HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 03.05.2025PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 5, 2025
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Rezoning Items
4. Case No. REZ25-0003
Location: Portion of 691 E. Foster Rd.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.06 acres of land from High Density Single-
Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone.
Zoning Code Text Amendments
5. Case No. REZ25-0002
Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to amend 14-2H Form-Based Zones and
Standards to clarify standards and address potential barriers to development.
6. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Update and Steering Committee
7. Consideration of meeting minutes: February 19, 2025
8. Planning and Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 2 / April 16 / May 7
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ25-0003
Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner
Date: March 5, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owner: Foster Road Development, LLC
340 Herky St
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
(319) 351-2028
gstiltner@stillnerelectric.com
Contact Person: Ron Amelon
MMS Consultants, Inc
1917 South Gilbert St
Iowa City, Iowa, 52240
(319) 631-2703
r.amelon@mmsconsultants.net
Requested Action: Rezoning of 0.06 acres from High Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) zone.
Purpose:
To rezone to a zone that provides consistency with Lot
25 Conway’s Subdivision and to make it more
appealing to a potential buyer.
Location:
Portion of 691 E Foster Rd
Location Map:
Size: 0.06 Acres
Existing Land Use; Zoning:
High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12)
Surrounding Land Use; Zoning: North: Multi-Family Residential, OPD/RS-12
South: Vacant, High Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12)
2
East: Single-Family, Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5)
West: Vacant and Multi-Family Residential,
OPD/RS-12
Comprehensive Plan: Public/Private Open Space
Neighborhood Open Space District: Foster Road
North District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Public Meeting Notification:
Property owners and occupants within 500’ of the
property received notification of the Planning and
Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign
was posted along St. Anne’s Drive in front of the
property that is for sale.
File Date: January 27, 2025
45 Day Limitation Period:
March 13, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner, Foster Road Development, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately
0.06 acres of land from High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-12) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for a portion of the
property located at 691 E Foster Rd. Concurrently with the rezoning, the owner has applied for a
boundary line adjustment to increase the size of Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision. The proposed
boundary line adjustment and rezoning will have impacts on Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and Lot 25
Conway’s Subdivision.
The subject property is a part of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision. The boundary line adjustment
request is to take 0.06 acres from Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and move it to Lot 25 Conway’s
Subdivision. These two lots have two different zoning designations. To approve the boundary line
adjustment, the zoning must be consistent. Hence the request for the rezoning.
The map below shows Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision. Subdivision
boundaries are show in purple. The area proposed to be rezoned is generally shown in the red dashed
line. This area is also the area proposed to be part of Lot 25 with the boundary line adjustment
application.
3
The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the proposed rezoning is to have consistent zoning
on Lot 25 and to increase the size of Lot 25 to make it more appealing to potential buyers. That said,
the subject property is located within a conservation easement and will not provide any additional
development potential to a future buyer.
In terms of case history, the subject property was rezoned and subdivided in 2017 and 2018. As of
today, some of the land has been developed. Here’s a summary:
In 2017, a rezoning was approved for land located south of I-80 between Dubuque Street and Prairie
Du Chien Road (including the subject property). That rezoning rezoned 50.11 acres to OPD/RS-12
zone and 3.18 acres to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to allow for multifamily residential and office
development (REZ17-00017).
In 2018, the City adopted a resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Forest Hill Estates (SUB18-
00004 & Res. No 18-96) and the Final Plat for Forest Hill Estates was adopted in May 2018 (SUB18-
00008). The Final Plat includes a conservation easement that applies to the subject property. See
Attachment 2.
In 2024, a Major Site Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates was approved for a total of 5 buildings and 19
dwelling units. These units are currently under construction.
Additionally, Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision was created with the final plat, which was recorded in 1953.
Since the land was subdivided in 1953, Lot 25 has remained undeveloped and is a total of 8,755
square feet.
A good neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal
materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the rationale
behind the request.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned OPD/RS-12. The purpose of the RS-12
4
zone is to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units
at a higher density than in other single- family zones. Properties zoned RS-12 allow townhome style
multi-family with up to six units attached. The maximum height in this zone is 35’. An OPD was
required due to impacts to sensitive areas and the mix of housing types proposed which includes a
large-scale multi-family building that provides housing to seniors, as well as townhome style multi-
family residential units.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the RS-5 zone. The
intent of the RS-5 zone is to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The
regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety
of household types. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the
livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare
facilities.
Table 1 includes the minimum lot size required for detached single-family, duplexes, and attached
single-family housing types in the RS-5 zone.
