, or biodegradable materials such as yard waste. RECYCLING PROCESSING FACILITY: A waste related use where recyclable materials are collected, stored, and processed for efficient shipment, or to an end user's specifications, by such means as baling, briquetting, compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing, sorting, shredding or cleaning, but not by processes involving heat for melting, smelting or burning. A "recycling processing facility" does not include "salvage operations", as defined in this title. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION: Any religious/private group assembly use primarily intended to provide a place of assembly for the practice of religion, which has been granted a federal tax exemption as a section 501(c)(3) organization under the internal revenue code, as amended. For purposes of this title, not all facilities, businesses, and institutions owned and operated by a "religious institution" are categorized as religious/private group assembly. (See "religious/private group assembly uses", "educational facilities", "hospitals", "colleges and universities", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) RELIGIOUS/PRIVATE GROUP ASSEMBLY USE: See "religious/private group assembly uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. REMODEL/REPAIR: Any improvement in a building that is not a structural alteration. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: A person who resides in and provides room and board in an elder family home. The "responsible party" may be, but is not required to be, an elder. RESTAURANT: An eating establishment as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT: See "retail uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. REZONING: An amendment to the text of this title, including any amendment or change to any maps, graphic representations, or tables incorporated herein; and/or an amendment to the zoning map, i.e., a change in the zoning designation of a particular parcel or parcels of land. Overlay rezonings are considered a type of "rezoning". ROOF: The top covering of a building constructed to shield the area beneath from the weather. The term "roof" includes the term "canopy". ROOFLINE: The highest point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof or the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel or ogee roof. ROOFTOP ROOM. A room, with or without a roof, limited in size that is located on the uppermost roof of certain house -scale buildings to provide views across a neighborhood or the community. See Sub -Section 14 -2H -7F (Rooftop Room). ROOFTOP SERVICE AREA (RSA): An accessory use to an eating or drinking establishment, commercial recreational use, hospitality oriented retail use or similar principal use that is designed as an outdoor seating or gathering space located on a 14-9A rooftop or upper floor terrace of a building, and that is open to the public for events, entertainment, meetings, and/or as a food and beverage service area. Rooftop patios or upper floor terraces intended for private use by the residents or occupants of a building are not considered RSAs. If the RSA is accessory to an establishment that is licensed by the State to sell alcoholic beverages, it is considered a type of "outdoor service area" as defined in section of this Code, and is subject to the applicable regulations in title 4, "Alcoholic Beverages", of this Code. ROOMER: An individual who leases and resides within a rooming unit of a group living use. Staff, including live-in staff of an assisted group living use, are not considered "roomers". ROOMING HOUSE: Any dwelling containing two (2) or more rooming units in which space is let by the owner or operator to four (4) or more roomers. A rooming house is categorized as an independent group living use. ROOMING HOUSE COOPERATIVE: A fraternal group living use that is organized as a nonprofit entity and that is an active member of North American Students of Cooperation (NASCO) or one of its affiliates, whose primary mission is to provide a cooperative living environment for its members. Said use is governed by a board that is democratically elected by members of the cooperative, with all members and board members having as their primary residence a rooming unit governed by the cooperative. ROOMING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms that form a single, private residential unit intended to be used primarily for living and sleeping, but not for cooking, located within a group living use. SALVAGE OPERATION: See "salvage operations", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. SCREENING: Structures and/or plantings that obscure an area from public view or from view of neighboring properties. SELF-SERVICE STORAGE: See "self-service storage uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. SERVICE STATION: See "quick vehicle servicing uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. SETBACK: The distance between a specified object, such as a building, and another point. "Setbacks" are usually measured from lot lines to a specified object. Unless otherwise indicated, an unspecified setback refers to a building setback. SETBACK AREA: A required area on a lot unoccupied by structures above grade, except for projections and specific accessory uses or structures allowed in such area under the provisions of this title. A "setback area" extends from the grade upward. SETBACK (AREA), FRONT: The area on a lot between the street -side lot line(s) and the front setback line. SETBACK (AREA), REAR: On an interior lot, the rear setback is the area extending from one side lot line to another side lot line and between the rear setback line and rear 14-9A lot line. On a corner lot, the rear setback is the area extending from the side lot line to the front setback line between the rear lot line and rear setback line. On a double frontage lot, there is no rear setback. SETBACK (AREA), SIDE: Any setback area between a side lot line and a side setback line that is not a front setback area or a rear setback area. SETBACK LINE: The line beyond which a specified use, object, building or structure shall not project, except as specified in this title. SETBACK LINE, FRONT: A line drawn parallel to the street and as far back from the street as specified for the principal building, front setback. SETBACK LINE, REAR: A line drawn parallel to the rear lot line and as far forward from the rear lot line as specified for the principal building, rear setback. SETBACK LINE, SIDE: A line drawn parallel to the side lot line and as far from the side lot line as specified for the principal building, side setback. 14-9A Franc Let Uro & ST kLL' Stnxtsido Lot'rim 61reet9da Lot Lino L Front Lt[.:tic& Ftsx,tLot Lilo& Sirtgaide lot Crnr. C{3ilDLE FRONTAGE LOT emor L Front L9L Lino Sireatcida Lot Lira — r. 1 FsanL ;f. uno $ide Lat Lina Roar Setback Lre Line 9vaotloe Lot Lim Roar Lai Lina CORNER LOT Front Seihedh LIN) Sick Lot i inn Ruer Lat Lino £,r.n Lat Lkw Rx�li :olaxk ` w sT MET KEY rem INTERIOR LOT Front setback area Side setback area Rear setback area SETBACK, PARKING. The mandatory clear distance between a design site line and parking. SHOPFRONT BASE. A very low wall , that does not include glass, between the display window(s) of a shopfront and the adjacent sidewalk. SHRUB: Any woody, perennial, bushy plant that branches into several stems or trunks at the base and is smaller than a tree. "Shrubs" are important features in permanent landscape planting, being used for formal decorative groups, hedges, screens, and background plantings, to which they contribute pattern, color, fragrance, or utility. 14-9A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: A principal or accessory use allowed in a particular zone only upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the general and specific approval criteria for such a use as specified in this title and as approved by the board of adjustment. A "special exception" may also mean an adjustment or waiver of certain zoning requirements allowed in certain circumstances specifically enumerated in this title, subject to compliance with all the general and specific approval criteria for such an adjustment or waiver as specified in this title and as approved by the board of adjustment. STACKING SPACE: A permanent, durable surface designed to accommodate a motor vehicle waiting for entry to part of a development or use, such as a loading or unloading area, drive- through, car wash, or other auto oriented use. STOREFRONT: The ground level frontage of a building in which there is located a single business directly behind the frontage. A building may have more than one storefront. The length of the storefront is measured from the outside edge of the exterior walls of the building, or if there are multiple storefronts located in a single building, from the centerline of the wall that separates the business from another business, public area, or other area not occupied by the subject business. Narrow storefronts are those that are less than or equal to forty feet (40') in width. Medium storefronts are those that are greater than forty feet (40') and less than or equal to sixty feet (60') in width. Wide storefronts are those greater than sixty feet (60') in width. STORY: The portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the next floor above. The topmost "story" shall be that habitable portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling above. STORY, HALF. A conditioned space that rests primarily underneath the slope of the roof, usually having dormer windows. The half story is identified by the ".5" in the description of maximum height (2.5). A half -story becomes a full story when its top wall plates, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are four feet or more above the floor of such story. STREET, ARTERIAL: A street, the principal function of which is to provide for through traffic and which is designed to carry large volumes of traffic. Arterial streets, as referenced in this title, are those streets shown on the Iowa City arterial street map as provided in chapter 5, article C , "Access Management Standards", of this title. STREET, COLLECTOR: A street, the principal function of which, is carrying traffic from local streets to arterial streets. STREET, CUL-DE-SAC: A local street terminating in a turnaround. STREET, FRONT. Street located along the front design site line. 14-9A STREET FRONTAGE, PRINCIPAL. The horizontal area of a design site parallel to and along the public right-of-way which it borders and which is identified by an officially assigned street address. On rectangular design sites at a street corner, the Principal Street Frontage shall have the narrower width in comparison to the other street frontage. STREET FURNITURE: Manmade objects, other than buildings, which are part of the streetscape. Examples include, but are not limited to, benches, litter containers, planting containers, sculptures, and bus shelters. STREET, LOCAL: A street used primarily for access to abutting property and for moving local traffic. STREET, PRIVATE: A way that is intended to afford a means of access to abutting lots and for moving local traffic. A private street is not owned or controlled by a government entity. STREET, PUBLIC: A right of way, dedicated to and accepted for public use, which affords a means of access to abutting property and a means of vehicular travel. A public street is owned or controlled by a government entity. STREET, SIDE. Street located along a design site line that is not the front design site line. STREET TREE. A tree of any species or size planted in open spaces, parkways, sidewalk areas, easements, and streets. STREETSCAPE: The scene of a street or way composed of natural and manmade elements, including buildings, paving, plantings, street furniture and miscellaneous structures. STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY BUILDING/USE. A building, structure, or use which: a. Is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants, customers, or employees of the principle use; b. Is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property; c. Does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent with the uses to which they are accessory; and d. Except for off street parking located on a separate design site as approved through a special exception, is located on the same design site as the principal use or uses to which it is an accessory. STRUCTURAL ALTERATION: Any change in the configuration of the exterior walls, foundation or roof of a building that results in an increase in the area, height or volume of the building. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or installed on the ground or which is attached to something located on the ground. "Structures" include buildings, radio and TV towers, sheds and permanent signs. "Structures" exclude vehicles, sidewalks and paving. 14-9A SUBSTANDARD LOT: See definition of Nonconforming Lot. SURFACE PASSENGER SERVICES: See "surface passenger services", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. TAILGATING: A home football game day informal social gathering that is noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee. TANDEM PARKING. A parking space deep enough to allow two cars to park, one behind the other. TOWNHOUSE: Attached single-family dwellings containing not less than three (3) side by side, attached dwelling units (townhouse units), with each dwelling unit being located on a separate lot. Or as outlined in Sub -Section 14 -2H -6K (Townhouse). TOWNHOUSE STYLE APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS: A multi -family dwelling containing not less than three (3) side by side, attached dwelling units, each with its own exterior entrance, and with all dwelling units located on the same lot. TRACT: An abutting group of lots developed for a use or uses which share common facilities, e.g., off street parking, loading and driveways. A "tract" shall be considered a single lot in the application of the requirements of this title. TRANSIENT HOUSING: A community service shelter use owned and operated by a nonprofit organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code, as amended, providing a temporary residence, for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, for persons in need of emergency shelter and temporarily unable to pay for housing. (See "community service - shelter", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title.) TREE: Perennial woody plant with a single main stem (the trunk or bole) from which branches and twigs extend to form a characteristic crown of foliage. "Trees" are important features in permanent landscape planting, being used to define street edges, to lessen heat island effects through shading, and by contributing pattern, color and utility. Small trees generally attain a height at maturity of up to fifty feet (50'). Large trees generally attain a height at maturity greater than forty feet (40'). See the list of recommended "trees" for Iowa City, available through the city forester's office. TRUCK TERMINAL FACILITY: A warehouse and freight movement use intended to provide storage of truck trailers, and for the loading and unloading and temporary storage of goods and materials. UPPER FLOOR. A floor in a building containing habitable space that is located above the ground floor. UPZONING: The opposite of downzoning. (See definition of Downzoning.) 14-9A USE: A purpose or activity for which land, structures, or a portion thereof, are designed, occupied and maintained. USE, ACCESSORY: See definition of Accessory Building/Use/Structure. USE, PERMITTED: See definition of Permitted Use. USE, PRINCIPAL: See definition of Principal Use. USE, PROVISIONAL: See definition of Provisional Use. UTILITY -SCALE GROUND -MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. UTILITY SUBSTATION FACILITY: An assemblage of equipment used for the purpose of changing the strength, volume, or configuration of the utility flow from a bulk quantity to smaller quantities to be used in the local distribution system. "Utility substation facilities" include, but are not limited to, electric substations, gas regulator stations, telecommunications switching and relay facilities, and water and sewer pumps or lift stations. A "utility substation facility" is classified as a "basic utility use" for purposes of this title. VACATION: The process by which the city discontinues the use of a street, alley or easement as a public way. VARIANCE: A means of granting a property owner relief from certain provisions of this title where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this title shall be observed and substantial justice done. The authority to grant "variances" is vested in the board of adjustment pursuant to the code of Iowa, as amended. VEHICLE: Every device in, on or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a street or highway. VEHICLE REPAIR USE: See "vehicle repair uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. VEHICLE STORAGE: A vehicle or portion thereof which is parked in the same position for a period of forty eight (48) hours or more. WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. Areas that are pedestrian -oriented in nature, with a highly interconnected network of streets, where bicycling and walking are viable daily options because services, shopping, or food uses are within a short walking distance of most dwellings. WALKABILITY. The condition when an area is highly interconnected to other areas and appeals to pedestrians for recreational walking or for walking to work, transit, errands, shopping, or restaurants. 14-9A WAREHOUSE AND FREIGHT MOVEMENT USE: See "warehouse and freight movement uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. WASTE RELATED USE: See "waste related uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. WING. A structure physically attached to, and smaller in footprint and height to, the Main Body of a building. WHOLESALE SALES USE: See "wholesale sales uses", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use Categories", of this title. YARD/COURTYARD, INTERIOR: An open area on a lot, which is bounded on at least three (3) sides by the exterior walls of one or more buildings and is not open toward a street -side lot line. An interior courtyard is not a side yard. YARD, FRONT: The area on a lot between the street -side lot line(s) and a line drawn parallel to and flush with the plane of any building facade of a principal building that faces a street- side lot line. On lots with multiple buildings, there is no front yard adjacent to buildings that are behind or surrounded by other buildings, such that there is no facade directly facing the street. YARD, REAR: On an interior lot, the rear yard is the area extending from one side lot line to another side lot line and between the rear lot line and a line drawn parallel to and flush with the plane of the rear building facade(s) of the principal building(s) on a lot. On a corner lot, the rear yard is the area extending from the side lot line to the front yard line that is opposite the side lot line and between the rear lot line and a line drawn parallel to and flush with the plane of any building facade(s) of the principal building(s) that faces a rear lot line. On a double fronting lot there is no rear yard. YARD, SIDE: The area on a lot bounded by any facade of the principal building that faces a side lot line and that same side lot line and excluding any area that is front yard, rear yard, or interior courtyard. 14-9A Rear Lot Line Side Lot Line � Side Lot Line Side yard BUILD{NG -Side yard Side yard Fronk word �ir�r Front yard Interior Lot STREET Franttot Line Side Lot Line Side yard Front yard STREET Side yard ront tot line Double -Frontage Lot Rear Lot Line Front Yard Lino Street Side Lot Line STREET Front lo! line Corner Lot Prort y 111 OD RRT YAM} 0111 R•Idg Una Interim- Court Yard ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION PANEL: A staff panel designated by the City Manager to interpret the provisions of this title in such a way as to carry out its intent and purpose. 14-9A ZONING MAP: The map delineating the boundaries of zoning districts, which, along with the zoning text, comprises this title. 14-9A ARTICLE C. SIGN DEFINITIONS SECTION: 14-9C- : Definitions 14-9C-1: DEFINITIONS: As used in 'hapter 5, article B, "Sign Regulations", of this title, the following definitions shall apply. The general definitions contained in article A of this chapter shall apply to all terms used in chapter 5, article E= of this title that are not defined in this section. ANIMATED SIGN: Any sign or part of a sign which, through the use of moving structural elements, flashing or sequential lights, lighting elements, or other automated method, results in movement, or the appearance of movement. AWNING SIGN: A building sign placed on the surface of an awning. xwra�er 5I5.4 BALLOON: An inflatable bag filled with gas or hot air and displayed in such a way as to attract attention to the premises on which it is located. BANNER: A strip of flexible material, such as cloth, paper or plastic, securely fastened on all corners to a building or structure. BILLBOARD: An off premises sign on which poster panels or bulletins are mounted. For purposes of this title, billboard signs are not considered freestanding signs or monument signs. BUILDING SIGN: Any sign attached to a building or to an appurtenance of a building in any way. CABINET SIGN: A sign constructed like a cabinet with a flat translucent face and structural and lighting components located within the cabinet. CANOPY SIGN: A building sign attached to or in any way incorporated with the face, underside or roof of a canopy, marquee or any other similar building projection. Extensions of a flat topmost roof past a building wall are not considered canopies for purposes of this section. 14-9C CHANGEABLE COPY/CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign, or part of a sign, such as a reader board, where the copy is easily changed manually or by electronic means as specified in chapter 5, article B, "Sign Regulations", of this title. COMMON SIGN: A sign that serves two (2) or more uses. DIRECTIONAL SIGN: A sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. ELECTRONIC SIGN: A sign that displays a changing message through the use of an electronically controlled and illuminated medium. An "electronic sign" is considered an animated sign. ENTRANCEWAY SIGN: A nonbuilding sign incorporated into or mounted on the face of, or affixed above or below an entranceway arch that extends over a walkway or driveway. Said sign type is intended to identify and direct traffic to a place, grounds, or parking lot. FASCIA SIGN: A single faced building sign parallel to or at an angle of not more than forty five degrees (45°) from the wall of the building on which it is mounted. Such signs do not extend more than one foot (1') out from vertical walls nor more than one foot (1') out at the sign's closest point from nonvertical walls. TACIA1 , FLAG: A generally rectangular piece of fabric or vinyl displaying a name, insignia, logo or emblem. FREESTANDING SIGN: A sign supported by one or more uprights or braces firmly and permanently anchored in or on the ground and not attached to any building or wall. 14-9C rleesran),wo .! Sra FREESTANDING WIDE BASE SIGN: A freestanding sign in which the uprights or braces are clad in a permanent material such that the entire base has a monolithic or columnar line that maintains essentially the same contour. FREESIA At I :4 WIDE RASE HAZARDOUS SIGN: A sign which, because of its construction or state of disrepair, may fall or cause possible injury to passersby, as determined by the city; a sign which, because of its location, color, illumination or animation, interferes with, obstructs the view of or is confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device; or a sign which makes use of the words "stop", "go slow", "caution", "drive in", "danger" or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a way as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign displaying the name, address, crest, insignia or trademark, occupation or profession of an occupant of a building or the name of any building on the premises. ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign in which a source of light is used to make the message readable. An "illuminated sign" need not be an electronic sign. 14-9C INTEGRAL SIGN: A sign carved into stone, concrete or other building material or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made a part of the building to which it is attached. MASONRY WALL SIGN: An identification sign mounted on the face or inset into a fence or wall constructed of masonry materials. Such identification sign or set of two (2) signs shall identify one entity or one group of entities, such as identifying an office research park or industrial park. MONUMENT SIGN: A permanent sign, not attached to a building, which is mounted low to the ground and does not exceed five feet (5') in height. I1O1/4,IL, E\— . -_L. NONCONFORMING SIGN: A sign, other than a prohibited sign, that does not comply with the regulations of the zone in which it is located by reason of these or any other regulations adopted after the installation of the sign. OBSOLETE SIGN: A sign, or any portion of a support for that sign, that advertises an activity, business, product or service no longer conducted. OFF PREMISES SIGN: A sign that directs attention to a use conducted off the lot on which the sign is located. ON PREMISES SIGN: A sign with the primary purpose of identifying or directing attention to the lot on which the sign is located. PAINTED WALL SIGN: A sign painted directly on an exterior surface of a building other than the windows. PARAPET SIGN: A fascia sign installed on a parapet or a parapet wall. PERMITTED SIGN: A sign allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance with the requirements of the sign regulations. PLASTIC TRIM CAP LETTERS: A three-dimensional channel letter with a plastic or acrylic face affixed to the channel with a plastic trim piece. POLITICAL SIGN: A sign promoting candidates seeking public office, a political issue or containing other election information, such as "vote today". "Political signs" shall not be considered off premises signs. PORCHSIGN: A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade, pedestrian -scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk. 14-9C t�Ilf �ll�1111�1! u�cwx1 21 II 11 Example of a Porch Sgn. PORTABLE SIGN: A sign not firmly and permanently anchored or secured to either a building or the ground and not expressly permitted in chapter 5, article B, "Sign Regulations", of this title. 14-9C POSTSIGN: A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade, pedestrian -scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk. 14-9C Example of a Post Sign. POSTER: A temporary sign on a card or sheet of paper, plastic or other similar material. PROHIBITED SIGN: A sign, other than a nonconforming sign, not permitted by this title. PROJECTING SIGN: A building sign extending more than one foot (1') out from the wall of the building on which it is mounted. Subtypes include: Banner: A fabric projecting sign located above the second floor windowsill and below the bottom of the roofline cornice or roofline if no cornice exists. Storefront: A projecting sign installed on the ground floor street -facing facade of a building and located below the second floor windowsill. Upper Level: A projecting sign made of solid durable materials located above the second floor windowsill and below the bottom of the roofline cornice or roofline if no cornice exists. 14-9C PUBLIC ART: Any work of art exposed to public view from any street right of way which does not contain any advertising, commercial symbolism, such as logos and trademarks, or any representation of a product. PUBLIC PLACE: Any public street, way, place, alley, sidewalk, square, plaza, pedestrian mall or city owned right of way, or any other public property owned or controlled by the city and dedicated for public use. ROOF SIGN: A sign installed on or above a roof of a building and affixed to the roof. SEASONAL DECORATION: A display, which does not constitute a sign, pertaining to recognized national, state or local holidays and observances. SIGN: Any structure or medium, including its component parts, visible to the public from a street or public right of way and used or intended to be used to direct attention to a business, product, service, subject, idea, premises or thing. "Signs" shall not include buildings or landscaping. The term "sign" includes, but is not limited to, all reading matter, letters, numerals, pictorial representations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions and patterns, whether affixed to a building or separate from a building. This definition does not include public art, seasonal decorations and directional symbols on paved surfaces. SIGN FACE: The surface of the sign on which reading material, letters, numerals, pictorial representations, emblems, trademarks, inscription or patterns are affixed. 14-90 SIGN WALL: The wall of a building on which a sign is mounted, including elements of the wall or any member or group of members which defines the exterior boundaries of the side of the building on which the sign is mounted and which has a slope of forty five degrees (45°) or greater with the horizontal plane. SPINNER: A device shaped like a propeller and designed to rotate in the wind to attract attention to the premises on which it is located. SWINGING SIGN: A sign that, because of its design, construction, suspension or attachment, is free to swing or move noticeably because of pressure from the wind. TEMPORARY SIGN: Temporary signs are constructed of temporary materials, such as paper, cardboard, wallboard or plywood, with or without a structural frame, and are intended for a temporary period of display. TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: A projecting identification sign that shows the current time and temperature in an electronic, changeable copy format in a manner similar to the following illustration: WALL MURAL PAINTED SIGN: An identification sign painted directly on an alley wall or on a nonstreet-facing building wall that contains the main entrance to a business and is incorporated into a larger painted mural. WINDOW SIGN: A sign affixed to a window, embedded in a window, or hanging adjacent to a window and obviously intended to be viewed by the public through the window. This type of sign is designed to be more permanent in nature and is intended to be displayed for an extended and indeterminate period of time. This definition does not include merchandise or product displays, posters, temporary signs painted on windows or other temporary signs. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 14-9C CHAPTER 2: PLATS AND PLATTING PROCEDURES 15-2-1: Concept Plan 15-2-2: Preliminary Plat 15-2-3: Final Plat 15-2-1: CONCEPT PLAN: A. Applicability: Whenever the owner of any tract or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the city or within two (2) miles thereof wishes to make a subdivision of the same, the owner or the owner's representative shall submit a concept plan to the department of planning and community development for review prior to submission of a preliminary plat. B. Submission Requirements: The concept plan must include the following information: 1. The proposed layout of streets, lots, location of stormwater facilities, and open space. 2. General topography, based on existing topographic maps or other resources. The property is not required to be surveyed at the concept plan stage. 3. Approximate footprints of any existing aboveground manmade features located on the subject property, including buildings and other structures, streets, sidewalks, etc. 4. Surrounding land uses and approximate location of building footprints on abutting properties. 5. Sensitive features, including streams, wooded areas, known wetlands or potential wetlands, known archeological sites, etc. 6. Other necessary information pertaining to the existing conditions of the property, as requested by the city. C. Review oOf Concept Plan: 1. Upon receipt of a concept plan the department of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community development shall review the concept plan in the context of the standards of this title, other requirements of this code, and comprehensive plan policies, and will have the discretion to solicit comments from other city departments. 2. The dDepartment of _ _ - • • e _ • e e •• •• . - e - . - Neighborhood and Development Services will provide general written comments to the applicant within twenty (20) business days of receipt of the concept plan based on the information submitted by the applicant. These comments are intended to provide guidance to the applicant in preparing the preliminary plat and are not to be construed as comprehensive with regard to compliance with this code. 3. The preliminary plat shall not be filed until said written comments regarding the concept plan are provided to the applicant. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) 15-2-1 15-2-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT: A. Submission Required; Waiver: 1. After conferring with the Ddepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community development on the concept plan, the owner or owner's representative shall submit to the city clerk twelve (12) copies same Department of a a preliminary plat and supporting materials on application forms as provided by the City for consideration. This submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsection B of this section. 2. The cCity mManager or designee(s) will check the application for accuracy and completeness. A "complete application" shall mean the following: a. A plat with accurate measurements and dimensions and easements identified; and b. All information as specified in subsection B of this section, has been submitted. 3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete, the eCity will inform the applicant and reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed. The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted. 4. The cCity may waive submission of the preliminary plat if the final plat includes all the requirements of the preliminary plat. B. Plat Specifications aAnd Accompanying Information: 1. The preliminary plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to fifty feet (1" = 50'); however, if the resultant drawing would be larger than twenty four inches by thirty six inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to one hundred feet (1" = 100'). In addition, a digital version of the plat must be submitted as per GCity specifications. Each plat must include the following information: a. Legal description, acreage and name of proposed subdivision. b. Name(s) and address(es) of owner(s) and subdivider. c. Names of the persons who prepared the plat, owner's attorney, representative or agent, if any, and date of preparation. d. North point and graphic scale. e. Contours at five foot (5') intervals or less. f. Locations of existing lot lines, streets, public utilities, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, drainpipes, culverts, watercourses, bridges, railroads, buildings, stormwater detention facilities and any other public improvements in the proposed subdivision. g. The existing streets and GCity utilities on adjoining properties. h. Layout of proposed blocks (if used) and lots, including the dimensions of each, and the lot and block number in numerical order. For lots where the lot width is different from the lot frontage, the lot width must be indicated on the plat. i. Location of any proposed outlot(s), identified with progressive letter designations, and the purpose of said outlot(s) clearly specified on the plat. 15-2-2 j. Proposed location of clustered mailboxes. k. Location and widths, other dimensions and names of the proposed streets, alleys, roads, utility and other easements, parks and other open spaces or reserved areas. I. Grades of proposed streets and alleys. m. A cross section of the proposed streets showing the roadway locations, the type of curb and gutter, the paving and sidewalks to be installed. n. The proposed layout and size of water mains and sanitary sewers. o. Proposal for drainage of the land, including proposed storm sewers, ditches, swales, bioswales, rain gardens, culverts, bridges, stormwater management facilities and other structures. p. A signature block for endorsement by the eCity cClerk certifying the cCity cCouncil's approval of the plat. q. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), the following shall be identified on the preliminary plat: (1) Proposed design sites (if used), including the dimensions of each. For design sites where the design site width is different from the design site frontage, the design site width must be indicated on the plat. (2) Proposed thoroughfare types (14-2H-9) and the dimensions for each street, sidewalk, alley, or passage. (3) Proposed civic space types (14-2H-5) for each public or private civic space. and (4) Proposed building types (14-2H-6) for each lot and design site. (5) Notation that all stubs are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property and shall be designed to appropriately transition, and that that specified civic space and building types may be substituted with other civic space and building types in compliance with Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards) during the site plan or building permit process. 2. The preliminary plat shall be accompanied by the following information: a. A location map with north point showing an outline of the area to be subdivided. b. A grading plan, including proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion, pursuant to the grading ordinance, title 17, chapter 8 of this code. c. If access to state routes is proposed, the plat must be submitted to the Iowa dDepartment of tTransportation for review. Comments from the Iowa dDepartment of tTransportation must be submitted with the proposed plat. d. For properties containing regulated sensitive features as specified in title 14, chapter 5, article I of this code, a sensitive areas development plan must be submitted as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I of this code. C. Fees: A fee shall be paid at the time ofthe _preliminary plat application or any combination of preliminary plats and/or plans are applied for is submitted to the cCity clerk, in the amount established by resolution of the eCity cCouncil. 15-2-2 D. Review oQf Plat; Approval Or Disapproval: 12. The 4Department of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community development shall distribute said copies to the appropriate GCity departments for review as designated by the GCity 1214Manager. 22. Said designee(s) shall examine the plat and application to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, other relevant provisions of this code, comprehensive plan policies and with state law. Upon completion of examination, the dDepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community development shall forward a written report, including recommendations, to the pPlanning and zZoning eCommission. No plat shall be forwarded to the pPlanning and zZoning eCommission with more than six (6) deficiencies. 4. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative must submit ten (10) revised copies of the plat as requested by the City for distribution to the pPlanning and zZoning eCommission. 5. The Ccommission shall study the revised preliminary plat, review the application of the owner and review the report from the dDepartment of planning and community developmentNeighborhood and Development Services. 56. The eCommission shall recommend approval or disapproval of the plat within forty five (45) calendar days of the date the GCity receives a complete application, or the preliminary plat shall be deemed to be approved by the eCommission. The owner or owner's representative may, however, agree to an extension of time. 6. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative shall submit copies of the revised preliminary plat as requested by the City with the signatures of the surveyor and the respective utility companies to the City Clerk. 7. After receipt of the recommendation of the eCommission or after the time of any extension has passed, the cCity GCouncil shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. E. Effect Of Approval: Approval of a preliminary plat by the eCity GCouncil does not constitute approval of the subdivision but merely authorizes the subdivider to proceed with the preparation of the final plat. In the event the eCity GCouncil approves the preliminary plat and the final plat submitted does not materially and substantially deviate from the preliminary plat and if inspection by the eCity reveals that all plans and specifications for construction of improvements, as required by the CGity, have been met, the final plat shall be approved by the cCity eCouncil. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of twenty four (24) months unless, upon written request of the owner or subdivider, the eCity GCouncil, by resolution, grants an extension of time. If the final plat is not filed with the cCity cClerk within twenty four (24) months, all previous actions of the eCity GCouncil with respect to the plat shall be deemed null and void. 15-2-2 15-2-3: FINAL PLAT: A. Submission Required: 1. After approval of a preliminary plat or if the requirement for preliminary plat has been waived by the cCity eCouncil, the owner or owner's representative shall submit to the city clerk twelve (12) copies of file with the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services an application for final plat apereval on a form provided by the City, along with -athe final plat for reviewand supporting materials set forth below e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -• _ _ . _ _ _ • - Gi#y. Said final plat must be submitted to the cCity clerk within twenty four (24) months of approval of the preliminary plat, unless an extension has been approved by the cCity eCouncil. This submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsections B and C of this section. 2. The dDepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community development will check the application for accuracy and completeness. A "complete application" shall mean the following: a. A final plat with accurate measurements and dimensions, and with easements correctly identified; b. An accurate legal description; c. All required legal documents and accompanying instruments as specified in subsections B and C of this section; d. Construction plans according to the specifications of the Ccity eEngineer. 3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete, the cCity will inform the applicant and reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed. The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted. 4. Upon approval by the cCity, a final plat may include only a portion of the development illustrated on the preliminary plat if that portion can function as a separate development, including access and utilities, and if no essential public infrastructure extensions are delayed. Whether or not said infrastructure is essential in nature shall be determined by the cCity. 5. The applicant shall note any variations from the approved preliminary plat. Requests for minor changes that do not constitute substantive changes may be approved administratively without requiring an amendment to the preliminary plat. Substantive changes, including, but not limited to, the layout and location of streets, lots, and outlots, changes to the proposed uses of the various lots and outlots, and other similar changes that would result in a substantive change to the character of the subdivision may result in the necessity to file an amended preliminary plat. B. Specifications: The final plat shall meet the following specifications: 1. The plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to fifty feet (1" = 50'); provided, however, if the resultant drawing would be of larger dimension than twenty four inches by thirty six inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to one hundred feet (1" = 100'). 2. Twelve (12) prints of Tthe final plat shall be submitted showing the following information: 15-2-3 a. Accurate property boundary lines, with dimensions and bearings or angular dimensions, which provide a land survey of the tract, closing with an error of not more than one foot (1') in ten thousand feet (10,000'). b. Accurate references to known permanent monuments, giving the bearing and distance from some corner of a lot or block in the cCity to some corner of the congressional division of which the cCity or the addition thereto is a part. c. Accurate locations of all existing and recorded streets intersecting the property boundaries of the tract. d. Accurate legal description of the property boundaries. e. Street names and street right of way widths. f. Complete curve notes for all curves included in the plat. g. Street centerlines with accurate dimensions in feet and one -hundredths of feet with bearings or angular dimensions to street, alley and lot lines. h. Lot numbers and lot line dimensions. For lots where the lot width is different from the lot frontage, the lot width must be indicated on the plat. i. Block numbers, if used. j. Accurate dimensions for any property to be dedicated or reserved for public, semipublic or community use. k. Location, type, material and size of all markers. I. Name and street address of the owner and subdivider. m. Name and street address of owner's or subdivider's attorney, names of persons who prepared the plat and the date of preparation. n. North point, scale and date. o. Certification of the accuracy of the plat by a registered land surveyor of the state. p. Location and width of easements for utilities. q. Certification by the utility companies that utility easements are properly placed for the installation of utilities. r. A signature block for endorsement by the CGity eClerk certifying the eCity eCouncil's approval of the plat. s. A note on the plat stating: Notes on this plat are not intended to create any vested private interest in any stated use restriction or covenant or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or covenant. 3. The applicant shall submit a digital version of the final subdivision plat as part of the application process. Once the final subdivision plat has been approved by the CGity Ceouncil, a final copy of the digital version of the plat shall be submitted to the Department of Public Workscity engineering department. Said final digital copy shall be compatible with the Johnson County geographic information system and city of Iowa City mapping system. Specific formats, 15-2-3 procedures, and methods needed to meet this requirement will be updated as changes in technology occur. C. Accompanying Documents: The final plat shall also be accompanied by the following documents: 1. Owner's Statement: An acknowledged statement from the owner and the owner's spouse, if any, that the subdivision as it appears on the plat is with their free consent and is in accordance with the desires of the proprietor and the proprietor's spouse. This statement may include the dedication to the public. 2. Dedications: Dedication of streets and other public property, including perpetual easements for the installation, operation and maintenance of eCity utilities. 3. Mortgage Holder's 9or Lien Holder's Statement: An acknowledged statement from mortgage holders or lien holders that the plat is prepared with their free consent and in accordance with their desire, as well as a release of mortgage for any areas dedicated to the public. 4. Encumbrance Certificates: If there is no consent from the mortgage holders or lien holders as specified in subsection C3 of this section, and if the land being platted is encumbered in the manner set out in the code of Iowa, as amended, a certificate shall be filed with the Johnson Ceounty (Recorder showing an encumbrance bond in an amount double the amount of the encumbrance and approved by the recorder and clerk of the district court. The bond shall run to the county for the benefit of the purchasers of the land subdivided. 5. Attorney's Opinion: An opinion from an attorney at law showing that the fee title is in the owner and that the land platted is free from encumbrance or if encumbered, listing the encumbrances and the bonds securing the encumbrances. 6. Construction Plans: A complete set of construction plans for all public improvements, meeting Ccity specifications, must be submitted to the Ccity Eengineer's office. 7. County Treasurer's Certificate: A certified statement from the Ccounty tTreasurer that the land being platted is free from taxes. 8. County Auditor's Certificate: A certified statement from the Ccounty Aauditor approving of the name or title of the subdivision as succinct and unique to Johnson County. 9. Subdivider's Agreement: a. An agreement executed by the subdivider which agrees, as a covenant running with the land, that the Ccity shall not issue a building permit for any lot in the subdivision until the subdivider installs the public improvements, except sidewalks, according to plans and specifications approved by the Ccity Eengineer and until the cCity eEngineer approves subdivision erosion control measures. If the subdivider desires a building permit prior to installing the improvements, the owner must deposit with the GCity fFinance dDepartment an escrow equal to the cost of improvements plus ten percent (10%) thereof in cash or an irrevocable letter of credit payable to the GCity in a form approved by the cCity aAttorney. At the cCity's discretion, this escrow may be divided by the number of lots in the subdivision and collected on a per lot basis prior to the issuance of a building permit. Subdivider must further agree, as a covenant running with the land, that subdivider will install sidewalks abutting each lot in the subdivision as set forth in this title, that the obligation to install the sidewalks remains a lien on the lots abutting the sidewalk until released by the cCity and that, in the event subdivider fails to install the sidewalks, the cCity may install the sidewalks and assess the total cost against 15-2-3 the property without meeting the requirements of notice, benefit or value required by state law for assessing improvements. b. The subdivider's agreement shall state that the subdivider, including its grantees, assignees and successors in interest, agrees that public services, including, but not limited to, street maintenance, snow and ice removal and solid waste collection, will not be extended to such subdivision until the pavement is completed and accepted by the cCity eCouncil by resolution. c. The subdivider's agreement shall state: Plat notes and surveyor's notes on plats serve to provide notice of how a subdivision is expected to develop. Said notes are not intended to create any vested private interest in any stated use restriction or covenant, or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or covenant. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, subject to any applicable public notice and approval process required by law, to alter or amend any plat note, or to sell or vacate any right-of-way, street, alley, park, easement, open area or other land set apart and dedicated for public use within the plat. The City further reserves the right, upon request of the owner or successor in interest, to vacate the plat and/or relocate any easement, alter lot boundaries or allow said land to be replatted subject to any applicable public notice and approval process required by law. d. The subdivider's agreement may include other conditions peculiar to the subdivision as allowed by law. 10. Iowa Department oOf Transportation Permits: Approved IDOT permits must be submitted, if required. 11. Neighborhood Plan: Where subject to Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), a Neighborhood Plan shall be submitted that complies with the standards in 14 -2H -1E Nei • hborhood Plan and includes the full • eo • ra • hic sco • e of the area bein • platted. D. Review; Approval oQr Disapproval: 1. Upon the filing of the final plat as set forth above, the city clerk Department of Neighborhood and Development Services shall submit eleven (11) copies of the final plat and the application to the department of planning and community development. 2. The department of planning and community development shall distribute said -copies of the final plat and the application to the appropriate cCity departments for review as designated by the cCity 114Manager. 32. Said designee(s) shall examine the application, the plat, the construction plans, and the legal documents to ensure compliance with the requirements of this code, state law, and the preliminary plat. . The costs of engineering examination of final plat and construction plans shall be paid by the subdivider and shall be the actual costs of the engineering examination and review as incurred by the cCity. 54. Upon completion of said review staff shall recommend approval or disapproval of the plat within forty five (45) calendar days of the date the Ceity received a complete application, or the final plat shall be deemed to be approved by the staff. The owner or subdivider may, however, agree in writing, to an extension of time. 15-2-3 65. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative shall submit a digital copies of the revised final plat as requested by the City with the signatures of the surveyor and the respective utility companies to the cCity GClerk. 76. After receipt of the recommendation of the staff or after the time of any extension, the Ccity cCouncil shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the final plat. The eCity cCouncil must take action on the final plat within sixty (60) calendar days of submission of a complete application for a final plat to the GCity eClerk. If the eCity GCouncil does not approve or disapprove the plat within sixty (60) calendar days, the final plat shall be deemed approved. The owner or subdivider may, however, agree in writing, to an extension of time. 15-2-3 TITLE 15. LAND UBDIVISION CHAPTER 3: DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 15-3-1: General Requirements 15-3-2: Streets nd Circulation 15-3-3: Sidewalks, Trails, And Pedestrian Connections 15-3-4: Layout oQf Blocks And Lots 15-3-5: Neighborhood Open Space Requirements 15-3-6: Energy nd Communications Distribution Systems 15-3-7: Sanitary Sewers 15-3-8: Stormwater Management 15-3-9: Water Systems 15-3-10: Clustered Mailboxes 15-3-11: Markers 15-3-12: Specifications 15-3-13: Inspections 15-3-14: Off Site Costs or Public Improvements 15-3-1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Design of the subdivision shall comply with the standards of this chapter, provide for the orderly growth and development of the city, demonstrate consistency with the Iowa City comprehensive plan and any specific adopted district plans, and take into consideration the natural features of the site and patterns of adjacent development. B. The subdivider of property shall be responsible for constructing all public improvements associated with the proposed subdivision according to this code, unless exempted from such requirements according to the provisions herein. C. "Public improvements", as defined in this title, shall be constructed and installed according to the standards established by the city. Copies of said standards are on file in the office of the city engineer. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) 15-3-1 15-3-2: STREETS AND CIRCULATION: A. Connectivity oOf Streets, Sidewalks, And Trails: Subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in accordance with the following standards: 1. Arterial streets must be located and extended in general accordance with the JCCOG Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County arterial street plan and Iowa City comprehensive plan. 2. All streets, sidewalks, and trails should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails within the development, and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent properties. Each subdivision must contribute to the larger interconnected street pattern of the city to ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in the diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood destinations. 3. The road system shall be designed to permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; to meet the needs of the present and future population served; to have a simple and logical pattern and allow that pattern to continue through adjacent properties; and to respect natural features and topography. 4. Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision. 5. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Zones and Standards), thoroughfares are to create walkable neighborhoods with redundant routes for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The arrangement of thoroughfares shall provide for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed thoroughfares into adjoining lands where the adjoining lands are undeveloped and intended for future development, or where the adjoining lands are undeveloped and include opportunities for such connections. (1) Thoroughfare rights-of-way shall be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or thoroughfare stub for development, in compliance with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots), for each direction (north, south, east, and west) in which development abuts vacant land. (2) All stubs for thoroughfares are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property and be designed to transition appropriately. B. Minimum Access Standards: Adequate street access to an area or neighborhood is required as part of subdivision approval or prior to the approval of additional subdivision lots. The standards in this subsection are intended as minimum standards in areas where connectivity is limited by topography, previous development patterns, or other unusual features and shall not be used as a means of circumventing the street connectivity standards set forth in subsection A of this section. The following guidelines will be used by the city in determining whether additional street access is a prerequisite to additional lots or developable parcels being approved by the city. 1. Additional access may be required if a proposed development will result in any portion of a street that provides a single means of access to an area being overburdened with traffic. 15-3-2 "Overburdened" shall be defined as a projected volume which exceeds the midpoint design volume as follows: a. Local street: Five hundred (500) vehicles per day. b. Collector street: Two thousand five hundred (2,500) vehicles per day. 2. Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by using the most recent average daily traffic count when available, and adding it to projected traffic generation as determined by the city. In the absence of a recent traffic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by using projected traffic generation for both existing and proposed development. 3. Additional means of access may also be required if any of the following conditions exist or will exist if additional lots or developable parcels are approved: a. There are physical features that may increase the probability of blockages along the single means of access to the development. These physical features include, but are not limited to: slopes eight percent (8%) or greater; floodplains as designated by the federal emergency management agency; a bridged or culverted roadway; trees adjacent to the roadway with trunk diameter greater than four inches (4"); a grade separated highway; or a railroad. b. The existing access is insufficient to provide efficient, safe, and/or cost effective routes for the provision of public and emergency services for the proposed development. c. The street, which provides a single means of access to the area, is a local or collector street along which there are existing or proposed facilities that may increase the probability of pedestrian -motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, daycare centers and parks. d. There are land uses located along the subject street that serve special populations, which may increase the volume of emergency vehicle trips. These uses include, but are not limited to, adult daycares, facilities serving elderly persons, or persons with disabilities. 4. For a situation requiring additional means of access based on the above criteria, a single means of access may be permitted as a temporary condition. A temporary condition is one in which there is secured, written assurance from the private subdivider that the road, which will provide the necessary access, will be constructed within three (3) years of development or, alternatively, said access is scheduled for construction no later than the third year of the then current capital improvements program of the city. C. Street Types: 1.Table 15-1, "Standards For Street Rights Of Way", of this section provides a summary of various street types. The information in this table is intended to provide guidance for the design of the street network within a subdivision, except for those subdivisions regulated by Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards). When designing a subdivision, street types should be chosen based on the intended function of the street and anticipated level of traffic. The Ccity will review the proposed streets and determine the appropriate street type based on the factors set forth in this section. 15-3-2 TABLE 15-1: STANDARDS FOR STREET RIGHTS OF WAY 15-3-2 Minimum Right oof Way Width Pavement Width Number Travel Lanes Parking Maximum Grade Sidewalk Width Residential alley/ rear lane 20 feet 16 feet 2 No 12% n/a Commercial alley/ rear lane 20 feet minimum/ varies 20 feet/varies 2 No 10% n/a Loop street' 100 feet minimum/ varies 22 feet 1 shared Yes, on 1 side 10% 4 feet residential side of street only Low volume cul-de-sac2 50 feet 22 feet 1 shared Yes, on 1 side 10% 4 feet both sides Cul-de-sac 60 feet 26 or 28 feet 2 Yes3 10% 5 feet both sides Local residential street 60 feet 26 or 28 feet 2 Yes3 12% 5 feet both sides Local commercial/industrial street 60 feet 28 feet 2 Yes 8% 5 feet both sides Collector street (all land uses) 66 feet 31 feet 2 Yes 10% for residential; 8% for commercial or industrial 5 feet both sides Collector street with bike lanes 66 feet 34 feet 2 No 8 % 5 feet both sides 2 lane arterial street 100 feet minimum 31 feet 2 No 8 % 8 feet one side/5 feet one side Arterial street with bike lanes 100 feet minimum 34 feet 2 No 8 % 8 feet one side/5 feet one side 15-3-2 4 lane arterial street 100 feet minimum 54 feet/ varies depending if median is included 4 No 8 % 8 feet one side/5 feet one side Arterial street with parking 100 feet minimum; more may be required depending on parking configuration Varies, based on number of lanes and whether parking is parallel or angled 2 Yes 8 % 8 feet one side/5 feet one side 3 lane arterial street 100 feet minimum 46 feet/varies depending if median is included 3 No 8 % 8 feet one side/5 feet one side Notes: 1. Loop streets provide access for 12 or fewer dwellings. 2. Low volume cul-de-sacs provide access to 10 or fewer single-family dwellings. 3. For residential streets with less than 28 feet of pavement width, parking is restricted to one side. 15-3-2 2. Where a subdivision is regulated by Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), streets shall meet the following thoroughfare standards. a. Thoroughfares shall conform with allowed thoroughfare types and shall comply with 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards). b. Thoroughfares that pass from one Form -Based Zone to another may transition in their streetscape along the thoroughfare's edges. For example, a thoroughfare in a more urban zone (e.q.,T4 Main Street) with commercial uses may have wide sidewalks with trees that transitions to narrower sidewalks with a planting strip in a less urban zone (e.g., T4 Neighborhood Medium) with residential uses. c. Thoroughfares shall substantially comply with the Form -Based Code Future Land Use map in the comprehensive plan. Variations from the future land use map may be approved for thoroughfares where sensitive areas are present, or where the following standards are met: (1) Thoroughfare types may be substituted with other thoroughfare types allowed by the zone, except for the following streets: South Gilbert Street, Sand Road SE, McCollister Boulevard, Sycamore Street, Sycamore Street SE, and Lehman Avenue. (2) The alignment of thoroughfares may change where connections to existing street stubs are retained, the new alignment complies with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots), and single -loaded streets continue to abut civic or open space. (3) A Passage (14 -2H -9L) may replace another thoroughfare type shown on the Form - Based Code Future Land Use map where all affected design sites retain direct street or alley access. A Passage may be removed or replaced by another thoroughfare type where all abutting design site(s) retain direct street access. (4) An Alley (14 -2H -9K) may be added in compliance with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots). An Alley may be removed from locations identified on the Form -Based Code Future Land Use ma • where the Alle is not in a T4MS zone and all desi • n sites abuttin • the Alley have direct street access to a street other than the following: McCollister Boulevard and South Gilbert Street. D. Dedication oQf Right Of Way: Land shall be dedicated to the city for all public street rights of way within the development and for any public street right of way that is needed for streets that abut or will abut the development. E. Measurements nd Construction Standards: 1. All right of way improvements must be designed and constructed according to the design and construction standards established by the city. Said standards are on file in the office of the city engineer. 2. All street widths shall be measured back of curb to back of curb. 3. The minimum outside radius of the pavement of cul-de-sac bulbs and loop streets is thirty nine feet (39'). A center median is required at the center of the cul-de-sac bulb with a minimum radius of eleven feet (11'). For loop streets a median is also required with a minimum width of thirty feet (30'). In residential areas, center medians for cul-de-sacs and loop streets are required to be landscaped to at least the S1 standard as described in title 14, chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this code. The subdivider's agreement shall designate and set forth procedures for property owners or a homeowners' association to 15-3-2 maintain the landscaped area within the center median of loop streets and cul-de-sacs. Said instrument shall provide that if said services are not provided as required therein, the city shall have the right to perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charge against all of the subject lots. F. Street Intersections: G. Traffic Calming Features: H. Street Names: I. Private Streets: J. Cost Sharing For Pavement Overwidth: K. Cost Sharing For Street Upgrades: 15-3-2 15-3-3: SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS: Public sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed in the public right of way according to the following standards: A. Sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed according to city standards. Said standards are on file in the office of the city engineer. B. Five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalks must be constructed along both sides of all local and collector streets, except for connections to existing sidewalks as provided in subsection D of this section. For low volume and loop streets, as described in table 15-1 of section 15-3-2 of this chapter, the required sidewalk width may be reduced to four feet (4'). C. Along arterial streets, a five foot (5') sidewalk is required on one side of the street and an eight foot (8') sidewalk on the other side, except as allowed in subsection D of this section. The city will determine on which side of the street the eight foot (8') sidewalk will be placed. When an eight foot (8') sidewalk is required, the city, at its discretion, will either pay for the excess pavement required for the developer to install an eight foot (8') sidewalk rather than a five foot (5') sidewalk, or collect the estimated cost of the five foot (5') sidewalk from the developer and apply said cost to construction of an eight foot (8') sidewalk by the city. Any payment of excess pavement costs by the city shall be pursuant to state law. D. In cases where the proposed sidewalk provides a connection between existing sidewalks that are less than the required width, the proposed sidewalk may be constructed to match the width of the adjacent sidewalks. However, this modification is not allowed in cases where one end of the proposed sidewalk will provide a connection to future sidewalks for new development. In such a case, the sidewalk should be tapered to provide a transition between differing sidewalk widths. The city will determine where along the street the transition should occur. E. All sidewalks and trails must connect to other sidewalks and trails within the development and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent properties. F. The subdivider will be responsible for the construction of a public sidewalk along the frontage of private open space, public open space required to be dedicated to the city according to title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space Requirements", of this code and along the frontage of other outlots as necessary for a continuous sidewalk system to be created. G. In residential subdivisions, blocks longer than six hundred feet (600') must have midblock pedestrian connections between adjacent streets, unless said connection is deemed to be unnecessary and is waived by the city. At the time of subdivision, these connections must be platted as minimum fifteen foot (15') wide easements; if the connecting sidewalk is greater than five feet (5') in width, the easement must be at least twenty feet (20') wide. Within this easement a sidewalk must be constructed to city standards that is equal in width to the sidewalks to which it provides a connection. If the midblock sidewalk connects to sidewalks of two (2) different widths, the midblock sidewalk must be equal in width to the wider sidewalk. The area and sidewalk within the pedestrian easement must be maintained by adjacent property owners according to the subdivider's agreement in a manner similar to maintenance requirements for public sidewalks. H. Where a trail extension, as identified in the comprehensive plan or an adopted trails plan, is located on the subject property, the city may require an easement or alternatively, may require dedication of an outlot for the trail. Construction of the trail or portion of a trail may also be required in instances where said trail or portion of a trail primarily serves the needs of the proposed subdivision/development. In this situation, the trail will be treated as a public 15-3-3 improvement. Dedication of land for a trail extension shall count toward the open space requirement for the development, provided said land is consistent with the standards for open space as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article K of this code and provided said land dedication is acceptable to the city. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) 15-3-3 15-3-4: LAYOUT OF BLOCKS AND LOTS: A. Blocks: 1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient and logical routes between residences and nonresidential destinations and public gathering places. 2. Block Lengths a. Except as required by Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), Tto provide multiple travel routes within and between neighborhoods, block faces along local and collector streets should range between three hundred (300) and six hundred feet (600') in length and for residential subdivisions have a width sufficient to accommodate two (2) tiers of lots. Longer block faces may be allowed in cases of large lot commercial, industrial, or rural residential development, or where topography, water features, or existing development prevents shorter block lengths, although midblock pedestrian connections may be required (see section 15-3-3 of this chapter). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline. b. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones and Standards), the block network shall substantially comply with the Form -Based Code Future Land Use map in the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the following standards: (1) Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall comply with the standards in Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Standards). Where a block contains multiple Form -Based Zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the standards for block size. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed length if a compliant Passage (14 -2H -9L) is provided to break up the block. O M Zone Length (max.) Length (max.) With Passage' Perimeter Length Perimeter Length With Passage' T3 NE 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max. T3 NG 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max. T4 NS 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max. T4 NM 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max. T4 MS 360' max. 500' max. 1,440' max. 1,750' max. ' In compliance with the standards for a Passage in Sub -Section 14 -2H -9L (Passage). H Block Length Key ---- Block Perimeter -••- Design Site 15-3-4 4- co x 0 O m ris 2 0 O m (2) Blocks shall be a minimum width to result in two halves of developable design sites in compliance with the minimum design site depth standards of the allowed building types in the Form -Based Zone. When the zone has a range of minimum design site depths, the applicant may show the shortest minimum design site depth with an acknowledgement that the selected depth may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed by the zone. A single half is allowed when adjoining an existing half -block. (3) The size, shape, length, location, and design of blocks may vary from the Future Land Use map where required to accommodate sensitive areas, or where the variation complies maintains street connectivity, complies with Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Standards, minimizes changes to Form -Based Zones on each block, and adjusts all blocks affected by the proposed change(s). Where this affects the location, shape, or design of civic space, the variation shall maintain civic space of a similar size in a nearby location within the subdivision. 3. Block faces along arterial streets should be at least six hundred feet (600') in length. Intersecting collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adequate connectivity between neighborhoods, but also maintains the capacity of the street for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Longer block faces may be required along high capacity or higher speed arterial streets where the interests in moving traffic outweigh the connectivity between areas of development. The city may approve shorter block faces in high density commercial areas or other areas with high pedestrian counts. 4. Cul-de-sacs may not exceed nine hundred feet (900') in length. The length of a cul-de- sac is measured from the centerline of the street from which it commences to the center of the bulb B. Lots: 1. Lots must be platted in a manner that will allow development that meets all requirements of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. Lots and design sites must be of sufficient size to accommodate an adequate buildable area and area for required setbacks, off street parking, and service facilities required by the type of use and development anticipated. 2. Lots with multiple frontages must be platted large enough to accommodate front setback requirements along street side lot lines. 3. If a property with frontage along an arterial street is proposed to be subdivided, developed or redeveloped for any multi -family, group living, commercial, institutional or industrial use, a cross access easement must be provided by the property owner to all adjoining properties that front on the same arterial street that are or may be developed as multi -family, group living, commercial, institutional use, or industrial uses according to the cross access standards set forth in section 14-5C-7 of this code. 4. In residential areas, double and triple frontage lots shall be avoided. Where such lots are necessary to overcome specific disadvantages of topography, land features, or access restrictions, the following standards apply: a. Lots with multiple frontages shall be one hundred twenty five percent (125°/x) of the required lot area for the zone in which the lot is located. The additional required lot area shall be used to increase the depth of the lot between street frontages. Corner lots with only two (2) frontages are exempt from this requirement, however, said corner lots should be platted with enough land area to accommodate the required front setback area along both frontages. b. Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear building facades oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum twenty foot (20') wide landscaped 15-3-4 buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the city forester. The vegetation shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. Lots where dwellings will have front building facades oriented toward an arterial street are exempt from this requirement. If a buffer area was required during subdivision, no solid fences will be allowed within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. On corner lots, the landscaping within the buffer must be planted and maintained to comply with intersection visibility standards. 5. Side lot lines shall approximate right angles to straight street lines or be approximately radial to curved street lines, except where a variation will provide a better street and lot layout. For purposes of this subsection, "approximate right angles" means angles between eighty degrees (80°) and one hundred degrees (100°). 6. Residential lots shall not be designed with irregular shapes such as a flag or panhandle shape where the structure on the lot may be hidden from the street behind another structure. 7. In residential subdivisions, lots must be arranged to allow easy access to public open space. The subdivision layout should be designed so that the location and access to public open space is readily apparent to the public. Subdivision layouts where public open space is surrounded by private lots that back up to the public open space are discouraged. Techniques, such as single loaded streets along park edges or along segments of park edges and well marked trail easements are to be utilized to satisfy this requirement. C. Provisions To Minimize The Effect Of Highway Noise: Subdivisions adjacent to or within three hundred feet (300') of the Interstate 80 and/or the Highway 218 rights of way shall comply with the following provisions, intended to reduce the effect of highway noise on residential areas: 1. Any portion of a residential lot that is within three hundred feet (300') of the Interstate 80 or Highway 218 right of way shall be identified as a noise buffer, and no residential structure will be permitted within this three hundred foot (300') buffer area. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the city forester. The vegetation shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. Existing trees and vegetation may be used to comply with this requirement as approved by the city forester. Accessory structures and yards are permitted within the three hundred foot (300') buffer area provided the required vegetative buffer is maintained. 2. The three hundred foot (300') buffer for residential structures may be reduced with approval by the city if the subdivider constructs an earthen berm, decorative wall, or other similar structure and demonstrates that the highway noise just outside the proposed residential structures will be no more than sixty (60) dB. 3. The three hundred foot (300') buffer for residential structures may also be reduced with approval by the city if the subdivider demonstrates that existing topography results in highway noise being no more than sixty (60) dB just outside the proposed residential structures. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) 15-3-4 15-3-5: NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: A. Intent And Purpose: The neighborhood open space requirements are intended to ensure provision of adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood open space plan, as amended, by using a fair and reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or developing land for those purposes. Active, usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, and also includes neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Portions of community parks may be adapted for neighborhood use, but this chapter is not intended to fund the acquisition of community parks or large playing fields for organized sports. B. Dedication Of Land Or Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Land Required: As a condition of approval for residential subdivisions and commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the Ceity and in accordance with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space Requirements", of this code. 15-3-6: ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: 15-3-7: SANITARY SEWERS: 15-3-8: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with adequate drains, ditches, culverts, complete bridges, storm sewers, intakes and manholes to provide for the collection, management, and removal of all surface waters as set forth in title 16, chapter 3, article G, "Stormwater Collection, Discharge And Runoff', of this code. These improvements shall extend to the boundaries of the subdivision and beyond, as necessary to provide for extension by adjoining properties, as determined by the cCity. 15-3-9: WATER SYSTEMS: 15-3-10: CLUSTERED MAILBOXES: 15-3-11: MARKERS: 15-3-12: SPECIFICATIONS: 15-3-13: INSPECTIONS: 15-3-14: OFF SITE COSTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: 15-3-5 through 15-3-14 STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFTS - Updated 9/15/2021 South District Plan Amendment Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation 1 Concern that there is a lack of transition to the existing neighborhood (McCollister Court) on the proposed Future Land Use Map. Requested that the proposed land use designations be changed from T4 to T3 categories. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff met with two members of the HOA to discuss all their concerns. Please also see the comment letter from the HOA. Staff incorporated transitions from existing single-family into the Future Land Use Map in two ways: 1) designating the adjacent land T3 -NE, or 2) designating the adjacent land as new open space. The transition proposed for the area adjacent to McCollister Court includes an approximately 40' wide area of open space that includes an existing trail and a proposed 70' of public right-of-way. Due to the proximity of two major streets (S. Gilbert St. & McCollister Blvd), staff is proposing T4NM along McCollister Blvd, which allows Multiplex Large, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse building types at a max. height of 3.5 stories. North of McCollister Blvd, staff is proposing T4NS, which allows Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse building types at a max. height of 2.5 stories. Here's a summary of the building types: Multiplex Large - allows up to 12 units (not allowed in T4NS) Cottage Court - one-story buildings facing an interal courtyard, 3-9 units Multiplex Small - allows up to 6 units Courtyard Building Small - allows up to 16 units that access a shared courtyard Townhouse - Up to 4-8 individual townhomes per row Additionally, the proposed land use map is not a significant change from the current land use policy direction for this area. The current Future Land Use No changes recommended. 2 Concern with how the plan will impact education. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff had many discussions with the Iowa City Community School District throughout the process. They informed staff that no additional land would be needed in the planning area for an additional school. No changes recommended. 3 Concern with access to emergency services. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA The City recently purchased land for a new fire station at the intersection of S. Gilbert St. and Cherry Avenue. Based on conversations with Fire staff, they do not anticipate needing more land in the proposed planning area for providing timely emergency response. No changes recommended. 4 Would like to see indoor recreation space somewhere in the South District. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The Parks and Rec Department are about to embark on the development of a Rec Facilities and Program Master Plan, which will analyze the needs of indoor facilities. Public outreach is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2021 and a representative from the South District Neighborhood Association has been identified for the steering committee. No changes recommended. 5 Request from land owners to remove their property from the form -based code area. 8/3/2021 Steve Gordon & Aleda Feuerbach Staff does not support removing this land (south of Lehman Avenue and east of the Sycamore Greenway) from the planning area, as it would undermine all of the work that has gone into this planning effort over the past 2.5 years. In order to achieve complex policy goals related to equity and sustainability, the City needs to think about growth differently, especially at the fringe of the city. No changes recommended. 6 Excerpts from Email Dated 8/13: - Realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of nothing but farmland. What wasn't disclosed to us was the plan to eventually develop this land in the near future. - We had our share of attempted break-ins. Someone dug up and stole the bushes in our front yard. I've caught on camera twice someone trying to enter our home between 2 am — 3 am. My wife and I have been struck by a car speeding around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon. We have a lot of speeders who use Langenberg as an arterial between Gilbert and Sycamore. - We are still bitter toward SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future plans for this land. We excepted that someday we would be looking from our back porch into someone's backyard and would probably see a few dozen homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago when we learned that the plan was to build 4,000 — 8,000 livable units along with a walkable main street with businesses in this land. - On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the concerns that we also share with other members of our neighborhood association. This includes the lack of parking for the proposed condos and apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct, and Langenberg Ave. This will also most likely increase traffic on Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by finishing the McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city has not made plans to increase emergency services. - We learned through our neighborhood association that the Superintendent of schools hadn't been included in the conversations for the expansion of the South District. 8/13/2021 Richard Stapleton See explanatory notes related to comments 1, 2, and 3. No changes recommended. 7 Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have reviewed the materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking spaces being allowed for the proposed buildings. I do not approve of allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of parking for the proposed housing that is being proposed. 8/15/2021 Bill Neal See explanatory note 5 below under the "Revised Draft Form -Based Codees and Standards" comments. No changes recommended. Revised Draft Form -Based Codes and Standards I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South 8/19/2021 Glenn Lynn See explanatory note 1. Staff Recommendation 1 District plans but in particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here before and want to make sure our feelings are known. 7/10/2021 Cheryl Cruise Housing is affordable if a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. The voluntary affordable housing standards are income- restricted to low income households (60% AMI for rentals and 80% AMI for owners). The code offsets revenue loss by allowing more density, decreased parking costs, and flexibility from certain standards. Staff has structured the proposed requirements similar to the City's other affordable housing policies to create consistent expectations and simplify ongoing monitoring. These incentives will not solve housing affordability, but they may encourage additional affordable units which is important in an area that will be entirely new construction. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated August 5, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 2 Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here. 7/21/2021 Cheryl Cruise No changes recommended. 3 Concern about safety for children walking or biking to Alexander Elementary (types of commercial uses in the Main Street, traffic calming on Sycamore) 'We bought customer built houses for a reason never expecting multi family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to many of my neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this goes through. Our previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on density and types of housing seem to be gone. I may be incorrect but I Kelcey Patrick -Ferree Staff met with Patrick -Ferree and others associated with the South District Neighborhood Association and discussed these concerns. No changes recommended. 4 8 feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in cahoots with the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate development as I have seen many of their properties in IC in disrepair. I don't want that in my back yard. I guess I was remiss in thinking that our previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no one wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on the table. After seeing the plans, I'm assuming they are no longer considered. I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Sandhill Estates HOA Regardless of being able to administratively alter design sites, developers will be able to change proposed building types as long as the proposed type meets the standards in the code. Staff would like to keep the proposed flexibility in the code; however, we do not anticipate it being used often. We anticipate most developers will plat lots that will be coterminous with design sites (as opposed to multiple design sites on one lot). No changes recommended. Request from land owner to modify land use designations south of Wetherby Park. This includes replacing some of the T3NE with T3NG. 9/3/2021 Southgate Staff supports this change. It is based on engineered plans provided by the land owner and maintains a transition between the existing single-family Based on this request, staff is proposing a change to the FLUM 9 neighborhood to the south. to the area just south of Wetherby Park. Revised Draft Form -Based Codes and Standards Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation 1 The affordable housing plan is unlikely to result in new affordable housing in part because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling at Fair instead of 30% of a selected AMI 7/10/2021 Cheryl Cruise Housing is affordable if a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. The voluntary affordable housing standards are income- restricted to low income households (60% AMI for rentals and 80% AMI for owners). The code offsets revenue loss by allowing more density, decreased parking costs, and flexibility from certain standards. Staff has structured the proposed requirements similar to the City's other affordable housing policies to create consistent expectations and simplify ongoing monitoring. These incentives will not solve housing affordability, but they may encourage additional affordable units which is important in an area that will be entirely new construction. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated August 5, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 2 HUD Fair Market Rent is volatile. No affordable housing programs use FMR (unverified) Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower rents than LIHTC 7/21/2021 Cheryl Cruise No changes recommended. 3 Concern about safety for children walking or biking to Alexander Elementary (types of commercial uses in the Main Street, traffic calming on Sycamore) 7/15/2021 Kelcey Patrick -Ferree Staff met with Patrick -Ferree and others associated with the South District Neighborhood Association and discussed these concerns. No changes recommended. 4 Design sites being administratively changed after approval. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Regardless of being able to administratively alter design sites, developers will be able to change proposed building types as long as the proposed type meets the standards in the code. Staff would like to keep the proposed flexibility in the code; however, we do not anticipate it being used often. We anticipate most developers will plat lots that will be coterminous with design sites (as opposed to multiple design sites on one lot). No changes recommended. 5 Concern with the proposed reduction in parking. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff proposed slight reductions to minimum parking standards in order to align with important City goals, especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate -income households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle. In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on - street parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on - street parking is almost always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in the minimum off-street parking required. However, buildings can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where they feel it is necessary due to market conditions. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated July 15, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 6 Would like to see more wayfinding signage to points of interest (parks, main street, etc.) 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group Staff from the MPO plan to add more bike wayfinding signs within the South District as part of the 4-3 lane conversion of Keokuk. Staff likes the idea of incorporating more wayfinding signage into new communities. Currently, the City does not have a comprehensive approach to wayfinding, which may be something that needs to be explored as part of a separate 7 Questions on commercial uses. Not interested in more liquor stores and gas stations. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The proposed code does not include any zones that allow gas stations. Liquor stores would be allowed either provisionally or through a special exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM-O, and T4MS zones. The maximum size is capped at 1,500 sq ft. Based on this comment, staff is proposing two changes: 1) Alcohol sales oriented uses (i.e. liquor stores) are only allowed through a special exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM- 0, and T4MS zones. 2) For the open zones, staff recommends adding limitations on operating hours for non - 8 Would like to see some opportunities and some spaces that local entrepreneurs could lease. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The proposed code carries forward the City's current home occupation standards, but it also incorporates some opportunities for live/work, which are not provided in most other areas of the city. The code also provides areas for neighborhood commercial. That said, the entire area will be newly constructed and rental costs may be a factor in providing affordable spaces. No changes recommended. 9 Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 10 Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 11 Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 12 Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 13 Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations from the map will have on how the area develops. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 14 How does the code work with the Housing Code and the City's regulation of rental housing? 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 15 Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be incorporated into open space areas. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 16 Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 17 Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarify on how the provision of green space would be ensured. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 18 Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 19 Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed regulatory incentives for voluntary affordable housing 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 20 Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations? 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 21 Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code. 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 22 Parking minimums will not ensure the area has less parking; explore parking maximums. 8/5/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission The draft includes parking maximums for the T4MS (main street) zone, but not the other more residential zone districts. Staff has received other concerns related to the slight reduction in the minimums. Staff would recommend keeping the slight reduction, but not requiring a max for the other T3 and T4 zones. No changes recommended. Kirk Lehmann From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2021 11:50 AM To: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann Cc: mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov Subject: Input regarding draft form based code Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Inclusionary_Housing_US_v1_0.pdf; ATT00001.txt Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Staff, The affordable housing plan in the new draft is worth comment. It is unlikely to result in new affordable housing in part because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling at Fair Market Rent (which is 40-45% AMI level) instead of 30% of a selected AMI. You will see in the attached article that in 1,019 affordable housing plans in the country NO ONE USES FAIR MARKET RENT for rent ceilings. 87% of plans use 51%-80% AMI income AND rent limits. 2% use 50% AMI income and rent limit. All others plans are higher than 80% AMI. The majority use a mixed income approach such as 25% of affordable units at 50% AMI and 75% at 80%AMI. HUD has issued tables for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% AMI paying 30% of income for as long as LIHTCs have existed though the math is easy to calculate. The new draft plan continues the dichotomy of private developers using FMR and LIHTCs using 60% AMI paying 30% of income even though the latter are highly subsidized. Using FMR for new construction would cause rental housing owners to lose hundreds of dollars a month in addition to all the expenses for every affordable unit produced. Agreeing to lose money for 20 years seems unlikely. The added density allowed would all go to money losing units. Less parking would not be much incentive in out lying areas that are likely to need a car. Inclusionary housing plans work in high growth areas where incentives and density bonus will allow market rate units to cover the cost of the affordable units. Otherwise it will not pencil out and will not be built. (Note we are not in a high growth area now, in fact we lost population from 2019 to 2020.) The objective of inclusionary housing is to provide for low -moderate income households at 60% AMI -100% AMI who do not qualify for Federal programs. Very low and extremely low income require a public subsidy. Fair Market Rent should only be used for Housing Choice Vouchers, CDBG, and HOME projects. It is volatile as adjusted annually because it is based on the 40th percentile of a tiny number of survey takers who are renting a 2 bedroom unit and moved recently. Median income is not as volatile. Best regards, Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA https://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Inclusionary Housing US v1 0.pdf 1 Kirk Lehmann From: Kelcey Patrick -Ferree <kelcey.patrickferree@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 12:08 PM To: AJ Cc: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann; Megan Alter; Jessica Bovey; Elinor Levin; Eric Harris; Tatiana Washington; South District Subject: Re: Revised Draft Form -Based Code Available for Public Review Anne and Kirk, I'm starting to look through this, but the odds of me finding time for 140 pages of highly detailed information are low. The map on the first page has no key, so I can't tell what the plan is quickly and easily. I am glad that this level of thought and detail is available, but find it nearly impossible to wade through in a helpful or timely fashion. Is there a better high level summary available? Preliminary feedback: One thing I was able to figure out from the newspaper: Part of the plan is to build a "main street" district on the circle on Sycamore north of Alexander Elementary. I am concerned with the idea of elementary school children having no option but to walk through a commercial district, even a small one, on their way home from school. If it's ice cream and dry goods shops, that's one thing. If it's more liquor stores (which seem to be proliferating at an alarming rate in our area), that's quite another. I see on p. 82 that the uses of "Main street" areas are unrestricted. So that's a big concern for me. I'd also like to know what traffic calming measures along Sycamore are built into this plan. People speed there, even (and if they're late, especially) on their way to drop off kids at the elementary school. This plan appears to add housing on the far side of Sycamore, and depending on what ICCSD does, that could mean more children having to cross Sycamore to get to school. TLDR: I want the plan to consider safety issues for Alexander Elementary children walking or biking to and from school. Warm regards, Kelcey And biannual time changes must be abolished. #LockTheClock 1 Kirk Lehmann From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 12:00 PM To: Anne Russett; mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Public input to Planning and Zoning Commission Commissioners, Some of you may be unfamiliar with HUD's Fair Market Rent. It is neither fair nor market. It is the annual calculation by HUD of maximum rent for a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8). Each year since 2005 the American Community Survey has gathered data from about 1.6% of local households. About half are renters. Of those some rent a 2 bedroom unit. HUD looks at data from the 2 bedroom renters who moved recently. They may report $700/month rent or $1500/month rent. HUD finds the 40th percentile of the 2 bedroom rents and averages it over the last 5 years and then mathematically figures out rent for other size units. That is FMR. It is based on very few households which can make it volatile. It may go up or down 10+% each year. It is used for government subsidized projects. Of 1,019 affordable housing programs across the country Fair Market Rent is not used for rent ceilings. Everyone else uses 30% of a selected AMI level. 87% use somewhere between 51% AMI and 80% AMI. 2% of programs use 50% AMI for rent ceiling. Others are 80% AMI to 120% AMI. 60%-100% AMI is considered low to moderate income and is the target of non subsidized programs although incentives must be offered to insure that there is some profitability or nothing will get built. City of Iowa City, Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, and Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition all define affordable housing as 80% AMI paying 30% of income for rent. Other than new luxury units, most Iowa City rents are under the 80% AMI level. Many units are available for less than Fair Market Rent. Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs average 60% AMI paying 30% of income. They have lots of funding subsidy. Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower rents than LIHTCs. There may be "sticker shock" looking at rent amounts if you are not a renter or didn't recently buy a house. The cost of land, lumber, and labor have all gone up for builders. You may be shocked to look at property taxes or insurance costs or maintenance costs on apartments even if they are old. Profits may be 4%-8% ROI for well managed units. I hope this information helps as you discuss the ordinance. Best regards, Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA Sent from my iPad This email is from an external source. 1 From: Sandhill Estates To: Anne Russett Subject: South District Plan - Letter of Concerns Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 11:30:16 PM Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msq sand hil I -estates -south -district -plan -concerns. pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hi Anne, Attached you will find a document highlighting some concerns our Home Owners Association and residents share regarding the South District Plan. We request you please include the attachment in the packet provided to Planning and Zoning Commission members in advance of the August 5th meeting. The attachment contains a letter of concern drafted by HOA members, signatures of support from our neighborhood residents, and maps highlighting (in yellow) those households where signatures were obtained. We look forward to learning more about the South District Plan and to our discussion with you on August 3rd. Sincerely, Robert Domsic Director -at -Large Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association Iowa City, IA sandhilLestateadoRcimaii,00rn July 22, 2021 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: We are writing on behalf of the residents of the Sandhi ll Estates Neighborhood and would life to express our concerns regarding the proposed changes in the South District Plan. While there are many positive aspects of the South District Plan we believe the plan will be stronger if the following concerns are addressed. Concern #1 - A lack of transition to the existing neighborhood (McCollister Ct) The triangular plot of land immediately South of McCollister Cour( East of Gilbert Street. and North of McCollister Boulevard lacks an area of housing transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. We ask the City to revise the South District Plan to include T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General zoning in this area before the higher density T4 zones are reached. We believe there is precedent for this change. Currently, the South District Plan defines an area of transition consisting of T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General housing zoning located immediately South of Langenberg Avenue (see lig. 1). Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is part of our Homeowners Association, we feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a similar zone of transition were adopted on the triangular plot of land. A zone of transition at this site would ease any visual juxtaposition resulting from the architectural changes contained in the South District Plan. r7 • m. I. } Wks _ 'ii -1 _111 goIb~.■ ni a m 1 . Fla. 1. POcNjoned Pulurei anti I) from Ie. Sawn Dhsl Scr F'4•7 a . ICIYIp meareaor bereecon PE & TSfJG I Satoh of Leraor>baig AV: OE lend ilne missnq area of Irarmben South of McCo4ebv&MnuRClagprwlp0 &i TJry$ d Tarp.1 Dur concerns regarding this plot of land are not new. Members of our neighborhood have attended and expressed our concerns at Planning and Zoning meetings and City Council meetings dating back to 2017. In 2017 a local developer submitted a design proposal (see fig, 2) for the development of this land -- using nearly identical plotting, road and zoning maps from the currently proposed South District 'Ian. When development of the triangular plot of land came to vote. the Manning and Zoning Commission and the City Council both rejected the proposed development. Transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 note the City Council members expressed desire to modify the plans to account for better transition between the current housing and any new development. The current South District Plan does not address any cf these historical recommendations. }u. Z :UI 7 celnn pr0=1Eidi IEMMEd In ■ loud doom:. In tM isnrm'a in, Amnia Con-rm.:m a.+d L[tl Canrf We believe the precedent from the area South of Langenberg, the resulting vote in 2017. and the City's public record reaffirm the triangular plot of land should be revised to include T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General zoning as a transition layer before the T4 zones are reached at McCollister Boulevard. Concern #2 - Design sites being administratively changed after approval Historically, the City has been a proponent of developers communicating with and getting buy -in from adjacent neighborhoods when new development plans are proposed. These discussions can be very beneficial for both parties. However, the announcement that design sites can be administratively adjusted at the subdivision level after approval raises concern. This applies not only to our neighborhood, but any future neighborhood (hat may be impacted by such adjustments. Our concern is once agreements are set (formally or informally) between a developer and an adjacent neighborhood. administrative adjustments without notice may violate expectations and create tensions between the two parties. We understand the desire to make processing adjustments easier. However, we feel this could be used as a Mechanism to create a false pretense by a disingenuous developer_ Concern #3 - The impact on education The South Distract Pian projects there will be approximately 4,000 - 8,000 dwelling units resulting from this plan. A member of our Board contacted Anne Russett who reaffirmed these numbers, but did not include an estimated population when asked. From the number of dwelling units, we believe it is reasonable to assume the estimated population would be in the ballpark of -10,000 - 20,000 people. Alexander Elementary School has been near capacity since 2017_ An influx of a population this size would almost certainly strain the schools resources. How does the City plan to address the impact the South District expansion will have on our schools? Concern #4 - The reduction in required parking 4,000 - 8,O0O dwelling units will bring about a sizable population. Commercial spaces and restaurants will likely attract visitors from all over Iowa City, not just surrounding neighborhoods. The reduction in required parking is an unwise decision and will lead to greater street congestion, potentially jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the neighborhood's residents. The adoption of electric vehicles has increased drastically in the last few years. Sales models predict electric vehicle sales will continue to climb at an annual rate of 291 over the next ten years'. These numbers are substantial and should be considered. The plan currently does not indicate any locations where electric vehicles may be charged. Furthermore, problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available per dwelling unit. Since Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) require a tether to charge, the long term expectation of street parking may not be sufficient. Future populations will likely prefer to charge vehicles at their dwelling. Concern #5 - Access to Emergency Services The population resulting from the South District Paan (and including adjacent plans) will be sizable -- likely far greater than the 10,000 - 20,000 mentioned above. We have noticed the South District Plan fails to mention, include, or address in writing, or on a map, the locations) or expansion of any potential emergency services_ We want to make sure these services are adequately accounted for in the South District Plan. Haw does the City plan to address these concerns? Furthermore, we believe a medical clinic / urgent care facility would be a good addition to this area, helping reduce the burden on our local Hospitals and Emergency Rooms. Does the city plan to incentivise the development of such a resource? Not having a plan to address these needs for a population of this size could have considerable effects en the health and safety of our neighborhoods. The South District Plan is an ambitious undertaking; the result of countless hours of work by city officials, staff and consultancies. We appreciate this effort and share many of the same goals as the City in maintaining Iowa City as the finest place to live in the State. See Electric Vehicles: Setting a Course for 2030 - Deloitte Insights -Accessed July 22, 2021 https:llwww2_deloitte_comlusfenlinsightslfacusffuture-of-rnobiritylelectric-vehicle-trends-2030.htm! Sincerely, The Sandhiil Estates Homeowners Association Directors Alex Hachtman President Joleah Shaw Director Amanda Shoemaker Director Emily Berkhoudt Director Robert Domsic Director Signatures Name Address - 0 1 — L �1 Wily ff/� [J CrJ 7. -1 fe.,E _ r / t -e4 c 5 a._ .i A - 1 O i6V I" c Cott434-6. G1 ,�._. " ' 9 4 `! L 1; ski Ci 4 J4 ditaird1# . i4 • ;74 c ( v • i rai 104 if. LAzuL.4 0 . ' E° I I I PI I 1 J i ��r� 1 CAA' al,/ � r_.-. .. ► fo / � Ai._ - 2e -pi 7 % �'�A ail 9`03 -fun k .- , {A]NI - if!_i A t 1 ' Yl \I(I j O 6 - , . , , MA i_ C _ op_ 1 L } . Wilnif', pow .'"1 At AAA A 4 1 0 axf.' OL .c arL ( / " - 0 1 — L iL.,} :1LI.Y, O i6V I" c Cott434-6. G1 rAl"&A-CyArr-ta-A--to-'yd i "4 pa 1��fy�.j 9;4-- L6 tio4 Pre-, d- frie-.Lr.,^ r L v - -- f l� (o ° t + Lx-� „t if/ 7 Air . / 15,5+q La ttv . 1 learAlri/PF 1i, &/ +q '`!9 f 0 ( {{{sss - *.,...., WW( -1 .ea..- t 4,)e 17.+ L1L 2 RTt _ _ ICS Lao► rn . L ar ! 1 i it_ ICA k 5l 1L $+- Al Alla_..-k _ Vi li p �-6 IIIP■i 41 ..... II II 0. L.. ► ` t ,•` l ��./ Io6 L n y" .1. .1.P' ! 111.4-.L.{I — ..4201Mg_ ,_,,,....0... .4. . CC1 I 4 a `---. U "M. 177e (---APN66 ii 64tEg-oc, fXrV '• . ,e,Amart ) log Y ate . __„:„ „.„ �f{J f . J ..,_ .. i * /,),5m r'~ 1017. 4s / + ,.. / L LRA_ SVA Weei, ,. } f *e — i "4 pa 1��fy�.j v-2_4( i a l L 6eil ifivki C ' A ,_ ~ TF\ ; + k -hit a • ■ r' +q '`!9 a - *.,...., 4-44_,A m!4_, �1 i ,* . ICS Lao► rn . ; AV. I Al Alla_..-k _ f► y� ',J IIIP■i 41 ..... II II 0. L.. ► "'MLI — ..4201Mg_ ,_,,,....0... .4. . 2. . ,e,Amart z, . __„:„ „.„ ,i ait . J ..,_ .. i * jj rj ,Cr' .410110117; ,ZilSW Verii idJa-A 2215Et W.Aak WPetk .1, 'L 0 ' - r r i `,j 011(:.()i Y f �/ f -' )LII r ) ii11 i �-t , r� 1 a-' { 7 1 4 - ').Lf - r 4 law *11_,P7Aft 1i1'IC0y C AL shots. N-tl .o 16-t Lt. Er ,.iiido,..110 6_; 1 i iii / AdetWirifeW o _iiirAi f 735- /4_, - r shots. N-tl .o 16-t Lt. Signatures Name Address t'Ll. ---daW- % 1 X CD(Inli-C_DJ it - /1 a / ?' e''3 ivi_ il) 4 -t -r Cf. L---/V\z ti' v\r mpiii . . - I li : AliPill t. ,' 2-91,(-1 f 1N62'-Vt' iuk t . ; " L_ 4 . 3{' x'- r' Late Correspondence From: Richard Stapleton To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing - South District Plan Amendment & Form -Based Code Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 6:46:38 PM Attachments: image001.pnq image002.onq image003.pnq image004.pnq image005.pnq 08/13/2021 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I apologize that my wife and I cannot attend the meeting on August 19, 2021, as we have other obligations. We wanted to make sure our voices and opinions are heard regarding the zoning and development of the South District. We bought our home at 1153 Langenberg Ave. About five years ago when we moved to Iowa City. We both talked and decided that we had enough of living in a city with my wife having lived steps from North Western in Chicago and after I spent 12 years living in downtown Denver, CO. When we talked with the realtor, we stated that we wanted a home within the city limits, but on the edge of town away from a lot of people and we wanted a home that was move -in ready. 1153 Langenberg was the perfect spot for us. Our realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of nothing but farmland. What wasn't disclosed to us was the plan to eventually develop this land in the near future. For the past few years, I've enjoyed having coffee on my back patio and watching the cows from the farm behind us. I've enjoyed watching the wildlife such as deer, foxes and in the winter seeing and hearing the coyotes. This part of our home has been perfect. However, we learned that this dream was just temporary about a year after we moved in. That was when we learned that the city planned to develop the land behind us. Not everything on Langenberg has been perfect. We had our share of attempted break-ins. Someone dug up and stole the bushes in our front yard. I've caught on camera twice someone trying to enter our home between 2 am — 3 am. My wife and I have been struck by a car speeding around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon. We have a lot of speeders who use Langenberg as an arterial between Gilbert and Sycamore. However, the one thing that we do enjoy is our backyard where we can escape busy city life. We had a few years now to grieve the future loss of our safe space, and we are still bitter toward SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future plans for this land. We excepted that someday we would be looking from our back porch into someone's backyard and would probably see a few dozen homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago when we learned that the plan was to build 4,000 — 8,000 livable units along with a walkable main street with businesses in this land. Our dream to get out of the city and now placed our home right in the middle of it, and we are irate at Iowa City for this proposal. Will this hurt our property value. No, in fact, it will probably help it. However, our safe space and sanctuary will be devastated. On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the concerns that we also share with other members of our neighborhood association. This includes the lack of parking for the proposed condos and apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct, and Langenberg Ave. This will also most likely increase traffic on Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by finishing the McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city has not made plans to increase emergency services. The same police and fire station that services our area now will also be responsible for the new development. This puts a burden on our existing emergency services. In addition to these concerns, my wife and I are also concerned that the new development and city expansion doesn't include a plan to reduce traffic by increasing public transportation that utilizes clean forms of energy. Finally, we learned through our neighborhood association that the Superintendent of schools hadn't been included in the conversations for the expansion of the South District. My wife and I have a two-year-old child. Prior to learning about the development, we were concerned about Alexander Elementary School because they have already outgrown their space and from what we have heard, has a teacher shortage. By the time this development is complete, our daughter will be in school, and we are greatly concerned about the impact of 4,000 — 8,000 living units on an already strained school system. My wife and I would like to see these concerns along with the concerns listed in the letter from our neighborhood association (SandHill Estates) before zoning for this project is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Richard Stapleton 1153 Langenberg Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:34 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote: All — The Planning and Zoning Commission will be holding a public hearing on an Amendment to the South District Plan and the Draft Form -Based Code at their meeting next Thursday, August 19. 2021. This is related to the City's form -based zoning project for a portion of the South District. Many of you have been engaged with this project over the last couple of years and we appreciate your involvement. The meeting will be in-person at The Center — Assembly Room, 28 S. Linn Street. Masks are required to enter City buildings. The agenda packet for this meeting is available here: https://www.icgov.org/city- government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission More information on this project is also available on our website: https://www.icgov.org/project/form- based-zones-and-standards Please let me know if you have any questions. From: To: Subject: Date: Bill Neal Anne Russett South District Plan Sunday, August 15, 2021 10:20:54 AM Anne, Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have reviewed the materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking spaces being allowed for the proposed buildings. I do not approve of allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of parking for the proposed housing that is being proposed. Thx Bill Neal 828 Oxen Lane Iowa City, Iowa 52240 From: To: Subject: Date: Glenn Lynn Anne Russett City Council Meeting 8/19/21 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 7:16:13 PM Hi Anne. I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South District plans but in particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here before and want to make sure our feelings are known. Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here. 