Table 1. RS-5 Zoning Summary
Minimum Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)
Detached single- family, including zero lot line 6,000
Duplexes 10,000
Attached single-family 5,000
Regardless of the zoning for the subject property no development will be allowed because it is
located within an existing conservation easement. That said, the rezoning combined with the
boundary line adjustment do change the land uses that are allowed on Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision.
The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning of 0.06 acres (2,614 square feet) of the
subject property would increase the square footage of Lot 25 to 11,369 square feet. With this
increase, a duplex would be allowed. Attached single-family uses would also be possible; however,
it would require a subdivision.
Lastly, since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff is recommending
a condition that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision until the City
approves a boundary line adjustment that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is reviewed to the North District
Plan and the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Future Land Use Map of the North District Plan identifies the subject property appropriate for
Single-Family/Duplex Residential. This land use designation is intended primarily for single family
and duplex residential development. The development density in this zone is 2-8 dwelling units/acre.
Lower density zoning designations are suitable for areas with sensitive environmental features,
topographical constraints, or limited street access.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property as
appropriate for Public/Private Open Space uses.
5
Additionally, the Housing element of the IC2030 Plan includes a goal aimed towards encouraging
a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. The plan notes that one strategy to achieve
this goal is by concentrating new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods
where it is most cost effective and to extend infrastructure and services. The Land Use element
of the plan also encourages compact, efficient development that is continuous and connected to
existing neighborhoods.
The proposed rezoning to RS-5 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the City’s
adopted plans. The plans envisions both open space and housing in this area. The existing
conservation easement will ensure the subject property will not be develop while also allowing
more housing options on Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by RS-
12 to the southwest, OPD/RS-12 to the west, OPD/RS-12 to the north and RS-5 to the east. The
street to the southeast of the subject property, St. Anne’s Drive, is mostly comprised of single-
family housing. However, there are duplexes at the corner of St. Anne’s and Prairie Du Chien
Road. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning would allow for the development of
a detached single-family home or duplex, which would be consistent with the development
patterns and mix of housing types in the neighborhood.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
North District Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
Transportation & Public Infrastructure: Figure 1 is an aerial image that shows Lot 25
Conway’s Subdivision outlined in blue. Although St. Anne’s Drive is adjacent to this lot it does
not provide access to Lot 25. In this location St. Anne’s Drive essentially dead ends and
connects to Buresh Ave. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the Owner shall
install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne’s Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in
design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne’s Drive to allow
City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up and the Owner shall submit
construction drawings for the proposed improvements to be approved by the City Engineer.
Figure 1. Aerial of Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision on St. Anne’s Drive
6
Sensitive Areas: The subject property is in an existing conservation easement that was
established as part of the Final Plat and does not allow for development. The Final Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates identifies regulated sensitive features including
critical and protected slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the
property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following
conditions:
a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no
building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves
a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning
boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is
attached.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway’s Subdivision,
Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne’s Drive and
Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent
to 840-852 St. Anne’s Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot
without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner
shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain
approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition
needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the
issuance of a building permit for said lot.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location & Zoning Maps
2. Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
3. Applicant Submittal Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Maps
Oak
l
a
w
n
A
v
e
B
ure
s
h
A
v
e
S t A n n e 'S D r
E Foster Rd
REZ25-0003
691 E Foster Roadµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: February 2025
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application to rezone 0.06 acre of land from High Density
Single-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development
Overlay (RS-12/OPD) to Low Density Single-Family
Residential Zone (RS-5)
Oak
l
a
w
n
A
v
e
B
ure
s
h
A
v
e
S t A n n e 'S D r
E Foster Rd
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS12
RS5
OPD/RS12
OPD/RS12
REZ25-0003
691 E Foster Roadµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: February 2025
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application to rezone 0.06 acre of land from High Density
Single-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development
Overlay (RS-12/OPD) to Low Density Single-Family
Residential Zone (RS-5)
ATTACHMENT 2
Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal Materials—Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant
Statement
Date: March 5, 2025
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ25-0002) related to the Form-Based Zones and
Standards
Introduction
The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) and Subdivision Code (Title 15) are subject to alteration
and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the city. The proposed
ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects
of the form-based code language and how the form-based code is applied. These code
amendments adjust standards, increase flexibility, and clarify language within the form-based
code.
Background
The form-based code is a key tool for guiding the physical development of Iowa City, specifically
the South and Southwest Districts. Unlike traditional zoning, which focuses on land use, the
form-based code emphasizes the design, form, and character of the built environment to foster
cohesive, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods.
Iowa City adopted its current form-based code in 2021 to encourage high-quality development
and align growth with the community’s long-term vision for the South and Southwest Districts.
However, no significant development has occurred within the form-based code districts since its
adoption. Feedback from a recent developer working to rezone and develop in the form-based
zones has highlighted areas of the code that could be clearer, more streamlined, and better
aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code’s
effectiveness and support its intended outcomes.
The proposed updates aim to address these issues by making development under the form-
based code more feasible. By adjusting regulations, clarifying standards, and removing
unnecessary complexities, the revisions detailed in this memo are intended to encourage
investment, reduce delays, and ensure the form-based code better serves Iowa City’s goals for
sustainable, functional, and inclusive growth. While considering potential updates Staff also
created and published a user-friendly guide that highlights key standards and walks users
through the requirements for development in areas planned for form-based zones (see
Attachment 1). If approved, this guide will be updated with the proposed code changes.
The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) includes changes to Article H, Form-Based Zones
and Standards, of the Zoning Code (Title 14). Staff also proposes amending Title 15 (Land
Subdivisions) to allow flexibility for unique situations related to block sizes and configurations.
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.
Proposed Amendments
The existing code, proposed code amendments, and justification for each proposed change are
detailed below.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Building placement standards regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create
cohesive streetscapes, support walkability, and protect privacy between neighboring properties.
1. Minimum Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2H-2C-5 and Table 14-
2H-2D-5)
Summary of Existing Code: The minimum side yard setback for primary buildings is 10’ in
the T3NE zone, 7’ in the T3NG zone, 5’ in the T4NS and T4NM zones, and 0’ in the T4MS
zone.
Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce 10’ and 7’ minimum side setback requirements to 5’
minimum in the T3NE and T3NG zones.
Justification: Reducing the side setback allows for slightly increased buildable areas on lots.
This change aligns with the City’s goal of effective land utilization and increasing housing
availability. The decrease to 5’ mirrors the minimum side setbacks standards in the other
form-based zone districts and many of the City’s traditional residential zones, which also
require a 5’ minimum side setback. The consistent setback standard streamlines
implementation.
2. Placement of Garages Associated with a Duplex Side-by-Side or Townhome Building
Type (Table 14-2H-2C-5, Table 14-2H-2D-5, Table 14-2H-2E-5, Table 14-2H-2F-5, and
Table 14-2H-2G-5)
Summary of Existing Code: Depending on which zone the building is in, accessory
structures must be setback 10', 7', or 5' from side property lines.
Summary of Proposed Change: When used for parking, the accessory structure side
setbacks and side parking setbacks would be reduced to 0' for Duplex Side-by-Side and
Townhome building types. This change would only be applied to interior side setbacks, not
to street-side setbacks. This change would also reduce the wing offset to 0' for attached
Townhomes where the wing is being used as an attached garage at the rear of the building.
PRIMARY BUILING MIN. SIDE SETBACK
EXISTING PROPOSED
T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) 10’ 5’
T3 Neighborhood General Zone
(T3NG) 7’ 5’
T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS) 5’ 5’
T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone
(T4NM) 5’ 5’
T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 0’ 0’
The duplex side-by-side does not allow wings so an update to the duplex standards is not
required.
Justification: Both the Duplex Side-by-Side and Townhome building types allow for
residential units to be attached. By allowing 0’ setbacks and wing offsets these building
types would be allowed to have the garages of each unit also be attached. This change
allows for a more efficient use of the buildable area. Due to other site standards, this change
will most frequently be utilized for rear access garages, decreasing any potential visual
impacts of the change.
BUILDING TYPES
Building type guidelines set clear rules for each kind of building so that each zone achieves the
intended physical character. They also support a mix of housing options and small businesses
as amenities in walkable neighborhoods. Each block must have at least two different building
types (e.g. townhouse, cottage court, house, small).
1. Maximum Wing Dimensions for House Large and House Small Building Types (Table
14-2H-6D-3 and Table 14-2H-6E-3)
Summary of Existing Code: A wing is a structure physically attached to, and smaller in
footprint and height to, the main body of a building. Another way to think of it is an addition
to a home. For the House Large and House Small building types, the maximum width of the
wings is 20’, and the maximum depth is 20’.
Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum width and depth of wing for the
House Large and House Small building types to 24’.
Justification: Increasing the allowed wing size accommodates modern housing needs by
allowing functional attached garages with space for two vehicles, stairs, and storage. This
change improves usability, supports market demand for attached garages, and enhances
site planning flexibility without significantly impacting neighborhood character. By updating
the wing size, the code better supports practical home designs.
2. Wings Off-set from Main Body (Table 14-2H-6D-3, Table 14-2H-6E-3, and Table 14-2H-
6G-3)
Summary of Existing Code: Wings must be offset a minimum of 5’ from the main body of the
building.