'We bought customer built houses for a reason never expecting multi family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to many of my neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this goes through. Our previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on density and types of housing seem to be gone. I may be incorrect but I feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in cahoots with the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate development as I have seen many of their properties in IC in disrepair. I don't want that in my back yard. I guess I was remiss in thinking that our previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no one wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on the table. After seeing the plans, I'm assuming they are no longer considered. I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Glenn Lynn 725 McCollister Ct. From: To: Subject: Date: Jerry Waddilove Anne Russett Applications regarding the South District Plan Friday, September 10, 2021 6:58:46 PM Anne, SouthGate Companies has provided quality homes and workplaces to Iowa City and surrounding communities since 1962. We pride ourselves on building community pride and neighborhoods, one project at a time. Those projects have included neighborhoods in the South District; those outside the planning area (residential just north of the planning area - Pepperwood Addition) and one residential neighborhood within the planning area (Sandhill Estates). Furthermore, SouthGate owns approximately 90 acres of residential development land within the South District planning area. SouthGate has a vested interest in the long-term health and viability of the South District as well as other areas in Iowa City and surrounding communities. We support the initiatives of walkable neighborhoods to inspire social interaction, small commercial nodes, access to parks, mass transit, and providing a diverse mix of housing types to help provide more equity and inclusion in Iowa City. We believe the proposed South District Plan can help achieve the desired outcomes of those initiatives. The changes proposed in the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment are not without challenges. Single -loaded streets with housing on only one side of the street are not economically feasible without the increased intensity shown in the future land use map. In addition, clustered development is one solution in limiting impact on the significant natural environment within the District. Providing land use guidance surrounding Wetherby Park (which is 'land -locked') rolling hills throughout the South District, natural drainageways, and traditional development is not easy. SouthGate concurs with the Transect Development Theory as used in the Natural to Urban transitions, specifically the T3 Neighborhood Edge, T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, T4 Neighborhood Medium, and T4 Main Street Zones noted in the Code. Any multifamily development we potentially do in this planning area will include the consistent management, maintenance, and long-term investment we have made many times over in the South District. On a related note, Navigate Homes (our homebuilding company) has provided townhomes in the Cardinal Pointe West neighborhood in Iowa City, which is one of the housing options we could provide in the South District. Those housing types have brought young couples, medical professionals, entrepreneurs, and first-time homebuyers to that neighborhood. The diversity of housing types noted in the South District can also provide homes for our nurses, our firefighters, our restaurant chefs, our teachers, and other similar professions. Collaboration is defined by Merriam -Webster as 'to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor.' SouthGate Companies strives to collaborate with the City of Iowa City and neighbors alike in helping achieve our community's vision including development tools to help address equity and inclusion, climate change, social interaction, and healthy recreation. We believe the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments, as proposed, can be one method in helping achieve this vision. Sincerely, Jerry Jerry Waddilove CEO / Partner SG your way home 755 Mormon Trek Blvd Iowa City, IA 52246 Mobile: 319.621.0412 Office: 319.337.4195 SouthGateCo.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply email, delete and destroy all copies of the original message. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 4 of 20 the height bonus to have up to six floors and are nearing completion. Welch noted he has a couple loose ends to tie up as far as a maintenance agreement and working through a couple minor items related to that height bonus. The site plan has been submitted and they received their first round of review comments from City staff they have responded to and resubmitted that plan so they are feeling they're on track there as far as having a project that staff can approve with both the height bonus and site plan. The goal for starting construction is yet this year on that new building and their easements are in place to cover the gap between when it's conveyed and when those other buildings are taken down. Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to recommend approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County Seat Addition public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility easement, access easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff report and in forms approved by the City Attorney's office. Martin seconded the motion. Nolte noted he was glad to hear the project is moving forward. Signs agreed and stated it seems like this is a logical step in order to get that block redeveloped and is sure the applicant will have come before the Commission with something amazing to look at. Hensch stated he is really looking forward to this redevelopment because it looks like a difficult lot with the railroad tracks to the north and Ralston Creek to the east and he is very curious to see what comes next. Townsend asked what happens if they can't purchase all that other property. Hensch replied then the title won't be conveyed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Russett along with Lehmann will jointly be presenting this item and noted this is going to be the first of many presentations on the proposed South District Form -Based Code. Tonight Russett will provide an overview of the work that they've done so far, how they got to this point, discuss the planning process, and give a very high level summary of the proposed amendments. She will also share some examples of the types of neighborhoods that this Code could produce and then provide some justifications for the amendments. Lehmann will then provide a more detailed summary of the draft Code, tonight they're going to go through about half of it, and then will discuss next steps. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 5 of 20 In terms of project background, Russett explained they initiated this project back in January 2019 when the City executed a contract with Opticos Design, an urban design firm out of Berkeley California, to really start developing this Form -Based Code. They have been working very closely since January of 2019 with Tony Perez and Martin Galindez of Opticos on this code. They have all put a lot of work into this Code and the goals of the project are to implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the South District Plan. They want to create neighborhoods that are safe for pedestrians, encourage walking, preserve environmental resources, create communities that have a highly interconnected street network and allow for a variety of housing types for residents to have more choices and a variety of price points. The ultimate goal is then to apply this Code to other greenfield and other undeveloped areas of the City, this is the starting point and they expect that it will expand to other areas over time. Russett showed a map of the area that they're looking to start this is within the South District. Wetherby Park is the northern boundary, Alexander Elementary School in the middle, Gilbert Street is on the West and the Sycamore Greenway is on the east side of the planning area. In terms of the planning process, Russett explained this started back in 2015 with the adoption of the South District Plan. After that Plan was adopted City staff worked toward different ways of implementing that vision. The first project that they worked on was a project direction report, which was phase one of this project, where the City worked with Opticos to assess the feasibility of implementing a Form -Based Code and as part of that process there was a lot of stakeholder meetings, community workshops, and a visual preference survey. Some of the input that they got from that planning process back in 2017 is that the community saw a need for small neighborhood centers in the South District, they wanted to see a strong network of trails and parks, they saw that the community needed different housing options, including missing middle housing, better street connectivity, traffic calming, and the opportunity for people to age in place. Russett showed a graphic created by Opticos to help visualize missing middle housing and explained that missing middle housing is basically everything between detached single-family housing to midrise or larger scale apartments so everything in between those two scales is missing middle (such as duplexes, three- and four -unit buildings, courtyard apartments, and townhomes). The goal of this Code is to allow more of those housing types. Russett stated after that was completed, they started with phase two, which is the development of the draft Code. As part of that they worked with another consulting group that prepared a residential market study to examine whether or not there was a market for missing middle housing in the South District, and the short answer is yes, this study did conclude there is a market. Therefore, since that time they've been doing stakeholder meetings and outreach to develop the initial draft of the Code they released in 2019. After staff released that draft, they did more stakeholder meetings and outreach to get feedback on that draft, and then for the past year staff has been working on revising that draft based on comments received and making sure that it can work within the existing City processes related to land development. The revised draft was released just a couple weeks ago. Russett showed a chart that summarized the stakeholder outreach that they did since the beginning of the project. They've met with community members, affordable housing advocates, property owners, developers, the homebuilder's association and a variety of different groups throughout the process. What they heard from developers and landowners was that the development process is often lengthy and uncertain and if the new process is more predictable even with more regulation, that would be acceptable. There was also some concern that the market wouldn't support missing middle housing but there was also a need for more choices and more affordable housing. There was also some concerns with the Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 6 of 20 Plan's goal of creating single loaded streets along open spaces and green areas from the community, they heard that they see the open space in this area as an amenity and there was some concern about development near existing neighborhoods. There was an expectation that any development would be high quality development, and they also recognize the need for housing that is both affordable and accessible. Russett next discussed the summary of the proposed amendments, explaining there are two parts to these amendments, the first is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the South District Plan. Staff feels that the Form -Based Code that they are discussing tonight does align with the existing South District Plan. What they are proposing are some amendments to more explicitly link the Comprehensive Plan to the proposed Code, some new goals and some new objectives. Russett noted one of the more major changes that they're proposing is the new Future Land Use Map for this area, they're proposing new land use designations and the map itself to directly align with the new zones. Russett explained the reason that they're doing this is because it is really necessary to allow the missing middle housing and a diversity of housing types and it's important to have land use designations that are clear to show there's a diversity of housing types that are allowed. Russett noted it also creates options for neighborhood commercial centers or just neighborhood centers in general which could be commercial or could be an open space area. In terms of the Zoning Code amendments, Russett gave a high-level summary. Some of the big changes that staff is proposing with the Zoning Code amendments is that a mix of building types will be required, so every block must have a mix of building types. For example, if a block has eight lots, not all eight lots can be single family, there could be seven lots that are single family, but one would need to be something different, like a duplex. Staff is also requiring a mix of frontage types, so that could be a porch or stoop and there's a variety of different frontage types that could be selected by the developer. She explained this is to ensure that there's a diversity and there's visual interest within the streetscape and there's not monotony in the building design. In terms of parking, alleys are only required in the main street area, parking must be set back from the front facade of the building. In terms of the amount of parking that the Code requires, it is slightly lower than the current Zoning Code. Carriage houses in the proposed Code are allowed with most building types, carriage houses are also referred to as granny flats or accessory dwelling units or accessory apartments, they are typically in the City now seen associated with a single-family home, but this Code would allow them with a townhome or with the duplexes, so there's going to be more allowances to incorporate this housing type. Street trees will be required to be planted within the public right-of-way, also block lengths will be reduced to ensure a highly interconnected street network. The Draft Code also includes several civic spaces which are defined, and the locations are identified on the Future Land Use Map. Russett noted they have incorporated regulatory incentives for developers, who are providing affordable housing. So if a developer is voluntarily providing affordable housing through low income housing tax credits, or some other funding source, they can seek out height bonus or different flexibility or waivers from development standards. Staff has created a new term which is called design sites. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 7 of 20 The draft code also includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for these design sites currently our code just has minimums. Lastly Russett discussed the minimum dimensional standards, minimum lot sizes and proposed maximums to help ensure more compact development. She shared some examples of what this type of Code could produce, they're looking to produce pedestrian friendly areas that are easy to walk in and are safe to walk in. There's lots of porches and frontage is facing the street and not seeing a lot of garages. These are going to be typically house scale buildings so, even though some of these housing types and building types will allow multiple units they're still in scale with the existing single-family buildings. In terms of justifications for the proposed amendments, the current Zoning Code provides limited flexibility, it tends to lead development to separating land uses and limiting the mix of land uses. There is some flexibility allowed through the plan development overlay rezoning process and the Code does allow accessory dwelling units with single family homes and also allows duplexes on corner lots. However just allowing those uses within these zones hasn't resulted in mixing those types or seeing a lot of duplexes or accessory dwelling units being built. Also zoning regulations have historically been used to segregate communities through single family zoning, through creating minimum lot sizes, through only allowing single family. Currently, in the residentially zoned areas of the City 81 % is zone single family. Russett also noted conventional zoning results in auto oriented development, residents need to rely on cars as more land is consumed. The City has goals to address climate change and to address equity issues, so the goal of this Code is to create a more sustainable community and more equitable community, and it does that by providing a wider variety of housing types and a variety of price points. It requires a mix of building types and includes incentives for developing affordable housing, it ensures that streets are connected, and neighborhoods are connected. It creates neighborhood nodes either by identifying centers of communities which could be a small commercial area or open space and it ensures more compact development. Lehmann next went into the nuts and bolts of the Code. He noted it can be complicated so the Commission should feel free to ask questions along the way. He started with the Form -Based Zones and Standards and the first section which is the introduction. The introduction talks about the intent briefly discuss the Zoning Districts and how this Code applies with other sections of the Code. It also talks about the process, about how reasonings are slightly different, how subdivisions would be slightly different, and the neighborhood plan which is a new component of this as well. In terms of intent Lehmann wanted to reiterate a couple things. The point is to improve the environment by supporting multimodal transportation options and reducing vehicle traffic, they want a variety of housing types, levels of affordability and accessibility, health and sustainability to focus on pedestrian scale neighborhoods that reinforced the unique characteristics of Iowa City and all of this is done to also promote walkable neighborhoods. Lehmann stated the way the Code is organized is a little different than conventional zoning code. The conventional one is based on use, residential single-family zones, residential multifamily zones, and commercial zones. This Form -Based Code is organized more around a transact concept which looks at the spectrum, from urban to rural, and it gives them a number for each of those. Tier one is the natural area and tier six are areas like downtown. The South District is generally suburban in nature, so would really be tier two, three and four areas which are lower in Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 8 of 20 scale and buildings don't really get over two to three stories, maybe up to four stories in the main street area. Moving on to process and the way that this Code works, staff wants to make sure that it fits into existing processes and they're not creating new ways of doing things, but rather enhance the ways that they do things currently to try and improve them to reach these goals. Lehmann stated the first step would be rezoning to a Form -Based Zone which is a standard Zoning Code Map Amendment. Staff does recommend that it is done concurrently with a preliminary plan, because the zoning standards are tied into lot sizes and all those sorts of things, and also with the Future Land Use Map because it is a lot more detailed and it's hard to just blanket zone a whole area like they often see as RS -5, low density residential single family zone, because that can't be done in this case unless they already have some engineering done in advance, which is why they recommend that it goes with a preliminary plat. As far as the staff review and the Planning and Zoning Commission review, there are specific criteria that are included in that rezoning, and that is to try and provide some certainty to both developers and to the community as to how things can develop in this area. First and foremost, it has to comply with the Future Land Use Map but there are some situations where it can be changed and those are specifically laid out in the Code or alternatively if circumstances have changed or something comes to light, like a public interest to change how it looks, then they can incorporate that into the rezoning and change what is on that Future Land Use Map. The other criteria are tied to responding appropriately to site conditions, for example, making sure that more intense zones are organized around neighborhood features. Also, making sure that transitions between neighborhood Form -Based Zones make sense as they don't want two different zones looking at each other across the street instead they want that to happen across a block or cross an alley if possible. Also, they need to make sure that the design of the sites suits the topographical environmental or other constraints that might be there. Regarding the subdivision process, Lehmann said they basically would consider it a more detailed preliminary plat so, for example, they would show certain things that are not on current preliminary plants such as design sites, thoroughfare types, civic spaces and building types. There is also some additional notation about the possible administrative changes that can be made and then it should also abide by the new standards that are part of this Code for parcel size, street size, layout, block size, some of those changes are incorporated into the subdivision code, rather than in the zoning code. In addition, for the final plat when they're actually laying out the parcels there is an additional submittal that would come that is called the Neighborhood Plan which is very similar to what the preliminary plat has but is updated to reflect any changes that have happened since then and also adding in the frontage type standards as well. Lehmann reiterated that every design site should have a building type and frontage type and then streets would correspond with thoroughfare type and open spaces would correspond to a civic space type, so it really is categorizing different uses and different forms of the physical environment and applying it on individual parcels. As development happens, it would then follow that Neighborhood Plan that would be submitted with the final plat. Again, there would be an opportunity for administrative changes if, for example, design sites need to be modified and they can swap out building types, frontage types, civic space types, as long as it meets the underlying standards. For example, a duplex requires a larger lot, but if there is a single-family lot that would fit a duplex and they think a duplex is more appropriate for that location they'd be able to administratively change that. Lehmann did state however, for those changes to happen all other development standards would have to be met as well. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 9 of 20 Craig asked if this new Form -Based Code is one for the new areas that are developed or will it apply to the already developed areas such as the development across from the school where if someone bought two houses that sit together that were in bad condition and tore them down could they put a four plex there. Lehmann responded that all the existing properties on the map do not have a designation, they would just stay under their current designation. Also, many of those are in the County but if they are annexed in the future the map shows what the City expects development to look like around the existing properties. Lehmann explained what he was showing was the detail on the Future Land Use Map noting it doesn't have street names but the area they are discussing has McCollister Avenue that goes right through the heart of it from South Gilbert Street on the west, Lehman Avenue is to the south, that curves into Sycamore Street, Wetherby Park is the north boundary and to the east is The Sand Hill Prairie that the City maintains. Craig asked if the red lines are alleys. Lehmann confirmed those are alleys and he really just wanted to show this map because it's a more detailed land use map than a lot of the greenfield sites shown on current maps to show it as low density residential but there's not a lot of distinction of what that means. Lehmann will show a more detailed version of the Future Land Use Map and explained he will go through every element and the individual Code sections. To summarize the process section, Lehmann stated it is a slightly modified version of a regular development process and again those purposes are really the balance that upfront certainty and the developmental flexibility. On the upfront certainty side, rezonings are based on approval criteria, so it gives more certainty that things would follow that Form -Based or the Future Land Use Map and what that means is actually defined and there are enhanced plans that gets submitted including the Neighborhood Plans. On the development flexibility side there's an opportunity for administrative changes later on, so even though there is more detail upfront, they can come back and change it if it's still meets the different provisions of the Code and this really does offer a much broader variety of missing middle housing types that has been talked about. Lehmann next discussed the zones, which is the second section of the Code. The first two subsections are really tied to the purpose and it describes sub zones. The bulk is really just going through the individuals zone standards, so mostly focusing on those individual zone standards but he'll talk briefly about the sub zone as well. Martin noted they are looking at these proposed zones and talking about connectivity and walkability, but she is not seeing any neighborhood commercial in there, is that something that's going to be addressed later. Lehmann explained neighborhood commercial is incorporated through the sub zone because they're regulating by building type, not by use so it's not going to be specifically labeled a commercial zone. The commercial zones are going to be the open sub zone and then the Main Street Zone will also allow commercial. Martin stated then there could be a neighborhood grocery store on the corner and Lehmann confirmed in certain locations and with certain building types. Lehmann started with the palette of zoning districts, or tiers, T2, T3 & T4. There is also T1 but it's not a separate zone it's more just the open space areas. T1 zones are not reflected as separate zones on the maps but are reflected through those natural areas that are located on the Future Land Use Map and its basically nature or open space. T3 are the neighborhood edge zones, and Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 10 of 20 then they go up in in density/intensity, but it doesn't really regulate density in the same way as other areas because they're more focused on the building types, how they lay out within the street, and how they interact with each other. That is the form that really guides the zone, which is why it's called a Form -Based Zone. In the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone there are house -scale detached buildings, approximately two and a half stories, occupied attics and walk out basements. Lehmann noted half stories are not something that are Zoning Code currently identifies, so this is a different way of looking at height. The Form -Based Zone does include height standards, but it also includes stories as one of its measures of height. In terms of the housing types that they could expect to see in this zone are the building types of large houses, duplexes, and cottage courts, so for example similar to a RS -5 zone but a little less restrictive. Instead of regulating what a duplex might look like through provisional zoning criteria, it will be regulated through the building type standards, and those will be in the presentation in two weeks. The T3 Neighborhood Edge is the lowest intensity zone. T3 Neighborhood General would be a step up from that in a higher intensity of those suburban zones. Again, it would be buildings up to two and a half stories, occupied attics, walk out basements and low scale detached buildings. T3 Neighborhood General allows a broader variety of building types than are allowed in T3 Neighborhood Edge. It can still be houses, duplexes, cottage courts but also adds in small scale multifamily and townhomes. The multifamily could be up to six units and townhomes could be up to a row of three units. This would be similar to a RS -12 or RM -12 zone, but it doesn't allow large scale multifamily and there are limits on the size that a multiplex could be, the building type is specifically called multiplex small. So again, the T3 Neighborhood General is a little more intense but still relatively low density. Lehmann next discussed the T4 zones, the urban zones, the T4 Neighborhood Small is still two and a half stories, so it's the same height, it is house scale, detached with some attached buildings, occupied attics, walk out basements. Lehmann explained these can be some larger units, but they blend in with low scale buildings, and don't look out of place in a residential neighborhood. Building types are cottage courts, small multiplexes, courtyard buildings (which have up to 16 units), townhouses in rows of up to eight, but overall the scale of buildings generally won't occupy an entire block in these zones. It could be compared to a RM -20 zone, but the difference is with the way the building types are defined, there are maximum building sizes to not end up with a block size apartment complex. T4 Neighborhood Medium is where there starts to be larger units, heights of three and a half stories with an occupied attic, they are still primarily house scale buildings, a larger house scale, and then there would be some block scale attached and detached buildings as well. Lehmann noted it's a more intense zone with larger multiplexes up to 12 units, courtyard buildings up to 16 units, and townhouses up to a row of eight units. This would be similar to a RM -44 zone, but again these no building with more than 16 units and although they may get some block scale buildings in this, they can only be up to three stories. Finally, there is the T4 Main Street, it is the most intense and allows the broadest variety of uses. It allows up to four stories, there are block scale buildings, there are attached buildings, and there can be up to 24 townhouses, a courtyard building can have up to 24 units and Main Street buildings are unrestricted. Lehmann stated the T4 Main Street are the neighborhood focal points, and are denser attached buildings, which is what one would expect in a traditional Main Street in perhaps a town of 5000 people. Lehmann next discussed one of the other ways commercial uses are accommodated are through sub zones in the T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and would just be designated T3NGO instead of T3NG. Also, in those zones there are additional flexibility for uses that would be allowed, and, basically, that means that it allows more Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 11 of 20 than nonresidential uses. These areas tend to be at the neighborhood centers and to see as a walkable area. It could be childcare, it could be commercial, etc., but it's a broader variety that is allowed in those open sub zones. Lehmann presented the Future Land Use Map again to show item by item, show where all these zones and sub zones are. The T3 Neighborhood Edge areas are generally placed next to existing development, so it is just south of the existing development that's currently along Langenberg, it is also up north around the school and around the existing County subdivisions that are there, it is also adjacent to the golf course. Next is the T3 Neighborhood General, which can be considered a bulk zone where there are neighborhoods outside of busier roads or commercial centers. Quite a bit of the map is Neighborhood General as it's one of the more versatile zones, it allows single family duplexes and then small scale multifamily, but there is the height limit of two and a half stories. The T4 Neighborhood Small are generally located along either smaller collector streets, next to some denser existing development or on single loaded streets where there's not development on the other side, and it is also surrounding major intersections as well. Lehmann specifically pointed out South Gilbert Street and McCollister Avenue as an area to see this zoning. The next zone is Neighborhood Medium, this is where buildings can be up to three and a half stories, so it is really only located along major corridors and especially at major intersections such as at the intersection of South Gilbert and McCollister where they expect more intense uses to be located based on the characteristics of the area. Finally, is the Main Street and it's really only a small commercial node at the heart of this part of the community with the idea being the focal point in the school district. Lehmann noted there are also neighborhood nodes where there are open zones and those are located in the heart of their respective sub districts. Between those there are quite a few different places for neighborhood commercial uses as the zones are laid out according to what the City expecting in terms of the road network, in terms of uses, in terms of intensities, and in terms of scale of development with single loaded streets, for example. Lehmann explained the way that this is different is the Future Land Use Map is more detailed and the dimensional standards are slightly different because a lot of building bulk is primarily regulated by building types, it's not regulated by uses as much. There are some opportunities to modify or decrease lot size further if they provide, for example rear access, rear utility easements, or additional civic space. However rear access is not required, so the way that the lots were designed was to accommodate the buildings given front access and/or rear access, but rear access with allow a smaller lot. Another change that was touched on briefly in the introduction was that parking is regulated by zone in this case, so it is slightly different because the amount is regulated by the zone, as is the location, so there are different setbacks for buildings compared to parking such that the buildings are to be closer to the street than the parking with the idea being they don't want the street front to be dominated by garage doors or blank walls, so it does require that parking is set back a little further. Lehmann showed a diagram on how parking is set back from the front facade, he noted there are some opportunities to tweak that a little bit but generally it's going to be set back from whatever is occupying most of the streetscape. Some other changes Lehmann wanted to mention are there are frontage types and building types and those are required for each design site, and then there's also the sub zones, specifically the open zone which allows for greater variety of uses, especially nonresidential uses. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 12 of 20 Lehmann next moved on to discuss the use standards, noting they are pretty similar to what they are used to seeing with a standard use table, uses that are permitted just straight up, uses that are provisionally allowed that requires staff review. Signs noted looking at the Future Land Use Map, there's a lot of detail put together on these various zones and into all these potential streets, but does the plan say that this is where streets really will be because otherwise if they start moving streets, then they lose the zones. Lehmann stated that's where those rezoning criteria come into play acknowledging if they move streets it's going to move zones and so that's where the specific criteria come into place so that when they are reconstructed, zones are related upon it, it has to make sense in the same way and that those zoning criteria are followed. Lehmann stated the Future Land Use Map isn't an engineered plat or anything so changes can and will happen but hopefully it would be reconstructed in a similar manner. Lehmann went back to the use standards and stated staff does still regulate uses in Form -Based Zones, again permitted by right, provisionally allowed where staff reviews to make sure that it meets some criteria, and then through special exception, where it goes through a discretionary process by the Board of Adjustment. Lehmann noted in most cases the missing middle housing is permitted by right and that would be all of the building types that are allowed. Detached single family dwellings aren't permitted in those urban zones and a lot of the other standards follow the existing zones. Lehmann did point out that in the open zones how the commercial uses are allowed as well in the Main Street Zone how commercial uses are allowed. He stated there are additional uses called live/work that also allows some commercial uses that would be within certain residential zones, specifically those that are T4 zones. Lehmann next discussed the missing middle, the definition that they use in the Zoning Code is house scale buildings with multiple units and walkable neighborhoods. He wanted to touch on this again because this is one of those major changes that is missing in a lot of zoning codes because usually there's high priority for single family detached or high priority for large multifamily and some of those missing middle housing types get lost. The way this Code looks at it is makes them allowable uses and instead of regulating by the uses it regulates by those building types instead. Lehmann stated there are two new use categories, one is community gardens, land cultivated by multiple users for plants essentially, it is also a joint civic space type and does allow some onsite retail for produce that was grown on site, but most structures on it are pretty limited and it's mostly going to be that green space. He noted they did want to include this as is not included in the current Zoning Code and they don't really have any use category that would allow for this. It would have likely been classified as agriculture, so this is a way to make sure that there was an opportunity for community gardens and civic space. The other new use category is live/work space, it is similar to the home businesses that are currently allow but it's a slightly more intense version of where someone lives in the unit that they also work in. Those nonresidential uses that are allowed are limited, it's similar to what is allowed in the Peninsula live/work areas, but it does limit on premises sales to goods made in the unit, for example an artist studio, and it does prohibit certain hours for deliveries, certain hours for clients and only up to three outside employees, and it does limit the number of clients per day. It is a more intense commercial use that could be allowed but does have its own restrictions that come with it and it's really only Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 13 of 20 allowed in those T4 Zones and above, likely the live/work would be in the town home building types. Lehmann explained the differences between the use standards as they currently are and these, these use standards incorporate the missing middle, there is an accessory use table that isn't in the current Zoning Code, which makes it easier to interpret some of those uses and then there are those two new use categories. Lehmann reiterated however that uses are not the primary way that they're regulating the form of the environment, it is really by those forms in building types and in frontage types. The site standards are similar to the site development standards and it works in tandem with them. Some of these standards, like screening, supplement the existing standards and some just add slight differences to them. Regarding screening they do regulate walls and fences, they regulate mechanical equipment, again these sites standards supplant the existing standards that the City has. Generally, there are height limits on walls and fences, and they're not allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. Mechanical equipment has to be screened either by the building, by wall parapets or by walls if it's an existing building that's in one of these zones. For landscaping, it is a bit unusual in that it works in tandem with the existing landscaping standards. Lehmann noted there are some new parking landscaping requirements and there are new street tree standards which was touched upon when talking about the thoroughfare street types. He stated these things are all checked during the site plan or building permit review process. Plant diversity is probably the biggest change in that for new street trees they would only allow 5% of any species and 10% of any genus in any trees that are on the sites, they should be spatially distributed and also should try to incorporate mature trees when possible. Those do work with the existing standards, but it is a bit more detailed in how they want to encourage a biodiversity within these areas to promote sustainability. Landscaping is expected to be installed with development and should be maintained, and it should be separated from vehicular areas. Lehmann discussed parking, as already mentioned the amount and location of onsite parking is listed by zone, there are also current parking standards, some of which apply, and then there are new parking landscaping standards that are involved in this section as well. Some of the differences are tied to traffic minimization, there's provisions for bicycle parking, for carpool spaces, for office uses and then for cars to share spaces for large residential and office uses. There are some large vehicle parking and loading standards and they're slightly different than current Code standards. Lehmann stated the parking lot design standards and landscaping standards are to try and avoid larger areas of pavement so there are standards about breaking up larger parking areas, making sure there's pedestrian access to sidewalks, and landscaping when it's a larger area. They want to make sure that parking spaces are accessed from an internal drive and not just from the streets. He noted one difference is that tandem parking is allowed, where there are two cars located front to back, but it's regulated by use generally and would only be allowed within one unit, so someone is not going to get stuck behind a neighbor. Overall, the more parking there is, the more landscaping that's required, tree coverage is based on the lot area, so the bigger the lot more trees required. They do encourage that the landscaping areas incorporate stormwater management to try and filter the storm water rather than treat it as a waste product, but that is not required. Finally in the site standards, Lehmann noted there is a subsection on adjustments to standards He explained these are administrative changes that again that can be made to different Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 14 of 20 provisions. They do require that there is a finding that is made with that so it's similar to the current minor modifications accept that there wouldn't be a notification requirement, it would be more like the adjustments in Riverfront Crossings. Those include things such as the design site size, the amount of facade, the facade zone, the main body or wing height, which comes with building types, the front parking setback, screen height and then there's some flexibility that's allowed for affordable housing which he'll discuss later in the affordable housing chapter. Adjustments or modifications do require findings that are made by staff and most of it is to accommodate an existing feature. Lehmann noted the Form -Based Code provides flexibility like dimensional standards for affordable housing. The final section to discuss tonight is on civic space types as those are really a new concept for the City of Iowa City, it basically typifies open space and categorizes them and provides some standards with that. The first two sub sections are the general standards and the purpose and then the rest of them are just the different types of civic spaces that could be selected. A civic space could be a public open space, or it could be private open space, but it has to be accessible and dedicated to public use and it would be really delineated in that subdivision process and finalized in that neighborhood plan. Again, there is the opportunity to change what the civic space type is in the standards but that's where it would be codified, or at least made public. Lehmann stated there is required open space in that City requires that land must be provided for public open space or fee -in -lieu paid. That is an existing standard that can tie into this, but it doesn't always tie into this. Public spaces that are dedicated to the City could qualify as a civic space and meet that requirement, but if it's a private civic space it would not meet that requirement and those would not be able to be used for the neighborhood open space dedications. In terms of what public access and visibility means, Lehmann explained it really means that they have to allow the public to access it and see it, so they want to ensure that it's visible through single -loaded streets, bike and pedestrian paths, and making sure that it's not tucked away behind existing development as a sort of private park, it has to be accessible. This also does include natural features such as creeks or other natural open spaces that are there, some of those are delineated on Future Land Use Map, some may be located later as the sensitive areas plans are developed. Building facades must front on the civic space, they want the civic spaces to look on complete facades that are nicely developed and not just the side of building. As far as the use of civic spaces, there primarily intended to be gathering spaces and they must be designed accordingly, but there might be some opportunity for commercial uses, there are opportunities for service areas, especially if it's privately owned as they do want it to contribute to stormwater management, and using some of that green infrastructure and since they are looking at street trees they are looking at things that absorb water instead of piping it into storm sewers, it'd be great if they could incorporate the stormwater management into these green spaces that exists. Lehmann pointed out seven options for civic spaces, the first two are the Greenway and the Green. The Greenway is basically a long linear space that would be multiple blocks, it would be an opportunity for strolling, there could be sidewalks along it, there could be a trail down it, it could be flanked by streets and could be flanked on one side by buildings. It serves as a connector between open space areas. This civic space type would be allowed in all zones, except for the T4 Main Street Zone. The Green is similar but it's just a standard open space, a large space available for unstructured recreation, it limits the amount of buildings that can be put on site, and it also is allowed and all zones but the T4 Main Street Zone. The next two are the Plaza and the Pocket Park/Plaza. The Plaza is only allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. It's really a community focal point similar to a historic town center that is seen in some small Iowa Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 15 of 20 towns. It might have some structured space, but it would be primarily a gathering place. The Pocket Park/Plaza is a little different, it's basically a smaller version of either the Green or of the Plaza depending on the context, because it is allowed in all zones, so if it's in a T4 Main Street Zone it would be expected to be a Plaza and a more formal space that serves the neighborhood. It it's in a T3 Zone or a lower density neighborhood zone, it is expected to be some sort of small park that serve as an immediate neighborhood. The next two are the Playground and Community Garden. Playgrounds pretty self-explanatory and intended for children and are allowed in all zones. They could be incorporated into any other civic space, so it could be in a Plaza or it could be in a Green, but it is its own type as well. The Community Garden has already been briefly touched upon, but it's intended for garden plots available to nearby residences and is allowed in all zones. The final type of civic space is the Passage, which is a little unique in that it is both a civic space and also a thoroughfare type. The City does have standards right now that allow for pedestrian passageways through blocks that can allow a larger block length. Lehmann explained this is similar to that, but it adds some more standards as to what that has to look like and it is allowed for all zones. For a Passage, one would expect the houses to front it, the Ped Mall would be an urban example of what a Passage might look like. It does increase the allowable block size which Lehmann will touch upon during the next meeting as to how those standards work together in the subdivision process. Lehmann showed on the Future Land Use Map the variety of civic space types. Ones to the east are more neighborhood focal points similar to some of the open zones, there are some linear spaces where there's infrastructure, there's an existing trail on the northeast side of McCollister, east of South Gilbert. Staff is proposing another one where there's an existing sewer line as it makes sense to put some sort of trail where they have some infrastructure. He noted they are also proposing an expansion of the Sand Hill Park, some buffer on the southeast side next to the sanitary sewer plant, and finally, they are showing a Plaza in the middle of the T4 Main Street Zones. The imagine they would see some commercial areas there with outdoor seating, etc. Lehmann next explained how this is different from the existing Zoning Code, it can be public or private, it is a new concept, but it builds on current open space standards, and really classifies the open space, both natural and urban open spaces, and it creates standards. He noted it also formalizes some of the pedestrian route criteria that they have currently with the Passage, it does tie stormwater management into the amenity space and builds it into the Future Land Use Map and then through that it is also incorporated in the neighborhood plans and the other new planning processes. Lehmann stated the next steps will be a discussion next time at the July 15 meeting on the building type standards, architectural elements standards, the frontage types, thoroughfare types, and then the affordable housing incentives. They will also talk about some other minor changes that were required throughout the Code to implement this and then some changes with the South District Plan. Then at the August 5 subsequent meeting they will have an opportunity to discuss anything the Commission would like more clarity on and then at the August 19 meeting is when staff would expect to make a recommendation on the Form -Based Code and on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council. Once Council receives the recommendation, they would set a public hearing and have three hearings of the Code, and one hearing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So theoretically the Comprehensive Plan Amendment couldn't be approved until September 21 and theoretically if this schedule is followed the Code would be adopted potentially on October 19. Lehmann acknowledged they are accepting public comments throughout this entire process but Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 16 of 20 strongly encourage that public comments are provided by August 5 so that by the end of the meeting, staff could have an opportunity prior to the Commission hearing it on August 19 to incorporate any changes. Hensch asked if at the August 19 meeting is where the Commission considers adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Form -Based Code, is that also when the public hearing would be held for the first time for the public to weigh in on this. Lehmann said they could submit written comments prior to that and those could be provided to the Commission at the August 5 meeting for consideration, otherwise the formal public hearing on both of these items would be August 19. Craig first asked about the parking in the images that were shown, to her it appears like there were not near enough parking spaces for some of those big buildings. Will there be parking underground, even for a four-plex, four parking spots doesn't seem like enough. She recognizes they said that the parking standards were diminished somewhat, but what are the parking standards and will there be enough parking for some of those structures, particularly the bigger ones. Also, is there any way to make it an incentive or incentivize a developer to include electrical charging stations in the parking, she feels that would be very attractive for someone as 10 years from now they're going to have a lot more electric vehicles around. Craig also stated she is still a little fuzzy about the whole design sites and what that means, they showed a picture of the big square that was divided into three squares or three rectangles and who divides those and decides if there are single family homes on them, maybe one with the granny suite or whatever, she needs to try to educate herself more on that. Finally, on the gathering places, Craig thinks all those concepts are great but it just feels like maybe there's not enough of them in there, this feels like a very dense development. Overall, she really likes it, but there are no plans for a City park, or all the civic spaces maintained by the City or maintained privately. Lehmann responded briefly on the parking question. For each zone, there is a subsection seven called parking and that sets the minimum standard for that zone. For example, for the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone, studio up to two-bedroom units would require one parking space per unit minimum, three or more would require two parking spaces per unit, for commercial or nonresidential uses no parking would be required up to 1500 square feet with the assumption being it would use the on -street parking, if it's greater than that, then the parking standard starts to come into play. Lehmann acknowledged the parking standards are less than the current standards, but these are minimum requirements and they are trying to look at ways to encourage walkable, denser developments, and so these are the minimums that would be required for a unit. However, a developer could decide they want two parking spaces for every bedroom, and they can still do that, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that, it's just that the minimum required would be less than the current Code. Craig said then for a four-plex with just four parking spots that is okay. Lehmann responded it would be acceptable if those were all one -bedroom units. Lehmann noted in terms of design sites, the design sites show flexibility and one could have an entire large parcel fit for duplexes or fit for five single family homes. The flexibility of not platting those individual sites can allow for a mix of homes that would fit the site and could be tweaked as developed. He acknowledged realistically most people are probably still going to plat parcels like Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 17 of 20 they currently do. For example, if there is a plat for a multifamily building but in the future they decide that parcel would be better for two single family homes instead they don't have to subdivide it again, instead, they would just use design sites and deal with it that way. Craig asked how the individual who's purchasing it know what's their property. Lehmann said it would be similar to the legality of a condo regime and that's why they would still expect most people to probably development it as they buy it. Hektoen confirmed it would be like a condo association or the owner is also the developer and continues to own all of the units. Lehmann said it can also be similar to a planned overlay process with sometimes all of the buildings on a single lot, and they have to put invisible lot lines. The difference is in this those invisible lines can be shuffled around depending on what the market forces seem to be as long as they're meeting the frontage mixed standards, the dwelling type standards, and all of those sorts of things. Lehmann next answered the question on the civic space, he does believe they do make a distinction on the Future Land Use Map about public versus private open space and what they're thinking for those areas is one of them would be a small public park, the one that's in the central east side. He noted there are already a lot of park amenities in the South District, that's one of the selling points, there is Terry Trueblood, open space from the prairie, Wetherby Park and the Sycamore Trail and greenway. Craig recognizes that but was thinking more about playgrounds for children, she acknowledged there is the school playground, but not much else. Lehmann agreed and noted that a decision to put in a playground will be up to the person that is developing the civic space, because the City does not distinguish which civic space types should be where, that would be up to the developer. Russett added staff did talk to the Parks and Rec Department about park needs in this area and they felt that a playground was really needed east of the greenway so that's why they identified that area as a public park that will become an area with a playground. Signs is interested in discussing the affordable housing piece and the fee -in -lieu piece. He is personally done with the fee -in -lieu concept because everybody's using it and if they really want to get affordable housing truly scattered throughout the community and incorporate into these areas they have to do away with that fee -in -lieu because every developer uses it, and they don't build affordable units in their developments. He just wanted to say that is something he is going to harp on a lot through this process. Signs also had an interesting observation about multimodal transportation and looking at these spaces, they talk about a lot less parking with the idea that people will use other transportation sources and that concerns him in light of the fact that the transportation department is cutting bus routes. So here they are creating a whole development, a whole area that's going to theoretically rely more on buses, so he hopes they are having that conversation with the transportation department and with City Council as far as funding the transportation department. Signs is also concerned about the map, it shows very distinct zones in very distinct places and from his experience with developments, especially in this larger area of land, rarely do they end up that way. All of a sudden streets won't be there and uses will change so he'd like to hear Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 18 of 20 much more about what happens as things change because they all know what they do today and what's going to be done five years from now, are distinctly different. Finally, Signs has a quick question of if this ties into the needs for adjustments in rental codes. Will development here discourage or encourage rental units, it may not be relevant to the conversation, but those were just some things he made note of tonight and he looks forward to having more conversations in the in the couple of sessions to come. Padron agrees with Craig about electric vehicle stations, that would be great. She likes that parking requirements are being reduced, but she would like to see how they will be complimenting or encouraging other modes of transportation. Will there be more parking for bicycles or wider streets for bike lanes, etc. Finally, regarding the trees, will they be requiring the use of native species to reduce the use of water, also in terms of landscape are they encouraging the use of local materials that don't require transportation for landscape. Padron also agrees with Craig that it seems that are not enough green spaces, and also the greenway is allowed in some of those zones, but it's not a requirement, so what would happen if a developer chooses not to have any of those green spaces. The area would then become very dense and not good for stormwater management without be something like permeable pavement. She also agrees with Signs on the concern over public transportation and would like to hear much more about that. Finally, Padron is also concerned about the commercial inside the neighborhoods because that's another thing if they're hoping that people will use less cars, but if they have to drive really far away to get groceries, how's that going to work. Hensch looks forward to the future opportunities to hear more about this and encourages all Commission members to continue to do some research and reading on this. DISCUSSION OF RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS: Russett noted a couple updates for the Commission. The Governor's emergency declaration allowing cities to meet virtually has been extended through July 25, but it is expected that it will not be extended after that point. This Commission has one more chance to meet virtually, on July 15, but Russett stated there's been some interest from the Commission to meet back in person. Russett would like to request that they have that July 15 meeting as a virtual meeting so the consultants can participate more easily. Hensch agreed that seems reasonable unless somebody has an objection to that. He added that he saw today that persons 12 years age and up in Iowa City have a 69.9% vaccination rate so almost at that 70%. Johnson County is doing really well. Russett also wanted to mention that at this point there's not going to be any hybrid meetings, it will all be back to in person. Lehmann added they will all be recorded so people can watch it at least. Craig asked why no hybrid, with zoom people could still participate. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2021 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Mark Nolte, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Lehmann stated this is a continuation from the presentation that he had started at the last meeting and tonight he will be going into detail on the Code. This Form -Based Code is available to view on the City's website and the Code itself is the first one in the appendix and includes changes to Title 14 and 15 and then proposed changes to the South District Plan. At the last meeting Lehmann started the general discussion about why how this process came to be what's been done so far and went over a brief summary of amendments and the examples of the types of neighborhood this Code will produce and then also the justifications for the proposed amendments both to the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He had also started talking about the intensive principles of the Code, some of the zone's use standards, site standards and civic spaces. Tonight, he will go through the remaining chapters, of which there are five, on building type standards, architectural element standards, frontage type standards, thoroughfare type standards and affordable housing incentives. Those are all part of Title 14-2H. Lehmann noted there's also other minor changes of Title 14 which he will briefly cover as well as some Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 2 of 23 changes to the Subdivision Code, which is one of the ways that this Code will help be implemented, go over some of the draft changes to the Comprehensive Plan and then finally summarize the next steps that will happen through this process. Lehmann began by reiterating briefly the items that were discussed at the last meeting. The first section of the Code was the intent and principles which basically talks about how Form -Based Codes are different than current development standards and the process that is used to implement them through the regular development process and the minor changes that happened to make sure that these standards are met. He went over the Zones as well, there are five zones, and he went over the new standards which are the uses that are allowed in the different zones and the site standards which affects what development looks like in those zones, specifically regarding landscaping, parking, design, screening, etc. Finally, he went through civic space types, which are essentially types of public or private open space that might be provided in these areas. To briefly refresh the different zones are organized by transects so that's what the T stands for, with T3 referring to suburban zones and T4 referring to urban zones so T3 is a lower density and T4 is a higher density. Within those broader transects there are two T3 areas, T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone which is the lowest density, and T3 Neighborhood General is the next highest density. Then there are three T4 zones, Neighborhood Small, Neighborhood Medium and Main Street. He will review the Future Land Use Map when he goes through building types. Lehmann next discussed tonight's standards and noted at least three of the sections relate to different types and some broader design standards that are incorporated in those, so it will be a lot of lists and information. The first section is 14-2H-6, Building Type Standards and within this section the first two subsections are the purpose and the general building type standards and then the rest are all of the different building types that would be allowed, and they do differ by zone. As he goes through his presentation, he did group them by familiar terms such as houses, duplexes, etc. In terms of the general standards Lehmann pointed out a couple that are important. First the scale of the building types are based on the intended character of the zone and that's how they determine what different building types are allowed in each zone and they will notice that throughout the Code it describes house scale versus block scale. House scale are smaller buildings, what one would expect to be the size of a house, block scales is when an individual building size covers most of the block. The purpose of the scale of the Zoning Code is to create pedestrian oriented buildings and also pedestrian oriented public realms like the streetscape. In terms of building types and as they relate to design sites, the size of the design site is regulated by the zone, so it's not included in this, but it is governed by the building type. Typically, within each design site there would be one building per design site, some certain buildings do allow multiple buildings such as an accessory type like a carriage house. Lehmann reminded the Commission that when they are talking about design sites, they are going to be concurrent with the parcels. For example, in a typical single-family development they could have a larger parcel that has multiple design sites. Lehmann also wanted to touch on frontages because each building type needs at least one frontage type, and that frontage would contain the primary entrance and has to be along a street or civic space. There are some exceptions such as a Cottage Court and he'll explain later why that's a unique design or building type. Finally, Lehmann discussed the diversity of building types. Within each block this Code requires that Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 3 of 23 there are at least two different building types, there is an exemption for the T4 Main Street requirement because that is basically the commercial zone and doesn't require the diversity of housing types. But within the neighborhood -based zones, they do want to see a diversity of building types. Lehmann stated there are 10 choices of building types in the Code. The first one is the Carriage House and is a little unique as it is an accessory structure that can be added to other building types. A Carriage House does not count as its own building type, it is strictly accessory, so it is allowed in all zones. Only one dwelling unit would be allowed in a Carriage House and typically it would be on the rear of a design site, likely above the garage. Lehmann added it doesn't have to be residential, it could also be a commercial space say for a small business owner. Carriage Houses would only be two stories max and a width of 32'. Lehmann will give the size of each building so the Commission can get a feeling for the building bulk that is expected for each building type. The next set of building types are houses, there are two different ones, House Large and House Small, and is essentially what is currently classified as a single-family use or a single-family detached use. A House Large would be found in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone and is the lowest density building type. It is a medium to large sized detached building and would only have one unit like a single-family detached unit. It would only be allowed to be up to two and a half stories tall and the maximum width would be 95' and that would include a 55' main body and there could be wings that could be allowed up to 20' on each side. The wings do have to be set back from that main body or extended out from the main body by an offset and part of the reason for the distinction between the main body and wings is to make sure that the building facade is broken up in a way that doesn't create just a large blank facade. The House Small is the less dense in the T3 Neighborhood General, it is a smaller unit that doesn't have quite as large of a lot size. Again, it can be two and a half stories tall but would have a maximum width of about 75' which would be 35' for the main body and then 20' for the wings. The next set of building types are duplexes, and there are two different types, Side -by -Side and Stacked. Side -by -Side are probably typically what folks are used to seeing and would be allowed in both T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge and Neighborhood General. Each duplex would have two units within the design site and would be a medium to small building, the idea is that it would be about the same size as a House Large or a single-family home generally. Side -by -Side would be allowed to be two and a half stories tall but would be narrower than a House Large at 48 feet on the main body. Lehmann explained that again that helps ensure that these are house scale buildings. As far as garages, they can have garages on the front, but they have to fit within these building standards, so in some cases it's going to be challenging with a Side -by -Side duplex, but it is possible. The Duplex Stacked looks even more like a house essentially where there are two units, one on top of the other. Again, it's a small to medium sized detached building and it would only be allowed in the T3 Neighborhood General, as it is a slightly denser form of duplex. Duplex Stacked would have the same height standard of two and a half stories, but it could be a little wider up to 66' which would include a 36' main body and two 15' wings. The next building type is a little more unique and not something that's currently allowed in the City Code. It's called a Cottage Court and is where there is a courtyard that would have buildings arranged around the outside of it and the courtyard would basically act as shared common space, rather than having private individual yards. Lehmann noted the City has had Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 4 of 23 some interest in this development type and it's been difficult to try and accommodate it. Cottage Court would be allowed in the T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General and the T4 Neighborhood Small but the idea is that it would fit with existing single-family homes or duplexes. A Cottage Court could have three to nine units, with the rear cottage being 1-3 units. Depending on the number of units affects the size of the Court so more units means that the Court has to be larger to help disperse the concentration of units. As far as height goes it fits in with existing single-family buildings but has a smaller height where these buildings can only be one and a half stories tall. The rear cottage can be 40' but the rest of the cottages have to be less than that, so it creates low -scale buildings along the street facade. Lehmann noted this is one of those examples where the main entrances would actually be on the Court rather than on the street, because the Court is the central focus point of this building type. Next are multiplexes, both small and large variety. Lehmann stated this would be similar to what is currently in the Code as multifamily. The Multiplex Small would be allowed in the T3 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and allow up to three to six units. Those units could be stacked or could be side by side, but the idea is again it's approximately the size of a large house and is scaled to fit with low to moderate intensity neighborhoods. The building height would be two and a half stories and it could be up to 90' wide, which is about the same as a House Large with a 50' main body and two 20' foot wings. Multiplex Large are allowed in the T4 Neighborhood Medium and have 7 to 12 units. Again, they could be side-by-side or stacked with the shared entry. Multiplex Large is intended to fit with moderate intensity neighborhoods or maybe a small portion of lower intensity neighborhoods. The max height does get taller with this building type and can be up to three and a half stories, and the max width can be up to 100', so overall slightly larger than some of the house scale buildings. It would allow for a 60' main body and two 20' wings. Another unique building type is the Townhouse because it's pretty versatile and how it is implemented within the Form -Based Zones. It is a small to large house that can be attached or may be detached, but it consists of one unit typically but can be three in certain zones. The Townhouse would be located in moderate to high intensity neighborhoods or near neighborhood main streets, basically more dense zones. It allows larger and more units per design site. In the T3 Neighborhood General it would allow Townhouses in a row of two to three units with one unit per site and a max height of two and a half stories with a row width up to 90'. Again, approximately the size of a House Large. In the T4 zones, Townhouses are allowed to have rows of four to eight units and the T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium would still maintain one unit per site. In the T4 Neighborhood Small it could be up to two and a half stories and in T4 Neighborhood Medium it could be up to three and a half stories. Lehmann pointed out that row lengths increase in the denser zones of the Townhome are in the T4 Neighborhood Medium zone, and the T4 Main Street zone which could allow some commercial uses and then still have four to eight townhomes in a row and up to three stacked. Another variety of multifamily is the Courtyard Building. Lehmann explained this is a different building type than the multiplex and is similar to the Cottage Court except it is a multifamily home with a central court that replaces rear yard open space. The Courtyard Building Small would be allowed in T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium zones and could have 10 to 16 units. As far as building height goes, T4 Neighborhood Small would only be two and a half stories and T4 Neighborhood Medium would allow up to three and a half stories. The max width in both zones is 100' and there are standards as to how large the courtyard needs to be that's located within the zone and also along the street facade the size of the building is broken up by Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 5 of 23 the presence of that courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large is only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone and it allows 18 to 24 dwelling units, again they can be stacked or side-by-side but must have that common courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large can be up to three and a half stories, but the main body again remains 100' so a lot of that excess building bulk would be located on the rear of the site. Some of the buildings are allowed to have more than one building on a design site where instead of just a courtyard in the middle, they can have separate buildings with the courtyard between them and allow a slightly different configuration but again, the building bulk is broken up by that courtyard. The final building type is the Main Street Building and is the most general building and probably most appropriate for commercial uses. It is a small to large building and only allowed in the Main Street zone. The amount of dwelling units is unrestricted except by the Housing Code and the Building Code. Lehmann explained the Main Street Building type is similar to the Riverfront Crossing Zone where they have to meet the minimum standards for safety, but if they can fit them within the building envelope then they can work. The Main Street Building is intended to provide a variety mix of uses, typically with some ground floor commercial and residential above. The max height again is three and a half stories and the max width for the body is 200'. These can be block scale buildings. Lehmann noted some other building types, such as larger townhomes also get towards that block scale, but a lot of these buildings are designed to be house scale buildings and that's part of the point of providing missing middle housing types. Lehmann stated as far as where these different building types are allowed and as they relate to the zones he showed the Future Land Use Map that would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Edge is typically low-density development, two and a half stories with the House Large, the Side -by -Side Duplex and the Cottage Court. The Neighborhood General is located in the center of neighborhoods away from busier roads typically. They are still two and a half stories and allow the House Small, both varieties of duplexes (Stacked and Side -by -Side), they would allow Multiplex Small and Cottage Court, and also allow Townhomes in runs of two to three units. As they move into the T4 zones, those are denser zones and are along major intersections and arterial roads. Buildings are still two and a half stories in the T4 Neighborhood Small zone, and would allow the Multiplex Small, the Courtyard Building, small Townhomes in a run a four to eight and the Cottage Court. Then in the denser zones located along major corridors or major intersections is the T4 Neighborhood Medium. These buildings can get up to three and a half stories tall, but that's primarily in the southeast along the single loaded streets where there's open space on the other side. Finally, the T4 Main Street, which is that densest zoning category is located at the corner of McCollister and Sycamore and it would allow the Courtyard Building Large and Townhouses in a run of 4-8 and they can be stacked up to three. Lehmann noted the current Zoning Code does not consider building types, so this is a newish concept for the Zoning Code. Riverfront Crossings does have different building types, so this is more similar to what is south of downtown. The biggest difference is that it distinguishes the building from the use, so currently the City defines uses in the Zoning Code as single family or duplexes or multifamily. In this Form -Based Code everything is defined as building scale. In looking at scale rather than use is a way to deal with what buildings look like because mostly they're interested in the experience with the public realm and how does that interact with surrounding properties. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 6 of 23 Lehmann stated using this building scale rather than use does create some new standards that staff hasn't historically reviewed. It includes some minimum and maximum bulk requirements, such as the scale of a block scale building. It regulates the number of units, whereas the current Zoning Code regulates by density of a lot sizes. In the Form -Based Code they are noting the number of units that can be within an existing building type and also creates a requirement for housing diversity on each block. Finally, these building type standards are incorporated into the revised processes that were discussed at the last meeting and would be included on the preliminary plan and they'll get finalized in the neighborhood plan and do either a building permit or site plan review, depending on the use and of number of units. That is the point where staff would check it against the neighborhood plan to make sure that it was in compliance with all of these standards. He noted there is a possibility of administrative change, but that would happen on the neighborhood plan as well and if a design site can accommodate a House Small but it's also large enough to accommodate a Stacked Duplex those could be switched out administratively as an update to the neighborhood plan. The next set of standards Lehmann reviewed was the Architectural Elements Standards and there are four different elements that are regulated by this Code. In general, it is similar to what some of the current site development standards are, for example, the multifamily site development standards or the four different sets of commercial site development standards, and the different sets of single families site development standards. However, the Architectural Elements Standards work with both the building type standards and the frontage type standards to try and provide visual interest and make sure that the interaction with the public realm provides walkable neighborhood friendly environments. The first Architectural Elements Standard is the Tripartite Facade Articulation and applies to buildings that are at least two stories and basically states there has to be a base, a middle and a top and an architectural element must be used to distinguish those three areas to create some horizontal visual interest. So, the ground floor has to be articulated by some sort of string courses, cornice expression or awnings or canopies. It could be different materials, but it doesn't require different materials, it could be colors it could be any number of ways as long as they are distinguishing the base from the other portions that standard can be met. The middle area only applies if it's three stories, but it would need to have some feature to create visual interest on the horizontal plane. The top should be delineated with some form of cornice expression, either trim material, brackets and panels, eave details or accentuated masonry. The next Architectural Elements Standard is Architectural Recessions which would apply to buildings have at least two stories and are over 50' long, so essentially a house scale building however this explicitly excludes houses and duplexes from having to comply with the Architectural Recession standards. The purpose really is to modulate the appearance of a building and recess a portion of the facade, whether that be an entry, whether that be balconies, but it has to be carried through the building and it has to be 12 to 20 feet and up to two locations with longer buildings requiring a wider recess. Lehmann explained again with a lot of these standards the goal is to provide visual interest which helps create walkable neighborhoods and Architectural Recessions are one of the ways that they currently do that within the Code. Next is the Corner Element and this is actually a voluntary architectural element that could be used on Main Street buildings and the idea is to provide emphasis to corner and it help shape the public realm. On those corners it could be a slight bump out or it could exceed that zone Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 7 of 23 height that would typically be allowed by a little bit to create that visual interest on the corner and to help define the public realm. Lehmann noted again this would be a voluntary element and not a required element. Another voluntary element is the Rooftop Room which is an enclosed or unenclosed portion on the top of the roof, but it can't just be another blanket additional story. It would have to be somewhat setback; it has to have openings or windows and it has to be consistent with the primary building. It is another architectural element that provides visual interest, and it can provide a neat feature on buildings. Lehmann noted these architectural elements are relatively limited in this Form -Based Code compared to some other zone -specific site development standards in the multifamily zones or the Riverfront Crossings Zone. The requirements are similar but many of them are addressed through other ways within this Form -Based Code. For example, building and frontage types address a lot of the standards that would typically be included in the site design standards such as parking lot design, landscaping, building entries, exterior stairways, mechanical equipment, etc. In other cases, some of the standards don't really apply in this area because it is greenfield development where they're not working within an existing historical neighborhood, for example. In a lot of ways, it's similar in that it looks at building bulk and provides facade articulation that would create visual interest, it requires tripartite articulation within the building and that's something that they City also requires within the Riverfront Crossings District. It does require equal treatment of facades, which is something else required in Riverfront Crossings. Regarding differences, this Form -Based Code doesn't regulate building materials nor regulate windows. They didn't want to limit architectural creativity in new areas but there are still standards related to visual interest to hopefully address a lot of issues that may come with just a standard box building. Hensch asked if building materials are not regulated than how can they say the transact for Main Street would be similar to the downtown area. Lehmann replied the more proper comparison would be the Main Street area and a Neighborhood Commercial zone that we have rather than the downtown zones, as the City really only regulates building materials within certain areas like downtown. Lehmann moved on to the next section which is related to frontage types. In terms of general standards, it doesn't necessarily restrict frontage types as they don't correspond to the uses, one could have a porch on a commercial building and can have a porch on a residential building. They are really guided by the zone and the building type in that zone. Building types may have multiple frontages, depending on the frontage type and depending on where it's located on the block, but the frontage type does have to be located within the frontage zone, which is on the front of that building designed site. In addition, they must have frontage types that front thoroughfares or a civic space, such as a circumstance where a house is fronting on to a pedestrian passage rather than fronting on the street. Lehmann noted however they would still need equal architectural treatment on the street as well. The frontage is just where the primary individual entrance would be. Exterior stairs can be used as entry on ground level but for any units that are above ground, they have to be entered from an enclosed staircase. Similar to building types, they also require at least two different frontage types on each block to help provide visual interest and create a pedestrian friendly environment. Part of the reason they have the frontage standards is to really look at the interaction of the public realm and the private Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 8 of 23 realm being the right-of-way, which is the streets, the parking, the green space and the sidewalk and then into the private yard and the frontage type is that interaction with those areas. Lehmann noted there are 10 choices or frontage types. The first is Porch Projecting, which is as it sounds to project the porch into the front yard or within the front set back, and it is basically a covered structure that can be elevated or it can be at grade. It could be one or two stories, but it has to be opened on three sides. This type of frontage is allowed in all zones except for the T4 Main Street. As far as the dimensions go, it does require a minimum of 6' to 8' so it is usable space and really creates a purpose like an outdoor room that can facilitate that interaction between the public and the private realms. They expect to see a lot of Porch Projecting in the T3 zones, especially because one of the features of the projecting porch is that with the parking set back in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone they can move the garage closer to the front of the lot. The other type of porch is considered an Engaged Porch so that's where it's partially set back within the facade. With an Engaged Porch it could have two to three sides that are within that facade but obviously the front would have to be open and, potentially, one of the sides could also be open as well, but again, it is a covered structure that creates an outdoor room. It follows similar standards as the porch projecting on where it's allowed in all zones except for the Main Streets, and it has similar dimensional standards. The next set of frontages are the Dooryard and Stoop. Lehmann noted they're probably the most versatile ones in that they are allowed in all zones. With the Dooryard the main facade is set back and is defined by a wall ahead or some other sort of small screening that would create separation. Again, the purpose is to try and create some sort of outdoor room to facilitate that interaction between the public and private realms. For the Dooryard the dimensions would be a little wider so it would have to be 10' deep and 15' wide and then the wall would only be able to be up to 3' around that area as well. With the Stoop, the purpose is to create some separation between the public and the private realm so it's set up a little higher than other development standards and would be expected along busier streets where someone walking by could be looking right in a window. It would have an elevated entry and the stairs could either be parallel or in front depending on how it's designed. The Stoop has a shallower depth, it could be 3' by 5' and would need to be at least 12 inches above grade so it provides some of that separation. The next frontage type is Forecourt and is intended for use in denser zones. The Forecourt is specifically in the T4 Neighborhood Medium and T4 Main Street zones. The idea is that the building is set near the front of the design site, but there is essentially an extension of the public realm into the interior of the building site for an entry court or shared garden. The Forecourt has to be at least 15' wide and deep and it does have a height to width ratio so the walls don't tower over the court area, there needs to be light and air within the area. Craig asked if it's the public realm like a sidewalk anybody can go there, but obviously if there's going to be a restaurant or something there it's not going to be used for just anyone. Lehmann replied it would depend on the use, it is technically private space but should feel like it's part of the public realm and that's what he means when saying it's extending the public realm into the space. If it were commercial uses it could be something like outdoor seating, if it's residential uses it would probably be more of a private space, but it creates that visual extension of the public realm. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 9 of 23 The next set of frontages are the shop fronts, there's a Maker Shopfront and just a Shopfront. Lehmann explained these are typically intended for commercial buildings, although they're not restricted to commercial buildings, but the idea is that the facade is at the front of the design site in each of these cases and they're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone. The difference is that the Maker Shopfront is somewhere where there's maybe industrial or seasonal businesses or other businesses that are oriented towards retail or consumers and may include decorative roll down doors depending on the use. For example, a restaurant that has rolled down doors that open up to the public could be there, but the goal is to have some interaction with the public and the private realm. At least 50% of the facade would have to be glazing or windows, The Maker Shopfront is for businesses that are less customer centric but still want interaction with the public realm. The Shopfront is for more customer centric businesses and include substantial glazing between the Shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk. Craig asked if the glazing requirements are similar to the convenience stores that have been built lately and have a requirement for glazing but really it is just looking through this giant window and seeing a wall, there's nothing in there. Lehmann confirmed those are glazing requirements, but in this case the glazing is limited to the front edges so it's a little difference as it's going to be the front of the buildings and the intention is for it to open up into customer centric spaces, rather than a hallway as in the convenience stores Craig is talking about. Lehmann stated the next frontage type is the Terrace and this is again meant for higher intensity zones, the T4 Neighborhood Medium and Main Street zones. The idea is that the facade is near the front of the design site, but that there's some sort of elevated surface between the sidewalk and that space. Perhaps in commercial uses a Terrace could be a sidewalk cafe, but it can be used with residential uses as an outdoor seating area for residents. There are standards that it can only be up to 2' above grade and does require a certain depth affiliated with it and it provides some privacy similar to a Stoop. Finally, the last two are the Gallery and Arcade. Lehmann explained these are both covered spaces and the idea is that the main facade is set back somewhat from the public realm on the design site. They're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone but there would be covered space that's not within the right-of-way. It could be one - two stories in the case of the Gallery, or up to three stories in the case of the Arcade. These are typically intended for commercial uses and do require that they be used in conjunction with other frontage types so, for example with commercial uses there'd be used in conjunction with the Shopfront Type and must run along the entire front of that facade. These frontage types are a newish concept, there are some similar requirements in Riverfront Crossings, but these are a little more specified and little more detailed. Overall Lehmann explained the purpose is to really work with those other standards to provide visual interest that interacts the public and private realms. Again, review of frontage types would be included on the neighborhood plan and would be reviewed during building permit or site plan review and could have administrative changes similar to building types with the goal to maintain that diversity of frontage types. The next set of standards is related to thoroughfares which are essentially public streets and in some cases alleys or passages. Lehmann explained there are several different thoroughfare Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 10 of 23 types that are use and they're built around the intended physical character of the zone, but the goal is to provide multimodal ways of getting around the City. He noted at the last meeting they had talked about thoroughfare types to incorporate different modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, different vehicle types and transit. Lehmann noted it does require an interconnected network and the goal is to provide multiple routes through the area, which is generally required for more pedestrian friendly areas, because when there are extra long blocks, it makes it a lot more difficult to travel places. Regarding the individual standards most are in the public right-of-way and won't be privately owned so during the subdivision process there is an opportunity to tweak some of the criteria, but those would come before the Planning Commission. Another requirement in the Standards is that street trees are required and would have to be planted either prior to acceptance of public improvements or prior to the certificate of occupancy for the adjacent property. It will depend on if the property is going to be developed, if it's going to be developed, but isn't developed yet they don't want to put in the street trees and then need a bulldozer to get on site, so the street tress will be planted when the building is constructed. There are other opportunities to delay such as if the seasons don't cooperate, but there are also standards as to what that looks like to ensure that the street trees are planted at regular intervals throughout that area. Hensch noted it is the current practice where now if there's street trees required in the zoning it becomes the responsibility of the particular lot owner, as it becomes developed, but this would happen with the developer to have to plant those right up front. Lehmann explained a developer would pay an escrow for the trees that would cover the cost of installation, so if the developer doesn't follow through, then the City would have the funds to be able to play for the trees. Lehmann stated again there are 10 choices Throughfare Type Standards, and they correspond to major streets in the area and a lot of them are based on current engineering for those streets where engineering already exists. The first type is the Main Streets and there are two varieties, With Median or Without Median. They are intended for the Main Street zone, the Main Street with Median has a wider right-of-way at 100' with the idea being that there would be 50' of payment with 25' on each side of a 10' median. There would be two traffic lanes, two bike lanes and two parking lanes. As far as landscaping the expectation is that trees would be every 30' and the sidewalk would extend over to the street, the sidewalks are 20' sidewalks with planters within the sidewalk. Lehmann said this would be essentially along the main street zone of McCollister. The Main Street Without Median would be along Sycamore Street where it's zoned T4 Main Street. It is a narrower right-of-way because it doesn't have the median so it has 80' right-of-way but would still have two traffic lanes and two parking lanes. It would have trees in planters with the 20' sidewalk. Craig asked if it is just 20' from the building to the street then. Lehmann noted it might even be wider than that in spots, similar to the downtown area where there are very wide sidewalks and also planters within that area. It is intended to mimic a typical historic main street where there are tree planters with the sidewalks so most of the area that's not intended for pedestrian travel use could allow for things like sidewalk cafes or other uses that can spill over into the right-of- way like business sidewalk sales and such. Craig commented that 20' didn't feel big enough and Lehmann said it's wider than a typical trail which is usually only 10'. Padron asked specifically which sidewalk downtown is 20' to help her visualize what this would Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 11 of 23 look like. Lehmann is not sure off hand but Washington Street especially wide sidewalks. Russett confirmed on Washington Street in front of the US Bank Building there's a 20' foot sidewalk but across the street in front of the Java House and Chop House that sidewalk is more like 35'. Lehmann noted as far as where bike lanes are shown on the Future Land Use Map they're generally shown corresponding to where the City's future bike lanes are planned for in the Bicycle Master Plan and that's how they determine which streets have bike lanes. Lehmann moved onto the next set of Throughfare Type Standards, which are also along McCollister but away from the main street areas. These are Avenue 2 Without Parking and Avenue 2 with Future Parking. These pass through a couple different zones and are in the T3 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium. In both the right-of-way is consistently 100'. In areas Without Parking, the pavement with is 17' 6" on each side, so 35' total which includes traffic lanes, bike lanes, and median/turn pockets. In areas of Future Parking there is 50' pavement with 25' on each side, and would include traffic lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes, and the median/turn pocket. In these areas there will still be trees spaced every 30' but are continuous planters rather than individual planters as in the Main Street Zone. Lehmann explained it is similar to what is along almost any other right-of-way in Iowa City, the continuous landscaping. For sidewalks, they will be 6' on one side and 10' on the other so that 10' sidewalk acts as a trail for pedestrians Avenues 2 and 4 correspond to the other major streets in the area. Avenue 3 corresponds with Sycamore Street and Lehman Street will be developed to an Avenue 4. Avenue 3 and Avenue 4 can be used in all zones except for the Main Street zone. For Avenue 3 there is a right-of-way of 100' but the pavement width is reduced to 34' without any kind of median and is just two traffic lanes and two bike lanes. There are trees in planters, but these planters are a little wider than the McCollister oriented ones. There is still have a trail size sidewalk on one side and a standard size sidewalk, on the other side. Avenue 4 has a narrower right-of-way of 87' with two traffic lanes and a median/turn pocket. Trees would be planted in a continuous planter with wide continuous planters and the sidewalk would be trail on one side and 5' on the other side. Lehmann next discussed Neighborhood Streets noting generally throughout most of the neighborhood it will be Neighborhood Streets, and there are two options. Neighborhood Street 1 is with parking on both sides and Neighborhood Street 2 is parking on just one side. They are both allowed in all zones except for the T4 Main Street Zone. Neighborhood Street 1 is with parking on both sides has a 70' right-of-way with which is slightly larger than the current Code standard right-of-way width of 60', but the idea is for it to be a little wider to accommodate street trees in addition to other utilities and things that go in the right-of-way. The pavement width is 28' and this is a yield type parking arrangement so where there aren't cars on the streets, one could expect there could be up to two cars on each side, but if there are cars coming at each other and it's fully parked, then they will need some maneuvering between those two cars to negotiate. Lehmann explained the reason that it's designed this way is to slow the traffic on those local streets and to create safe environments for children and pedestrians. For Neighborhood Street 2 where parking on just on one side the right-of-way is narrower at 70', the pavement width is 26' with 18' for traffic and 18' parking lane. The traffic lane again is a yield type lane, however, with cars moving slow they can actually pass each other but it's still expected that one would yield to help reduce those traffic speeds within local streets. Trees Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 12 of 23 would still be every 30' and 14' planters to accommodate those trees and utilities. In the Neighborhood Street 2 with parking on just one side the sidewalks are 5' on each side. Hensch asked if the 60' right-of-way is what is currently in residential areas. Lehmann confirmed it is and also in these areas the pavement doesn't change, the difference is that continuous planter is wider. He thinks typically developers choose to do parking on both sides to provide additional parking for residents, but it's not always the case. Craig asked about the term continuous planter, that is in the ground and not like a raised three- foot planter. Lehmann confirmed when he says planters, just imagine the typical planting strip area between the street and the sidewalk. Lehmann moved onto the next type of Thoroughfare Type which is the Alley and is allowed in all zones. It has a right-of-way of 20', which would be expected behind the buildings, rather than in front of them, so it's not a frontage type. The Alley would be fully paved with a 20' traffic lane so it does allow some room for passing of cars, but typically this would be expected to be a yield type traveling as well. Within the Alley there is a requirement for street trees and individual planters in the area between driveways, however no sidewalks have to be provided, as it's expected that traffic's minimal enough where they don't have to worry about traffic as it's really only to access those individual sites. Lehmann explained the way that the Alley is a special type is that it does allow some modified lot dimensions, where they can reduce the size of the design site in exchange for an Alley with the idea being that they want to encourage alleys behind buildings to pull some of those garages off of the street frontages and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. He pointed out again it's not required to have the garages behind the houses, but this allows an option. Along the primary streets within the area, South Gilbert Street and McCollister they will need to provide access to the design sites from the side roads, rather than those primary roads, but those would typically be expected, because they don't expect that the design sites will have access to the side streets. Hensch asked if these Alleys would be public routes or private roads. Lehmann stated it is not specified, they could be public or private, but staff anticipates that they would be private. Lehmann stated the other special type is a Passage and is also allowed in all zones. It's also a 20' right-of-way but it would not have any traffic lanes and would be a 10' pedestrian path with 5' of plantings on the side of the host and required street trees about every 50' within that continuous planter. It doesn't have sidewalks because the general purpose of a Passage as a sidewalk is to allow pedestrian connections in exchange for larger plots or wider block links and to be able to create a pedestrian friendly environment, they want multiple routes that pedestrians can take to reach their destinations. Those same kinds of accommodations are not needed for vehicles as they can travel at faster speeds versus a pedestrian. Lehmann noted this is one way to allow an extension of a block by providing that pedestrian connection through the block length. Lehmann also noted there may be certain circumstances where there is a pedestrian Passage with buildings running along it and Alleys behind, so the cars are provided vehicular access and the pedestrian Passage would provide that pedestrian access. Craig noted however the pedestrian street is the responsibility of either an association or the property owners, unlike a regular street. Lehmann noted that alleys in the current Code are not Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 13 of 23 specified to be public or private and this would be the same. However, in many cases the pedestrian Passage that are required are noted as public land. Craig asked if the City would maintain those Passages, and Lehmann replied if it's public the City would maintain it, however if adjacent to property, the owner would maintain it similar to any street where the owner may have to mow the grass between the sidewalk and the street. Russett anticipates if Passages get built that they would be privately maintained, but there would probably be some type of public access easement over them that would be memorialized through the subdivision process that would allow anyone to use the Passage. Lehmann stated as far as visualizing where these thoroughfare types are imagined, the primary streets are the Avenues, otherwise most of the areas within the developments would be local streets and those neighborhood streets, which again are similar to the current standards in the Code and pedestrian Passages would be added in if developers wanted to try and have longer blocks and provide less vehicular streets, they could replace them with pedestrian streets. Alleys are currently shown primarily along those major streets where they would be required, unless they can provide access from the side lots. Alleys may also be present in a couple other places and usually are tied to fronting pedestrian passageways or civic spaces and provides vehicular access to where they're currently isn't vehicular access. Craig asked if a gas station or convenience store type of thing wants to be built on and the corner of McCollister and Sycamore, would that be allowed. Lehmann would have to look at the standards and can report back at the next meeting, but if it were allowed it would have to follow all of the standards and the design standards as well. Lehmann stated these thoroughfare types are a completely new concept because a lot of it is going to be actually publicly owned land but it builds on Code requirements from the streets that are currently there and provides some additional standards with the goal to ensure that multimodal access is possible within the neighborhood. Like other types that are in this Code, there is a possibility of administrative changes, one can add or take away passageways that meet certain standards or swap out neighborhood streets. Lehmann stated the last chapter of 14-2H is Affordable Housing Incentives and is something that has been added on since the initial public review draft and it really mirrors some of the standards used in Riverfront Crossings, but in this case it's a voluntary set of standards. To explain, within the City there are some mandatory affordable housing policies, like the annexation policy of which a lot of this area is going to be subject to. However, if annexed, these standards would not be able to use those required affordable housing units, they would not be able to take advantage of this, but if additional voluntary units were provided, they would be able to take advantage of some of these incentives. To receive these incentives, it also has to be in a Form -Based Zone, it doesn't apply to other zones within the area. It has to be for onsite affordable housing, they can't just pay a fee -in -lieu and use these standards. Lehmann reviewed the standards, first is a 25% density bonus where any additional unit has to be affordable. So, looking at building types that have three or more units, if they had four units and wanted to provide five units within that building type, would have to be an affordable unit. Next is a parking reduction, where the affordable units would not be required to have parking but again that's for the minimal parking standard purposes, it does not mean that there won't be Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 14 of 23 parking, it means that it would be up to the developer to include extra parking. There is flexibility from some other certain standards in hoping that it will encourage mixed income developments and diverse housing opportunities for different folks within the community. Lehmann noted they also hope that will increase the number of units produced and hopefully incentivize some who might not otherwise consider affordable housing within this area. Townsend asked if there is going to be a time limit on that affordable housing. Lehmann will go over the actual standards and how it is enforced in a bit but first wanted to talk about the incentives. Lehmann noted as far as the adjustments go, they'd be allowed one adjustment to the zone standards and one adjustment to building type standards that are specified in the Code. Staff would have to make a finding that it fits into the site, fits into the neighborhood characteristics and is consistent with the intent of that standard being modified. He added it does provide some protection if there's a scrupulous developer who's trying to manipulate the system to create something that just frankly doesn't fit the neighborhood, staff would be able to stop that. The zone standards that can be adjusted are design site depth which can be adjusted by 15' in terms of depth and 15% for width. The minimum area within the facade zone can be reduced by 20% as well. The building type standards that could be modified are the building main body and wing standards could be adjusted by 15% and building height could be increased by a half a story. Lehmann added there would be an opportunity to provide additional minor adjustments if those affordable housing units are further restricted in terms of who they'd be provided for. Generally, the affordable housing units will be available for owners at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) 60% AMI for renters but if those were reduced to 50% AMI then they would be allowed to have another building type adjustment, subject to those same eligibility standards. In terms of the general requirements, Lehmann stated they can be met by providing either onsite owner -occupied affordable units or rental units. The units would be subject to sales price limits, 80% AMI (which for a family of four that's income just shy of $80,000 and for an individual person it would be just shy of $56,000). Hensch asked if the current AMI in the City is $100,000. Lehmann doesn't know what 100% AMI is but noted these numbers do get updated annually and are based around a family of four and based on the family income in Iowa City. Lehmann stated for rental units, they need to be at 60% AMI and subject to HUD fair market rents and LIHTC (Low -Income Housing Tax Credit) income limits. The term of affordability would be 20 years and that would be secured with an agreement and the deed restriction on the property. So even if the owner was to sell it, they would still have to abide by the standards, and it would be administered through some administrative rules that are adopted by the City. Lehmann showed slides with the income and sales limits based on household size and then the rent limits based on size of units. He noted for owner occupied properties there's also the HUD purchase limits, which are pretty high purchase limits in Iowa City because it's based on sales prices within the City. He stated there is a difference between existing and new homes as to what those purchase price limits are and right now most of the sales are new homes and the Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 15 of 23 standard single family home purchase price is limit a of $240,700. Regarding rent limits the fair market rents are also pretty high, for a one bedroom it's around $800 and for a three bedroom it is up to $1,483. That would be the cap and again those are adjusted annually, based on the rents and 40% of the area median rent. Lehmann explained it's partially based on market prices but it's below market prices, which is why it's considered the fair market rent. If a property is awarded a LIHTC by the Iowa Finance Authority (an affordable housing subsidy program that can be specifically applied in certain areas), those rent limits are based on the income of the person in the unit so there could be differing rents for different units, depending on their distribution and can be pretty complicated. Padron had a few questions regarding the income limits that Lehmann showed on the slides. Is it correct that at 60% AMI a family of four would have an income limit of $60,000 so what level of rent is affordable. Lehmann stated it varies over time but generally a household making $60,000 is expected to spend 30% of their income on housing, so if they're spending less than 30% it's considered affordable. Spending up to $1500 on rent (so one-, two- and three-bedroom units would be affordable) is acceptable to a household at 60% AMI. Padron is confused when they say income limits less than 80% of the AMI, can they change that number to something lower or is that something that cannot be modified, because 80% seems high to her. Lehmann stated that would be a family making $80,000 to be at 80% AMI. Craig noted then if a family of four made less, say $60,000, they still meet that standard because it less than 80%. Lehmann confirmed the definition of low and moderate income is 80% and that is the upper limit for a homeowner limit. For rental households on the HOME program, they use 60% which was what was used for Riverfront Crossings. Lehmann stated he can try and prepare something for the next meeting to show how they came up with these limits and what they mean in more concrete terms rather than these abstract numbers. Padron appreciates that because saying that the rent limit for one bedroom is $1400 that is really high, her mortgage is half of that, and she lives in a house. Lehmann acknowledged it is considered affordable, based on the income of someone making 80% AMI because it would be 30% of their income. Padron asked if the developer could put that price on a one -bedroom apartment and then get all the benefits of having affordable housing. Lehmann said they would only be able to do that if they're awarded low-income housing tax credits which requires a mix of different market rate and affordable units. Padron reiterated they will get a tax credit and her point $1496 rent doesn't seem affordable. Russett stated the City has more flexibility on changing the AMI standards than they do these rent limits. For the low-income housing tax credit limits, these are the limits that would only be applied to projects that receive tax credits from the State, and if they receive tax credits from the State, the City cannot ask the developer to lower the rents, these are the rents that they would be required to charge through that program. Lehmann stated the fair market rents are the standard rent that would be provided with bonus units unless they happen to get LIHTC, which is not common, there is maybe one LIHTC project every other year or so. Most of these units would be expected to be under fair market rent. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 16 of 23 Hektoen noted the distinction is the LIHTC standards are set by State regulations, where the discretion comes in, as to whether Planning and Zoning and the City Council wants to provide additional incentives for LIHTC projects is since they can't really change the structure of the LIHTC program what is being proposed here is to allow these additional incentives for LIHTC projects. Townsend acknowledged the problem is they are calling this affordable housing and it really is not affordable to those people that are low income, it's a lie. Signs stated he has been around the affordable housing issue for some time now and he doesn't know if they've increased those limits recently but does agree with everyone else that it doesn't seem affordable. He understands they can't do anything about it, other than go to the State House but in this environment, that's probably not going to change. Hektoen explained there's two programs that they're talking about here, and where the Council and P&Z do have more discretion is in the fair market rent and the structure that's being created by this Code change. The LITHC structure is a separate animal. But there are two programs and in this Code they are offering incentives for both of those programs. Hensch stated he is interested in increasing the very few LIHTC projects that get built because if they can do something to encourage more LIHTC projects they will increase the pool of affordable housing. It may not be as affordable as people want, but it helps increase the overall pool. Right now, not much is being built at all, so if they can create some incentives, it is a good thing. The reason developers are spending their money is because they're going to get their tax credits through the Iowa Finance Authority, qualifying for their programs, and so the City needs to help encourage them to do that or they won't get built at all. Signs noted looking at those limits quite frankly, they're not terribly far off of market rate so who's benefiting from that is the developer. He's been around these projects and he knows there is a group in town who has done LIHTC projects and are not going to be very happy with this conversation or with him, but these rents are not affordable at all. Craig noted looking at the percentages, at 80% means they're making $80,000, and a two- bedroom is $1800 and at 40% where that family is making $40,000 and they need a two- bedroom apartment the rent is $900, which is a big difference from $1800 dollars. Hensch agreed and noted they do have to look at the definition of affordable, if someone is spending 30% or less of their income on the rent by definition it is affordable, even though the numbers seem high. He did agree there's always sticker shock about these bigger numbers, but Iowa City is just an expensive place to live. Perhaps Lehmann can provide some examples to help illustrate this in a future presentation. Signs agreed that due to the fair market rate limits those numbers seem reasonable to him but he would say no incentives for LITHC projects. Townsend asked if there are there other programs for affordable housing. Lehmann will try to create a summary of the programmatic requirements. He did note he doesn't think there would Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 17 of 23 ever be a single LITHC project that would only have 80%, most LITHC's have a mix of 60%, 40% and 30% AMI. There may be a couple 80% but there's some level of averaging at what different income levels are so there is a mix of income ranges to create cash flow within the property. Townsend stated they might also be confused that these percentages are, is it how much of their salary they're spending for rent. Lehmann replied no, the percentages are based on income. 