Summary of Proposed Change: Create an exception for the House Large, House Small, and
Duplex Stacked building types when wings are adjacent to the corner of a building that
connects to two building faces that do not front a public right-of-way. When this placement is
met, then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0’.
Justification: Allowing a 0’ offset for wings on House Large, House Small, and Duplex
Stacked building types provides enhanced design flexibility and a more efficient use of
space. This exception recognizes that the typical concerns addressed by a 5’ offset, such as
creating visual breaks in the building mass, are less critical on interior or less visible building
faces. The update maintains the standard on the most visible sides of buildings while
offering developers flexibility in optimizing their building layouts
BUILDING TYPE STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
House Large Max. Wing Width 20’ 24’
Max. Wing Depth 20’ 24’
House Small Max. Wing Width 20’ 24’
Max. Wing Depth 20’ 24’
3. Duplex Side-by-Side Building Type Standards (Table 14-2H-6F-3)
Summary of Existing Code: For the Duplex Side-By-Side building type, the maximum width
of the main body of the building is 48’, and the maximum depth is 40’.
Summary of Proposed Change: When units are rear-loaded and only one story in height, the
maximum width of the main body of the building can be increased to 60', and the maximum
depth can be increased to 70'.
BUILDING TYPE STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
Duplex Side-By-Side
(Single Story & Rear-
Loaded)
Max. Main Body
Width 48’ 60’
Max. Main Body
Depth 40’ 70’
Justification: The larger main body sizes allow for the development of single-story duplexes,
which would otherwise be infeasible using the current standards. This building type adds to
the mix of housing types that form-based districts can provide and cater to families, seniors,
and those with accessibility needs. The increased main body width of 60’ is only 5’ and 10’
wider than the House Large and Multiplex Small building types, respectively. These two
building types are the bulkiest buildings that could be built on the same block as a single-
story duplex. While the change would allow single-story duplexes to be wider, the other two
building types can be 2.5 stories tall, making them larger in comparison. The increased main
body depth of 70’ allows for more space within the single-story duplexes by adding bulk
lengthwise, allowing the scale at the street to remain in harmony with other building types.
The additional requirement of having these buildings be rear loaded is also aligned with the
goal of maintaining a walkable neighborhood environment.
4. Cottage Court Building Type Standards (Table 14-2H-6H-3)
Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth of the
main body of the building is 24’.
Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum depth of the main body of the
building to 30’.
Justification: The Cottage Court building type is a unique “missing middle” housing type that
the City would like to see developed to increase housing variation and affordability.
Increasing the maximum main body dimensions from 32’ by 24’ to 32’ by 30’ allows for more
flexibility for interior layouts. This adjustment accommodates slightly larger layouts while
maintaining the compact nature of this building type. This change can make this building
type an attractive and viable option for developers and residents alike.
5. Cottage Court Lot Depth (Table 14-2H-2C-3, Table 14-2H-2D-3, and Table 14-2H-2E-3)
Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth of the
lot is 180’.
Summary of Proposed Change: Increase maximum lot depth to 200’.
Justification: The maximum design site depth was increased from 180' to 200' to
accommodate the increased building depths described in the section above. This change
BUILDING TYPE STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
Cottage Court
Max. Main Body
Width 32’ no change 32’
Max. Main Body
Depth 24’ 30’
BUILDING TYPE STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
Cottage Court
Max. Lot Width 120’ no change
120’
Max. Lot Depth 180’ 200’
allows adequate space for buildings, required setbacks, shared courtyard, sidewalks,
parking spaces, landscaping, etc.
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Architectural element standards establish requirements that supplement the zones standards to
further refine the intended building form and physical character of the zone.
1. Residential Building Glazing (14-2H-7B-2b)
Summary of Existing Code: The ground floor of all residential buildings is required to be
30% glazing. Glazing is defined as, “openings in a building in which glass is installed”. The
current standard does not mention if attached garages are exempt or not.
Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the glazing requirement to 15% of the ground floor
with a minimum of one window per building side and exempt attached garages from this
standard.
Justification: Reducing the ground-floor glazing requirement to 15% while exempting
attached garages provides a more practical and achievable standard for residential
buildings. This new percentage is similar to the glazing standards required for City-funded
affordable housing projects. The update ensures that homes maintain an active and visually
appealing streetscape while allowing for functional design flexibility; such as, room for upper
cabinets along exterior walls in kitchens, places to attach televisions to living room walls,
showers in bathrooms, and headboards of beds in bedrooms. Requiring a minimum of one
window per building side preserves natural light and architectural interest. Exempting
attached garages allows for enhanced privacy for items stored inside, aligning the standard
with typical residential construction while maintaining overall design quality.
FRONTAGE TYPES
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). Frontage type
standards establish base standards for each allowed frontage type. Frontage type examples
include porch projected (open on three sides), porch engaged (open on 1 or two sides, other
sides are the building itself), stoops, and dooryards. Each block must have at least two different
frontage types.
1. Minimum Depth and Width of Porch Projected and Porch Engaged Frontage Types
(Table 14-2H-8C-2 and Table 14-2H-8D-2)
Summary of Existing Code: For both the Porch Projected and Porch Engaged frontage
types, the width and depth measurements are taken from the inside of the porch posts,
“width, clear” and “depth, overall”. The minimum width, clear is 15’ and the minimum depth,
overall is 8’ for porches elevated less than twelve inches and 6’ for porches elevated twelve
or more inches.
Summary of Proposed Change: Remove “clear” and “overall” from the width and depth
standards, respectively, to simplify implementation and review. Reduce the width from to 12’
minimum and the depth to 6’ minimum regardless of the porch elevation.
Justification: The proposed change simplifies the implementation and review process by
standardizing minimum porch dimensions. Eliminating “clear” and “overall” from width and
depth measurements reduces confusion, ensuring consistent application of the standards. In
addition, using a “clear” dimension is difficult at plan review since certain details like column
are unknown. Adjusting the minimum width to 12’ and depth to 6’ regardless of elevation
creates a more flexible and practical requirement that accommodates a wider range of
housing designs while maintaining functional and visually appealing porches. This update
streamlines code review and supports efficient development.
2. Depth of Recessed Entries (Table 14-2H-8E-2 and Table 14-2H-8F-2)
Summary of Existing Code: For both the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types, there is a
depth of recessed entry maximum of 12”. This is measured from the front façade to the front
door.
Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the depth of recessed entry maximum to 3’ for
both the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types.
EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
Width, Clear 15’ min Width 12’ min
Depth, Overall Depth 6’ min
Elevated < 12” from
average finish grade 8’ min
Elevated 12” from
average finish grade 6’ min
EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE
Depth of recessed entries 12” max. Depth of recessed entries 3’ max.
Justification: Increasing the maximum recessed entry depth from 12” to 3’ for Dooryard and
Stoop frontage types provides greater flexibility for architectural design while maintaining an
inviting and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. A slightly deeper recess allows for better
weather protection, improved privacy, and a more functional transition space between public
and private areas. This change enhances building usability and aligns with common
architectural practices without negatively impacting the overall frontage character.
3. Dooryard Frontage Type Glazing Spacing (Table 14-2H-8E-2)
Summary of Existing Code: For the Dooryard frontage type, there is a distance between
glazing (i.e. window) standard that limits the distance between glazing to 4’ maximum.
Summary of Proposed Change: Remove distance between glazing requirements.
Justification: Removing the 4’ maximum distance between glazing for the Dooryard frontage
type provides greater design flexibility while still encouraging an active and visually
engaging streetscape. By eliminating this requirement, the update allows for more adaptable
designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure high-quality, pedestrian-
friendly development.
4. Stoop Frontage Type (14-2H-8F-1 and 14-2H-9B-3)
Summary of Existing Code: For the Stoop frontage type, the landing of the stoop is required
to be elevated a minimum of 12” above the sidewalk. The description and miscellaneous
sections state that stairs and ramps can be used to access the elevated landing.
Summary of Proposed Change: Add language to allow a sloped walkway to access the
landing. The sloped walkway shall connect the stoop landing to the public sidewalk or
driveway.
Justification: Adding language to allow a sloped walkway provides more accessible and
flexible entry options for the Stoop frontage type. This change improves accessibility for
individuals with mobility challenges and offers an alternative to stairs or ramps. By permitting
a sloped walkway to connect the stoop landing to the sidewalk or driveway, the update
enhances usability while maintaining the intended elevated entry design.
PARKING
Each zone has its own set of parking standards. Parking standards regulate how many private
parking spaces are required, where parking spaces and driveways can be located, and their
allowed size.
1. Minimum Distance Between Driveways (Table 14-2H-2C-7, Table 14-2H-2D-7, Table 14-
2H-2E-7, and Table 14-2H-2F-7)
Summary of Existing Code: The minimum distance between driveways is 40' in all form-
based zones.
Summary of Proposed Change: Decrease the minimum distance between driveways to 20’.
Distance between driveways is measured at the property line.