80% is considered low income and rents limits are based on 30% of what someone who makes 80% AMI. Hensch asked if the Del Rey project was LITHC funded and Lehmann believes so. Hensch noted that is a good example of one that's got a mix of 30/40/60 and maybe a couple at 80. Lehmann also added they can't charge more than what the market would bear so even if the rent limits are high if no one's going to be able to live there, then they can't charge that rent limit. Padron stated in the Housing Commission they were having a conversation over the last few months before she left that the problem in Iowa City is not the lack of affordable housing, because there is a lot of affordable housing right but units that are being built are not being occupied because the City needs more vouchers. If the City could create its own voucher program, then they could help people get into those units. Lehmann suggested they table the affordable housing discussion and move on with the Code and they can discuss affordable housing in more depth next time and then he can prepare answers for Commissioner's questions. Lehmann stated as far as requirements go then the market rate in the affordable units have to be the same floor area, number of bedrooms, and similar quality or at least a similar proportion inequity in units or any barrier that might be there. The affordable units must be developed concurrently with all other units through these voluntary incentives. For owner occupied units, their income would be qualified prior to sale and it would have to be their primary residence. They can't rent it, except for a bedroom, and if they sell it within that 20 -year span, they would have to sell it to an income eligible household at either the HUD sales limit with some deductions for real estate commissions, closing costs, or permanent capital improvements that would increase the value. As far as renter units, the owner would be responsible to income certify each tenant annually, prior to lease and then annually thereafter, and if there is a tenant who is doing well during the affordable unit period and get more money and become over income they continue to be qualified until they vacate the unit and at which point, it would be occupied by another income qualified units. Again, the rental rates for a rental unit or the HUD fair market rent is the basic one but if they do get LITHC than they would have those LITHC grants and then the owner is responsible for clients and they would have to verify annually with the City, including their documentation for income certifications. Lehmann next wanted to discuss three other general sections that are no longer part of title 14 - Chapter 2-H. Some are other changes to Title 14 and some are changes to Title 15, which is the Subdivision Code and Title 14 is the zoning code and then also the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended as part of this. The other changes are mostly administrative sorts of changes. The first Lehmann discussed is that in sign regulations and there is a new subsection in the appendix on other changes to Title Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 18 of 23 14. The biggest change is applying the sign standards to these zones and what they look like. Generally, the only signs that are allowed are temporary signs and portable signs, but as they get into open subzones that allow a greater variety of commercial uses they're also allowed to do Porch signs and Post signs and in the more intense zones like the T4 Main Street zone pretty much all sign types are available. Lehmann explained it really depends on the intensity of the zone, the size of the buildings, and the uses that are allowed as to which signs are allowed. The Code also creates new sign types, which are the Porch sign and the Post sign, which are pretty self-explanatory by their names. The other larger changes are in the definitions, there are new concepts that they have been discussing throughout this presentation, things like missing middle housing, civic space, etc., definitions that the City doesn't currently have and it also clarifies other concepts as they applied to Form -Based Codes. There are Form -Based Zones, which zones those correspond to, there are some changes to how to define building heights, frontages, or parking setbacks, and then one more notable is there isn't currently a half story in the Zoning Code. The other minor changes Lehmann wanted to mention are in the introductory section and would provide some clarificatory language, in the off-street parking standards they talked about special vehicle parking in T3 zones, they also make sure that they apply lighting standards in zones, they apply woodland retention requirements in the zones, and those are basically similar to their corresponding zones as residential single-family zones. Finally then there are the sign definitions, which he just mentioned. The other piece is something where the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't recommend changes, Title 15, which is the Subdivision Code, but because it incorporates the way that these things work, Lehmann wanted to make sure that they were aware of them and how the Subdivision Code fits in with the zoning code changes. The first is the plats and platting procedures, a lot of the changes are housekeeping items, such as adding a step for submittal and review and departmental titles and positions as those are all out of date. The other two items that are larger changes are what's reflected in the preliminary plat and as Lehmann stated earlier the way a lot of these standards will be implemented is in the preliminary plat so that's where they'll have to show design sites, thoroughfare types, civic space, building types and they'll also have to include notation about connections to adjacent properties and notations about which things can be substituted for other types, specifically civic space and building types. Lehmann reiterated the neighborhood plan is a new document that would be submitted with the final plat and that's where the rest of this will be implemented. He explained it is very similar to what's in a preliminary plat, it would have all those items, but it would also include frontage types as well. That is the document where they could look in the future and say what was expected to be there. The neighborhood plan will be checked upon a building permit or site plan and that's how they'll make sure that the standards are being met. Craig asked if that will only apply to plots for this particular area of the City or was it now for everything. Lehmann confirmed it'll be only for this area of the City, subject to the form -based standards. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 19 of 23 Lehmann next discussed some of the design standards which is a different chapter of the Subdivision Code. Some are related to streets and some are related to blocks but generally it adds some language about promoting connectivity throughout the City and promoting multimodal transportation. Lehmann noted there has to be appropriate transitions between thoroughfare types, but it also requires that the right-of-way, or the streets have to abide by the thoroughfare type standards and those thoroughfare type standards have to rely on the Future Land Use Map that would be in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated where there are variations, they have to meet specific criteria, similar to what is required in rezoning where they have specific criteria that are required. For example, if there are sensitive areas, they can shift things and substitute thoroughfare types, except for those major streets of South Gilbert, Lehman, Sycamore and McCollister. They can change the alignment in the block orientation, and this is a question that someone had on how staff will ensure that something similar is created and it's the standards in the Subdivision Code. So, alignment can change, but the connections to existing streets have to stay and they have to continue to abide by the block standards, and single -loaded streets will need to continue to abut civic or open space. Lehmann explained the reason that they have these standards here is because that was what was used to design this Code and the point of these standards is that if there are changes to it, it would create a similar outcome to what is currently there or what they would propose to show in the Future Land Use Map. The other changes are tied to Passages which can replace a thoroughfare type as long as the design site has some sort of vehicular access, whether that be an alleyway or street. Alleys can be added if a developer would like to take advantage of some of those other benefits of alleys or they can be removed as long as those sites have access to adjacent streets, other than McCollister or South Gilbert. For the blocks and block lengths, the Form -Based Code zones have a different set of block standards that they currently have. So currently they require them to be between 300' and 600', there's an opportunity to lengthen them but again the block network has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the block length of perimeters have to comply with the block size standards table, but those with Passages. Lehmann stated with these standards the blocks are shorter than they would currently allow typically in most T3 zones. The maximum block length would be 500' and then in more intense T4 zones the length would be 360'. Again, those could be extended with a pedestrian Passage in the middle of the block to provide that pedestrian connectivity and that would increase them to 800' and 600', respectively, except in the Main Street zone which would retain a 500' maximum block length. Lehmann reiterated there are perimeter standards, so there are no super blocks where there are really large areas of no street connectivity and that further reinforces these block size standards. Finally, Lehmann discussed the Comprehensive Plan draft and changes to that. This is specifically located in the South District Plan and the reason that they have to amend the Comprehensive Plan is because they're relying on the Future Land Use Map, which is more detailed and it's not currently in the South District Plan. This plan was initially adopted in 2015 which is what kicked off this journey down the Form -Based Code path as one of the objectives was to adopt a Form -Based Code for the South district. Lehmann said there are some additional updates other than just the Future Land Use Map and they also wanted to reflect some current priorities of City Council. The changes are specifically to update some background and context and to generalize more specific language, based on the new Future Land Use Map. To modify some goals and objectives, to discuss Form -Based Codes and generally how they fit in, and then the updated Future Land Use Map, which is the important piece as far as the rest of this Code applies. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 20 of 23 The updates and context are included to really reflect those Council objectives and to make sure that the Code is up to date. They include input for the Form -Based Code process, provide some additional context that wasn't included in the original such as regarding the history of native persons, the implications of past planning practices as it relates specifically to equity and sustainability, and then recent equity and sustainability initiatives. They also generalize some language in the plan, in the housing transportation commercial areas section, that has happened since the Code was adopted. Lehmann noted that doesn't always align with the Future Land Use Map that's being proposed, so they generalize that, but it still does generally comply without those changes, they just wanted to make it more explicit to facilitate that adoption. Lehmann stated there's a new chapter on Form -Based Code which discusses what they are and how they're implemented in the South District and how they are carried out through the zoning and subdivision code. They also added in some new goals and objectives that more explicitly link the goals of the Form -Based Code with the goals of the Plan. Lehmann noted these may or may not need to be added, but they wanted to explicitly address some of these ideas. One of them is in housing, there's a new goal and objective to provide a diversity of housing in the South District, creating a range of housing types, densities and price points to improve equity and sustainability and the objective is to adopt a Form -Based Code. They also added in a goal for streets, trails and sidewalks connectivity and that is to adopt a Form -Based Code that promotes walkable neighborhoods, encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. In the Commercial areas they added a goal regarding development and redevelopment of commercial areas and adopting a Form -Based Code provides for compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted that looking at a lot of the Form -Based Codes, a lot of these goals are implicit within the Code, but they're not explicitly linked to Form -Based standards and so that's really what these objectives do. Finally, Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map that is currently within the Plan and acknowledged there's a lot of discussion in the Plan about missing middle housing types there's a whole page on it essentially, and what new neighborhoods should look like and this was the Future Land Use Map that was used. Regarding the missing middle housing types, that has some pretty specific uses, and it follows a more conventional use standard rather than focusing on the form of missing middle housing types, and so the change was made to the existing Future Land Use Map for greenfield areas to be where that would be applied. Any new development has to reflect the Future Land Use Map with more explicit regulations of what that looks like and much more detailed greenfield sites. That was the overview of the Code, Lehmann stated as far as next steps, the next meeting is August 5 where the Commission will be discussing any questions or clarifications they'd like, and staff will try to give some more information on affordable housing. Staff will discuss the public comments received thus far, and then the Commission would set a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Commission will then be considering a recommendation on the Form -Based Code and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at the August 19 meeting. Into September and October is when Council would be setting their public hearing in considering the Code and the Plan. Lehmann reminded everyone they can find information on the website Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 21 of 23 about how to contact staff or email members of staff with comments or questions. Hensch thanked Lehmann and staff for the very impressive work. Townsend asked if these new Codes would eventually replace all of the Codes in the City if they do work on the south side. Russett replied they are just looking at these 900 acres in the South District, but eventually they would like to apply this Code to other greenfield areas that are at the fringe of the community, some of those areas are still in unincorporated Johnson County but are likely to be annexed at some point, so the idea is that it would eventually apply to other greenfield sites as well. Townsend said then they will actually be working with two sets of Codes now, one for the old stuff and this area. Signs stated for next time if staff could present something that f helps him understand Form - Based uses. If he wanted to build a single-family two-story home that fits in one of these blocks, so he could open whatever business he wanted to in that house how would he achieve that in this new Code. Hensch noted if Commissioners have any questions they'd like staff be prepared for to discuss on the next meeting on August 5 please forward those to staff so they can have an opportunity to prepare. COMMISSION INPUT ON THE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS: Russett noted there was a letter from Rachel Kilburn, the Assistant City Manager, in the agenda packet about these funds and the City is currently in the process of taking comments on how the funds should be used. The City is looking at Boards and Commissions to see if they have any ideas but there is also an online survey each member can take individually or send an email to the email address that was in the letter as well. Hensch stated he would really like to see the City aim this towards affordable housing and affordable, quality childcare, particularly in the qualified census tracks, because that's presumed an eligible expenditure and is something they could start working on right away. He is also very interested in housing rehabilitation, particularly looking at asthma mitigation in children and lead pipe elimination for water distribution and then mold abatement in the homes and also taking care of the leaking problems that are allowing the mold to form in the first place. Padron would like to see the Council or staff look into using this money or part of the money to create a local voucher program for affordable housing. Signs noted there's a lot of opportunity there and there's a greater need and he is anxious to hear what other people are saying. Craig stated she filled out the survey online and agrees with Hensch that childcare is an issue that needs to be address. Hensch stated it is probably the biggest obstacle for working class and poor folks and it is not only affordable childcare, but affordable, quality childcare that is needed. Padron also agrees with the childcare issue and would like to see some money going to that. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 8 of 13 CASE NO. CPA21-0001: A request to set a public hearing for August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan. Russett said this item is just for the Commission to set the hearing. Nolte moved to set a public hearing on August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. CASE NO. CPA21-0001/REZ21-0005: Discussion on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) and draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Russett stated this is a continuation of the discussion that the Commission has had at the previous two meetings regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the South District Plan and the proposed Form -Based Code. Tonight's agenda item is an opportunity for the Commission to ask questions and bring up items that they'd like staff to look into and present at the hearing on the 19th. For the August 19 meeting, staff will be preparing a comprehensive memo going over the Form - Based Code, it'll be the written version of staff's oral presentations and will be included in the agenda packet for the 19th. Staff will also go over all of the comments that they've received to date, some of those were included in this agenda packet for tonight and there will be more that will be included in the August 19 agenda packet. After the presentation they will hold the public hearing and at that meeting staff is recommending that the Commission make a recommendation to Council. The Commission tonight may discuss amongst themselves what they've heard or ask questions. Signs had a question about the public transit issues with the transit changes and staff did supply the Commission with the information on the upcoming changes which was appreciated. He said it was his impression that there were some routes being curtailed in the South District so is the City going to be able to accommodate all this new development. Russett noted staff believes that through the proposed plan amendment and the changes to the Code that they will have regulations that will create an incentive for transit to provide service in this area. The development is going to be more compact, there's going to be more residents, and there will be a need for transit. Additionally, they think based on how it's being proposed to be developed, the City could serve this area with transit more easily than some of the more suburban type development that is currently at the fringes of the community. There is a proposed extension to the Gilbert line, which will now serve Terry Trueblood, which is just to the west of the proposed planning area. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Signs believes there was a question for some information about form versus use and was hoping to get a little clarification on that and what that means in practicality. Russett said the Code actually regulates both form and use but this is a new way of approaching zoning from the conventional zoning code which is a use -based code. The purpose of this Code is to really focus on the physical form of the buildings but allow different types of uses both residential and nonresidential in those building types in areas that are appropriate. So for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the areas that would allow commercial uses are the open zones and these are located in the walkable neighborhood nodes. Russett showed on the map areas that would only allow residential uses and commercials uses. The Form -Based Code also includes a new type of use, the live/work use, but only certain types of uses are allowed in those zones. Signs asked then in a residential zone, if someone were to build a single-family structure or a duplex they could open a dentist shop or an attorney office. Russett confirmed they could if it was an open zone. Padron asked about parking and the Code proposing a reduction of the minimum requirement for parking. Russett replied that depends on the use, but a developer will likely determine the parking based on what the market is asking for. Padron asked if they could put a cap on the maximum number of parking spaces because that would be more restrictive, instead of reducing the minimum. Russett replied the only zone that has a parking max is the T4 Main Street Zone, the area in the center of the community, but the rest of the zones have a minimum so they could provide more. Padron stated when Lehmann provided his presentation, he was trying to convey the idea that they wanted to have less parking spaces in this whole new area but she notes reducing the minimum parking will not meet that goal. Townsend noted however they are seeing that more people have more vehicles so they're going to need more parking spaces. Padron said the goal is to get away from cars. And there is the transportation hub issue, if the City wants less vehicular travel is the City providing transportation, are they providing bike lanes, or safe sidewalks so people can walk. Right now there is no Sunday service. Signs shares the concern and for his entire tenure on this Commission he has spoken against reducing parking and the parking reduction falls in the category of if they don't build it, they won't come and he doesn't think that's true. The reality is they live in a mobile country, a mobile state and mobile city. Bike lanes are going unused throughout the community and in neighborhoods where they have reduced the parking it is just bumper to bumper cars in the streets and a lot of those are in the near downtown areas making it hard for people coming to downtown. He understands the desire but doesn't know how practical reducing parking really is. Signs stated he does love the concept of the missing middle and the mixed neighborhoods. He lived in the Sherman Hill area of Des Moines for a while and it's an old neighborhood, just to the west of downtown. It was where all the rich people lived back in the 1800s and it was a mixed- use development with the corner grocery store, some other business and fourplexes and duplexes sitting next to big Victorian homes. It was a delightful neighborhood, and it was very walkable and a lot of people who have lived in that neighborhood chose that neighborhood Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 10 of 13 because it had that character. He loves the concept of the missing middle but doesn't know that this plan 100% addresses that. This is probably a step in the right direction but his is concerned that it doesn't fully takes on the heart and soul of that concept. Townsend is still hung up on the affordable housing and the fair market rate and the area medium income and none of it is making much sense as to what's actually affordable. They need to address that whole segment of what is affordable housing, and how can they make things more affordable. Those people that really need a home can't afford most of the stuff in Iowa City. Signs has been involved in in the Affordable Housing Coalition for a number of years and one of the things that happens is affordable versus more affordable and what a mixed neighborhood provides is potentially more affordable units. With this they can put two or four units on a lot as opposed to just one house, which significantly lowers the development cost of each unit. From the affordable housing standpoint, the perspective is as units become available at a more affordable prices than what's currently available typically they will have people who are living in lower priced homes moving into that level of home where they can't afford to right now and that opens up some of the lower priced housing stock in the community. When the cities and counties talk about true affordable housing, they're looking at people who make 80%, 60%, and 30% of the area median income but those are typically projects that cannot be built in this day and age unless there are significant subsidies and/or external input. They do see those projects in town fortunately because they have groups in town that are getting LIHTC funds and things like that because it is impossible for a developer to build a unit that is totally affordable on their own. Townsend noted the challenge here is to build affordable housing the developer get perks like additional heights, which gives them additional units, which means they make more money off the expensive units and if two or three or four units in that complex are actually affordable, they wouldn't be losing any money, they'd still be getting good money for the rest of the units. Signs noted this proposed code change doesn't have any built-in affordable percentage requirement like the Riverfront Crossing District. Russett confirmed it only has the regulatory incentives. Signs acknowledged there's honestly not a lot of opportunity in this zone for larger scale buildings that have multiple affordable units because there's not going to be any buildings in this area that are more than 8 or 10 units. Russett noted about 50% of the land area is in the County so development in that area would be subject to the annexation policy and the affordable housing annexation policy would apply. Nolte likes the plan overall but every projects going to be different and they have to look at every block. Comprehensively this is a good plan, but the proof will be in the pudding when people start wanting to build. Townsend stated her other concern is when those come into the Commission will the exceptions be presented with that plan. Russett stated the first step would be if this Code is adopted, and Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 11 of 13 the plan amendment is approved, if a developer wants to come in it would be a rezoning process and come before the Commission. The Code includes specific review criteria for rezonings that they will be using to analyze that rezoning and would be written in the staff report. So if there's anything that's different from what's in the plan, it would be noted in the staff report. Signs stated another thing that he was really pleased to see in the staffs recommended plan changes early on in the process when they had the consultant, the Opticos Group, here they did a number of community information gathering sessions with the neighbors in that area. Some of the concepts that Opticos had in their version of the missing middle involved a lot of additional amenities in both on the houses' structure and in the street frontages, and alleyways and whatnot. However, all the developers at that time pointed out that all those things have a significant price tag attached to them, which makes it even harder to be affordable. However, staff has done a good job of not putting a lot of frilly extras that would increase the price of these homes just artificially. Russett noted if the Commission has more questions they want answered on the 19th, send her an email and staff can prepare something. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 15, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 15, 2021. Nolte seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett stated as many are probably already aware, the proposed Hickory Trail Estates rezoning near Hickory Hill Park failed at Council so that will not be moving forward. Russett had sent out an email earlier this week about moving the Commission meetings to Wednesday, if they haven't responded please do so. Lastly all City employees received an email today that the City's mask mandate for City facilities is going to take effect tomorrow. So starting tomorrow in all City buildings masks will be required. That will affect the meeting on the 19' and staff will try to figure out spacing. She will also have to find out what if people want to remove their mask. The meeting will still be in person, here in this building on the 19111. Signs shared he sent an email to the chair and to staff the other day expressing some concerns about the City Council's disapproval of the Hickory Hill project, which went against the Commission's recommendation. This has happened a couple other times in recent history, and they've been called in for consults on some of them. In this case some of the comments that were made by Council members concerned him in how they were interpreting the two -decade old neighborhood plan, and how they were interpreting the Comprehensive Plan. Some of them Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 2 of 33 Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Signs moved to set a public hearing for September 2, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Townsend seconded the motion and a vote was taken and passed 5-0. CASE NO. CPA21-0001: Public hearing on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. Russett noted this item and the next item will be presented separately but are both part of the same project. The first is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and that area of the City includes a lot of land that is undeveloped. In that Plan it was recommended that a form -based code for the area be considered to manage new development, ensure a mix of housing at compatible scales, and encourage compact and connected neighborhoods. Since January of 2019, the City has worked with Opticos Design to develop a form -based code and as part of that process staff has determined that amendments to the South District Plan are necessary prior to considering adoption of the Code. Again, the South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and after it was adopted the City worked with Opticos Design in 2017 to assess the feasibility of implementing a form -based code. Several stakeholder interviews were conducted, there was a community workshop and a visual preference exercise. After that work, in 2019 the City continued to work with Opticos Design to implement the vision of the South District Plan and then worked with a consulting firm that prepared a residential market analysis as part of this project and worked on drafting the Code. Staff prepared options for a Land Use Map which will be reviewed in more detail shortly. In November of 2019, the City released the initial draft of the Code for public comment and a few months later in February 2020 they released the draft future Land Use Map for public comment. Last year, staff conducted additional outreach and worked on Code revisions and map revisions based on feedback received. In June 2021, they released a revised draft Code and a revised draft Plan. Russett showed a table that gives a summary of the outreach that they've done since the beginning of this process in 2019. She specifically mentioned the work that they did with the Iowa City Community School District. When they met with the School District, they informed staff that based on the planning area that they were looking at, they did not need any additional land to address their school needs, at least not within the 900 -acre area that they are looking at. Staff also coordinated with affordable housing developers and affordable housing advocates and met with the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Plan and based on that outreach, they had recommended some revisions to the initial draft that was released in 2019. Their main concerns were related to housing affordability and housing accessibility. Based on those comments, staff integrated regulatory incentives for affordable housing into the draft Code that the Commission will be reviewing tonight. They also incorporated changes to the frontage type standards to address concerns related to accessibility and to make sure there were options for developers to develop at grade entries at the front of buildings. Staff also received input on the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 3 of 33 Future Land Use Map and changed proposed designations based on concerns related to single loaded streets, where they propose increased density along single loaded streets to offset the costs of building a street but only having housing on one side of those streets and also along major corridors such as McCollister Boulevard. Staff also received input that a property owner wanted to downgrade an area along the golf course, which was accommodated. Lehmann reiterated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is running simultaneously with the Zoning Code Amendment that's happening. The changes to the Code are mostly minor, there's new context that is added, some new goals and objectives added to make more explicit the connection between form -based codes. Additionally, within that context trying to look at other goals that the City has regarding equity and sustainability, and also provide context as to what form -based planning looks like within the community. The bigger change is to the Future Land Use Map to accommodate missing middle housing types and more opportunities for neighborhood commercial than are currently there. Lehmann explained it's a lot of switching the designations from one that is use -based to one that is form -based. Lehmann first discussed the contextual changes, stating there's new background information, information about the input for the form -based code, context regarding native peoples that were not mentioned within the first drafts of the Plan, implications of past planning practices, and then some discussion of equity and sustainability initiatives within the City. He also updated information that was out of date, for example, development that's happened since 2015, some changes in names, etc., and there's some generalized language as well in the housing, transportation and commercial areas. Lehmann noted all of those changes are redlined in the draft plan that was included in the agenda packet for tonight. The other contextual change is there's a new chapter regarding form -based codes that's added in form -based planning and discusses what they are and clarifies how they might be implemented within the South District. As far as changes to goals and objectives, Lehmann reiterated a lot of them are trying to explicitly link broader Comprehensive Plan goals to form - based planning as it relates to the South District, especially goals related to housing, diversity, walkable neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial nodes. The one for housing is a new goal to provide a diversity of housing in South District including a range of housing types, densities and price points to help improve equity and sustainability with the objective to adopt a form -based code for the South District that encourages the diversity of housing types, densities and price points for streets, trails and sidewalks. The new objective is to adopt form -based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. The new objective for commercial areas is to adopt a form -based code that provides for a compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted there were other conversations throughout the Plan about adopting a form -based code, this is just tying it to the broader goals that are available throughout the Plan. Regarding form -based planning Lehmann explained with the Comprehensive Plan, the primary way that the City implements its Comprehensive Plan, and District Plans, is through the zoning code. The zoning code provides rules on how land can be used, how it can be developed, regulates what structures can be built and where, and the form -based planning represents somewhat of a paradigm shift for the City. Instead of organizing zones around use categories, such as residential or commercial, form -based zoning looks at the intended physical form and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 4 of 33 character of the space. For example, instead of commercial it would be Main Street, or instead of residential, it would be some sort of neighborhood. Lehmann clarified however that doesn't mean the use isn't regulated in form -based planning, it's just regulated secondarily and is tied to the maximizing compatibility between those uses and that physical form. Form -based planning also looks beyond individual buildings to a create vibrant, walkable urbanism and looks at the full space, which includes things like frontage types (which is the interaction between the street and the private realm), it includes civic spaces, thoroughfares, and building types as well. Lehmann reiterated this is a change from previous conventional zoning standards and from some of the City's Future Land Use categories that they've had in the past. Form -based zoning doesn't regulate by density like it has in the past but rather focuses more on the intended character of the area and as a result it does not delineate between single family and multifamily uses. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map from the 2015 South District Plan and noted the change to this map that's been proposed by staff is to have an area of it, basically the undeveloped area, be regulated under form -based future land use districts rather than use -base future land use districts. It also includes a series of new maps that propose where different form - based districts might be. Lehmann explained the existing areas don't get painted under these new land use categories, they retain their existing land use categories, so this really is only applying to the undeveloped portion of the South District. The new Future Land Use Map is a lot more detailed and that is to provide some certainty as to what uses go where, and how things might look based on new form -based standards that might be implemented. Lehmann pointed out the boundaries of the area are roughly South Gilbert Street on the west, the soccer park road going through the middle of the south portion, and McCollister goes through the center of the area. As far as the street network, this is still a Comprehensive Plan, so the street network is not a subdivided area where this is going to be exactly what it looks like. However, based on the proposed standards that staff has proposed for form -based zoning in the area, these will be approximately the block sizes, and there are rules about connectivity and rules about what uses get located where. Lehmann showed one example of what that future land use might look like noting it doesn't incorporate all stormwater management areas either so it could change over time. The new future land use categories are based on the rural to urban transect, a set of typologies where T1 is the most natural or open space all the way up to T6 which would be urban core, such as downtown Iowa City. In the middle is rural, suburban, general urban, and urban center. Lehmann explained a lot of this is looking to incorporate missing middle housing types within the City. Missing middle housing is necessary because low scale multifamily used to be very common in cities but a lot of current zoning codes don't allow it and instead focus on low density single family detached and high density multifamily with very little in between. Again, being a form -based approach, this is a slightly different way of looking at those uses. Lehmann stated the two transects that would be used would be T3, sub urban, and T4, general urban, because it is at the edge of the City. The South District would have a mix of both of those housing topologies or neighborhood topologies. T3 is generally less dense and T4 has denser development, more block scale buildings, less house scale buildings, etc. In terms of what the individual land use categories look like, on the sub urban side, the T3 side, there is neighborhood edge, which is detached single family, duplexes and cottage courts, and then on the neighborhood general side there may be the same uses as T3 but also including some townhomes and some small multifamily uses and those are house scale multifamily uses. On the T4 side it gets a little denser, so neighborhoods include building types such as cottage courts, townhomes, small multifamily uses and small courtyard buildings. There are also neighborhood mediums where there are larger multifamily buildings, still predominantly house scale, but also Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 5 of 33 the opportunity for some block scale buildings there. The Main Street is a relatively finite area where there be with larger multifamily above and storefronts down below. Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map and noted the T3 zones that Opticos developed to be the neighborhood edge, which again is a smaller, less dense, land use category. The T3 neighborhood general tends to be in interior neighborhoods. The T4 zones, T4 neighborhood small is generally allowed around collector streets and around neighborhood nodes proposed things such as parks, Main Street areas, major intersections. T4 neighborhood medium arterial streets and single loaded streets, areas that are more appropriate for higher density uses. T4 Main Street areas are reserved for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister. The Future Land Use Map also looks at thoroughfares that demonstrate the proposed hierarchy of streets. Lehmann reiterated it's not the exact layout that would happen, that would depend on subdivision and on developers as they come in, but it does provide that concept about what a potential map might look like based on the new standards that are incorporated in the code. Tonight, the Commission is looking at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and there are two approval criteria that are in the Code at 14 -8D -3D explains what should be considered when adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments. The first criteria is that the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments thereto. Lehmann explained as far as circumstances and how they've changed over time, since 2015 the South District has continued to see residential developments, Alexander Elementary School was developed in 2016, and McCollister Boulevard was recently extended over to Sycamore Street. About half of the undeveloped land in the South District is within City limits and about half is outside and are many different land uses that are currently there. A lot of the undeveloped area is agricultural, there's single family and multifamily residential uses, there's some civic uses and some open space uses. Further north there's also some commercial uses, but that is not within the study area that they're looking at tonight. Lehmann stated generally development has aligned with that 2015 Plan, but since that time there's been extensive work made towards the objective that the City should consider a form - based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved. So again there was the 2017 feasibility study, which looked at form -based zoning in the South District and noted the need to build on the South District Plan. Generally, the current future land use scenario aligns with current conventional zoning standards and therefore doesn't really align with form -based standards. That really came to light as they were working on this form -based code amendment because it distinguishes between single family mixed and multifamily residential uses and provides limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial areas. Most importantly it regulates future land use categories by use rather than by form. Work towards the standards revealed the need for the revised Future Land Use Map, which staff believes constitutes a change in circumstances and makes this amendment in the public interest. However, Lehmann noted there have been other changing circumstances as well, such as looking at goals related to social justice and equity, which are often tied to things like housing diversity and housing affordability. In 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity, which also looked at housing diversity and conventional zoning regulations have also been used in the past in other areas to support racial and class segregation. Explicitly racial zoning was allowed prior to 1917 and once that was done some cities turned to other exclusionary practices such as single family only zoning, large minimum lot size sizes, etc. They'll often hear about exclusionary zoning in reference to those things that Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 6 of 33 worked with other policies such as redlining, slum demolition, etc. that actively worked against promoting equity. Even Iowa City had racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in the 1960s so right now, in Iowa City, about 81% of residential land is zoned single family development and about half of that is zoned for low density development. Therefore, form -based planning helps address this by trying to increase housing choice by allowing a mix of housing uses which allows a range of price points. Lehmann acknowledged it doesn't solve the issue, but it does mitigate one barrier to providing affordable housing options and diverse housing choices. He encourages all to look at the mapping segregation that shows where there were racially restrictive covenants in Iowa City. Obviously, a lot of those were in place prior to the development of the South District but those sorts of policies have shaped zoning and housing policy in the US. Another changing circumstance was the City adopted its 2018 Climate Action Adaptation Plan and that includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Looking at conventional low-density zoning, it contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because when things are spread out, it's difficult to navigate by anything other than a car, which reinforces an auto oriented pattern of development. As more people have cars it increases traffic congestion, especially near major employment centers. Higher parking minimums also assume car ownership and can increase the prices of housing. Form -based planning helps address this by helping to improve the City's building and transportation systems by seeking to develop compact neighborhoods, trying to allow the opportunity to be traversed easily by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. With these changing circumstances staff does believe constitutes something that is in the public interest to address in the South District Plan. As far as consistency and compatibility with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and other plans, Lehmann explained generally, the proposed changes align with existing goals and objectives that are in the South District Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan as well. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as primarily residential land uses, mostly two to eight dwelling units per acre with some areas that are eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. It also shows some commercial uses. Lehmann noted with the Future Land Use Maps, they generally defer to the district plans which are more specific and that shows future land use categories based on use, such as low and medium density single family residential, low medium density mixed residential, multifamily and mixed-use commercial. Lehmann pointed out that somewhat contrasts with the text of the Plan that says to incorporate a true mix of housing at a compatible scale, and that includes those missing middle housing types which are also discussed in the current Plan. This amendment will refine those future land use categories to better reflect the range of housing types discussed. Lehmann showed what the Future Land Use Map of the South District looked like in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2013 and what it looks like in the 2015 South District Plan. Both follow some similar principles to the way that the new future land use categories were mapped out, there is denser housing along major corridors or clustered at neighborhood nodes, it does include multifamily at the corners of South Gilbert and McCollister and Sycamore and Lehman, and some other areas as well. It also includes some neighborhood commercial at the heart of the district at the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister, it is designated as mixed use but neighborhood commercial intent partially. Lehmann next showed the new Future Land Use Map that makes the undeveloped areas subject to form -based standards. Again, it was developed following some similar principles to the development of the prior Future Land Use Map but it does better align with the text of the code regarding future land uses and form -based planning. As far as other goals from the Comprehensive Plan, there are many that are incorporated throughout it, including ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian -oriented developments, planning for commercial and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 7 of 33 defined commercial nodes, supporting preservation of open space, farmland, and then visibility from parks and discouraging parks that are surrounded by private property. As to fitting into the South District Plan goals, it aligns with things like preserving environmentally sensitive features, considering opportunities for small neighborhood commercial and mixed use at key intersections, and providing safe and logical walking routes to school with well-connected streets. The new goals and objectives that are proposed to be added to the Plan support the plan and clarify how those form -based standards implement the Plan's intent as it relates to housing, transportation and commercial areas. It also aligns with other more recent policy efforts of the City including the City's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and then Black Lives Matter and systemic racism resolution. Incorporating these elements into the Plan helps ensure consistency across all of the City's policy documents. Russett discussed some of the more recent feedback that staff received on the Plan and started with a question that was received from a Commission member this week. The question was based on the land that is currently in unincorporated Johnson County and not part of the City, what happens if they do not want to annex and if they want to develop within the County. Russett explained the land that's in the County is currently within the City's growth boundary and is subject to the policies in the City/County Fringe Area Agreement. Any development that happens in the County would be subject to those policies. Russett noted staff is currently working on updating the Fringe Area Agreement with the County and hope to present that update to the Commission very soon. The Fringe Area Agreement states that since this area is in the City's growth boundary it would be subject to the City's urban design standards, which is essentially the City Subdivision Standards, which talk about consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and also ensures compliance with block standards that are currently in the subdivision code. Moving onto some of the other public comments that staff received, and are included in the agenda packet, they received a letter from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association, and they're concerned about a lack of transition between the existing neighborhoods along McCollister Court and new development and have requested that that area be changed from a T4 designation to T3. They also have expressed concerns on impacts to education and emergency services. Representatives of the South District Neighbor Association express an interest in having more indoor recreation space in this area and then staff also heard from two property owners that requested to remove their property from the planning area. Correspondence was also received after the packet was published, from Richard Stapleton who mentioned that he wasn't aware of the plans to develop the area and also echoed the concerns from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association. Phil Neal was concerned with the slight reduction proposed in parking and Glen Lynn also had concerns with the multifamily proposed behind McCollister Court. To provide more context, Russett showed the area behind McCollister Court, and the street just to the east of the area is where it was requested to be changed from a T4 designation to a T3 designation. Russett explained there were two ways that staff address transitions from existing neighborhoods with this Future Land Use Map. The first is by designating adjacent land a T3 neighborhood edge, and the second way was designating adjacent land as open space and that is the approach for the area behind those homes along McCollister Court which is designated open space with a proposed future right-of-way of about 70 feet to the T4 identified there. Russett noted this is not that different than what is in the current land use policy map, the area just to the west of McCollister Court is designated as low medium density mixed residential which would allow duplexes, townhomes and smaller scale multifamily. What staff is proposing is the T4 neighborhood small would allow the building types of a cottage court, multiplex, small townhomes and courtyard building small which are all building types that are more than one unit. It's not single family. However, in the form -based planning all the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 8 of 33 buildings are house scale buildings. Russett next showed on the map the two areas that property owners requested being removed from the plan, one is the area south of Lehman and the other area is east of the Sycamore Greenway but staff does not recommend removing these areas from the Plan. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of CPA21-0003 the proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Commission staff will ask City Council to set a public hearing to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form - based standards which will run concurrently at Council. Hensch asked if staff could illustrate the T3 areas and what would the buildings look like and the building options available to people in a T3. Lehmann stated the T3 land uses depends on the T3 zone. There are T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. T3 neighborhood edge would allow a house large, a duplex side by side, and the cottage court. The T3 neighborhood general would allow a house small, duplex side by side or duplex stacked, a cottage court, townhomes in rows of two or three and a multiplex small which could be up to six dwelling units. Hensch asked in the current zoning that's in the South District how are those types of structures that are currently listed not encouraged in the current zoning. Why has the missing middle not occurred in the South District. Russett noted the current zoning in the South District is some RS - 5 and RS -8 and also some interim development zones. The RS -5 and RS -8 are single family zones and the residential uses that would be allowed in those zones are single family detached and duplexes on corner lots. The current zoning code does not contemplate things like cottage court, or some of the small multifamily. It would allow some attached single family but again only on corner lots. The proposed code envisions multiple housing types that aren't even contemplated through the current zoning unless they did a plan development overlay. Hensch stated then without this form -based code implementation in these undeveloped areas the existing code would pretty much mean that the push for the missing middle housing option as an effort to increase affordability and access to housing probably could not occur in the South District. Russett replied not without a plan development overlay rezoning. Hensch noted people also raised concern about emergency services, but isn't there plans for a fire station at the corner of Cherry and South Gilbert. Russett confirmed there are plans, the City owns that land and they are eventually planning to build a fire station there, however it's currently not budgeted. Once that is there, there's not going to be a need for additional land or another fire station in the proposed planning area. Hensch brought up the Fringe Area Agreement because that's a concept that may be new to folks in the audience, could staff illustrate how it controls zoning in the County and though the City's planned growth area south of the current city limits going two miles into the unincorporated County area. Russett explained the Fringe Area Agreement is an agreement between the City and Johnson County and applies to land within two miles of the City's corporate limits. A portion of that land is within the City's growth boundary and that growth boundary is the area of the City Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 9 of 33 they anticipate to be annexed into the City eventually and developed to City standards. Townsend noted during one of the previous meetings staff reviewed how wide the streets were and the variability of the thoroughfares in this proposed area and asked if staff could briefly repeat that for the people who are here. Russett stated the majority of the area where streets proposed on this map are considered neighborhood streets. The proposed right-of-way is 70 feet and the width of the pavement of the street would either be 26 feet or 28 feet. There are other streets that are a little bit wider are where they're envisioning bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and incorporating street trees and landscaping along those streets. The thoroughfare standards not only address the width of the street, but street trees and the strip between the sidewalk and the pavement of the street. Townsend also had a question regarding the comment made about alcohol retail sales and that it should be a special exception, which she agrees with but there could be a small restaurant or a small grocery store that sells beer or alcohol correct. Russett confirmed that was correct, the correspondence they received was a concern about liquor stores, which is considered an alcohol related retail use and in the zoning code is separate from restaurants. If a restaurant does want to serve alcohol, they will need a liquor license, which is a separate process. Grocery stores can also sell alcohol, but if it gets to be more than a certain percentage of their sales that's when it turns into a liquor store. Staff is actually proposing a change to how those are permitted and will be recommending it be changed to a special exception. Hensch stated speaking of neighborhood commercial in the current zoning and the South District is there any possibility of neighborhood commercial now. Russett replied it's very limited, there's one area shown for neighborhood commercial at the southwest corner of McCollister and Sycamore. The new Future Land Use Map proposes seven nodes for community centers and the majority of those are commercial nodes, some are also open space nodes. Hensch asked staff to illustrate in the neighborhood commercial in the form -based code, like what type of commercial businesses could be in those areas. Russett said the commercial business would be limited to 1500 square feet and staff is proposing that whatever nonresidential uses are allowed in those areas have operating hours between 6am and 11 pm. Some of those uses can be restaurants. Lehmann pulled up the Future Land Use Map to point out where those neighborhood nodes are shown on the Future Land Use Map. In the zoning code, it would be considered open zones for those neighborhood nodes and uses that would be allowed within open zones, that wouldn't be allowed in other zones, would include things such as offices, retail uses, specifically sales and personal service. He added that in the Main Street District there are some denser uses. A neighborhood open zone that's in a neighborhood small zone is where potentially alcohol sales -oriented retail may be so staff did recommend that be a special exception. There are also special exceptions related to general animal related commercial uses, things like veterinarians, and open zones have similar permissiveness as it comes to educational facilities and those types of uses. Hensch opened the public hearing. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) is one of the directors of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and is speaking today on behalf of the residents in the Sand Hill Estates neighborhood. They are a neighborhood of 126 homes adjacent to the proposed South Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 10 of 33 District Plan located north of McCollister Boulevard running from McCollister Court east towards Langenberg Avenue, up towards Wagon Wheel Drive and over and over to the Keel Boat Loop. Members of their community have been present and engaged during the recent presentations of the City's South District Plan and those presentations generated a large amount of discussion and concern within the community. The board of directors compiled the five most common concerns from homeowners and took that list and visited homes within the neighborhood asking homeowners to sign if they agreed with the concerns the board had compiled. On July 29, 2021, they submitted a document to the City discussing the five areas of concern. That document was included in the August 5 packet and today's packet and contains homeowner signatures from 64 homes within the neighborhood. Those homes that did not sign the document either were not home when our volunteers stopped by or volunteers were unable to survey that portion of the neighborhood due to time constraints. In other words, 100% of the homeowners in the neighborhood who spoke with the volunteers signed the letter of concern. Domsic urges the Commission to review the document and understand how the public has reacted in one of the neighborhoods most affected by the South District Plan. Domsic will discuss each of these areas of concern and requests that before the Commission votes, they seriously consider each concern and vote to amend the South District Plan accordingly. The five most common areas of concern their community notes are the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court, the reduction in required parking, design sites being administratively changed following an approval, the impact on education and access to emergency services. Concern one, the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court and the area of greatest concern is the triangular plot of land immediately south of McCollister Court as that area lacks an adequate housing transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. They ask that the City revise the South District Plan to include T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general zoning in this area. Looking at the Future Land Use Map one can easily identify areas of transition and other locations which are absent here. Looking east behind Langenberg Avenue, they will see a private civic space, an area of T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is contained within their homeowner's association, they feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a single similar zone of transition were adopted on that triangular plot of land. Domsic noted other areas of transition can be identified throughout the South District Plan but in the interest of time, he'll forego further analysis. He did note one may assert the public civic space it is an area of transition, however the map fails to show the existing multi use path and it neglects to adequately show the bifurcation of the civic space. Furthermore, their HOA pays for the regular maintenance on the north side of the path and has done so for more than seven years. Their concerns regarding this plot of land are not new, members of their neighborhood have expressed concerns at Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings dating back to 2013. More recently, in 2017, a developer submitted design proposal using nearly identical plotting road and zoning maps to the proposed South District Plan and when the proposal vote came to a vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council rejected the proposed development. From the transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 it is noted the City Council members expressed a desire for better transition between the existing neighborhood and any new development. On December 5, 2017, then Commission member Freerks said "I carefully went through that South District Plan and I went through some documents about missing middle and really tried to read through everything as carefully as possible again. If we try and pass this as missing middle piece to the community, this is going to be something that the community is not going to want in the future. It's a Targe area, almost 22 acres, and that not one is non multifamily". Freerks then went on to say " I think we have to look towards balance as well and that's why I think adding some Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 11 of 33 other types of housing and transitioning would be in the best interest here. I think we're going to have opportunities for townhomes and zero Tots in this area and I really hate to put a huge block here when we can also peppered through other portions of the South District". Hensch noted Mr. Domsic's five minutes were up and he could come back to that spot once everybody's has an opportunity to speak. Steve Gordon (AM Management) noted they are a landowner down in this area and they own four parcels that are part of the new form -based code. He gave a little history on their land holdings, as he believes with most of the land holdings in this area, they predate any of the current Commissioners and most if not all of current City staff. AM Management's land is part of the 400 plus acre annexation into the City back in the mid-1990s and was part of a plan that has since become the Saddlebrook Development. There was extensive negotiation over several years, covering many issues, including the size of the annexation, and the zoning of the land. Once annexed it was crucial to the City that this particular piece of ground was annexed into the City because they needed it for their wastewater treatment plant to make that contiguous with City limits which was required. Much of the ground was zoned multifamily in the County before the annexation and agreements were made between the landowners in the City to maintain those zonings The land was annexed, the City got their treatment plant, and the landowners got their zoning or so they thought. The land in this area was and currently is zoned ID -RM. The IDs designation was put on the land as a placeholder, and they were led to believe until City services were available it would be RM zoned and the ID designation could be dropped, and they would put a number behind the RM and move forward. Gordon stated they were shocked to find out in 2015 that this was not the case. The City deemed the ID zone as a specific zone not a placeholder and they must rezone to be able to develop and the letters behind the ID are meaningless to the City. In AM Management's case since the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan were colored for low density -single family RS -5 and RS -8 that is all they were told they could zone it. The City got its treatment plant, but landowners did not get their expected zoning. They view their land as part of the Saddlebrook development. 400 acres were acquired, consolidated, and annexed through negotiation and zoned as part of an overall business and development plan. All the pieces had to work together as a part of the whole to make the whole feasible. These parcels they own were and are a part of the whole just waiting for their turn. Saddlebrook is a very nice community and has been a positive influence on the South District. However, their feet were taken out from under them when they learned that the RM zone was not real. The form -based code will further erode the business and development plan that was put in place when what they thought was good faith negotiations brought this land into the City to separate the large development that has been and continues to be built out over many years. To date, they have built and rented and sold almost 800 units. They do not yet know what will be built on their remaining land, the market will tell them when the time is right. Maybe a preschool to take advantage of all the nature in this area is a good idea, maybe a rehab center where elderly patients recovering from a setback can be outside and enjoy the quiet surroundings, or an assisted living community or maybe a 55 plus coop building. The current zoning code allows flexibilities for these ideas and more but when discussed with staff and brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission it was discussed and proved not a good fit or not in the current zoning. Gordon acknowledged the Comprehensive Plan can be adjusted as time and ideas change, such as the example earlier tonight to take an area that's slated for residential development and change it to intensive commercial along the IWV road. Is that a better use now than what was anticipated as residential years ago, that's hard to say, but discussions will take place, the public will weigh in, and a decision will be made. If intensive Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 12 of 33 commercial is deemed the best use, the Comprehensive Plan will be changed and the proper zoning will be put in place. The form -based code does not offer that flexibility. Street configurations are essentially set up, lot sizes, building sizes and building types are mandated. If they wanted to build an assisted living center, they would not be able to whereas the current code allows that flexibility. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) is representing her family who owns about 200 acres of ground that will be directly affected by what this proposal. She agrees with everything Steve Gordon just said and he gave a nice background about how they thought they had a plan and thought they were talking with the right people at the right time and now things have changed. Feuerbach stated they own Pleasant Valley golf course and the 70 acres directly to the east of the golf course where they have always intended to develop into single family homes. When they built the golf course they wanted to build a fine public course and did that with their money and their time. They then said they wanted to build a nice clubhouse and have done that so they are now at the third phase where they want to build a nice, traditional single family golf course community. They have been landowners in Iowa City and Johnson County for over 50 years and have done a pretty good job of tending to the raw ground that they've owned through their garden center and through the golf course. They understand keeping good and maintaining good. Feuerbach stated they been part of the meetings with the City planners and the California based consultants, but they feel their concerns, their wishes, their dreams, and their history have fallen on deaf ears. They also find very little flexibility in the current plan and see many obstacles that would lead to a higher cost for development, poor use of the rolling terrain and topography of the ground and it would be almost impossible to offer the custom high quality single-family homes that they had sought for when they started with the golf course. They were told Sycamore Street was not going to be extended, they have a strip of ground right up against the golf course and own the 70 acres east of the course. Now, Sycamore Street is supposed to be extended into a single loaded street which is very expensive. That street not only will be straight down the south side of their property, but then swing around and come back up north, basically a racetrack, a single loaded racetrack at their expense. If the City is trying to be concerned about green infrastructure, that makes no sense. Also it will create major runoff because of all of the concrete that's going to be put in. It will affect not just their property, but also the City's property, the soccer fields and the green space to the east. Feuerbach stated in their opinion, there's really no economic or ecological sense to constructing this road because there is already a main thoroughfare with Soccer Park Road. All they would have to do is swing Sycamore across and use what's already there. The water is already there, City water hydrants are already in place, yes the road would have to be upgraded a bit, but why add more concrete to nice rolling hills and gentle topography. The second concern is the type of single-family homes that are going to be allowed. The discussion about missing middle is great but there is no designation for T1 or T2 homes. What's talked about are homes that will be kept on square footage, garages to be pushed back, side yards will be small, neighbors will be close, and it'll have straight streets. That doesn't conform to what they've already developed with the undulating greens, winding fairways, and raised tees. The opportunity for larger lots offering private open space is not there. Why can't the south side of Iowa City have homes similar to those built on the east, west and the north side like Walnut Ridge, Windsor Heights and Hickory Heights. Sarah Barron (Director, Affordable Housing Coalition) wanted to talk a little bit about how the Affordable Housing Coalition has engaged in this process. When they listen to the City Council discuss this form -based code idea they know that it's more than just a neighborhood experiment, it's really a vision for how the community builds more inclusive housing opportunities and move Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 13 of 33 forward together. The City Council very much anticipates that a similar model to this can be used for infill development, and for new neighborhoods that are annexed into the City over time. Therefore, what they're looking at here today is not just a vision for a single neighborhood, but rather a new plan that more accurately reflects the values that the community has identified. Values of affordable and inclusive housing, values of climate action and ecological sensitivity, and values of accessibility for all neighbors. Barron agrees they certainly shouldn't pass this plan if they don't think that this new plan reflects those three values that this community has identified. What Barron is going to ask is for the Commission to reject arguments that they've heard many, many times before. Such as the idea that a property owners rights extend beyond their property line, especially if they own expensive homes. That just can't be accepted that in the community anymore, they have to move forward with a vision that recognizes that Iowa City is a community that values that economic diversity and inclusion and must come up with a housing vision that encourages a variety of housing types and price points. That's really the mission today is to determine whether or not this meets those important goals that have been set forward as a city. There will be a lot of arguments made that aren't even necessarily true and Barron trusts the Commission to look at the facts about how neighborhood development impacts things like the prices of homes nearby. There's simply no evidence that a bigger variety of housing types would have any impact at all on that. She asks they look at the facts and reject the rhetoric and the fear that comes with change, and really affirm the value and the vision that they have for moving forward as a community. Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is also one of the board of directors for the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association. And her backyard actually will be in effect directly adjacent to a T4 designated area. First, she wanted to piggyback on to what Domsic was saying that the current plan shown on the screen doesn't really address the historical concerns that not only did the P&Z Commission address in 2017, but also City Council recommendations when they voted against the last plans of for the South District. Everyone has been talking about the missing middle and staff showed a map ranging from T1 all the way to T4 and existing neighborhoods, single family homes, much of that is afforded the T3 neighborhood edge. Unfortunately, most of Sandhill Estates is not being granted that same luxury of having a neighborhood edge surrounding their neighborhood. They go basically directly from their single-family homes to the green space directly to a T4. So basically, her backyard will be adjacent to a walking trail and directly across from there potentially an apartment complex. Shaw stated one thing is for sure, they all live in Iowa and all know what happened in Dyersville not too long ago and are very familiar with the phrase "if you build it, they will come". This is about a 900 -acre project and this particular plan with the T3 and T4 and so forth is anywhere from four to 8000 dwelling units. Iowa City's average information states an average of 2.5 people live in in each dwelling unit so this development, in these 900 acres, can be anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 people added to the population in Iowa City. To give perspective, Johnson County has Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Solon, Lone Tree, University heights, Swisher, Hills, Oxford and Shueyville. North Liberty alone is a population of 20,083 based on Google, so this Plan is looking at putting the entire city of North liberty in her backyard. That's very, very compact. Additionally, she wanted to address the concern from their neighborhood with parking. The California consultant talked about missing middle and about sense of community and narrow streets, including on street parking as part of the parking requirements to create neighborhoods. But unfortunately, Opticos is talking about California, this is Iowa, there is 20 below weather with a foot of snow on the ground. As much as walkable areas might be nice, it's not practical. But if you build it, they will come regardless of how much parking is offered, they're going to bring their cars anyway. This is very evident in Iowa City all across the city. Iowa City has always had the challenge of parking. One of Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 14 of 33 the pictures presented was in the T4 section just north of Alexander Elementary where it would be similar to downtown with businesses on the bottom and apartment buildings on top and everyone knows what parking looks like downtown, it's atrocious. Alex Hachtman (846 McCollister Court is the president of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and first of all, thanked the Commission for hearing their comments this evening. He echoes the comments that already been addressed and wanted to add some of the other concerns that their neighborhood has. First, he'll talk about the impact of education, their children are very important to them. He just came from the ice cream social this evening at Alexander Elementary where his youngest goes to school, and it has been mentioned that the size of this area will put some strain, potentially, on the Iowa City School District. They need to ensure that the safety is there as they're thinking about the just the sheer number of families that will be moving into this part of the community. Hachtman noted at the school there was a time when there were temporary buildings at Alexander so just wants to make sure that the Commission considers that as they're considering the South District Plan and the impact that it will have. He wants to make sure that the City has a plan to address and support the schools during that period of growth and understand what steps are being taken and how does the City plan to address the safety for the children when the roads and neighborhoods become more populated, especially in close proximity to the school. Hachtman stated their children love being able to bike to school now. Another item of concern that was also addressed was some of the design sites and the administratively changing of the approval process as well. Historically, the City has encouraged developers to communicate with adjacent neighborhoods when new development plans are proposed and these discussions can be beneficial for both parties. However, the announcement that the design sites can be administratively adjusted at the subdivision level after approval raises some concern. His concern is once agreements are set, either formally or informally, between developer and adjacent neighborhood, administrative adjustments without notice may violate expectations or create tension between the parties. Hatchman acknowledged they understand the desire to make these processing adjustments easier, however they feel this could be negatively used and advocate that if adjustments to design sites are requested that there should be a public notification and response period allowed for these changes. Finally, his last concern is just the access to emergency services, and they want to make sure that as this area continues to get developed it will have the sufficient infrastructure accordingly. Hatchman noted as the neighborhood board went around and chatted with wonderful neighbors and friends some of the other concerns that were brought up were to ensure that there were parks and added green space in the area as well. Not just neighborhood parks that contain children's play equipment but open green spaces. Also, the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan mentioned goals of environmental sustainability but the code does not make recommendations for uses sustainable materials, nor does it make recommendations for minimum installations of alternative energy sources or outline goals for building efficiency certification. Hatchman is grateful for the ambitious undertaking that this is and a lot of work that's gone into it but hopes that some of these concerns that have been brought forward on behalf of the neighborhood association are heard. Dawn Eckrich (1109 Langenberg Avenue) stated they are fortunate that out the windows of their great room and dining room they overlook the area that's being discussed, and she really cannot fathom maybe 8000 people would live in that small space. She wonders if there is another development in Iowa City that would be similar to this, maybe the Peninsula Neighborhood is laid out like this. Having grown up in Iowa City, she is real sketchy on if there's any development like this elsewhere and she doesn't understand the need for such high intensity housing. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 15 of 33 understands wanting to get housing available for everyone but it seems like this is going to turn the area into an apartment or condo area with tall buildings, a lot of people and that's not really what they want in the City. They want things spread out and people to have room. She also wonders about parking, a 26 -foot -wide street doesn't allow for on street parking so in these high intensityl2-plexes such townhouses, will there be ample parking in parking lots because that's a big concern. Every home in Iowa City or apartment has two people living in it with two cars, if they have teenagers that's three or four cars, and that's a situation that's troubling in town. This won't be a place for student housing as it's too far from campus for students, so it's a shame that the use has such high intensity. There will be such high intensity population, especially near a school. Eckrich also stated the buffer is a concern as her house backs up to the buffer and all it will be is a little green strip of maybe four or five feet before there is a row of townhouses. She acknowledged they'll have to see what happens. Tim Lehman (Prospect Farms) is representing his family, he has eight siblings, and they own the property that is just south of Langberg Avenue. The Alexander school was built on their farm here a few years ago. He is also part owner with Maureen Gatens of the 100 acres that's on the east side of Sycamore Street. That was the original Gatens family farm and they'd love to develop this land. His family has farmed it for since the 1960s, he still has a brother that lives on the farm down there. The livestock out there is his family's livestock and he is still involved in the farm. Lehmann stated he is a local realtor here in Iowa City. They've got about 235 acres there that they would love to develop, but they want to develop it the right way. They've been to a lot of the meetings over the last couple of years. Prior to Alexander school being built on the farm, they had visits with the City and spent about $8,000 to $10,000 with a local engineering company looking at how they could develop new streets and some plans together. Lehmann said it was going to be what he would call conventional housing similar to what's in Sand Hill Estates and on Langenberg Avenue. However, that $8,000 or $10,000 worth of planning was thrown out the window when this new plan of zoning was presented. He reiterated they would like to develop it but they just don't understand this new zoning that the City is trying to put in here. They've had absolutely no one reach out to them, when McCollister Boulevard went in they thought they might have some developers reach out to the family and talk about what they could envision there but they've had absolutely no one talk to them. Lehmann thinks a lot of the local developers are not sure what they can build here or if they can afford to build it or where to even start. Rachel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a first-time homebuyer and they purchased their house in August or late July and then come in to find all of this out. When they bought their house they loved the fact that it backed to a field. She acknowledged they didn't expect it to be that way forever but also didn't expect it to immediately be high density housing. She agrees with everything that the HOA has stated before and just wanted to come here tonight as a person who's actually being impacted by this and as a first-time homebuyer coming in to have her backyard be a commercial zone is ridiculous. There should be some form of buffer between their neighborhood and high density, it doesn't have to be right up against their neighborhood. Bryce Duchman (868 McCollister Court) moved into his home about two years ago, and works at the hospital and has a new three -week-old daughter. Some of the things that concern him about the current proposal, is the overall density of the proposal. As people have mentioned, this is potentially 4000 to 8000 home units, which could vary anywhere from 10,000 to potentially 25,000 people. Looking at the population of Iowa City, that is an increase of 15% to 25% of the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 16 of 33 population of Iowa City. Looking at the overall land area that includes, not just developed land, but overall land in of all of Iowa City, it's about 5%. This plan is potentially expanding the population of the city by 25% and to 5% of its area and that in of itself is terribly concerning. When he was a medical student here he lived in an apartment complex on Harlocke Street that was directly adjacent to single homes, it was a multiplex and he thinks they lived in pretty good harmony. What he is concerned about is the lack of clear infrastructure that's going to be provided to this new proposed area. As an employee at the hospital, he already sees the strain of healthcare and that was even before the COVID pandemic. Within the two years that he's been on McCollister Court he's had things stolen from his home and when he contacted the police department no one ever got back to them. So that suggests to him that the South District doesn't have enough infrastructure already and now they are proposing adding 15% to 25% of the population of Iowa City into that area without clear areas of additional infrastructure supporting that area. The City is not creating an equal community at all if they want to put this many people into an area, they need to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure to support those people, especially a population as large as this and that will be as densely packed into this area. Duchman did acknowledge it was encouraging to hear that they have a potential plan for a fire department, it would be nice to hear that's more definitive rather than just potentially down the road. He added there's not a single medical clinic south of Highway 6 to provide support for that community. Perhaps these commercial nodes could potentially have clinics but he does not think that these small commercial nodes will be able to support the amount of people that are going to be in this place potentially. He doesn't think that equal infrastructure support is being supplied to this area as the remainder of Iowa City. Celeste Vincent (1563 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and an original homeowner on Langenberg Avenue. She asks that the City comprehensively at Iowa City and all sides of Iowa City and decide if what is being proposed her is fair and equitable for the south side of Iowa City. Jessica Elliott (853 McCollister Court) just wanted to say she seconds everything that everybody has said so far and supports them completely. The lack of parking the lack of buffer between the neighborhood, etc. When she bought her house four years ago she was told that there would probably be some development, some parks, some building, some homes, townhouses, and whatever, but now they're doing this this high density. She chose to live in Iowa City because of what it looks like out the back of her house, but again knew that it wouldn't always say that way, she knew some stuff would go up there. But Iowa City is the most beautiful place she's ever been and she doesn't want her kids to grow up in a big city or a concrete jungle surrounded by buildings. She wants them to see the fields and ride their bikes. She doesn't want this density and doesn't want there to be so much traffic on these roads because it is not safe for children. None of the neighbors want it. This isn't what the people of Iowa City want. Elliott also wanted to disclose she was recently a member of the HOA board and Kirk Lehmann who is part of the City joined their board in 2019. He did not disclose to the HOA the extent of his involvement with this project until July 1 when he had to disclose it to the public. He was deceitful to the HOA and the fact that he had no integrity to disclose to them what his involvement was when he ethically disclosed it to his employer she feels was wrong. Elliott acknowledged Lehmann participated less in discussing how the HOA felt about this plan going through but he knew how the HOA and that their neighborhood, Sand Hills Estates, stood against the proposal. She feels he should recuse himself because he knows he has a conflict of interest, he has listened to their conversations for years and now there's something in this proposal saying that he wants to be administratively able to make changes, he could tell the HOA they're going to build townhouses Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 17 of 33 and then without letting anyone know and build a 16-plex or whatever. Hekteon noted that Lehmann disclosed this to the City and it was her legal conclusion that he did not have a conflict of interest. Any interactions between Lehmann and the private HOA is not City concern. Daniel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated for the last six years he has served the US Army on active duty as a combat medic and practical nurse and just got out of the service and moved to a quiet town in Iowa. He suffers from PTSD, among other things, so when they moved into their home, his wife Rachel and he, loved the fact that there was a field and were told that when it was developed it would remain low density, nothing to worry about. Now, as brand-new homeowners they come to find out that that may not be true. Sharp stated it's really disappointing to spend all this money on such a beautiful home and not know what the future holds for this place. He also wanted to reiterate the impact on the healthcare system, how are they going to provide adequate care for patients, if they're already struggling to do that. What's the plan. He sees big problems with that and is deeply concerned. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to reiterate what he had talked about when former Commission member Freerks talked about having townhomes and zero lots in this area and not having huge blocks of homes. In that same discussion from December 5, 2017, Commission member Parsons said "if you take out the single family, you kind of take out that transition and if we did it over again, I would like to see a transition between that (meaning the triangular area) and the single family neighborhood". On that same date, former Mayor Throgmorton said "the development should enhance and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. It should also make a transition from single family housing on the east to some higher density structures on the far end of the west near the intersection of McCollister and Gilbert. In between there should be a full range, a broad range of missing middle types of housing so you see and feel a transition. The core idea is it's got to feel like a neighborhood, and it does not feel like a neighborhood now when I look at it". Domsic stated the current South District Plan does not address any of the historical recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission nor the City Council. They are simply asking for the Commission to not vote for an approval of the South District Plan until this particular area has been addressed, and the zoning has been modified to account for a better level of transition. They've been down this road before with designs that closely follow the proposed South District Plan so let's not forget the history and do the best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The right thing is to modify the zoning to account for a better transition. It's better to do this now and not ignore a past and ideologically and follow a mistake into the future. Concern number two was a reduction in parking and Domsic acknowledged it's no secret that parking has been a challenge in certain parts of Iowa City. Therefore, it's curious why a critical piece like parking would have the minimum standard reduced. While it's not outrightly expressed, there is clearly a push within the City to emphasize street parking. The reasoning may be obtained from articles written by the consultants the City hired as part of the development of the South District Plan, regarding what's right for the site analyzing the missing middle. This is an article that was previously included in Planning and Zoning packets and a couple of assertions were made. First to create a sense of community, it's advisable to make narrow streets, second it states "be sure to include on street parking, push the municipality to enable you to count this parking towards your required parking count" and this is exactly what's happening in the South District Plan. This theory may have worked well in Novato, California, where the article highlights various designs and other intended successes. However, in Novato they aren't accounting for January and February were temperatures could reach Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 18 of 33 negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit and cars parked on the streets may fail to start, they aren't accounting for days between November and April where eight or more inches of snow may fall and plows need to clear streets to allow doctors, nurses, first responders and other critical personnel to travel to work to maintain people's health and safety. Not to mention alleyways where snow removal is even more difficult and potentially create areas of maintenance that are not well defined. With that said the goal of achieving a sense of community is great. However, they must understand that certain applications of ideologies may not be suitable across the board. A reduction in the minimum required parking is not appropriate here. Domsic acknowledged they understand the viewpoint that reducing the required parking may encourage residents to use more man powered means of transportation however, this isn't entirely practical and likely won't be practiced by the majority people who like their vehicles and attempts to artificially limit parking will not change the populations practice of owning vehicles. Looking towards the future, electric vehicle sales will increase substantially in the coming years and problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available on a per dwelling basis since battery electric vehicles require a tethered to charge. The long-term expectation of street parking may not be sufficient for populations. Future populations will likely prefer to charge their vehicles at their dwelling so the reduction in required parking and emphasis on street parking will lead to greater street congestion and holds potential to jeopardize the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood's residents. Domsic also reiterated that 4000 to 8000 dwellings added this area with an anticipated population of 10,000 to 20,000 people, the increase in population of the proposed district would make it by itself the 25th to 14th largest city in Iowa. The population equivalents puts the South District Plan in population between Pella and North Liberty. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) wanted to just mention the fact that they've talked about the history and that this has been on the books since 2017. However, those born and raised in Iowa City or been around for some time know this is something that has been on the burner for over 50 years. The discussion about high density, the runoff, the extra concrete, all of those things are not necessary. She acknowledges that there's been a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money spent on this, and she appreciates the fact that City doesn't want to change because they've got so much of an investment, however this Commission should recognize this is the Midwest, this is Iowa and what works for us is not necessarily going to be the same as what works in a major metropolitan city on the west coast. For all of those reasons, she respectfully asks that their ground be left out of this District Plan and all the rules that go with it. Steve Gordon (AM Management) continued his remarks saying that he doesn't believe that form - based code offers a lot of flexibility for some desired project types. If they want to build an assisted living facility in this area, the current code will allow them at least an opportunity to request a Comprehensive Plan change and zoning change, but there are no tools in the form - based code that allows that flexibility. There is no tool under this code that would allow for that sort of that size, lot and structure. So as Feuerbach just mentioned, AM Management also requests that their two parcels of land be removed from the code and remain under their current zoning, which is RS -9. Gordon made a couple of other points, Public Works recently approached them about acquiring 20 acres of land as the State requires a 1000 -foot buffer from any inhabitable structure to expand, upgrade or replace an existing treatment facility. So to prepare for future expansion, Public Works wants to create this buffer before any structures get built, which makes a lot of sense. Assuming a fair and reasonable price can be negotiated this area will be purchased by the City and that will leave a small piece of land on the on the far edge of that proposed form -based code area that is not conducive to mandated street alignments, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 19 of 33 single loaded streets, lot and building size and building types. Flexibility and creativity will be essential in this area. Again, they are requesting that their two parcels be removed from this area. Lastly, Gordon want to talk a little bit about the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. That is the other large area of form -based code in Iowa City and was developed as an additional tool for landowners in around downtown to create projects with more of an urban feel. The key words here was an additional tool. The current zone still exists in Riverfront Crossings, the form -based code is an option landowners have at their disposal to create the project they envision, they choose to rezone to the form -based code if it helps them achieve what they feel is best for their land. It allows many options for urban core to grow based on the needs, wants and desires of the community. At a minimum, he would ask that the Commission to treat the South District in an equal way as a Riverfront Crossings District was treated. If the new South District form -based code is adopted, make it an option for the area, another tool that can be used to create the types of communities' people want to live in, rent from and buy into. If the form -based code is as good as staff has spent multiple hours telling you it is it will happen naturally, just like it does in the Riverfront Crossings District. It is being used there because it creates product that the community wants and is willing to support. Do not force it upon this area with no other options. Give the landowners the same respect given to the Riverfront Crossings landowners and trust that they will use all the tools at their disposal to create a vibrant, sustainable and feasible community. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to finish his comments about the population and how it would be huge and how that would put a massive strain on the schools and education, and just the overall resources and the massive amount of support from the City. Domsic noted their area has been through a number of redistricting's in the past and it is has not necessarily been the best overall experience. For example in the future the kids in the neighborhood will go to City High but the following year they're going to go to West High, and in the future that may switch back. Concern number five was the access to the emergency services, they've heard the proposed fire station had no funding and was not going to be built so it's encouraging to hear that in the future it will be built. However, they want to make sure that the infrastructure is there and this will happen in a timely manner. As Duchman mentioned earlier, he's in the healthcare field and the emergency rooms and things are overpopulated with patients. One of the things that their group had made reference to in their letter was that they hope the City would put an incentivize for the creation of something like an urgent care medical facility, or other sort of medical clinic, that would be available to the residents. This is a massive amount of population that's being proposed here and if they don't have that infrastructure for health, and safety, this is not going to necessarily be the best thing for people. Domsic stated in conclusion, everybody here in this room are all sharing the same common goal and that is they want Iowa City to be the best city in the state. The Commission has heard a ton of different things from various different viewpoints, from their homeowner's association, people who are currently landowners, and others throughout the community and he hopes that they take all of these concerns very seriously and either amend the changes appropriately, as have been identified by the public, or quite possibly just vote no on the plan right now and reconsider things going forward. He commends everybody who's gotten up to speak tonight and give their opinion, and in previous Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. Hensch closed the pubic hearing. Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, the proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 20 of 33 South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. Craig seconded the motion. Padron thinks the Plan is clear and supports diversity in the City. She heard a lot of personal issues, but nothing major to make her question the entire Plan. She acknowledged she was a little bit concerned about parking so last night she looked at the number of car sales since 1951 and they have not increased, they're actually decreasing, so it would be wise to reduce the parking. Craig stated she has spent a lot of time with this, as everybody in this room has, and when she thinks about what the role of the Commission is, it is ultimately the public good, and she agrees with the person who said we all want Iowa City to be the best city it can be. When she looks at the City's strategic goals and the current Comprehensive Plan she feels that this proposal is in keeping with the direction the City has taken and wants to take, as expressed by the public. Personally, in 20 years when this is all developed the current resident's kids are going to be out of school and this is going to be a stellar place to be in Iowa City. For that reason, she is in favor of approving it. Padron agreed and regarding the electric cars she feels like, and she has attended a few seminars talking about electric cars and what they were describing is changing so rapidly that they still don't know if they're going to be charging cars in the streets or at home, or if gas stations are going to be charging station for cars. Therefore, she feels that they cannot talk about how that's going to affect street parking. Also, there was a comment in one of the emails received that the electric car sales have increased 30%, or something like that, but the overall car sales in the United States have been constantly decreasing in the last 45 years. So there may be the perception that people are getting more and more cars, but the data doesn't support that. Hensch noted he was involved in the very initial discussions with Opticos when they came here and they interviewed Commission members, this is his seventh year on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and he has heard dozens and dozens of public hearings and the one consistent thing he has heard in seven years is the absence for the missing middle for housing choice. The issue in Iowa City is the missing middle and the ability for people to afford housing. He has lived in the South District since 1993 and won't make a dime off selling property. His backyard is a field that will be developed someday, and he has always known that. He also knew at the very beginning if he had concerns about the development next to him, he needed to buy that property. He believes strongly in and promoting walkability of the neighborhood to try to decrease the number of cars so everybody doesn't have to be in a car for everything and people don't have to drive somewhere to be able to go get a gallon of milk. The problem the South Districts always had is Highway 6 is like the Mississippi River, it just cuts the South District off from the rest of the city. He has been bringing that issue up for years as something they really need to work together as cooperatively with the City to try to make it so it's easier to cross Highway 6 for kids. He strongly believes in the develop of neighborhood commercial so people don't have to get in a car and go somewhere to buy milk or bread. It would sure be nice for somebody to be able to get on their bicycle or walk down to a local store. He has heard many people talk about the density. The density, the heavy numbers people are talking about is strictly theoretical. If it was a T4 and people built the maximum they could for the maximum number of people, maybe, but that's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 21 of 33 simply not going to happen. There are not developers who are going to build that, and it is also decades in the future. He personally believes that the form -based code will turn this into a preferred area in Iowa City because right now in the south side, the City's kind of turned a blind eye to it for decade after decade and that's why they are where they are. This is the first time there's an opportunity to actually make things right and make this a family friendly area where people will want to move. There's so much open space in the South District, it's unparalleled for the rest of Iowa City. Hensch acknowledged change is hard and scary, he just simply disagrees with many of the assertions that were made, his seven years of experience has told him that the worst never happens. Also change has to happen in understandings, and maybe even agreements are made decades before, they're simply just not applicable to future councils and future commissions. Hensch supports this and supports it gladly as person who actually lives in the South District and not somebody who's worried about profiting from sales of property in the South District. Townsend noted she's only been on the Commission for a little over a year but of all the things that she has taken from the meetings she's been involved in is people need housing. The City needs to have diversified housing options and she thinks some of the most successful neighborhoods are neighborhoods that have diversified housing. This is a good proposal for the discussion. Signs asked staff to explain to him, and to the audience, the difference between the plan amendment and the zoning amendment, and what each is to achieve and accomplish. Russett explained the proposed amendment they are discussing right now is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the South District Plan, which includes some changes to goals and objectives of the Plan, which is changes to policy. It also changes the Future Land Use Map and the land use policy. The next item on your agenda is the form -based code, which would help implement the policy direction that's laid out in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It will include changes to the text of the zoning code but is not a proposal to change the zoning map. The text amendment will include standards and regulations that will be applied to future development that is on land that is rezoned to a form -based zone. Even after the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form -based code to develop in this area the land must be rezoned, it must be subdivided and in some cases it also needs to be annexed into the City. Townsend wanted to acknowledge the comments that people didn't walk in the wintertime but when she looks out her window in the wintertime people are walking. She is at the top of Kimball Road and people walk and they ride bicycles after the snow. She doesn't see why that's a concern that people wouldn't want a walkable community. Her concern is about the information that was given to the Commission in the proposed amendment that talked about the history of that area and the Native Americans that were here before. She is wondering if anything is going to happen to have that history of who was here first captured, maybe a museum or something. Also in the South District she would like to see some of the streets named after prominent African American people of Iowa City like Mayor Teague, or Royceann Porter, who's the first African American woman on the Board of Supervisors, or Lulu Johnson, who Johnson County now is named after, these are street names she'd like to see reflected in that area to capture some of that history. Signs stated he is struggling with dealing with this and the understanding that five years from now changes can happen again. That's something they forget but something he's reminded of as Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 22 of 33 he's thinking through this all. The needs and wishes of the community do change over time and whatever is decided here tonight, and in two weeks or four weeks by the City Council doesn't mean that down the road change won't happen again. This development is a result of change of the previous plan, which was changed over the previous plan, that's the nature of growth. He noted he is a little concerned about that triangle of land by McCollister Court and McCollister Boulevard because they have had that conversation before and he hears what the neighbors are saying there. He struggles a little bit with the use of the pieces of ground on the south and east which are the ones that have been requested to be removed. He has been part of that conversation since before he was on this Commission and he hears the comments about there's no guarantees, which is very true. The Council 20 years ago and the staff 20 years ago may have had something different envisioned. But he has been part of the discussion for probably 10 years now and will say he has concerns over the way it was handled. However, beyond that he thinks that everything they're attempting to do here is where the public over many, many years over many, many input sessions, over many, many conversations has led them. Signs has mentioned before that he used to live in the Sherman Hill District in Des Moines, which is a perfect example of a historic mixed-use neighborhood, and it was one of the most sought-after neighborhoods in town, and one of the most expensive neighborhoods in town, so everybody want to live there. So, he really does believe that the demand for mixed use is something that the public has said they want. What happens is, when that butts up against typically single-family neighborhoods, that's when they have this feedback. The City has been dealing with this with this idea since 2015 and this is the largest crowd they've ever had, and the crowd is here from one neighborhood. Signs noted he was at those neighborhood meetings in 2015 as he also lives in the South District and has since 2004. He a very happy resident and has been involved in all those conversations since 2015, he's been involved in the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, which since has merged with the Weatherby Neighborhood Association, which is now the South District Neighborhood Association and never have they had this large of crowd at any of those discussions. But as often is the case people don't get involved until it impacts their backyard, which is what the Commission heard very clearly tonight. He has said it many times before, if you don't own the land, you don't control the land. Someone in one of the letters said that their realtor told them it would stay farmland and as a realtor in this town Signs has never said that to anyone. Anyone who believes that a cornfield is always going to remain a cornfield is somewhat naive. He appreciates that most who spoke tonight said you understood it would be developed sometime and he appreciates their understanding of that. Signs noted someone talked about City goals and the Iowa City vision and having been through all these meetings he believes this is reflective of all those meetings and all the wishes of the community as a whole. As a Commission have to represent the community as a whole. He also wanted to point out there's been a lot of discussion about the huge amount of units in this neighborhood and by his rudimentary longhand math, if there were 8000 units in that neighborhood, that's only 8.5 units per acre, which is basically RS -8 residential development. Anything less than 8000 units is potentially close to RS -5, which is the biggest residential development classification. So really 900 acres and 8000 units is not that big a deal. There's been some comments about the infrastructure not being in place and some concerns about the school, although seems to be more about the safety of kids and transportation. There have been a lot of studies and a lot of information that narrower streets slow traffic and actually make for a more walkable neighborhood, so that and these grid systems promote walkability and safety. McCollister Boulevard is a major thoroughfare but has a strip down the center and crosswalks built into the length of the neighborhood. Signs is also struggling with the two parcels of land that that don't want to be in the district. Those two pieces of land could have adjustments made in the future. Certainly they could come back before the Commission and Council. The final thing to keep in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 23 of 33 mind is regardless of what the Commission says or does here tonight, ultimately, this next goes to City Council who has the ultimate decision power in any of these things. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ21-0005: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan. Lehmann noted this is part of the same project but did reiterate the differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan is what guides the future land use direction for the area however it doesn't affect any of the standards related to parking or any of the specific standards related to height or building types. Those are all guided by the zoning code amendment and that is what they are discussing now. Lehmann noted they have had very lengthy presentations on this draft code at the last two meetings so for this meeting he will just highlight the larger points. The introduction lays out the goals and also talks about how the code would be implemented when the proposed zoning code amendment is adopted. Again, the first step was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now staff is proposing to amend the zoning code to match the Comprehensive Plan. Following that would be a rezoning where they would take a zoning designation that's in the code and apply it to a particular parcel of land. They would rezone to a form -based zoning just like any other zone in the City, so it would be similar to Riverfront Crossings in that way. Lehmann stated this isn't a blanket rezoning, it would be the same process as it would be for a property owner in Riverfront Crossings. He stated in a standard map rezoning staff recommends that those happen concurrently with the preliminary plat because that is when they create individual parcels. In this case zones affect what the parcels are so they could zone it before but it doesn't have to occur that way, but they could engineer everything in advance. Staff also recommends specific review criteria for a rezoning and it should comply with the Future Land Use Map and the South district Plan except where sensitive areas are present, or circumstances have changed, or information has come to light such that it is in the public interest to change it. He explained that's similar to a mini—Comprehensive Plan Amendment and it would also have to find appropriate diverse site conditions, such as organizing more intense zones around a neighborhood node or a neighborhood feature, for example, it would have to have a transition for neighborhood for base zones to occur within blocks or across alleys. Then the design of the site should suit the unique topographical environmental site layout, and constraints of the site. Lehmann showed how the Future Land Use Map could look, but it's not how it must look, and that's how that works. Really, it's a standard rezoning with additional criteria with the preliminary plat and the way that they're approaching that with additional standards related to design sites, thoroughfare, civic spaces and building types. They would propose that those would be shown on the preliminary plat and that's the first stage of planning land and creating individual parcels including notation about possible changes. This Commission would review it against new standards for parcel size, street size and layout, and block size, which is proposed to be different as part of the zoning code amendment. The final plat is where they actually parcel off individual lots and as part of that staff would propose that a neighborhood plan be submitted, which is essentially an updated preliminary plat with additional frontage types, to be able to check all the standards that are within the code. Then as development occurs it would develop under the zone according to the neighborhood plan. Lehmann wanted to add since it's been discussed tonight, there are administrative changes Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 24 of 33 possible according to the zoning code text, specifically if a lot could contain either one use or another such as having a single-family home, but the lot is big enough for a duplex, then they could swap out those administratively. Building types and frontage types could be swapped if someone wanted an engaged porch rather than a projecting porch, or civic space types if they wanted to add a playground or something. Lehmann explained as far as design sites go, that's a concept discussed previously and is similar to invisible lot lines such as in an OPD plan. He did note they can have multiple design sites on an infill parcel and a design site would just be essentially an imaginary parcel that has to have a building type on it, a frontage type on it and meet the standards of the underlying parcel. But again, those could also potentially be administratively changed. In section two it discusses the zone and what those form -based uses mean. The Future Land Use Map corresponds with zones and provides more detail. There are additional dimensional standards for site design that are required within these zones. It primarily regulates by building type but does include things like minimum and maximum lot sizes, height limits in the zones, both stories and feet. For example, up to the T4 small a building could be two and a half stories. In a zone T4 medium and above it could be three and a half stories. Parking would also be regulated by the zone rather than site development standards as they currently are. There are additional standards related to where parking can be located. Lehmann wanted to note when they are talking about parking standards while it would lower the minimum allowed it doesn't mandate that a developer would provide less parking. The zones also cover allowable frontage types and then there are open sub zones that allow a greater variety of uses. The least dense zone is the T3 neighborhood edge. The general character is building types with a maximum of two and a half stories, so one could have an occupied attic or a walkout basement, they are predominantly low scale detached buildings, but the building types could be house duplex or cottage court. Lehmann explained it's pretty similar to an RS -5 or RS -8 zone or typical single family development pattern. The next step up is the T3 neighborhood general which is still two and a half stories, house scale detached buildings, but adds in a couple additional buildings such as a small multiplex that would be house scale to six units, or two to three townhouses in a row. This would be similar to an RS -12 or RM -12. In the case of a small multifamily building, it's somewhere in between those two zones and something the City really doesn't have anything like at the moment, unless in an OPD zone. The T4 neighborhood small is still two and a half stories, house scale, predominantly detached, but some attached building types would be allowed such as cottage court, a small multiplex again, or a courtyard building that could have up to 16 units, and then a townhouse row of eight units. This is somewhat similar to an RM -20 in that it doesn't allow single family uses or duplex uses. The T4 neighborhood medium is where they start to get to three and a half stories and are along those major arterials. They are still primarily house scale, but can be some block scale buildings, some detached buildings and larger multiplexes up to 12 units. A courtyard building would still be up to 16 units and townhomes in rows of four to eight. This would be somewhat similar to RM -44 but promotes smaller blocks of building then the current RM -44 standards. Then there are T4 main streets which can go up to four stories and are likely block scale buildings. Townhouses could be stacked in a row of four to eight, which would be 12 to 24 units, courtyard buildings up to 24 units, and then Main Street buildings, which would be as allowed by the building and housing and other codes of the City. Lehmann stated it's somewhat similar to a CN -1 zone and neighborhood commercial zone as it does still require commercial on the first floor. The open sub zones are special sub zone designations to provide some additional flexibility and uses specifically that it allows more nonresidential uses in the neighborhood nodes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 25 of 33 The Main Street area is proposed for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister and the neighborhood nodes are scattered throughout. Regarding parking, the parking reduction is predominantly in two-bedroom multifamily units and instead of requiring two spaces under the current zoning standards it would allow for one parking space. In nonresidential uses is where it is a larger change and more similar to the Peninsula standards where they restrict the size of the commercial use, with the goal of it catering to neighbors and residents who are in the neighborhood already, or others who are driving through. Therefore, in most cases the standards would not require parking if a business is less than 1500 square feet. Anything above that would require parking. Lehmann reiterated it's really in the neighborhood for the nonresidential parking uses where they see that biggest effect. The third section is tied to EU standards and allows missing middle housing in all zones. It adds two new categories, one for community gardens and one for live/work uses. Lehmann noted there are some changes based on feedback that they've discussed. Alcohol oriented sales, in the version in the packet staff recommended that be switched to a special exception that requires project approval by the Board of Adjustment. Staff also added in limitations on operating hours and open zones for nonresidential uses to mitigate negative externalities on surrounding properties. The fourth section is on site standards and in some cases that replaces certain site development standards that are currently in the zoning code such as screening, parking, lot design and landscaping, and it does add some new standards related to treat diversity requirements, carshare, and carpool parking requirements. It also includes some flexibility for certain standards like design, site width and depth, building size, etc. Those could be adjusted administratively given findings by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Most of those findings are related to things like there's some feature in the way so they can't meet the standard and so it's to provide some flexibility there. Civic space types is discussed in the fifth section. Those are a new concept built into the Future Land Use Map with the idea being that it could be public or private open spaces dedicated for public use primarily to be used as a gathering space of some sort. It could be playgrounds or a plaza, it might contain some commercial uses such as commercial properties having outdoor seating, but it builds on the open space site standards in the current code and it regulates by type. There are both natural and urban typographies and the passage is a special civic type, which is also a thoroughfare type. It formalizes pedestrian routes through neighborhoods that would allow larger block sizes and the civic standards also encourage tying stormwater management into amenity space, green fields especially. Lehmann explained this is incorporated through the neighborhood plan process during final plat. Building type standards is the sixth section. Lehmann noted again this is kind of a newer concept but does exist in Riverfront Crossings in some form. It really distinguishes building form from uses. For example, they could have a house building that would have a commercial use in it, or a church or an assisted living facility in a multifamily building, this regulates more the shape of the building rather than the use of the building and what is required for each design site. It also includes new standards for minimum and maximum bulk requirements to ensure that buildings stay house scale. It regulates the number of units, but it doesn't regulate by density as the current zones do. This also requires housing diversity on each block, so at least two building Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 26 of 33 types, and carriage houses are also allowed with most building types. This is all incorporated into the review processes, it's included on the preliminary plat, finalized in that neighborhood plan, and reviewed during building permit or site plan review with the possibility of administrative change if it meets the underlying standards. Again, as they increase from a T3 neighborhood edge up to the T4 main street they increase in intensity. In the lower intensity zones there are different varieties of houses and duplexes, smaller multifamily and cottage courts, and then in the mid-range zones multiplex large, up to 12 units, is allowed in the T4 or T4 neighborhood medium zones. Bigger buildings are allowed in T4 neighborhood medium and Main Street where there can be stacked townhouses and courtyard building with up to 24 units. Carriage houses are also allowed as an accessory, in the T3 neighborhood edge, they allow carriage houses with certain building types. The T3 neighborhood edge is house large, duplex side by side, and cottage court. That T3 neighborhood general is house small, the two kinds of duplexes, cottage court, multiplex small and townhouse in rows of two or three. T4 neighborhood medium is still two and a half stories with cottage court, multiplex small, townhouse in a row of four to eight or courtyard building small. The T4 neighborhood medium is multiplex large, townhouses and courtyard building small. Building can be up to three and a half stories. T4 main street is courtyard building large and the main street building. Section seven is the architectural standards and works in conjunction with zone standards and with the building type standards to try and ensure visual interest and attractive pedestrian realm. Lehmann explained it's similar to the multifamily site development standards that affect all multifamily buildings and has some similar requirements as in Riverfront Crossings such as splitting up the architecture horizontally, an equal treatment of facades and corners, but it doesn't regulate building materials. It doesn't include window and architectural standards and roof design is not included in this. The eight section is related to frontage type, which is the interface of the public and private realm. Lehmann noted this is also as a newer concept that is in Riverfront Crossings but not elsewhere. It works with other standards to provide visual interest and is required for each design site within the facade zone. It does create some new standards and regulates the size and appearance of the building entrance and requires diversity on each block in that they need to have at least two different frontage types. It's incorporated into revised processes, specifically the neighborhood plan but this also would be allowed to be changed during building permit or site plan review. The frontage types are porches, dooryard stoops, the kind of things that one would find on residential buildings. However, again they are not restricted by use and there could be a porch on a commercial building. For courts terraces in higher density zones, and in the main street zone, there are frontage types like the gallery or arcade and the maker shopfront for side streets and the shopfront for commercial areas. The ninth section is related to thoroughfare types. Lehmann stated this is a new concept where there are different cross sections of each type shown in the zone and is built in the code requirements for Title 15. The concepts for the neighborhood streets are similar, it's a slightly wider right-of-way, but the pavement widths are similar. The goal is to ensure that multimodal access is possible along street fronts. The new standards include things like regulating street width, lanes, on street parking, the newest standard is street trees required in the right-of-way. Lehmann stated the types can be switched from the Future Land Use Map, they could switch from parking one side to parking both sides. Alleys and passages are unique and are again incorporated into the revised processes. The preliminary plat would show them, they'd be finalized during final plat with the possibility of administrative change. Alleys would be behind an Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 27 of 33 existing unit and provide separate vehicular access. They are as proposed in the Title 15 subdivision code and would be required on primary streets, specifically McCollister or South Gilbert, unless vehicular access can be provided from other streets. The goal is to not have access directly onto a main street. With passages, they're unique in that they can provide a pedestrian crossing, which can affect the block length standards. So, the amount of blocks that on the Future Land Use Map could be halved if every other street was turned into a passage. A passage would be a 20 -foot green space with a 10 -foot bike path, essentially a pedestrian or bike path. It's also a civic space type and the idea is that it would be unique, but they would still have to have some sort of vehicular access whether that be from alleys or side streets. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map again and noted the primary streets would pretty much stay the same, it's the neighborhood streets that could change. The 10th section is on affordable housing incentives. Lehmann explained this was a section that staff added from the initial version of the draft a year ago. The idea is that it would provide incentives for voluntary affordable housing predominantly with some incentives for other affordable housing. But it must be for onsite affordable housing within a form -based zone. It also supplements some of the mandatory policies for annexation as half of the area is not yet annexed, so that would be subject to separate standards the City already has. The general requirements are rental housing would be for households at less than 60% AMI, which would be limited to fair market rents, or possibly LIHTC rents if there was a LIHTC project that would incorporate it. For owner housing, it would be for households less than 80% AMI and that's what is considered by the Department of Housing Urban Development to be affordable housing. It's limited to the HUD sales price limit plus some certain fees like realtors' fees, for example. The affordability period would be 20 years and it'd be secured by an agreement that ran with the land. As far as incentives, a parking reduction could be possible for all affordable housing, whether voluntary or as part of annexation, a density bonus for building types that allow for more units, but all of those additional units must be affordable, and a potential increase to the maximum zoning adjustments to one of the following, either design site depth or area in the facade zone being modified. Building type adjustments could be building width or building height, up to a half story increase, but the findings must be that the adjustment has to fit the site and neighborhood characteristics and be consistent with the intent and standards of the plan goals. Additional minor adjustments to provide an additional zone and additional building type adjustment may be possible if the housing is restricted to lower income levels. Lehmann stated there are also other Title 14 changes that are included in the proposed zoning code amendments. Those affect things like the introduction of off-street parking and loading, sign regulations, outdoor lighting standards, sensitive features, general definitions and signed definitions. Those are mostly incorporating the form -based zones into other code sections. For example, outdoor lighting standards it puts it into similar zones as the RS and RM zones and it's similar to the RS and RM standards. Off street parking and loading is only related to on street parking of large commercial vehicles. In terms of analysis, it's similar to what they talked about with the Comprehensive Plan, but the land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics, goals and objectives of the community. The current zoning code does provide some flexibility, but it's historically led to conventional green field development and low densities create neighborhoods that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on automobiles and limits the variety of housing types and possible price points. Adopting a form -based codes is consistent with long term City policy towards advancing social justice, racial equity and human rights and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 28 of 33 climate action and adaptation. Form -based standards are a step towards implementing those goals as discussed and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as the similar goals are provided for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment such as housing types, pedestrian oriented development, commercial development in defined commercial nodes, preservation of farm and open space parks that have visibility from streets and the development of parks with single loaded street access. Also there are the goals of the South District Plan, preserving environmental features, small neighborhood commercial uses, safe and logical walking routes to school and, of course to align with the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that incorporating these elements into the zoning code is the next step in really addressing some of these items. The proposed amendment also affects Title 15, however the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review Title 15 or changes to it. But it works with the proposed zoning code amendment by addressing some housekeeping items, mentioning what items are in a preliminary plat such as some of the new standards and in the final plat specifically through the neighborhood plan. It also changes the design standards and required improvements specifically for streets and circulation, which requires compliance the Future Land Use Map, the Comprehensive Plan and layout of blocks and lots where the block sizes are changed based on what zone they're in. Again, those block lengths can be increased with the inclusion of a pedestrian passage to make sure that there is still pedestrian circulation when possible. Russett reviewed the public comments that staff received on the draft code. They received some correspondence from Cheryl Cruz, stating that the proposed rental limits for the affordable housing incentives are too low and would not incentivize new affordable units. They also heard from Kelsey Patrick Feree who is concerned about safety of children walking and biking to the elementary school. Sand Hill Estates HOA has expressed their concerns to the Commission tonight but a couple that relate to the zoning code are designed sites being administratively changed was a concern and also a concern regarding the lower minimum parking standards. From the South District Neighborhood Association they would like to see more wayfinding in the district especially wayfinding to parks and Main Street areas. They had questions on commercial uses, specifically liquor stores and gas stations, and they would like to see more spaces for local entrepreneurs. In late correspondence that was presented to the Commission, there were concerns related to reducing parking, and multifamily in the backyard. Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend had a question on the affordable housing piece and was concerned that if a person receives a unit when they're eligible but then get a job and their salary goes up, they can continue to live there until they vacate. So they can stay there even though they're now not eligible and does their rent stay the same. Lehmann stated he believes the rent would stay the same. Hekteon stated the way that it currently works is that if someone in a multifamily building later becomes not income eligible, at the next leasing period they could stay in that unit, but the landlord would have to establish a different unit to be rented to an income qualified family. As for rents, at the end of the lease period, they would be able to negotiate a different price. Hensch had a question regarding the administrative design review because they've talked about that in this group many times that changes are made after approval, and that is because there's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 29 of 33 an administrative process. Russett confirmed they do have some processes that allow for administrative changes in the Riverfront Crossings District and minor adjustments, minor modifications, which are changes that are administratively reviewed and apply City wide, which are administrative reviews of changes. Signs noted in the Riverfront Crossings District a landowner can opt into the code or not, is that true here. Russett replied it is true, there's land that's currently within the planning area that is zoned RS -5 or RS -8 and the landowner could develop under that current zoning and it wouldn't require a rezoning to the form -based zone. The difference between this area and the Riverfront Crossings District is that a lot of the area in this planning area, the 900 acres, is not in the City and needs to be annexed and rezoned. Some of it is in Interim Development Zone so they can continue to farm the land, but to really develop the land it needs to be rezoned and at that point they would have to conform to the form -based code. Signs stated another thing that was mentioned were assisted living facilities or churches or a neighborhood center and are those type of uses allowed in this area. Russett said assisted living assisted living uses are allowed in some of these zones through a special exception process. Lehmann added community service uses are also allowed as are daycare uses, general community service uses, religious private group assembly, a lot of the use standards relevant to these zones, in terms of the standards that the City would want apply, are allowed by special exception and some provisionally with compliance with the standards. Townsend acknowledged this seems more like a neighborhood than just a bunch of houses in a community when they have the different types of houses and businesses. Padron also really likes it and thinks it's sustainable. Hensch opened the public hearing. Steve Gordon (AM Management) wanted to address the land already zoned, there is a piece of ground of about 48 acres that is Rs -5 so he now understands that they could develop the land under those zonings. However it they want to do a planned development or had a different idea, are they going to be allowed to do a OPD or must they use the form -based code. He acknowledged he is clearly aware that this code does not regulate uses it regulates form and function but as a person that owned and operated assisted living facilities throughout Iowa he can assure them that nobody's going to build one that's limited to 16 units or has to be in two or three different buildings. The care and the staff needed to take care of those vulnerable citizens is not possible in that size, Bickford Cottage and Legacy Point are examples of quality assisted living and they're not 16 units. Also, regarding churches, he doesn't see in this code that they can be built as the form and function of that building type is too big. The vintage co-ops that were built along Foster Road and over on the west side are great facilities and are needed in this community but again the form and function don't allow it. With affordable housing, there's really two ways to provide affordable housing, one is for professional developer that's versed in how to get the tax credits and other is in forms of funding. There's a lot of knowledge in that a lot of costs a lot of skill involved, and typically those developers don't want to do a small project of 12 units or eight units or 16 units. They need larger projects to justify what it takes to get that. The project in Towncrest is a good example for the seniors, Sand Companies on Rochester is another good example of structures that would not be allowed under this code but are needed in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 30 of 33 this community and provide a great service. Again, he just reiterated understanding that the use is not a problem but what they can do and utilize the land for or the size and scope of the lots, and the buildings are. Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs stated the question about planned unit development is that a possibility anywhere in this code. Russett stated if the City received a request for a rezoning in this area, they are going to review it according to the criteria that they've laid out for rezoning and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows is envisioning form -based zones in this area so it would probably require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to move forward with a plan development overlay rezoning. Signs also asked is there a maximum number of units of building one can have in this code. Yes, Russett replied, based on building type. Lehmann added it depends on the zone, the main street zone doesn't restrict it and the other next densest one would be stacked townhouses and neighborhood medium to get up to 24 units, or the courtyard building large, which is only allowed in Main Street. Most of the other smaller ones would be up to 16 units typically, in separate buildings. Signs stated he is a huge proponent of the missing middle and thinks it makes for a wonderful neighborhood. His concern is there are 900 acres here and they potentially can't have anything over 24 units so they can't house a vintage Co -Op or an assisted living facility in these 900 acres. Having recreational facilities and churches and assisted living, and senior housing makes for a vibrant community and a vibrant neighborhood and he is concerned about how to add that vibrancy to 900 acres if the code doesn't allow it. Russett confirmed the code would not allow a vintage Co -Op but a large block scale building might be allowed in the main street zone with commercial on the bottom but only probably within that Main Street zone. Signs noted that's very limited spots in the map. Craig asked about the civic uses and those sorts of things, are those churches or community centers or something like that. Russett confirmed those are uses that are allowed, but Mr. Gordon's concern is that the building types are not the typical building types one sees for a church. They can have a church, but it has to fit within one of these building types. They could have assisted living facility, but it needs to fit within one of these building types which is not what is commonly seen for assisted living facilities, they are usually very large scale. This code is trying to do smaller scale buildings. Hensch stated those types of facilities would not be absolutely precluded because somebody could come in with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that's been done multiple times through the years. Russett confirmed that was true. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 31 of 33 Signs agrees most affordable housing developers and most senior living developers can't do it with 16 or 24 units so they're going to require the need to go through Comprehensive Plan Amendment for anybody who wants to put that on any of these 900 acres. Hensch noted historically, senior living facilities have had difficulty getting approvals in Iowa City, the one on the west side was withdrawn and built in Coralville because of neighborhood opposition, and then they saw it again with Hickory Hills. They are difficult to place no matter what the public good of them is. He has supported them unreservedly every time they come up in town, but appears nobody wants them in their neighborhood. Signs agrees that is the issue is this is putting the nail in the coffin here and that does concern him a little bit. He loves the idea of having these smaller options of a six-plex or a duplex but is struggling with that balance because he doesn't know if they need 900 acres of duplexes. Hensch stated one observation is if this amendment is approved it doesn't mean it can't be amended again. So as this area matures and develops they may realize some changes need to be made. Craig stated it's not 900 acres of duplexes, that's the beauty, it's 900 acres of open space, walkways, both public and private, multiple parks in this neighborhood, a school and a lot of commercial uses. She thinks this is going to be a vibrant area if it comes to fruition, the way the vision is, it's going to be a great place to live. Padron likes the idea that if they want a community center or something bigger, they can apply for an amendment. Right now she thinks it is more important to keep the human scale and think small and then add things as the neighborhood needs them, like a community center or a church. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 5, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 5, 2021. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett didn't have any updates but noted the meetings would continue to be in this room for the foreseeable future. Signs noted they can't discuss the item because it's not on the agenda but he is still interested in more discussion on the Council's reversal of the Hickory Hill decision and some of the specific statements that were made about the literal interpretation of past neighborhood plans. He wants to make sure this Commission is using the right criteria in which to judge applications. Item Number: 8.b. r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 21, 2021 Motion setting a public hearing for October 5, 2021 on a resolution to amend the South District Plan, a part of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. (CPA21-0001) ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to City Manager, September 14, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, July 1, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, July 15, 2021 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, August 5, 2021 CPA21-0001 Memo to Planning & Zoning Commission, August 19, 2021 Proposed South District Plan Amendments Staff Summary - Stakeholder Input on Public Review Drafts Written Stakeholder Comments July & August Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes t �_,,.a , CITY OF IOWA CITY t.i.tuiv.,11.,-1_ N-,........,-gssk MEMORANDUM Date: September 14, 2021 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Overview of the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction The South District Plan, adopted in 2015, recommended the creation of a form -based code to manage new development, ensure a mix of housing, and encourage compact and connected neighborhoods. In 2019, the City contracted with Opticos Design to develop a form -based zoning code for the area identified in Figure 1. After over two years of planning work, staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission at meetings in July, August, and September 2021. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public hearing for October 5, 2021 for Council review and consideration of the proposed amendments. Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area September 14, 2021 Page 2 Overview of Form -Based Zoning The Zoning Code is one of the City's primary tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning regulates how land can be used and developed, including what structures can be built where. A form -based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated in Iowa City. While the City's current Zoning Code provides flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, form -based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than use, as the organizing framework. Form -based codes also regulate elements to create a high-quality place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from the City's current use -based standards. Form -based codes still regulate use secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. The intent of the code is to produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking; • Will preserve important environmental resources; • Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points. Summary of Proposed Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment To help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the South District Plan: 1. Updated descriptions of the City's development of form -based standards and changes throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form -based standards, specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. 2. New goals and objectives in the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss adoption of a form -based code. 3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which aligns with a more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi -family residential uses and provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types. Zoning Code Amendment The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed codes: 1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area, requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone. 2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape. 3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street area. However, parking must be setback from the front facade of the building. 4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly. September 14, 2021 Page 3 5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units, granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home. 6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way. 7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly interconnected network of streets and paths. 8. Design Sites: A new term "design sites" has been incorporated into the draft. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. 9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development. 10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing. 12. Thoroughfare Types and Standards: The proposed code includes a section on street standards, which regulates right-of-way width, pavement width, bicycle facilities, and landscaping types. 13. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other code requirements. Planning Process Since January 2019, staff has been working with Opticos Design to develop a form -based code for the area identified in Figure 1. Table 2 outlines the project timeline and a summary of the planning process. Table 1: Summary of Planning Process Date Milestone April 2019 Project Kick -Off with Focus Group Meetings July 2019 Residential Market Study Completed November 2019 Public Review Draft of Form -Based Code Released for Comment February 2020 Public Review Draft of Future Land Use Map Released for Comment March 2020 — May 2021 Ongoing Stakeholder Outreach; Code and Map Revisions June 2021 Revised Public Review Drafts Released July, August, and September 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Meetings During the formulation of the form -based code in 2019 and 2020, staff engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local development community, the Iowa City Community School District, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 2 provides a summary of the outreach conducted. September 14, 2021 Page 4 Table 2: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Group Date Approx. Attendance Focus Group Meetings (Local Builders & Development Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors & Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates) April 2019 25 Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners and Development Community July 2019 15 Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30 Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18 Iowa City Community School District Dec 2019 5 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019 June 2020 5 Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5 Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8 City Council Joint meeting w/ ICCSD Board Feb 2020 10 Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4 Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10 Home Builders Association June 2020 5 Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing Draft Code Review Meetings (Neighborhood Groups, Realtors, Landowners, etc.) Ongoing Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings & Stakeholder Comments At the Planning and Zoning Commission's August 19, 2021 meeting, 13 members of the public testified. Details of this testimony are included in the August 19 meeting minutes. Staff also received several written comments from stakeholders. All comments, as well as staff's summary and responses, are included in the agenda packet. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Next Steps At the City Council's meeting on September 21, staff is requesting that they set a public hearing for October 5, 2021 on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed form -based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Approved by: i Danie e Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services t 1-_,,_;,g, CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Introduction to the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction The City has been working with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form -based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District, shown in Figure 1. The hope is to eventually apply these standards to other undeveloped, greenfield sites in the city. When applying the form -based code to new areas in the City, the district plans must first be updated to facilitate its adoption. The first such district plan update running concurrently with the zoning code amendment is the South District Plan amendment (CPA21-0001). Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area The Zoning Code provides rules for how land can be used and developed and is the City's main tool to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans. It outlines what structures can be built July 1, 2021 Page 2 where, and how they will be used. Conventional zoning dictates the density of dwelling units allowed, maximum heights, lot coverage, and minimum on-site parking, among other standards. Form -based codes differ from conventional zoning by focusing less on land use (e.g. single-family vs. multi -family) and more on the development's scale (e.g. bulk and height) and its relationship to the public realm (e.g. streets and sidewalks). The purpose of the form -based code is to implement the Comprehensive Plan's vision for walkable development through context -specific standards. It will help produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking • Will preserve important environmental resources • Contain a connected network of streets and paths • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points Overview of Stakeholder Outreach The form -based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlines the vision for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos Design to assess the feasibility of implementing a form -based code for undeveloped areas in the district with a goal of expanding their applicability in other undeveloped areas of the city over time. Completed in August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form -based Code Analysis included the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise for the South District. A residential market analysis was also completed in July 2019 to help inform the form -based code standards. These documents are available on the project website: https://www.icgov.org/project/form-based-zones-and-standards. Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form -based code in 2019 and 2020. The City engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 1 provides more detail on outreach conducted as part of this process. Table 1: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Group Date Approx. Attendance Focus Group Meetings: Local Builders & Development Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors & Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates April 2019 25 Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners and Development Community July 2019 15 Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30 Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019 June 2020 5 Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5 Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8 Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4 Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10 Home Builders Association June 2020 5 Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing July 1, 2021 Page 3 Amendment Framework The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (REZ21-0005) is coupled with a proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). Although the proposed changes to the code align well with existing goals and objectives in the South District and Comprehensive Plans, staff has also proposed amendments to the South District Plan to make these connections more explicit. Many of the proposed changes to the District Plan are intended to provide additional context and aid in the implementation of this proposed zoning code amendment. Most notably are the updated future land use maps for the planning area described in Figure 1 [Attachment 1]. As part of the proposed update to the future land use map, staff created new land use designations which directly align with the proposed Form -Based Zones included in the code amendment. The proposed code amendment includes changes to several chapters of the Zoning Code (Title 14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the new Form -Based Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). In addition, new standards are being proposed for Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form -based standards. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, they will be summarized in follow up memos so the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work together towards implementation of the new standards. Form -Based Zoning A form -based zoning code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the City's built environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, the proposed amendment utilizes the intended physical form, rather than use, as the organizing framework of the code. Further, it regulates elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The terminology in the proposed amendment reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. While the proposed code primarily regulates the intended physical form, it regulates use secondarily. The code allows a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. As a result, the use tables are simplified and categorized by use type, and clearly defined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision- making related to particular uses. The proposed amendment uses an organizing principle called the Natural -to -Urban Transect. This enables a customized framework of zones that are based on intended physical form. It uses a hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the most urban. The designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the physical character, form, intensity of development, and type of place, and secondly by the mix of uses within the area. This hierarchy of physical environments becomes the framework for the entire code, replacing use as the organizing principle. Each transect is used to reinforce existing or create new walkable environments. Figure 2 depicts the Natural -to -Urban Transect. July 1, 2021 Page 4 Figure 2. Natural -to -Urban Transects RURAL 1111111111 TRANSECT 111111111 I URBAN NATURAL TRANSECT ZONES IURBANTRANSECT ZONESDISIDISTRICT 4-10 -:-.J -‹ , . ;L.: 117 Mir COMM 4- 4 M :, Cu)Attj :D -- 1. r . • l - - �.2 -a-, T1 NATURAL T2 RURAL T3 SUB -URBAN T4 GENERAL URBAN T5 URBAN CENTER T6 URBAN CORE D DISTRICT Summary of Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment Although the proposed zoning code amendment aligns with many policies of the City's Comprehensive and District Plans, staff is proposing some amendments to the South District Plan to better align the plan with the proposed form -based code. To help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the South District Plan: 1. Updated descriptions of the City's development of form -based standards and changes throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form -based standards, specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. 2. New goals and objectives to the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss adoption of a form -based code. 3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which better aligns with a more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi -family residential uses and provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types. Zoning Code Amendment The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed codes: 1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area, requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone. 2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape. 3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street area. However, parking must be setback from the front facade of the building. 4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly. 5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units, granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home. 6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way. July 1, 2021 Page 5 7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly interconnected network of streets and paths. 8. Design Sites: A new term "design sites" has been incorporated into the draft. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. 9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development. 10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing. 12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other code requirements. Future memos to the Commission will provide a detailed outline of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. Justification for Amendments Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the community's goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While the City's current zoning code provides some flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development in greenfield sites with land uses separated into discrete districts with a limited mix of uses. In order for development to achieve some flexibility to accommodate a diversity of housing types it typically requires a planned development overlay (OPD) rezoning, which can be a relatively burdensome tool. Additionally, the current code allows duplexes on corner lots in single-family zones; however, we have not seen a significant number of duplexes on corner lots be developed, and most subdivisions in greenfield sites still tend to be exclusively single-family. Requiring a mix of housing types and moving away from zoning that distinguishes single-family and multi -family building types is important to ensure a variety of housing options. Attachment 2 includes a more comprehensive analysis of recent greenfield development. The changes contemplated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments are broad because it is a new kind of zoning for greenfield sites in Iowa City, to first be applied to the South District. The changes are consistent with the long-term direction of the City, especially as it relates to goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City's strategic goals is to "advance social justice, racial equity and human rights". While land use decisions can reinforce existing inequities, they can also be a tool to actively promote equity. Additionally, Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action through implementation of its Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to enforce racial and class segregation. While courts invalidated explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones and large minimum lot sizes were often used an as exclusionary practice, along with other public and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of "slums" where persons of color lived. In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in 1968. A 2019 Fair Housing Study completed by the City found that 81% of residential land in the City is zoned for single-family development, and over half of single-family residential zoning is for low density development (RS -5). Prioritizing disadvantaged groups that are still recovering from generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment can help increase opportunity for all July 1, 2021 Page 6 members of the community. The adoption of a form -based code for new development helps address this issue by permitting a mix of housing types and price points for all members of the community. While this does not solve this complex issue, it removes one barrier to providing more variety in housing options and allows for a broader range of housing choices for residents. Furthermore, the City strives to demonstrate leadership in climate action, which has culminated in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The plan includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Conventional zoning contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because it produces neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Low density zoning encourages sprawl which reinforces an auto -oriented pattern of development and increases traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of the form -based code will seek to address this by improving the City's building and transportation systems through development of compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars. Next Steps For the Planning & Zoning Commission's two July meetings, staff will present the proposed changes to zoning and subdivision codes, including the new form -based standards. Additional memos will assist Commissioners and the public in their own review of the code by providing more detailed descriptions of proposed changes. The Commission will also receive a memo detailing changes to the District Plan prior to holding a public hearing. During this time, the public draft will be available for the public, and staff will be accepting comments throughout this adoption period. Attachments 1. Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan 2. Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019) Approved by: A Stinl..,_---.---.. D itzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Prepared by Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Neighborhood and Development Services Prepared July 2020 ATTACHMENT 2: Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019) Introduction This analysis aims to better understand how development occurs under the City's current zoning code by reviewing greenfield developments in Iowa City and summarizing the characteristics of units produced in new neighborhoods, including how affordability is affected. This analysis was completed in 2020 using data available through 2019. Building Types Approximately 51 residential subdivisions were developed on greenfield sites from 2010 to 2019 (Figure 1). Only around 18% of these subdivisions mix detached single-family lots with other building types, such as duplexes, townhomes, or multi -family buildings. However, the City has experienced a greater diversity in residential building types over time. Subdivisions platted after 2014 are nearly 4.5 times more likely to include another housing type with single-family detached homes compared to subdivisions before then (32% to 7% respectively). Infill subdivisions are also more likely to mix single-family detached homes with other residential building types (and are much more likely to include only duplex, townhome, or multi -family buildings). Over this timeframe, greenfield subdivisions include capacity for some 1,564 dwelling units. On average, 68% of units expected in these subdivisions are for single-family detached units, though this number varies by year from 27% in 2018 to 100% in 2011 and 2012. In terms of building form, another 4% of units are expected to be duplexes, 15% are expected to be townhomes, and 13% are expected to be multi -family buildings.' As with subdivisions, the diversity of housing types in greenfield sites increased most beginning in 2015. Figure 1: Greenfield Building Types: Dwelling Units by Type by Year 300 275 250 225 4 200 D 175 0'150 m 125 p 100 75 50 25 0 16 34 92 72 30 53 36 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year ■ Detached Single -Family ■ Duplex ■ Townhome Multi -family Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data, City of Iowa City Development Services data Note: No subdivisions had final plats approved in 2020 (as of June) 1 These numbers address building form rather than ownership structure. As such, two single-family attached homes are counted as a "duplex", single-family and multifamily properties with a run of units each with separate entrances are counted as "townhomes," and multiple units in a single building that don't have individual entrances are considered "multi -family." Lot Characteristics and Affordability Residential parcels in greenfield subdivisions platted between 2010 and 2020 provide additional information about the characteristics of recent developments in Iowa City. Around 1,468 parcels intended for future residential development are platted in greenfield subdivisions. 58% have structures built, while the other 42% are still vacant. Most parcels (78%) are intended for single, individual ownership (regardless of building form), with the remaining parcels structured as condominiums. Condominium parcels are more likely to have a structure but are less likely to be owner -occupied than individual lots, as evidenced by the use of Homestead Tax Credits (21 % compared to 74% of single lots). Fi. ure 2: Ownership Characteristics for Greenfield Lots Total Lots Single Lot Condominium Total 1,141 327 1,468 Vacant 558 61 619 With Structure Built 583 266 849 Homestead Credit 432 56 488 Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data Most individual greenfield lots are between 8,050 and 11,932 square feet, though lots ranged from 3,000 to 166,246 square feet (see Figure 3). Individual greenfield lots were mostly assessed between $285,400 and $419,270 with a median value of $340,810 (this includes the assessed value of the land and structure). Condominium properties tend to be more affordable with assessed values typically between $96,940 and $224,470 with a median value of $209,940. When looking at all ownership types, greenfield properties are primarily assessed between $217,960 and $382,560 with a median value of $293,080. Fi • ure 3: Greenfield Lot Sizes and Assessed Values Single Lot 2019 Assessed Value Area (sf) Single Lot Condominium Average 11,464 $361,222 $181,596 Minimum 3,000 $82,530* $83,850 25th Percentile 8,050 $285,400 $96,940 Median 9,472 $340,810 $209,940 75th Percentile 11,932 $419,270 $224,470 Maximum 166,246* $747,770* $325,050 Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data * Some outliers were excluded from the Single Lot minimum and maximum area and assessed value to better represent the data; they were included for the purpose of calculating average, median, and percentiles provided. Data about properties built and sold from 2015 to 2020 adds further clarity. Sales prices tend to be higher than assessed values, especially at lower home values, though some of this is due to the timeframes involved (assessed values are for properties platted from 2010-2020 vs. sales prices which are for properties built from 2015-2020). However, sales prices also contain information about the total living area of properties, which tend to be between 1,405 and 1,775 square feet, with a median of 1,669 square feet. On a price per square foot basis, this means that most properties sell for between $149 and $240 per square foot. 2 Fi• ure 4: Greenfield Residential Sales Characteristics Sales Price Lot Area (sf) Total Living Price per Area (sf) Square Foot Average $328,465 8,719 1,645 $201.82 Minimum $167,099 3,637 798 $102.16 25th Percentile $239,175 5,507 1,405 $148.95 Median $309,950 8,556 1,669 $211.36 75th Percentile $385,500 10,529 1,775 $240.06 Maximum $725,000 20,194 3,692 $319.63 Source: Iowa City Assessor residential sales data built and sold from 2015 to 2020 Discussion Iowa City's current zoning code is not a true "conventional" zoning code in that it has some avenues for flexibility built into its current regulations. This includes capabilities for planned development overlay (OPD) rezonings on greenfield sites, and form -based infill opportunities in Riverfront Crossings. However, many of these are not provided "by -right" and require discretionary processes including rezonings or design review which can add cost to projects. Based on this review, it is apparent that there is more demand for alternative housing types on greenfield sites. Some of this is likely due to the benefits that these types of buildings can provide in terms of variety of options and smaller unit size, which can lead to reduced price points. However, affordability is always a challenge with new construction given the higher costs of building new rather than rehabilitating existing units. While the City does not yet know what kinds of neighborhoods a form -based code will produce, the draft code is structured to reinforce the trend towards a wider variety of housing types. It will also help ensure there is a greater mix of unit types within individual subdivisions and will do so in a manner that provides more certainty for developers which should reduce total development costs and increase the speed with which developments can happen. Based on this analysis, it appears these measures will assist the City in its goal of providing a diversity of housing at a variety of price points in new neighborhoods, and denser developments also creates additional benefits related to sustainable neighborhoods. However, the City must continue to monitor housing development in the future to ensure the code is helping to achieve its goals. 3 t CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Follow-up to comments on the draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction At the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 1, 2021 meeting the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the draft form -based zones and standards. This memo provides a summary of those comments and staff's response. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Comment #1: Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations Staff Response: The City recently participated in a regional EV readiness study with representatives from multiple cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations. In June 2021, the Eastern Iowa Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan was finalized which identifies a number of key readiness strategies and actions. One action is to expand access to EV charging infrastructure by amending local zoning codes to allow EV charging as a permitted accessory use and to include requirements or incentives for the installation of charging infrastructure in new construction and major renovation projects. The City's zoning code currently allows EV charging stations within parking areas, but it does not require or incentivize EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends that changes to the regulation of EV charging stations be a city-wide endeavor and not be limited to the draft code. Comment #2: Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced Staff Response: Minimum parking standards are intended to provide off-street parking which accommodates most of the demand for parking generated by the use, particularly where sufficient on -street parking is not available. It also seeks to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods. In form -based zones, minimum parking standards were reduced in line with important City goals, especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate -income households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle. In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on -street parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on -street parking is almost always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in the minimum off-street parking required. July 1, 2021 Page 2 That being said, builders can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where desired by the market. The reduced parking minimum just places a floor on the amount of parking required. Table 1 provides a comparison of current parking minimums and proposed parking minimums in the draft form -based code. Table 1. Examples of Minimum Parking Calculations Comment #3: Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing Staff Response: There are two situations where a fee in -lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option: 1) Upon annexation of residential land; and 2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone. A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon annexation, this land would be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy, which allows a fee to be paid in -lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to re-examine the option to provide an in -lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing. These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income -restricted units provided on-site. Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system Staff Response: The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting. Transit service is not currently provided to the form -based code planning area. This is not surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths Current Standards Proposed Standards Greenfield Dev't T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS 4 -Unit Apartment Building (with differing # bedrooms) 1 BDR 4 4 4 4 4 4 Max 2 BDR 8 4 4 4 4 4 Max 3 BDR 8 8 8 6 6 6 Max Single -Family House (with differing # bedrooms) 2 BDR 1 1 1 NA NA NA 3 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA 4 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA Non -Residential 1,500 sf Restaurant 10 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 sf Salon 7 2 2 2 0 0 5,000 sf Office 17 9 9 9 7 2 Max 7,500 sf Retail 25 15 15 15 14 6 Max Note: Current standards are based on use and can vary greatly depending on zone, intended occupants, location, and number of occupants Comment #3: Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing Staff Response: There are two situations where a fee in -lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option: 1) Upon annexation of residential land; and 2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone. A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon annexation, this land would be subject to the City's affordable housing annexation policy, which allows a fee to be paid in -lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to re-examine the option to provide an in -lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing. These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income -restricted units provided on-site. Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system Staff Response: The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting. Transit service is not currently provided to the form -based code planning area. This is not surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths July 1, 2021 Page 3 and more street connections. The draft code also requires a diversity of housing types. Both of these requirements will result in a more compact development pattern than is not currently seen at the fringes of Iowa City. This compact development pattern is better able to support future transit service than typical suburban development. Additionally, the City recently completed a transit study. Attachment A provides a summary of the proposed changes, which include faster service, improved weekday evening service, and improved on-time performance. The proposed changes also result in more coordination with other transit agencies. Specifically, starting July 6, all passes and single -ride tickets can be used on both Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit. There are also free transfers between these two transit agencies. The attachment also includes a map showing the Iowa City Transit Preferred Alternative, which includes an extended South Gilbert route that provides service to Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, which is located just to the west of the form -based code planning area. Comment #5: Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations from the map will have on how the area develops Staff Response: During the development of the land use map we met with stakeholders, and the development community felt it was important to have a more detailed map. They had concerns with the unpredictability of the development process, including neighborhood opposition to higher density housing, and felt a more detailed map would provide some certainty to conforming projects. Staff originally examined rezoning this entire area to form -based zones and establishing a detailed regulating plan map (i.e. zoning map) identifying both zones and a street network. Unfortunately, this was not feasible because a City -initiated rezoning would have required an extensive survey of land and the creation of multiple legal descriptions. Additionally, any changes to a zoning map would require another rezoning, which defeats the purpose of a master rezoning aimed at streamlining the development process. Therefore, staff developed a workable solution to create a detailed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) where consistency with the map will be evaluated at the time of rezoning. To aid in this process, staff drafted specific rezoning criteria, which are outlined in 14-2H-1 Introduction. The approval criteria do the following: • Create a unifying set of standards that staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council must use. • Identify when variations from the FLUM can be made (e.g. sensitive areas). • Provide a system by which the zones must be organized. For example, including neighborhood centers and transitioning between zones within the block or across alleys. Additionally, new subdivision standards ensure that the required block lengths are met. If the street alignment shifts, which is likely, the block standards must still be met. Modifications to the location of streets and blocks can occur through the rezoning and subdivision process, but newly aligned blocks, zones, and streets must still meet similar standards to those which were used to develop the FLUM. Comment #6: How does this code work with the Housing Code and the City's regulation of rental housing? Staff Response: The zoning code does not regulate if a dwelling unit is owner -occupied or a rental unit. However, all rental units within the City need to comply with the Title 17, Chapter 5 Housing Code. There are portions of the housing code that reference the zoning code and staff will review the code to identify any necessary amendments to ensure compatibility between the two codes. July 1, 2021 Page 4 Comment #7: Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be incorporated into open space areas Staff Response: Planning staff relies on the expertise of Parks and Recreation and Forestry staff when it comes to landscaping requirements. The City aims for a higher diversity of species, both native and well- behaved non -natives, in order to create a more resilient urban forest. The code requires diversity, specifically it states: Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one species and maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the Director. Some natives also do not work well as street trees, which this code requires. Instead of requiring native plantings, staff recommends requiring a diversity of species and ongoing coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department in the review of landscaping plans to ensure that the species are diverse and work well in the Iowa City environment. As for stormwater, Planning staff relies on the expertise of Public Works staff, who ensure compliance with the City's stormwater management regulations. Staff wanted to provide the option to incorporate stormwater management facilities into civic spaces. However, there may be situations where stormwater management cannot be accommodated through civic spaces. Therefore, staff included this in the draft code as an option, but not a requirement. Comment #8: Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials Staff Response: The draft code helps achieve sustainability goals through standards which provide compact, pedestrian- and bike -friendly development. For example, reduced block lengths make it easier for pedestrians to navigate the area and as it develops, transit will also become a viable mode of transportation. In addition, ensuring a diversity of housing types and missing middle housing allows more development on a smaller land area, reducing the amount of land consumed for development. Since the draft code addresses sustainability through other methods, and requiring the use of local materials could impact other important City goals such as affordability, staff does not recommend requiring development to incorporate local materials. Comment #9: Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarity on how the provision of green space would be ensured Staff Response: There are three different ways that the draft code regulates open space: 1. 14-2H-6 Building Type Standards outlines requirements for private, on-site open space to be used by the residents. Staff will discuss Building Type Standards at the July 15 meeting. 2. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the comprehensive plan identifies several areas where additional civic space/open space needs to be provided as the area develops. Some areas will be privately owned and maintained, but must be accessible to the public. Other areas are identified as land the City would like to acquire for additional park space. These civic space areas will need to be developed consistent with the FLUM and 14-2H- 5 Civic Spaces through the rezoning and subdivision process. 3. The City's Neighborhood Open Space provisions require that developers of residential subdivisions either dedicate land to the City for public park purposes or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. This is a current regulation that applies city-wide. Figure 1 shows the amount of open space that exists within the South District. Currently, the planning area includes Wetherby Park, Sand Prairie Park, and Sycamore Greenway. This is approximately 20% of the land within the planning area. Additional parks adjacent to the planning July 1, 2021 Page 5 area include Kickers Soccer Park, Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, and Napoleon Park. In short, this area is relatively parks -rich and currently contains notably more acres of open space per resident than any other area of the City. Figure 2 is the draft FLUM. It identifies existing open space, areas where existing open may be expanded, new City open space, and new privately maintained/publicly accessible open space. Based on conversations with Parks and Recreation staff, they have identified areas where they would like to acquire additional parkland. Specifically, they identified a need for a park and playground area to the east of Sycamore Greenway, which is also articulated in the Parks Master Plan (pgs 46-47). The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed multi -use trail running diagonally to the west of Alexander Elementary School, which would ultimately connect with the Sycamore Greenway trail. Parks and Recreation staff also identified the area along this future trail as a linear City park space. For the rest of the area, Parks and Recreation staff expressed an interest in collecting in -lieu fee payments due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists and needs to be maintained by the City. Due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists in this area and the recommendations from Parks and Recreation staff, staff does not recommend additional civic space areas. Figure 1. Open Space Area within the South District Source: South District Plan, page 33 The Parks and Recreation Department Mas- ter Plan (completed in 2009) includes coni• munity interest Inventory for park and rec• reation facllities and services. Respondents indicated a desire For walking and biking trails (79%), nature center and trails (5896), small neighborhood parks (68%), large community parks {66%l, and wildlife and natural areas (66%). The South District is unique among Iowa City's 10 planning dis• tracts In that it provides alt of these facill- ties. South District Public Parks Z. Napoleon Park (softball] 2. Sand Prairie Park 3. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area 4. Kickers Soccer Park S. Sycamore Greenway 6. Whispering Meadows Wetland Park 7. Fairmeadows Park S. Wetherby Park July 1, 2021 Page 6 Figure 2. Draft Future Land Use Map \�a 5- F'),rJ 0 Open Space'. Public Civet Space hs.e- I- Private CINc Space (icastea - Extension of Existing Public Park/Open Space irnprmiLrk-bomiq oh/wpm/OWN Maybe wAavnd m rmpxm m tie uux�murdory rfn+hrrec Existing Public ParkrOpen Space Median - Existing Sewer Lagoon Ea.Potential Wetlands L'71 IT{ - 1 iusil `��aL. CSL -w fmrIr11N �IY, mhimo I _"I I I General Notes: 1. All development is required to be in compliance with Seaton 14-51 (Sensitive Lands and Features). 2. The location of streets, blocks and open space identified may be adjusted as provided in Sub -Section 14211-4E (Adjustments to Standards), to preserve regulated environmentally sensitive features that are identified through the process of designing each development. Ld Form -Based Zones: - 13 Neighborhood Edge I1421 -1-2C1 73 Neighborhood General (iszwnn 73 Neighborhood General -Open - T4 Neighborhood Sreau r iadweb 74 Neighborhood Sre b -Open - T4 Neighborhood Medium (iA,N. 7 ma T4 neighborhood Medium -Open - T4 Main Street d4ii Street and Block Network: TT New Blacks i15r-3-o Existing Blocks to Remain Vey (142k1 -9k) Passage 114,21-1-9L) Ma y tv ramved rf maw.. m,:« • New Roundabout Existing Roundabout v 300 envoi 4 Neighborhood Node Comment #10: Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes Figure 2 identifies the neighborhood nodes with a red circle. The planning area includes seven nodes. Two of these nodes are open space areas. Four are areas proposed to be an open sub - zone, which allows a greater variety of non-residential uses. One is the main street district, which includes a commercial area and civic space. Each of these nodes are located within a pedestrian shed, which is approximately a 5 -minute walk to the node. Based on how the nodes have been placed, all residents will be within a 5 -minute walk to either a civic space or a commercial node. In addition, the code allows for live -work uses in T4 zones, which also allow for a greater variety of non-residential uses than are typically allowed in those areas. Attachments: A. Iowa City Area Transit Study, Overview of Proposed Changes Approved by: SI+1111. Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Iowa City Area Transit Study (ICATS) Overview of Proposed Changes IOWA CITY AREA TRONSIT STUDY Study Goals Faster, more frequent, and more reliable service Make transit more dependable for those who rely on it, and an easier choice for others Better access to areas of high need Simplify the system to make it easier to understand Improve communications so riders have up-to-date information on bus location, arrival times, routes, fares, service alerts, and access to trip planning tools Make transit stops more comfortable and accessible Improve coordination across transit agencies More consistent fare and transfer policies between Iowa City and Coralville Summer 2021 Changes <> Fares & Passes Route Highlights Same routes days, nights, and weekends More direct routes, using main roads and fewer side streets More Saturday routes Improved access to key retail destinations/job centers Reduced duplication between Iowa City Transit, Coralville, and CAMBUS Service Highlights Faster, more direct service Improved on-time performance Improved weekday evening service More service during mid-day "Transit" app available to plan trips and find your bus Notice Some areas have longer Fewer one -seat rides to walks to service UIHC on Iowa City Transit Effective July 6, 2021 • All passes and single -ride tickets can be used on Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit • Transfers allowed at all bus stops in Iowa City, not just the interchange • Free transfers between Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit • Seniors (65+), disabled passengers, Medicare card holders, and SEATS card holders ride for free, any time of day • Youth fare (5-18 yrs) reduced from $0.75 to $0.50 • 31 -Day Youth Pass reduced from $27 to $16 • ICCSD students to use discounted 31 -Day Youth Pass • Saturday Family Fare no longer offered due to low demand Effective August 2, 2021 • 11 new or modified bus routes with new names, new schedules • Saturday service on all routes except Downtown Shuttle and Eastside Loop Evaluate on -demand options for late evening/ overnight transportation • Consolidated routes with overlapping service • Some bus stops consolidated to help improve reliability and on-time performance Coming Soon / Next Steps Improve bus stop amenities (ie: lighted bus shelters, benches, and trash cans) Improve accessibility and access to bus stops Late 2021: First electric buses hit the streets Late 2021/early 2022: Launch Sunday Service two-year pilot • • • • • ■ cR- Preferred Alternative uD Iowa City Transit 0 CJJ 111411 V Ashford pl_ --o� OoolbUv�b / / I 1 0 Commerce Dr vl 77,:',1 — _ _ LS'cl2.11BiLd ` 'I I •U W ,ai NScott Blvd '0 UJauuaX I I ` - N aAvUJLN1 S Jowano9 N S a•po0 N vl vl C1 �S wpm 1 1 // 1 x `also / 0 .01 a 1 1 :S1 J i i 1.4 w I 0) I O / Taylor Dr 1 • 'Broadway 11 I / Y� w y 0 Y O 0 Keokuk St a ' a Boyrum St v O I ,—N H JS anbnpnaN co• IS uoNIIJ N cucu 1SuosfPoWS t d N p iOdo/Sjddi 3 O u c � biy 0-0 � o —• 2 S Riverside Dr any /st a a T C C O o 0 0 >, H - >c>., V O in io M V V a u 3 CU - 7 r0 -0.1.,n:/0 -2 (n -O O M O 0 T, d O O N r0 L9 .rL.+ �' ▪ 01 C o c - tv c w �' � � L CeiltV t ▪ 0 J d Z 0 H>.>. 2 t O t ter' 0 4 a Westside Dr Mormon Trek Blvd n0 aq!OJd 111111011k_ . For more information visit www.icgov.org/transit, call Iowa City Transit at 319-356-5151, or email ICTransit@iowa-city.org. t CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 5, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Follow-up to 7/15 Commission comments on the draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Introduction At the Planning and Zoning Commission's July 15, 2021 meeting, the Commission had a few questions and comments regarding the draft form -based zones and standards. This memo provides a summary of those comments and staff's response. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Comment #1: Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed regulatory incentives for voluntary affordable housing Staff Response: Housing is considered "affordable" if a household pays less than 30% of its gross annual income on rental or owner housing costs. Rental costs include the combined cost of rent and selected utilities, while homeowner costs refer to mortgage and insurance payments, and selected utilities. Because affordable housing depends on a household's income, it can change with every new occupant and increase or decrease over time. Income Limits Most affordable housing programs are targeted towards housing that is affordable to low-income households. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines households as low income if they make 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI) based on their household size. If households make less than 50% AMI, they are considered very low income, and if they make less than 30% AMI (which is close to the poverty line), they are considered extremely low income. Figure 1 shows 2021 income limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD. For example, a family of four is considered low-income if they make less than $79,750 annually. Figure 1: Income Limits Income Category Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Low Income (80% AMI) $55,850 $63,800 $71,800 $79,750 $86,150 $92,550 Common Rental Limit (60% AMI) $41,880 $47,880 $53,880 $59,820 $64,620 $69,420 Very Low Income (50% AMI) $34,900 $39,900 $44,900 $49,850 $53,850 $57,850 Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) $20,950 $23,950 $26,950 $29,900 $32,300 $34,700 Rental Limits Many federal affordable housing programs use the Fair Market Rent (FMR), as calculated annually by HUD. In general, the FMR is the amount that would be needed to pay rental costs (rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest nature. This is typically set at the 40th percentile of the distribution of gross rents in the metro area. Figure 2 shows the 2021 FMR limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD. As an example, a 2 -bedroom unit with utilities included cannot cost more than $1,036 monthly, which is affordable to a August 5, 2021 Page 2 household making $41,440 ($1,036 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 1- or 2 -person household making at least 60% AMI, or a 3 -person household making at least 50% AMI. Figure 2: Rent Limits Program Design Different affordable housing programs use different income and rent limitations depending on if and how much of a subsidy is available, and the targeted income segment. It is often only possible to provide affordable housing to those making less than 30% AMI with deep subsidies. For affordable housing encouraged by the proposed Form -Based Code, income limitations of 80% AMI for owners and 60% AMI for renters imitates other affordable housing programs administered by the City. These include HOME, CDBG, Healthy Homes, the Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement, Public Housing (PH), and the economic development and affordable housing annexation policies. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program requires that participants earn no more than 50% AMI. A few programs also allow higher incomes limits, such as GRIP (110% AMI), UniverCity (140% AMI), and Historic Preservation grant assistance (140% AMI). While affordable housing projects can always require lower incomes, and often do, these are the base standards for these programs. Rents limits for most of these programs are based on, or informed by, Fair Market Rents. However, Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Programs instead base rents on 30% of a given household's income. Consistent, City-wide rent limits assist with ongoing monitoring and administration of affordable housing programs. In the case of the PH and HCV programs, these are funded federally to cover the costs of ongoing compliance requirements. For affordable housing encouraged in the draft Form -Based Code, the proposed rent limitation is Fair Market Rent. However, where a project is awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority, they may use LIHTC rent limits. A separate discussion on the LIHTC program is below. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides owners a reduction in tax liability in exchange for providing affordable rental housing for those with limited incomes. The amount of the credit is based on how much is invested. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the program nationwide in conjunction with state housing finance agencies. In Iowa, the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) directly allocates tax credits and routinely monitor compliance. To retain awarded tax credits, a development must rent to qualified households, keep rents affordable, and maintain the property in good repair for 30 years. There are two sub -programs which have different applications, compliance requirements, and levels of subsidy: • 9% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is applied for competitively and provides the highest level of subsidy. Applications are accepted and awarded annually. • 4% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is awarded on an ongoing, noncompetitive basis and provides a lower level of subsidy. Income limits vary, but one of the following tests must be met: 1. At least 20% of units must be occupied by those making less than 50% AMI; or 2. At least 40% of units must be occupied by those making less than 60% AMI; or 3. At least 40% of units may serve households earning up to 80% AMI, as long as the average income/rent limit in the property is 60% or less of AMI. Often income levels are lower than those required by these tests, especially for competitive proposals. Figure 3 shows three projects within Iowa City that were recently awarded through the SRO Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR Fair Market Rent $551 $735 $803 $1,036 $1,483 $1,794 $2,063 Affordable to HH Making... $22,040 $29,400 $32,120 $41,440 $59,320 $71,760 $82,520 Program Design Different affordable housing programs use different income and rent limitations depending on if and how much of a subsidy is available, and the targeted income segment. It is often only possible to provide affordable housing to those making less than 30% AMI with deep subsidies. For affordable housing encouraged by the proposed Form -Based Code, income limitations of 80% AMI for owners and 60% AMI for renters imitates other affordable housing programs administered by the City. These include HOME, CDBG, Healthy Homes, the Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement, Public Housing (PH), and the economic development and affordable housing annexation policies. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program requires that participants earn no more than 50% AMI. A few programs also allow higher incomes limits, such as GRIP (110% AMI), UniverCity (140% AMI), and Historic Preservation grant assistance (140% AMI). While affordable housing projects can always require lower incomes, and often do, these are the base standards for these programs. Rents limits for most of these programs are based on, or informed by, Fair Market Rents. However, Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Programs instead base rents on 30% of a given household's income. Consistent, City-wide rent limits assist with ongoing monitoring and administration of affordable housing programs. In the case of the PH and HCV programs, these are funded federally to cover the costs of ongoing compliance requirements. For affordable housing encouraged in the draft Form -Based Code, the proposed rent limitation is Fair Market Rent. However, where a project is awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority, they may use LIHTC rent limits. A separate discussion on the LIHTC program is below. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides owners a reduction in tax liability in exchange for providing affordable rental housing for those with limited incomes. The amount of the credit is based on how much is invested. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the program nationwide in conjunction with state housing finance agencies. In Iowa, the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) directly allocates tax credits and routinely monitor compliance. To retain awarded tax credits, a development must rent to qualified households, keep rents affordable, and maintain the property in good repair for 30 years. There are two sub -programs which have different applications, compliance requirements, and levels of subsidy: • 9% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is applied for competitively and provides the highest level of subsidy. Applications are accepted and awarded annually. • 4% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is awarded on an ongoing, noncompetitive basis and provides a lower level of subsidy. Income limits vary, but one of the following tests must be met: 1. At least 20% of units must be occupied by those making less than 50% AMI; or 2. At least 40% of units must be occupied by those making less than 60% AMI; or 3. At least 40% of units may serve households earning up to 80% AMI, as long as the average income/rent limit in the property is 60% or less of AMI. Often income levels are lower than those required by these tests, especially for competitive proposals. Figure 3 shows three projects within Iowa City that were recently awarded through the August 5, 2021 Page 3 9% tax credit process. While all provide some market rate units, most units are provided to households at or below 60% AMI, with some units also provided to those making 40% and 30% AMI. Figure 3: Iowa City LITHC Projects Developer The Housing Fellowship Iowa City Senior LLC Sand Development All Recent Projects Project Del Rey Ridge Diamond Senior Apartments NEX Apartments Address 628 S Dubuque 1030 William St 671 Nex Avenue Tenure Rental New Construction Rental New Construction Rental New Construction Unit Mix by Income Level Market Rate 4 4 4 12 60% AMI 20 20 17 57 40% AMI 5 12 11 28 30% AMI 4 4 4 12 Total Units 33 40 36 109 Rent limits for LIHTC projects are based on an affordable rent for each given household income level. Rents for each unit at a particular income level are thus theoretically affordable for the occupant of that unit, especially in lower income units. However, a lower income occupant may also live in a unit that is affordable to someone making 60% AMI, which may be higher than Fair Market Rent. Figure 4 shows LIHTC rent limits. As an example, gross rent for a 2 -bedroom, 60% AMI unit cannot cost more than $1,347 monthly, which is affordable to a household making $53,880 ($1,347 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 3 -person family making exactly 60% AMI. If that unit is occupied by a household with a lower income, it would be considered unaffordable. Figure 4: Iowa City LIHTC Rents Summary The goal of incorporating the voluntary regulatory incentives in the draft code is to incentivize the building of additional affordable housing in the community. Although it does not provide financial assistance, it offsets the loss of revenue for voluntary affordable units by allowing more units or density and decreased costs associated with parking reductions and flexibility from certain standards. Flexibility can also be used by other affordable housing providers that do not utilize the density bonus. Staff has structured the proposed incentives consistent with existing affordable housing policies administered by the City. This creates consistent expectations for owners and simplifies ongoing monitoring requirements. While these affordable housing incentives will not solve housing affordability in Iowa City, they will encourage the development of additional units that are affordable to low-income households. This is especially important in an area that will be entirely new construction, which is often unaffordable to low-income households. Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR 60% AMI Unit $1,047 $1,122 $1,347 $1,555 $1,735 $1,915 40% AMI Unit $698 $748 $898 $1,037 $1,157 $1,277 30% AMI Unit $523 $561 $673 $777 $867 $957 Summary The goal of incorporating the voluntary regulatory incentives in the draft code is to incentivize the building of additional affordable housing in the community. Although it does not provide financial assistance, it offsets the loss of revenue for voluntary affordable units by allowing more units or density and decreased costs associated with parking reductions and flexibility from certain standards. Flexibility can also be used by other affordable housing providers that do not utilize the density bonus. Staff has structured the proposed incentives consistent with existing affordable housing policies administered by the City. This creates consistent expectations for owners and simplifies ongoing monitoring requirements. While these affordable housing incentives will not solve housing affordability in Iowa City, they will encourage the development of additional units that are affordable to low-income households. This is especially important in an area that will be entirely new construction, which is often unaffordable to low-income households. August 5, 2021 Page 4 Comment #2: Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations? Staff Response: Gas stations are classified as a "quick vehicle servicing use" in the City's zoning code. Table 14- 2H -3B-1: Uses of the draft code lists the permitted uses, provisional uses, and uses allowed by special exception. Quick vehicle servicing uses are not allowed in any of the proposed zones. Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses Use Categories Residential Uses W 1 T3NE T3NG T3116-0 T4NS T4NS-0 T4NM T4NM-O T4MS Specific Standards Household Living lJses Detached Single -Family Dwellings Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings Group Households Live}Work Missinq Middle Housing P P F' PR PR PF. PF. PR 14 -4B -4A-4 PR PR PF. PF. PR PR PR PR2 14 -4B -4A-6 PF. PR PR PR PR2 14 -2H -3C-2 P P P F' P P P P2 Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living Independent Group Living Fraternal Grcup Li.ing Commercial Uses S S PR 2 14-4B-4A-8(RM-44) S S S2 14-4B-4A-g(RM-44) S S 52 14-4B-4A-14(RM- 44) Eating and Drinking Establishments PR/S ' - PR/S. ' PR/S 1 P 14-4B-4B-1D(CN-1) Office Uses General Office Medical/Dental Office PP' pi P P' - P' pi P Retail Uses Sales Oriented Personal Service Oriented Alcohol Sales Oriented Hospitality Oriented Indoor Commercial Recreational Uses General Animal Related Commercial Uses P' P' pi P P' P' P1 P PR 1 PR 1 PR/S 14 -4B -4B-15 PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4B-18(CN-1) PR/S 14 -4B -4B-7 51 51 PR 14-4B-4B-2(CN-1) Commercial Parking PR 2 14 -4B -4B-9 ' Max 7,500 sjper building. 2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from the front of the design site. 3 Use must be completely within enclosed building. Comment #3: Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code. Staff Response: Zoning through a Form -Based Code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, FBCs utilize the intended August 5, 2021 Page 5 physical form and character of a context type, rather than use as the organizing framework of the code. Further, FBCs regulate a series of elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The terminology in FBCs reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, FBC also do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from previous use -based standards utilized by the City. While FBCs primarily regulate the intended physical form, they regulate use secondarily. FBCs allow a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses (inserted above) provides an overview of the uses allowed in the various zones. As is shown in the table, commercial uses, such as eating and drinking establishments, are only allowed in the open zones (i.e T3NG-O, T4NS-O, and T4NM- 0) and the Main Street Zone (T4MS). The draft future land use map [Attachment 1] includes a land use designation for open subareas. The open zones align with this open subarea. The draft future land use map identifies four areas where the open subareas are depicted; it also identifies the main street area. These are the areas that function as walkable, neighborhood centers and allow non-residential uses. In these open zones, the building types must comply with the base zone. For example, in a T4NS-0 zone the allowed building types include Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse. The most likely building type for non-residential uses in this zone would be Townhouse. There are other instances where non-residential uses are allowed outside of the Main Street zone and the open zones. These include home occupations and live/work uses. Home occupation regulations will not be changed with the draft code. The draft code does include live/work as a new use category. Live/work uses are allowed in T4NS, T4NS-0, T4NM, T4NM-0, and the T4MS zones. Live/work uses are subject to the following use specific standards: Specific Use Description General Standards Live/Work Combines residence • Non-residential uses limited to: sales oriented and place of business retail, personal service oriented retail (with for resident(s) with some exceptions), daycare, bed and "work" typically at breakfast homestays, and specified office ground level and uses "live" on upper levels • On -premises sales limited to goods made in the unit. Differs from home • No clients/deliveries before 7 AM or after 10 occupations in that PM work may be the • The "live" component must be the principal predominant use (ex. residence of at least one person employed in outside employees, a the live/work unit separate designated • Up to 3 additional outside employees entrance, signage, window displays, etc) • Cannot sublet part of unit as commercial/industrial space to someone not living there or as residential space for someone not working there • Limit of 10 clients/customers day August 5, 2021 Page 6 Correspondence to Date Staff has received some correspondence from stakeholders regarding the proposed amendment to the South District Plan and the draft form -based code. You can find those comments in Attachment 2. Staff will continue to collect comments and share those with the Commission. Approved by: . Sikoh.......---.--- Dame1e Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachments: 1. Draft South District Future Land Use Map 2. Correspondence received as of July 29, 2021 t �_,,.,,, CITY OF IOWA CITY i.i.t..ifiv.m._ N-,.....,,,tark MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate development that follows form -based principles in the South District Introduction The current South District Plan governs a large amount of undeveloped land. To manage new development in these areas, the Plan recommends that the City consider a form -based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at compatible scale can be achieved. A form -based code can also encourage the development of compact and connected neighborhoods. The City has worked with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form -based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District (the study area is shown in Figure 1). Through this process, staff has determined that amendments to the South District Plan are necessary before the City could consider adoption of a form -based code. Figure 1. South District Form -Based Code Study Area August 19, 2021 Page 2 The Zoning Code is one of the City's primary tools to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans by providing rules for how land can be used and developed, including what structures can be built where. A form -based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated in Iowa City. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, form -based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character of a context, rather than use as the organizing framework. Further, form -based codes regulate elements to create a high-quality place, not just a good individual building. The terminology in form -based codes also reflect the intended physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from previous use -based standards utilized by the City. However, form -based codes do regulate use secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. Following the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff will seek to adopt form -based zoning standards to implement the Comprehensive Plan's vision for context -specific, walkable development reflective of Iowa City's distinct development patterns and community character. The intent is to produce neighborhoods that: • Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking; • Will preserve important environmental resources; • Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and • Allow for a variety of housing types and price -points The form -based code project builds on previous planning work in the neighborhood, beginning in earnest with the 2015 South District Plan which outlines the vision for this area following months of work with the community. Subsequently, Opticos Design assisted City staff in assessing the feasibility of implementing a form -based code for undeveloped areas in the District. Completed in August 2017, the "Project Direction Report and Form -based Code Analysis" included the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise. Since beginning the form -based code project, there have been numerous additional opportunities for public input. A residential market analysis was also completed in 2019 to help inform the plan. Staff developed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001), shown in Attachment 1, to facilitate the development of new neighborhoods that follow form -based principles in the South District. It also supports other goals of City Council, including those related to equity and climate action. Additional context in the proposed amendment ensures consistency with those priorities. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment includes several changes to the South District Plan that lay the groundwork for form -based zoning for the South District and provide additional context to address Council's strategic goals. First, new contextual information was added, mostly in the plan's introduction. This includes a description of recent development in the South District and minor changes to other sections, such as updating place names (like "The Quarters", formerly "Rose Oaks"). More notable additions include a description of native peoples who occupied the area prior to white settlement, narrative on how land use practices have been used historically to perpetuate racial segregation, and text describing how the City is striving to overcome these historic injustices. These changes are intended to provide background and to help advance social justice, equity, and human rights efforts in the community. August 19, 2021 Page 3 Other changes to the plan will help guide development in the South District in a way that is based on form rather than use, the latter of which is the foundation of the City's current zoning designations. These include descriptions of the City's development of form -based standards and changes throughout the Plan that better reflect intended development outcomes, specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. New goals and objectives are proposed for the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss adoption of a form -based code. Finally, a new section is proposed to describe form -based land use regulations and how they may be implemented in the South District. This includes proposed updates to the original future land use map and new form -based future land use and thoroughfare maps which will guide development over time. While form -based standards generally align with the existing policies in the South District Plan, these changes address potential discrepancies in the future land use map between conventional and form -based zones, and they facilitate the adoption of a form -based code. Analysis The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land -use planning guide by illustrating and describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth area limit for the City. The City Council may consider amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be approved, evidence must be provided that the request meets the following two approval criteria in Section 14 -8D -3D of the City Code. 1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Since its adoption in 2015, development has continued in the South District. Residential subdivisions, such as Brookwood Pointe, General Quarters, and Sandhill Estates, have seen ongoing construction. Archibald Alexander Elementary School was completed in 2016 and now serves a portion of the South District. In addition, McCollister Boulevard was extended to Sycamore Street, providing an important east -west connection. For undeveloped land in the South District Study Area, just over half is inside City limits while the remainder is in unincorporated Johnson County. The land contains a range of existing land uses including agricultural, single- and multi -family residential, institutional, and open space. Overall, development in the area has been aligned with the 2015 South District Plan. The City has also undertaken extensive work towards the Plan's objective that "the City should consider a form -based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved." The 2017 feasibility study for form -based zoning in the South District noted the need to "[b]uild upon [the] existing South District Plan to implement new form -based standards and incorporate more recent efforts for [an] improved community plan." This is largely because the adopted future land use scenario better aligns with the City's current conventional zoning standards rather than form -based standards. For example, the future land use map distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi -family residential uses and provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas. Staff believes the results of the work towards form - based standards completed since 2015 have revealed the need for a revised future land use map, constituting a change in circumstances that makes this amendment in the public interest. In addition, the City is increasingly emphasizing policies that promote social justice and equity, especially as it relates to housing diversity and affordability. In June 2020, the City adopted actions in Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity in the community. August 19, 2021 Page 4 Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to indirectly support racial and class segregation. While courts invalided explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones and large minimum lot sizes were often used across the nation as an exclusionary practice, along with other public and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of "slums" where communities of color lived. In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until they were made illegal, as identified in 2020 Mapping Segregation in Iowa project (https://dsps.Iib.uiowa.edu/mappingsegregationia/). A 2019 Fair Housing Study completed by the City found that 81 % of residential land in the City is zoned for single-family development, over half of which is low density (RS -5). Facilitating adoption of a form -based code for new development helps address this by permitting a mix of housing types and price points. While it does not solve this complex issue, it mitigates one barrier to providing housing options that are more affordable and allows for a broader range of housing choices for all residents, including those still recovering from generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment. Furthermore, the City strives to demonstrate leadership in climate action, which has culminated in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The plan includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Conventional zoning contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because it produces neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Low density zoning encourages sprawl which reinforces an auto -oriented pattern of development and increases traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Higher minimum parking standards also assume car -ownership and increase the price of housing. Form -based standards can help address this by improving the City's building and transportation systems through development of compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars. The increased focus on climate action, social justice, and equity constitutes another change in circumstances and further demonstrates that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. 2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto. The proposed changes align well with the existing goals and objectives in the South District and Comprehensive Plans. The adopted future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan shows the area as containing residential land uses, primarily at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre but with some areas being 8-16 dwelling units per acre. It also includes some general commercial uses. However, the South District Plan uses specific land use categories such as low -medium density single-family residential, low -medium density mixed residential, multi -family, and mixed use/neighborhood commercial. These descriptions in the future land use map contrast somewhat with the text of plan, which speaks towards incorporating "a true mix of housing at a compatible scale" including missing middle housing types. As such, the proposed amendment refines those categories to better reflect a range of housing types, including missing middle housing. The proposed amendment also supports several goals from the 102030 Comprehensive Plan: • Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. • Encourage pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. • Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. • Support preservation of valuable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street. • Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. August 19, 2021 Page 5 Similarly, many existing goals of the South District Plan align with the proposed amendment: • Preserve environmentally sensitive features and ensure long-term stewardship for the benefit of the neighborhood and the community. • Consider opportunities for small neighborhood commercial or mixed use nodes at key intersections...and encourage quality design and construction that enhances adjacent residential or public open space areas. • As residential development extends south toward the school, ensure multiple safe and logical walking routes to the school, including well -marked crosswalks for schools. New goals and objectives are proposed to be added as part of the amendment to clarify how form -based standards further implement the intent of the South District Plan. Other proposed changes to the plan are relatively minor or simply provide context as to why and how the City should implement a form -based code. In addition to being compatible with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan, the proposed amendment aligns well with other more recent policy efforts of the City, including the City Council's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the City's Black Lives Matter & Systemic Racism Resolution. As other District Plans are updated in the future, incorporating these elements is essential to ensuring consistency in all City documents. Public Comment Staff received several comments regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, especially as it relates to the future land use maps. Written comments received are in Attachment 3. In summary, staff has received the following comments: • Concern expressed from the Sandhill Estates HOA included: o Lack of transition between the existing neighborhood along McCollister Court and new development on the future land use map (specifically requesting T3 land uses by the existing neighborhood before transitioning to T4 land uses). o Impacts on education o Access to emergency services • Members of the South District Neighborhood Association's Leadership Group noted that they would like to see more indoor recreation space in the South District. • Steve Gordon and Aleda Feuerbach requested to remove their property south of Lehman Avenue from the planning area. A summary of stakeholder input and staff responses can be found in Attachment 2. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles in the South District of Iowa City. Attachments 1. Proposed Changes to the South District Plan 2. Staff Summary of Stakeholder Input on Public Review Drafts 3. Stakeholder Comments Received as of August 12, 2021 Approved by: • �]l Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services IOWA CITY South District Plan DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADOPTED OCTOBER 20, 2015 AMENDED XXXXX XX, 2021 lb Prep -arse by Sarah WaL2, Associate wanner, 410 E. waehinEson St. Iowa City, IA 52210 (31Bj 31 -239 RESOLUTION NO, 15-375 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE SOUTH DISTRICT PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE IOWA CITY GROWTH AREA, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY SIX AND EAST OF THE IOWA RIVER. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, including specific district pians, saves es a land use and planning policy guide setting Froths vision, goals and ol:jectivesfor future development or redevelopment throughout the City and for preserving valuable assets already present within established neighborhoods and by providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and WHEREAS, as a component Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, the South District Plan is intended to promote patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure and services that encourage and contribute to the livability and sustainability of Iowa City and Its neighborhoods. These plans are advisory documents for directing and managing change over dme and serve as a guide for decisron-making, public deliberation and investment (public and private). WHEREAS, originally adopted in 1987, the South District Plan is the oldest of Iowa City's ten district plans; and WHEREAS, following the announcement of a new elementary school to be constructed along South Sycamore Street, the City Council directed planning staff to update the existing plan to ensure that new neighborhoods surrounding the school develop in a sustainable manner in accordance with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the priorities of the City's Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the planning process for this South District Plan included a series of interviews with neighborhood advocates and representatives of community groups, realtors and property owners, as wait as gathering input From neighborhood workshops and an online survey over the course of eighteen months; and WHEREAS, the South District Plan reflects the planning principles of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan update with regard to developing sustainable neighborhoods; and WHEREAS the South District Plan provides consideration of the unique history, context, and existing conditions in the South Iowa City: and WHEREAS, the South District Plan sets forth the goals, objectives, and plan maps far housing and residential development; neighborhood quality; streets and transportation; parks, trails, and open space; and commercial areas that will serve as a framework to guide future public and private investment in a manner that will benefit citizens living or working in the South District as well as citizens in Iowa City es a whole: and Passed and approved this 20th day of October 2015. Mayor ATTEST: Z714ce.,j }t . fA roved{by: i(R r: sa of Piklt+ek City Attorney's Office tesebtioa No, 15-335 Page 3 h was roovcd by Dabvns and seconded by Payee Itesolatiou be adopted, and upon natal! there wet+e: AYES: NAYS; ABSENT: x x 8 x the Botchway Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Th ogmorton South District Plan City of Iowa City, Iowa City Council Kingsley Botchway Rick Dobyns Terry Dickens Matthew Hayek Susan Mims Michelle Payne Jim Throgmorton Planning and Zoning Commission Carolyn Dyer Charles Eastham Ann Freerks Michael Hensch Phoebe Martin Max Parsons Jodie Theobald City Manager Tom Markus Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Doug Boothroy, Director John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Karen Howard, Associate Planner Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Emily Ambrosy, Mapping Kay Irelan, Mapping Bailee McClellan, Intern Ashley Zitzner, Intern Kirk Lehmann, Intern Page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Housing 13 Neighborhood Quality 23 Parks, Trails, and Open Space 29 Streets, Trails, and Sidewalks 37 Commercial Areas 47 Form -Based Land Use 54 South District Future Land Use Plan Maps 5-357 Page intentionally left blank. Introduction The Comprehensive Plan is intended to promote patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure, and services that encourage and contribute to the livability and sustainability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods. As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, district plans relate specifically to the histo- ry and existing conditions at a more local, neighborhood level. The goals and objectives in the dis- trict plan addresses issues of housing and quality of life; transportation; commercial development; and parks, trails, and open space particular to specific areas of the community. These plans are advi- sory documents that are intended to direct and manage change over time. They serve as a guide for decision-making, deliberation, and investment for both the public and private sector. Originally adopted in 1997, the South District Plan was Iowa City's first completed district plan. Fol- lowing the Iowa City Community School District announcement that a new elementary school, Archi- bald Alexander, would open in South Iowa City in 2015, City Council directed planning staff to up- date the existing district plan. The updated plan would consider new neighborhoods surrounding the school that would develop in light of the sustainability goals of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the priorities of the City's Strategic Plan (November, 2013). The plan was amended again in 2021 to further facilitate development that follows form -based principles. The new elementary school and the road extension and infrastructure that serve it represent a sub- stantial investment made by the taxpayers of our community. It is therefore in the public interest to plan proactively for the long-term health and stability of new and existing neighborhoods to ensure the full benefit of that investment. The update to the South District Plan therefore focuses on cre- ating walkable neighborhoods served by a network of interconnected streets that enhance opportu- nities not only for alternative transportation but for neighborhood cohesion and social interaction. The plan calls for the integration of a variety of housing options to accommodate a range of house- hold types and to support the extension of transit and support for small neighborhood commercial nodes. It seeks to strengthen and enhance existing neighborhoods and improve access to parks, commercial areas, and employment centers. Finally, the plan recognizes the opening of the new school as an opportunity to re -envision South Iowa City—to foster a positive identity and sense of community based on its environmental and recreational assets and its culturally diverse population. NORTHWEST %Ulmer Me SOUTHWEST NORTH CORRIDOR �.F DO" CENTRAL! TORN - SOUTH L The South District is one of ten planning districts in Iowa City. The Iowa City Community School District hosted a groundbreaking for the new Archibald Alexander Elemen- tary School in June, 2014. The new school is scheduled open in fall 2015 and will have a capacity of 500 students. The City of Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department partnered with the School District, contributing funds to enlarge the school gymnasium so that it can serve the community after school hours. 2 The public workshop for the South District Plan took place on October 6 at Grant Wood Elementary. The workshop was an opportunity for residents, property owners, developers, and other interested members of the community to meet face-to-face to discuss the future of South Iowa City. It was also a chance for members of the public to engage with City staff to better understand development processes, provision of services, extension or improvements to infrastructure, as well as preservation of open space and zoning. Public Participation Public input is vital to any comprehensive planning effort. Residents, property owners, area busi- nesses, community organizations, public service agencies, and other interested citizens helped for- mulate the goals and objectives for this update to the South District Plan through their participation in one or more planning activities. To initiate the process, staff conducted a series of interviews with neighborhood advocates and representatives of community groups, realtors, and property owners. Additional feedback was gathered at a series of neighborhood events—Wetherby's Party in the Park, National Night Out, and Grant Wood Elementary School's back -to -school event. An online survey gathered additional information from 70 respondents. From these interviews and events, a set of common themes emerged. A community workshop held at Grant Wood Elementary on October 6, 2014, gathered additional information on what makes the South District attractive and livable as well as what is challenging about living, working, or doing business in South Iowa City. Workshop participants discussed how to build on the assets of the area, including the many environmental and recreational assets and the new south elementary school. Other Sources The South District Plan also draws from outreach and interviews completed by the Broadway Neighborhood Center, including a set of strategies formulated as a result of community workshops and surveys conducted by that agency in (2008). Information also came from the Broadway Neigh- borhood Community Assessment, a 2004 report authored by Julie A. Spears M.S.W., M.A. and Miri- am J. Landsman, Ph.D., M.S.W. (University of Iowa School of Social Work, National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice). These reports represent substantial input from minorities and renters, two groups that may have been underrepresented at the community workshop. Input for Form -Based Standards Extensive outreach was also conducted during the formulation of form -based standards in 2019 and 2020. The City engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos, the City's consult- ant on the project. Participants included representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the general public. Plan Implementation The South District Plan will be used as a guide for future development or redevelopment within the district and for preserving and improving valuable assets of the area. Achieving the goals and objec- tives included in this plan will take time and the combined effort of the City, area residents, property owners, businesses, community nonprofits, and neighborhood organizations. • City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and the City Council will rely on the plan as a guide when reviewing development and rezoning requests and setting funding priorities for public infrastructure, services, or programming. • Neighborhood groups, nonprofits, and other interested organizations within the community may use the plan to design programming and events and to advocate for investment (including grants), improvement, and preservation. • Property owners, businesses, real estate professionals, and developers should use the plan as framework for their own decision-making and investment as they plan to purchase, sell, or de- velop property. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Any effective planning effort must be grounded in reality—it must take into account the existing lo- cal conditions and any community -wide goals and policies that have already been agreed upon. The Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2013, presents a vision for Iowa City, provides goals and objectives for realizing that vision, and sets policies for the development and growth of the City. This district plan addresses the unique characteristics of a specific area within the city, but it must also meet the goals and policies adopted as a part of the larger Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhoods are at the heart of what makes Iowa City a great place to live. What follows is a set of general principles for maintaining and building healthy neighborhoods. New development and redevelopment should adhere to these principles, as well. Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Established Neighborhoods: Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps to pre- serve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school, and shopping; promotes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In addition, many established neighborhoods contain affordable housing options along walkable, tree -lined streets where City ser- vices and infrastructure are already in place and elementary schools and parks are the focal point of neighborhood activity and identity. MAKE NO SMALL PLANS .. . The goal to repurpose a retired sand dredging pond as a natural amenity was drawn from public input during the original South District Planning effort in 1997. It would take another 15 years to make the vision reality. In 2006, the City purchased 158 acres, including "Sand Lake," from 5 & J Materials. An additional 49 acres were later acquired to extend the park to the river - front. A master plan was drafted for the park with community input. The City covered half of the $6.5 million park development with general obligation bonds; the remainder was covered by private dona- tions and grants, including a $1.2 million CAT Grant from Vision IOWA. The park officially opened in 2013 as Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, and features bike and pedestrian trails, water craft rental, fishing, birding, picnicking, and ice skating as well as a popular lodge for receptions and other events. The successful process of transforming this former quarry site into a natural feature is the result of a collaborative effort with the Parks and Rec- reation Department, community advocates, business- es, individual donors, and grant agencies. 3 4 I:iiiiii182 i:: gra11411111111Es 1•iiGiirS16i1 !E11 1inwisN fora r7� iE/iil1��i11i13� �� c521 g1�111i®gii1ikillEFi dna 111114104. ,TTI 1hJ1f'y •. a„_r (f, A11911�1�J11 ;.. i1� Q imiiii:4 Ik` 4111/177 !L t 9�s /ma pv44, f114a�7�U, um wal_I iii EN'PE W 1 k1 NEIC -:u® ill um omen — _n.0Wb mum effiraA IF! .031"41114k1. SCHOOL AS THE CENTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD Housing density ensures that a significant portion of a school's student population lives near enough to walk if they choose. It also increases the likelihood that a neighborhood will sustain a population of young fami- lies with children to attend the school over time. Above: there are 428 single-family homes within a quarter mile of Grant Wood Elementary School (the area within the yellow circle). Right: This detail from ICCSD Student Density Map shows that ap- proximately 170 school age children live within a quarter mile of Grant Wood Elementary. This is comparable to other eastside elementary schools. Compatible Infill Development: Quality infill development plays an important role in neighbor- hood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new develop- ment of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening in- frastructure, including alleys and parking. Compact Development: Compact development makes efficient use of land and reduces costs asso- ciated with the provision and maintenance of public improvements, such as streets, sewers and water lines. This benefits developers and tax payers. Narrower lot frontages combined with smaller lot sizes reduce the overall cost of new housing construction, creating opportunities for more mod- erately priced housing. Diversity of Housing Types: A mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides residential op- portunities for a variety of people, including singles, couples, families with children, and elderly per- sons. Integrating diverse housing sizes and types throughout the community increases the oppor- tunity for people to live in the same neighborhood throughout various stages of life. A rich mix of housing within a neighborhood may include single-family homes on small and large lots, townhous- es, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and zero -lot -line housing, as well as apartments in mixed- use buildings located in neighborhood commercial areas. Affordable Housing: By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced housing can be in- corporated into a neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two areas of the community. Small multi -family buildings may be located on corner lots adjacent to arterial streets; townhouses and duplex units may be mixed with single-family homes within a neighborhood. Apartments locat- ed above commercial businesses provide needed housing while increasing the local customer base for commercial establishments. Neighborhood Schools: Neighborhood schools, particularly elementary schools, are integral to healthy, sustainable neighborhoods. Schools serve not only as centers of education but as focal points for community gatherings and neighborhood identity. In addition, the school grounds pro- vide opportunities for exercise and recreation for neighborhood residents throughout the year. Neighborhood elementary schools have a symbiotic relationship with the surrounding neighbor- hood where the school is an essential element that contributes to the quality of life. This in turn contributes to the social connections, identity, safety, and well-being of the families whose children attend the school. Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Neighborhood commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place for a neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orien- tation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores with addi- tional parking on the street. Incorporating apartments above shops and preserving public open space are two ways to foster additional activity and vitality in a neighborhood commercial area. Some aspects of commercial development, such as auto -oriented uses, parking lots, bright lights, and signage, need to be located, screened, or buffered so that they do not detract from nearby resi- dential uses. Interconnected Street System: Grid street systems help to reduce congestion by dispersing traffic, allowing multiple routes to get from point A to point B. In addition, by providing more direct routes, interconnected streets can reduce the vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, pro- vide more direct walking and biking routes to neighborhood destinations, and reduce the cost of providing City services. Streets as More than Pavement: Streets and adjacent parkways and sidewalks can be enhanced and planned to encourage pedestrian activity. Trees, benches, sidewalks, and attractive lighting along the street help create pleasant and safe public spaces for walking to neighborhood destina- tions and for socializing with neighbors. Streetscape amenities help establish a sense of distinction, identity, and security for neighborhoods. In residential neighborhoods, narrower street pavement widths slow traffic, reduce infrastructure costs, and allow for a more complete tree canopy over the street. Shallow Front Yard Setbacks: Placing homes closer to the street allows more backyard space and room for garages and utilities if there is also an alley located behind the home. Shallow setbacks (15- 20 feet is the code standard for residential uses) combined with narrower street pavement widths, create a more intimate pedestrian -scale public space along the street, which encourages walking and social interaction. Use of Alleys: Providing parking and utilities from a rear alley or private lane is particularly advanta- geous in neighborhoods with narrower lot frontages. This arrangement reduces driveway paving and interruptions to the sidewalk network, allows more room for front yard landscaping, and in- creases the availability of on -street parking for visitors. In addition, when garages are accessed from alleys, vehicular traffic and congestion on residential streets is reduced. EFFICIENT NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT / /6�p6Ob��_o❑b❑O�\I/oQ / ,0 OoO�O/D o d171_1..:=7,020 �Of r— NOME o\o°o ojp �Oa \O 0 oo I is °b O O�/ oo 0 _1 Alirj 60 \Jl2 L �L n o o�i 0oa o r1r')( hl11'---� \'`,27� mob[// Dt;;b o '�� ,}I n� .oma o72ar)oo/q.° ojfl \�'I//LJ�y_/. aabooa Ooo < o�°L=i URBAN SPRAWL GETTING FROM HERE .. . TO EVERYWHERE An interconnected street system is integral to making a neighborhood walkable and to en- suring that all residents have access to the amenities and services within the neighbor- hood. An interconnected street system also reduces travel times, provides alternative routes, and allows more efficient provision of services. 5 6 CREATING A SENSE OF PLACE As new development occurs, small parks or pocket parks (less than one acre in size) could help preserve the sense of open space that resi- dents consider a defining characteristic of South Iowa City. Small public or private open space may be used to preserve environmental features or provide stormwater features. These spaces may also provide opportunities for social interaction and neighborhood identity. Pedestrian or bike con- nections between residential areas and schools or parks will help enhance walkability in the district. Pedestrian/Bikeway Connections: Important neighborhood destinations, such as parks, schools, bus stops, and neighborhood shopping centers, should be readily accessible by pedestrians and bicy- clists. This requires a continuous sidewalk system, strategically located trails, and on -street bicycle facilities. Bike routes that intersect with key neighborhood destinations may be aligned along neigh- borhood streets or constructed in stream buffer areas or within major sanitary sewer easements. A pleasant streetscape with trees and appropriate building setbacks and ample driveway separation creates an environment that is safe and appealing for pedestrians and cyclists. Parks, Trails and Open Space: Neighborhood parks are small, one- to seven -acre open spaces that provide a focal point for informal gatherings and recreation within easy walking distance from most homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood parks should be centrally located or situated adjacent to a school or a neighborhood commercial area and designed as an integral part of an interconnected system of open space with trails or wide sidewalks to connect with larger community and regional parks. Preservation of sensitive areas, such as wetlands, woodlands, and stream corridors and their buffers, provides an opportunity to shape and enhance a neighborhood, while maintaining scenic and natural resources and wildlife habitat. Wherever possible, natural features, such as waterways and woodlands, should be incorporated as key amenities within parks and along trail systems. Buffer Residential Development from Incompatible Uses: To help ensure the long-term livability of neighborhoods, provide sufficient buffers between residential uses and activities, such as the waste water treatment plant, highways, etc. Public Safety: Iowa City works to ensure public safety throughout the community. The establish- ment of Fire Station 4, the Police Substation at Pepperwood Plaza, and cooperative efforts with neighborhood groups, schools, and the University of Iowa demonstrate this commitment. Resources are directed toward education, crime prevention, and enforcement to enhance the quality of life in Iowa City. HOW WE DEFINE THE SOUTH PLANNING DISTRICT 7 The South Planning District includes all land within the Iowa City growth boundary south of Highway 6 and east of the Iowa River. The growth boundary is drawn to indicate the area of land that can be served by the south sanitary sewer facility without need for lift sta- tions. Thus, the boundary does not extend further south than the south wastewater treatment facility. A large wetland conservation area lo- cated east of the Sycamore Greenway and south of a future extension of McCollister Boulevard cannot be devel- oped and thereby serves as a natural boundary for urban development. The South Planning District contains approximately 3,000 acres or 4.7 square miles, including land not currently with- in City limits. A 2008 Public Works land inventory indicated approximately 1,695 acres of vacant, developable land within the district. If built out at an average of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, the study estimated that another 3,900 households could be established within this portion of the community. Most recently constructed neighborhoods have developed at a density of 3.0 units per acre or greater. Areas shaded in red are within the district boundaries, but out- side current city limits City Limits District Boundary 8 I 44110 Although few physical signs remain of early human settlement in South Iowa City, archaeological evi- dence indicates that South Iowa City has been the site of human occupation for millennia. A 2,000 year old dwelling and associated features were excavated at Napoleon Park—the earliest prehistoric structure found in the entire Iowa River Valley. The McCollister -Showers farmstead is one of the few remaining historic structures in South Iowa City. Historic Context Native peoples inhabited Iowa around 9,500 BCE, initially as hunter -gatherers. Over time, their socie- ties became more sedentary, living in complex settlements and obtaining resources through a mix of horticulture, seasonal hunting and gathering, and large , established trade networks. Their archaeo- logical record remains an important but often overlooked component of the area's heritage. Iowa City's historic roots may be traced to areas along the river, south of Highway 6. When Europe- ans arrived in America, they traded goods with native peoples, but also caused widespread upheaval through settlement, conflict, and disease. By the 1800's, numerous groups occupied Iowa, including the Baxoje (loway) and the Sauk and Meskwaki (Fox) who had been displaced from the east. John Gilbert (the historic figure for whom Gilbert Street is named) was likely the first white man to make a home in this part of the state. In 1826 he set up a trading post near the mouth of Snyder Creek, just south of the planning district boundaries, and began exchange with a Meskwaki Indian Village in the area, thought to have had a population of around 1,000 people. The Sauk and Fox peoples formally ceded the area from 1832 to 1837, allowing white settlement. In 1837, Gilbert laid out the town of Napoleon at or near what is now Napoleon Park. A year later there were 237 white settlers in the area. Napoleon served as the county seat and the location of the first county courthouse and post office, from March 2, 1839, until November 14, 1839, when Iowa City was declared the new county seat. A log cabin and one frame house were the only buildings ever erected on the town site. The log cabin that served as the first courthouse stood across from what later would become the McCollister farmstead. The establishment of Iowa City as the territorial capi- tal and county seat in 1839 marked the beginning of the end for the fledgling town of Napoleon. Philip Clark was one of the first individuals persuaded by Gilbert to settle in this area. The McCollister -Showers farmstead located at 2460 South Gilbert Street is situated on land that was park of Clark's original 1837 claim. In 1863, the property was purchased by James McCollister and over the next few decades grew to be a farm containing about 750 acres. The McCollister -Showers home was con- structed in 1864 and expanded in 1880. The ten -acre farmstead that remains is listed on the Nation- al Register of Historic Places. McCollister Boulevard and bridge commemorate the role the McCollis- ter family played in early Iowa City history. Another mid -19th century home, located on property just to the north of the McCollister -Showers farmstead, sits atop the hill at Friendly Farm at the south terminus of Waterfront Drive. Based on its Greek Revival architecture and design, it likely predates that construction of the McCollister -Showers home. Although little is known definitively about its history, maps suggest the property was possibly owned by Cyrus Sanders, who came to Johnson County in 1839, purchasing the claim of A.D. Ste- phens on the edge of Iowa City. Sanders held the position of Johnson County Surveyor for nearly fifteen years (1839/40 until 1855). These two farmsteads are the most visible links that remain of the early white settlement in South Iowa City. Environmental Context Water plays an enduring role in South Iowa City, presenting both obstacles and opportunities. Flood- ing along the Iowa River and the presence of streams, wetlands, drainage ways, and hydric soils in other areas of the district limit where and how development may occur. High groundwater levels, especially in areas east of Sycamore Street, make stormwater management a major focus of devel- opment plans. In some areas east of the Sycamore Greenway trail, a shallow water table may pre- clude the construction of basements. Outside of Iowa City limits, South Gilbert Street becomes Sand Road, a testament to the distinct ge- ology in this part of our community. Much of South Iowa City consists of sandy soils deposited by the Iowa River during the last glacial period. A sand dune that formed during the post glacial period is a prominent geologic feature, now preserved as Sand Prairie Park. An important industry in South Iowa City during the latter part of the twentieth century, sand dredg- ing left a man-made mark upon the landscape. When dredging activities were discontinued in the 1990s, the Parks Department purchased the "sand lake" and later developed the site as Terry Trueblood Recreation Area—a regional park. Currently, a smaller dredging pond to the east of Gil- bert Street is being filled with materials excavated for expansion of the University of Iowa Chil- dren's Hospital. While this might otherwise be an ideal location for residential development, the property will require a geotechnical analysis to determine its development potential. Snyder Creek forms the district's eastern limit, meandering south and west toward the river through an extensive system of wetlands known as the Snyder Creek Bottoms. This five -square mile wetland area absorbs and filters stormwater before it reaches the Iowa River, reducing flood- ing and pollution and supporting wildlife habitat, especially migratory and game birds that rely on wetlands and isolated ponds. Though outside city limits, a unified strategy for protecting and re- storing the function of these wetlands would provide an opportunity for an outdoor attraction that would benefit county and city residents alike. While these sensitive environmental features limit development, they also provide opportunities for public parks and trails as well as private open space, and are defining elements of South Iowa City's identity and sense of place. THE SYCAMORE GREENWAY Each time it rains, stormwater passes over roofs, pave- ment, and other land surfaces, picking up pollutants such as oil, salt, lawn chemicals, and eroded soil before flowing untreated through the storm sewer system into creeks and rivers. This is how most cities handle storm - water, but a one square mile watershed in South Iowa City relies on an alternative system. Designed by University of Iowa geoscience professor Lon Drake, the Sycamore Greenway is an example of green infrastructure unlike any other in Iowa. The 52 - acre system consists of a chain of 22 intermittent wet- lands that flow into a larger series of crescent-shaped wetland cells, effectively holding and filtering storm water runoff from hundreds of residential properties. The Greenway also provides wildlife habitat. More than 130 bird species, including sandhill cranes, may be ob- served along the Greenway, and hundreds of waterfowl visit the area each year during migration season. A pop- ular 21/2 mile paved trail winds through the Greenway, connecting surrounding neighborhoods to Kickers Soc- cer Park. 9 10 EMI IOWA CITY 1U pi Reminders of explicit racial seg- regation in Iowa City are im- portant. "Mapping Segregation in Iowa City" (shown above) illustrates race restrictive cove- nants from 1910 to 1950. The City has also designated local historic landmarks like the Tate Arms house (shown below), which housed African American students when they were not allowed to live on the University of Iowa Campus. As racial re- strictions became illegal, other methods to promote segrega- tion become more common. ZI !HIM sae Non -White Householdis ■ African-American Households ■ Latinx Households Restricted Lots ! Subdivision Restriction m Parcel Restriction Planning Context Land use planning helps guide future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics, goals, and objectives of the community. The City's goals and objectives guided the creation of the South District Future Land Use Maps which illustrate where homes, jobs, and services may locate. Tools that help implement this vision include City Code and other policies and programs. Conventional zoning codes separate land uses into discrete districts with little mixing of uses. Unfor- tunately, historic goals of land use planning has included enforcing racial segregation. Though the courts invalidated racial zoning in 1917, new instruments were developed to that end. Single-family zones and large minimum lot sizes promoted exclusionary practices and class segregation. Federal practices also reinforced racial segregation. The Federal Housing Administration redlined ra- cially diverse areas which made it harder to obtain mortgages or home improvement loans. Housing benefits from the GI Bill were often unevenly provided to persons of color. Urban renewal projects helped demolish neighborhoods occupied by persons of color. These policies determined who could live where, and in what type of housing. It was not until 1968 that housing discrimination on the ba- sis of race became illegal. However, segregation was already systemically entrenched, which has shaped the availability of opportunities for many residents. Strictly separating land uses meant conventional zoning also has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions. As development occurred, it produced neighborhoods that were difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Highway construction further separated parts of the community and reinforced an auto -oriented pattern of development. Traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions increased as a result. Moving Forward One of Iowa City's strategic goals is to "advance social justice, racial equity and human rights". While land use decisions can reinforce existing economic and racial inequities, they can also be a tool to actively promote equity. Permitting a variety of housing types and price points by right can create opportunities for all members of the community to live in different neighborhoods. In addition, in- volving diverse populations in decision-making and evaluating equity impacts of new policies are important to addressing the issue. Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action. As part of the City's Climate Action & Adapta- tion Plan, the City has set goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. An important component of achieving those goals are improving the City's building and transportation systems. Creating neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars is a necessary step in that direction. To provide a tool which helps address goals related to equity and sustainability, the City should de- velop form -based zones for greenfield development in the South District. Form -based standards can reflect a context -specific approach to community character and are based on Iowa City's distinct development patterns in the historic downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods developed prior to World War II. They should also protect natural areas throughout the South District, including waterways. This can be accomplished by establishing zoning districts which focus less on land use distinctions and more on the form of the built environment and its interactions with the public realm. Form -based land use is discussed more on pages 54-56. Form -based codes can help address a number of related issues including racial equity, housing affordability and diversity, protection of the natural environment and habi- tat (such as at Terry Trueblood Recreational Area shown above), and sustainable initiatives such as reducing car dependence. 11 12 THE GROWTH OF SOUTH IOWA CITY 1960 What you can see: Residential development south of Highway 6 began with the Hilltop Mobile Home Park and the area that is now the Grant Wood Neighborhood. Development of modest tract housing along Hol- lywood Boulevard; Western and Union Roads; and Arizona, California, and Nevada Avenues allowed workers to live near the Proctor and Gamble plant just to the north via Fairmeadows Blvd. 1970 What you can see: Residential development expanded in the 1960s and 1970s to include the Bon Aire Mobile Home Park and single-family detached housing that extended east of Sycamore Street as part of the Hollywood Subdivision and south of Lakeside Drive around Regal Lane. Lakeside Apartments (now called Rose Oaks) was developed as student housing. Commercial centers are visible in the location of Pepperwood Plaza and Sycamore Mall (now Iowa City Marketplace). Outside the district, industrial uses expanded along Highway 6. Grant Wohd Elementary 13 1990 What you can see: Residential neighborhood develop- ment was more fully built out during the 1980s and early 1990s along both sides of Sycamore Street, as far south as Burns and California Avenues and in the Pepperwood Subdivision. Bon Aire Mobile Home Park expanded. Wetherby and Napoleon Parks were both established along with Grant Wood School. Sand Lake was becoming visible as a sand dredging pond. In this aerial, wetlands are visible in the area west of Snyder Creek. 2014 Residential development is taking shape in the SandhiII Estates subdivision off South Gilbert Street. The Pepper - wood Subdivision is nearly fully built out. New subdivi- sions are being constructed south of Lakeside and Wetherby Drives. Multi -family development is completed south of commercial areas along Keokuk Street and Cross Park Avenue. The Saddlebrook neighborhood, which be- gan with manufactured housing around Paddock Circle in far southeast Iowa City, has expanded to include town - homes, multi -family units, and duplexes along Heinz Road. The Sycamore Greenway is established with a trail connecting south to Kickers Soccer Park. Sand Lake, re- tired as a dredging area, is transformed into a regional attraction as Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. 14 2021 Since the plan was initially adopted in 2015, development has contin- ued in residential subdivisions such as Brookwood Pointe, General Quarters, and SandhiII Estates. In addition, Archibald Alexander Ele- mentary was completed and now serves the area. The most recent investment is the extension of McCollister Boulevard to Sycamore Street, which improved circulation in the South District. New form - based code standards should be designed to guide the area as addition- al development continues. The standards should also help improve walkability, increase housing diversity and affordability, and provide for a more sustainable neighborhood pattern. Housing A variety of housing options ranging from manufactured housing, townhomes, apartment complex- es, duplexes, and single-family detached homes provide opportunities for people of a variety of in- come levels, ages, and household types in South Iowa City. This has allowed many residents to start their adult lives here as renters, own a first home, and transition within their neighborhood as their households grew or changed over time. While more than half of the housing within the South District is detached single-family units, there is considerable variety in home sizes, prices, and styles. Housing development that slowed during the economic recession in 2008 has picked up considerably over the past 3 to 4 years. The announce- ment of the new school location on South Sycamore Street will add to the demand in this area. As Grant Wood School is relieved of overcrowded conditions, the surrounding neighborhood should once again become more attractive for families with young children. Single -Family Housing The development of single-family residential neighborhoods in South Iowa City began in the late 1950s with subdivisions south of the Procter and Gamble property. The Fairmeadows and Hollywood subdivisions featured modest tract housing on small lots, providing an affordable option for workers to live close to the Highway 6 industrial area. Between 1960 and 1990, single-family neighborhoods extended west of Sycamore and south to Am- ber and Regal Lanes with housing characteristic of the period—a mix of split level and ranch homes with attached garages. By the early 1990s, most of the single-family zone north of Lakeside Drive and Burns Avenue was platted and developed, including the Pepperwood Neighborhood. Neighborhood design is typical of the post-war period, with curvilinear or u -shaped streets and long block lengths or, as in Pepperwood Neighborhood and Whispering Meadows neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs. By the mid-1990s, development slowed in South Iowa City due to a need for infrastructure improve- ments. The drafting of the 1997 South District Plan was timed to coincide with construction of the South River Corridor Interceptor Sewer that would provide the necessary capacity for new neighbor- hoods west of Sycamore Street. Meanwhile construction of the Sycamore Greenway, a regional stormwater facility (completed in 2001), made development of neighborhoods east of Sycamore Street feasible by enhancing drainage in an area that was otherwise susceptible to flooding. Newly platted lots in South Iowa City continue to be somewhat smaller than those platted in many 15 South Iowa City Homeownership Iowa City Based on data from the 2012 Five -Year American Community Survey. 16 Flood Replacement Housing After the flood of 2008, the Single Family New Con- struction Program awarded downpayment assistance to 57 homes (single-family, duplex, and townhomes). One third of the homes approved in the program were built south of Hwy 6 and were limited to owner occu- pants. The homes built under this program more than made up the lost property tax revenues from the flood buy-out program and offered several households an opportunity for homeownership. other areas of the city. In part this is due to the flat topography, which allows for more development per acre. In some areas of the district, primarily east of the Sycamore Greenway, a high water table limits the construction of basements. These factors have made housing in South Iowa City affordable by reducing land and construction costs. Many single-family homes in the oldest neighborhoods are small by current standards (less than 1,100 square feet) and lack features considered standard on newer homes, such as attached two -car garages. While these homes provide an affordable option for many homebuyers, including young families and singles, maintenance costs for older homes can be higher. The City's Housing Rehabilita- tion Program provides no -interest and low-interest loan funds are available for maintenance and rehabilitation for homeowners who fall under certain income thresholds. One objective of the South District Plan is for the City to work with neighborhood associations to make residents more aware of these programs and, in particular, to encourage upgrades that will increase energy and water effi- ciency, thereby reducing long-term costs of homeownership. Manufactured Housing South Iowa City's manufactured housing parks are self-contained neighborhoods, so to speak, with private streets that do not connect to the surrounding public street pattern. There are three manu- factured housing parks in South Iowa City. Hilltop Mobile Home Park, established in 1957, was one of the very first residential developments south of Highway 6. Situated on a wooded hillside in the northwest corner of the planning district just south of Southgate Avenue, Hilltop includes 150 lots. Bon Aire Mobile Home Lodge and Paddock Mobile Home Park in Saddlebrook are located in the far east portion of the planning district, along Highway 6. Bon Aire was established in 1967 and includes more than 350 units. The Paddock, now part of the Saddlebrook neighborhood, was established in the mid-1990s and includes 146 units. Manufactured housing is an important source of affordable housing located close to major employ- ment centers, including the industrial zone just north of the Highway 6. Many residents prefer man- ufactured housing over multi -family or other rental housing. However, financing for manufactured homes is complicated because the land is leased rather than owned. Since the banking crisis of 2008, mortgages for manufactured housing have become quite expensive, driving down the market for these homes. While it is unknown when the manufactured housing sector will recover, it is in the City's interest to ensure that manufactured housing parks remain safe and welcoming places to live. "If redevelopment of the manufactured housing parks is contemplated in the future, the availability of comparable housing and the impact on the residents should be considered." Multi -family Housing As with manufactured housing, most multi -family development in South Iowa City is clustered close to Highway 6. Apartment complexes on large tracts of land are organized around parking areas and, in general, are not integrated with the local street network or block configuration. While this has some advantages in terms of buffering single-family uses from the traffic associated with higher den- sity housing, it also contributes to a feeling of social isolation within the neighborhood. Surveys con- ducted by the Broadway Neighborhood Center indicate that some residents of large apartment com- plexes feel less of an association with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Because a large proportion of renters are temporary or new to the area, developing a sense of community, even with immediate neighbors, takes time. For many residents in the multi -family developments, schools provide a vital sense of connection. Over the years there have been problems associated with some multi -family and rental properties in the South District. These issues have largely arisen due to a combination of poor or inconsistent management, insufficient maintenance and investment, and in some case, poor construction and site design. Building and site design for multi -family development is particularly important for dis- couraging criminal activity. Targeted code enforcement and requirements for tenant background screening have helped to improve the situation in some of the largest complexes. In 2011, Southgate Development brought all buildings within what was known as the Broadway Street Condominiums under single ownership. Originally constructed in the 1970s, over the years a number of buildings within the development had come under the control of separate owners such that management and maintenance were inconsistent. Within the development large parking areas and other spaces hidden from view of the street or from apartment windows attracted criminal ac- tivity. Conditions within these complexes became a concern not only for residents, but the larger neighborhood and adjacent commercial properties. Southgate Development invested $5.75 million, with the City of Iowa City contributing $900,000 in federal (CDBG) funds, to rehabilitate the apartments. As a condition of federal funding, at least fifty- six of the units must be rented to people making less than 80 percent of the area's median income. These units also have their rents capped at $802 a month, which is the fair -market value for a two- bedroom apartment in the area. Dwelling units were updated and safety of the site was improved by installing secured entrances, improved lighting, and perimeter fencing. Management also requires background checks for all residents. In response to neighborhood requests, the City located a police substation in nearby Pepperwood Plaza, and engaged in more active patrol of the area, including foot patrol. These changes have been successful in providing a safer, more attractive living environ- ment for residents. 17 '4,1;101111111qM1111111111111111111' 111 Southgate Development has made substantial invest- ments in the multi -family housing within South Iowa tClty o provide consistent management, maintenance, and long-term investment in properties that were once neglected or poorly managed. 18 DESIGNING FOR SAFETY The physical design of a neighborhood or develop- ment has an impact on safety and livability. The balanced application of the following three princi- ples can help to ensure the long-term health and safety of residential areas: Natural Surveillance. Design and maintenance that allow spaces, both inside and outside buildings, to be observed both by residents and people passing through a neighborhood. Examples include lighting of parking areas, entrances, exits, and other com- mon areas; low or see-through fencing and land- scaping; windows overlooking parking areas or entrances. Territoriality. Creating clear demarcation between public, private, and semi -private spaces helps to convey a sense of "ownership" and an awareness that criminal activity will be noticed by someone. Examples include signage, see-through screening or fencing, gateways, and distinctive paving or land- scaping to mark the transition between areas public and private spaces. Access Control. Decreasing access to areas where a person with criminal intent could hide. Examples include highly visible entrances or gateways through which all users of a property must enter, or the appropriate use of signage, door and window locks, or fencing to discourage unwanted access into private spaces or into dark or unmonitored areas. Iowa City's Multi -family Design Standards include some of these principles, such as requiring visible building entrances oriented toward the street, land- scaped setbacks around parking areas, and prohib- iting sliding glass doors and unenclosed stairways as primary means of access to an dwelling unit. The principles were also applied to the Casey's site along Highway 6. The story of Lakeside Apartments—now The Quarters, formerly Rose Oaks —is a cautionary tale of the community impact when a large-scale multi -family project falls into decline. Originally con- structed in 1966 to attract University of Iowa students with families, the development did not stand the test of time. By the mid-1980s, tenant complaints about the management of the apartments had become an issue for the city. Over the subsequent decades, a lack of re -investment and maintenance led to further deterioration in the condition of the apartments, which then became vulnerable to criminal activity. The Iowa City Housing Authority cancelled all contracts (48 in all) and ended Housing Choice Vouch- er use with Dolphin Lake Point Enclave in October 2012 due to health, safety, and management is- sues. While the property suffered from poor maintenance, the need for low-income housing in the metro area is so high that units remained occupied despite their condition. The situation has result- ed in a concentration of poverty that has implications for the community as a whole as well as the school district. In Spring 2015, the property sold to a new management company with plans to upgrade the units, however the scope of rehabilitating and/or redevelopment of 400 units remains complex. The City continues its stepped-up code enforcement, but it will take time, attention, and extensive resources to turn the situation around. Meanwhile, with a limited supply of low-income housing in the metro area, many residents have limited options for finding replacement housing. Objectives of the plan include enhanced code enforcement and well as increased fines or fees as well as coordination of efforts with the Iowa City Police and Fire Departments to identify building issues. The plan also supports rehabilitation or redevelopment of problem properties. Iowa City's Housing Inspection Division is working proactively with many landlords to ensure effective manage- ment of rental properties. Since 2016, these apartments have been successfully upgraded and main- tained as high-quality rental apartments. .and the livin' is easy At Lakeside Apartments 1544. The Lakeside Apartments, recently re- named The Quarters, formerly Rose Oaks , were originally constructed to attract UI students with young families. The above advertisement appeared the Daily Iowan in August, 1967. HOUSING—GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals and objectives for housing were developed from input gathered during the South District Planning process. Achieving these goals may require additional dedication of resources, including staff. Some actions will be implemented by the City. Others will require the effort of landlords, developers, neighborhood associations, community groups, or other agencies. GOAL 1: Improve and maintain existing housing stock in South Iowa City in order to ensure a healthy balance of long-term residents and owner -occupied housing and to bolster neighborhood stability. • Continue to make funds available and increase awareness of existing programs available through the City and other agencies that assist with the purchase or rehabilitation of homes. • Work with the neighborhood associations and manufactured housing parks in South Iowa City to raise awareness of housing rehabilitation programs. • Identify funds or incentive programs make "green" improvements that conserve water and energy, thereby reducing the long-term costs of owning a home. EXAMPLES: Explore cooperative efforts with MidAmerican Energy. Promote benefits of efficiency upgrades, such as door and window improvements, HVAC, insulation, etc. Investigate opportunities to become a Green Iowa AmeriCorps site. • Support and promote programs or workshops for new or first-time homeowners to teach basic home repair and maintenance skills. 19 Iowa City's Housing Rehabilitation Programs provide fi- nancial assistance to help homeowners maintain and update residential property and ultimately contributes to the value of Iowa City's housing stock. CDBG & HOME Housing Rehabilitation Programs and the Targeted Neighborhood Improvement Program provide financial assistance to low- and moderate -income home- owners to make repairs and improvements to their homes. The programs primarily provide low-interest or no -interest loans and/or conditional occupancy loans, de- pending on the homeowner's ability to make monthly payments on the loans. The General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program GOAL 2: Encourage professional management and long-term maintenance and investment in all (GRIP) is offered as a complement to the federally funded rental properties for the general safety and welfare of tenants and to preserve property values CDBG/HOME programs without the same level of income targeting. GRIP is designed to stabilize and revitalize and promote neighborhood stability in South Iowa City. neighborhoods through the broader application of Hous • Encourage the improvement or redevelopment of substandard rental properties. ing Rehabilitation and Historic Preservation programs. • Continue to enhance code enforcement to achieve compliance with rental and building regulations This program allows the City to offer low-interest loans that are repayable over a 20 -year period, with the money for properties that receive a high number of complaints. awarded to qualified homeowners on a first-come, first- • Continue to coordinate communication between the ICPD, Neighborhood Services, and non -profits served basis. or neighborhood organizations to identify and address safety and health issues in rental properties. • Consider opportunities to recognize good property management within South Iowa City. GOAL 3: Provide a diversity of housing in the South District, including a range of housing types, densities, and price points, to help improve equity and sustainability . • Adopt a form -based code for the South District that encourages a diversity of housing types, densi- ties, and price points. 20 Participants in the planning workshop pointed to the develop- ment along Scott Boulevard and Old Towne Village Neighbor- hood in Northeast Iowa City as a good example of a new neigh- borhood with an attractive mix of housing. Townhomes face the arterial street and commercial area, transitioning to duplex and detached single-family homes in the interior of the neigh- borhood. Quality building and site design, and ample open space and landscaping help to make the higher density devel- opment an attractive entrance to the area. New Residential Development The South District contains more than 1,500 acres of undeveloped land within the City's growth area, which extends as far south as the wastewater treatment facility. Much of the undeveloped land remains in agricultural production (corn and soybeans). An important goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to manage urban growth by encouraging compact and connected neighborhoods. Compact development preserves farmland and sensitive environmental areas for future generations and saves taxpayer money by reducing transportation and infrastructure costs and allowing efficient provision of snow removal, solid waste and recycling pick-up, transit service, fire and police protection, and mail and other delivery services. The goal of compact neighborhood design is to create village -like neighborhoods with housing for a diverse population, a mix of land uses, public space that is the focal point for the neighborhood, integrated civic or small commercial centers, accessible open space, and streets that are pleasant and safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. New South District neighborhoods should be built at a density and designed with a level of connec- tivity that enables families with children to walk to school and supports the extension of transit service. Trail sections should occur with development in order to provide connections between neighborhoods, new and old, to the many parks in South Iowa City and to provide convenient com- muter routes for those who wish to bike to school, work, or to the Downtown. While the predominant land use in South Iowa City's new neighborhoods will remain detached, single-family housing, new neighborhoods should provide opportunities for townhomes, duplexes, and accessory apartments, as well as multi -family buildings in order to serve residents throughout their lifetimes. Integrating a variety of housing types that are compatible in scale throughout a neighborhood is ideal. For example, single-family homes on lots interior to a block with duplexes and attached single-family homes on corner lots creates a mix that remains similar in scale while providing a range of unit sizes and price points within a neighborhood. House -scale multi -family buildings may also appropriately fit the scale of the neighborhood. Along busier street frontages, around neighborhood nodes, or where single -loaded streets border public open space, "Middle Housing"* types such as townhouses, small apartment buildings (3-10 units), or cottage or bungalow courts may be built at a scale and mix that is compatible with the single-family neighborhoods. The additional density achieved through this mix can improve feasibil- ity for transit service and enhance market potential for commercial uses in the district, including the small-scale neighborhood commercial corners identified in the plan. 1 ! „°° , i' ; 1 !ll allR!1 1 11 !1 !I !� AO la DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY' HOMES r a \ DUPLEX TRIPLEX APARTMENT NGALOW GOUi4T �ouiRPl. x {"111DDLE-14U51N — — ~ — r'{ISSINCs till- 3'3131 ,_l�ls11lZ L ri➢31 1➢➢71 e__l a- n g� MID -RISE muLTIPL.Eac UVE/WOlRK TOWNI-4dUSF Getting the mix, scale, and parking placement right is essential to integrating a variety of residential types into a neighborhood. Buildings should be designed to be similar in scale (width, depth, height) to single-family homes. Unit sizes may need to be smaller, but should be designed with similar atten- tion to detail and quality construction. Parking should be located to the rear with access from alleys, private rear lanes, or similar shared drive solutions where possible. Concentrations of one housing type in any one area should be avoided as this may create an obstacle to connectivity and can upset the balance of long- and short-term residents. Though the Middle Housing concept may currently be achieved through the planned development process, the City should consider a form -based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved. For this reason, the City is working to apply form -based standards for greenfield sites in the area. Higher density Middle Housing types must be thoughtfully designed so that they maintain an attrac- tive residential character along streets and provide safe and inviting living environments for the resi- dents. Landscaped front yards or courtyards with parking in the rear will provide a boulevard or park -like setting along streets with uninterrupted sidewalks that encourage walking and biking. Multi -family developments of a higher density should be considered along major streets, such as McCollister Avenue, near neighborhood nodes, and along single -loaded streets overlooking open space. Gilbert Street may also be an opportunity for proposals that provide a unique housing option in South Iowa City, such as senior housing. Proposals should be of exceptional design and construc- tion quality, meet universal design standards, and high energy efficiency standards, including alter- native energy or siting for geothermal or passive solar. The community's substantial investment in Terry Trueblood Recreation Area as a regional park should result in a sensitive transition between the man-made and natural environment with appropriate building and site design. Misse-GMiddle.Housiveom o powered by Opticos De Mugu -alio -14D ] 15 Opticos Design, Inc 0191C.05 *"Missing Middle" is a term coined by Daniel Parolek of Opticos Design, Inc., in 2010 to define a range of multi- unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that help meet the growing de- mand for walkable urban living. These include duplexes, townhouses, triplexes and fourplexes, courtyard apart- ments, bungalow courts, and small apartment buildings 15 10 units). To learn more about "missing middle" housing, see http://missingmiddlehousing.com. 21 22 The following areas may be candidates for clus- tered density: • West of the Pepperwood Subdivision, wooded slopes make traditional develop- ment impractical. In this area, the 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre envisioned on the land use map on page 58 could be clus- tered through an overlay planned develop- ment. Such development would rely on an extension of Cherry Street, which will pro- vide improved connectivity and circulation for the single-family neighborhood to the east by allowing residents more direct street access to South Gilbert Street. • Areas south of Lehman Road and east of Pleasant Valley Golf Course fall within 1,000 feet of the Wastewater Plant, an area in which the Iowa Department of Nat- ural Resources recommends careful scruti- ny of residential development. As a result, a buffer adjacent to the wastewater treat- ment plan is appropriate, and residential units in this area should take its proximity into consideration prior to developmentRc ductions f development p tcntial on these properties might bc ameliorated by allowing thc 2 t 8 dwelling units per acre envisioned in thc land use map to bc clus tercd along Lehman Road r for density to be transferred to nearby properties. A lim itcd number of multi family buildings may be considered near the Sycamore "L" and at thc intersection of Lehman and Socccr Park Roads. Any larger multi -family buildings should be integrated into the neighborhood by extending the es- tablished street pattern and block size of surrounding residential development. Careful attention should be given to site design, landscaping, and parking location as well as opportunities for usable private open space. This will assure that higher density housing does not diminish connectivity or detract from the overall quality of the neighborhood. Building and site designs should be evaluated to ensure that they provide optimal safety while supporting social contact among residents. (See Designing for Safety guidelines on page 16.) Universal design should be encouraged in most housing types to maximize opportunities not only for people with disabilities but to allow people to age in place. Opportunities for increased additional density: Property located along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the railroad, may be appropriate for town - home or other small lot or duplex development. Multi -family units may be considered throughout the area with denser housing located along major travel corridors, such as on property directly adjacent to the intersections of Gilbert Street, a d -McCollister Boulevard, and Gilbert and Sycamore Street (future Lehman), or near neighborhood nodes as shown on the future land use maps (p. 60). Sites near the McCollister intersection may be attractive for senior housing with views of surrounding open space (Sand Prairie and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area) and access to the trail network and transit routes. Addition- al density may be especially appropriate considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity and sustainability of the neighborhood, including developments that improve connectivity within the neigh- borhood or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. As noted elsewhere in the plan, property on the east side of Gilbert Street that formerly served as a sand dredging pond has recently been filled with excavated material. Before development can occur on this site, the City will require a geotechnical analysis. If the soil is found to be suitable for development, high- er density development should be considered along Gilbert Street, transitioning from multi -family at the arterial street intersections, to townhomes and/or duplexes, to predominantly detached single-family at the core of the neighborhood. Properties located around the intersection of McCollister Boulevard and South Sycamore Street may also be appropriate for higher density development. A mix of missing middle housing types such as town- houses, triplexes, fourplexes, and e-cottage/bungalow courts may be considered along both sides of the arterial streets near this intersection. Small apartment buildings (5 to 10 units), live -work units, and low - scale mixed-use buildings may be integrated with the small main street, mixed-use corner identified on the plan maps. Density should step down, transitioning from commercial uses to multi -family to town - home or duplex toward the interior of the neighborhood where detached single-family housing will pre- dominate. Sand Prairie Neighborhood Neip OLE3Fiti. iARK • WETH ERBY PARK SCHOOL SAND PRAIRIE PARK PUBLIC WORKSSITE Neighborhood North Greeny Neighborhood FAIIEADO WS PARK MCCOLLISTER BOULEVAJID _ TERRY TRUEBLOO D RECREATION AREA Alexander \Neighborhood South Greenway ighborhood D i Low to Medium Density Residential ■ Low to Medium Mixed Residential ■ Multi -family ■ Commercial ▪ Mixed Use ■ Public Park/Open Space ■ Private Open Space ■ School ■ Other Public Property -- Trail/Wide sidewalk ▪ Trunk Sewer Line SCHOOL FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIO PLEASANT VALLEY GOLF COURSE One scenario of the future development in the South District is shown in the future land use maps on pages 60-61Thc future Neighborhood Scenario offcrs an example of one possible way that ncw neighborhoods could develop in an arca immediately around the ncw Archibald Alexander Elementary SchooL The purpose of these maps this exercise is not to prescribe a precise layout and mix of uses that are required for future development or to preclude development in other areas of the district. Rather, the scenario is meant to demonstrate how, based on topography and existing features (easements, major roads, and established trail or street connections) the area could develop in accord with Iowa City's subdivision regulations and zoning code, including any new form -based code standards, and the goals for walkability and sense of place included in this district plan. The mapscccnario illustrates a potential street network and a mix of housing types, locations of parks, open space, and trails, as well as commercial or mixed use areas. As development occurs, each subdivision will contribute to the overall quality and sustainability of the entire district by enhancing walkability and connectivity. Preserving opportunities'' for a -small neighborhood commercial or mixed use de- velopment, including at the intersection of McCollister Boulevard and Sycamore Street may helps create a -community anchors for the surrounding neighborhoods. } • SYCAMORE GREENWAY This Neighborhood Scenario illustrates a con cept for maximizing connectivity to allow gr at cr access to neighborhood assets such as parks, trails, and schools. Residential ar as provide an attractive and vibrant mix of well designed housing types and densities. The neighborhood concept is anchored by a small, mixcd use com mcrcial area. 23 24 WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL PLACE? Great public spaces are where cele- brations are held, social and eco- nomic exchanges take place, friends run into each other, and cultures mix. They are the "front porches" of our public institu- tions—libraries, parks, houses, neighborhood schools—where we interact with each other and the government. When the spaces work well, they serve as a stage for our public lives. (From the Project for Public Spaces. http:// www.pps.org/reference/ grplacefeat.) WHAT MAKES A GREAT PLACE? tk,4 KEY ATTRIBUTES • INTANGIBLES MEASUREMENTS P PROJEGTFOR PUBLIC mi. SPACES 4L tuber bF womek, rihildrex & elderly sheet 1i•Pe eveNiuy use vnl unteerisw wade splits 1 � 0 L11,70 diverse si-ewardlsiAlp COoperai-ive neiok loorly wel covwiPo praxi�ii-y connec- 4 walkable cevve accessible }•ra+t5i}• l.usmge 5oci4Nbil ity local busi+tess owhersinip 10614 -use a['�ive dun Uses & 04d -iv -pH es PLACE Access Sr 1_iAkm,ges pedesi-rioat o�cFiviiy Costs -Pori- Jr IwtaiS€ properly vaslues viral special real - retail sogles c-riwe sta+isfics potrlti+t� usage pa<t#ems d'4-,' Neighborhood Quality When asked what they like best about living in South Iowa City, participants in the planning work- shop and on-line survey most frequently noted convenience, affordability, access to open space and trails, and the diversity of its population and neighborhoods. While work, shopping, and schools (kindergarten through 12th grade) are just a short car trip away for most residents of the district, South Iowa City's neighborhoods feel like a retreat from the hustle and bustle of life in areas closer to the Downtown and University Campus. Respondents frequently used adjectives such as quiet, green, and family -friendly to describe their neighborhoods. However, the broader public perception of South Iowa City is something altogether different. Resi- dents point to media reports, real estate agents, and public debates over school district boundaries and affordable housing as frequently perpetuating a misperception about what life is like in this part of the community. Through a variety of surveys, interviews, and focus groups, the Broadway Neigh- borhood Center has engaged residents in identifying the particular challenges and opportunities that exist in South Iowa City, especially for renters and low-income or minority residents. The results of their efforts, along with the planning process undertaken for this district planning update, coalesce around three priorities: • Fostering a stronger sense of community—one that embraces renters and other residents who are new to the community. • Expanding organized activities for the high population of youth and children, including mentor- ing for low-income and minority teens. • Projecting a positive image of South Iowa City reflective of its many assets, especially its many environmental features. The opening of Archibald Alexander Elementary is widely regarded as a pivotal event for achieving all of these goals. The school and the development anticipated around it provide a catalyst for trans- forming the image of South Iowa City and strengthening the sense of community for those who live here. Also, reducing the strain on Grant Wood, which the Iowa City Community School District con- siders overcrowded, will help make the existing neighborhood more attractive to families with school-age children. The density of single-family development and a well-connected street system that surrounds Grant Wood Elementary make it one of the most walkable neighborhood schools in the entire school district. WHAT RESIDENTS LIKE ABOUT SOUTH IOWA CITY: "Near enough to get whatever I need, but far enough away to enjoy my life." "Diverse, affordable, close to schools." "Natural landscapes, close to downtown, quiet." "I like the mix of residents—age, ethnicity, income, education, homeowners, renters, singles, couples, families." "Near several parks and close enough to downtown to commute by bus, bike, or walking." "Lots of families. Friendly, inclusive attitude." 25 26 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY—GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals and objectives for neighborhood quality were developed from input gathered during the South District planning process. Achieving these goals will require a cooperative effort. Some actions may be implemented by the City, however many are more appropriately initiated by residents, neighborhood associations, community groups, schools, businesses, or other stakehold- ers in South Iowa City. GOAL 1: Foster a strong and inclusive sense of community in South Iowa City neighborhoods. A. Create or support opportunities for residents and neighbors to get to know each other. • Continue support for block parties, "Party in the Park" events, and other neighborhood gath- erings—movies, music, art, etc. • Support Blue Zones efforts to get people active by hosting regular walking and biking events on the South District trails. Encourage the establishment of festivals or other special events that celebrate the unique qualities of South Iowa City, including its cultural diversity. For ex- ample: commercial areas could encourage social activity by hosting special events—farmers markets, food truck night, live music, dance, roller derby, etc. • Support special events that reintroduce the larger community to South Iowa City. For exam- ple: encourage nonprofits to host run, walk, and bike events on South Iowa City's trails. B. Reinforce a shared experience of place. • Identify areas within the district that can be enhanced with public art, community gardens, improved bus stops, lighting, or other features that encourage social gathering or interaction. • Reinforce local identity through the consistent use of identifiable visual elements in street signs, bus stops, kiosks, streetscape improvements, banners, etc. • Establish an inventory of names that reflect the unique history and geography of South Iowa City to be used for future street and place names (e.g. park or trail names) within the district. • Consider using mailbox clusters as space for neighborly interaction, working with developers to include trail maps, bulletin boards, seating, plantings or other features that encourage neighbors to get to know one another. (This may involve PIN grants.) Locate mailbox clusters in areas that are appropriate and welcoming for neighbors to linger (e.g. pocket parks or ad- jacent to private open space or trails). C. Welcome new residents and help orient them to their new community. Such an effort should involve a broad collaboration of neighborhood groups, businesses, realtors, and developers. • Consider updating the Newcomer's Guide on the City's website, and actively promote the site as one -stop -shopping for new residents, including links to neighborhood groups and pro- gramming. • Continue to improve outreach to minorities and non-English speaking residents to encourage their active participation in neighborhood events and awareness of City programs and pro- cesses. This may require translation services. D. Encourage and support residents, neighborhood organizations, and business and property owners to advocate for the continued improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. • Provide open and proactive communication between the City and Southside neighbors through the timely dissemination of information on grant opportunities, capital improve- ments, development proposals, and zoning applications. • Continue support for Neighborhood Outreach as an essential resource for neighborhood in- formation and organization efforts. • Continue support for community policing and encourage bike and foot patrols to make police officers a friendly and visible part of the neighborhood. E. Create and sustain vibrant social gathering spaces. • Explore the potential for a community center as an anchor for neighborhood activity/identity. This will likely require partnerships (and fundraising) between organizations that have a need for expanded facilities—local non -profits, Bike Library, local foods organizations, arts organi- zations, etc. • Consider opportunities for community use of the resource center and gymnasium space at Grant Wood Elementary and the expanded gym at Archibald Alexander. • Explore opportunities for a satellite library or other services or programming. 27 Participants at the South District planning work- shop were invited to suggest a tagline or motto to convey a true sense of what makes living in South Iowa City great. One group came up with the phrase "Start here, stay here" to express the many opportunities that exist in South Iowa City for people of all ages, especially young families. 28 Photo: Anne Duggan Youth Off -Road Riders is a program focused on competi- tive and recreational cycling sponsored by the Neighbor- hood Centers of Johnson County. Photo from Diversity Focus Youth Performance Arts Academy is sponsored by The Dream Center. Nonprofit organizations like the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, The Dream Center, and The Spot are providing unique opportunities for children and youth in South Iowa City, including training, tutoring, mentorship, and recreational programs. F. Promote community stewardship and investment by engaging residents in improving their neighborhood. • Encourage annual volunteer events to bring neighbors together—park improvement events, street or yard clean-ups, recycling days, neighborhood garage sale or swap events, etc. • Engage neighborhood groups in planning for the improvement of the south portion of Wetherby Park as development surrounds the park. Design this process as an opportunity to strengthen community connection. • Involve youth groups in planning for and undertaking improvements and advocacy efforts in the district. For example: trail/park clean-ups, tree planting, public art, special event organiz- ing, community gardens. GOAL 2. Expand opportunities for children and youth in South Iowa City. A. Support the establishment of quality, affordable daycare and preschool in South Iowa City. • Encourage childcare services as development and redevelopment occurs in both commercial and residential zones, especially in areas near Grant Wood and Archibald Alexander Elemen- tary Schools. • Consider incentives to attract daycare to the area identified for future neighborhood com- mercial and promote availability of daycare as an asset to attract new families to the district. B. Continue support for before- and after-school programming at Grant Wood and Archibald Alexander and elementary and summer programming at Southside parks and schools. C. Support efforts to address the needs of children and youth in South Iowa City. • Identify and address obstacles to participation in existing programs . • Identify potential funding sources—public and private—to expand programming or support participation among area youth. • Pursue partnerships and scholarships with existing arts, athletic, and other community pro- grams to ensure that children can participate in extracurricular activities. • Explore feasibility of a Youth Corps program to engage young people, especially low-income and minority youth, in neighborhood improvement, skill training, etc. For example: a Youth Green Corps could assist with programs focused on improving the district and create oppor- tunities for young people to meet, learn from, and complete projects for various City divi- sions as well as neighborhood groups and businesses. GOAL 3. Focus on South Iowa City as a sustainable district by promoting its many advantages: housing affordability and choice, access to work and recreation, cultural diversity, neighborhood connectivity and walkability, alternative transportation, and environmental conservation. A. Acknowledge and promote the environmental, social, and economic benefits of walkability for South Iowa City. • Support the principles of compact, walkable development in all new neighborhoods. • Actively plan for bus service expansion, ensuring a density of development that will sup- port extension of bus routes along major arterials. • Extend the Highway 6 trail system and create better pedestrian connections to commer- cial and industrial properties along both sides of the highway. • Complete the circuit of trails that connect South Iowa City's parks and neighborhoods as development occurs. • Ensure that future commercial nodes located south of Highway 6 are pedestrian- and bi- cycle -friendly and enhance opportunities for extension of public transit. B: Accentuate South Iowa City's connection to the environment and outdoor recreation. • Incorporate trees and other landscaping features along major rights-of-way as part of in- frastructure improvement projects. • Provide distinctive landscaping, including low -maintenance native plantings at major en- trances to South Iowa City and at intersections of arterial streets. • Consider unique signage, public art, and other amenities such as bus shelters, seating, and wayfinding along major rights-of-way. • Collaborate with developers and realtors in promoting South Iowa City's environmental and recreational assets. C. Maximize resource conservation in South Iowa City. • Consider recycling receptacles at public parks and other public facilities, especially high - use areas such as Terry Trueblood Recreation Area and Kickers Soccer Park. • Offer incentives or assistance for planning "no -waste" events that make use of recyclable/ compostable materials. • Encourage all City -sponsored events in the district to maximize use of recycling and local purchasing. WHAT'S IN A NAME? "Place names are also symbols to which people attach meaning and from which they draw identity... They are one of the most fun- damental ways in which people connect with places."—Derek Alderman "Place Names. " The Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Sage Publications (2006) A list of potential street names for South Iowa City: Geologic: Sperry, Garwin, Walford, Zook, Colo, Ely, Ackmore, Houghton, Elvira, Loess, Lake Calvin, Dune, Swale Birds: Dowitcher, Sandpiper, Avocet, Pelican, Plover, Scaup, Grebe, Merganser, Teal, Bittern Other animals: Bullfrog, Peeper, Chorus Frog, Sandshell, Heelsplitter, Papershell, Slider, Box Turtle, Painted Turtle Plants: Puccoon, Penstemmon, Vervain, Trefoil, Switchgrass, Bluestem, Lobelia, Sedge, Anemo- ne, Wild Iris, Arrowwood, Buttonbush Environmentalists: Ding Darling, Leopold, Car- son, Pammel, Hayden, Madson, MacBride, Rhodes, Seiberling Mesquakie names: Wacochachi, Poweshiek, Bear, Fox, Thunder, Wolf Historic: Trading House, Ripple, Trowbridge, Morford, Felkner, Sanders, Howard, McNeil 29 30 Yellow Velo is a concession stand and bike rental that operates in City Park during the summer as part of the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County's youth em- ployment program. The program provides employment and job skill training for neighborhood youth to sell sim- ple, healthy food (much of it locally produced). A similar program might be considered for a park in South Iowa City. In the City of Literature, access to reading materials is a priority—one that the Antelope Lending Library takes seriously. The mobile library was founded (and driven) by Cassandra Elton, a graduate student in library science who works at Grant Wood Elementary's after-school pro- gram. For many families, getting to the library downtown is difficult, so Antelope Library brings the books to them, providing service at area parks in South Iowa City and other neighborhoods. • Promote energy and water conservation features of new development. Identify buildings or sites that could benefit from solar arrays, reflective rooftops, and other energy/ conservation upgrades such as new windows, lighting, entryway improvements, plug-in stations, and improved bike, pedestrian, and bus facilities. • Recognize private sector investment in energy conservation efforts. D. Initiate a multi-year effort to draw visitors to South Iowa City focusing on area parks, trails, and environmental areas. • Partner with organizations to host seasonal park -to -park bike or running events showcas- ing the Iowa River Corridor Trail. • Maximize use of Kickers Soccer Park, including tournaments, club and recreational soccer, ultimate Frisbee, etc. • As part of Blue Zones efforts, organize walking clubs at Terry Trueblood Recreation Area for targeted demographics—senior walk days, mommy meet -ups, etc. • Promote events that focus on South Iowa City's environmental assets, such as bird watch- ing, fishing, prairie restoration, etc. F. Incorporate local foods, art, and culture as part of revitalization efforts. • Extend the City of Literature and other arts programming to South Iowa City. • Support efforts to celebrate South Iowa City's unique cultural diversity. • Consider affordable or under\utilized sites for potential indoor or outdoor facilities for arts and cultural programming or local food production or distribution, and encourage partnerships between such programs to enhance funding opportunities and shared re- sources. Parks, Trails, and Open Space Open space is, perhaps, the defining feature of the South Planning District, which has nearly 380 acres of public land, including eight parks—more than any other planning district in the city. An addi- tional 200 acres of wetlands are preserved in a private conservation area just south of the Saddle - brook development in the far eastern portion of the planning district. South Iowa City is also home to Friendly Farm—Johnson County's only urban organic farm—and Pleasant Valley Golf Course. Community members, neighborhood groups, nonprofits, and athletic organizations have participat- ed in shaping and improving South Iowa City's parks and trails—including advocating for preserva- tion of environmentally sensitive areas, fundraising for improvements, designing new features, and sponsoring programming. Many participants in the on-line survey and planning workshop noted that ready access to parks, trails, and unique natural features is what drew them to the area. Existing Parks Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: Developed on the site of a former sand dredging pond just east of the Iowa River, Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA) is one of Johnson County's premier nature areas, a birding "hotspot," and the crown jewel of South Iowa City's "emerald necklace" of parks. The idea for developing the former sand dredging pond as park was a goal included in the 1997 South District Plan. The 207 -acre recreation park, which opened in 2013, encompasses a 95 -acre lake that includes a beach, fishing jetties, and boat ramps. In addition to operating a concession stand, a private vendor provides canoe, kayak, and paddleboard rental during warm weather and ice skate rental during the winter. The Park Lodge has become a popular venue for weddings, parties, and other events and meetings. The two-mile bike/pedestrian trail that circles the lake links to the Iowa River Trail, providing a safe and pleasant off-road commute to the UI campus and Riverfront Crossings District. With the purchase of riverfront land to the west of the lake, there are plans to add camp sites and related facilities in the future. 31 Photo by Cyndi Ambrose Open space and access to unique natural areas are two defining characteristics of South Iowa City. Above, a sunset view of fishing at the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. 32 A view of the pond at Sand Prairie. Kickers Soccer Park draws hundreds of players from throughout eastern Iowa to south Iowa City during the play- ing season. Both recreational and club leagues use the site. Sand Prairie Park: A remnant of a very rare type of prairie, Sand Prairie Park provides and attractive entrance to the residential neighborhoods south of the Crandic Railroad, and affords impressive sunset views over the Iowa River. The property was once home to the Ornate Box Turtle, a protect- ed species in the state of Iowa. In anticipation of development that would reduce the area in which turtles could forage for food, more than 50 turtles were relocated to another site by the Iowa De- partment of Natural Resources. Forty-six acres were preserved, thanks to the cooperative effort of neighborhood residents, natural- ists, the Iowa City Parks Department, and Southgate Development. Concerned Citizens for Sand Prai- rie Preservation (CCSPP), a local nonprofit formed to preserve the site, and provided detailed re- search on its ecological significance. Working with Randall Arendt, a nationally renowned conserva- tion landscape architect, Southgate Development designed a residential subdivision that clustered housing in order to preserve the prairie, setting aside 18 acres for permanent open space. The re- maining land was acquired by Iowa Natural Heritage and transferred to City ownership in 2005. Whispering Meadows: Whispering Meadows Wetland Park is a 17 -acre park constructed on property donated to the City by a local development company. The land was previously used for row crops, but was poorly drained and contained 3 wetlands. Geoscience professor Lon Drake worked with the City to develop the park concept. The park was established in 1994 and planted to represent three botanical communities: wetland, wet meadow, and mesic prairie. Beaver are occasional residents of the park, which contains a pond with a boardwalk and a trail. Due to lack of maintenance, many of the plants were lost and the park has been overwhelmed by reed canary grass—an invasive species. Regular maintenance is necessary to ensure the park can function as a wetland and to ensure that it does not become an eyesore for adjacent private property owners. Napoleon Park: Napoleon Park is a 29 -acre softball facility and a trailhead for the Iowa River Corridor Trail. The park was established in 1978 as the home to Iowa City Girls Softball, an affiliate of the Parks and Recreation Department. This nonprofit organization provides recreational softball oppor- tunities for K-12 girls. The park currently provides 8 ball fields as well as restrooms and a concession stand. Kickers Soccer Park: Located on the south edge of the district adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Kickers Soccer Park is a 108 -acre sports complex with 20 soccer pitches in addition to 2 base- ball fields. The park was established on land that was acquired for the wastewater plant and uses graywater to irrigate fields. It is home to the Iowa City Kickers recreational league, a nonprofit or- ganization that provides soccer opportunities for youth (k -12th grade) in Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and surrounding communities. The park is connected to neighborhoods to the north by the Sycamore Greenway Trail. Fairmeadows Park: This 5 -acre neighborhood park serving the Grant Wood neighborhood, was es- tablished in 1966 on property adjacent to Grant Wood Elementary School. In many ways, the park and school playground function together, serving both the school and the neighborhood. The park includes a splash pad, playground, open playing field, picnic shelter, and restrooms. In 2014 the Public Art Program commissioned a mural at the park. Given its location near the school and high- density multi -family housing, the park serves as much-needed play space for many neighborhood children. The lack of supervision at the park has sometimes created a nuisance for neighbors, but the splash pad has provided a much-needed neighborhood attraction. Residents would like to see additional improvements at the park, including lighting and soccer nets. Wetherby Park: This 24 -acre neighborhood park was established in 1975. In addition to a splaspad, picnic shelter, bastketball court, playground, playing fields, and Frisbee golf, the park features com- munity garden plots and is the home to Backyard Abundance Edible Forest. The Wetherby Friends Neighborhood Association was instrumental in securing funds for installation of the splashpad and renovation of the picnic shelter. Wetherby now is one of Iowa City's most actively used parks and has helped to foster the sense of community that residents seek. However, limited street access creates a barrier for park users. Street access is important for visibility—that's how people know a park is there. It also allows such a large park to be more actively supervised, used, and maintained by both the City and neighborhood. While the north end of the park is developed for active uses, the south end is isolated and offers few features. Additional vehicle parking and pedestrian access along with improvements to the south end of the park should occur with residential development. Opportunities to expand street visibility should be explored. Sycamore Greenway: Though not technically part of the Iowa City park system, the Sycamore Greenway is an important public open space feature of the district. The corridor functions as a stormwater detention and filtration area that reduces flooding and improves water quality for the Iowa River (see page 9). The wetlands are home to a diverse population of woodland, prairie, and riparian species and are a birding hotspot. The 2.2 -mile South Sycamore Greenway Trail is an- chored at the north by Grant Wood Elementary and Kickers Soccer Park to the south. 33 WETHERBY PARK Wetherby Park is a major neighborhood attraction, but with street access limited to Taylor Drive, the park lacks visibility and accessibility for both vehicles and pedestrians. Opportu- nities for additional access points, including active street frontage, should be explored to improve overall awareness of the park and to help foster a sense of ownership by the broader neighborhood. Splash pads at Fairmeadows and Wetherby Parks are a sum- mertime attraction to South Iowa City neighborhoods. [photo courtesy the Daily Iowan] 34 Workshop participants envisioned unique signage to help solidify the image of South Iowa City as a green district and a sort of playground for the community based on its access to parks, open space and trails. The north trailhead for the Sycamore Greenway is en- hanced with two artistic pillars that call attention to and celebrate the trail and the cultural diversity of the Grant Wood Neighborhood. The public art project was jointly sponsored by the Iowa City Public Art Program, Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, and City High School. A vision for the future Broader community awareness of the parks and natural areas in the district could help to improve the image of South Iowa City. One suggestion that received popular support in the public workshop was the idea of promoting South Iowa City as a "green" district. This effort could be extended be- yond park boundaries to include wayfinding and aesthetic enhancements (e.g. trees and landscap- ing) along major street corridors (Highway 6, McCollister Boulevard, South Gilbert and Sycamore Street) or at identified "gateways" to South Iowa City. Participants in the planning workshop envi- sion unique signage, bus stops, bicycle parking, trash and recycling receptacles, and public art to help to solidify this green image as part of a South Iowa City brand. While residents are supportive of new neighborhood development, they want developers to take a sensitive approach to subdivision design—one that improves connectivity and preserves natural features and a sense of open space. This includes providing logical connections to trails and visible access to parks; preserving and integrating unique environmental features as central components in new subdivisions (as was done with the Sand Prairie Preserve); and ensuring long-term mainte- nance and health of private open space, a responsibility that ultimately falls to homeowners' asso- ciations, by educating new homebuyers about the function and value of shared open space. Creating small pocket parks (1 acre or less) allows residential neighborhoods to develop with a healthy density while providing opportunities for the kind of social connection that fosters a sense of community. Providing visible access to public parks and open space, including single -loaded streets or well-designed pedestrian routes, helps to ensure that parks benefit the entire neighbor- hood and can have safety benefits as well. Volunteer projects and educational outreach are seen as useful ways to connect residents to envi- ronmental and other outdoor resources in the district and to encourage a sense of stewardship for communal spaces. Participants in the planning process strongly support efforts by the Parks De- partment, local organizations, and neighborhood associations to engage the public (especially school-age children) with the natural environment, including South Iowa City's unique geology and natural history. The Parks and Recreation Department Mas- ter Plan (completed in 2009) includes com- munity interest inventory for park and rec- reation facilities and services. Respondents indicated a desire for walking and biking trails (79%), nature center and trails (68%), small neighborhood parks (68%), large community parks (66%), and wildlife and natural areas (64%). The South District is unique among Iowa City's 10 planning dis- tricts in that it provides all of these facili- ties. South District Public Parks 1. Napoleon Park (softball) 2. Sand Prairie Park 3. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area 4. Kickers Soccer Park 5. Sycamore Greenway 6. Whispering Meadows Wetland Park 7. Fairmeadows Park 8. Wetherby Park 35 36 Management of natural areas, such as the Sand Prairie and Sycamore Greenway, require controlled burning. Because the use of fire can raise concerns among neigh- borhood residents, it is important to engage the public with the many benefits of fire as well as the precautions taken to ensure its safe use. The Edible Forest at Wetherby Park is being established through a collaboration between the Parks Department and Backyard Abundance, a nonprofit community group. PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals and objectives were developed from input gathered during the South District planning process. Some actions will be implemented by the City. Others will require the effort of residents, neighborhood associations, community groups, or other agencies or interested parties. Goal 1: Create broad community awareness of South Iowa City's extensive park and trail system and its unique environmental areas. • Support a collaborative partnership between neighborhood organizations, realtors, and other interest groups to build a "brand identity" for South Iowa City based on its parks and natural features—a "green district." [See the Neighborhood Quality section of the plan, page 23.] • Encourage neighborhood associations, property owners, developers, and realtors to promote South Iowa City's green elements and to ensure the long-term maintenance of its parks and open spaces. This could be achieved with signage, brochures, educational outreach, web or other on-line efforts, etc. • Enhance major street corridors and public rights-of-way to build a unified identity for South Iowa City based on its recreational and natural features. For example: trees, native landscaping, unique gateway signs, transit stops, or art reflective of the area's green components. • Choose street, subdivision, and other place names that refer to natural features of the district, such a plants, animals, soils, geologic formations, local environmentalists, etc. • As development around Wetherby Park occurs, encourage subdivision designs that maximize visibility and access to the park. Goal 2. Preserve environmentally sensitive features and ensure long-term stewardship for the benefit of the neighborhood and the community. • Where possible, incorporate environmental features as integral elements of subdivision de- signs. • Encourage developers to collaborate with homeowner or neighborhood associations and real - tors to promote these natural elements as integral features of their development. Goal 3: Plan, create, and improve parks and other open spaces that foster social interaction and a sense of community within the neighborhoods. • Encourage small pocket parks (1 acre or less) in new neighborhoods as they develop, especially in future neighborhoods east of Sycamore Street. • Include a small open space or a plaza in conjunction with neighborhood commercial sites to serve as a community gathering spot. • Encourage usable private open space in association with future multi -family and townhome de- velopments that do not otherwise have direct access to public open space. • Identify opportunities to establish additional community gardens and partner with neighbor- hood groups and nonprofits to ensure appropriate maintenance of these spaces. • Engage the neighborhood in planning for improvements at the south end of Wetherby Park as residential neighborhoods develop along its border, and ensure additional pedestrian and vehi- cle access to the park with appropriate and safe transitions between residential properties and public space. • Consider the feasibility of a small off -leash dog area in South Iowa City. • Explore development potential of the former sand dredging pond on the east side of Gilbert Street. If soil stability is not appropriate for development, consider potential for recreational or community use of the site (e.g. gardens, urban agriculture, outdoor performance space, etc.). Goal 4: Pursue partnerships with neighborhood and community organizations, nonprofits, and schools to promote stewardship and use of existing parks. • Support efforts by local organizations to increase appreciation of South Iowa City's natural fea- tures among residents, including children and youth, through educational and volunteer pro- grams. • Inspire neighborhood/community preservation and stewardship of natural areas by promoting its function as wildlife habitat, stormwater filtration, flood control, etc. Goal 5: Provide appropriate trail links between parks, neighborhoods, and the new school. • Ensure safe access between the new elementary school and surrounding neighborhoods and parks. • Provide a connection between Wetherby Park and Sand Prairie Park. 37 A sand dredging pond located along the east side of Gil- bert Street, near Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, is cur- rently being filled. Future development potential will de- pend on stability of the fill. If it is determined that the site is not suitable for residential uses, the property could be adapted for a park, recreation, or another community use. 38 PLANNED MULTI -USE TRAILS & WIDE SIDWALKS As development continues in the South Dis- trict, the accompanying map will help guide property acquisition for trails that connect with the existing network of trails and other bicycle facilities. Wetherby Park will be at the heart of new development in the area and trail connections to Sand Prairie, Trueblood Recreation Area, and the Sycamore Greenway will provide resi- dents with unique recreational opportunities, access to local natural resources, and indirect- ly encourage physical activity. The Sycamore Greenway could expand into the Kickers Soccer Park to improve access for disabled visitors and provide a loop for walk- ing and biking. Extending connections to the Greenway from Paddock Circle or as wide sidewalks along the future alignment of McCollister Boulevard will also increase use of this resource. Another important addition to the transporta- tion network is the planned trail extension along Highway 6, which will connect residen- tial, commercial, and manufacturing land us- es, allowing residents to walk and bike be- tween these destinations. EADO.VS SAND PRAT J . HiSP ERI NG MEADOWS .■ iL4 ERAND PARK TERRY TRU ERLOCO RECREATION AREA PLEASPNT VALLEY GOLF COURSE SYCAMORE GREEMMI KICKERS SOCCER PARK - Wdesidew alk Proposed in ide sidewalk - Off-street paved multi -use trail Proposed off-street trai - streets Streets, Trails, and Sidewalks Arterial Streets Arterial streets are the main travel corridors of the city, the primary function of which is to carry traffic through and between neighborhoods. In general, maintaining efficient automobile traffic flow on arterial streets helps to prevent cut -through traffic on local residential streets. Modern arterial street design is intended to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians as well as motorized vehicles. Trees and other landscaping in the right-of-way, between the sidewalk and the street, provide additional separation, creating a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians and a welcoming entrance into the adjacent neighborhoods. While the design of any specific arterial street is dependent on its context, the basic principles remain the same: provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes, including comfortable and safe environments for pedestrians and bicyclists. The South District is served by four arterial streets: U.S. Highway 6, McCollister Boulevard, South Gilbert Street, and South Sycamore Street. Due to a lack of connectivity within the local street system, South Iowa City's arterial streets have taken on a heightened role as travel corridors for all modes of transportation. U.S. Highway 6, a divided four -lane roadway, crosses the entire Planning District, forming its northern boundary. As a federal highway, it functions as a regional vehicular corridor connecting surrounding communities. Because it is the sole east -west travel route for South Iowa City, High- way 6 is an integral connection between residential neighborhoods and commercial and employ- ment areas. Many residents of south -side neighborhoods rely on the highway for their daily trips, even within the district. Much of South Iowa City's identity, for better or worse, is tied to the highway. Its significance—both as a connection and a barrier—should not be overlooked. Though it provides a convenient and efficient corridor for automobiles moving across the dis- trict, Highway 6 was originally designed and constructed as a federal highway with few accom- modations for non -motorists. Commercial and industrial properties along the corridor are orien- tated toward the highway and have little integration with the local streets that serve the adja- cent neighborhoods. Iowa City constructed a paved trail along the south side of Highway 6, beginning at the Iowa Riv- er (where it branches off from the Iowa River Corridor Trail) and traveling along the commercial corridor, just east of Broadway Street (at Casey's). Extending the trail will provide better connec- tion between neighborhoods at the east end of the district, including manufactured housing " A body without good bones will fall apart. ... Streets are the bones of communities. A community that lacks good streets will suffer in its economy, its social well-being, and its health."—Robert Steuteville, Better Cities, Better Towns (2015) "If there is one class of improvements which is more necessary, which becomes more permanent and unalterable, or which exerts a stronger influence upon the indi- viduality and general physical aspect of the city, than any other, it is the layout of the streets. The street layout deter- mines, in a very large degree, how the people shall live, how they shall travel to and fro, how they shall work and play; it has a direct influence upon the character of the home and its surroundings, upon the safety, comfort and convenience of the people, and upon the efficiency of govern- ment and the public service." —B. Antrim Haldeman (1914) 39 40 The Highway 6 Trail is an important route for pedestrians and bicyclists, providing a route along the highway from Gilbert Street east to Taylor Drive and Hollywood Boule- vard. Extension of the trail to the east will require engi- neering to cover the drainage area on the south side of the roadway. McCOIUSTEHIXTENSION (approximate location) The extension of McCollister Boulevard between Gilbert and Sycamore Streets will provide much needed east - west connectivity for residential areas located south of Highway 6. parks and multi -family and commercial areas to the west. It will also extend the reach of the trail network for recreational bicyclists. The trail extension is currently on the unfunded Capital Improve- ments Project (CIP) list. According to the 2010 Census, South Iowa City is home to nearly 1,800 school-age children. Some of the highest densities of children live in the multi -family and manufactured housing developments along the highway corridor and near Pepperwood Plaza. Because the junior and senior high schools and one of the elementary schools that serves the South District are all located north of the highway along with the public library, public recreation centers, and most medical and health services, fami- lies with children often cross the highway on a daily basis. Crossing Highway 6, particularly east of Sycamore Street, can be challenging. East of Fairmeadows Drive/Industrial Park Road, there are no sidewalks or trails to serve the industrial uses along the north side of the highway, which employ many residents of South Iowa City. Without the requisite sidewalk facilities to connect into, there are no pedestrian crossings along this portion of the high- way and limited lighting for those who choose to cross in these areas. For residents, especially those who don't have cars or with limited access to cars, this creates a considerable impediment. Many participants in the planning workshop and online survey asked for safer crossings over Highway 6 to link residents with the rest of Iowa City, especially employment opportunities, shopping, and schools north of the highway. Many called for a pedestrian bridge—an expensive option that requires a sig- nificant amount of space given the flat topography of the area. Others requested longer walk signals to cross the wide roadway. McCollister Boulevard is a planned and much anticipated east -west arterial street that will eventual- ly connect across the South Planning District from the Iowa River east to Heinz Road and then on to Scott Boulevard. An extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard, McCollister Boulevard begins at South Riverside Drive (Old Highway 218), crossing the river into South Iowa City and intersecting South Gil- bert Street before entering into the Sand Hill Estates development where it currently terminates at the city limits. With Highway 6 serving as the only east -west connection across the district, neighborhoods to the east of Wetherby Park and Sycamore Street seem distant from neighborhoods immediately to the west. Neighborhoods east of the Sycamore Greenway are similarly isolated from the larger district, including the new school. An extension of McCollister Boulevard east to Scott Boulevard is essential for providing east -west connectivity and provides an alternative commuter route connecting with Highway 218 and Interstate 380. Work on this extension will likely occur as land is annexed into the city and developed. For many, the visual image of South Iowa City is tied to Highway 6 and its commercial and industrial properties. Residents see the extension of McCollister Boulevard as an important opportunity to draw attention to the diverse and family -friendly neighborhoods that lie south of the highway. Par- ticipants in the workshop and on-line survey expressed a desire for a pleasant arterial street that unifies and connects neighborhoods across the district. Because McCollister Boulevard will pass through the heart of South Iowa City's residential neighborhoods, it should be a welcoming, pedes- trian- and bike -friendly street that is easy to cross and that sets the tone for future development. Buildings on either side of McCollister Boulevard should be oriented toward the street to prevent the corridor from being lined with residential privacy fences. South Sycamore Street is the spine that provides a north -south travel route for neighborhoods east of Wetherby Park. This important roadway enters the northern edge of the district at Highway 6 and continues south before making a 90 -degree turn to the west (the Sycamore "L") where it currently intersects with South Gilbert Street. Along with Gilbert Street it provides connectivity to Riverfront Crossings and Downtown commercial as well as employment areas and schools north of Highway 6. The northern portion of Sycamore Street was originally constructed as a four -lane road and later re - striped to provide a center turn lane as well as shared -lane bicycle markings on both north- and south -bound travel lanes. The reconstruction of the south portion of Sycamore Street will provide an improved connection to Archibald Alexander Elementary School. South of Langenberg, the paved roadway will narrow retaining on -street bike lanes but eliminating the continuous center turn lane. A wide (8 -ft.) sidewalk will be provided on the west side of the road and a 5 -ft. sidewalk on the east. The remaining right-of-way width will be dedicated to wider parkways (14 feet on the east and 24 feet on the west), which will allow space for street trees to be planted one year after road construc- tion. Roundabouts are planned at the future intersection with McCollister Boulevard and where Syc- amore turns west at the "L." Cross section of the South Sycamore St. extension 5ft. 14 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. 6 ft. 24ft. 8ft. 41 Two priorities for South Sycamore Street emerged from the planning process: slowing vehicle speeds and cre- ating a more attractive and welcoming entrance to the neighborhoods. Above: a section of Sycamore near High- way 6, where street trees have been established. Below: Further south on Sycamore, subdivisions with rear or side yards that face the street often result in a street corridor lined with privacy fences. 42 hool—m Driving -only transportation pattern Walkable connected transporation network STREET LAYOUT & WALKABILTY Street layout can increase or reduce the opportunity for children to walk or bicycle to school. In some are- as, the layout of subdivision streets makes routes to school much longer than they need to be—so much so that they become impractical. Neighborhoods developed with long blocks and nu- merous cul-de-sacs become barriers to walking and bicycling to school as they reduce connectivity and increase travel distance between the home and school. Iowa City's current subdivision regulations (adopted in 2008) limit block lengths along local and collector streets typically to 300-600 feet and require each subdivision to contribute to the larger connected street pattern. Sidewalks are required along all streets. Cul-de-sacs are discouraged except in those areas where due to topography or other conditions, a street connection would be impractical. South Gilbert Street provides access to residential neighborhoods west of Wetherby Park, a river crossing at the McCollister Boulevard Bridge, the Napoleon Park softball complex, and the newly developed Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA) before continuing on into the county as Sand Road. Gilbert Street is an important entry and connection between the South District, Downtown Iowa City, and the University's east campus. The City anticipates greater use of the road as develop- ment occurs around the new south elementary school, including subdivisions that connect into McCollister and Gilbert Streets. Reconstruction of South Gilbert Street is planned from Benton Street to Stevens Drive but does not include any improvements to the Highway 6 intersection. How- ever, it is unlikely these plans will be implemented in the near future. Long-term anticipated arterial improvements: 420th Street/Scott Boulevard and McCollister Boulevard intersection: 420th Street east of Highway 6 has been converted from a rural road to a collector street with public utilities, turn lanes, curb -and -gutter, and sidewalks. The new road serves as the main access to the new industrial park east of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. In the future, intersection improvements for the industrial park will take place south of Highway 6 at Scott Boulevard and the McCollister Boulevard extension. South Arterial: A future two-lane, east -west arterial is contemplated within the growth area approx- imately 2 miles south of U.S. Highway 6. The new arterial would become an integral part of the city's major street network, providing a new east -west connection between U.S. 218, Old Highway 218, Sand Road, and Sycamore Street. Local Streets The primary function of local streets is to provide access to individual properties and to facilitate circulation within a neighborhood. Local streets in the northern part of the South District are gener- ally arranged in a curvilinear pattern with longer block lengths and numerous cul-de-sacs. This type of street pattern relies on collector streets that "collect" the traffic from the cul-de-sacs and other local streets in a neighborhood and funnel it to the arterials. This type of street system can result in an inefficient transportation network that overburdens certain streets with traffic, discourages walk- ing and biking, and results in inefficiencies for provision of services such as public transit, garbage collection, snow plowing, mail delivery, and emergency services. Iowa City's subdivision regulations (adopted 2008) help to ensure that future neighborhoods will be designed with better connectivity by establishing a limit on block lengths, discouraging cul-de-sacs, and requiring streets to be extended (stubbed) to the edge of the subdivision. The subdivision regu- lations also require each subdivision to "contribute to the larger interconnected street pattern to ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian routes to neighborhood destinations." This not only ensures that a street pattern established in one subdivision can be readily extended through the next, but that the design of one subdivision does not preclude future subdivisions on adjacent property from developing in an efficient manner such that orientation and configuration of blocks is consistent and complementary between subdivisions. On local streets where the speed and/or volume of traffic becomes excessive, the City's Traffic Calming Program may be implemented. The program uses one or more approaches to reduce speeds or discourage cut -through traffic, including increased police enforcement, improved signage and other driver education techniques, and/or physical changes to the roadway such as speed humps and traffic circles. Streets in the South District that have been identified over the years as possible candidates for traffic calming include Hollywood Boulevard, Lakeside Drive, Langenberg Avenue, Whispering Meadows Drive, and Whispering Prairie Avenue. Some of these neighborhoods have requested a traffic calming study and did not qualify. It is up to the residents along these streets to request that a traffic calming study be conducted by the City. If, based on a traffic study, the subject street is identified as an appropriate candidate for traffic calming, a majority of residents along the street must be in favor of any proposed traffic calming strategies before they will be con- sidered. Complete Streets The City has adopted a new Complete Streets Policy. This means that all new streets as well as im- proved streets will be designed and constructed to accommodate all modes of transportation — cars, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit, and to provide ADA -compliant curb ramps. South District workshop participants were overwhelmingly supportive of the effort to improve streets in the South District to facilitate and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. In 2009, the City of Iowa City partnered with the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County to draft the Metro Bicycle Master Plan, which outlines new strategies to create an accessible and coordinated bike network throughout Iowa City and the larger metropolitan area. The Metro Bicycle Master Plan identifies opportunities for on -street bike routes, including a signed bike route along Sycamore Street and trail improvements along Gilbert Street. To increase awareness and ac- cess to the network, the plan also recommends that way -finding signs be installed on area trails. As mentioned previously, it is an important objective of the South District Plan to provide better way - finding signage along off-street trails and along area streets that are designated as bike routes. There are a number of streets in the South District that were constructed at a time when sidewalks were not required. Unfortunately, this has resulted in gaps in the district's sidewalk network. In ad - Complete Streets are Safe Streets "The City of Iowa City intends and expects to real- ize long-term cost savings in improved public health, reduced fuel consumption, better environ- mental stewardship, and reduced demand for motor vehicle infrastructure through the imple- mentation of its Complete Streets Policy. Com- plete streets also contribute to walkable neigh- borhoods, make the community attractive to new business and employment, create a sense of com- munity pride, and improve quality of life." — from the Iowa City Complete Street Policy (adopted March 23, 2015) 43 "Since school zones are locations frequented by children, making the area safe for children at any time of day is a sound investment for the community."—Safe Routes to School National Partnership 44 PRINCIPLES OF WALKABILITY Proximity to home: How far is it? Is it practical to walk there? SLOW ft - SCHOOL A B A -04 B Physical access & infrastructure: Sidewalks and trails to mark your path along with crosswalks, traffic signals, and lighting to make it safe. Pleasant factor: Separation from cars and traffic, shade trees, things to see along the way ... Places to go: A sensible mix of destinations, such as parks, schools, coffee shops, neigh- borhood activities. dition, residential areas that were developed outside the city limits were not required by the County to construct sidewalks. Due to increasing public demand for a complete sidewalk network, the City Council established a sidewalk infill program, whereby gaps are identified and funds set aside each year to construct missing pieces of the sidewalk network. Priority is given to main pedestrian routes, such as routes to school and along arterial and collector streets. Subdivisions located in the county that are annexed into the city would become eligible for this sidewalk infill program. Improving pedestrian safety is also a priority. The City will continue to work with the school district to identify safe routes to schools. To improve pedestrian safety, marked crosswalks are typically painted at signalized intersections, at official school route crossings, and at other high-volume inter- sections. Public requests for marked crosswalks in other locations are evaluated carefully. While well -designed crosswalks are important to pedestrian safety, marking crosswalks at locations where driv- ers do not expect them or where pedestrian traffic is sporadic can actually reduce pedestrian safety by giving pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing the street. The City evaluates each pro- posed crosswalk to determine if it is warranted and safe. Walkability In general, participants in the on-line survey and community workshop find the South District walka- ble for recreational purposes, and are enthusiastic about the extensive trail system in South Iowa City. However, walking or biking to meet daily needs or for travel can be more challenging due to the lack of street connectivity (especially east to west), requiring heavy reliance on Sycamore Street and Highway 6 by all modes of transportation. Neighborhoods in the west portion of the district and those east of the Sycamore Greenway, includ- ing the manufactured housing parks, can feel isolated or cut off from many destinations within the district, including parks. This can present special challenges for children traveling to school or recrea- tional opportunities within the district as well as those in areas north of Highway 6. The extension of McCollister Boulevard and construction of new trail sections, including an extension of the Highway 6 trail, are seen as essential to creating better physical and social connection throughout the district. Trails Trails are critical components of the South District's transportation network. In addition to providing recreational opportunities, the trails offer low-cost, energy-efficient transportation to schools, em- ployment, and commercial destinations. Notably, the South District offers access to two popular trails in the metro area: the Iowa River Trail and South Sycamore Greenway. The Iowa River Trail and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA) directly link our community to out- door activities and connect Southside residents to the Downtown Business District and University of Iowa campus. The 2.2 -mile South Sycamore Greenway is anchored at the north by Grant Wood Ele- mentary and Kickers Soccer Park to the south. The Greenway functions as a stormwater detention area that reduces run-off into the Iowa River. As areas south of the school are annexed into the city, a trail connection or sidewalk will connect the Greenway to TTRA. Public Transit Public bus transit is a crucial part of the South Iowa City transportation system with more than 500,000 rides annually on routes that serve the area. All south -side routes circulate through the northern portion of the district and provide access to the commercial and industrial areas along Highway 6. They include the Lakeside, Eastside Loop (during school), Mall, Cross Park, and Broadway routes. The Lakeside Route has the highest bus ridership of any route in Iowa City. Residential development around the new elementary school in addition to weekend activity at Kick- ers Soccer Complex and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area may prompt changes to current bus routes. There has long been support for loop routes that do not terminate downtown, but instead provide residents with direct service to major shopping and employment areas. Commercial devel- opment along both sides of the river, along Highways 6 and 1 (e.g. Walmart, Aldi's, Hy -Vee, Pepper - wood Plaza, and Sycamore Mall), could ideally be served as part of loop route. The absence of a grid system creates a challenge for extending service further into the residential neighborhoods and, be- cause there is no east -west connection across the district south of Highway 6 and minimal connec- tivity to areas east of the Greenway, potential bus routes are limited. The extension of McCollister Boulevard will make for an efficient loop route and allow transit to reach more areas in the South District. Participants in the planning process expressed a desire for improved signage and transit information at bus stops, expanded hours of transit service, and service on Sundays. There is also a need for ad- ditional bus shelters in some locations in the South District. Iowa City Transit will be addressing many of these concerns as part of a comprehensive study of its current service. Bus stops are being redesigned and "Bongo" software makes route information and accurate arrival times accessible to the public by computer and smart phone. Wireless service is now available on all buses. BENEFITS OF WALKABILITY Economic • Save money: Transportation is the second largest expense for Ameri- can households. • Make money: 1 walk score point is worth $700-$3,000 in home value. Community Connection • Studies show that for every 10 minutes a per- son spends in a daily car commute, time spent in community activities falls by 10%. • People living in walkable neighborhoods trust neighbors more, participate in community pro- jects, and volunteer more than in non -walkable areas. Health • Men and women age 50 —71 who took a brisk walk nearly every day had a 27% reduced death rate compared to non - exercisers. • The average resident of a walkable neighborhood weighs 6 to 10 pounds less than someone who lives in a car -dependent neighborhood. 45 46 Trees and other landscaping along arterial streets can help buffer neighboring homes from noise and other activity and provide a sense of comfort and safety for pedestrians. Roundabouts offer an opportunity to enhance the ap- pearance and identity of public streets. The above examples are from Holiday Road and 12th Avenue in Coralville. STREETS, TRAILS, SIDEWALKS—GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals and objectives for streets, trails, and sidewalks were formulated with input from participants in the planning workshop and on-line survey. Improvements to rights-of-way, including sidewalks and trails, are the responsibility of the City and developers. GOAL 1: Improve connections between residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial properties on both sides of Highway 6 and explore ways to reduce the barrier effect that this ma- jor traffic corridor has between South Iowa City and areas to the north. These improvements will require funding by Iowa City and/or grant funds, as well as cooperation from the Iowa Depart- ment of Transportation. • Evaluate pedestrian crossings along the length of Highway 6 for safety improvement. • Construct pedestrian facilities that connect to industrial and commercial properties north of Highway 6. • Review pedestrian signal times and explore improved signage, median design/landscaping, and lighting to improve the actual and perceived safety of Highway 6 crossings. • Extend the Highway 6 trail east to Heinz Road to ensure safety for pedestrian and bicycle access across the district • Extend a sidewalk/trail connection along Highway 6 and across the bridge to Riverside Drive. GOAL 2: Prioritize the extension of McCollister Boulevard as an integral element in improving connectivity and access for South Iowa City and to spur the development of a high-quality neigh- borhood surrounding the new school. • The new road should enhance movement between neighborhoods by providing appropriate crossings, including medians or traffic controls where needed. • Design and construct McCollister Boulevard as a welcoming and attractive entrance to the South Iowa City neighborhoods by including trees, landscaping, lighting, public art, or other features that foster a distinct identity for the district. GOAL 3: Enhance safety and aesthetics along arterial streets. • Provide safe and accessible street crossings at key locations, such as entrances to commercial centers, parks, and school sites, and where designated trails cross arterial streets. • Design the extension of South Sycamore Street and McCollister Boulevard to moderate vehicle speeds and maximize safety for children traveling to and from school. Consider the feasibility of on -street parking to slow traffic if a neighborhood commercial area develops. • Where appropriate, include crosswalks, signals, or median islands as well as lighted trail connec- tions. • Enhance aesthetics of arterial streets with trees, landscaping, lighting, public art, or other fea- tures that support housing and subdivision designs oriented toward the street. GOAL 4: Maximize walkability and connectivity in all neighborhoods, especially those east of the Greenway. • Align collector streets along arterial streets to provide for safe crossing of neighborhood bound- ary streets, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Well maintained sidewalks and trails. • Fill in gaps in the sidewalk network and ensure ADA -compliant curb ramps throughout the dis- Clearly marked crosswalks. trict as intersections are improved, including connections to multi -family developments. Good intersection controls where needed. • As residential development extends south toward the school, ensure multiple safe and logical Reduced vehicle speeds. walking routes to the school, including well -marked crosswalks for schools. Separation between sidewalk and street. 47 Physical Infrastructure for Pedestrian Safety • Provide count -down timers at high-volume intersections. • As re -development of commercial areas occurs, work to establish improved street, trail, and sidewalk connections to better integrate shopping centers with surrounding neighborhoods. • Improve lighting along residential streets if needed for safety. Consider lighting along off-street trails, such as at trail head areas or connections to parks in order to enhance safety. • Adopt a form -based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. 48 GOAL 5: Create an accessible and well -coordinated bike network that allows bicyclists to con- nect to schools, parks, and commercial areas. • Construct a wide sidewalk from South Sycamore Street to the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area. • Construct a trail along the trunk sewer easement to connect residential development in Sand Hill Estates to Archibald Alexander Elementary. • Establish a bike trail or on -street route to connect the Sycamore Greenway Trail and Court Hill Trail. • Create unique and easily identifiable signage or other wayfinding methods to help cyclists find bike routes and off-street trails. • Encourage visible and well-designed bike facilities as part of any redevelopment plans in South Iowa City. • Wherever street widths permit, consider establishing or improving on -street bike facilities, such as "sharrows," bike lanes, or bike boulevards. GOAL 6: Improve and expand transit service. • Consider the expansion and diversification of bus routes and stops , including loop service, to connect residential neighborhoods with schools, parks, and recreational opportunities (e.g. Kickers Soccer Complex and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area), and major commercial areas along Highways 1 and 6. • Raise awareness and improve access to transit service by providing well -marked bus stops with posted schedule and route maps. • Consider attractive bus shelters, especially at commercial centers and public parks, and adopt -a -shelter programs with neighborhood organizations and commercial centers to help ensure shelters are well-maintained. Commercial Areas The South Planning District is served by commercial areas located along or near the Highway 6 corri- dor, most notably Pepperwood Plaza and the Waterfront Hy -Vee area. Although it is just outside the South District boundaries, the Iowa City Marketplace (formerly Sycamore Mall) is commonly considered an important commercial center serving the South District. Pepperwood Plaza and Sycamore Mall once offered a wide variety of retail goods and services. In the late 1990s many of Iowa City's national retailers moved to the Coral Ridge Mall and in 2013 Von Maur department store moved to the River Landing in Coralville. This has left South Iowa City and much of the east side with fewer shopping options, especially children's items, clothing, sporting goods, and housewares. Participants in the on-line survey and community workshop eagerly anticipate redevelopment and improvement of commercial areas within and adjacent to the district. Aesthetic improvements along the Highway 6 and South Gilbert Street commercial corridor, opportunities for local and neighborhood -serving businesses, and improved pedestrian and bike facilities are seen as priorities. The viability of any commercial business—shops, restaurants, and services—depends on the market demand in the area in which the business is located. Population, residential density, and proximity to customers as they commute to and from work are essential for many retail businesses. New resi- dential development around the elementary school and improved connectivity made possible by the extension of McCollister Boulevard have the potential to strengthen the commercial prospects in South Iowa City. While this will take time, efforts to make the area more attractive and to raise the profile of South Iowa City for residential development will also enhance prospects for commercial development. Highway 6 Commercial Corridor As stated above, commercial development in the South District is concentrated along and to the south of Highway 6. While this busy traffic corridor offers the visibility and traffic activity that many businesses desire, competition from new commercial centers and big box or discount stores in other parts of the trade area, along with changes in the retail market due to the rise of on-line shopping have had an impact on large shopping centers, including Pepperwood Plaza. Designed with large buildings set back from the road behind ample parking lots, this sort of shopping center is appropri- ate for large national or regional chain stores. The format is less adaptable for small or unique busi- nesses that are less able to capture the attention of passing motorists. 49 The Highway 6 Urban Renewal Area was estab- lished in 2003 with a goal of strengthening com- mercial activity in existing core areas and neighbor- hood commercial centers and discouraging the proliferation of new major commercial areas. The City makes available tax increment financing as a means to help finance the construction of some of the necessary private and/or public infrastruc- ture improvements within the Highway 6 Commer- cial Urban Renewal Area. In addition, the City makes available the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to provide rebates for qualifying businesses or development projects within the Urban Renewal Project Area. This agreement will expire in 2025. Improvements may include stormwater manage- ment facilities, public streets and sidewalks, entry- way enhancements, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and open space improvements. Site improvements may include design and construction of buildings and building additions; grading for building con- struction and amenities; adequate paving and park- ing; adequate landscaping; and on-site utilities. 