Justification: Reducing the minimum distance between driveways allows for more efficient
use of smaller lots, particularly in areas with higher-density housing or compact development
patterns. The change supports the City’s goals of maximizing land use. This change also
allows for flexibility of driveway placement, which is needed in instances where the site's
topography restricts driveway placement. One of the main intents of this standard is to
mitigate concerns about the visual dominance of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that
increase walkability. While the reduction from 40’ to 20’ will allow for more driveways per
block, it is still much less than what would be allowed in the City’s traditional single-family
residential zones, which only require 6’ between driveways. The form-based zones also
require front-loaded garages to be setback 15’ from the façade of the main body of the
building to further reduce the visual dominance of the garage.
FLEXIBILITY FOR UNIQUE SITUATIONS
These changes are proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site
conditions while maintaining the intent of the Form-Based Code.
1. Maximum Lot Depth and Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E-1)
Summary of Existing Code: Each building type has a maximum lot depth and width.
Summary of Proposed Change: This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative
adjustment to the maximum design site depth and width standards if specific approval
criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the lot standards is
needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configuration of
existing streets, or block size of abutting neighborhood.
Justification: Like the block size adjustment described above, this adjustment recognizes
that certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting design site standards
impractical. The proposed adjustment protects sensitive areas by allowing site design to
adapt to natural conditions. Sites with steep grades, irregular shapes, or existing
infrastructure constraints may find strict adherence to depth and width standards impractical.
Allowing an administrative adjustment ensures that projects can respond to these
challenges without compromising functionality or quality. In areas where existing
conventionally zoned blocks have unique site and street configurations, allowing
adjustments ensures that new developments integrate seamlessly with existing
developments. By allowing flexibility in lot depth and width standards, this change supports
creative site designs that work with the site’s characteristics and constraints. By establishing
clear approval criteria, the adjustment process ensures that changes are thoughtfully
considered and aligned with the City’s goals.
2. Two-Way Traffic Driveway Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E-1)
Summary of Existing Code: The maximum driveway width for all zones is 12’. Parking areas
must be behind the residential buildings or setback from the public right-of-way.
Summary of Proposed Change: If alley access is not feasible, a longer drive aisle is needed
to access the parking area. These drive aisles will be used for two-way traffic and warrant a
larger driveway width. This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative
adjustment to increase the maximum driveway width to 18’ if specific approval criteria are
met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a parking
area for a building with 3 or more units and alley access is not feasible.
Justification: Allowing an administrative adjustment for increased driveway width provides
necessary flexibility for developments with three or more units where alley access is not
feasible. This change ensures that Cottage Court and other multi-unit building types have
adequate access to off-street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design.
LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION & CODE CLEAN UP
These changes are proposed to improve clarity, remove inconsistencies, and streamline the
code to ensure easier interpretation and application.
1. Encroachments Into Setbacks (Table 14-2H-2C-6, Table 14-2H-2D-6, Table 14-2H-2E-6,
Table 14-2H-2F-6, and Table 14-2H-2G-6)
Summary of Existing Code: Architectural features (i.e. eaves, bay windows, window and
door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies) and stairs can encroach into building
setbacks a certain amount depending on the zone. Architectural features and stairs can
encroach a maximum of 3’ to 5’ into side setbacks depending on the zone.
Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the maximum side setback encroachment for
architectural features and stairs to align with the reduced side setbacks for all zones. See
page
Justification: This change is required because of the proposed change to the side setbacks
(see “Minimum Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2H-2C-5 and Table 14-
2H-2D-5)” above. The proposed change ensures that the maximum allowable encroachment
of architectural features and stairs remains proportional to the reduced side setbacks across
all zones. Aligning encroachment limits with the updated setbacks enhances consistency in
site planning, simplifies code application, and reduces potential conflicts between
neighboring properties.
2. Driveway Curb Width and Curb Cuts (Table 14-2H-2C-7, Table 14-2H-2D-7, Table 14-
2H-2E-7, Table 14-2H-2F-7, and Table 14-2H-2G-7)
Summary of Existing Code: The current code language only refers to “curb cut width”. The
measurement “curb cut width” is referring to is the width of the driveway. The maximum curb
cut width is 12’.
Summary of Proposed Change: We have found that most code users define “curb cut width”
as the width of a driveway where it meets the street pavement. For clarity we are proposing
to change “curb cut width” to “driveway width”. This standard will be measured at the
property line.
ZONE
SIDE
SETBACK
ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS
ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES STAIRS
PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED
T3 Neighborhood
Edge Zone (T3NE) 5’ min. 5’ max. 3’ max. 5’ max. 2’ max.
T3 Neighborhood
General Zone
(T3NG)
5’ min. 5’ max. 3’ max. 5’ max. 2’ max.
T4 Neighborhood
Small Zone (T4NS) 5’ min. 5’ max. 3’ max 5’ max. 2’ max.
T4 Neighborhood
Medium Zone
(T4NM)
5’ min. 5’ max. 3’ max 5’ max. 2’ max.
T4 Main Street
Zone (T4MS) 0’ min. 3’ max. 0’ 3’ max. 0’
Justification: Clarifying the distinction between curb cut width and driveway width ensures
consistency in interpretation and application of zoning regulations. This change helps
prevent confusion among developers, homeowners, and staff by clearly defining each
measurement’s role in site design.
3. Townhome Building Type (Table 14-2H-2G-3, 14-2H-6K-1, and Table 14-2H-6K-2)
Summary of Existing Code: The Townhouse building type is described as a “small-to-large
sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of three to eight townhouses
placed side-by-side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three 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”.
Summary of Proposed Change: The change simplifies the description to a small-to-large
sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of two to eight townhouses
placed side-by-side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units as
allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, the house-scale townhouse type may be
detached.
Justification: The simplified description provides a clearer, more concise explanation of the
Townhouse building type, making it easier for stakeholders, including developers, staff, and
residents, to understand the intended use and design characteristics. The update removes
the confusion of what minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying
that the house-scale Townhouse building type may be detached and setback from adjacent
properties at the minimum setback distance. Adjusting the description to include two
townhouses as the minimum (rather than three) accommodates smaller-scale
developments, which can help diversify housing options. The revised description eliminates
potential ambiguities about the number of townhouses, their configuration, and their
placement, ensuring consistency in how the type is interpreted and applied across zones.
4. Neighborhood Plan (14-2H-1E)
Summary of Existing Code: The current code requires an updated Neighborhood Plan to be
submitted and approved prior to site plan or building permit approval when any changes to
the Neighborhood Plan are requested.
Summary of Proposed Change: The proposed change streamlines the process by requiring
that all requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan be clearly identified on site
plans and building plans instead of requiring the applicant to prepare and submit an updated
Neighborhood Plan. City staff will internally update and track changes to the Neighborhood
Plan to maintain consistency and accuracy.
Justification: The proposed change aims to streamline the development review process
while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed. This
adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive
updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan. Instead, they can focus on the specific
modifications relevant to their project, making the process less burdensome and more
tailored to individual development needs. This approach supports ongoing development
while ensuring that significant changes are still considered, approved, and documented.
5. Architectural Features Definition (14-9A-1)
Summary of Existing Code: The current definition for Architectural Features is, “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”.
Summary of Proposed Change: Add awnings, belt courses, and chimneys to provide more
examples within the definition.
Justification: Expanding the definition of Architectural Features to include awnings, belt
courses, and chimneys provides greater clarity and consistency in code interpretation. By
explicitly listing these common design elements, the update helps ensure predictable
application of encroachment standards while reducing ambiguity for developers and staff.
6. Code Cleanup (Table 14-2H-2E-5, Table 14-2H-4E-1, Table 14-2H-6K-2, 14-2H-8G-1, 14-
2H-9B-2, and Table 14-2H-9L-2)
Summary of Proposed Change: Several formatting errors were noted as Staff utilized the
form-based code. These edits remedy those errors.
Justification: The proposed code cleanups, such as removing duplicate words and
correcting formatting with superscripts, aim to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and
professionalism of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. These edits help users interpret
requirements without confusion.
TITLE 15 – LAND SUBDIVISIONS
1. Block Size Adjustment (15-3-4A)
Summary of Existing Code: Maximum block lengths range from 360' to 500' depending on
the zone. With a Pedestrian Passage, the maximum block lengths range from 500’ to 800’.
The maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,440’ to 1,600’. With a pedestrian
passage added, the maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,750’ to 2,200’. A
Pedestrian Passage (see graphic below) allows for greater block lengths and perimeters
because they help to maintain walkability and connectivity without requiring additional street
infrastructure. Longer blocks can sometimes create barriers for pedestrians, making it
harder to navigate a neighborhood efficiently. By incorporating mid-block Pedestrian
Passage, residents and visitors maintain direct and convenient walking routes without the
addition of cross streets.
Summary of Proposed Change: Allow applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to
the block size standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must
demonstrate that the adjustment to the block standards is due to at least one of the following
special circumstances:
1) The adjustment is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area.
2) The adjustment is needed to reduce the amount of grading needed due to the
property’s existing topography.