50 The areas highlighted in yellow indicate vacant commercial properties that front onto South Gilbert or Southgate Ave- nue. Redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District to the north of Highway 6 along with new residential develop- ment in areas to the south of the Crandic Railroad may gener- ate new interest in these properties for commercial uses. While the nature of Highway 6 commercial corridor will likely remain car -centered, residents in the surrounding neighborhoods expressed a desire to tame the auto -dominated character of these shopping areas and improve their aesthetic appeal. Making these areas accessible and inviting to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users by connecting into the local street network should be a priori- ty. Aesthetic improvements, including landscaping and shade trees to break up large parking areas, may entice shoppers to linger and could help foster a sense of place that encourages neighborhoods to identify with commercial areas. Such efforts could also help to improve the prospects for small or local businesses . Facade and parking area improvements made to Waterfront Hy -Vee at the time of its expansion offer an example for future redevelopment in the area. Other models can be found along Highway 1, west of the river, where landscaping and other parking design requirements have softened views of very large parking areas. Longer term, any redevelopment of properties in the Highway 6 corridor should emphasize bringing buildings closer to the street, pedestrian accessibility, more efficient use of land , and introducing mixed use development South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor: The South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor is generally located between Highway 6 and the CRANDIC Railroad. The 1997 South District Plan called for general commercial development in this area, including along Stevens Drive and Southgate Avenue, with a focus on creating a more attrac- tive, well -landscaped entrance to the City. At the time, most of the undeveloped land was zoned for Intensive Commercial (CI -1), a classification that provided areas for businesses with operations char- acterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in buildings that are not entirely enclosed. In 2006, properties along Stevens and Waterfront Drives, east of Gilbert Street, were rezoned to Community Commercial (CC -2). Properties south of Southgate remain in the CI -1 zone. More re- cently, the CI -1 zone was amended to allow a wider range of commercial uses, including retail and restaurant uses. Little new development has occurred in the area around the Southgate Avenue and Gilbert Street intersection. This may be due in part to the risk of flooding. During major rainfall events, the intersection of South Gilbert and Stevens Drive is frequently flooded and all but a few commercial properties south of Highway 2 and west of the railroad are in the flood hazard area. While future residential development within the South District, especially in areas along South Gil- bert Street may improve development prospects in this area, the character of development that can be anticipated along this corridor is uncertain. Close proximity to Riverfront Crossings and the Down- town, and UI Campus, along with ready access to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and future riverfront park, may make this area attractive to a variety of uses, including mixed use or residential. It is important to carefully consider the impact of future development on the adjacent residential and commercial neighborhood. The area to the east of the railroad tracks is currently a mix of tradi- tional CI -1 uses along with a number of social service agencies and the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. Any proposal for residential or mixed use development in the area should be scrutinized to ensure that it contributes to the stability of the neighborhood. With any development or street improve- ments in this area, the attractive landscaped entryway envisioned in the previous plan should remain a high priority. Neighborhood Commercial Areas The future land use maps includes a small area designated as urban main street mixcd use at the intersection of McCollister and Sycamore Street and other neighborhood nodes designated as "open" subareasan existing Community Commercial (CC 2) property at thc intersection of McCollis to Boulevard and South Gilbert Strcct. The goal of these with both areas is to create opportunities for small-scale commercial uses that principally serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In addition to small retail and personal service uses, neighborhood commercial areas may include insti- tutional uses (e.g. daycare, churches or educational facilities) as well as neighborhood -serving office uses (e.g. medical offices). Commercial uses are limited in size to promote a local orientation to min- imize potential adverse impacts on nearby residential properties. WhereA-small neighborhood commercial areas are may be appropriate, n thc cost side of Gilbert Strcct at the intersection of McCollister, but careful consideration should be given not to detract from existing commercial zones along Gilbert, including the existing zone on the west side of the street, or the commercial node at McCollister and Sycamore. Such smaller neighborhood commer- cial an -areas should be part of a master plan that shows a thoughtful transition to the surrounding single family residential area. Zoning code standards for neighborhood commercial areas ensure that development is compatible in scale and intensity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Building placement and design requirements help to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and that minimizes the impact of automobiles. To function as a successful neighborhood center, the design of the mixed-use area should incorpo- rate pedestrian and bike accessibility as well as a transit stop. Including a small plaza, park, or other communal space within the development will help to make this corner a neighborhood gathering place and an anchor for the adjacent neighborhoods. As noted above, commercial uses depend on surrounding residential density and active commuting routes in order to be successful. It will take time for this area to develop enough of a population to support even a small business, such as a coffee shop. Allowing moderate density housing (10 20 units per acre) in thc arca immediately around these commercial areas and providing residential units above the commercial ground floor may help to improve the prospects for businesses and may encourage pedestrian trips and extension of transit services. Ensuring that these higher density uses are well designed and constructed will help to ensure that density is also an asset to the neighbor- hood as a whole. Traditional gas station site design. A re -oriented site design with the gas station canopy located behind a storefront at the corner. This could allow the site to offer more than gas/convenience retail. This may be an appropriate site design for the commer- cial corner at McCollister Boulevard and South Gilbert. 51 52 Landscaping, shade trees, and pedestrian islands can help break up large parking areas. COMMERCIAL AREAS—GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals and objectives for commercial areas were developed with input gathered dur- ing the South District planning process. Achieving these goals may require collaborative efforts by business owners, associations, property owners, and developers. GOAL 1. Improve the aesthetic appearance of commercial areas along Highway 6 and other commercial streets within the district (e.g. Boyrum, Keokuk). • Improve the aesthetic appeal/appearance of the Highway 6 and South Gilbert Street Commer- cial Corridors—both within the right-of-way and on adjacent commercial property—taking cues from aesthetic improvements planned along Riverside Drive as well as landscaping improve- ments west of the river on Highway One. • With any proposed redevelopment of Pepperwood Plaza, encourage a reduction of large parking areas to create more inviting social and pedestrian space. Include shade trees, distinctive land- scaping, inviting pedestrian routes, and amenities such as seating, bike facilities, and art. • Encourage landscape improvements for other existing commercial properties/neighborhoods and enforce compliance with landscaping standards as well as maintenance of required land- scaping. • Encourage commercial areas to adopt a common design theme—taking cues from Olde Towne Village at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue—to create a sense of continuity and identity (e.g. facade design, signage, lighting, landscaping). • Ensure that small commercial areas, such as those contemplated or zoned along McCollister Boulevard, are designed to complement the adjacent residential neighborhood and contribute to an attractive gateway to the South District by encouraging attractive landscaping, screened parking areas and/or parking behind the building, minimal exterior lighting, bike facilities, and connection to pedestrian routes. GOAL 2: Improve connectivity between commercial areas and adjacent residential. • As development and redevelopment occur, integrate shopping areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods by providing improved street, sidewalk, or trail connections and enhance entry- ways with art, landscaping, and wayfinding. • Encourage attractive and readily identifiable bike parking and transit stops within commercial development areas. GOAL 3: Engage the community in re -thinking South Iowa City's commercial areas by encouraging (sponsoring) unique events such as food or cultural festivals, roller derby or roller skating, mini - concerts, farmers market or food trucks nights at Pepperwood Plaza and other commercial areas. GOAL 4: Support development and redevelopment of areas identified as commercial in the fu- ture land use -maps, ensuring that commercial areas and uses contribute to the long-term vitality and appeal of adjacent neighborhoods. • As the nearby Riverfront Crossings builds out, re-evaluate the development potential and zoning of properties in the South Gilbert/Southgate Avenue area. Explore the potential for mixed use/ residential or institutional uses. Any proposed rezoning of this area should be scrutinized to en- sure that new development contributes to the overall health of the surrounding neighborhood, including nearby residential areas. • Consider opportunities for small neighborhood commercial or mixed use nodes at key intersec- tions such where McCollister Boulevard intersects with Gilbert and Sycamore Streets and encourage quality design and construction that enhances adjacent residential or public open space areas. • Support local and independent businesses in South Iowa City through targeted promotional efforts and by encouraging alliances among businesses and property owners. • Encourage or create incentives to attract neighborhood -serving businesses—e.g. daycare, coffee shop, medical office, music or dance studios, salons and other personal services, etc., to com- mercial areas. • Adopt a form -based code that provides for a compatible mix of non-residential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. A few fun event ideas suggested for making commer- cial areas—especially large parking areas—more socially active: outdoor sport demonstrations, such roller derby or basketball, food truck night with live music, and art events such as a Chalk the Lot festival. Photo copyright Greeley Tribune. 53 54 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR FORM -BASED LAND USE Generally: — Promote, preserve, and enhance community design and character in support of the community's vision of a college town with a vari- ety of neighborhoods with centers along pleasant and convenient corridors that connect the City; — Reinforce the urban pattern of mixed-use walkable districts, resi- dential neighborhoods, and multi -modal corridors with centers serving as amenities and focal points for community activity; — Ensure appropriately -scaled development for a variety of physical contexts; — Support a diversity and wide variety of housing choices appropri- ate to their location; — Ensure that each building plays a role in creating a better whole; and — Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi -modal transportation options for all users and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Within residential neighborhoods: Protect the character of established neighborhoods and build upon and reinforce the unique physical characteris- tics of the City's neighborhoods; Support walkable neighborhood patterns through highly interconnected networks of multi -modal streets that are safe for pedestrians and bicycles; Promote neighborhoods with quality housing and a diver- sity of context -sensitive housing choices. Along corridors: - Promote a wide variety of housing choices; - Promote small local businesses as an important part of the City's economy; - Promote incremental infill and revitalization; - Enable neighborhood main streets as centers to become vibrant social and commercial focal points, with services and amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods located within a safe, comfortable walking distance of homes; - Balance pedestrian comfort and place making with traffic efficiency; and - Promote and accommodates high-quality community de- sign. :: .. .. II I ■ ■ ■ ■ ..Illy:::::: II I .... ■■■■ ■■■ __. 11 11 1111 Within districts and employment centers: — Create new districts and centers that accommodate appropriately scaled infill housing, mixed-use, and cultural development; — Facilitate transitions from single -use employment centers to mixed-use districts that are compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods and public access. Within residential neighborhoods: Protect the character of established neighborhoods and build upon and reinforce the unique physical characteris- tics of the City's neighborhoods; Support walkable neighborhood patterns through highly interconnected networks of multi -modal streets that are safe for pedestrians and bicycles; Promote neighborhoods with quality housing and a diver- sity of context -sensitive housing choices. Along corridors: - Promote a wide variety of housing choices; - Promote small local businesses as an important part of the City's economy; - Promote incremental infill and revitalization; - Enable neighborhood main streets as centers to become vibrant social and commercial focal points, with services and amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods located within a safe, comfortable walking distance of homes; - Balance pedestrian comfort and place making with traffic efficiency; and - Promote and accommodates high-quality community de- sign. Form -Based Land Use Zoning through a Form -Based Code (FBC) represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use -based codes, FBCs utilize the intended physical form and character of a context type, rather than use as the organizing framework of the code. Further, FBCs regulate a series of elements not just to create a good individual build- ing, but a high-quality place. The terminology in FBCs reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, FBC also do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change from previous use -based standards utilized by the City. Form -Based Codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the orqanizinq principle for the code. These codes are adopted into city or county law as regulations, not mere quidelines. Form -Based Codes are an alternative to conventional zoning. - Form -Based Codes Institute While FBCs primarily regulate the intended physical form, they regulate use secondarily. FBCs allow a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form. Use tables are simplified and categorized by use type, and clearly de- fined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision-making related to particular uses. Most FBCs use an organizing principle called the Natural -to -Urban Transect. This enables a cus- tomized framework of zones for a community that are based on intended physical character (or form). The Natural -to -Urban Transect: The Framework for Form -Based Codes: The Natural -to -Urban Transect is the organizing principle used in most Form -Based Codes (FBC). It establishes a hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the most urban. The designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the phys- ical character, form, intensity of development, and type of place, and secondly by the mix of uses within the area. This hierarchy of physical environments becomes the framework for the entire FBC, replacing use as the organizing principle as in conventional, use -based zoning. Each transect is used to reinforce existing or create new walkable environments. MMMCGIr 55 56 Example of Transect 3: Suburban Form I / - 11 / ' • 1 • Il. fWI 1.1 . • 41..- 12: Example of Transect 4: General Urban Form The model transect for American communities is divided into six individual transects: Natural (T1), Rural (T2), Walkable Neighborhood/Sub-Urban (T3), General Urban (T4), Urban Center (T5), and Ur- ban Core (T6), together with a District (D), designation for areas with specialized purposes (e.g., heavy industrial, transportation, or university districts, among other possibilities). Each transect is given a number. Higher numbers designate progressively more urban environments, and lower numbers designate less urban and natural environments. These transects were used to help devel- op the new future land use map shown on page 60. Because the South District is located on the edge of Iowa City, it includes only designations from the T3 Suburban and T4 General Urban tran- sects. RURAL I I 1 I I I 1 I I I TRANSECT l 11 11 1 1 1 11 URBAN (NATURAL TRANSECT ZONES d. *CIA IURBAN TRANSECT ZONESDI1 9 STRICT: • °TT r.• Z■ f�t T w b .___:_ * 61, .., ,_. *• D, Pio' _ ■■■ ■■ . ., T1 NATURAL T2 RURAL ,.: T3 SUB -URBAN T4 GENERAL URBAN T5 URBAN CENTER T6 URBAN CORE D DISTRICT Implementation in the South District: Form -based standards that are consistent with this plan should be considered for greenfield sites in the South District. Implementation would need to occur through amendments to the City's Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Any form -based standards should include specific approval criteria to determine if rezonings demon- strate substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use maps show only one possible way that the City may develop. Specific approval criteria defining consistency helps pro- vide more predictability to neighbors, developers, and the community as to what development may look like compared with previous zoning standards. South District Future Land Use P -I -a -I Map Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residen • Low -Medium Density Mixed Residen • Multi -family • Commercial • Mixed Use/Ne'orhood commercial • Mixed us ommercial • Public Park/Open Space • Private Open Space/ SensitiveArea • Other Public Property Historic Property 57 1 1\ 58 South District Future Land Use Xi Map Low to Medium Density Residential: 2-8 dwelling units/acre Intended primarily for detached single-family housing. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in all single-family zones. In some areas attached housing may be located along arterial streets or adjacent to permanent open space. The resi- dential density for a property should reflect the nature of the site and take into account sensi- tive environmental features, topographical con- straints, street connectivity, and compatibility with historical development patterns. Low to Medium Mixed Residential: 8-13 dwelling units/acre Intended for medium- to high- density single- family residential development, including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhouses. Suita- ble for sites where a single loaded street is de- sirable to provide visibility and access to public open space, or where clustering is desirable to protect sensitive environmental features. Low- density multi -family residential may also be considered if buildings are designed in a man- ner that is compatible in scale and design to the lower scale residential dwellings in the neigh- borhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes). Higher density housing should be located at the edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas with good street connectivity, access to open space or parks, trails, and transit. Designations Public Institutional Property that is publicly owned and used for a public purpose, including public schools, and City, County, State, and Federal offices or facili- ties. If the property is proposed to be sold to a private entity for a non-public use, then the land should be rezoned to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Multi -Family 12-24 dwelling units/acre Properties developed prior to 2015 may have been established at higher densities, particular- ly in neighborhoods close to Highway 6. The "New Neighborhoods" section of the plan (page 18) includes language describing the density, location, and design quality that will be part of any rezoning to allow multi -family housing. Higher -density zoning designations may not be suitable for areas with topographical con- straints or limited street connectivity or access. Preferred locations for new multi -family devel- opments are along main travel corridors or in- tersections, especially near permanent open space or adjacent to commercial development. Commercial Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large variety of commercial uses, particularly retail commercial uses, which serve a major segment of the community. Mixed -Use An area intended for development that com- bines commercial and residential uses. Individu- al buildings may be mixed-use or single -use. Development is intended to be pedestrian - oriented, with buildings oriented to the street with sidewalks, street trees and other pedestri- an amenities. Buildings with residential uses should be designed to ensure a comfortable and functional environment for urban living in close proximity to commercial uses. The mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design. Public Parks/Open Space Indicates existing or potential public open space intended for the protection of sensitive natural features, stormwater management, and/or to provide for passive, active, recreational, or oth- er public open space needs, and/or to protect the aesthetic values of the community.* Private Open Space Indicates existing or potential open space on private land that is important for the protection of sensitive natural features and/or provides for stormwater management, and/or for private, shared passive or recreational opportunities for adjacent properties, and/or to protect the aes- thetic values of the community.* *A public or private open space designation on land that is not currently designated as open space may indicate that an area is largely unsuitable for development due to envi- ronmental or topographical constraints or may indicate that an opportunity to acquire needed open space is pos- sible if current land uses are discontinued. While these areas are best reserved or acquired for open space, devel- opment may occur on privately held land if a proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and the re- quirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. immix B South District Futur L shutoce lar44,-i ED."' iiiii"4411. I: ; HFH • 1 L1 . _ 44°, e Land Use P -I -a -n M a p • Areas Subject to Form -Based Land Use (see Map on p. 60) Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential L Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential r 1 59 ▪ Multi -family Commercial • • • • 1 • Mixed Use /Neighborhood commercial Mixed use Commercial School/Other Public Property Public Park /Open Space Private Open Space / Sensitive Area * Historic Property r 60 Form -Based Future Land Use Designations TRANSECT 3: SUBURBAN Neighborhood Edge: A walkable neighborhood environment of detached, small -to -large building footprint, low -intensity hous- ing choices from House Large, Duplex Side -by -Side to Cottage Court, supporting and within short walk- ing distance of neighborhood -serving retail, food and service uses. Buildings are house -scale and de- tached in nature. Both design site widths and build- ing footprints are small -to -large with medium -to - large front setbacks and medium side setbacks. Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop. Neighborhood General: A walkable neighborhood environment of small foot- print, low -intensity housing choices from House Small, Duplex Side -by -Side, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Multiplex Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood - serving retail and services. Buildings are house -scale and detached in nature. Design site widths are small - to -medium with a small footprint and medium front and side setbacks. Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop. TRANSECT 4: GENERAL URBAN Neighborhood Small: A walkable neighborhood environment of small -to - medium -footprint, moderate -intensity housing choices from Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Court- yard Building Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood - serving retail and services. Buildings are primarily house -scale with both attached and detached vari- ants. Design site widths, building footprints, and front and side setbacks are all small -to -medium. Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop. Neighborhood Medium A walkable neighborhood environment of small -to - medium -footprint, moderate -intensity housing choices from Multiplex Large, Courtyard Building Small to Townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. Buildings are primarily house -scale with both attached and detached variants. Design site widths and building footprints are medium, while front and side setbacks are small. Homes are up to 3.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard Stoop, Forecourt and Terrace. Main Street A walkable, vibrant district of medium -to -large - footprint, moderate -intensity, mixed-use buildings from Townhouse (in which units may be stacked) and Courtyard Building Large to Main Street Build- ing, supporting neighborhood -serving ground floor retail, food and services, including indoor and out- door artisanal industrial businesses. Buildings are block -scale and attached in nature. Design site widths are medium, and building footprints are me- dium -to -large with front and side setbacks that are small -to -none. Buildings are up to 3.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Dooryard, Stoop, Fore- court, Maker Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace, Gallery and Arcade. OTHER DESIGNATIONS Open Subareas: Open subarea designations may be applied to T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, or T4 Neighborhood Medium land use designations. The subarea allows more uses than the base land use designation but maintains the same form and character. As such, open subareas provides addition- al flexibility at or near intersections that function or can function as a neighborhood node of non- residential uses. Public or Private Civic/Park/Open Space Indicates existing or potential civic or open space on public or private land that is important for the pro- tection of sensitive natural features and/or provides for stormwater management, and/or for private, shared passive or recreational opportunities for ad- jacent properties, and/or to protect the aesthetic values of the community. This designation may indi- cate that an area is unsuitable for development due to environmental or topographical constraints. De- velopment may occur if a proposal meets the under- lying zoning and Sensitive Areas requirements. Existing & Potential Wetlands/Lagoons Indicates existing or potential wetlands or lagoons. o • • • Z k‘s.kk, V,► 111014 look woo MOM 14.J-Jt01■ Open Space: Public Civic Space ▪ Private Civic Space GG. r.11 nu 111 tit Gi.G:::7 eeeeee IGOGGG� 1 1 :VV.' 11 tit 11! sw ■ 61 Form -Based Future Land Use Map Extension of Existing Public Park/Open Space To improve functionality of proposed block(s). May be reconfigured to conform to the existing boundary if preferred. Existing Public Park/Open Space ▪ Existing & Potential Wetlands/Lagoons Form -Based Land Use Designations - T3 Neighborhood Edge T3 Neighborhood General T3 Neighborhood General -open T4 Neighborhood Small T4 Neighborhood Small -Open T4 Neighborhood Medium T4 Neighborhood Medium -Open G�i■rl.rr■■�� rni ErInnin LE. G:GGGO:GrG��� T4 Main Street INC.. fflE'E 7,•• •iiiii111 IIII ■ r■ ■ ■ Ip 1'01.11 -IItil: 1 500 1000 FT 4\1 62 Future Thoroughfare Map J • Street and Block Network: Main Street with Median: 100' ROW Utility Easement Area: 0' min. Main Street without Median: 80' ROW Utility Easement Area: 0' min_ Avenue 2 Without Parking 100' ROW Utility Easement Area: 15'min. With Future Parking:100' ROW Utility Easement Area 15'min Avenue 3: 100' ROW Utility Easement Area' 15'min. Avenue 4: 87' ROW Utility Easement Area- 15'min. Extension of Covered Wagon Drive Utility Easement Area: 10' min. Neighborhood Street: 70' ROW Utility Easement Area: 10' min. 0 500 1000 FT Alley: 20' ROW Passage: 20' ROW Pedestrian access only • New Roundabout Existing Roundabout 63 STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFTS - Updated 9/15/2021 South District Plan Amendment Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation 1 Concern that there is a lack of transition to the existing neighborhood (McCollister Court) on the proposed Future Land Use Map. Requested that the proposed land use designations be changed from T4 to T3 categories. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff met with two members of the HOA to discuss all their concerns. Please also see the comment letter from the HOA. Staff incorporated transitions from existing single-family into the Future Land Use Map in two ways: 1) designating the adjacent land T3 -NE, or 2) designating the adjacent land as new open space. The transition proposed for the area adjacent to McCollister Court includes an approximately 40' wide area of open space that includes an existing trail and a proposed 70' of public right-of-way. Due to the proximity of two major streets (S. Gilbert St. & McCollister Blvd), staff is proposing T4NM along McCollister Blvd, which allows Multiplex Large, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse building types at a max. height of 3.5 stories. North of McCollister Blvd, staff is proposing T4NS, which allows Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse building types at a max. height of 2.5 stories. Here's a summary of the building types: Multiplex Large - allows up to 12 units (not allowed in T4NS) Cottage Court - one-story buildings facing an interal courtyard, 3-9 units Multiplex Small - allows up to 6 units Courtyard Building Small - allows up to 16 units that access a shared courtyard Townhouse - Up to 4-8 individual townhomes per row Additionally, the proposed land use map is not a significant change from the current land use policy direction for this area. The current Future Land Use No changes recommended. 2 Concern with how the plan will impact education. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff had many discussions with the Iowa City Community School District throughout the process. They informed staff that no additional land would be needed in the planning area for an additional school. No changes recommended. 3 Concern with access to emergency services. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA The City recently purchased land for a new fire station at the intersection of S. Gilbert St. and Cherry Avenue. Based on conversations with Fire staff, they do not anticipate needing more land in the proposed planning area for providing timely emergency response. No changes recommended. 4 Would like to see indoor recreation space somewhere in the South District. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The Parks and Rec Department are about to embark on the development of a Rec Facilities and Program Master Plan, which will analyze the needs of indoor facilities. Public outreach is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2021 and a representative from the South District Neighborhood Association has been identified for the steering committee. No changes recommended. 5 Request from land owners to remove their property from the form -based code area. 8/3/2021 Steve Gordon & Aleda Feuerbach Staff does not support removing this land (south of Lehman Avenue and east of the Sycamore Greenway) from the planning area, as it would undermine all of the work that has gone into this planning effort over the past 2.5 years. In order to achieve complex policy goals related to equity and sustainability, the City needs to think about growth differently, especially at the fringe of the city. No changes recommended. 6 Excerpts from Email Dated 8/13: - Realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of nothing but farmland. What wasn't disclosed to us was the plan to eventually develop this land in the near future. - We had our share of attempted break-ins. Someone dug up and stole the bushes in our front yard. I've caught on camera twice someone trying to enter our home between 2 am — 3 am. My wife and I have been struck by a car speeding around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon. We have a lot of speeders who use Langenberg as an arterial between Gilbert and Sycamore. - We are still bitter toward SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future plans for this land. We excepted that someday we would be looking from our back porch into someone's backyard and would probably see a few dozen homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago when we learned that the plan was to build 4,000 — 8,000 livable units along with a walkable main street with businesses in this land. - On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the concerns that we also share with other members of our neighborhood association. This includes the lack of parking for the proposed condos and apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct, and Langenberg Ave. This will also most likely increase traffic on Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by finishing the McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city has not made plans to increase emergency services. - We learned through our neighborhood association that the Superintendent of schools hadn't been included in the conversations for the expansion of the South District. 8/13/2021 Richard Stapleton See explanatory notes related to comments 1, 2, and 3. No changes recommended. 7 Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have reviewed the materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking spaces being allowed for the proposed buildings. I do not approve of allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of parking for the proposed housing that is being proposed. 8/15/2021 Bill Neal See explanatory note 5 below under the "Revised Draft Form -Based Codees and Standards" comments. No changes recommended. Revised Draft Form -Based Codes and Standards I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South 8/19/2021 Glenn Lynn See explanatory note 1. Staff Recommendation 1 District plans but in particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here before and want to make sure our feelings are known. 7/10/2021 Cheryl Cruise Housing is affordable if a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. The voluntary affordable housing standards are income- restricted to low income households (60% AMI for rentals and 80% AMI for owners). The code offsets revenue loss by allowing more density, decreased parking costs, and flexibility from certain standards. Staff has structured the proposed requirements similar to the City's other affordable housing policies to create consistent expectations and simplify ongoing monitoring. These incentives will not solve housing affordability, but they may encourage additional affordable units which is important in an area that will be entirely new construction. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated August 5, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 2 Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here. 7/21/2021 Cheryl Cruise No changes recommended. 3 Concern about safety for children walking or biking to Alexander Elementary (types of commercial uses in the Main Street, traffic calming on Sycamore) 'We bought customer built houses for a reason never expecting multi family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to many of my neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this goes through. Our previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on density and types of housing seem to be gone. I may be incorrect but I Kelcey Patrick -Ferree Staff met with Patrick -Ferree and others associated with the South District Neighborhood Association and discussed these concerns. No changes recommended. 4 8 feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in cahoots with the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate development as I have seen many of their properties in IC in disrepair. I don't want that in my back yard. I guess I was remiss in thinking that our previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no one wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on the table. After seeing the plans, I'm assuming they are no longer considered. I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Sandhill Estates HOA Regardless of being able to administratively alter design sites, developers will be able to change proposed building types as long as the proposed type meets the standards in the code. Staff would like to keep the proposed flexibility in the code; however, we do not anticipate it being used often. We anticipate most developers will plat lots that will be coterminous with design sites (as opposed to multiple design sites on one lot). No changes recommended. Request from land owner to modify land use designations south of Wetherby Park. This includes replacing some of the T3NE with T3NG. 9/3/2021 Southgate Staff supports this change. It is based on engineered plans provided by the land owner and maintains a transition between the existing single-family Based on this request, staff is proposing a change to the FLUM 9 neighborhood to the south. to the area just south of Wetherby Park. Revised Draft Form -Based Codes and Standards Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation 1 The affordable housing plan is unlikely to result in new affordable housing in part because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling at Fair instead of 30% of a selected AMI 7/10/2021 Cheryl Cruise Housing is affordable if a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs. The voluntary affordable housing standards are income- restricted to low income households (60% AMI for rentals and 80% AMI for owners). The code offsets revenue loss by allowing more density, decreased parking costs, and flexibility from certain standards. Staff has structured the proposed requirements similar to the City's other affordable housing policies to create consistent expectations and simplify ongoing monitoring. These incentives will not solve housing affordability, but they may encourage additional affordable units which is important in an area that will be entirely new construction. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated August 5, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 2 HUD Fair Market Rent is volatile. No affordable housing programs use FMR (unverified) Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower rents than LIHTC 7/21/2021 Cheryl Cruise No changes recommended. 3 Concern about safety for children walking or biking to Alexander Elementary (types of commercial uses in the Main Street, traffic calming on Sycamore) 7/15/2021 Kelcey Patrick -Ferree Staff met with Patrick -Ferree and others associated with the South District Neighborhood Association and discussed these concerns. No changes recommended. 4 Design sites being administratively changed after approval. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Regardless of being able to administratively alter design sites, developers will be able to change proposed building types as long as the proposed type meets the standards in the code. Staff would like to keep the proposed flexibility in the code; however, we do not anticipate it being used often. We anticipate most developers will plat lots that will be coterminous with design sites (as opposed to multiple design sites on one lot). No changes recommended. 5 Concern with the proposed reduction in parking. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff proposed slight reductions to minimum parking standards in order to align with important City goals, especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate -income households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle. In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on - street parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on - street parking is almost always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in the minimum off-street parking required. However, buildings can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where they feel it is necessary due to market conditions. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff memo to P&Z, dated July 15, 2021, that follows up on questions about the code. No changes recommended. 6 Would like to see more wayfinding signage to points of interest (parks, main street, etc.) 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group Staff from the MPO plan to add more bike wayfinding signs within the South District as part of the 4-3 lane conversion of Keokuk. Staff likes the idea of incorporating more wayfinding signage into new communities. Currently, the City does not have a comprehensive approach to wayfinding, which may be something that needs to be explored as part of a separate 7 Questions on commercial uses. Not interested in more liquor stores and gas stations. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The proposed code does not include any zones that allow gas stations. Liquor stores would be allowed either provisionally or through a special exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM-O, and T4MS zones. The maximum size is capped at 1,500 sq ft. Based on this comment, staff is proposing two changes: 1) Alcohol sales oriented uses (i.e. liquor stores) are only allowed through a special exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM- 0, and T4MS zones. 2) For the open zones, staff recommends adding limitations on operating hours for non - 8 Would like to see some opportunities and some spaces that local entrepreneurs could lease. 7/27/2021 South District Neighborhood Association Leadership Group The proposed code carries forward the City's current home occupation standards, but it also incorporates some opportunities for live/work, which are not provided in most other areas of the city. The code also provides areas for neighborhood commercial. That said, the entire area will be newly constructed and rental costs may be a factor in providing affordable spaces. No changes recommended. 9 Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 10 Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 11 Concern that the fee in -lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable housing. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 12 Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi -modal transportation system. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 13 Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations from the map will have on how the area develops. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 14 How does the code work with the Housing Code and the City's regulation of rental housing? 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 15 Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be incorporated into open space areas. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 16 Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 17 Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarify on how the provision of green space would be ensured. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 18 Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended. 19 Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed regulatory incentives for voluntary affordable housing 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 20 Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations? 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staffs response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 21 Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code. 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended. 22 Parking minimums will not ensure the area has less parking; explore parking maximums. 8/5/2021 Planning & Zoning Commission The draft includes parking maximums for the T4MS (main street) zone, but not the other more residential zone districts. Staff has received other concerns related to the slight reduction in the minimums. Staff would recommend keeping the slight reduction, but not requiring a max for the other T3 and T4 zones. No changes recommended. Kirk Lehmann From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2021 11:50 AM To: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann Cc: mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov Subject: Input regarding draft form based code Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Inclusionary_Housing_US_v1_0.pdf; ATT00001.txt Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Staff, The affordable housing plan in the new draft is worth comment. It is unlikely to result in new affordable housing in part because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling at Fair Market Rent (which is 40-45% AMI level) instead of 30% of a selected AMI. You will see in the attached article that in 1,019 affordable housing plans in the country NO ONE USES FAIR MARKET RENT for rent ceilings. 87% of plans use 51%-80% AMI income AND rent limits. 2% use 50% AMI income and rent limit. All others plans are higher than 80% AMI. The majority use a mixed income approach such as 25% of affordable units at 50% AMI and 75% at 80%AMI. HUD has issued tables for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% AMI paying 30% of income for as long as LIHTCs have existed though the math is easy to calculate. The new draft plan continues the dichotomy of private developers using FMR and LIHTCs using 60% AMI paying 30% of income even though the latter are highly subsidized. Using FMR for new construction would cause rental housing owners to lose hundreds of dollars a month in addition to all the expenses for every affordable unit produced. Agreeing to lose money for 20 years seems unlikely. The added density allowed would all go to money losing units. Less parking would not be much incentive in out lying areas that are likely to need a car. Inclusionary housing plans work in high growth areas where incentives and density bonus will allow market rate units to cover the cost of the affordable units. Otherwise it will not pencil out and will not be built. (Note we are not in a high growth area now, in fact we lost population from 2019 to 2020.) The objective of inclusionary housing is to provide for low -moderate income households at 60% AMI -100% AMI who do not qualify for Federal programs. Very low and extremely low income require a public subsidy. Fair Market Rent should only be used for Housing Choice Vouchers, CDBG, and HOME projects. It is volatile as adjusted annually because it is based on the 40th percentile of a tiny number of survey takers who are renting a 2 bedroom unit and moved recently. Median income is not as volatile. Best regards, Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA https://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Inclusionary Housing US v1 0.pdf 1 Kirk Lehmann From: Kelcey Patrick -Ferree <kelcey.patrickferree@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 12:08 PM To: AJ Cc: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann; Megan Alter; Jessica Bovey; Elinor Levin; Eric Harris; Tatiana Washington; South District Subject: Re: Revised Draft Form -Based Code Available for Public Review Anne and Kirk, I'm starting to look through this, but the odds of me finding time for 140 pages of highly detailed information are low. The map on the first page has no key, so I can't tell what the plan is quickly and easily. I am glad that this level of thought and detail is available, but find it nearly impossible to wade through in a helpful or timely fashion. Is there a better high level summary available? Preliminary feedback: One thing I was able to figure out from the newspaper: Part of the plan is to build a "main street" district on the circle on Sycamore north of Alexander Elementary. I am concerned with the idea of elementary school children having no option but to walk through a commercial district, even a small one, on their way home from school. If it's ice cream and dry goods shops, that's one thing. If it's more liquor stores (which seem to be proliferating at an alarming rate in our area), that's quite another. I see on p. 82 that the uses of "Main street" areas are unrestricted. So that's a big concern for me. I'd also like to know what traffic calming measures along Sycamore are built into this plan. People speed there, even (and if they're late, especially) on their way to drop off kids at the elementary school. This plan appears to add housing on the far side of Sycamore, and depending on what ICCSD does, that could mean more children having to cross Sycamore to get to school. TLDR: I want the plan to consider safety issues for Alexander Elementary children walking or biking to and from school. Warm regards, Kelcey And biannual time changes must be abolished. #LockTheClock 1 Kirk Lehmann From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 12:00 PM To: Anne Russett; mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Public input to Planning and Zoning Commission Commissioners, Some of you may be unfamiliar with HUD's Fair Market Rent. It is neither fair nor market. It is the annual calculation by HUD of maximum rent for a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8). Each year since 2005 the American Community Survey has gathered data from about 1.6% of local households. About half are renters. Of those some rent a 2 bedroom unit. HUD looks at data from the 2 bedroom renters who moved recently. They may report $700/month rent or $1500/month rent. HUD finds the 40th percentile of the 2 bedroom rents and averages it over the last 5 years and then mathematically figures out rent for other size units. That is FMR. It is based on very few households which can make it volatile. It may go up or down 10+% each year. It is used for government subsidized projects. Of 1,019 affordable housing programs across the country Fair Market Rent is not used for rent ceilings. Everyone else uses 30% of a selected AMI level. 87% use somewhere between 51% AMI and 80% AMI. 2% of programs use 50% AMI for rent ceiling. Others are 80% AMI to 120% AMI. 60%-100% AMI is considered low to moderate income and is the target of non subsidized programs although incentives must be offered to insure that there is some profitability or nothing will get built. City of Iowa City, Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, and Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition all define affordable housing as 80% AMI paying 30% of income for rent. Other than new luxury units, most Iowa City rents are under the 80% AMI level. Many units are available for less than Fair Market Rent. Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs average 60% AMI paying 30% of income. They have lots of funding subsidy. Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower rents than LIHTCs. There may be "sticker shock" looking at rent amounts if you are not a renter or didn't recently buy a house. The cost of land, lumber, and labor have all gone up for builders. You may be shocked to look at property taxes or insurance costs or maintenance costs on apartments even if they are old. Profits may be 4%-8% ROI for well managed units. I hope this information helps as you discuss the ordinance. Best regards, Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA Sent from my iPad This email is from an external source. 1 From: Sandhill Estates To: Anne Russett Subject: South District Plan - Letter of Concerns Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 11:30:16 PM Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msq sand hil I -estates -south -district -plan -concerns. pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hi Anne, Attached you will find a document highlighting some concerns our Home Owners Association and residents share regarding the South District Plan. We request you please include the attachment in the packet provided to Planning and Zoning Commission members in advance of the August 5th meeting. The attachment contains a letter of concern drafted by HOA members, signatures of support from our neighborhood residents, and maps highlighting (in yellow) those households where signatures were obtained. We look forward to learning more about the South District Plan and to our discussion with you on August 3rd. Sincerely, Robert Domsic Director -at -Large Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association Iowa City, IA sandhilLestateadoRcimaii,00rn July 22, 2021 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: We are writing on behalf of the residents of the Sandhi ll Estates Neighborhood and would life to express our concerns regarding the proposed changes in the South District Plan. While there are many positive aspects of the South District Plan we believe the plan will be stronger if the following concerns are addressed. Concern #1 - A lack of transition to the existing neighborhood (McCollister Ct) The triangular plot of land immediately South of McCollister Cour( East of Gilbert Street. and North of McCollister Boulevard lacks an area of housing transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. We ask the City to revise the South District Plan to include T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General zoning in this area before the higher density T4 zones are reached. We believe there is precedent for this change. Currently, the South District Plan defines an area of transition consisting of T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General housing zoning located immediately South of Langenberg Avenue (see lig. 1). Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is part of our Homeowners Association, we feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a similar zone of transition were adopted on the triangular plot of land. A zone of transition at this site would ease any visual juxtaposition resulting from the architectural changes contained in the South District Plan. r7 • m. I. } Wks _ 'ii -1 _111 goIb~.■ ni a m 1 . Fla. 1. POcNjoned Pulurei anti I) from Ie. Sawn Dhsl Scr F'4•7 a . ICIYIp meareaor bereecon PE & TSfJG I Satoh of Leraor>baig AV: OE lend ilne missnq area of Irarmben South of McCo4ebv&MnuRClagprwlp0 &i TJry$ d Tarp.1 Dur concerns regarding this plot of land are not new. Members of our neighborhood have attended and expressed our concerns at Planning and Zoning meetings and City Council meetings dating back to 2017. In 2017 a local developer submitted a design proposal (see fig, 2) for the development of this land -- using nearly identical plotting, road and zoning maps from the currently proposed South District 'Ian. When development of the triangular plot of land came to vote. the Manning and Zoning Commission and the City Council both rejected the proposed development. Transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 note the City Council members expressed desire to modify the plans to account for better transition between the current housing and any new development. The current South District Plan does not address any cf these historical recommendations. }u. Z :UI 7 celnn pr0=1Eidi IEMMEd In ■ loud doom:. In tM isnrm'a in, Amnia Con-rm.:m a.+d L[tl Canrf We believe the precedent from the area South of Langenberg, the resulting vote in 2017. and the City's public record reaffirm the triangular plot of land should be revised to include T3 - Neighborhood Edge and T3 - Neighborhood General zoning as a transition layer before the T4 zones are reached at McCollister Boulevard. Concern #2 - Design sites being administratively changed after approval Historically, the City has been a proponent of developers communicating with and getting buy -in from adjacent neighborhoods when new development plans are proposed. These discussions can be very beneficial for both parties. However, the announcement that design sites can be administratively adjusted at the subdivision level after approval raises concern. This applies not only to our neighborhood, but any future neighborhood (hat may be impacted by such adjustments. Our concern is once agreements are set (formally or informally) between a developer and an adjacent neighborhood. administrative adjustments without notice may violate expectations and create tensions between the two parties. We understand the desire to make processing adjustments easier. However, we feel this could be used as a Mechanism to create a false pretense by a disingenuous developer_ Concern #3 - The impact on education The South Distract Pian projects there will be approximately 4,000 - 8,000 dwelling units resulting from this plan. A member of our Board contacted Anne Russett who reaffirmed these numbers, but did not include an estimated population when asked. From the number of dwelling units, we believe it is reasonable to assume the estimated population would be in the ballpark of -10,000 - 20,000 people. Alexander Elementary School has been near capacity since 2017_ An influx of a population this size would almost certainly strain the schools resources. How does the City plan to address the impact the South District expansion will have on our schools? Concern #4 - The reduction in required parking 4,000 - 8,O0O dwelling units will bring about a sizable population. Commercial spaces and restaurants will likely attract visitors from all over Iowa City, not just surrounding neighborhoods. The reduction in required parking is an unwise decision and will lead to greater street congestion, potentially jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the neighborhood's residents. The adoption of electric vehicles has increased drastically in the last few years. Sales models predict electric vehicle sales will continue to climb at an annual rate of 291 over the next ten years'. These numbers are substantial and should be considered. The plan currently does not indicate any locations where electric vehicles may be charged. Furthermore, problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available per dwelling unit. Since Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) require a tether to charge, the long term expectation of street parking may not be sufficient. Future populations will likely prefer to charge vehicles at their dwelling. Concern #5 - Access to Emergency Services The population resulting from the South District Paan (and including adjacent plans) will be sizable -- likely far greater than the 10,000 - 20,000 mentioned above. We have noticed the South District Plan fails to mention, include, or address in writing, or on a map, the locations) or expansion of any potential emergency services_ We want to make sure these services are adequately accounted for in the South District Plan. Haw does the City plan to address these concerns? Furthermore, we believe a medical clinic / urgent care facility would be a good addition to this area, helping reduce the burden on our local Hospitals and Emergency Rooms. Does the city plan to incentivise the development of such a resource? Not having a plan to address these needs for a population of this size could have considerable effects en the health and safety of our neighborhoods. The South District Plan is an ambitious undertaking; the result of countless hours of work by city officials, staff and consultancies. We appreciate this effort and share many of the same goals as the City in maintaining Iowa City as the finest place to live in the State. See Electric Vehicles: Setting a Course for 2030 - Deloitte Insights -Accessed July 22, 2021 https:llwww2_deloitte_comlusfenlinsightslfacusffuture-of-rnobiritylelectric-vehicle-trends-2030.htm! Sincerely, The Sandhiil Estates Homeowners Association Directors Alex Hachtman President Joleah Shaw Director Amanda Shoemaker Director Emily Berkhoudt Director Robert Domsic Director Signatures Name Address - 0 1 — L �1 Wily ff/� [J CrJ 7. -1 fe.,E _ r / t -e4 c 5 a._ .i A - 1 O i6V I" c Cott434-6. G1 ,�._. " ' 9 4 `! L 1; ski Ci 4 J4 ditaird1# . i4 • ;74 c ( v • i rai 104 if. LAzuL.4 0 . ' E° I I I PI I 1 J i ��r� 1 CAA' al,/ � r_.-. .. ► fo / � Ai._ - 2e -pi 7 % �'�A ail 9`03 -fun k .- , {A]NI - if!_i A t 1 ' Yl \I(I j O 6 - , . , , MA i_ C _ op_ 1 L } . Wilnif', pow .'"1 At AAA A 4 1 0 axf.' OL .c arL ( / " - 0 1 — L iL.,} :1LI.Y, O i6V I" c Cott434-6. G1 rAl"&A-CyArr-ta-A--to-'yd i "4 pa 1��fy�.j 9;4-- L6 tio4 Pre-, d- frie-.Lr.,^ r L v - -- f l� (o ° t + Lx-� „t if/ 7 Air . / 15,5+q La ttv . 1 learAlri/PF 1i, &/ +q '`!9 f 0 ( {{{sss - *.,...., WW( -1 .ea..- t 4,)e 17.+ L1L 2 RTt _ _ ICS Lao► rn . L ar ! 1 i it_ ICA k 5l 1L $+- Al Alla_..-k _ Vi li p �-6 IIIP■i 41 ..... II II 0. L.. ► ` t ,•` l ��./ Io6 L n y" .1. .1.P' ! 111.4-.L.{I — ..4201Mg_ ,_,,,....0... .4. . CC1 I 4 a `---. U "M. 177e (---APN66 ii 64tEg-oc, fXrV '• . ,e,Amart ) log Y ate . __„:„ „.„ �f{J f . J ..,_ .. i * /,),5m r'~ 1017. 4s / + ,.. / L LRA_ SVA Weei, ,. } f *e — i "4 pa 1��fy�.j v-2_4( i a l L 6eil ifivki C ' A ,_ ~ TF\ ; + k -hit a • ■ r' +q '`!9 a - *.,...., 4-44_,A m!4_, �1 i ,* . ICS Lao► rn . ; AV. I Al Alla_..-k _ f► y� ',J IIIP■i 41 ..... II II 0. L.. ► "'MLI — ..4201Mg_ ,_,,,....0... .4. . 2. . ,e,Amart z, . __„:„ „.„ ,i ait . J ..,_ .. i * jj rj ,Cr' .410110117; ,ZilSW Verii idJa-A 2215Et W.Aak WPetk .1, 'L 0 ' - r r i `,j 011(:.()i Y f �/ f -' )LII r ) ii11 i �-t , r� 1 a-' { 7 1 4 - ').Lf - r 4 law *11_,P7Aft 1i1'IC0y C AL shots. N-tl .o 16-t Lt. Er ,.iiido,..110 6_; 1 i iii / AdetWirifeW o _iiirAi f 735- /4_, - r shots. N-tl .o 16-t Lt. Signatures Name Address t'Ll. ---daW- % 1 X CD(Inli-C_DJ it - /1 a / ?' e''3 ivi_ il) 4 -t -r Cf. L---/V\z ti' v\r mpiii . . - I li : AliPill t. ,' 2-91,(-1 f 1N62'-Vt' iuk t . ; " L_ 4 . 3{' x'- r' Late Correspondence From: Richard Stapleton To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing - South District Plan Amendment & Form -Based Code Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 6:46:38 PM Attachments: image001.pnq image002.onq image003.pnq image004.pnq image005.pnq 08/13/2021 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I apologize that my wife and I cannot attend the meeting on August 19, 2021, as we have other obligations. We wanted to make sure our voices and opinions are heard regarding the zoning and development of the South District. We bought our home at 1153 Langenberg Ave. About five years ago when we moved to Iowa City. We both talked and decided that we had enough of living in a city with my wife having lived steps from North Western in Chicago and after I spent 12 years living in downtown Denver, CO. When we talked with the realtor, we stated that we wanted a home within the city limits, but on the edge of town away from a lot of people and we wanted a home that was move -in ready. 1153 Langenberg was the perfect spot for us. Our realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of nothing but farmland. What wasn't disclosed to us was the plan to eventually develop this land in the near future. For the past few years, I've enjoyed having coffee on my back patio and watching the cows from the farm behind us. I've enjoyed watching the wildlife such as deer, foxes and in the winter seeing and hearing the coyotes. This part of our home has been perfect. However, we learned that this dream was just temporary about a year after we moved in. That was when we learned that the city planned to develop the land behind us. Not everything on Langenberg has been perfect. We had our share of attempted break-ins. Someone dug up and stole the bushes in our front yard. I've caught on camera twice someone trying to enter our home between 2 am — 3 am. My wife and I have been struck by a car speeding around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon. We have a lot of speeders who use Langenberg as an arterial between Gilbert and Sycamore. However, the one thing that we do enjoy is our backyard where we can escape busy city life. We had a few years now to grieve the future loss of our safe space, and we are still bitter toward SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future plans for this land. We excepted that someday we would be looking from our back porch into someone's backyard and would probably see a few dozen homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago when we learned that the plan was to build 4,000 — 8,000 livable units along with a walkable main street with businesses in this land. Our dream to get out of the city and now placed our home right in the middle of it, and we are irate at Iowa City for this proposal. Will this hurt our property value. No, in fact, it will probably help it. However, our safe space and sanctuary will be devastated. On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the concerns that we also share with other members of our neighborhood association. This includes the lack of parking for the proposed condos and apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct, and Langenberg Ave. This will also most likely increase traffic on Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by finishing the McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city has not made plans to increase emergency services. The same police and fire station that services our area now will also be responsible for the new development. This puts a burden on our existing emergency services. In addition to these concerns, my wife and I are also concerned that the new development and city expansion doesn't include a plan to reduce traffic by increasing public transportation that utilizes clean forms of energy. Finally, we learned through our neighborhood association that the Superintendent of schools hadn't been included in the conversations for the expansion of the South District. My wife and I have a two-year-old child. Prior to learning about the development, we were concerned about Alexander Elementary School because they have already outgrown their space and from what we have heard, has a teacher shortage. By the time this development is complete, our daughter will be in school, and we are greatly concerned about the impact of 4,000 — 8,000 living units on an already strained school system. My wife and I would like to see these concerns along with the concerns listed in the letter from our neighborhood association (SandHill Estates) before zoning for this project is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Richard Stapleton 1153 Langenberg Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:34 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote: All — The Planning and Zoning Commission will be holding a public hearing on an Amendment to the South District Plan and the Draft Form -Based Code at their meeting next Thursday, August 19. 2021. This is related to the City's form -based zoning project for a portion of the South District. Many of you have been engaged with this project over the last couple of years and we appreciate your involvement. The meeting will be in-person at The Center — Assembly Room, 28 S. Linn Street. Masks are required to enter City buildings. The agenda packet for this meeting is available here: https://www.icgov.org/city- government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission More information on this project is also available on our website: https://www.icgov.org/project/form- based-zones-and-standards Please let me know if you have any questions. From: To: Subject: Date: Bill Neal Anne Russett South District Plan Sunday, August 15, 2021 10:20:54 AM Anne, Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have reviewed the materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking spaces being allowed for the proposed buildings. I do not approve of allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of parking for the proposed housing that is being proposed. Thx Bill Neal 828 Oxen Lane Iowa City, Iowa 52240 From: To: Subject: Date: Glenn Lynn Anne Russett City Council Meeting 8/19/21 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 7:16:13 PM Hi Anne. I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South District plans but in particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here before and want to make sure our feelings are known. Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here. 'We bought customer built houses for a reason never expecting multi family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to many of my neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this goes through. Our previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on density and types of housing seem to be gone. I may be incorrect but I feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in cahoots with the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate development as I have seen many of their properties in IC in disrepair. I don't want that in my back yard. I guess I was remiss in thinking that our previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no one wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on the table. After seeing the plans, I'm assuming they are no longer considered. I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Glenn Lynn 725 McCollister Ct. From: To: Subject: Date: Jerry Waddilove Anne Russett Applications regarding the South District Plan Friday, September 10, 2021 6:58:46 PM Anne, SouthGate Companies has provided quality homes and workplaces to Iowa City and surrounding communities since 1962. We pride ourselves on building community pride and neighborhoods, one project at a time. Those projects have included neighborhoods in the South District; those outside the planning area (residential just north of the planning area - Pepperwood Addition) and one residential neighborhood within the planning area (Sandhill Estates). Furthermore, SouthGate owns approximately 90 acres of residential development land within the South District planning area. SouthGate has a vested interest in the long-term health and viability of the South District as well as other areas in Iowa City and surrounding communities. We support the initiatives of walkable neighborhoods to inspire social interaction, small commercial nodes, access to parks, mass transit, and providing a diverse mix of housing types to help provide more equity and inclusion in Iowa City. We believe the proposed South District Plan can help achieve the desired outcomes of those initiatives. The changes proposed in the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment are not without challenges. Single -loaded streets with housing on only one side of the street are not economically feasible without the increased intensity shown in the future land use map. In addition, clustered development is one solution in limiting impact on the significant natural environment within the District. Providing land use guidance surrounding Wetherby Park (which is 'land -locked') rolling hills throughout the South District, natural drainageways, and traditional development is not easy. SouthGate concurs with the Transect Development Theory as used in the Natural to Urban transitions, specifically the T3 Neighborhood Edge, T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, T4 Neighborhood Medium, and T4 Main Street Zones noted in the Code. Any multifamily development we potentially do in this planning area will include the consistent management, maintenance, and long-term investment we have made many times over in the South District. On a related note, Navigate Homes (our homebuilding company) has provided townhomes in the Cardinal Pointe West neighborhood in Iowa City, which is one of the housing options we could provide in the South District. Those housing types have brought young couples, medical professionals, entrepreneurs, and first-time homebuyers to that neighborhood. The diversity of housing types noted in the South District can also provide homes for our nurses, our firefighters, our restaurant chefs, our teachers, and other similar professions. Collaboration is defined by Merriam -Webster as 'to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor.' SouthGate Companies strives to collaborate with the City of Iowa City and neighbors alike in helping achieve our community's vision including development tools to help address equity and inclusion, climate change, social interaction, and healthy recreation. We believe the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments, as proposed, can be one method in helping achieve this vision. Sincerely, Jerry Jerry Waddilove CEO / Partner SG your way home 755 Mormon Trek Blvd Iowa City, IA 52246 Mobile: 319.621.0412 Office: 319.337.4195 SouthGateCo.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply email, delete and destroy all copies of the original message. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 4 of 20 the height bonus to have up to six floors and are nearing completion. Welch noted he has a couple loose ends to tie up as far as a maintenance agreement and working through a couple minor items related to that height bonus. The site plan has been submitted and they received their first round of review comments from City staff they have responded to and resubmitted that plan so they are feeling they're on track there as far as having a project that staff can approve with both the height bonus and site plan. The goal for starting construction is yet this year on that new building and their easements are in place to cover the gap between when it's conveyed and when those other buildings are taken down. Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to recommend approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County Seat Addition public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility easement, access easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff report and in forms approved by the City Attorney's office. Martin seconded the motion. Nolte noted he was glad to hear the project is moving forward. Signs agreed and stated it seems like this is a logical step in order to get that block redeveloped and is sure the applicant will have come before the Commission with something amazing to look at. Hensch stated he is really looking forward to this redevelopment because it looks like a difficult lot with the railroad tracks to the north and Ralston Creek to the east and he is very curious to see what comes next. Townsend asked what happens if they can't purchase all that other property. Hensch replied then the title won't be conveyed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Russett along with Lehmann will jointly be presenting this item and noted this is going to be the first of many presentations on the proposed South District Form -Based Code. Tonight Russett will provide an overview of the work that they've done so far, how they got to this point, discuss the planning process, and give a very high level summary of the proposed amendments. She will also share some examples of the types of neighborhoods that this Code could produce and then provide some justifications for the amendments. Lehmann will then provide a more detailed summary of the draft Code, tonight they're going to go through about half of it, and then will discuss next steps. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 5 of 20 In terms of project background, Russett explained they initiated this project back in January 2019 when the City executed a contract with Opticos Design, an urban design firm out of Berkeley California, to really start developing this Form -Based Code. They have been working very closely since January of 2019 with Tony Perez and Martin Galindez of Opticos on this code. They have all put a lot of work into this Code and the goals of the project are to implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the South District Plan. They want to create neighborhoods that are safe for pedestrians, encourage walking, preserve environmental resources, create communities that have a highly interconnected street network and allow for a variety of housing types for residents to have more choices and a variety of price points. The ultimate goal is then to apply this Code to other greenfield and other undeveloped areas of the City, this is the starting point and they expect that it will expand to other areas over time. Russett showed a map of the area that they're looking to start this is within the South District. Wetherby Park is the northern boundary, Alexander Elementary School in the middle, Gilbert Street is on the West and the Sycamore Greenway is on the east side of the planning area. In terms of the planning process, Russett explained this started back in 2015 with the adoption of the South District Plan. After that Plan was adopted City staff worked toward different ways of implementing that vision. The first project that they worked on was a project direction report, which was phase one of this project, where the City worked with Opticos to assess the feasibility of implementing a Form -Based Code and as part of that process there was a lot of stakeholder meetings, community workshops, and a visual preference survey. Some of the input that they got from that planning process back in 2017 is that the community saw a need for small neighborhood centers in the South District, they wanted to see a strong network of trails and parks, they saw that the community needed different housing options, including missing middle housing, better street connectivity, traffic calming, and the opportunity for people to age in place. Russett showed a graphic created by Opticos to help visualize missing middle housing and explained that missing middle housing is basically everything between detached single-family housing to midrise or larger scale apartments so everything in between those two scales is missing middle (such as duplexes, three- and four -unit buildings, courtyard apartments, and townhomes). The goal of this Code is to allow more of those housing types. Russett stated after that was completed, they started with phase two, which is the development of the draft Code. As part of that they worked with another consulting group that prepared a residential market study to examine whether or not there was a market for missing middle housing in the South District, and the short answer is yes, this study did conclude there is a market. Therefore, since that time they've been doing stakeholder meetings and outreach to develop the initial draft of the Code they released in 2019. After staff released that draft, they did more stakeholder meetings and outreach to get feedback on that draft, and then for the past year staff has been working on revising that draft based on comments received and making sure that it can work within the existing City processes related to land development. The revised draft was released just a couple weeks ago. Russett showed a chart that summarized the stakeholder outreach that they did since the beginning of the project. They've met with community members, affordable housing advocates, property owners, developers, the homebuilder's association and a variety of different groups throughout the process. What they heard from developers and landowners was that the development process is often lengthy and uncertain and if the new process is more predictable even with more regulation, that would be acceptable. There was also some concern that the market wouldn't support missing middle housing but there was also a need for more choices and more affordable housing. There was also some concerns with the Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 6 of 20 Plan's goal of creating single loaded streets along open spaces and green areas from the community, they heard that they see the open space in this area as an amenity and there was some concern about development near existing neighborhoods. There was an expectation that any development would be high quality development, and they also recognize the need for housing that is both affordable and accessible. Russett next discussed the summary of the proposed amendments, explaining there are two parts to these amendments, the first is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the South District Plan. Staff feels that the Form -Based Code that they are discussing tonight does align with the existing South District Plan. What they are proposing are some amendments to more explicitly link the Comprehensive Plan to the proposed Code, some new goals and some new objectives. Russett noted one of the more major changes that they're proposing is the new Future Land Use Map for this area, they're proposing new land use designations and the map itself to directly align with the new zones. Russett explained the reason that they're doing this is because it is really necessary to allow the missing middle housing and a diversity of housing types and it's important to have land use designations that are clear to show there's a diversity of housing types that are allowed. Russett noted it also creates options for neighborhood commercial centers or just neighborhood centers in general which could be commercial or could be an open space area. In terms of the Zoning Code amendments, Russett gave a high-level summary. Some of the big changes that staff is proposing with the Zoning Code amendments is that a mix of building types will be required, so every block must have a mix of building types. For example, if a block has eight lots, not all eight lots can be single family, there could be seven lots that are single family, but one would need to be something different, like a duplex. Staff is also requiring a mix of frontage types, so that could be a porch or stoop and there's a variety of different frontage types that could be selected by the developer. She explained this is to ensure that there's a diversity and there's visual interest within the streetscape and there's not monotony in the building design. In terms of parking, alleys are only required in the main street area, parking must be set back from the front facade of the building. In terms of the amount of parking that the Code requires, it is slightly lower than the current Zoning Code. Carriage houses in the proposed Code are allowed with most building types, carriage houses are also referred to as granny flats or accessory dwelling units or accessory apartments, they are typically in the City now seen associated with a single-family home, but this Code would allow them with a townhome or with the duplexes, so there's going to be more allowances to incorporate this housing type. Street trees will be required to be planted within the public right-of-way, also block lengths will be reduced to ensure a highly interconnected street network. The Draft Code also includes several civic spaces which are defined, and the locations are identified on the Future Land Use Map. Russett noted they have incorporated regulatory incentives for developers, who are providing affordable housing. So if a developer is voluntarily providing affordable housing through low income housing tax credits, or some other funding source, they can seek out height bonus or different flexibility or waivers from development standards. Staff has created a new term which is called design sites. A design site is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 7 of 20 The draft code also includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for these design sites currently our code just has minimums. Lastly Russett discussed the minimum dimensional standards, minimum lot sizes and proposed maximums to help ensure more compact development. She shared some examples of what this type of Code could produce, they're looking to produce pedestrian friendly areas that are easy to walk in and are safe to walk in. There's lots of porches and frontage is facing the street and not seeing a lot of garages. These are going to be typically house scale buildings so, even though some of these housing types and building types will allow multiple units they're still in scale with the existing single-family buildings. In terms of justifications for the proposed amendments, the current Zoning Code provides limited flexibility, it tends to lead development to separating land uses and limiting the mix of land uses. There is some flexibility allowed through the plan development overlay rezoning process and the Code does allow accessory dwelling units with single family homes and also allows duplexes on corner lots. However just allowing those uses within these zones hasn't resulted in mixing those types or seeing a lot of duplexes or accessory dwelling units being built. Also zoning regulations have historically been used to segregate communities through single family zoning, through creating minimum lot sizes, through only allowing single family. Currently, in the residentially zoned areas of the City 81 % is zone single family. Russett also noted conventional zoning results in auto oriented development, residents need to rely on cars as more land is consumed. The City has goals to address climate change and to address equity issues, so the goal of this Code is to create a more sustainable community and more equitable community, and it does that by providing a wider variety of housing types and a variety of price points. It requires a mix of building types and includes incentives for developing affordable housing, it ensures that streets are connected, and neighborhoods are connected. It creates neighborhood nodes either by identifying centers of communities which could be a small commercial area or open space and it ensures more compact development. Lehmann next went into the nuts and bolts of the Code. He noted it can be complicated so the Commission should feel free to ask questions along the way. He started with the Form -Based Zones and Standards and the first section which is the introduction. The introduction talks about the intent briefly discuss the Zoning Districts and how this Code applies with other sections of the Code. It also talks about the process, about how reasonings are slightly different, how subdivisions would be slightly different, and the neighborhood plan which is a new component of this as well. In terms of intent Lehmann wanted to reiterate a couple things. The point is to improve the environment by supporting multimodal transportation options and reducing vehicle traffic, they want a variety of housing types, levels of affordability and accessibility, health and sustainability to focus on pedestrian scale neighborhoods that reinforced the unique characteristics of Iowa City and all of this is done to also promote walkable neighborhoods. Lehmann stated the way the Code is organized is a little different than conventional zoning code. The conventional one is based on use, residential single-family zones, residential multifamily zones, and commercial zones. This Form -Based Code is organized more around a transact concept which looks at the spectrum, from urban to rural, and it gives them a number for each of those. Tier one is the natural area and tier six are areas like downtown. The South District is generally suburban in nature, so would really be tier two, three and four areas which are lower in Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 8 of 20 scale and buildings don't really get over two to three stories, maybe up to four stories in the main street area. Moving on to process and the way that this Code works, staff wants to make sure that it fits into existing processes and they're not creating new ways of doing things, but rather enhance the ways that they do things currently to try and improve them to reach these goals. Lehmann stated the first step would be rezoning to a Form -Based Zone which is a standard Zoning Code Map Amendment. Staff does recommend that it is done concurrently with a preliminary plan, because the zoning standards are tied into lot sizes and all those sorts of things, and also with the Future Land Use Map because it is a lot more detailed and it's hard to just blanket zone a whole area like they often see as RS -5, low density residential single family zone, because that can't be done in this case unless they already have some engineering done in advance, which is why they recommend that it goes with a preliminary plat. As far as the staff review and the Planning and Zoning Commission review, there are specific criteria that are included in that rezoning, and that is to try and provide some certainty to both developers and to the community as to how things can develop in this area. First and foremost, it has to comply with the Future Land Use Map but there are some situations where it can be changed and those are specifically laid out in the Code or alternatively if circumstances have changed or something comes to light, like a public interest to change how it looks, then they can incorporate that into the rezoning and change what is on that Future Land Use Map. The other criteria are tied to responding appropriately to site conditions, for example, making sure that more intense zones are organized around neighborhood features. Also, making sure that transitions between neighborhood Form -Based Zones make sense as they don't want two different zones looking at each other across the street instead they want that to happen across a block or cross an alley if possible. Also, they need to make sure that the design of the sites suits the topographical environmental or other constraints that might be there. Regarding the subdivision process, Lehmann said they basically would consider it a more detailed preliminary plat so, for example, they would show certain things that are not on current preliminary plants such as design sites, thoroughfare types, civic spaces and building types. There is also some additional notation about the possible administrative changes that can be made and then it should also abide by the new standards that are part of this Code for parcel size, street size, layout, block size, some of those changes are incorporated into the subdivision code, rather than in the zoning code. In addition, for the final plat when they're actually laying out the parcels there is an additional submittal that would come that is called the Neighborhood Plan which is very similar to what the preliminary plat has but is updated to reflect any changes that have happened since then and also adding in the frontage type standards as well. Lehmann reiterated that every design site should have a building type and frontage type and then streets would correspond with thoroughfare type and open spaces would correspond to a civic space type, so it really is categorizing different uses and different forms of the physical environment and applying it on individual parcels. As development happens, it would then follow that Neighborhood Plan that would be submitted with the final plat. Again, there would be an opportunity for administrative changes if, for example, design sites need to be modified and they can swap out building types, frontage types, civic space types, as long as it meets the underlying standards. For example, a duplex requires a larger lot, but if there is a single-family lot that would fit a duplex and they think a duplex is more appropriate for that location they'd be able to administratively change that. Lehmann did state however, for those changes to happen all other development standards would have to be met as well. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 9 of 20 Craig asked if this new Form -Based Code is one for the new areas that are developed or will it apply to the already developed areas such as the development across from the school where if someone bought two houses that sit together that were in bad condition and tore them down could they put a four plex there. Lehmann responded that all the existing properties on the map do not have a designation, they would just stay under their current designation. Also, many of those are in the County but if they are annexed in the future the map shows what the City expects development to look like around the existing properties. Lehmann explained what he was showing was the detail on the Future Land Use Map noting it doesn't have street names but the area they are discussing has McCollister Avenue that goes right through the heart of it from South Gilbert Street on the west, Lehman Avenue is to the south, that curves into Sycamore Street, Wetherby Park is the north boundary and to the east is The Sand Hill Prairie that the City maintains. Craig asked if the red lines are alleys. Lehmann confirmed those are alleys and he really just wanted to show this map because it's a more detailed land use map than a lot of the greenfield sites shown on current maps to show it as low density residential but there's not a lot of distinction of what that means. Lehmann will show a more detailed version of the Future Land Use Map and explained he will go through every element and the individual Code sections. To summarize the process section, Lehmann stated it is a slightly modified version of a regular development process and again those purposes are really the balance that upfront certainty and the developmental flexibility. On the upfront certainty side, rezonings are based on approval criteria, so it gives more certainty that things would follow that Form -Based or the Future Land Use Map and what that means is actually defined and there are enhanced plans that gets submitted including the Neighborhood Plans. On the development flexibility side there's an opportunity for administrative changes later on, so even though there is more detail upfront, they can come back and change it if it's still meets the different provisions of the Code and this really does offer a much broader variety of missing middle housing types that has been talked about. Lehmann next discussed the zones, which is the second section of the Code. The first two subsections are really tied to the purpose and it describes sub zones. The bulk is really just going through the individuals zone standards, so mostly focusing on those individual zone standards but he'll talk briefly about the sub zone as well. Martin noted they are looking at these proposed zones and talking about connectivity and walkability, but she is not seeing any neighborhood commercial in there, is that something that's going to be addressed later. Lehmann explained neighborhood commercial is incorporated through the sub zone because they're regulating by building type, not by use so it's not going to be specifically labeled a commercial zone. The commercial zones are going to be the open sub zone and then the Main Street Zone will also allow commercial. Martin stated then there could be a neighborhood grocery store on the corner and Lehmann confirmed in certain locations and with certain building types. Lehmann started with the palette of zoning districts, or tiers, T2, T3 & T4. There is also T1 but it's not a separate zone it's more just the open space areas. T1 zones are not reflected as separate zones on the maps but are reflected through those natural areas that are located on the Future Land Use Map and its basically nature or open space. T3 are the neighborhood edge zones, and Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 10 of 20 then they go up in in density/intensity, but it doesn't really regulate density in the same way as other areas because they're more focused on the building types, how they lay out within the street, and how they interact with each other. That is the form that really guides the zone, which is why it's called a Form -Based Zone. In the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone there are house -scale detached buildings, approximately two and a half stories, occupied attics and walk out basements. Lehmann noted half stories are not something that are Zoning Code currently identifies, so this is a different way of looking at height. The Form -Based Zone does include height standards, but it also includes stories as one of its measures of height. In terms of the housing types that they could expect to see in this zone are the building types of large houses, duplexes, and cottage courts, so for example similar to a RS -5 zone but a little less restrictive. Instead of regulating what a duplex might look like through provisional zoning criteria, it will be regulated through the building type standards, and those will be in the presentation in two weeks. The T3 Neighborhood Edge is the lowest intensity zone. T3 Neighborhood General would be a step up from that in a higher intensity of those suburban zones. Again, it would be buildings up to two and a half stories, occupied attics, walk out basements and low scale detached buildings. T3 Neighborhood General allows a broader variety of building types than are allowed in T3 Neighborhood Edge. It can still be houses, duplexes, cottage courts but also adds in small scale multifamily and townhomes. The multifamily could be up to six units and townhomes could be up to a row of three units. This would be similar to a RS -12 or RM -12 zone, but it doesn't allow large scale multifamily and there are limits on the size that a multiplex could be, the building type is specifically called multiplex small. So again, the T3 Neighborhood General is a little more intense but still relatively low density. Lehmann next discussed the T4 zones, the urban zones, the T4 Neighborhood Small is still two and a half stories, so it's the same height, it is house scale, detached with some attached buildings, occupied attics, walk out basements. Lehmann explained these can be some larger units, but they blend in with low scale buildings, and don't look out of place in a residential neighborhood. Building types are cottage courts, small multiplexes, courtyard buildings (which have up to 16 units), townhouses in rows of up to eight, but overall the scale of buildings generally won't occupy an entire block in these zones. It could be compared to a RM -20 zone, but the difference is with the way the building types are defined, there are maximum building sizes to not end up with a block size apartment complex. T4 Neighborhood Medium is where there starts to be larger units, heights of three and a half stories with an occupied attic, they are still primarily house scale buildings, a larger house scale, and then there would be some block scale attached and detached buildings as well. Lehmann noted it's a more intense zone with larger multiplexes up to 12 units, courtyard buildings up to 16 units, and townhouses up to a row of eight units. This would be similar to a RM -44 zone, but again these no building with more than 16 units and although they may get some block scale buildings in this, they can only be up to three stories. Finally, there is the T4 Main Street, it is the most intense and allows the broadest variety of uses. It allows up to four stories, there are block scale buildings, there are attached buildings, and there can be up to 24 townhouses, a courtyard building can have up to 24 units and Main Street buildings are unrestricted. Lehmann stated the T4 Main Street are the neighborhood focal points, and are denser attached buildings, which is what one would expect in a traditional Main Street in perhaps a town of 5000 people. Lehmann next discussed one of the other ways commercial uses are accommodated are through sub zones in the T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and would just be designated T3NGO instead of T3NG. Also, in those zones there are additional flexibility for uses that would be allowed, and, basically, that means that it allows more Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 11 of 20 than nonresidential uses. These areas tend to be at the neighborhood centers and to see as a walkable area. It could be childcare, it could be commercial, etc., but it's a broader variety that is allowed in those open sub zones. Lehmann presented the Future Land Use Map again to show item by item, show where all these zones and sub zones are. The T3 Neighborhood Edge areas are generally placed next to existing development, so it is just south of the existing development that's currently along Langenberg, it is also up north around the school and around the existing County subdivisions that are there, it is also adjacent to the golf course. Next is the T3 Neighborhood General, which can be considered a bulk zone where there are neighborhoods outside of busier roads or commercial centers. Quite a bit of the map is Neighborhood General as it's one of the more versatile zones, it allows single family duplexes and then small scale multifamily, but there is the height limit of two and a half stories. The T4 Neighborhood Small are generally located along either smaller collector streets, next to some denser existing development or on single loaded streets where there's not development on the other side, and it is also surrounding major intersections as well. Lehmann specifically pointed out South Gilbert Street and McCollister Avenue as an area to see this zoning. The next zone is Neighborhood Medium, this is where buildings can be up to three and a half stories, so it is really only located along major corridors and especially at major intersections such as at the intersection of South Gilbert and McCollister where they expect more intense uses to be located based on the characteristics of the area. Finally, is the Main Street and it's really only a small commercial node at the heart of this part of the community with the idea being the focal point in the school district. Lehmann noted there are also neighborhood nodes where there are open zones and those are located in the heart of their respective sub districts. Between those there are quite a few different places for neighborhood commercial uses as the zones are laid out according to what the City expecting in terms of the road network, in terms of uses, in terms of intensities, and in terms of scale of development with single loaded streets, for example. Lehmann explained the way that this is different is the Future Land Use Map is more detailed and the dimensional standards are slightly different because a lot of building bulk is primarily regulated by building types, it's not regulated by uses as much. There are some opportunities to modify or decrease lot size further if they provide, for example rear access, rear utility easements, or additional civic space. However rear access is not required, so the way that the lots were designed was to accommodate the buildings given front access and/or rear access, but rear access with allow a smaller lot. Another change that was touched on briefly in the introduction was that parking is regulated by zone in this case, so it is slightly different because the amount is regulated by the zone, as is the location, so there are different setbacks for buildings compared to parking such that the buildings are to be closer to the street than the parking with the idea being they don't want the street front to be dominated by garage doors or blank walls, so it does require that parking is set back a little further. Lehmann showed a diagram on how parking is set back from the front facade, he noted there are some opportunities to tweak that a little bit but generally it's going to be set back from whatever is occupying most of the streetscape. Some other changes Lehmann wanted to mention are there are frontage types and building types and those are required for each design site, and then there's also the sub zones, specifically the open zone which allows for greater variety of uses, especially nonresidential uses. Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 12 of 20 Lehmann next moved on to discuss the use standards, noting they are pretty similar to what they are used to seeing with a standard use table, uses that are permitted just straight up, uses that are provisionally allowed that requires staff review. Signs noted looking at the Future Land Use Map, there's a lot of detail put together on these various zones and into all these potential streets, but does the plan say that this is where streets really will be because otherwise if they start moving streets, then they lose the zones. Lehmann stated that's where those rezoning criteria come into play acknowledging if they move streets it's going to move zones and so that's where the specific criteria come into place so that when they are reconstructed, zones are related upon it, it has to make sense in the same way and that those zoning criteria are followed. Lehmann stated the Future Land Use Map isn't an engineered plat or anything so changes can and will happen but hopefully it would be reconstructed in a similar manner. Lehmann went back to the use standards and stated staff does still regulate uses in Form -Based Zones, again permitted by right, provisionally allowed where staff reviews to make sure that it meets some criteria, and then through special exception, where it goes through a discretionary process by the Board of Adjustment. Lehmann noted in most cases the missing middle housing is permitted by right and that would be all of the building types that are allowed. Detached single family dwellings aren't permitted in those urban zones and a lot of the other standards follow the existing zones. Lehmann did point out that in the open zones how the commercial uses are allowed as well in the Main Street Zone how commercial uses are allowed. He stated there are additional uses called live/work that also allows some commercial uses that would be within certain residential zones, specifically those that are T4 zones. Lehmann next discussed the missing middle, the definition that they use in the Zoning Code is house scale buildings with multiple units and walkable neighborhoods. He wanted to touch on this again because this is one of those major changes that is missing in a lot of zoning codes because usually there's high priority for single family detached or high priority for large multifamily and some of those missing middle housing types get lost. The way this Code looks at it is makes them allowable uses and instead of regulating by the uses it regulates by those building types instead. Lehmann stated there are two new use categories, one is community gardens, land cultivated by multiple users for plants essentially, it is also a joint civic space type and does allow some onsite retail for produce that was grown on site, but most structures on it are pretty limited and it's mostly going to be that green space. He noted they did want to include this as is not included in the current Zoning Code and they don't really have any use category that would allow for this. It would have likely been classified as agriculture, so this is a way to make sure that there was an opportunity for community gardens and civic space. The other new use category is live/work space, it is similar to the home businesses that are currently allow but it's a slightly more intense version of where someone lives in the unit that they also work in. Those nonresidential uses that are allowed are limited, it's similar to what is allowed in the Peninsula live/work areas, but it does limit on premises sales to goods made in the unit, for example an artist studio, and it does prohibit certain hours for deliveries, certain hours for clients and only up to three outside employees, and it does limit the number of clients per day. It is a more intense commercial use that could be allowed but does have its own restrictions that come with it and it's really only Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 13 of 20 allowed in those T4 Zones and above, likely the live/work would be in the town home building types. Lehmann explained the differences between the use standards as they currently are and these, these use standards incorporate the missing middle, there is an accessory use table that isn't in the current Zoning Code, which makes it easier to interpret some of those uses and then there are those two new use categories. Lehmann reiterated however that uses are not the primary way that they're regulating the form of the environment, it is really by those forms in building types and in frontage types. The site standards are similar to the site development standards and it works in tandem with them. Some of these standards, like screening, supplement the existing standards and some just add slight differences to them. Regarding screening they do regulate walls and fences, they regulate mechanical equipment, again these sites standards supplant the existing standards that the City has. Generally, there are height limits on walls and fences, and they're not allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. Mechanical equipment has to be screened either by the building, by wall parapets or by walls if it's an existing building that's in one of these zones. For landscaping, it is a bit unusual in that it works in tandem with the existing landscaping standards. Lehmann noted there are some new parking landscaping requirements and there are new street tree standards which was touched upon when talking about the thoroughfare street types. He stated these things are all checked during the site plan or building permit review process. Plant diversity is probably the biggest change in that for new street trees they would only allow 5% of any species and 10% of any genus in any trees that are on the sites, they should be spatially distributed and also should try to incorporate mature trees when possible. Those do work with the existing standards, but it is a bit more detailed in how they want to encourage a biodiversity within these areas to promote sustainability. Landscaping is expected to be installed with development and should be maintained, and it should be separated from vehicular areas. Lehmann discussed parking, as already mentioned the amount and location of onsite parking is listed by zone, there are also current parking standards, some of which apply, and then there are new parking landscaping standards that are involved in this section as well. Some of the differences are tied to traffic minimization, there's provisions for bicycle parking, for carpool spaces, for office uses and then for cars to share spaces for large residential and office uses. There are some large vehicle parking and loading standards and they're slightly different than current Code standards. Lehmann stated the parking lot design standards and landscaping standards are to try and avoid larger areas of pavement so there are standards about breaking up larger parking areas, making sure there's pedestrian access to sidewalks, and landscaping when it's a larger area. They want to make sure that parking spaces are accessed from an internal drive and not just from the streets. He noted one difference is that tandem parking is allowed, where there are two cars located front to back, but it's regulated by use generally and would only be allowed within one unit, so someone is not going to get stuck behind a neighbor. Overall, the more parking there is, the more landscaping that's required, tree coverage is based on the lot area, so the bigger the lot more trees required. They do encourage that the landscaping areas incorporate stormwater management to try and filter the storm water rather than treat it as a waste product, but that is not required. Finally in the site standards, Lehmann noted there is a subsection on adjustments to standards He explained these are administrative changes that again that can be made to different Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 14 of 20 provisions. They do require that there is a finding that is made with that so it's similar to the current minor modifications accept that there wouldn't be a notification requirement, it would be more like the adjustments in Riverfront Crossings. Those include things such as the design site size, the amount of facade, the facade zone, the main body or wing height, which comes with building types, the front parking setback, screen height and then there's some flexibility that's allowed for affordable housing which he'll discuss later in the affordable housing chapter. Adjustments or modifications do require findings that are made by staff and most of it is to accommodate an existing feature. Lehmann noted the Form -Based Code provides flexibility like dimensional standards for affordable housing. The final section to discuss tonight is on civic space types as those are really a new concept for the City of Iowa City, it basically typifies open space and categorizes them and provides some standards with that. The first two sub sections are the general standards and the purpose and then the rest of them are just the different types of civic spaces that could be selected. A civic space could be a public open space, or it could be private open space, but it has to be accessible and dedicated to public use and it would be really delineated in that subdivision process and finalized in that neighborhood plan. Again, there is the opportunity to change what the civic space type is in the standards but that's where it would be codified, or at least made public. Lehmann stated there is required open space in that City requires that land must be provided for public open space or fee -in -lieu paid. That is an existing standard that can tie into this, but it doesn't always tie into this. Public spaces that are dedicated to the City could qualify as a civic space and meet that requirement, but if it's a private civic space it would not meet that requirement and those would not be able to be used for the neighborhood open space dedications. In terms of what public access and visibility means, Lehmann explained it really means that they have to allow the public to access it and see it, so they want to ensure that it's visible through single -loaded streets, bike and pedestrian paths, and making sure that it's not tucked away behind existing development as a sort of private park, it has to be accessible. This also does include natural features such as creeks or other natural open spaces that are there, some of those are delineated on Future Land Use Map, some may be located later as the sensitive areas plans are developed. Building facades must front on the civic space, they want the civic spaces to look on complete facades that are nicely developed and not just the side of building. As far as the use of civic spaces, there primarily intended to be gathering spaces and they must be designed accordingly, but there might be some opportunity for commercial uses, there are opportunities for service areas, especially if it's privately owned as they do want it to contribute to stormwater management, and using some of that green infrastructure and since they are looking at street trees they are looking at things that absorb water instead of piping it into storm sewers, it'd be great if they could incorporate the stormwater management into these green spaces that exists. Lehmann pointed out seven options for civic spaces, the first two are the Greenway and the Green. The Greenway is basically a long linear space that would be multiple blocks, it would be an opportunity for strolling, there could be sidewalks along it, there could be a trail down it, it could be flanked by streets and could be flanked on one side by buildings. It serves as a connector between open space areas. This civic space type would be allowed in all zones, except for the T4 Main Street Zone. The Green is similar but it's just a standard open space, a large space available for unstructured recreation, it limits the amount of buildings that can be put on site, and it also is allowed and all zones but the T4 Main Street Zone. The next two are the Plaza and the Pocket Park/Plaza. The Plaza is only allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. It's really a community focal point similar to a historic town center that is seen in some small Iowa Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 15 of 20 towns. It might have some structured space, but it would be primarily a gathering place. The Pocket Park/Plaza is a little different, it's basically a smaller version of either the Green or of the Plaza depending on the context, because it is allowed in all zones, so if it's in a T4 Main Street Zone it would be expected to be a Plaza and a more formal space that serves the neighborhood. It it's in a T3 Zone or a lower density neighborhood zone, it is expected to be some sort of small park that serve as an immediate neighborhood. The next two are the Playground and Community Garden. Playgrounds pretty self-explanatory and intended for children and are allowed in all zones. They could be incorporated into any other civic space, so it could be in a Plaza or it could be in a Green, but it is its own type as well. The Community Garden has already been briefly touched upon, but it's intended for garden plots available to nearby residences and is allowed in all zones. The final type of civic space is the Passage, which is a little unique in that it is both a civic space and also a thoroughfare type. The City does have standards right now that allow for pedestrian passageways through blocks that can allow a larger block length. Lehmann explained this is similar to that, but it adds some more standards as to what that has to look like and it is allowed for all zones. For a Passage, one would expect the houses to front it, the Ped Mall would be an urban example of what a Passage might look like. It does increase the allowable block size which Lehmann will touch upon during the next meeting as to how those standards work together in the subdivision process. Lehmann showed on the Future Land Use Map the variety of civic space types. Ones to the east are more neighborhood focal points similar to some of the open zones, there are some linear spaces where there's infrastructure, there's an existing trail on the northeast side of McCollister, east of South Gilbert. Staff is proposing another one where there's an existing sewer line as it makes sense to put some sort of trail where they have some infrastructure. He noted they are also proposing an expansion of the Sand Hill Park, some buffer on the southeast side next to the sanitary sewer plant, and finally, they are showing a Plaza in the middle of the T4 Main Street Zones. The imagine they would see some commercial areas there with outdoor seating, etc. Lehmann next explained how this is different from the existing Zoning Code, it can be public or private, it is a new concept, but it builds on current open space standards, and really classifies the open space, both natural and urban open spaces, and it creates standards. He noted it also formalizes some of the pedestrian route criteria that they have currently with the Passage, it does tie stormwater management into the amenity space and builds it into the Future Land Use Map and then through that it is also incorporated in the neighborhood plans and the other new planning processes. Lehmann stated the next steps will be a discussion next time at the July 15 meeting on the building type standards, architectural elements standards, the frontage types, thoroughfare types, and then the affordable housing incentives. They will also talk about some other minor changes that were required throughout the Code to implement this and then some changes with the South District Plan. Then at the August 5 subsequent meeting they will have an opportunity to discuss anything the Commission would like more clarity on and then at the August 19 meeting is when staff would expect to make a recommendation on the Form -Based Code and on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council. Once Council receives the recommendation, they would set a public hearing and have three hearings of the Code, and one hearing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So theoretically the Comprehensive Plan Amendment couldn't be approved until September 21 and theoretically if this schedule is followed the Code would be adopted potentially on October 19. Lehmann acknowledged they are accepting public comments throughout this entire process but Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 16 of 20 strongly encourage that public comments are provided by August 5 so that by the end of the meeting, staff could have an opportunity prior to the Commission hearing it on August 19 to incorporate any changes. Hensch asked if at the August 19 meeting is where the Commission considers adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Form -Based Code, is that also when the public hearing would be held for the first time for the public to weigh in on this. Lehmann said they could submit written comments prior to that and those could be provided to the Commission at the August 5 meeting for consideration, otherwise the formal public hearing on both of these items would be August 19. Craig first asked about the parking in the images that were shown, to her it appears like there were not near enough parking spaces for some of those big buildings. Will there be parking underground, even for a four-plex, four parking spots doesn't seem like enough. She recognizes they said that the parking standards were diminished somewhat, but what are the parking standards and will there be enough parking for some of those structures, particularly the bigger ones. Also, is there any way to make it an incentive or incentivize a developer to include electrical charging stations in the parking, she feels that would be very attractive for someone as 10 years from now they're going to have a lot more electric vehicles around. Craig also stated she is still a little fuzzy about the whole design sites and what that means, they showed a picture of the big square that was divided into three squares or three rectangles and who divides those and decides if there are single family homes on them, maybe one with the granny suite or whatever, she needs to try to educate herself more on that. Finally, on the gathering places, Craig thinks all those concepts are great but it just feels like maybe there's not enough of them in there, this feels like a very dense development. Overall, she really likes it, but there are no plans for a City park, or all the civic spaces maintained by the City or maintained privately. Lehmann responded briefly on the parking question. For each zone, there is a subsection seven called parking and that sets the minimum standard for that zone. For example, for the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone, studio up to two-bedroom units would require one parking space per unit minimum, three or more would require two parking spaces per unit, for commercial or nonresidential uses no parking would be required up to 1500 square feet with the assumption being it would use the on -street parking, if it's greater than that, then the parking standard starts to come into play. Lehmann acknowledged the parking standards are less than the current standards, but these are minimum requirements and they are trying to look at ways to encourage walkable, denser developments, and so these are the minimums that would be required for a unit. However, a developer could decide they want two parking spaces for every bedroom, and they can still do that, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that, it's just that the minimum required would be less than the current Code. Craig said then for a four-plex with just four parking spots that is okay. Lehmann responded it would be acceptable if those were all one -bedroom units. Lehmann noted in terms of design sites, the design sites show flexibility and one could have an entire large parcel fit for duplexes or fit for five single family homes. The flexibility of not platting those individual sites can allow for a mix of homes that would fit the site and could be tweaked as developed. He acknowledged realistically most people are probably still going to plat parcels like Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 17 of 20 they currently do. For example, if there is a plat for a multifamily building but in the future they decide that parcel would be better for two single family homes instead they don't have to subdivide it again, instead, they would just use design sites and deal with it that way. Craig asked how the individual who's purchasing it know what's their property. Lehmann said it would be similar to the legality of a condo regime and that's why they would still expect most people to probably development it as they buy it. Hektoen confirmed it would be like a condo association or the owner is also the developer and continues to own all of the units. Lehmann said it can also be similar to a planned overlay process with sometimes all of the buildings on a single lot, and they have to put invisible lot lines. The difference is in this those invisible lines can be shuffled around depending on what the market forces seem to be as long as they're meeting the frontage mixed standards, the dwelling type standards, and all of those sorts of things. Lehmann next answered the question on the civic space, he does believe they do make a distinction on the Future Land Use Map about public versus private open space and what they're thinking for those areas is one of them would be a small public park, the one that's in the central east side. He noted there are already a lot of park amenities in the South District, that's one of the selling points, there is Terry Trueblood, open space from the prairie, Wetherby Park and the Sycamore Trail and greenway. Craig recognizes that but was thinking more about playgrounds for children, she acknowledged there is the school playground, but not much else. Lehmann agreed and noted that a decision to put in a playground will be up to the person that is developing the civic space, because the City does not distinguish which civic space types should be where, that would be up to the developer. Russett added staff did talk to the Parks and Rec Department about park needs in this area and they felt that a playground was really needed east of the greenway so that's why they identified that area as a public park that will become an area with a playground. Signs is interested in discussing the affordable housing piece and the fee -in -lieu piece. He is personally done with the fee -in -lieu concept because everybody's using it and if they really want to get affordable housing truly scattered throughout the community and incorporate into these areas they have to do away with that fee -in -lieu because every developer uses it, and they don't build affordable units in their developments. He just wanted to say that is something he is going to harp on a lot through this process. Signs also had an interesting observation about multimodal transportation and looking at these spaces, they talk about a lot less parking with the idea that people will use other transportation sources and that concerns him in light of the fact that the transportation department is cutting bus routes. So here they are creating a whole development, a whole area that's going to theoretically rely more on buses, so he hopes they are having that conversation with the transportation department and with City Council as far as funding the transportation department. Signs is also concerned about the map, it shows very distinct zones in very distinct places and from his experience with developments, especially in this larger area of land, rarely do they end up that way. All of a sudden streets won't be there and uses will change so he'd like to hear Planning and Zoning Commission July 1, 2021 Page 18 of 20 much more about what happens as things change because they all know what they do today and what's going to be done five years from now, are distinctly different. Finally, Signs has a quick question of if this ties into the needs for adjustments in rental codes. Will development here discourage or encourage rental units, it may not be relevant to the conversation, but those were just some things he made note of tonight and he looks forward to having more conversations in the in the couple of sessions to come. Padron agrees with Craig about electric vehicle stations, that would be great. She likes that parking requirements are being reduced, but she would like to see how they will be complimenting or encouraging other modes of transportation. Will there be more parking for bicycles or wider streets for bike lanes, etc. Finally, regarding the trees, will they be requiring the use of native species to reduce the use of water, also in terms of landscape are they encouraging the use of local materials that don't require transportation for landscape. Padron also agrees with Craig that it seems that are not enough green spaces, and also the greenway is allowed in some of those zones, but it's not a requirement, so what would happen if a developer chooses not to have any of those green spaces. The area would then become very dense and not good for stormwater management without be something like permeable pavement. She also agrees with Signs on the concern over public transportation and would like to hear much more about that. Finally, Padron is also concerned about the commercial inside the neighborhoods because that's another thing if they're hoping that people will use less cars, but if they have to drive really far away to get groceries, how's that going to work. Hensch looks forward to the future opportunities to hear more about this and encourages all Commission members to continue to do some research and reading on this. DISCUSSION OF RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS: Russett noted a couple updates for the Commission. The Governor's emergency declaration allowing cities to meet virtually has been extended through July 25, but it is expected that it will not be extended after that point. This Commission has one more chance to meet virtually, on July 15, but Russett stated there's been some interest from the Commission to meet back in person. Russett would like to request that they have that July 15 meeting as a virtual meeting so the consultants can participate more easily. Hensch agreed that seems reasonable unless somebody has an objection to that. He added that he saw today that persons 12 years age and up in Iowa City have a 69.9% vaccination rate so almost at that 70%. Johnson County is doing really well. Russett also wanted to mention that at this point there's not going to be any hybrid meetings, it will all be back to in person. Lehmann added they will all be recorded so people can watch it at least. Craig asked why no hybrid, with zoom people could still participate. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2021 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Mark Nolte, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption of form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Lehmann stated this is a continuation from the presentation that he had started at the last meeting and tonight he will be going into detail on the Code. This Form -Based Code is available to view on the City's website and the Code itself is the first one in the appendix and includes changes to Title 14 and 15 and then proposed changes to the South District Plan. At the last meeting Lehmann started the general discussion about why how this process came to be what's been done so far and went over a brief summary of amendments and the examples of the types of neighborhood this Code will produce and then also the justifications for the proposed amendments both to the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He had also started talking about the intensive principles of the Code, some of the zone's use standards, site standards and civic spaces. Tonight, he will go through the remaining chapters, of which there are five, on building type standards, architectural element standards, frontage type standards, thoroughfare type standards and affordable housing incentives. Those are all part of Title 14-2H. Lehmann noted there's also other minor changes of Title 14 which he will briefly cover as well as some Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 2 of 23 changes to the Subdivision Code, which is one of the ways that this Code will help be implemented, go over some of the draft changes to the Comprehensive Plan and then finally summarize the next steps that will happen through this process. Lehmann began by reiterating briefly the items that were discussed at the last meeting. The first section of the Code was the intent and principles which basically talks about how Form -Based Codes are different than current development standards and the process that is used to implement them through the regular development process and the minor changes that happened to make sure that these standards are met. He went over the Zones as well, there are five zones, and he went over the new standards which are the uses that are allowed in the different zones and the site standards which affects what development looks like in those zones, specifically regarding landscaping, parking, design, screening, etc. Finally, he went through civic space types, which are essentially types of public or private open space that might be provided in these areas. To briefly refresh the different zones are organized by transects so that's what the T stands for, with T3 referring to suburban zones and T4 referring to urban zones so T3 is a lower density and T4 is a higher density. Within those broader transects there are two T3 areas, T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone which is the lowest density, and T3 Neighborhood General is the next highest density. Then there are three T4 zones, Neighborhood Small, Neighborhood Medium and Main Street. He will review the Future Land Use Map when he goes through building types. Lehmann next discussed tonight's standards and noted at least three of the sections relate to different types and some broader design standards that are incorporated in those, so it will be a lot of lists and information. The first section is 14-2H-6, Building Type Standards and within this section the first two subsections are the purpose and the general building type standards and then the rest are all of the different building types that would be allowed, and they do differ by zone. As he goes through his presentation, he did group them by familiar terms such as houses, duplexes, etc. In terms of the general standards Lehmann pointed out a couple that are important. First the scale of the building types are based on the intended character of the zone and that's how they determine what different building types are allowed in each zone and they will notice that throughout the Code it describes house scale versus block scale. House scale are smaller buildings, what one would expect to be the size of a house, block scales is when an individual building size covers most of the block. The purpose of the scale of the Zoning Code is to create pedestrian oriented buildings and also pedestrian oriented public realms like the streetscape. In terms of building types and as they relate to design sites, the size of the design site is regulated by the zone, so it's not included in this, but it is governed by the building type. Typically, within each design site there would be one building per design site, some certain buildings do allow multiple buildings such as an accessory type like a carriage house. Lehmann reminded the Commission that when they are talking about design sites, they are going to be concurrent with the parcels. For example, in a typical single-family development they could have a larger parcel that has multiple design sites. Lehmann also wanted to touch on frontages because each building type needs at least one frontage type, and that frontage would contain the primary entrance and has to be along a street or civic space. There are some exceptions such as a Cottage Court and he'll explain later why that's a unique design or building type. Finally, Lehmann discussed the diversity of building types. Within each block this Code requires that Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 3 of 23 there are at least two different building types, there is an exemption for the T4 Main Street requirement because that is basically the commercial zone and doesn't require the diversity of housing types. But within the neighborhood -based zones, they do want to see a diversity of building types. Lehmann stated there are 10 choices of building types in the Code. The first one is the Carriage House and is a little unique as it is an accessory structure that can be added to other building types. A Carriage House does not count as its own building type, it is strictly accessory, so it is allowed in all zones. Only one dwelling unit would be allowed in a Carriage House and typically it would be on the rear of a design site, likely above the garage. Lehmann added it doesn't have to be residential, it could also be a commercial space say for a small business owner. Carriage Houses would only be two stories max and a width of 32'. Lehmann will give the size of each building so the Commission can get a feeling for the building bulk that is expected for each building type. The next set of building types are houses, there are two different ones, House Large and House Small, and is essentially what is currently classified as a single-family use or a single-family detached use. A House Large would be found in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone and is the lowest density building type. It is a medium to large sized detached building and would only have one unit like a single-family detached unit. It would only be allowed to be up to two and a half stories tall and the maximum width would be 95' and that would include a 55' main body and there could be wings that could be allowed up to 20' on each side. The wings do have to be set back from that main body or extended out from the main body by an offset and part of the reason for the distinction between the main body and wings is to make sure that the building facade is broken up in a way that doesn't create just a large blank facade. The House Small is the less dense in the T3 Neighborhood General, it is a smaller unit that doesn't have quite as large of a lot size. Again, it can be two and a half stories tall but would have a maximum width of about 75' which would be 35' for the main body and then 20' for the wings. The next set of building types are duplexes, and there are two different types, Side -by -Side and Stacked. Side -by -Side are probably typically what folks are used to seeing and would be allowed in both T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge and Neighborhood General. Each duplex would have two units within the design site and would be a medium to small building, the idea is that it would be about the same size as a House Large or a single-family home generally. Side -by -Side would be allowed to be two and a half stories tall but would be narrower than a House Large at 48 feet on the main body. Lehmann explained that again that helps ensure that these are house scale buildings. As far as garages, they can have garages on the front, but they have to fit within these building standards, so in some cases it's going to be challenging with a Side -by -Side duplex, but it is possible. The Duplex Stacked looks even more like a house essentially where there are two units, one on top of the other. Again, it's a small to medium sized detached building and it would only be allowed in the T3 Neighborhood General, as it is a slightly denser form of duplex. Duplex Stacked would have the same height standard of two and a half stories, but it could be a little wider up to 66' which would include a 36' main body and two 15' wings. The next building type is a little more unique and not something that's currently allowed in the City Code. It's called a Cottage Court and is where there is a courtyard that would have buildings arranged around the outside of it and the courtyard would basically act as shared common space, rather than having private individual yards. Lehmann noted the City has had Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 4 of 23 some interest in this development type and it's been difficult to try and accommodate it. Cottage Court would be allowed in the T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General and the T4 Neighborhood Small but the idea is that it would fit with existing single-family homes or duplexes. A Cottage Court could have three to nine units, with the rear cottage being 1-3 units. Depending on the number of units affects the size of the Court so more units means that the Court has to be larger to help disperse the concentration of units. As far as height goes it fits in with existing single-family buildings but has a smaller height where these buildings can only be one and a half stories tall. The rear cottage can be 40' but the rest of the cottages have to be less than that, so it creates low -scale buildings along the street facade. Lehmann noted this is one of those examples where the main entrances would actually be on the Court rather than on the street, because the Court is the central focus point of this building type. Next are multiplexes, both small and large variety. Lehmann stated this would be similar to what is currently in the Code as multifamily. The Multiplex Small would be allowed in the T3 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and allow up to three to six units. Those units could be stacked or could be side by side, but the idea is again it's approximately the size of a large house and is scaled to fit with low to moderate intensity neighborhoods. The building height would be two and a half stories and it could be up to 90' wide, which is about the same as a House Large with a 50' main body and two 20' foot wings. Multiplex Large are allowed in the T4 Neighborhood Medium and have 7 to 12 units. Again, they could be side-by-side or stacked with the shared entry. Multiplex Large is intended to fit with moderate intensity neighborhoods or maybe a small portion of lower intensity neighborhoods. The max height does get taller with this building type and can be up to three and a half stories, and the max width can be up to 100', so overall slightly larger than some of the house scale buildings. It would allow for a 60' main body and two 20' wings. Another unique building type is the Townhouse because it's pretty versatile and how it is implemented within the Form -Based Zones. It is a small to large house that can be attached or may be detached, but it consists of one unit typically but can be three in certain zones. The Townhouse would be located in moderate to high intensity neighborhoods or near neighborhood main streets, basically more dense zones. It allows larger and more units per design site. In the T3 Neighborhood General it would allow Townhouses in a row of two to three units with one unit per site and a max height of two and a half stories with a row width up to 90'. Again, approximately the size of a House Large. In the T4 zones, Townhouses are allowed to have rows of four to eight units and the T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium would still maintain one unit per site. In the T4 Neighborhood Small it could be up to two and a half stories and in T4 Neighborhood Medium it could be up to three and a half stories. Lehmann pointed out that row lengths increase in the denser zones of the Townhome are in the T4 Neighborhood Medium zone, and the T4 Main Street zone which could allow some commercial uses and then still have four to eight townhomes in a row and up to three stacked. Another variety of multifamily is the Courtyard Building. Lehmann explained this is a different building type than the multiplex and is similar to the Cottage Court except it is a multifamily home with a central court that replaces rear yard open space. The Courtyard Building Small would be allowed in T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium zones and could have 10 to 16 units. As far as building height goes, T4 Neighborhood Small would only be two and a half stories and T4 Neighborhood Medium would allow up to three and a half stories. The max width in both zones is 100' and there are standards as to how large the courtyard needs to be that's located within the zone and also along the street facade the size of the building is broken up by Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 5 of 23 the presence of that courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large is only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone and it allows 18 to 24 dwelling units, again they can be stacked or side-by-side but must have that common courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large can be up to three and a half stories, but the main body again remains 100' so a lot of that excess building bulk would be located on the rear of the site. Some of the buildings are allowed to have more than one building on a design site where instead of just a courtyard in the middle, they can have separate buildings with the courtyard between them and allow a slightly different configuration but again, the building bulk is broken up by that courtyard. The final building type is the Main Street Building and is the most general building and probably most appropriate for commercial uses. It is a small to large building and only allowed in the Main Street zone. The amount of dwelling units is unrestricted except by the Housing Code and the Building Code. Lehmann explained the Main Street Building type is similar to the Riverfront Crossing Zone where they have to meet the minimum standards for safety, but if they can fit them within the building envelope then they can work. The Main Street Building is intended to provide a variety mix of uses, typically with some ground floor commercial and residential above. The max height again is three and a half stories and the max width for the body is 200'. These can be block scale buildings. Lehmann noted some other building types, such as larger townhomes also get towards that block scale, but a lot of these buildings are designed to be house scale buildings and that's part of the point of providing missing middle housing types. Lehmann stated as far as where these different building types are allowed and as they relate to the zones he showed the Future Land Use Map that would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Edge is typically low-density development, two and a half stories with the House Large, the Side -by -Side Duplex and the Cottage Court. The Neighborhood General is located in the center of neighborhoods away from busier roads typically. They are still two and a half stories and allow the House Small, both varieties of duplexes (Stacked and Side -by -Side), they would allow Multiplex Small and Cottage Court, and also allow Townhomes in runs of two to three units. As they move into the T4 zones, those are denser zones and are along major intersections and arterial roads. Buildings are still two and a half stories in the T4 Neighborhood Small zone, and would allow the Multiplex Small, the Courtyard Building, small Townhomes in a run a four to eight and the Cottage Court. Then in the denser zones located along major corridors or major intersections is the T4 Neighborhood Medium. These buildings can get up to three and a half stories tall, but that's primarily in the southeast along the single loaded streets where there's open space on the other side. Finally, the T4 Main Street, which is that densest zoning category is located at the corner of McCollister and Sycamore and it would allow the Courtyard Building Large and Townhouses in a run of 4-8 and they can be stacked up to three. Lehmann noted the current Zoning Code does not consider building types, so this is a newish concept for the Zoning Code. Riverfront Crossings does have different building types, so this is more similar to what is south of downtown. The biggest difference is that it distinguishes the building from the use, so currently the City defines uses in the Zoning Code as single family or duplexes or multifamily. In this Form -Based Code everything is defined as building scale. In looking at scale rather than use is a way to deal with what buildings look like because mostly they're interested in the experience with the public realm and how does that interact with surrounding properties. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 6 of 23 Lehmann stated using this building scale rather than use does create some new standards that staff hasn't historically reviewed. It includes some minimum and maximum bulk requirements, such as the scale of a block scale building. It regulates the number of units, whereas the current Zoning Code regulates by density of a lot sizes. In the Form -Based Code they are noting the number of units that can be within an existing building type and also creates a requirement for housing diversity on each block. Finally, these building type standards are incorporated into the revised processes that were discussed at the last meeting and would be included on the preliminary plan and they'll get finalized in the neighborhood plan and do either a building permit or site plan review, depending on the use and of number of units. That is the point where staff would check it against the neighborhood plan to make sure that it was in compliance with all of these standards. He noted there is a possibility of administrative change, but that would happen on the neighborhood plan as well and if a design site can accommodate a House Small but it's also large enough to accommodate a Stacked Duplex those could be switched out administratively as an update to the neighborhood plan. The next set of standards Lehmann reviewed was the Architectural Elements Standards and there are four different elements that are regulated by this Code. In general, it is similar to what some of the current site development standards are, for example, the multifamily site development standards or the four different sets of commercial site development standards, and the different sets of single families site development standards. However, the Architectural Elements Standards work with both the building type standards and the frontage type standards to try and provide visual interest and make sure that the interaction with the public realm provides walkable neighborhood friendly environments. The first Architectural Elements Standard is the Tripartite Facade Articulation and applies to buildings that are at least two stories and basically states there has to be a base, a middle and a top and an architectural element must be used to distinguish those three areas to create some horizontal visual interest. So, the ground floor has to be articulated by some sort of string courses, cornice expression or awnings or canopies. It could be different materials, but it doesn't require different materials, it could be colors it could be any number of ways as long as they are distinguishing the base from the other portions that standard can be met. The middle area only applies if it's three stories, but it would need to have some feature to create visual interest on the horizontal plane. The top should be delineated with some form of cornice expression, either trim material, brackets and panels, eave details or accentuated masonry. The next Architectural Elements Standard is Architectural Recessions which would apply to buildings have at least two stories and are over 50' long, so essentially a house scale building however this explicitly excludes houses and duplexes from having to comply with the Architectural Recession standards. The purpose really is to modulate the appearance of a building and recess a portion of the facade, whether that be an entry, whether that be balconies, but it has to be carried through the building and it has to be 12 to 20 feet and up to two locations with longer buildings requiring a wider recess. Lehmann explained again with a lot of these standards the goal is to provide visual interest which helps create walkable neighborhoods and Architectural Recessions are one of the ways that they currently do that within the Code. Next is the Corner Element and this is actually a voluntary architectural element that could be used on Main Street buildings and the idea is to provide emphasis to corner and it help shape the public realm. On those corners it could be a slight bump out or it could exceed that zone Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 7 of 23 height that would typically be allowed by a little bit to create that visual interest on the corner and to help define the public realm. Lehmann noted again this would be a voluntary element and not a required element. Another voluntary element is the Rooftop Room which is an enclosed or unenclosed portion on the top of the roof, but it can't just be another blanket additional story. It would have to be somewhat setback; it has to have openings or windows and it has to be consistent with the primary building. It is another architectural element that provides visual interest, and it can provide a neat feature on buildings. Lehmann noted these architectural elements are relatively limited in this Form -Based Code compared to some other zone -specific site development standards in the multifamily zones or the Riverfront Crossings Zone. The requirements are similar but many of them are addressed through other ways within this Form -Based Code. For example, building and frontage types address a lot of the standards that would typically be included in the site design standards such as parking lot design, landscaping, building entries, exterior stairways, mechanical equipment, etc. In other cases, some of the standards don't really apply in this area because it is greenfield development where they're not working within an existing historical neighborhood, for example. In a lot of ways, it's similar in that it looks at building bulk and provides facade articulation that would create visual interest, it requires tripartite articulation within the building and that's something that they City also requires within the Riverfront Crossings District. It does require equal treatment of facades, which is something else required in Riverfront Crossings. Regarding differences, this Form -Based Code doesn't regulate building materials nor regulate windows. They didn't want to limit architectural creativity in new areas but there are still standards related to visual interest to hopefully address a lot of issues that may come with just a standard box building. Hensch asked if building materials are not regulated than how can they say the transact for Main Street would be similar to the downtown area. Lehmann replied the more proper comparison would be the Main Street area and a Neighborhood Commercial zone that we have rather than the downtown zones, as the City really only regulates building materials within certain areas like downtown. Lehmann moved on to the next section which is related to frontage types. In terms of general standards, it doesn't necessarily restrict frontage types as they don't correspond to the uses, one could have a porch on a commercial building and can have a porch on a residential building. They are really guided by the zone and the building type in that zone. Building types may have multiple frontages, depending on the frontage type and depending on where it's located on the block, but the frontage type does have to be located within the frontage zone, which is on the front of that building designed site. In addition, they must have frontage types that front thoroughfares or a civic space, such as a circumstance where a house is fronting on to a pedestrian passage rather than fronting on the street. Lehmann noted however they would still need equal architectural treatment on the street as well. The frontage is just where the primary individual entrance would be. Exterior stairs can be used as entry on ground level but for any units that are above ground, they have to be entered from an enclosed staircase. Similar to building types, they also require at least two different frontage types on each block to help provide visual interest and create a pedestrian friendly environment. Part of the reason they have the frontage standards is to really look at the interaction of the public realm and the private Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 8 of 23 realm being the right-of-way, which is the streets, the parking, the green space and the sidewalk and then into the private yard and the frontage type is that interaction with those areas. Lehmann noted there are 10 choices or frontage types. The first is Porch Projecting, which is as it sounds to project the porch into the front yard or within the front set back, and it is basically a covered structure that can be elevated or it can be at grade. It could be one or two stories, but it has to be opened on three sides. This type of frontage is allowed in all zones except for the T4 Main Street. As far as the dimensions go, it does require a minimum of 6' to 8' so it is usable space and really creates a purpose like an outdoor room that can facilitate that interaction between the public and the private realms. They expect to see a lot of Porch Projecting in the T3 zones, especially because one of the features of the projecting porch is that with the parking set back in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone they can move the garage closer to the front of the lot. The other type of porch is considered an Engaged Porch so that's where it's partially set back within the facade. With an Engaged Porch it could have two to three sides that are within that facade but obviously the front would have to be open and, potentially, one of the sides could also be open as well, but again, it is a covered structure that creates an outdoor room. It follows similar standards as the porch projecting on where it's allowed in all zones except for the Main Streets, and it has similar dimensional standards. The next set of frontages are the Dooryard and Stoop. Lehmann noted they're probably the most versatile ones in that they are allowed in all zones. With the Dooryard the main facade is set back and is defined by a wall ahead or some other sort of small screening that would create separation. Again, the purpose is to try and create some sort of outdoor room to facilitate that interaction between the public and private realms. For the Dooryard the dimensions would be a little wider so it would have to be 10' deep and 15' wide and then the wall would only be able to be up to 3' around that area as well. With the Stoop, the purpose is to create some separation between the public and the private realm so it's set up a little higher than other development standards and would be expected along busier streets where someone walking by could be looking right in a window. It would have an elevated entry and the stairs could either be parallel or in front depending on how it's designed. The Stoop has a shallower depth, it could be 3' by 5' and would need to be at least 12 inches above grade so it provides some of that separation. The next frontage type is Forecourt and is intended for use in denser zones. The Forecourt is specifically in the T4 Neighborhood Medium and T4 Main Street zones. The idea is that the building is set near the front of the design site, but there is essentially an extension of the public realm into the interior of the building site for an entry court or shared garden. The Forecourt has to be at least 15' wide and deep and it does have a height to width ratio so the walls don't tower over the court area, there needs to be light and air within the area. Craig asked if it's the public realm like a sidewalk anybody can go there, but obviously if there's going to be a restaurant or something there it's not going to be used for just anyone. Lehmann replied it would depend on the use, it is technically private space but should feel like it's part of the public realm and that's what he means when saying it's extending the public realm into the space. If it were commercial uses it could be something like outdoor seating, if it's residential uses it would probably be more of a private space, but it creates that visual extension of the public realm. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 9 of 23 The next set of frontages are the shop fronts, there's a Maker Shopfront and just a Shopfront. Lehmann explained these are typically intended for commercial buildings, although they're not restricted to commercial buildings, but the idea is that the facade is at the front of the design site in each of these cases and they're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone. The difference is that the Maker Shopfront is somewhere where there's maybe industrial or seasonal businesses or other businesses that are oriented towards retail or consumers and may include decorative roll down doors depending on the use. For example, a restaurant that has rolled down doors that open up to the public could be there, but the goal is to have some interaction with the public and the private realm. At least 50% of the facade would have to be glazing or windows, The Maker Shopfront is for businesses that are less customer centric but still want interaction with the public realm. The Shopfront is for more customer centric businesses and include substantial glazing between the Shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk. Craig asked if the glazing requirements are similar to the convenience stores that have been built lately and have a requirement for glazing but really it is just looking through this giant window and seeing a wall, there's nothing in there. Lehmann confirmed those are glazing requirements, but in this case the glazing is limited to the front edges so it's a little difference as it's going to be the front of the buildings and the intention is for it to open up into customer centric spaces, rather than a hallway as in the convenience stores Craig is talking about. Lehmann stated the next frontage type is the Terrace and this is again meant for higher intensity zones, the T4 Neighborhood Medium and Main Street zones. The idea is that the facade is near the front of the design site, but that there's some sort of elevated surface between the sidewalk and that space. Perhaps in commercial uses a Terrace could be a sidewalk cafe, but it can be used with residential uses as an outdoor seating area for residents. There are standards that it can only be up to 2' above grade and does require a certain depth affiliated with it and it provides some privacy similar to a Stoop. Finally, the last two are the Gallery and Arcade. Lehmann explained these are both covered spaces and the idea is that the main facade is set back somewhat from the public realm on the design site. They're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone but there would be covered space that's not within the right-of-way. It could be one - two stories in the case of the Gallery, or up to three stories in the case of the Arcade. These are typically intended for commercial uses and do require that they be used in conjunction with other frontage types so, for example with commercial uses there'd be used in conjunction with the Shopfront Type and must run along the entire front of that facade. These frontage types are a newish concept, there are some similar requirements in Riverfront Crossings, but these are a little more specified and little more detailed. Overall Lehmann explained the purpose is to really work with those other standards to provide visual interest that interacts the public and private realms. Again, review of frontage types would be included on the neighborhood plan and would be reviewed during building permit or site plan review and could have administrative changes similar to building types with the goal to maintain that diversity of frontage types. The next set of standards is related to thoroughfares which are essentially public streets and in some cases alleys or passages. Lehmann explained there are several different thoroughfare Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 10 of 23 types that are use and they're built around the intended physical character of the zone, but the goal is to provide multimodal ways of getting around the City. He noted at the last meeting they had talked about thoroughfare types to incorporate different modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, different vehicle types and transit. Lehmann noted it does require an interconnected network and the goal is to provide multiple routes through the area, which is generally required for more pedestrian friendly areas, because when there are extra long blocks, it makes it a lot more difficult to travel places. Regarding the individual standards most are in the public right-of-way and won't be privately owned so during the subdivision process there is an opportunity to tweak some of the criteria, but those would come before the Planning Commission. Another requirement in the Standards is that street trees are required and would have to be planted either prior to acceptance of public improvements or prior to the certificate of occupancy for the adjacent property. It will depend on if the property is going to be developed, if it's going to be developed, but isn't developed yet they don't want to put in the street trees and then need a bulldozer to get on site, so the street tress will be planted when the building is constructed. There are other opportunities to delay such as if the seasons don't cooperate, but there are also standards as to what that looks like to ensure that the street trees are planted at regular intervals throughout that area. Hensch noted it is the current practice where now if there's street trees required in the zoning it becomes the responsibility of the particular lot owner, as it becomes developed, but this would happen with the developer to have to plant those right up front. Lehmann explained a developer would pay an escrow for the trees that would cover the cost of installation, so if the developer doesn't follow through, then the City would have the funds to be able to play for the trees. Lehmann stated again there are 10 choices Throughfare Type Standards, and they correspond to major streets in the area and a lot of them are based on current engineering for those streets where engineering already exists. The first type is the Main Streets and there are two varieties, With Median or Without Median. They are intended for the Main Street zone, the Main Street with Median has a wider right-of-way at 100' with the idea being that there would be 50' of payment with 25' on each side of a 10' median. There would be two traffic lanes, two bike lanes and two parking lanes. As far as landscaping the expectation is that trees would be every 30' and the sidewalk would extend over to the street, the sidewalks are 20' sidewalks with planters within the sidewalk. Lehmann said this would be essentially along the main street zone of McCollister. The Main Street Without Median would be along Sycamore Street where it's zoned T4 Main Street. It is a narrower right-of-way because it doesn't have the median so it has 80' right-of-way but would still have two traffic lanes and two parking lanes. It would have trees in planters with the 20' sidewalk. Craig asked if it is just 20' from the building to the street then. Lehmann noted it might even be wider than that in spots, similar to the downtown area where there are very wide sidewalks and also planters within that area. It is intended to mimic a typical historic main street where there are tree planters with the sidewalks so most of the area that's not intended for pedestrian travel use could allow for things like sidewalk cafes or other uses that can spill over into the right-of- way like business sidewalk sales and such. Craig commented that 20' didn't feel big enough and Lehmann said it's wider than a typical trail which is usually only 10'. Padron asked specifically which sidewalk downtown is 20' to help her visualize what this would Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 11 of 23 look like. Lehmann is not sure off hand but Washington Street especially wide sidewalks. Russett confirmed on Washington Street in front of the US Bank Building there's a 20' foot sidewalk but across the street in front of the Java House and Chop House that sidewalk is more like 35'. Lehmann noted as far as where bike lanes are shown on the Future Land Use Map they're generally shown corresponding to where the City's future bike lanes are planned for in the Bicycle Master Plan and that's how they determine which streets have bike lanes. Lehmann moved onto the next set of Throughfare Type Standards, which are also along McCollister but away from the main street areas. These are Avenue 2 Without Parking and Avenue 2 with Future Parking. These pass through a couple different zones and are in the T3 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium. In both the right-of-way is consistently 100'. In areas Without Parking, the pavement with is 17' 6" on each side, so 35' total which includes traffic lanes, bike lanes, and median/turn pockets. In areas of Future Parking there is 50' pavement with 25' on each side, and would include traffic lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes, and the median/turn pocket. In these areas there will still be trees spaced every 30' but are continuous planters rather than individual planters as in the Main Street Zone. Lehmann explained it is similar to what is along almost any other right-of-way in Iowa City, the continuous landscaping. For sidewalks, they will be 6' on one side and 10' on the other so that 10' sidewalk acts as a trail for pedestrians Avenues 2 and 4 correspond to the other major streets in the area. Avenue 3 corresponds with Sycamore Street and Lehman Street will be developed to an Avenue 4. Avenue 3 and Avenue 4 can be used in all zones except for the Main Street zone. For Avenue 3 there is a right-of-way of 100' but the pavement width is reduced to 34' without any kind of median and is just two traffic lanes and two bike lanes. There are trees in planters, but these planters are a little wider than the McCollister oriented ones. There is still have a trail size sidewalk on one side and a standard size sidewalk, on the other side. Avenue 4 has a narrower right-of-way of 87' with two traffic lanes and a median/turn pocket. Trees would be planted in a continuous planter with wide continuous planters and the sidewalk would be trail on one side and 5' on the other side. Lehmann next discussed Neighborhood Streets noting generally throughout most of the neighborhood it will be Neighborhood Streets, and there are two options. Neighborhood Street 1 is with parking on both sides and Neighborhood Street 2 is parking on just one side. They are both allowed in all zones except for the T4 Main Street Zone. Neighborhood Street 1 is with parking on both sides has a 70' right-of-way with which is slightly larger than the current Code standard right-of-way width of 60', but the idea is for it to be a little wider to accommodate street trees in addition to other utilities and things that go in the right-of-way. The pavement width is 28' and this is a yield type parking arrangement so where there aren't cars on the streets, one could expect there could be up to two cars on each side, but if there are cars coming at each other and it's fully parked, then they will need some maneuvering between those two cars to negotiate. Lehmann explained the reason that it's designed this way is to slow the traffic on those local streets and to create safe environments for children and pedestrians. For Neighborhood Street 2 where parking on just on one side the right-of-way is narrower at 70', the pavement width is 26' with 18' for traffic and 18' parking lane. The traffic lane again is a yield type lane, however, with cars moving slow they can actually pass each other but it's still expected that one would yield to help reduce those traffic speeds within local streets. Trees Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 12 of 23 would still be every 30' and 14' planters to accommodate those trees and utilities. In the Neighborhood Street 2 with parking on just one side the sidewalks are 5' on each side. Hensch asked if the 60' right-of-way is what is currently in residential areas. Lehmann confirmed it is and also in these areas the pavement doesn't change, the difference is that continuous planter is wider. He thinks typically developers choose to do parking on both sides to provide additional parking for residents, but it's not always the case. Craig asked about the term continuous planter, that is in the ground and not like a raised three- foot planter. Lehmann confirmed when he says planters, just imagine the typical planting strip area between the street and the sidewalk. Lehmann moved onto the next type of Thoroughfare Type which is the Alley and is allowed in all zones. It has a right-of-way of 20', which would be expected behind the buildings, rather than in front of them, so it's not a frontage type. The Alley would be fully paved with a 20' traffic lane so it does allow some room for passing of cars, but typically this would be expected to be a yield type traveling as well. Within the Alley there is a requirement for street trees and individual planters in the area between driveways, however no sidewalks have to be provided, as it's expected that traffic's minimal enough where they don't have to worry about traffic as it's really only to access those individual sites. Lehmann explained the way that the Alley is a special type is that it does allow some modified lot dimensions, where they can reduce the size of the design site in exchange for an Alley with the idea being that they want to encourage alleys behind buildings to pull some of those garages off of the street frontages and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. He pointed out again it's not required to have the garages behind the houses, but this allows an option. Along the primary streets within the area, South Gilbert Street and McCollister they will need to provide access to the design sites from the side roads, rather than those primary roads, but those would typically be expected, because they don't expect that the design sites will have access to the side streets. Hensch asked if these Alleys would be public routes or private roads. Lehmann stated it is not specified, they could be public or private, but staff anticipates that they would be private. Lehmann stated the other special type is a Passage and is also allowed in all zones. It's also a 20' right-of-way but it would not have any traffic lanes and would be a 10' pedestrian path with 5' of plantings on the side of the host and required street trees about every 50' within that continuous planter. It doesn't have sidewalks because the general purpose of a Passage as a sidewalk is to allow pedestrian connections in exchange for larger plots or wider block links and to be able to create a pedestrian friendly environment, they want multiple routes that pedestrians can take to reach their destinations. Those same kinds of accommodations are not needed for vehicles as they can travel at faster speeds versus a pedestrian. Lehmann noted this is one way to allow an extension of a block by providing that pedestrian connection through the block length. Lehmann also noted there may be certain circumstances where there is a pedestrian Passage with buildings running along it and Alleys behind, so the cars are provided vehicular access and the pedestrian Passage would provide that pedestrian access. Craig noted however the pedestrian street is the responsibility of either an association or the property owners, unlike a regular street. Lehmann noted that alleys in the current Code are not Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 13 of 23 specified to be public or private and this would be the same. However, in many cases the pedestrian Passage that are required are noted as public land. Craig asked if the City would maintain those Passages, and Lehmann replied if it's public the City would maintain it, however if adjacent to property, the owner would maintain it similar to any street where the owner may have to mow the grass between the sidewalk and the street. Russett anticipates if Passages get built that they would be privately maintained, but there would probably be some type of public access easement over them that would be memorialized through the subdivision process that would allow anyone to use the Passage. Lehmann stated as far as visualizing where these thoroughfare types are imagined, the primary streets are the Avenues, otherwise most of the areas within the developments would be local streets and those neighborhood streets, which again are similar to the current standards in the Code and pedestrian Passages would be added in if developers wanted to try and have longer blocks and provide less vehicular streets, they could replace them with pedestrian streets. Alleys are currently shown primarily along those major streets where they would be required, unless they can provide access from the side lots. Alleys may also be present in a couple other places and usually are tied to fronting pedestrian passageways or civic spaces and provides vehicular access to where they're currently isn't vehicular access. Craig asked if a gas station or convenience store type of thing wants to be built on and the corner of McCollister and Sycamore, would that be allowed. Lehmann would have to look at the standards and can report back at the next meeting, but if it were allowed it would have to follow all of the standards and the design standards as well. Lehmann stated these thoroughfare types are a completely new concept because a lot of it is going to be actually publicly owned land but it builds on Code requirements from the streets that are currently there and provides some additional standards with the goal to ensure that multimodal access is possible within the neighborhood. Like other types that are in this Code, there is a possibility of administrative changes, one can add or take away passageways that meet certain standards or swap out neighborhood streets. Lehmann stated the last chapter of 14-2H is Affordable Housing Incentives and is something that has been added on since the initial public review draft and it really mirrors some of the standards used in Riverfront Crossings, but in this case it's a voluntary set of standards. To explain, within the City there are some mandatory affordable housing policies, like the annexation policy of which a lot of this area is going to be subject to. However, if annexed, these standards would not be able to use those required affordable housing units, they would not be able to take advantage of this, but if additional voluntary units were provided, they would be able to take advantage of some of these incentives. To receive these incentives, it also has to be in a Form -Based Zone, it doesn't apply to other zones within the area. It has to be for onsite affordable housing, they can't just pay a fee -in -lieu and use these standards. Lehmann reviewed the standards, first is a 25% density bonus where any additional unit has to be affordable. So, looking at building types that have three or more units, if they had four units and wanted to provide five units within that building type, would have to be an affordable unit. Next is a parking reduction, where the affordable units would not be required to have parking but again that's for the minimal parking standard purposes, it does not mean that there won't be Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 14 of 23 parking, it means that it would be up to the developer to include extra parking. There is flexibility from some other certain standards in hoping that it will encourage mixed income developments and diverse housing opportunities for different folks within the community. Lehmann noted they also hope that will increase the number of units produced and hopefully incentivize some who might not otherwise consider affordable housing within this area. Townsend asked if there is going to be a time limit on that affordable housing. Lehmann will go over the actual standards and how it is enforced in a bit but first wanted to talk about the incentives. Lehmann noted as far as the adjustments go, they'd be allowed one adjustment to the zone standards and one adjustment to building type standards that are specified in the Code. Staff would have to make a finding that it fits into the site, fits into the neighborhood characteristics and is consistent with the intent of that standard being modified. He added it does provide some protection if there's a scrupulous developer who's trying to manipulate the system to create something that just frankly doesn't fit the neighborhood, staff would be able to stop that. The zone standards that can be adjusted are design site depth which can be adjusted by 15' in terms of depth and 15% for width. The minimum area within the facade zone can be reduced by 20% as well. The building type standards that could be modified are the building main body and wing standards could be adjusted by 15% and building height could be increased by a half a story. Lehmann added there would be an opportunity to provide additional minor adjustments if those affordable housing units are further restricted in terms of who they'd be provided for. Generally, the affordable housing units will be available for owners at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) 60% AMI for renters but if those were reduced to 50% AMI then they would be allowed to have another building type adjustment, subject to those same eligibility standards. In terms of the general requirements, Lehmann stated they can be met by providing either onsite owner -occupied affordable units or rental units. The units would be subject to sales price limits, 80% AMI (which for a family of four that's income just shy of $80,000 and for an individual person it would be just shy of $56,000). Hensch asked if the current AMI in the City is $100,000. Lehmann doesn't know what 100% AMI is but noted these numbers do get updated annually and are based around a family of four and based on the family income in Iowa City. Lehmann stated for rental units, they need to be at 60% AMI and subject to HUD fair market rents and LIHTC (Low -Income Housing Tax Credit) income limits. The term of affordability would be 20 years and that would be secured with an agreement and the deed restriction on the property. So even if the owner was to sell it, they would still have to abide by the standards, and it would be administered through some administrative rules that are adopted by the City. Lehmann showed slides with the income and sales limits based on household size and then the rent limits based on size of units. He noted for owner occupied properties there's also the HUD purchase limits, which are pretty high purchase limits in Iowa City because it's based on sales prices within the City. He stated there is a difference between existing and new homes as to what those purchase price limits are and right now most of the sales are new homes and the Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 15 of 23 standard single family home purchase price is limit a of $240,700. Regarding rent limits the fair market rents are also pretty high, for a one bedroom it's around $800 and for a three bedroom it is up to $1,483. That would be the cap and again those are adjusted annually, based on the rents and 40% of the area median rent. Lehmann explained it's partially based on market prices but it's below market prices, which is why it's considered the fair market rent. If a property is awarded a LIHTC by the Iowa Finance Authority (an affordable housing subsidy program that can be specifically applied in certain areas), those rent limits are based on the income of the person in the unit so there could be differing rents for different units, depending on their distribution and can be pretty complicated. Padron had a few questions regarding the income limits that Lehmann showed on the slides. Is it correct that at 60% AMI a family of four would have an income limit of $60,000 so what level of rent is affordable. Lehmann stated it varies over time but generally a household making $60,000 is expected to spend 30% of their income on housing, so if they're spending less than 30% it's considered affordable. Spending up to $1500 on rent (so one-, two- and three-bedroom units would be affordable) is acceptable to a household at 60% AMI. Padron is confused when they say income limits less than 80% of the AMI, can they change that number to something lower or is that something that cannot be modified, because 80% seems high to her. Lehmann stated that would be a family making $80,000 to be at 80% AMI. Craig noted then if a family of four made less, say $60,000, they still meet that standard because it less than 80%. Lehmann confirmed the definition of low and moderate income is 80% and that is the upper limit for a homeowner limit. For rental households on the HOME program, they use 60% which was what was used for Riverfront Crossings. Lehmann stated he can try and prepare something for the next meeting to show how they came up with these limits and what they mean in more concrete terms rather than these abstract numbers. Padron appreciates that because saying that the rent limit for one bedroom is $1400 that is really high, her mortgage is half of that, and she lives in a house. Lehmann acknowledged it is considered affordable, based on the income of someone making 80% AMI because it would be 30% of their income. Padron asked if the developer could put that price on a one -bedroom apartment and then get all the benefits of having affordable housing. Lehmann said they would only be able to do that if they're awarded low-income housing tax credits which requires a mix of different market rate and affordable units. Padron reiterated they will get a tax credit and her point $1496 rent doesn't seem affordable. Russett stated the City has more flexibility on changing the AMI standards than they do these rent limits. For the low-income housing tax credit limits, these are the limits that would only be applied to projects that receive tax credits from the State, and if they receive tax credits from the State, the City cannot ask the developer to lower the rents, these are the rents that they would be required to charge through that program. Lehmann stated the fair market rents are the standard rent that would be provided with bonus units unless they happen to get LIHTC, which is not common, there is maybe one LIHTC project every other year or so. Most of these units would be expected to be under fair market rent. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 16 of 23 Hektoen noted the distinction is the LIHTC standards are set by State regulations, where the discretion comes in, as to whether Planning and Zoning and the City Council wants to provide additional incentives for LIHTC projects is since they can't really change the structure of the LIHTC program what is being proposed here is to allow these additional incentives for LIHTC projects. Townsend acknowledged the problem is they are calling this affordable housing and it really is not affordable to those people that are low income, it's a lie. Signs stated he has been around the affordable housing issue for some time now and he doesn't know if they've increased those limits recently but does agree with everyone else that it doesn't seem affordable. He understands they can't do anything about it, other than go to the State House but in this environment, that's probably not going to change. Hektoen explained there's two programs that they're talking about here, and where the Council and P&Z do have more discretion is in the fair market rent and the structure that's being created by this Code change. The LITHC structure is a separate animal. But there are two programs and in this Code they are offering incentives for both of those programs. Hensch stated he is interested in increasing the very few LIHTC projects that get built because if they can do something to encourage more LIHTC projects they will increase the pool of affordable housing. It may not be as affordable as people want, but it helps increase the overall pool. Right now, not much is being built at all, so if they can create some incentives, it is a good thing. The reason developers are spending their money is because they're going to get their tax credits through the Iowa Finance Authority, qualifying for their programs, and so the City needs to help encourage them to do that or they won't get built at all. Signs noted looking at those limits quite frankly, they're not terribly far off of market rate so who's benefiting from that is the developer. He's been around these projects and he knows there is a group in town who has done LIHTC projects and are not going to be very happy with this conversation or with him, but these rents are not affordable at all. Craig noted looking at the percentages, at 80% means they're making $80,000, and a two- bedroom is $1800 and at 40% where that family is making $40,000 and they need a two- bedroom apartment the rent is $900, which is a big difference from $1800 dollars. Hensch agreed and noted they do have to look at the definition of affordable, if someone is spending 30% or less of their income on the rent by definition it is affordable, even though the numbers seem high. He did agree there's always sticker shock about these bigger numbers, but Iowa City is just an expensive place to live. Perhaps Lehmann can provide some examples to help illustrate this in a future presentation. Signs agreed that due to the fair market rate limits those numbers seem reasonable to him but he would say no incentives for LITHC projects. Townsend asked if there are there other programs for affordable housing. Lehmann will try to create a summary of the programmatic requirements. He did note he doesn't think there would Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 17 of 23 ever be a single LITHC project that would only have 80%, most LITHC's have a mix of 60%, 40% and 30% AMI. There may be a couple 80% but there's some level of averaging at what different income levels are so there is a mix of income ranges to create cash flow within the property. Townsend stated they might also be confused that these percentages are, is it how much of their salary they're spending for rent. Lehmann replied no, the percentages are based on income. 80% is considered low income and rents limits are based on 30% of what someone who makes 80% AMI. Hensch asked if the Del Rey project was LITHC funded and Lehmann believes so. Hensch noted that is a good example of one that's got a mix of 30/40/60 and maybe a couple at 80. Lehmann also added they can't charge more than what the market would bear so even if the rent limits are high if no one's going to be able to live there, then they can't charge that rent limit. Padron stated in the Housing Commission they were having a conversation over the last few months before she left that the problem in Iowa City is not the lack of affordable housing, because there is a lot of affordable housing right but units that are being built are not being occupied because the City needs more vouchers. If the City could create its own voucher program, then they could help people get into those units. Lehmann suggested they table the affordable housing discussion and move on with the Code and they can discuss affordable housing in more depth next time and then he can prepare answers for Commissioner's questions. Lehmann stated as far as requirements go then the market rate in the affordable units have to be the same floor area, number of bedrooms, and similar quality or at least a similar proportion inequity in units or any barrier that might be there. The affordable units must be developed concurrently with all other units through these voluntary incentives. For owner occupied units, their income would be qualified prior to sale and it would have to be their primary residence. They can't rent it, except for a bedroom, and if they sell it within that 20 -year span, they would have to sell it to an income eligible household at either the HUD sales limit with some deductions for real estate commissions, closing costs, or permanent capital improvements that would increase the value. As far as renter units, the owner would be responsible to income certify each tenant annually, prior to lease and then annually thereafter, and if there is a tenant who is doing well during the affordable unit period and get more money and become over income they continue to be qualified until they vacate the unit and at which point, it would be occupied by another income qualified units. Again, the rental rates for a rental unit or the HUD fair market rent is the basic one but if they do get LITHC than they would have those LITHC grants and then the owner is responsible for clients and they would have to verify annually with the City, including their documentation for income certifications. Lehmann next wanted to discuss three other general sections that are no longer part of title 14 - Chapter 2-H. Some are other changes to Title 14 and some are changes to Title 15, which is the Subdivision Code and Title 14 is the zoning code and then also the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended as part of this. The other changes are mostly administrative sorts of changes. The first Lehmann discussed is that in sign regulations and there is a new subsection in the appendix on other changes to Title Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 18 of 23 14. The biggest change is applying the sign standards to these zones and what they look like. Generally, the only signs that are allowed are temporary signs and portable signs, but as they get into open subzones that allow a greater variety of commercial uses they're also allowed to do Porch signs and Post signs and in the more intense zones like the T4 Main Street zone pretty much all sign types are available. Lehmann explained it really depends on the intensity of the zone, the size of the buildings, and the uses that are allowed as to which signs are allowed. The Code also creates new sign types, which are the Porch sign and the Post sign, which are pretty self-explanatory by their names. The other larger changes are in the definitions, there are new concepts that they have been discussing throughout this presentation, things like missing middle housing, civic space, etc., definitions that the City doesn't currently have and it also clarifies other concepts as they applied to Form -Based Codes. There are Form -Based Zones, which zones those correspond to, there are some changes to how to define building heights, frontages, or parking setbacks, and then one more notable is there isn't currently a half story in the Zoning Code. The other minor changes Lehmann wanted to mention are in the introductory section and would provide some clarificatory language, in the off-street parking standards they talked about special vehicle parking in T3 zones, they also make sure that they apply lighting standards in zones, they apply woodland retention requirements in the zones, and those are basically similar to their corresponding zones as residential single-family zones. Finally then there are the sign definitions, which he just mentioned. The other piece is something where the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't recommend changes, Title 15, which is the Subdivision Code, but because it incorporates the way that these things work, Lehmann wanted to make sure that they were aware of them and how the Subdivision Code fits in with the zoning code changes. The first is the plats and platting procedures, a lot of the changes are housekeeping items, such as adding a step for submittal and review and departmental titles and positions as those are all out of date. The other two items that are larger changes are what's reflected in the preliminary plat and as Lehmann stated earlier the way a lot of these standards will be implemented is in the preliminary plat so that's where they'll have to show design sites, thoroughfare types, civic space, building types and they'll also have to include notation about connections to adjacent properties and notations about which things can be substituted for other types, specifically civic space and building types. Lehmann reiterated the neighborhood plan is a new document that would be submitted with the final plat and that's where the rest of this will be implemented. He explained it is very similar to what's in a preliminary plat, it would have all those items, but it would also include frontage types as well. That is the document where they could look in the future and say what was expected to be there. The neighborhood plan will be checked upon a building permit or site plan and that's how they'll make sure that the standards are being met. Craig asked if that will only apply to plots for this particular area of the City or was it now for everything. Lehmann confirmed it'll be only for this area of the City, subject to the form -based standards. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 19 of 23 Lehmann next discussed some of the design standards which is a different chapter of the Subdivision Code. Some are related to streets and some are related to blocks but generally it adds some language about promoting connectivity throughout the City and promoting multimodal transportation. Lehmann noted there has to be appropriate transitions between thoroughfare types, but it also requires that the right-of-way, or the streets have to abide by the thoroughfare type standards and those thoroughfare type standards have to rely on the Future Land Use Map that would be in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated where there are variations, they have to meet specific criteria, similar to what is required in rezoning where they have specific criteria that are required. For example, if there are sensitive areas, they can shift things and substitute thoroughfare types, except for those major streets of South Gilbert, Lehman, Sycamore and McCollister. They can change the alignment in the block orientation, and this is a question that someone had on how staff will ensure that something similar is created and it's the standards in the Subdivision Code. So, alignment can change, but the connections to existing streets have to stay and they have to continue to abide by the block standards, and single -loaded streets will need to continue to abut civic or open space. Lehmann explained the reason that they have these standards here is because that was what was used to design this Code and the point of these standards is that if there are changes to it, it would create a similar outcome to what is currently there or what they would propose to show in the Future Land Use Map. The other changes are tied to Passages which can replace a thoroughfare type as long as the design site has some sort of vehicular access, whether that be an alleyway or street. Alleys can be added if a developer would like to take advantage of some of those other benefits of alleys or they can be removed as long as those sites have access to adjacent streets, other than McCollister or South Gilbert. For the blocks and block lengths, the Form -Based Code zones have a different set of block standards that they currently have. So currently they require them to be between 300' and 600', there's an opportunity to lengthen them but again the block network has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the block length of perimeters have to comply with the block size standards table, but those with Passages. Lehmann stated with these standards the blocks are shorter than they would currently allow typically in most T3 zones. The maximum block length would be 500' and then in more intense T4 zones the length would be 360'. Again, those could be extended with a pedestrian Passage in the middle of the block to provide that pedestrian connectivity and that would increase them to 800' and 600', respectively, except in the Main Street zone which would retain a 500' maximum block length. Lehmann reiterated there are perimeter standards, so there are no super blocks where there are really large areas of no street connectivity and that further reinforces these block size standards. Finally, Lehmann discussed the Comprehensive Plan draft and changes to that. This is specifically located in the South District Plan and the reason that they have to amend the Comprehensive Plan is because they're relying on the Future Land Use Map, which is more detailed and it's not currently in the South District Plan. This plan was initially adopted in 2015 which is what kicked off this journey down the Form -Based Code path as one of the objectives was to adopt a Form -Based Code for the South district. Lehmann said there are some additional updates other than just the Future Land Use Map and they also wanted to reflect some current priorities of City Council. The changes are specifically to update some background and context and to generalize more specific language, based on the new Future Land Use Map. To modify some goals and objectives, to discuss Form -Based Codes and generally how they fit in, and then the updated Future Land Use Map, which is the important piece as far as the rest of this Code applies. Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 20 of 23 The updates and context are included to really reflect those Council objectives and to make sure that the Code is up to date. They include input for the Form -Based Code process, provide some additional context that wasn't included in the original such as regarding the history of native persons, the implications of past planning practices as it relates specifically to equity and sustainability, and then recent equity and sustainability initiatives. They also generalize some language in the plan, in the housing transportation commercial areas section, that has happened since the Code was adopted. Lehmann noted that doesn't always align with the Future Land Use Map that's being proposed, so they generalize that, but it still does generally comply without those changes, they just wanted to make it more explicit to facilitate that adoption. Lehmann stated there's a new chapter on Form -Based Code which discusses what they are and how they're implemented in the South District and how they are carried out through the zoning and subdivision code. They also added in some new goals and objectives that more explicitly link the goals of the Form -Based Code with the goals of the Plan. Lehmann noted these may or may not need to be added, but they wanted to explicitly address some of these ideas. One of them is in housing, there's a new goal and objective to provide a diversity of housing in the South District, creating a range of housing types, densities and price points to improve equity and sustainability and the objective is to adopt a Form -Based Code. They also added in a goal for streets, trails and sidewalks connectivity and that is to adopt a Form -Based Code that promotes walkable neighborhoods, encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. In the Commercial areas they added a goal regarding development and redevelopment of commercial areas and adopting a Form -Based Code provides for compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted that looking at a lot of the Form -Based Codes, a lot of these goals are implicit within the Code, but they're not explicitly linked to Form -Based standards and so that's really what these objectives do. Finally, Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map that is currently within the Plan and acknowledged there's a lot of discussion in the Plan about missing middle housing types there's a whole page on it essentially, and what new neighborhoods should look like and this was the Future Land Use Map that was used. Regarding the missing middle housing types, that has some pretty specific uses, and it follows a more conventional use standard rather than focusing on the form of missing middle housing types, and so the change was made to the existing Future Land Use Map for greenfield areas to be where that would be applied. Any new development has to reflect the Future Land Use Map with more explicit regulations of what that looks like and much more detailed greenfield sites. That was the overview of the Code, Lehmann stated as far as next steps, the next meeting is August 5 where the Commission will be discussing any questions or clarifications they'd like, and staff will try to give some more information on affordable housing. Staff will discuss the public comments received thus far, and then the Commission would set a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Commission will then be considering a recommendation on the Form -Based Code and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at the August 19 meeting. Into September and October is when Council would be setting their public hearing in considering the Code and the Plan. Lehmann reminded everyone they can find information on the website Planning and Zoning Commission July 15, 2021 Page 21 of 23 about how to contact staff or email members of staff with comments or questions. Hensch thanked Lehmann and staff for the very impressive work. Townsend asked if these new Codes would eventually replace all of the Codes in the City if they do work on the south side. Russett replied they are just looking at these 900 acres in the South District, but eventually they would like to apply this Code to other greenfield areas that are at the fringe of the community, some of those areas are still in unincorporated Johnson County but are likely to be annexed at some point, so the idea is that it would eventually apply to other greenfield sites as well. Townsend said then they will actually be working with two sets of Codes now, one for the old stuff and this area. Signs stated for next time if staff could present something that f helps him understand Form - Based uses. If he wanted to build a single-family two-story home that fits in one of these blocks, so he could open whatever business he wanted to in that house how would he achieve that in this new Code. Hensch noted if Commissioners have any questions they'd like staff be prepared for to discuss on the next meeting on August 5 please forward those to staff so they can have an opportunity to prepare. COMMISSION INPUT ON THE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS: Russett noted there was a letter from Rachel Kilburn, the Assistant City Manager, in the agenda packet about these funds and the City is currently in the process of taking comments on how the funds should be used. The City is looking at Boards and Commissions to see if they have any ideas but there is also an online survey each member can take individually or send an email to the email address that was in the letter as well. Hensch stated he would really like to see the City aim this towards affordable housing and affordable, quality childcare, particularly in the qualified census tracks, because that's presumed an eligible expenditure and is something they could start working on right away. He is also very interested in housing rehabilitation, particularly looking at asthma mitigation in children and lead pipe elimination for water distribution and then mold abatement in the homes and also taking care of the leaking problems that are allowing the mold to form in the first place. Padron would like to see the Council or staff look into using this money or part of the money to create a local voucher program for affordable housing. Signs noted there's a lot of opportunity there and there's a greater need and he is anxious to hear what other people are saying. Craig stated she filled out the survey online and agrees with Hensch that childcare is an issue that needs to be address. Hensch stated it is probably the biggest obstacle for working class and poor folks and it is not only affordable childcare, but affordable, quality childcare that is needed. Padron also agrees with the childcare issue and would like to see some money going to that. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 8 of 13 CASE NO. CPA21-0001: A request to set a public hearing for August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan. Russett said this item is just for the Commission to set the hearing. Nolte moved to set a public hearing on August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. CASE NO. CPA21-0001/REZ21-0005: Discussion on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) and draft form -based zones and standards (REZ21-0005) Russett stated this is a continuation of the discussion that the Commission has had at the previous two meetings regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the South District Plan and the proposed Form -Based Code. Tonight's agenda item is an opportunity for the Commission to ask questions and bring up items that they'd like staff to look into and present at the hearing on the 19th. For the August 19 meeting, staff will be preparing a comprehensive memo going over the Form - Based Code, it'll be the written version of staff's oral presentations and will be included in the agenda packet for the 19th. Staff will also go over all of the comments that they've received to date, some of those were included in this agenda packet for tonight and there will be more that will be included in the August 19 agenda packet. After the presentation they will hold the public hearing and at that meeting staff is recommending that the Commission make a recommendation to Council. The Commission tonight may discuss amongst themselves what they've heard or ask questions. Signs had a question about the public transit issues with the transit changes and staff did supply the Commission with the information on the upcoming changes which was appreciated. He said it was his impression that there were some routes being curtailed in the South District so is the City going to be able to accommodate all this new development. Russett noted staff believes that through the proposed plan amendment and the changes to the Code that they will have regulations that will create an incentive for transit to provide service in this area. The development is going to be more compact, there's going to be more residents, and there will be a need for transit. Additionally, they think based on how it's being proposed to be developed, the City could serve this area with transit more easily than some of the more suburban type development that is currently at the fringes of the community. There is a proposed extension to the Gilbert line, which will now serve Terry Trueblood, which is just to the west of the proposed planning area. Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Signs believes there was a question for some information about form versus use and was hoping to get a little clarification on that and what that means in practicality. Russett said the Code actually regulates both form and use but this is a new way of approaching zoning from the conventional zoning code which is a use -based code. The purpose of this Code is to really focus on the physical form of the buildings but allow different types of uses both residential and nonresidential in those building types in areas that are appropriate. So for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the areas that would allow commercial uses are the open zones and these are located in the walkable neighborhood nodes. Russett showed on the map areas that would only allow residential uses and commercials uses. The Form -Based Code also includes a new type of use, the live/work use, but only certain types of uses are allowed in those zones. Signs asked then in a residential zone, if someone were to build a single-family structure or a duplex they could open a dentist shop or an attorney office. Russett confirmed they could if it was an open zone. Padron asked about parking and the Code proposing a reduction of the minimum requirement for parking. Russett replied that depends on the use, but a developer will likely determine the parking based on what the market is asking for. Padron asked if they could put a cap on the maximum number of parking spaces because that would be more restrictive, instead of reducing the minimum. Russett replied the only zone that has a parking max is the T4 Main Street Zone, the area in the center of the community, but the rest of the zones have a minimum so they could provide more. Padron stated when Lehmann provided his presentation, he was trying to convey the idea that they wanted to have less parking spaces in this whole new area but she notes reducing the minimum parking will not meet that goal. Townsend noted however they are seeing that more people have more vehicles so they're going to need more parking spaces. Padron said the goal is to get away from cars. And there is the transportation hub issue, if the City wants less vehicular travel is the City providing transportation, are they providing bike lanes, or safe sidewalks so people can walk. Right now there is no Sunday service. Signs shares the concern and for his entire tenure on this Commission he has spoken against reducing parking and the parking reduction falls in the category of if they don't build it, they won't come and he doesn't think that's true. The reality is they live in a mobile country, a mobile state and mobile city. Bike lanes are going unused throughout the community and in neighborhoods where they have reduced the parking it is just bumper to bumper cars in the streets and a lot of those are in the near downtown areas making it hard for people coming to downtown. He understands the desire but doesn't know how practical reducing parking really is. Signs stated he does love the concept of the missing middle and the mixed neighborhoods. He lived in the Sherman Hill area of Des Moines for a while and it's an old neighborhood, just to the west of downtown. It was where all the rich people lived back in the 1800s and it was a mixed- use development with the corner grocery store, some other business and fourplexes and duplexes sitting next to big Victorian homes. It was a delightful neighborhood, and it was very walkable and a lot of people who have lived in that neighborhood chose that neighborhood Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 10 of 13 because it had that character. He loves the concept of the missing middle but doesn't know that this plan 100% addresses that. This is probably a step in the right direction but his is concerned that it doesn't fully takes on the heart and soul of that concept. Townsend is still hung up on the affordable housing and the fair market rate and the area medium income and none of it is making much sense as to what's actually affordable. They need to address that whole segment of what is affordable housing, and how can they make things more affordable. Those people that really need a home can't afford most of the stuff in Iowa City. Signs has been involved in in the Affordable Housing Coalition for a number of years and one of the things that happens is affordable versus more affordable and what a mixed neighborhood provides is potentially more affordable units. With this they can put two or four units on a lot as opposed to just one house, which significantly lowers the development cost of each unit. From the affordable housing standpoint, the perspective is as units become available at a more affordable prices than what's currently available typically they will have people who are living in lower priced homes moving into that level of home where they can't afford to right now and that opens up some of the lower priced housing stock in the community. When the cities and counties talk about true affordable housing, they're looking at people who make 80%, 60%, and 30% of the area median income but those are typically projects that cannot be built in this day and age unless there are significant subsidies and/or external input. They do see those projects in town fortunately because they have groups in town that are getting LIHTC funds and things like that because it is impossible for a developer to build a unit that is totally affordable on their own. Townsend noted the challenge here is to build affordable housing the developer get perks like additional heights, which gives them additional units, which means they make more money off the expensive units and if two or three or four units in that complex are actually affordable, they wouldn't be losing any money, they'd still be getting good money for the rest of the units. Signs noted this proposed code change doesn't have any built-in affordable percentage requirement like the Riverfront Crossing District. Russett confirmed it only has the regulatory incentives. Signs acknowledged there's honestly not a lot of opportunity in this zone for larger scale buildings that have multiple affordable units because there's not going to be any buildings in this area that are more than 8 or 10 units. Russett noted about 50% of the land area is in the County so development in that area would be subject to the annexation policy and the affordable housing annexation policy would apply. Nolte likes the plan overall but every projects going to be different and they have to look at every block. Comprehensively this is a good plan, but the proof will be in the pudding when people start wanting to build. Townsend stated her other concern is when those come into the Commission will the exceptions be presented with that plan. Russett stated the first step would be if this Code is adopted, and Planning and Zoning Commission August 5, 2021 Page 11 of 13 the plan amendment is approved, if a developer wants to come in it would be a rezoning process and come before the Commission. The Code includes specific review criteria for rezonings that they will be using to analyze that rezoning and would be written in the staff report. So if there's anything that's different from what's in the plan, it would be noted in the staff report. Signs stated another thing that he was really pleased to see in the staffs recommended plan changes early on in the process when they had the consultant, the Opticos Group, here they did a number of community information gathering sessions with the neighbors in that area. Some of the concepts that Opticos had in their version of the missing middle involved a lot of additional amenities in both on the houses' structure and in the street frontages, and alleyways and whatnot. However, all the developers at that time pointed out that all those things have a significant price tag attached to them, which makes it even harder to be affordable. However, staff has done a good job of not putting a lot of frilly extras that would increase the price of these homes just artificially. Russett noted if the Commission has more questions they want answered on the 19th, send her an email and staff can prepare something. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 15, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 15, 2021. Nolte seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett stated as many are probably already aware, the proposed Hickory Trail Estates rezoning near Hickory Hill Park failed at Council so that will not be moving forward. Russett had sent out an email earlier this week about moving the Commission meetings to Wednesday, if they haven't responded please do so. Lastly all City employees received an email today that the City's mask mandate for City facilities is going to take effect tomorrow. So starting tomorrow in all City buildings masks will be required. That will affect the meeting on the 19' and staff will try to figure out spacing. She will also have to find out what if people want to remove their mask. The meeting will still be in person, here in this building on the 19111. Signs shared he sent an email to the chair and to staff the other day expressing some concerns about the City Council's disapproval of the Hickory Hill project, which went against the Commission's recommendation. This has happened a couple other times in recent history, and they've been called in for consults on some of them. In this case some of the comments that were made by Council members concerned him in how they were interpreting the two -decade old neighborhood plan, and how they were interpreting the Comprehensive Plan. Some of them Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 2 of 33 Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Signs moved to set a public hearing for September 2, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Townsend seconded the motion and a vote was taken and passed 5-0. CASE NO. CPA21-0001: Public hearing on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. Russett noted this item and the next item will be presented separately but are both part of the same project. The first is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and that area of the City includes a lot of land that is undeveloped. In that Plan it was recommended that a form -based code for the area be considered to manage new development, ensure a mix of housing at compatible scales, and encourage compact and connected neighborhoods. Since January of 2019, the City has worked with Opticos Design to develop a form -based code and as part of that process staff has determined that amendments to the South District Plan are necessary prior to considering adoption of the Code. Again, the South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and after it was adopted the City worked with Opticos Design in 2017 to assess the feasibility of implementing a form -based code. Several stakeholder interviews were conducted, there was a community workshop and a visual preference exercise. After that work, in 2019 the City continued to work with Opticos Design to implement the vision of the South District Plan and then worked with a consulting firm that prepared a residential market analysis as part of this project and worked on drafting the Code. Staff prepared options for a Land Use Map which will be reviewed in more detail shortly. In November of 2019, the City released the initial draft of the Code for public comment and a few months later in February 2020 they released the draft future Land Use Map for public comment. Last year, staff conducted additional outreach and worked on Code revisions and map revisions based on feedback received. In June 2021, they released a revised draft Code and a revised draft Plan. Russett showed a table that gives a summary of the outreach that they've done since the beginning of this process in 2019. She specifically mentioned the work that they did with the Iowa City Community School District. When they met with the School District, they informed staff that based on the planning area that they were looking at, they did not need any additional land to address their school needs, at least not within the 900 -acre area that they are looking at. Staff also coordinated with affordable housing developers and affordable housing advocates and met with the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Plan and based on that outreach, they had recommended some revisions to the initial draft that was released in 2019. Their main concerns were related to housing affordability and housing accessibility. Based on those comments, staff integrated regulatory incentives for affordable housing into the draft Code that the Commission will be reviewing tonight. They also incorporated changes to the frontage type standards to address concerns related to accessibility and to make sure there were options for developers to develop at grade entries at the front of buildings. Staff also received input on the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 3 of 33 Future Land Use Map and changed proposed designations based on concerns related to single loaded streets, where they propose increased density along single loaded streets to offset the costs of building a street but only having housing on one side of those streets and also along major corridors such as McCollister Boulevard. Staff also received input that a property owner wanted to downgrade an area along the golf course, which was accommodated. Lehmann reiterated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is running simultaneously with the Zoning Code Amendment that's happening. The changes to the Code are mostly minor, there's new context that is added, some new goals and objectives added to make more explicit the connection between form -based codes. Additionally, within that context trying to look at other goals that the City has regarding equity and sustainability, and also provide context as to what form -based planning looks like within the community. The bigger change is to the Future Land Use Map to accommodate missing middle housing types and more opportunities for neighborhood commercial than are currently there. Lehmann explained it's a lot of switching the designations from one that is use -based to one that is form -based. Lehmann first discussed the contextual changes, stating there's new background information, information about the input for the form -based code, context regarding native peoples that were not mentioned within the first drafts of the Plan, implications of past planning practices, and then some discussion of equity and sustainability initiatives within the City. He also updated information that was out of date, for example, development that's happened since 2015, some changes in names, etc., and there's some generalized language as well in the housing, transportation and commercial areas. Lehmann noted all of those changes are redlined in the draft plan that was included in the agenda packet for tonight. The other contextual change is there's a new chapter regarding form -based codes that's added in form -based planning and discusses what they are and clarifies how they might be implemented within the South District. As far as changes to goals and objectives, Lehmann reiterated a lot of them are trying to explicitly link broader Comprehensive Plan goals to form - based planning as it relates to the South District, especially goals related to housing, diversity, walkable neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial nodes. The one for housing is a new goal to provide a diversity of housing in South District including a range of housing types, densities and price points to help improve equity and sustainability with the objective to adopt a form -based code for the South District that encourages the diversity of housing types, densities and price points for streets, trails and sidewalks. The new objective is to adopt form -based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. The new objective for commercial areas is to adopt a form -based code that provides for a compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted there were other conversations throughout the Plan about adopting a form -based code, this is just tying it to the broader goals that are available throughout the Plan. Regarding form -based planning Lehmann explained with the Comprehensive Plan, the primary way that the City implements its Comprehensive Plan, and District Plans, is through the zoning code. The zoning code provides rules on how land can be used, how it can be developed, regulates what structures can be built and where, and the form -based planning represents somewhat of a paradigm shift for the City. Instead of organizing zones around use categories, such as residential or commercial, form -based zoning looks at the intended physical form and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 4 of 33 character of the space. For example, instead of commercial it would be Main Street, or instead of residential, it would be some sort of neighborhood. Lehmann clarified however that doesn't mean the use isn't regulated in form -based planning, it's just regulated secondarily and is tied to the maximizing compatibility between those uses and that physical form. Form -based planning also looks beyond individual buildings to a create vibrant, walkable urbanism and looks at the full space, which includes things like frontage types (which is the interaction between the street and the private realm), it includes civic spaces, thoroughfares, and building types as well. Lehmann reiterated this is a change from previous conventional zoning standards and from some of the City's Future Land Use categories that they've had in the past. Form -based zoning doesn't regulate by density like it has in the past but rather focuses more on the intended character of the area and as a result it does not delineate between single family and multifamily uses. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map from the 2015 South District Plan and noted the change to this map that's been proposed by staff is to have an area of it, basically the undeveloped area, be regulated under form -based future land use districts rather than use -base future land use districts. It also includes a series of new maps that propose where different form - based districts might be. Lehmann explained the existing areas don't get painted under these new land use categories, they retain their existing land use categories, so this really is only applying to the undeveloped portion of the South District. The new Future Land Use Map is a lot more detailed and that is to provide some certainty as to what uses go where, and how things might look based on new form -based standards that might be implemented. Lehmann pointed out the boundaries of the area are roughly South Gilbert Street on the west, the soccer park road going through the middle of the south portion, and McCollister goes through the center of the area. As far as the street network, this is still a Comprehensive Plan, so the street network is not a subdivided area where this is going to be exactly what it looks like. However, based on the proposed standards that staff has proposed for form -based zoning in the area, these will be approximately the block sizes, and there are rules about connectivity and rules about what uses get located where. Lehmann showed one example of what that future land use might look like noting it doesn't incorporate all stormwater management areas either so it could change over time. The new future land use categories are based on the rural to urban transect, a set of typologies where T1 is the most natural or open space all the way up to T6 which would be urban core, such as downtown Iowa City. In the middle is rural, suburban, general urban, and urban center. Lehmann explained a lot of this is looking to incorporate missing middle housing types within the City. Missing middle housing is necessary because low scale multifamily used to be very common in cities but a lot of current zoning codes don't allow it and instead focus on low density single family detached and high density multifamily with very little in between. Again, being a form -based approach, this is a slightly different way of looking at those uses. Lehmann stated the two transects that would be used would be T3, sub urban, and T4, general urban, because it is at the edge of the City. The South District would have a mix of both of those housing topologies or neighborhood topologies. T3 is generally less dense and T4 has denser development, more block scale buildings, less house scale buildings, etc. In terms of what the individual land use categories look like, on the sub urban side, the T3 side, there is neighborhood edge, which is detached single family, duplexes and cottage courts, and then on the neighborhood general side there may be the same uses as T3 but also including some townhomes and some small multifamily uses and those are house scale multifamily uses. On the T4 side it gets a little denser, so neighborhoods include building types such as cottage courts, townhomes, small multifamily uses and small courtyard buildings. There are also neighborhood mediums where there are larger multifamily buildings, still predominantly house scale, but also Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 5 of 33 the opportunity for some block scale buildings there. The Main Street is a relatively finite area where there be with larger multifamily above and storefronts down below. Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map and noted the T3 zones that Opticos developed to be the neighborhood edge, which again is a smaller, less dense, land use category. The T3 neighborhood general tends to be in interior neighborhoods. The T4 zones, T4 neighborhood small is generally allowed around collector streets and around neighborhood nodes proposed things such as parks, Main Street areas, major intersections. T4 neighborhood medium arterial streets and single loaded streets, areas that are more appropriate for higher density uses. T4 Main Street areas are reserved for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister. The Future Land Use Map also looks at thoroughfares that demonstrate the proposed hierarchy of streets. Lehmann reiterated it's not the exact layout that would happen, that would depend on subdivision and on developers as they come in, but it does provide that concept about what a potential map might look like based on the new standards that are incorporated in the code. Tonight, the Commission is looking at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and there are two approval criteria that are in the Code at 14 -8D -3D explains what should be considered when adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments. The first criteria is that the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments thereto. Lehmann explained as far as circumstances and how they've changed over time, since 2015 the South District has continued to see residential developments, Alexander Elementary School was developed in 2016, and McCollister Boulevard was recently extended over to Sycamore Street. About half of the undeveloped land in the South District is within City limits and about half is outside and are many different land uses that are currently there. A lot of the undeveloped area is agricultural, there's single family and multifamily residential uses, there's some civic uses and some open space uses. Further north there's also some commercial uses, but that is not within the study area that they're looking at tonight. Lehmann stated generally development has aligned with that 2015 Plan, but since that time there's been extensive work made towards the objective that the City should consider a form - based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved. So again there was the 2017 feasibility study, which looked at form -based zoning in the South District and noted the need to build on the South District Plan. Generally, the current future land use scenario aligns with current conventional zoning standards and therefore doesn't really align with form -based standards. That really came to light as they were working on this form -based code amendment because it distinguishes between single family mixed and multifamily residential uses and provides limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial areas. Most importantly it regulates future land use categories by use rather than by form. Work towards the standards revealed the need for the revised Future Land Use Map, which staff believes constitutes a change in circumstances and makes this amendment in the public interest. However, Lehmann noted there have been other changing circumstances as well, such as looking at goals related to social justice and equity, which are often tied to things like housing diversity and housing affordability. In 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity, which also looked at housing diversity and conventional zoning regulations have also been used in the past in other areas to support racial and class segregation. Explicitly racial zoning was allowed prior to 1917 and once that was done some cities turned to other exclusionary practices such as single family only zoning, large minimum lot size sizes, etc. They'll often hear about exclusionary zoning in reference to those things that Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 6 of 33 worked with other policies such as redlining, slum demolition, etc. that actively worked against promoting equity. Even Iowa City had racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in the 1960s so right now, in Iowa City, about 81% of residential land is zoned single family development and about half of that is zoned for low density development. Therefore, form -based planning helps address this by trying to increase housing choice by allowing a mix of housing uses which allows a range of price points. Lehmann acknowledged it doesn't solve the issue, but it does mitigate one barrier to providing affordable housing options and diverse housing choices. He encourages all to look at the mapping segregation that shows where there were racially restrictive covenants in Iowa City. Obviously, a lot of those were in place prior to the development of the South District but those sorts of policies have shaped zoning and housing policy in the US. Another changing circumstance was the City adopted its 2018 Climate Action Adaptation Plan and that includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Looking at conventional low-density zoning, it contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because when things are spread out, it's difficult to navigate by anything other than a car, which reinforces an auto oriented pattern of development. As more people have cars it increases traffic congestion, especially near major employment centers. Higher parking minimums also assume car ownership and can increase the prices of housing. Form -based planning helps address this by helping to improve the City's building and transportation systems by seeking to develop compact neighborhoods, trying to allow the opportunity to be traversed easily by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. With these changing circumstances staff does believe constitutes something that is in the public interest to address in the South District Plan. As far as consistency and compatibility with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and other plans, Lehmann explained generally, the proposed changes align with existing goals and objectives that are in the South District Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan as well. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as primarily residential land uses, mostly two to eight dwelling units per acre with some areas that are eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. It also shows some commercial uses. Lehmann noted with the Future Land Use Maps, they generally defer to the district plans which are more specific and that shows future land use categories based on use, such as low and medium density single family residential, low medium density mixed residential, multifamily and mixed-use commercial. Lehmann pointed out that somewhat contrasts with the text of the Plan that says to incorporate a true mix of housing at a compatible scale, and that includes those missing middle housing types which are also discussed in the current Plan. This amendment will refine those future land use categories to better reflect the range of housing types discussed. Lehmann showed what the Future Land Use Map of the South District looked like in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2013 and what it looks like in the 2015 South District Plan. Both follow some similar principles to the way that the new future land use categories were mapped out, there is denser housing along major corridors or clustered at neighborhood nodes, it does include multifamily at the corners of South Gilbert and McCollister and Sycamore and Lehman, and some other areas as well. It also includes some neighborhood commercial at the heart of the district at the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister, it is designated as mixed use but neighborhood commercial intent partially. Lehmann next showed the new Future Land Use Map that makes the undeveloped areas subject to form -based standards. Again, it was developed following some similar principles to the development of the prior Future Land Use Map but it does better align with the text of the code regarding future land uses and form -based planning. As far as other goals from the Comprehensive Plan, there are many that are incorporated throughout it, including ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian -oriented developments, planning for commercial and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 7 of 33 defined commercial nodes, supporting preservation of open space, farmland, and then visibility from parks and discouraging parks that are surrounded by private property. As to fitting into the South District Plan goals, it aligns with things like preserving environmentally sensitive features, considering opportunities for small neighborhood commercial and mixed use at key intersections, and providing safe and logical walking routes to school with well-connected streets. The new goals and objectives that are proposed to be added to the Plan support the plan and clarify how those form -based standards implement the Plan's intent as it relates to housing, transportation and commercial areas. It also aligns with other more recent policy efforts of the City including the City's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and then Black Lives Matter and systemic racism resolution. Incorporating these elements into the Plan helps ensure consistency across all of the City's policy documents. Russett discussed some of the more recent feedback that staff received on the Plan and started with a question that was received from a Commission member this week. The question was based on the land that is currently in unincorporated Johnson County and not part of the City, what happens if they do not want to annex and if they want to develop within the County. Russett explained the land that's in the County is currently within the City's growth boundary and is subject to the policies in the City/County Fringe Area Agreement. Any development that happens in the County would be subject to those policies. Russett noted staff is currently working on updating the Fringe Area Agreement with the County and hope to present that update to the Commission very soon. The Fringe Area Agreement states that since this area is in the City's growth boundary it would be subject to the City's urban design standards, which is essentially the City Subdivision Standards, which talk about consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and also ensures compliance with block standards that are currently in the subdivision code. Moving onto some of the other public comments that staff received, and are included in the agenda packet, they received a letter from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association, and they're concerned about a lack of transition between the existing neighborhoods along McCollister Court and new development and have requested that that area be changed from a T4 designation to T3. They also have expressed concerns on impacts to education and emergency services. Representatives of the South District Neighbor Association express an interest in having more indoor recreation space in this area and then staff also heard from two property owners that requested to remove their property from the planning area. Correspondence was also received after the packet was published, from Richard Stapleton who mentioned that he wasn't aware of the plans to develop the area and also echoed the concerns from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association. Phil Neal was concerned with the slight reduction proposed in parking and Glen Lynn also had concerns with the multifamily proposed behind McCollister Court. To provide more context, Russett showed the area behind McCollister Court, and the street just to the east of the area is where it was requested to be changed from a T4 designation to a T3 designation. Russett explained there were two ways that staff address transitions from existing neighborhoods with this Future Land Use Map. The first is by designating adjacent land a T3 neighborhood edge, and the second way was designating adjacent land as open space and that is the approach for the area behind those homes along McCollister Court which is designated open space with a proposed future right-of-way of about 70 feet to the T4 identified there. Russett noted this is not that different than what is in the current land use policy map, the area just to the west of McCollister Court is designated as low medium density mixed residential which would allow duplexes, townhomes and smaller scale multifamily. What staff is proposing is the T4 neighborhood small would allow the building types of a cottage court, multiplex, small townhomes and courtyard building small which are all building types that are more than one unit. It's not single family. However, in the form -based planning all the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 8 of 33 buildings are house scale buildings. Russett next showed on the map the two areas that property owners requested being removed from the plan, one is the area south of Lehman and the other area is east of the Sycamore Greenway but staff does not recommend removing these areas from the Plan. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of CPA21-0003 the proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Commission staff will ask City Council to set a public hearing to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form - based standards which will run concurrently at Council. Hensch asked if staff could illustrate the T3 areas and what would the buildings look like and the building options available to people in a T3. Lehmann stated the T3 land uses depends on the T3 zone. There are T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. T3 neighborhood edge would allow a house large, a duplex side by side, and the cottage court. The T3 neighborhood general would allow a house small, duplex side by side or duplex stacked, a cottage court, townhomes in rows of two or three and a multiplex small which could be up to six dwelling units. Hensch asked in the current zoning that's in the South District how are those types of structures that are currently listed not encouraged in the current zoning. Why has the missing middle not occurred in the South District. Russett noted the current zoning in the South District is some RS - 5 and RS -8 and also some interim development zones. The RS -5 and RS -8 are single family zones and the residential uses that would be allowed in those zones are single family detached and duplexes on corner lots. The current zoning code does not contemplate things like cottage court, or some of the small multifamily. It would allow some attached single family but again only on corner lots. The proposed code envisions multiple housing types that aren't even contemplated through the current zoning unless they did a plan development overlay. Hensch stated then without this form -based code implementation in these undeveloped areas the existing code would pretty much mean that the push for the missing middle housing option as an effort to increase affordability and access to housing probably could not occur in the South District. Russett replied not without a plan development overlay rezoning. Hensch noted people also raised concern about emergency services, but isn't there plans for a fire station at the corner of Cherry and South Gilbert. Russett confirmed there are plans, the City owns that land and they are eventually planning to build a fire station there, however it's currently not budgeted. Once that is there, there's not going to be a need for additional land or another fire station in the proposed planning area. Hensch brought up the Fringe Area Agreement because that's a concept that may be new to folks in the audience, could staff illustrate how it controls zoning in the County and though the City's planned growth area south of the current city limits going two miles into the unincorporated County area. Russett explained the Fringe Area Agreement is an agreement between the City and Johnson County and applies to land within two miles of the City's corporate limits. A portion of that land is within the City's growth boundary and that growth boundary is the area of the City Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 9 of 33 they anticipate to be annexed into the City eventually and developed to City standards. Townsend noted during one of the previous meetings staff reviewed how wide the streets were and the variability of the thoroughfares in this proposed area and asked if staff could briefly repeat that for the people who are here. Russett stated the majority of the area where streets proposed on this map are considered neighborhood streets. The proposed right-of-way is 70 feet and the width of the pavement of the street would either be 26 feet or 28 feet. There are other streets that are a little bit wider are where they're envisioning bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and incorporating street trees and landscaping along those streets. The thoroughfare standards not only address the width of the street, but street trees and the strip between the sidewalk and the pavement of the street. Townsend also had a question regarding the comment made about alcohol retail sales and that it should be a special exception, which she agrees with but there could be a small restaurant or a small grocery store that sells beer or alcohol correct. Russett confirmed that was correct, the correspondence they received was a concern about liquor stores, which is considered an alcohol related retail use and in the zoning code is separate from restaurants. If a restaurant does want to serve alcohol, they will need a liquor license, which is a separate process. Grocery stores can also sell alcohol, but if it gets to be more than a certain percentage of their sales that's when it turns into a liquor store. Staff is actually proposing a change to how those are permitted and will be recommending it be changed to a special exception. Hensch stated speaking of neighborhood commercial in the current zoning and the South District is there any possibility of neighborhood commercial now. Russett replied it's very limited, there's one area shown for neighborhood commercial at the southwest corner of McCollister and Sycamore. The new Future Land Use Map proposes seven nodes for community centers and the majority of those are commercial nodes, some are also open space nodes. Hensch asked staff to illustrate in the neighborhood commercial in the form -based code, like what type of commercial businesses could be in those areas. Russett said the commercial business would be limited to 1500 square feet and staff is proposing that whatever nonresidential uses are allowed in those areas have operating hours between 6am and 11 pm. Some of those uses can be restaurants. Lehmann pulled up the Future Land Use Map to point out where those neighborhood nodes are shown on the Future Land Use Map. In the zoning code, it would be considered open zones for those neighborhood nodes and uses that would be allowed within open zones, that wouldn't be allowed in other zones, would include things such as offices, retail uses, specifically sales and personal service. He added that in the Main Street District there are some denser uses. A neighborhood open zone that's in a neighborhood small zone is where potentially alcohol sales -oriented retail may be so staff did recommend that be a special exception. There are also special exceptions related to general animal related commercial uses, things like veterinarians, and open zones have similar permissiveness as it comes to educational facilities and those types of uses. Hensch opened the public hearing. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) is one of the directors of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and is speaking today on behalf of the residents in the Sand Hill Estates neighborhood. They are a neighborhood of 126 homes adjacent to the proposed South Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 10 of 33 District Plan located north of McCollister Boulevard running from McCollister Court east towards Langenberg Avenue, up towards Wagon Wheel Drive and over and over to the Keel Boat Loop. Members of their community have been present and engaged during the recent presentations of the City's South District Plan and those presentations generated a large amount of discussion and concern within the community. The board of directors compiled the five most common concerns from homeowners and took that list and visited homes within the neighborhood asking homeowners to sign if they agreed with the concerns the board had compiled. On July 29, 2021, they submitted a document to the City discussing the five areas of concern. That document was included in the August 5 packet and today's packet and contains homeowner signatures from 64 homes within the neighborhood. Those homes that did not sign the document either were not home when our volunteers stopped by or volunteers were unable to survey that portion of the neighborhood due to time constraints. In other words, 100% of the homeowners in the neighborhood who spoke with the volunteers signed the letter of concern. Domsic urges the Commission to review the document and understand how the public has reacted in one of the neighborhoods most affected by the South District Plan. Domsic will discuss each of these areas of concern and requests that before the Commission votes, they seriously consider each concern and vote to amend the South District Plan accordingly. The five most common areas of concern their community notes are the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court, the reduction in required parking, design sites being administratively changed following an approval, the impact on education and access to emergency services. Concern one, the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court and the area of greatest concern is the triangular plot of land immediately south of McCollister Court as that area lacks an adequate housing transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. They ask that the City revise the South District Plan to include T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general zoning in this area. Looking at the Future Land Use Map one can easily identify areas of transition and other locations which are absent here. Looking east behind Langenberg Avenue, they will see a private civic space, an area of T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is contained within their homeowner's association, they feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a single similar zone of transition were adopted on that triangular plot of land. Domsic noted other areas of transition can be identified throughout the South District Plan but in the interest of time, he'll forego further analysis. He did note one may assert the public civic space it is an area of transition, however the map fails to show the existing multi use path and it neglects to adequately show the bifurcation of the civic space. Furthermore, their HOA pays for the regular maintenance on the north side of the path and has done so for more than seven years. Their concerns regarding this plot of land are not new, members of their neighborhood have expressed concerns at Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings dating back to 2013. More recently, in 2017, a developer submitted design proposal using nearly identical plotting road and zoning maps to the proposed South District Plan and when the proposal vote came to a vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council rejected the proposed development. From the transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 it is noted the City Council members expressed a desire for better transition between the existing neighborhood and any new development. On December 5, 2017, then Commission member Freerks said "I carefully went through that South District Plan and I went through some documents about missing middle and really tried to read through everything as carefully as possible again. If we try and pass this as missing middle piece to the community, this is going to be something that the community is not going to want in the future. It's a Targe area, almost 22 acres, and that not one is non multifamily". Freerks then went on to say " I think we have to look towards balance as well and that's why I think adding some Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 11 of 33 other types of housing and transitioning would be in the best interest here. I think we're going to have opportunities for townhomes and zero Tots in this area and I really hate to put a huge block here when we can also peppered through other portions of the South District". Hensch noted Mr. Domsic's five minutes were up and he could come back to that spot once everybody's has an opportunity to speak. Steve Gordon (AM Management) noted they are a landowner down in this area and they own four parcels that are part of the new form -based code. He gave a little history on their land holdings, as he believes with most of the land holdings in this area, they predate any of the current Commissioners and most if not all of current City staff. AM Management's land is part of the 400 plus acre annexation into the City back in the mid-1990s and was part of a plan that has since become the Saddlebrook Development. There was extensive negotiation over several years, covering many issues, including the size of the annexation, and the zoning of the land. Once annexed it was crucial to the City that this particular piece of ground was annexed into the City because they needed it for their wastewater treatment plant to make that contiguous with City limits which was required. Much of the ground was zoned multifamily in the County before the annexation and agreements were made between the landowners in the City to maintain those zonings The land was annexed, the City got their treatment plant, and the landowners got their zoning or so they thought. The land in this area was and currently is zoned ID -RM. The IDs designation was put on the land as a placeholder, and they were led to believe until City services were available it would be RM zoned and the ID designation could be dropped, and they would put a number behind the RM and move forward. Gordon stated they were shocked to find out in 2015 that this was not the case. The City deemed the ID zone as a specific zone not a placeholder and they must rezone to be able to develop and the letters behind the ID are meaningless to the City. In AM Management's case since the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan were colored for low density -single family RS -5 and RS -8 that is all they were told they could zone it. The City got its treatment plant, but landowners did not get their expected zoning. They view their land as part of the Saddlebrook development. 400 acres were acquired, consolidated, and annexed through negotiation and zoned as part of an overall business and development plan. All the pieces had to work together as a part of the whole to make the whole feasible. These parcels they own were and are a part of the whole just waiting for their turn. Saddlebrook is a very nice community and has been a positive influence on the South District. However, their feet were taken out from under them when they learned that the RM zone was not real. The form -based code will further erode the business and development plan that was put in place when what they thought was good faith negotiations brought this land into the City to separate the large development that has been and continues to be built out over many years. To date, they have built and rented and sold almost 800 units. They do not yet know what will be built on their remaining land, the market will tell them when the time is right. Maybe a preschool to take advantage of all the nature in this area is a good idea, maybe a rehab center where elderly patients recovering from a setback can be outside and enjoy the quiet surroundings, or an assisted living community or maybe a 55 plus coop building. The current zoning code allows flexibilities for these ideas and more but when discussed with staff and brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission it was discussed and proved not a good fit or not in the current zoning. Gordon acknowledged the Comprehensive Plan can be adjusted as time and ideas change, such as the example earlier tonight to take an area that's slated for residential development and change it to intensive commercial along the IWV road. Is that a better use now than what was anticipated as residential years ago, that's hard to say, but discussions will take place, the public will weigh in, and a decision will be made. If intensive Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 12 of 33 commercial is deemed the best use, the Comprehensive Plan will be changed and the proper zoning will be put in place. The form -based code does not offer that flexibility. Street configurations are essentially set up, lot sizes, building sizes and building types are mandated. If they wanted to build an assisted living center, they would not be able to whereas the current code allows that flexibility. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) is representing her family who owns about 200 acres of ground that will be directly affected by what this proposal. She agrees with everything Steve Gordon just said and he gave a nice background about how they thought they had a plan and thought they were talking with the right people at the right time and now things have changed. Feuerbach stated they own Pleasant Valley golf course and the 70 acres directly to the east of the golf course where they have always intended to develop into single family homes. When they built the golf course they wanted to build a fine public course and did that with their money and their time. They then said they wanted to build a nice clubhouse and have done that so they are now at the third phase where they want to build a nice, traditional single family golf course community. They have been landowners in Iowa City and Johnson County for over 50 years and have done a pretty good job of tending to the raw ground that they've owned through their garden center and through the golf course. They understand keeping good and maintaining good. Feuerbach stated they been part of the meetings with the City planners and the California based consultants, but they feel their concerns, their wishes, their dreams, and their history have fallen on deaf ears. They also find very little flexibility in the current plan and see many obstacles that would lead to a higher cost for development, poor use of the rolling terrain and topography of the ground and it would be almost impossible to offer the custom high quality single-family homes that they had sought for when they started with the golf course. They were told Sycamore Street was not going to be extended, they have a strip of ground right up against the golf course and own the 70 acres east of the course. Now, Sycamore Street is supposed to be extended into a single loaded street which is very expensive. That street not only will be straight down the south side of their property, but then swing around and come back up north, basically a racetrack, a single loaded racetrack at their expense. If the City is trying to be concerned about green infrastructure, that makes no sense. Also it will create major runoff because of all of the concrete that's going to be put in. It will affect not just their property, but also the City's property, the soccer fields and the green space to the east. Feuerbach stated in their opinion, there's really no economic or ecological sense to constructing this road because there is already a main thoroughfare with Soccer Park Road. All they would have to do is swing Sycamore across and use what's already there. The water is already there, City water hydrants are already in place, yes the road would have to be upgraded a bit, but why add more concrete to nice rolling hills and gentle topography. The second concern is the type of single-family homes that are going to be allowed. The discussion about missing middle is great but there is no designation for T1 or T2 homes. What's talked about are homes that will be kept on square footage, garages to be pushed back, side yards will be small, neighbors will be close, and it'll have straight streets. That doesn't conform to what they've already developed with the undulating greens, winding fairways, and raised tees. The opportunity for larger lots offering private open space is not there. Why can't the south side of Iowa City have homes similar to those built on the east, west and the north side like Walnut Ridge, Windsor Heights and Hickory Heights. Sarah Barron (Director, Affordable Housing Coalition) wanted to talk a little bit about how the Affordable Housing Coalition has engaged in this process. When they listen to the City Council discuss this form -based code idea they know that it's more than just a neighborhood experiment, it's really a vision for how the community builds more inclusive housing opportunities and move Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 13 of 33 forward together. The City Council very much anticipates that a similar model to this can be used for infill development, and for new neighborhoods that are annexed into the City over time. Therefore, what they're looking at here today is not just a vision for a single neighborhood, but rather a new plan that more accurately reflects the values that the community has identified. Values of affordable and inclusive housing, values of climate action and ecological sensitivity, and values of accessibility for all neighbors. Barron agrees they certainly shouldn't pass this plan if they don't think that this new plan reflects those three values that this community has identified. What Barron is going to ask is for the Commission to reject arguments that they've heard many, many times before. Such as the idea that a property owners rights extend beyond their property line, especially if they own expensive homes. That just can't be accepted that in the community anymore, they have to move forward with a vision that recognizes that Iowa City is a community that values that economic diversity and inclusion and must come up with a housing vision that encourages a variety of housing types and price points. That's really the mission today is to determine whether or not this meets those important goals that have been set forward as a city. There will be a lot of arguments made that aren't even necessarily true and Barron trusts the Commission to look at the facts about how neighborhood development impacts things like the prices of homes nearby. There's simply no evidence that a bigger variety of housing types would have any impact at all on that. She asks they look at the facts and reject the rhetoric and the fear that comes with change, and really affirm the value and the vision that they have for moving forward as a community. Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is also one of the board of directors for the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association. And her backyard actually will be in effect directly adjacent to a T4 designated area. First, she wanted to piggyback on to what Domsic was saying that the current plan shown on the screen doesn't really address the historical concerns that not only did the P&Z Commission address in 2017, but also City Council recommendations when they voted against the last plans of for the South District. Everyone has been talking about the missing middle and staff showed a map ranging from T1 all the way to T4 and existing neighborhoods, single family homes, much of that is afforded the T3 neighborhood edge. Unfortunately, most of Sandhill Estates is not being granted that same luxury of having a neighborhood edge surrounding their neighborhood. They go basically directly from their single-family homes to the green space directly to a T4. So basically, her backyard will be adjacent to a walking trail and directly across from there potentially an apartment complex. Shaw stated one thing is for sure, they all live in Iowa and all know what happened in Dyersville not too long ago and are very familiar with the phrase "if you build it, they will come". This is about a 900 -acre project and this particular plan with the T3 and T4 and so forth is anywhere from four to 8000 dwelling units. Iowa City's average information states an average of 2.5 people live in in each dwelling unit so this development, in these 900 acres, can be anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 people added to the population in Iowa City. To give perspective, Johnson County has Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Solon, Lone Tree, University heights, Swisher, Hills, Oxford and Shueyville. North Liberty alone is a population of 20,083 based on Google, so this Plan is looking at putting the entire city of North liberty in her backyard. That's very, very compact. Additionally, she wanted to address the concern from their neighborhood with parking. The California consultant talked about missing middle and about sense of community and narrow streets, including on street parking as part of the parking requirements to create neighborhoods. But unfortunately, Opticos is talking about California, this is Iowa, there is 20 below weather with a foot of snow on the ground. As much as walkable areas might be nice, it's not practical. But if you build it, they will come regardless of how much parking is offered, they're going to bring their cars anyway. This is very evident in Iowa City all across the city. Iowa City has always had the challenge of parking. One of Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 14 of 33 the pictures presented was in the T4 section just north of Alexander Elementary where it would be similar to downtown with businesses on the bottom and apartment buildings on top and everyone knows what parking looks like downtown, it's atrocious. Alex Hachtman (846 McCollister Court is the president of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and first of all, thanked the Commission for hearing their comments this evening. He echoes the comments that already been addressed and wanted to add some of the other concerns that their neighborhood has. First, he'll talk about the impact of education, their children are very important to them. He just came from the ice cream social this evening at Alexander Elementary where his youngest goes to school, and it has been mentioned that the size of this area will put some strain, potentially, on the Iowa City School District. They need to ensure that the safety is there as they're thinking about the just the sheer number of families that will be moving into this part of the community. Hachtman noted at the school there was a time when there were temporary buildings at Alexander so just wants to make sure that the Commission considers that as they're considering the South District Plan and the impact that it will have. He wants to make sure that the City has a plan to address and support the schools during that period of growth and understand what steps are being taken and how does the City plan to address the safety for the children when the roads and neighborhoods become more populated, especially in close proximity to the school. Hachtman stated their children love being able to bike to school now. Another item of concern that was also addressed was some of the design sites and the administratively changing of the approval process as well. Historically, the City has encouraged developers to communicate with adjacent neighborhoods when new development plans are proposed and these discussions can be beneficial for both parties. However, the announcement that the design sites can be administratively adjusted at the subdivision level after approval raises some concern. His concern is once agreements are set, either formally or informally, between developer and adjacent neighborhood, administrative adjustments without notice may violate expectations or create tension between the parties. Hatchman acknowledged they understand the desire to make these processing adjustments easier, however they feel this could be negatively used and advocate that if adjustments to design sites are requested that there should be a public notification and response period allowed for these changes. Finally, his last concern is just the access to emergency services, and they want to make sure that as this area continues to get developed it will have the sufficient infrastructure accordingly. Hatchman noted as the neighborhood board went around and chatted with wonderful neighbors and friends some of the other concerns that were brought up were to ensure that there were parks and added green space in the area as well. Not just neighborhood parks that contain children's play equipment but open green spaces. Also, the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan mentioned goals of environmental sustainability but the code does not make recommendations for uses sustainable materials, nor does it make recommendations for minimum installations of alternative energy sources or outline goals for building efficiency certification. Hatchman is grateful for the ambitious undertaking that this is and a lot of work that's gone into it but hopes that some of these concerns that have been brought forward on behalf of the neighborhood association are heard. Dawn Eckrich (1109 Langenberg Avenue) stated they are fortunate that out the windows of their great room and dining room they overlook the area that's being discussed, and she really cannot fathom maybe 8000 people would live in that small space. She wonders if there is another development in Iowa City that would be similar to this, maybe the Peninsula Neighborhood is laid out like this. Having grown up in Iowa City, she is real sketchy on if there's any development like this elsewhere and she doesn't understand the need for such high intensity housing. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 15 of 33 understands wanting to get housing available for everyone but it seems like this is going to turn the area into an apartment or condo area with tall buildings, a lot of people and that's not really what they want in the City. They want things spread out and people to have room. She also wonders about parking, a 26 -foot -wide street doesn't allow for on street parking so in these high intensityl2-plexes such townhouses, will there be ample parking in parking lots because that's a big concern. Every home in Iowa City or apartment has two people living in it with two cars, if they have teenagers that's three or four cars, and that's a situation that's troubling in town. This won't be a place for student housing as it's too far from campus for students, so it's a shame that the use has such high intensity. There will be such high intensity population, especially near a school. Eckrich also stated the buffer is a concern as her house backs up to the buffer and all it will be is a little green strip of maybe four or five feet before there is a row of townhouses. She acknowledged they'll have to see what happens. Tim Lehman (Prospect Farms) is representing his family, he has eight siblings, and they own the property that is just south of Langberg Avenue. The Alexander school was built on their farm here a few years ago. He is also part owner with Maureen Gatens of the 100 acres that's on the east side of Sycamore Street. That was the original Gatens family farm and they'd love to develop this land. His family has farmed it for since the 1960s, he still has a brother that lives on the farm down there. The livestock out there is his family's livestock and he is still involved in the farm. Lehmann stated he is a local realtor here in Iowa City. They've got about 235 acres there that they would love to develop, but they want to develop it the right way. They've been to a lot of the meetings over the last couple of years. Prior to Alexander school being built on the farm, they had visits with the City and spent about $8,000 to $10,000 with a local engineering company looking at how they could develop new streets and some plans together. Lehmann said it was going to be what he would call conventional housing similar to what's in Sand Hill Estates and on Langenberg Avenue. However, that $8,000 or $10,000 worth of planning was thrown out the window when this new plan of zoning was presented. He reiterated they would like to develop it but they just don't understand this new zoning that the City is trying to put in here. They've had absolutely no one reach out to them, when McCollister Boulevard went in they thought they might have some developers reach out to the family and talk about what they could envision there but they've had absolutely no one talk to them. Lehmann thinks a lot of the local developers are not sure what they can build here or if they can afford to build it or where to even start. Rachel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a first-time homebuyer and they purchased their house in August or late July and then come in to find all of this out. When they bought their house they loved the fact that it backed to a field. She acknowledged they didn't expect it to be that way forever but also didn't expect it to immediately be high density housing. She agrees with everything that the HOA has stated before and just wanted to come here tonight as a person who's actually being impacted by this and as a first-time homebuyer coming in to have her backyard be a commercial zone is ridiculous. There should be some form of buffer between their neighborhood and high density, it doesn't have to be right up against their neighborhood. Bryce Duchman (868 McCollister Court) moved into his home about two years ago, and works at the hospital and has a new three -week-old daughter. Some of the things that concern him about the current proposal, is the overall density of the proposal. As people have mentioned, this is potentially 4000 to 8000 home units, which could vary anywhere from 10,000 to potentially 25,000 people. Looking at the population of Iowa City, that is an increase of 15% to 25% of the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 16 of 33 population of Iowa City. Looking at the overall land area that includes, not just developed land, but overall land in of all of Iowa City, it's about 5%. This plan is potentially expanding the population of the city by 25% and to 5% of its area and that in of itself is terribly concerning. When he was a medical student here he lived in an apartment complex on Harlocke Street that was directly adjacent to single homes, it was a multiplex and he thinks they lived in pretty good harmony. What he is concerned about is the lack of clear infrastructure that's going to be provided to this new proposed area. As an employee at the hospital, he already sees the strain of healthcare and that was even before the COVID pandemic. Within the two years that he's been on McCollister Court he's had things stolen from his home and when he contacted the police department no one ever got back to them. So that suggests to him that the South District doesn't have enough infrastructure already and now they are proposing adding 15% to 25% of the population of Iowa City into that area without clear areas of additional infrastructure supporting that area. The City is not creating an equal community at all if they want to put this many people into an area, they need to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure to support those people, especially a population as large as this and that will be as densely packed into this area. Duchman did acknowledge it was encouraging to hear that they have a potential plan for a fire department, it would be nice to hear that's more definitive rather than just potentially down the road. He added there's not a single medical clinic south of Highway 6 to provide support for that community. Perhaps these commercial nodes could potentially have clinics but he does not think that these small commercial nodes will be able to support the amount of people that are going to be in this place potentially. He doesn't think that equal infrastructure support is being supplied to this area as the remainder of Iowa City. Celeste Vincent (1563 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and an original homeowner on Langenberg Avenue. She asks that the City comprehensively at Iowa City and all sides of Iowa City and decide if what is being proposed her is fair and equitable for the south side of Iowa City. Jessica Elliott (853 McCollister Court) just wanted to say she seconds everything that everybody has said so far and supports them completely. The lack of parking the lack of buffer between the neighborhood, etc. When she bought her house four years ago she was told that there would probably be some development, some parks, some building, some homes, townhouses, and whatever, but now they're doing this this high density. She chose to live in Iowa City because of what it looks like out the back of her house, but again knew that it wouldn't always say that way, she knew some stuff would go up there. But Iowa City is the most beautiful place she's ever been and she doesn't want her kids to grow up in a big city or a concrete jungle surrounded by buildings. She wants them to see the fields and ride their bikes. She doesn't want this density and doesn't want there to be so much traffic on these roads because it is not safe for children. None of the neighbors want it. This isn't what the people of Iowa City want. Elliott also wanted to disclose she was recently a member of the HOA board and Kirk Lehmann who is part of the City joined their board in 2019. He did not disclose to the HOA the extent of his involvement with this project until July 1 when he had to disclose it to the public. He was deceitful to the HOA and the fact that he had no integrity to disclose to them what his involvement was when he ethically disclosed it to his employer she feels was wrong. Elliott acknowledged Lehmann participated less in discussing how the HOA felt about this plan going through but he knew how the HOA and that their neighborhood, Sand Hills Estates, stood against the proposal. She feels he should recuse himself because he knows he has a conflict of interest, he has listened to their conversations for years and now there's something in this proposal saying that he wants to be administratively able to make changes, he could tell the HOA they're going to build townhouses Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 17 of 33 and then without letting anyone know and build a 16-plex or whatever. Hekteon noted that Lehmann disclosed this to the City and it was her legal conclusion that he did not have a conflict of interest. Any interactions between Lehmann and the private HOA is not City concern. Daniel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated for the last six years he has served the US Army on active duty as a combat medic and practical nurse and just got out of the service and moved to a quiet town in Iowa. He suffers from PTSD, among other things, so when they moved into their home, his wife Rachel and he, loved the fact that there was a field and were told that when it was developed it would remain low density, nothing to worry about. Now, as brand-new homeowners they come to find out that that may not be true. Sharp stated it's really disappointing to spend all this money on such a beautiful home and not know what the future holds for this place. He also wanted to reiterate the impact on the healthcare system, how are they going to provide adequate care for patients, if they're already struggling to do that. What's the plan. He sees big problems with that and is deeply concerned. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to reiterate what he had talked about when former Commission member Freerks talked about having townhomes and zero lots in this area and not having huge blocks of homes. In that same discussion from December 5, 2017, Commission member Parsons said "if you take out the single family, you kind of take out that transition and if we did it over again, I would like to see a transition between that (meaning the triangular area) and the single family neighborhood". On that same date, former Mayor Throgmorton said "the development should enhance and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. It should also make a transition from single family housing on the east to some higher density structures on the far end of the west near the intersection of McCollister and Gilbert. In between there should be a full range, a broad range of missing middle types of housing so you see and feel a transition. The core idea is it's got to feel like a neighborhood, and it does not feel like a neighborhood now when I look at it". Domsic stated the current South District Plan does not address any of the historical recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission nor the City Council. They are simply asking for the Commission to not vote for an approval of the South District Plan until this particular area has been addressed, and the zoning has been modified to account for a better level of transition. They've been down this road before with designs that closely follow the proposed South District Plan so let's not forget the history and do the best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The right thing is to modify the zoning to account for a better transition. It's better to do this now and not ignore a past and ideologically and follow a mistake into the future. Concern number two was a reduction in parking and Domsic acknowledged it's no secret that parking has been a challenge in certain parts of Iowa City. Therefore, it's curious why a critical piece like parking would have the minimum standard reduced. While it's not outrightly expressed, there is clearly a push within the City to emphasize street parking. The reasoning may be obtained from articles written by the consultants the City hired as part of the development of the South District Plan, regarding what's right for the site analyzing the missing middle. This is an article that was previously included in Planning and Zoning packets and a couple of assertions were made. First to create a sense of community, it's advisable to make narrow streets, second it states "be sure to include on street parking, push the municipality to enable you to count this parking towards your required parking count" and this is exactly what's happening in the South District Plan. This theory may have worked well in Novato, California, where the article highlights various designs and other intended successes. However, in Novato they aren't accounting for January and February were temperatures could reach Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 18 of 33 negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit and cars parked on the streets may fail to start, they aren't accounting for days between November and April where eight or more inches of snow may fall and plows need to clear streets to allow doctors, nurses, first responders and other critical personnel to travel to work to maintain people's health and safety. Not to mention alleyways where snow removal is even more difficult and potentially create areas of maintenance that are not well defined. With that said the goal of achieving a sense of community is great. However, they must understand that certain applications of ideologies may not be suitable across the board. A reduction in the minimum required parking is not appropriate here. Domsic acknowledged they understand the viewpoint that reducing the required parking may encourage residents to use more man powered means of transportation however, this isn't entirely practical and likely won't be practiced by the majority people who like their vehicles and attempts to artificially limit parking will not change the populations practice of owning vehicles. Looking towards the future, electric vehicle sales will increase substantially in the coming years and problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available on a per dwelling basis since battery electric vehicles require a tethered to charge. The long-term expectation of street parking may not be sufficient for populations. Future populations will likely prefer to charge their vehicles at their dwelling so the reduction in required parking and emphasis on street parking will lead to greater street congestion and holds potential to jeopardize the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood's residents. Domsic also reiterated that 4000 to 8000 dwellings added this area with an anticipated population of 10,000 to 20,000 people, the increase in population of the proposed district would make it by itself the 25th to 14th largest city in Iowa. The population equivalents puts the South District Plan in population between Pella and North Liberty. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) wanted to just mention the fact that they've talked about the history and that this has been on the books since 2017. However, those born and raised in Iowa City or been around for some time know this is something that has been on the burner for over 50 years. The discussion about high density, the runoff, the extra concrete, all of those things are not necessary. She acknowledges that there's been a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money spent on this, and she appreciates the fact that City doesn't want to change because they've got so much of an investment, however this Commission should recognize this is the Midwest, this is Iowa and what works for us is not necessarily going to be the same as what works in a major metropolitan city on the west coast. For all of those reasons, she respectfully asks that their ground be left out of this District Plan and all the rules that go with it. Steve Gordon (AM Management) continued his remarks saying that he doesn't believe that form - based code offers a lot of flexibility for some desired project types. If they want to build an assisted living facility in this area, the current code will allow them at least an opportunity to request a Comprehensive Plan change and zoning change, but there are no tools in the form - based code that allows that flexibility. There is no tool under this code that would allow for that sort of that size, lot and structure. So as Feuerbach just mentioned, AM Management also requests that their two parcels of land be removed from the code and remain under their current zoning, which is RS -9. Gordon made a couple of other points, Public Works recently approached them about acquiring 20 acres of land as the State requires a 1000 -foot buffer from any inhabitable structure to expand, upgrade or replace an existing treatment facility. So to prepare for future expansion, Public Works wants to create this buffer before any structures get built, which makes a lot of sense. Assuming a fair and reasonable price can be negotiated this area will be purchased by the City and that will leave a small piece of land on the on the far edge of that proposed form -based code area that is not conducive to mandated street alignments, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 19 of 33 single loaded streets, lot and building size and building types. Flexibility and creativity will be essential in this area. Again, they are requesting that their two parcels be removed from this area. Lastly, Gordon want to talk a little bit about the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. That is the other large area of form -based code in Iowa City and was developed as an additional tool for landowners in around downtown to create projects with more of an urban feel. The key words here was an additional tool. The current zone still exists in Riverfront Crossings, the form -based code is an option landowners have at their disposal to create the project they envision, they choose to rezone to the form -based code if it helps them achieve what they feel is best for their land. It allows many options for urban core to grow based on the needs, wants and desires of the community. At a minimum, he would ask that the Commission to treat the South District in an equal way as a Riverfront Crossings District was treated. If the new South District form -based code is adopted, make it an option for the area, another tool that can be used to create the types of communities' people want to live in, rent from and buy into. If the form -based code is as good as staff has spent multiple hours telling you it is it will happen naturally, just like it does in the Riverfront Crossings District. It is being used there because it creates product that the community wants and is willing to support. Do not force it upon this area with no other options. Give the landowners the same respect given to the Riverfront Crossings landowners and trust that they will use all the tools at their disposal to create a vibrant, sustainable and feasible community. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to finish his comments about the population and how it would be huge and how that would put a massive strain on the schools and education, and just the overall resources and the massive amount of support from the City. Domsic noted their area has been through a number of redistricting's in the past and it is has not necessarily been the best overall experience. For example in the future the kids in the neighborhood will go to City High but the following year they're going to go to West High, and in the future that may switch back. Concern number five was the access to the emergency services, they've heard the proposed fire station had no funding and was not going to be built so it's encouraging to hear that in the future it will be built. However, they want to make sure that the infrastructure is there and this will happen in a timely manner. As Duchman mentioned earlier, he's in the healthcare field and the emergency rooms and things are overpopulated with patients. One of the things that their group had made reference to in their letter was that they hope the City would put an incentivize for the creation of something like an urgent care medical facility, or other sort of medical clinic, that would be available to the residents. This is a massive amount of population that's being proposed here and if they don't have that infrastructure for health, and safety, this is not going to necessarily be the best thing for people. Domsic stated in conclusion, everybody here in this room are all sharing the same common goal and that is they want Iowa City to be the best city in the state. The Commission has heard a ton of different things from various different viewpoints, from their homeowner's association, people who are currently landowners, and others throughout the community and he hopes that they take all of these concerns very seriously and either amend the changes appropriately, as have been identified by the public, or quite possibly just vote no on the plan right now and reconsider things going forward. He commends everybody who's gotten up to speak tonight and give their opinion, and in previous Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. Hensch closed the pubic hearing. Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, the proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 20 of 33 South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form -based principles. Craig seconded the motion. Padron thinks the Plan is clear and supports diversity in the City. She heard a lot of personal issues, but nothing major to make her question the entire Plan. She acknowledged she was a little bit concerned about parking so last night she looked at the number of car sales since 1951 and they have not increased, they're actually decreasing, so it would be wise to reduce the parking. Craig stated she has spent a lot of time with this, as everybody in this room has, and when she thinks about what the role of the Commission is, it is ultimately the public good, and she agrees with the person who said we all want Iowa City to be the best city it can be. When she looks at the City's strategic goals and the current Comprehensive Plan she feels that this proposal is in keeping with the direction the City has taken and wants to take, as expressed by the public. Personally, in 20 years when this is all developed the current resident's kids are going to be out of school and this is going to be a stellar place to be in Iowa City. For that reason, she is in favor of approving it. Padron agreed and regarding the electric cars she feels like, and she has attended a few seminars talking about electric cars and what they were describing is changing so rapidly that they still don't know if they're going to be charging cars in the streets or at home, or if gas stations are going to be charging station for cars. Therefore, she feels that they cannot talk about how that's going to affect street parking. Also, there was a comment in one of the emails received that the electric car sales have increased 30%, or something like that, but the overall car sales in the United States have been constantly decreasing in the last 45 years. So there may be the perception that people are getting more and more cars, but the data doesn't support that. Hensch noted he was involved in the very initial discussions with Opticos when they came here and they interviewed Commission members, this is his seventh year on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and he has heard dozens and dozens of public hearings and the one consistent thing he has heard in seven years is the absence for the missing middle for housing choice. The issue in Iowa City is the missing middle and the ability for people to afford housing. He has lived in the South District since 1993 and won't make a dime off selling property. His backyard is a field that will be developed someday, and he has always known that. He also knew at the very beginning if he had concerns about the development next to him, he needed to buy that property. He believes strongly in and promoting walkability of the neighborhood to try to decrease the number of cars so everybody doesn't have to be in a car for everything and people don't have to drive somewhere to be able to go get a gallon of milk. The problem the South Districts always had is Highway 6 is like the Mississippi River, it just cuts the South District off from the rest of the city. He has been bringing that issue up for years as something they really need to work together as cooperatively with the City to try to make it so it's easier to cross Highway 6 for kids. He strongly believes in the develop of neighborhood commercial so people don't have to get in a car and go somewhere to buy milk or bread. It would sure be nice for somebody to be able to get on their bicycle or walk down to a local store. He has heard many people talk about the density. The density, the heavy numbers people are talking about is strictly theoretical. If it was a T4 and people built the maximum they could for the maximum number of people, maybe, but that's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 21 of 33 simply not going to happen. There are not developers who are going to build that, and it is also decades in the future. He personally believes that the form -based code will turn this into a preferred area in Iowa City because right now in the south side, the City's kind of turned a blind eye to it for decade after decade and that's why they are where they are. This is the first time there's an opportunity to actually make things right and make this a family friendly area where people will want to move. There's so much open space in the South District, it's unparalleled for the rest of Iowa City. Hensch acknowledged change is hard and scary, he just simply disagrees with many of the assertions that were made, his seven years of experience has told him that the worst never happens. Also change has to happen in understandings, and maybe even agreements are made decades before, they're simply just not applicable to future councils and future commissions. Hensch supports this and supports it gladly as person who actually lives in the South District and not somebody who's worried about profiting from sales of property in the South District. Townsend noted she's only been on the Commission for a little over a year but of all the things that she has taken from the meetings she's been involved in is people need housing. The City needs to have diversified housing options and she thinks some of the most successful neighborhoods are neighborhoods that have diversified housing. This is a good proposal for the discussion. Signs asked staff to explain to him, and to the audience, the difference between the plan amendment and the zoning amendment, and what each is to achieve and accomplish. Russett explained the proposed amendment they are discussing right now is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the South District Plan, which includes some changes to goals and objectives of the Plan, which is changes to policy. It also changes the Future Land Use Map and the land use policy. The next item on your agenda is the form -based code, which would help implement the policy direction that's laid out in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It will include changes to the text of the zoning code but is not a proposal to change the zoning map. The text amendment will include standards and regulations that will be applied to future development that is on land that is rezoned to a form -based zone. Even after the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form -based code to develop in this area the land must be rezoned, it must be subdivided and in some cases it also needs to be annexed into the City. Townsend wanted to acknowledge the comments that people didn't walk in the wintertime but when she looks out her window in the wintertime people are walking. She is at the top of Kimball Road and people walk and they ride bicycles after the snow. She doesn't see why that's a concern that people wouldn't want a walkable community. Her concern is about the information that was given to the Commission in the proposed amendment that talked about the history of that area and the Native Americans that were here before. She is wondering if anything is going to happen to have that history of who was here first captured, maybe a museum or something. Also in the South District she would like to see some of the streets named after prominent African American people of Iowa City like Mayor Teague, or Royceann Porter, who's the first African American woman on the Board of Supervisors, or Lulu Johnson, who Johnson County now is named after, these are street names she'd like to see reflected in that area to capture some of that history. Signs stated he is struggling with dealing with this and the understanding that five years from now changes can happen again. That's something they forget but something he's reminded of as Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 22 of 33 he's thinking through this all. The needs and wishes of the community do change over time and whatever is decided here tonight, and in two weeks or four weeks by the City Council doesn't mean that down the road change won't happen again. This development is a result of change of the previous plan, which was changed over the previous plan, that's the nature of growth. He noted he is a little concerned about that triangle of land by McCollister Court and McCollister Boulevard because they have had that conversation before and he hears what the neighbors are saying there. He struggles a little bit with the use of the pieces of ground on the south and east which are the ones that have been requested to be removed. He has been part of that conversation since before he was on this Commission and he hears the comments about there's no guarantees, which is very true. The Council 20 years ago and the staff 20 years ago may have had something different envisioned. But he has been part of the discussion for probably 10 years now and will say he has concerns over the way it was handled. However, beyond that he thinks that everything they're attempting to do here is where the public over many, many years over many, many input sessions, over many, many conversations has led them. Signs has mentioned before that he used to live in the Sherman Hill District in Des Moines, which is a perfect example of a historic mixed-use neighborhood, and it was one of the most sought-after neighborhoods in town, and one of the most expensive neighborhoods in town, so everybody want to live there. So, he really does believe that the demand for mixed use is something that the public has said they want. What happens is, when that butts up against typically single-family neighborhoods, that's when they have this feedback. The City has been dealing with this with this idea since 2015 and this is the largest crowd they've ever had, and the crowd is here from one neighborhood. Signs noted he was at those neighborhood meetings in 2015 as he also lives in the South District and has since 2004. He a very happy resident and has been involved in all those conversations since 2015, he's been involved in the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, which since has merged with the Weatherby Neighborhood Association, which is now the South District Neighborhood Association and never have they had this large of crowd at any of those discussions. But as often is the case people don't get involved until it impacts their backyard, which is what the Commission heard very clearly tonight. He has said it many times before, if you don't own the land, you don't control the land. Someone in one of the letters said that their realtor told them it would stay farmland and as a realtor in this town Signs has never said that to anyone. Anyone who believes that a cornfield is always going to remain a cornfield is somewhat naive. He appreciates that most who spoke tonight said you understood it would be developed sometime and he appreciates their understanding of that. Signs noted someone talked about City goals and the Iowa City vision and having been through all these meetings he believes this is reflective of all those meetings and all the wishes of the community as a whole. As a Commission have to represent the community as a whole. He also wanted to point out there's been a lot of discussion about the huge amount of units in this neighborhood and by his rudimentary longhand math, if there were 8000 units in that neighborhood, that's only 8.5 units per acre, which is basically RS -8 residential development. Anything less than 8000 units is potentially close to RS -5, which is the biggest residential development classification. So really 900 acres and 8000 units is not that big a deal. There's been some comments about the infrastructure not being in place and some concerns about the school, although seems to be more about the safety of kids and transportation. There have been a lot of studies and a lot of information that narrower streets slow traffic and actually make for a more walkable neighborhood, so that and these grid systems promote walkability and safety. McCollister Boulevard is a major thoroughfare but has a strip down the center and crosswalks built into the length of the neighborhood. Signs is also struggling with the two parcels of land that that don't want to be in the district. Those two pieces of land could have adjustments made in the future. Certainly they could come back before the Commission and Council. The final thing to keep in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 23 of 33 mind is regardless of what the Commission says or does here tonight, ultimately, this next goes to City Council who has the ultimate decision power in any of these things. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ21-0005: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan. Lehmann noted this is part of the same project but did reiterate the differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan is what guides the future land use direction for the area however it doesn't affect any of the standards related to parking or any of the specific standards related to height or building types. Those are all guided by the zoning code amendment and that is what they are discussing now. Lehmann noted they have had very lengthy presentations on this draft code at the last two meetings so for this meeting he will just highlight the larger points. The introduction lays out the goals and also talks about how the code would be implemented when the proposed zoning code amendment is adopted. Again, the first step was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now staff is proposing to amend the zoning code to match the Comprehensive Plan. Following that would be a rezoning where they would take a zoning designation that's in the code and apply it to a particular parcel of land. They would rezone to a form -based zoning just like any other zone in the City, so it would be similar to Riverfront Crossings in that way. Lehmann stated this isn't a blanket rezoning, it would be the same process as it would be for a property owner in Riverfront Crossings. He stated in a standard map rezoning staff recommends that those happen concurrently with the preliminary plat because that is when they create individual parcels. In this case zones affect what the parcels are so they could zone it before but it doesn't have to occur that way, but they could engineer everything in advance. Staff also recommends specific review criteria for a rezoning and it should comply with the Future Land Use Map and the South district Plan except where sensitive areas are present, or circumstances have changed, or information has come to light such that it is in the public interest to change it. He explained that's similar to a mini—Comprehensive Plan Amendment and it would also have to find appropriate diverse site conditions, such as organizing more intense zones around a neighborhood node or a neighborhood feature, for example, it would have to have a transition for neighborhood for base zones to occur within blocks or across alleys. Then the design of the site should suit the unique topographical environmental site layout, and constraints of the site. Lehmann showed how the Future Land Use Map could look, but it's not how it must look, and that's how that works. Really, it's a standard rezoning with additional criteria with the preliminary plat and the way that they're approaching that with additional standards related to design sites, thoroughfare, civic spaces and building types. They would propose that those would be shown on the preliminary plat and that's the first stage of planning land and creating individual parcels including notation about possible changes. This Commission would review it against new standards for parcel size, street size and layout, and block size, which is proposed to be different as part of the zoning code amendment. The final plat is where they actually parcel off individual lots and as part of that staff would propose that a neighborhood plan be submitted, which is essentially an updated preliminary plat with additional frontage types, to be able to check all the standards that are within the code. Then as development occurs it would develop under the zone according to the neighborhood plan. Lehmann wanted to add since it's been discussed tonight, there are administrative changes Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 24 of 33 possible according to the zoning code text, specifically if a lot could contain either one use or another such as having a single-family home, but the lot is big enough for a duplex, then they could swap out those administratively. Building types and frontage types could be swapped if someone wanted an engaged porch rather than a projecting porch, or civic space types if they wanted to add a playground or something. Lehmann explained as far as design sites go, that's a concept discussed previously and is similar to invisible lot lines such as in an OPD plan. He did note they can have multiple design sites on an infill parcel and a design site would just be essentially an imaginary parcel that has to have a building type on it, a frontage type on it and meet the standards of the underlying parcel. But again, those could also potentially be administratively changed. In section two it discusses the zone and what those form -based uses mean. The Future Land Use Map corresponds with zones and provides more detail. There are additional dimensional standards for site design that are required within these zones. It primarily regulates by building type but does include things like minimum and maximum lot sizes, height limits in the zones, both stories and feet. For example, up to the T4 small a building could be two and a half stories. In a zone T4 medium and above it could be three and a half stories. Parking would also be regulated by the zone rather than site development standards as they currently are. There are additional standards related to where parking can be located. Lehmann wanted to note when they are talking about parking standards while it would lower the minimum allowed it doesn't mandate that a developer would provide less parking. The zones also cover allowable frontage types and then there are open sub zones that allow a greater variety of uses. The least dense zone is the T3 neighborhood edge. The general character is building types with a maximum of two and a half stories, so one could have an occupied attic or a walkout basement, they are predominantly low scale detached buildings, but the building types could be house duplex or cottage court. Lehmann explained it's pretty similar to an RS -5 or RS -8 zone or typical single family development pattern. The next step up is the T3 neighborhood general which is still two and a half stories, house scale detached buildings, but adds in a couple additional buildings such as a small multiplex that would be house scale to six units, or two to three townhouses in a row. This would be similar to an RS -12 or RM -12. In the case of a small multifamily building, it's somewhere in between those two zones and something the City really doesn't have anything like at the moment, unless in an OPD zone. The T4 neighborhood small is still two and a half stories, house scale, predominantly detached, but some attached building types would be allowed such as cottage court, a small multiplex again, or a courtyard building that could have up to 16 units, and then a townhouse row of eight units. This is somewhat similar to an RM -20 in that it doesn't allow single family uses or duplex uses. The T4 neighborhood medium is where they start to get to three and a half stories and are along those major arterials. They are still primarily house scale, but can be some block scale buildings, some detached buildings and larger multiplexes up to 12 units. A courtyard building would still be up to 16 units and townhomes in rows of four to eight. This would be somewhat similar to RM -44 but promotes smaller blocks of building then the current RM -44 standards. Then there are T4 main streets which can go up to four stories and are likely block scale buildings. Townhouses could be stacked in a row of four to eight, which would be 12 to 24 units, courtyard buildings up to 24 units, and then Main Street buildings, which would be as allowed by the building and housing and other codes of the City. Lehmann stated it's somewhat similar to a CN -1 zone and neighborhood commercial zone as it does still require commercial on the first floor. The open sub zones are special sub zone designations to provide some additional flexibility and uses specifically that it allows more nonresidential uses in the neighborhood nodes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 25 of 33 The Main Street area is proposed for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister and the neighborhood nodes are scattered throughout. Regarding parking, the parking reduction is predominantly in two-bedroom multifamily units and instead of requiring two spaces under the current zoning standards it would allow for one parking space. In nonresidential uses is where it is a larger change and more similar to the Peninsula standards where they restrict the size of the commercial use, with the goal of it catering to neighbors and residents who are in the neighborhood already, or others who are driving through. Therefore, in most cases the standards would not require parking if a business is less than 1500 square feet. Anything above that would require parking. Lehmann reiterated it's really in the neighborhood for the nonresidential parking uses where they see that biggest effect. The third section is tied to EU standards and allows missing middle housing in all zones. It adds two new categories, one for community gardens and one for live/work uses. Lehmann noted there are some changes based on feedback that they've discussed. Alcohol oriented sales, in the version in the packet staff recommended that be switched to a special exception that requires project approval by the Board of Adjustment. Staff also added in limitations on operating hours and open zones for nonresidential uses to mitigate negative externalities on surrounding properties. The fourth section is on site standards and in some cases that replaces certain site development standards that are currently in the zoning code such as screening, parking, lot design and landscaping, and it does add some new standards related to treat diversity requirements, carshare, and carpool parking requirements. It also includes some flexibility for certain standards like design, site width and depth, building size, etc. Those could be adjusted administratively given findings by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Most of those findings are related to things like there's some feature in the way so they can't meet the standard and so it's to provide some flexibility there. Civic space types is discussed in the fifth section. Those are a new concept built into the Future Land Use Map with the idea being that it could be public or private open spaces dedicated for public use primarily to be used as a gathering space of some sort. It could be playgrounds or a plaza, it might contain some commercial uses such as commercial properties having outdoor seating, but it builds on the open space site standards in the current code and it regulates by type. There are both natural and urban typographies and the passage is a special civic type, which is also a thoroughfare type. It formalizes pedestrian routes through neighborhoods that would allow larger block sizes and the civic standards also encourage tying stormwater management into amenity space, green fields especially. Lehmann explained this is incorporated through the neighborhood plan process during final plat. Building type standards is the sixth section. Lehmann noted again this is kind of a newer concept but does exist in Riverfront Crossings in some form. It really distinguishes building form from uses. For example, they could have a house building that would have a commercial use in it, or a church or an assisted living facility in a multifamily building, this regulates more the shape of the building rather than the use of the building and what is required for each design site. It also includes new standards for minimum and maximum bulk requirements to ensure that buildings stay house scale. It regulates the number of units, but it doesn't regulate by density as the current zones do. This also requires housing diversity on each block, so at least two building Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 26 of 33 types, and carriage houses are also allowed with most building types. This is all incorporated into the review processes, it's included on the preliminary plat, finalized in that neighborhood plan, and reviewed during building permit or site plan review with the possibility of administrative change if it meets the underlying standards. Again, as they increase from a T3 neighborhood edge up to the T4 main street they increase in intensity. In the lower intensity zones there are different varieties of houses and duplexes, smaller multifamily and cottage courts, and then in the mid-range zones multiplex large, up to 12 units, is allowed in the T4 or T4 neighborhood medium zones. Bigger buildings are allowed in T4 neighborhood medium and Main Street where there can be stacked townhouses and courtyard building with up to 24 units. Carriage houses are also allowed as an accessory, in the T3 neighborhood edge, they allow carriage houses with certain building types. The T3 neighborhood edge is house large, duplex side by side, and cottage court. That T3 neighborhood general is house small, the two kinds of duplexes, cottage court, multiplex small and townhouse in rows of two or three. T4 neighborhood medium is still two and a half stories with cottage court, multiplex small, townhouse in a row of four to eight or courtyard building small. The T4 neighborhood medium is multiplex large, townhouses and courtyard building small. Building can be up to three and a half stories. T4 main street is courtyard building large and the main street building. Section seven is the architectural standards and works in conjunction with zone standards and with the building type standards to try and ensure visual interest and attractive pedestrian realm. Lehmann explained it's similar to the multifamily site development standards that affect all multifamily buildings and has some similar requirements as in Riverfront Crossings such as splitting up the architecture horizontally, an equal treatment of facades and corners, but it doesn't regulate building materials. It doesn't include window and architectural standards and roof design is not included in this. The eight section is related to frontage type, which is the interface of the public and private realm. Lehmann noted this is also as a newer concept that is in Riverfront Crossings but not elsewhere. It works with other standards to provide visual interest and is required for each design site within the facade zone. It does create some new standards and regulates the size and appearance of the building entrance and requires diversity on each block in that they need to have at least two different frontage types. It's incorporated into revised processes, specifically the neighborhood plan but this also would be allowed to be changed during building permit or site plan review. The frontage types are porches, dooryard stoops, the kind of things that one would find on residential buildings. However, again they are not restricted by use and there could be a porch on a commercial building. For courts terraces in higher density zones, and in the main street zone, there are frontage types like the gallery or arcade and the maker shopfront for side streets and the shopfront for commercial areas. The ninth section is related to thoroughfare types. Lehmann stated this is a new concept where there are different cross sections of each type shown in the zone and is built in the code requirements for Title 15. The concepts for the neighborhood streets are similar, it's a slightly wider right-of-way, but the pavement widths are similar. The goal is to ensure that multimodal access is possible along street fronts. The new standards include things like regulating street width, lanes, on street parking, the newest standard is street trees required in the right-of-way. Lehmann stated the types can be switched from the Future Land Use Map, they could switch from parking one side to parking both sides. Alleys and passages are unique and are again incorporated into the revised processes. The preliminary plat would show them, they'd be finalized during final plat with the possibility of administrative change. Alleys would be behind an Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 27 of 33 existing unit and provide separate vehicular access. They are as proposed in the Title 15 subdivision code and would be required on primary streets, specifically McCollister or South Gilbert, unless vehicular access can be provided from other streets. The goal is to not have access directly onto a main street. With passages, they're unique in that they can provide a pedestrian crossing, which can affect the block length standards. So, the amount of blocks that on the Future Land Use Map could be halved if every other street was turned into a passage. A passage would be a 20 -foot green space with a 10 -foot bike path, essentially a pedestrian or bike path. It's also a civic space type and the idea is that it would be unique, but they would still have to have some sort of vehicular access whether that be from alleys or side streets. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map again and noted the primary streets would pretty much stay the same, it's the neighborhood streets that could change. The 10th section is on affordable housing incentives. Lehmann explained this was a section that staff added from the initial version of the draft a year ago. The idea is that it would provide incentives for voluntary affordable housing predominantly with some incentives for other affordable housing. But it must be for onsite affordable housing within a form -based zone. It also supplements some of the mandatory policies for annexation as half of the area is not yet annexed, so that would be subject to separate standards the City already has. The general requirements are rental housing would be for households at less than 60% AMI, which would be limited to fair market rents, or possibly LIHTC rents if there was a LIHTC project that would incorporate it. For owner housing, it would be for households less than 80% AMI and that's what is considered by the Department of Housing Urban Development to be affordable housing. It's limited to the HUD sales price limit plus some certain fees like realtors' fees, for example. The affordability period would be 20 years and it'd be secured by an agreement that ran with the land. As far as incentives, a parking reduction could be possible for all affordable housing, whether voluntary or as part of annexation, a density bonus for building types that allow for more units, but all of those additional units must be affordable, and a potential increase to the maximum zoning adjustments to one of the following, either design site depth or area in the facade zone being modified. Building type adjustments could be building width or building height, up to a half story increase, but the findings must be that the adjustment has to fit the site and neighborhood characteristics and be consistent with the intent and standards of the plan goals. Additional minor adjustments to provide an additional zone and additional building type adjustment may be possible if the housing is restricted to lower income levels. Lehmann stated there are also other Title 14 changes that are included in the proposed zoning code amendments. Those affect things like the introduction of off-street parking and loading, sign regulations, outdoor lighting standards, sensitive features, general definitions and signed definitions. Those are mostly incorporating the form -based zones into other code sections. For example, outdoor lighting standards it puts it into similar zones as the RS and RM zones and it's similar to the RS and RM standards. Off street parking and loading is only related to on street parking of large commercial vehicles. In terms of analysis, it's similar to what they talked about with the Comprehensive Plan, but the land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics, goals and objectives of the community. The current zoning code does provide some flexibility, but it's historically led to conventional green field development and low densities create neighborhoods that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on automobiles and limits the variety of housing types and possible price points. Adopting a form -based codes is consistent with long term City policy towards advancing social justice, racial equity and human rights and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 28 of 33 climate action and adaptation. Form -based standards are a step towards implementing those goals as discussed and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as the similar goals are provided for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment such as housing types, pedestrian oriented development, commercial development in defined commercial nodes, preservation of farm and open space parks that have visibility from streets and the development of parks with single loaded street access. Also there are the goals of the South District Plan, preserving environmental features, small neighborhood commercial uses, safe and logical walking routes to school and, of course to align with the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that incorporating these elements into the zoning code is the next step in really addressing some of these items. The proposed amendment also affects Title 15, however the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review Title 15 or changes to it. But it works with the proposed zoning code amendment by addressing some housekeeping items, mentioning what items are in a preliminary plat such as some of the new standards and in the final plat specifically through the neighborhood plan. It also changes the design standards and required improvements specifically for streets and circulation, which requires compliance the Future Land Use Map, the Comprehensive Plan and layout of blocks and lots where the block sizes are changed based on what zone they're in. Again, those block lengths can be increased with the inclusion of a pedestrian passage to make sure that there is still pedestrian circulation when possible. Russett reviewed the public comments that staff received on the draft code. They received some correspondence from Cheryl Cruz, stating that the proposed rental limits for the affordable housing incentives are too low and would not incentivize new affordable units. They also heard from Kelsey Patrick Feree who is concerned about safety of children walking and biking to the elementary school. Sand Hill Estates HOA has expressed their concerns to the Commission tonight but a couple that relate to the zoning code are designed sites being administratively changed was a concern and also a concern regarding the lower minimum parking standards. From the South District Neighborhood Association they would like to see more wayfinding in the district especially wayfinding to parks and Main Street areas. They had questions on commercial uses, specifically liquor stores and gas stations, and they would like to see more spaces for local entrepreneurs. In late correspondence that was presented to the Commission, there were concerns related to reducing parking, and multifamily in the backyard. Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend had a question on the affordable housing piece and was concerned that if a person receives a unit when they're eligible but then get a job and their salary goes up, they can continue to live there until they vacate. So they can stay there even though they're now not eligible and does their rent stay the same. Lehmann stated he believes the rent would stay the same. Hekteon stated the way that it currently works is that if someone in a multifamily building later becomes not income eligible, at the next leasing period they could stay in that unit, but the landlord would have to establish a different unit to be rented to an income qualified family. As for rents, at the end of the lease period, they would be able to negotiate a different price. Hensch had a question regarding the administrative design review because they've talked about that in this group many times that changes are made after approval, and that is because there's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 29 of 33 an administrative process. Russett confirmed they do have some processes that allow for administrative changes in the Riverfront Crossings District and minor adjustments, minor modifications, which are changes that are administratively reviewed and apply City wide, which are administrative reviews of changes. Signs noted in the Riverfront Crossings District a landowner can opt into the code or not, is that true here. Russett replied it is true, there's land that's currently within the planning area that is zoned RS -5 or RS -8 and the landowner could develop under that current zoning and it wouldn't require a rezoning to the form -based zone. The difference between this area and the Riverfront Crossings District is that a lot of the area in this planning area, the 900 acres, is not in the City and needs to be annexed and rezoned. Some of it is in Interim Development Zone so they can continue to farm the land, but to really develop the land it needs to be rezoned and at that point they would have to conform to the form -based code. Signs stated another thing that was mentioned were assisted living facilities or churches or a neighborhood center and are those type of uses allowed in this area. Russett said assisted living assisted living uses are allowed in some of these zones through a special exception process. Lehmann added community service uses are also allowed as are daycare uses, general community service uses, religious private group assembly, a lot of the use standards relevant to these zones, in terms of the standards that the City would want apply, are allowed by special exception and some provisionally with compliance with the standards. Townsend acknowledged this seems more like a neighborhood than just a bunch of houses in a community when they have the different types of houses and businesses. Padron also really likes it and thinks it's sustainable. Hensch opened the public hearing. Steve Gordon (AM Management) wanted to address the land already zoned, there is a piece of ground of about 48 acres that is Rs -5 so he now understands that they could develop the land under those zonings. However it they want to do a planned development or had a different idea, are they going to be allowed to do a OPD or must they use the form -based code. He acknowledged he is clearly aware that this code does not regulate uses it regulates form and function but as a person that owned and operated assisted living facilities throughout Iowa he can assure them that nobody's going to build one that's limited to 16 units or has to be in two or three different buildings. The care and the staff needed to take care of those vulnerable citizens is not possible in that size, Bickford Cottage and Legacy Point are examples of quality assisted living and they're not 16 units. Also, regarding churches, he doesn't see in this code that they can be built as the form and function of that building type is too big. The vintage co-ops that were built along Foster Road and over on the west side are great facilities and are needed in this community but again the form and function don't allow it. With affordable housing, there's really two ways to provide affordable housing, one is for professional developer that's versed in how to get the tax credits and other is in forms of funding. There's a lot of knowledge in that a lot of costs a lot of skill involved, and typically those developers don't want to do a small project of 12 units or eight units or 16 units. They need larger projects to justify what it takes to get that. The project in Towncrest is a good example for the seniors, Sand Companies on Rochester is another good example of structures that would not be allowed under this code but are needed in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 30 of 33 this community and provide a great service. Again, he just reiterated understanding that the use is not a problem but what they can do and utilize the land for or the size and scope of the lots, and the buildings are. Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form -based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs stated the question about planned unit development is that a possibility anywhere in this code. Russett stated if the City received a request for a rezoning in this area, they are going to review it according to the criteria that they've laid out for rezoning and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows is envisioning form -based zones in this area so it would probably require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to move forward with a plan development overlay rezoning. Signs also asked is there a maximum number of units of building one can have in this code. Yes, Russett replied, based on building type. Lehmann added it depends on the zone, the main street zone doesn't restrict it and the other next densest one would be stacked townhouses and neighborhood medium to get up to 24 units, or the courtyard building large, which is only allowed in Main Street. Most of the other smaller ones would be up to 16 units typically, in separate buildings. Signs stated he is a huge proponent of the missing middle and thinks it makes for a wonderful neighborhood. His concern is there are 900 acres here and they potentially can't have anything over 24 units so they can't house a vintage Co -Op or an assisted living facility in these 900 acres. Having recreational facilities and churches and assisted living, and senior housing makes for a vibrant community and a vibrant neighborhood and he is concerned about how to add that vibrancy to 900 acres if the code doesn't allow it. Russett confirmed the code would not allow a vintage Co -Op but a large block scale building might be allowed in the main street zone with commercial on the bottom but only probably within that Main Street zone. Signs noted that's very limited spots in the map. Craig asked about the civic uses and those sorts of things, are those churches or community centers or something like that. Russett confirmed those are uses that are allowed, but Mr. Gordon's concern is that the building types are not the typical building types one sees for a church. They can have a church, but it has to fit within one of these building types. They could have assisted living facility, but it needs to fit within one of these building types which is not what is commonly seen for assisted living facilities, they are usually very large scale. This code is trying to do smaller scale buildings. Hensch stated those types of facilities would not be absolutely precluded because somebody could come in with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that's been done multiple times through the years. Russett confirmed that was true. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 31 of 33 Signs agrees most affordable housing developers and most senior living developers can't do it with 16 or 24 units so they're going to require the need to go through Comprehensive Plan Amendment for anybody who wants to put that on any of these 900 acres. Hensch noted historically, senior living facilities have had difficulty getting approvals in Iowa City, the one on the west side was withdrawn and built in Coralville because of neighborhood opposition, and then they saw it again with Hickory Hills. They are difficult to place no matter what the public good of them is. He has supported them unreservedly every time they come up in town, but appears nobody wants them in their neighborhood. Signs agrees that is the issue is this is putting the nail in the coffin here and that does concern him a little bit. He loves the idea of having these smaller options of a six-plex or a duplex but is struggling with that balance because he doesn't know if they need 900 acres of duplexes. Hensch stated one observation is if this amendment is approved it doesn't mean it can't be amended again. So as this area matures and develops they may realize some changes need to be made. Craig stated it's not 900 acres of duplexes, that's the beauty, it's 900 acres of open space, walkways, both public and private, multiple parks in this neighborhood, a school and a lot of commercial uses. She thinks this is going to be a vibrant area if it comes to fruition, the way the vision is, it's going to be a great place to live. Padron likes the idea that if they want a community center or something bigger, they can apply for an amendment. Right now she thinks it is more important to keep the human scale and think small and then add things as the neighborhood needs them, like a community center or a church. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 5, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 5, 2021. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett didn't have any updates but noted the meetings would continue to be in this room for the foreseeable future. Signs noted they can't discuss the item because it's not on the agenda but he is still interested in more discussion on the Council's reversal of the Hickory Hill decision and some of the specific statements that were made about the literal interpretation of past neighborhood plans. He wants to make sure this Commission is using the right criteria in which to judge applications. Item Number: 12. I CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 21, 2021 Resolution authorizing the procurement of Facilitator for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Description CIC KW Resolution Failed 09/21/21 Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator/Equity Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-2337 Resolution No. Resolution authorizing the procurement of Facilitator for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission Whereas, a Request for Proposal was released to solicit the procurement of Facilitator for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and Whereas, one responsive proposal was received for these services; and Whereas, the evaluation committee has selected Kearns & West; and Whereas, the city's purchasing policy requires City Council to approve purchases for Professional and consultant services over $60,000; and Whereas, the City expects to expend approximately $197,907.00 for the procurement of Facilitator for the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in the budget under the Black Lives Matter account #10210410; and Whereas, approval of this purchase is in the public interest. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of lowa City, Iowa, that: 1. The proposed procurement as described is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized to sign the agreement with the vendor and take whatever steps are necessary to effectuate future purchases including any amendments or renewals of said agreement. Passed and approved this ATTEST: day of 20 City Clerk Mayor Approved City A orney's Office — 09/16/2021 Resolution No. Page 2 It was move by Thomas and seconded by Mims the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague X Thomas x Weiner CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Late Handouts Distributed — cp_ (Date) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _15th day of _September_, 2021 , by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and Kearns & West , of , hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City's seeks to enter into an agreement with the consultant to provide professional facilitator, and independent consultant services. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. I. SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding 1. Activities: a) Task Force meeting kickoff - virtual 90 -minute meeting hosted by the City. b) Background research c) Develop strategy, agenda and materials for Task Force kick off meeting d) Kick-off meeting with City of Iowa City staff team, TRC Chair and Vice -Chair e) 1 -on -1 interviews with TRC members, selected City staff/Council members f) Develop overall workplan and meeting schedule g) Weekly virtual coordination with City staff team 2. Deliverables: a) Kick-off meeting agenda and presentation materials b) Kick-off meeting coordination and facilitation c) Draft and final kick-off meeting summary and action items d) Online survey - beta test and final B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process 1. Activities: a) Conduct interviews via phone, video conference, and email/electronic survey with community organizations to determine best way to engage their respective communities b) Report on findings to TRC c) Draft process design for public events and receive TRC/Staff feedback d) Revise and finalize process e) Draft discussion/interview guide and training for Conversation Corps and incorporate TRC/City feedback f) Draft agenda/process for public fact-finding/truth-telling/reconciliation events and incorporate TRC/City feedback g) Draft content for online portal to assist with fact-finding/truth telling and incorporate TRC/City feedback h) Prepare/assist with content for traditional media release, social media, newsletter content, and other means of outreach I) Prepare/assist with infographic/poster/flier depicting TRC public process, along with content for possible public service announcement broadcast on radio/TV j) TRC/Iowa City staff will provide feedback on consultant team deliverables within one week of receipt; TRC will determine whether full TRC should review material or whether ChairNice-Chair can represent their views. k) TRC / Iowa City staff to review and approve contacts before Kearns & West Team conducts outreach. I) Iowa City staff will assist with logistics, distribution to media/social media, and other agreed-upon tasks to carry out consultant team's work. TRC members will assist as able with outreach. C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process 2. Activities: a) Assist TRC and City staff in coordinating logistics for in-person events b) Train Conversation Corps c) Prepare public -facing materials to assist attendees with participation d) Facilitate and/or help TRC members facilitate public events, including help with developing script for events, questions for witnesses, etc. e) Analyze results of public events (testimonies, comments, etc.) and provide reports f) TRC will determine appropriate roles for TRC members, Kearns & West Team, City staff/personnel at in-person events g) Iowa City staff will assist at events with agreed-upon tasks to assist in carrying out work. TRC members will assist as able with outreach D. Task 4: TRC Meetings 1. Activities: a) Develop meeting strategy, proposed and annotated agendas, and presentation/meeting materials b) Facilitate process to identify, recruit, and empanel members c) Coordinate and facilitate project team meetings and individual coordination meetings to prepare for TRC meetings d) Coordinate and facilitate TRC meetings e) Facilitate necessary training for all TRC members of decision-making processes, city bureaucracy, city support systems, etc. f) Facilitation of Subcommittees as requested g) Reporting to the Mayor and City Council h) Follow up with City staff team and TRC members as needed i) Develop meeting summaries and action items j) Support TRC communication needs k) Follow-up to provide information I) Prepare any recommendations in subcommittee -specific areas that have been approved by full TRC m) Keams & West Team to provide draft materials within agreed upon review timeframes for distribution by the TRC/City one week prior to Task Force meetings n) Kearns & West Team to participate with the TRC/City in up to 2 planning meetings with City staff team per TRC meeting o) Kearns & West Team to participate in up to 2 individual coordination meetings with key City departments per TRC meeting (if needed) p) Kearns & West Team to facilitate up to 15 TRC meetings up to 3 hours each, twice a month, and follow a regularly set meeting schedule beginning in September 2021 through May 2022 q) Kearns & West Team to develop meeting summaries following each TRC meeting for review r) City of Iowa City to distribute TRC meeting information, agendas, and materials to TRC members s) City of Iowa City to manage all media and public inquiries t) City of Iowa City to schedule and serve as the virtual host for Task Force meetings u) Assume 2 review rounds per deliverable (draft and final for distribution by City to Task Force; refinements for final version from Task Force input) i. Deliverables: v) Draft and final annotated and proposed agendas and presentation materials w) Meeting coordination and facilitation x) Draft and final meeting summaries and action items E. Task 5: Report Compilation 1. Activities: a) Continued facilitation of Subcommittees' work and facilitation of TRC meetings b) Begin discussion of initial recommendations in specific areas of review c) Formulate subcommittee recommendations for review by TRC d) Facilitate TRC deliberations on subcommittee recommendations, discover TRC consensus around proposals e) Compile information from TRC meeting summaries f) Draft report, assume up to 1 review 2. Deliverables: a) Draft and final report Task 6: Project Administration 1. Activities: a) Update project work plan as needed b) Manage budget and schedule c) Assumes monthly reporting on budget and progress 2. Deliverables: a) Updated workplan, budget, and schedule, as needed b) Assumes monthly reporting on budget and progress II. TIME OF COMPLETION The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the schedule shown. A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding Must be completed by November 31st,2021 B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process Must be completed by December 315t, 2021 C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process Must be completed by February 28°', 2022 D. Task 4: TRC Meetings Must be completed by June 30th, 2022 E. Task 5: Report Compilation Must be completed by June 30th, 2022 I11. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding $35,967.50 B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process $27,570.00 C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process $28,060.00 D. Task 4: TRC Meetings $68,412.50 E. Task 5: Report Compilation $15,050.00 F. Other Direct Costs $10,000.00 G. Travel Total for All Tasks $12,847.00 The Total Contract Lump Sum is One Hundred Ninety -Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven Dollars, $197,907.00. The total cost of services shall not exceed $197,907.00 including reimbursable expenses. If the City requests additional services or provides direction to the Consultant that exceeds the scope of work as documented in this contract, the Consultant will document that request in writing and receive approval in writing from the Procurement Coordinator before incurring any overage. The Consultant will submit an electronic invoice on a monthly basis, based on each phase's percentage of completion. IV General Terms A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "lump sum" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to fumish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. Attendance may be virtual if Consultant is not already in town for other work. H. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no materials (written, oral, or otherwise) collected from members of the public ("participants") will be released to the City unless the participant has agreed to the release of the materials they submitted. The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional affixed thereto as required by Iowa law. J. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner unless the City provides, in writing, evidence of the Consultant's failure to perform the work satisfactorily in accordance with this Agreement. In that event, such failure documented in writing shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement K. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. 0. Indemnification. 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attomey's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City" means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. P. Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q. Standard of Care. 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators and the Ethical Principles of the Association for Conflict Resolution. 4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant. R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. S. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. For the City For the Consultant By: By: Title: Title: Principal, CFO/COO Date: Date: 9/15/2021 Approved by: City Attome s Office Kent Schwartz_ Date CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _15th day of September_, 2021 , by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and _Kearns & West , of • hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. WHEREAS, The City of Iowa City's seeks to enter into an agreement with the consultant to provide professional facilitator, and independent consultant services. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the City does now contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth herein. 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the City, and to do so in a timely and satisfactory manner. A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding 1. Activities: a) Task Force meeting kickoff - virtual 90 -minute meeting hosted by the City. b) Background research c) Develop strategy, agenda and materials for Task Force kick off meeting d) Kick-off meeting with City of Iowa City staff team, TRC Chair and Vice -Chair e) 1 -on -1 interviews with TRC members, selected City staff/Council members • f) Develop overall workplan and meeting schedule g) Weekly virtual coordination with City staff team 2. Deliverables: a) Kick-off meeting agenda and presentation materials b) Kick-off meeting coordination and facilitation c) Draft and final kick-off meeting summary and action items d) Online survey - beta test and final B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process 1. Activities: a) Conduct interviews via phone, video conference, and email/electronic survey with community organizations to determine best way to engage their respective communities b) Report on findings to TRC c) Draft process design for public events and receive TRC/Staff feedback d) Revise and finalize process e) Draft discussion/interview guide and training for Conversation Corps and incorporate TRC/City feedback f) Draft agenda/process for public fact-finding/truth-telling/reconciliation events and incorporate TRC/City feedback g) Draft content for online portal to assist with fact-finding/truth telling and incorporate TRC/City feedback h) Prepare/assist with content for traditional media release, social media, newsletter content, and other means of outreach i) Prepare/assist with infographic/poster/flier depicting TRC public process, along with content for possible public service announcement broadcast on radio/TV j) TRC/Iowa City staff will provide feedback on consultant team deliverables within one week of receipt; TRC will determine whether full TRC should review material or whether ChairNice-Chair can represent their views. k) TRC / Iowa City staff to review and approve contacts before Kearns & West Team conducts outreach. I) Iowa City staff will assist with logistics, distribution to media/social media, and other agreed-upon tasks to carry out consultant team's work. TRC members will assist as able with outreach. C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process 2. Activities: a) Assist TRC and City staff in coordinating logistics for in-person events b) Train Conversation Corps c) Prepare public -facing materials to assist attendees with participation d) Facilitate and/or help TRC members facilitate public events, including help with developing script for events, questions for witnesses, etc. e) Analyze results of public events (testimonies, comments, etc.) and provide reports f) TRC will determine appropriate roles for TRC members, Kearns & West Team, City staff/personnel at in-person events g) Iowa City staff will assist at events with agreed-upon tasks to assist in carrying out work. TRC members will assist as able with outreach D. Task 4: TRC Meetings 1. Activities: a) Develop meeting strategy, proposed and annotated agendas, and presentation/meeting materials b) Facilitate process to identify, recruit, and empanel members c) Coordinate and facilitate project team meetings and individual coordination meetings to prepare for TRC meetings d) Coordinate and facilitate TRC meetings e) Facilitate necessary training for all TRC members of decision-making processes, city bureaucracy, city support systems, etc. f) Facilitation of Subcommittees as requested g) Reporting to the Mayor and City Council h) Follow up with City staff team and TRC members as needed i) Develop meeting summaries and action items j) Support TRC communication needs k) Follow-up to provide information I) Prepare any recommendations in subcommittee -specific areas that have been approved by full TRC m) Kearns & West Team to provide draft materials within agreed upon review timeframes for distribution by the TRC/City one week prior to Task Force meetings n) Kearns & West Team to participate with the TRC/City in up to 2 planning meetings with City staff team per TRC meeting o) Kearns & West Team to participate in up to 2 individual coordination meetings with key City departments per TRC meeting (if needed) p) Kearns & West Team to facilitate up to 15 TRC meetings up to 3 hours each, twice a month, and follow a regularly set meeting schedule beginning in September 2021 through May 2022 q) Kearns & West Team to develop meeting summaries following each TRC meeting for review r) City of Iowa City to distribute TRC meeting information, agendas, and materials to TRC members s) City of Iowa City to manage all media and public inquiries t) City of Iowa City to schedule and serve as the virtual host for Task Force meetings u) Assume 2 review rounds per deliverable (draft and final for distribution by City to Task Force; refinements for final version from Task Force input) i. Deliverables: v) Draft and final annotated and proposed agendas and presentation materials w) Meeting coordination and facilitation x) Draft and final meeting summaries and action items E. Task 5: Report Compilation 1. Activities: a) Continued facilitation of Subcommittees' work and facilitation of TRC meetings b) Begin discussion of initial recommendations in specific areas of review c) Formulate subcommittee recommendations for review by TRC d) Facilitate TRC deliberations on subcommittee recommendations, discover TRC consensus around proposals e) Compile information from TRC meeting summaries f) Draft report, assume up to 1 review 2. Deliverables: a) Draft and final report Task 6: Project Administration 1. Activities: a) Update project work plan as needed b) Manage budget and schedule c) Assumes monthly reporting on budget and progress 2. Deliverables: a) Updated workplan, budget, and schedule, as needed b) Assumes monthly reporting on budget and progress II. TIME OF COMPLETION The Consultant shall complete the following phases of the Project in accordance with the schedule shown. A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding Must be completed by November 31st,2021 B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process Must be completed by December 31st, 2021 C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process Must be completed by February 28th, 2022 D. Task 4: TRC Meetings Must be completed by June 30th, 2022 E. Task 5: Report Compilation Must be completed by June 30th, 2022 III. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES A. Task 1: Convening and Understanding $35,967.50 B. Task 2: Design of Fact-Finding/Truth-Telling/Reconciliation Process $27,570.00 C. Task 3: Fact -Finding + Truth -Telling Public Process $28,060.00 D. Task 4: TRC Meetings $68,412.50 E. Task 5: Report Compilation $15,050.00 F. Other Direct Costs $10,000.00 G. Travel Total for All Tasks $12,847.00 The Total Contract Lump Sum is One Hundred Ninety -Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven Dollars, 1197,907.00. The total cost of services shall not exceed $197,907.00 including reimbursable expenses. If the City requests additional services or provides direction to the Consultant that exceeds the scope of work as documented in this contract, the Consultant will document that request in writing and receive approval in writing from the Procurement Coordinator before incurring any overage. The Consultant will submit an electronic invoice on a monthly basis, based on each phase's percentage of completion. IV General Terms A. The Consultant shall not commit any of the following employment practices and agrees to prohibit the following practices in any subcontracts. 1. To discharge or refuse to hire any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. 2. To discriminate against any individual in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. B. Should the City terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for all work and services performed up to the time of termination. However, such sums shall not be greater than the "lump sum" amount listed in Section III. The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Consultant. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that no assignment shall be without the written consent of all Parties to said Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the retention of the Consultant by the City for the purpose of the Project shall be as an independent contractor and shall be exclusive, but the Consultant shall have the right to employ such assistance as may be required for the performance of the Project. E. It is agreed by the City that all records and files pertaining to information needed by the Consultant for the project shall be available by said City upon reasonable request to the Consultant. The City agrees to furnish all reasonable assistance in the use of these records and files. F. It is further agreed that no Party to this Agreement shall perform contrary to any state, federal, or local law or any of the ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. G. At the request of the City, the Consultant shall attend meetings of the City Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by the City shall be given with reasonable notice to the Consultant to assure attendance. Attendance may be virtual if Consultant is not already in town for other work. H. The Consultant agrees to furnish, upon termination of this Agreement and upon demand by the City, copies of all basic notes and sketches, charts, computations, and any other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement without cost, and without restrictions or limitation as to the use relative to specific projects covered under this Agreement. In such event, the Consultant shall not be liable for the City's use of such documents on other projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no materials (written, oral, or otherwise) collected from members of the public ("participants") will be released to the City unless the participant has agreed to the release of the materials they submitted. The Consultant agrees to furnish all reports, specifications, and drawings with the seal of a licensed professional affixed thereto as required by Iowa law. J. The City agrees to tender the Consultant all fees in a timely manner unless the City provides, in writing, evidence of the Consultants failure to perform the work satisfactorily in accordance with this Agreement. In that event, such failure documented in writing shall constitute grounds for the City to withhold payment of the amount sufficient to properly complete the Project in accordance with this Agreement K. Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and continue in full force and effect. L. Original contract drawings shall become the property of the City. The Consultant shall be allowed to keep reproducible copies for the Consultant's own filing use. M. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project will be paid by the City. N. Upon signing this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges that Section 362.5 of the Iowa Code prohibits a City officer or employee from having an interest in a contract with the City, and certifies that no employee or officer of the City, which includes members of the City Council and City boards and commissions, has an interest, either direct or indirect, in this Agreement, that does not fall within the exceptions to said statutory provision enumerated in Section 362.5. 0. Indemnification. 1. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, expenses, including attorney's fees, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City by reason of personal injury, including bodily Injury or death, and property damages, including loss of use thereof, caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in performing the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. Consultant assumes full responsibility for any and all damage or injuries which may result to any person or property by reason of Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with the work and/or services provided by Consultant to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and agrees to pay the City for all damages caused to the City's premises resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant. 3. The Consultant's obligation to indemnify the City shall not include the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City against lability, claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligent act, error, or omission of the City. 4. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Consultant" means and includes the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, sub -consultants, and others for whom Consultant is legally liable, and the term "City' means and includes the City of Iowa City, Iowa its Mayor, City Council members, employees, and volunteers. P. Insurance 1. The Consultant agrees at all times material to this Agreement to have and maintain professional liability insurance covering the Consultant's liability for the Consultant's negligent acts, errors and omissions in the sum of $1,000,000 Per Claim, $1,000,000 Annual Aggregate, or a $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable state law, a Waiver of Subrogation Clause (endorsement) shall be added. 2. Consultant agrees to provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing that all coverages, limits and endorsements required herein are maintained and in full force and effect, and certificates of Insurance shall provide a minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify, when available by Consultant's insurer. If the Consultant receives a non -renewal or cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage required herein, or receives notice that coverage no longer complies with the insurance requirements herein, Consultant agrees to notify the City within five (5) business days with a copy of the non -renewal or cancellation notice. Q. Standard of Care. 1. The Consultant shall perform services for, and furnish deliverables to, the City pertaining to the Project as set forth in this Agreement. The Consultant shall possess a degree of learning, care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable professionals, practicing in this area under similar circumstances The Consultant shall use reasonable diligence and professional judgment in the exercise of skill and application of learning. 2. Consultant represents that the Services and all its components shall be free of defects caused by negligence; shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care of other professional service providers in a similar Industry and application; shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement; and shall be sufficient and suitable for the purposes expressed in this Agreement. 3. All provisions of this Agreement shall be reconciled in accordance with the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators and the Ethical Principles of the Association for Conflict Resolution. 4. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall exist without regard to, and shall not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of City or Consultant. R. There are no other considerations or monies contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement, it is the entire Agreement, and no other monies or considerations have been solicited. S. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. Any legal proceeding instituted with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Johnson County, Iowa. The parties hereto hereby submit to personal jurisdiction therein and irrevocably waive any objection as to venue therein, including any argument that such proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum. For the City For the Consultant JJ, ,. .40 By: By: Title Title: Principal, CFO/COO Date: Date: 9/15/2021 Approved by: Kent Schwartz City Attorney's Office 142 el( Date