3) The adjustment is needed because the alignment of an existing street that must be
extended creates a configuration that makes compliance impractical.
4) The adjustment is needed because the abutting neighborhood is designed with
longer blocks that impact the proposed development. The new blocks abutting the
existing longer blocks cannot accommodate new streets and pedestrian passages
are infeasible.
5) The adjustment is needed because a single-loaded street or passage has been
determined to be undesirable for the block to protect the sensitive nature of public
parkland.
6) The adjustment is needed because visibility and access to public parks, civic uses,
and natural open spaces are provided through other means besides a single-
loaded street.
The areas being developed using the Form-based Code may be directly adjacent to
sensitive areas and conventionally zoned development or have topographical features that
create unique site design constraints. The situations noted in criteria 1-3 are related to the
need to slightly increase a blocks length to incorporate a sensitive area, topographical
feature, or to extend an existing street. There are unique situations where simply expanding
a block past the allowed length is the most efficient use of the property being developed.
The situations noted in criteria 4 -6 relate to when adding a pedestrian passage is not
feasible, which is the only way block size can be increased using the current code. This is
because, to add a pedestrian passage there must be two parallel streets to connect to.
When a block abuts an existing neighborhood, sensitive park land, or a single-loaded street
is not needed only one street will abut the block making pedestrian passageways infeasible
as they would not lead to a parallel street on the other side of the block.
Justification: The proposed change to allow applicants to request an administrative
adjustment to block size standards provides flexibility for addressing unique site-specific
constraints while maintaining overall development quality and compatibility. Introducing an
adjustment process acknowledges that not all development sites are uniform. Factors such
as regulated sensitive areas, existing topography, existing street configurations, and the
block size of abutting neighborhoods can present challenges in meeting standard block size
requirements.
By permitting adjustments in cases where block standards would negatively impact
wetlands, steep slopes, or other sensitive areas, this change supports the City’s
commitment to environmental stewardship and sustainable development practices. Sites
with significant grade changes or existing infrastructure constraints can also create practical
challenges for meeting block size requirements. Allowing adjustments provides a pathway
for developers to design functional and efficient projects that work with, rather than against,
these conditions. For sites adjacent to sensitive areas, strict adherence to public access and
block size standards can limit development potential or create inefficient layouts. The
adjustment process ensures that public access, visibility, and block size standards are not
compromised but instead adapted to site-specific needs in a way that aligns with the City’s
long-term goals for accessibility, connectivity, and environmental preservation. Requiring
applicants to demonstrate alternative methods for achieving public access and visibility
ensures that adjustments are thoughtfully considered and still fulfill the intended goals of the
standards.
For sites abutting neighborhoods with established block sizes or street layouts that differ
from the form-based zone standards, this adjustment process ensures new developments
integrate seamlessly with existing patterns, preserving neighborhood character and
connectivity. Allowing administrative adjustments provides a more efficient and predictable
review process for developers compared to seeking formal approval via a public process.
This promotes timely project approvals while maintaining a high level of scrutiny and
accountability through clear approval criteria.
A single-loaded street or pedestrian passage may not always be a desirable way to achieve
public access and visibility to areas as it could invite unwanted disturbance of sensitive
parkland. Allowing adjustments ensures that public access and visibility can be achieved
while protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Certain developments may require
innovative design approaches to achieve access and visibility goals. Administrative
adjustments allow for flexibility in how these objectives are met, particularly in constrained
sites or sites with unique topography. This change ensures that even if a single-loaded
street or passage is not feasible, public access to parks, civic uses, and open spaces can
still be maintained through other design solutions, such as easements or view corridors.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendments support 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.
In addition, the proposed amendments also help to further the form-based land use policies
recently incorporated into the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and Southwest District Plan
(CPA22-0002).
Next Steps
Pending a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must
hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 1, to enhance
land use regulations related to the form-cased code and to further implement the City’s goals.
Attachments
1. Form-Based Code User Guide
2. Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Form-Based Code User Guide
GUIDE TO IOWA CITY’S FORM-BASED ZONING DISTRICTS
This reflects the code as it was adopted on 11-16-2021. Staff is currently considering multiple amendments. This document will be updated as those amendments are approved.
This document highlights key form-based code standards to guide those new to
developing in form-based zone districts. It is not comprehensive or intended to replace
the use of the Iowa City Zoning or Subdivision Codes.
Form-based zoning regulations are different than the conventional approach to zoning.
Form-based zoning focuses less on land use (e.g., commercial v. residential) and more
on the scale (e.g., bulk and height) of the development and its relationship to the
street and the public realm. The City of Iowa City’s form-based code standards are
designed to improve walkability, increase housing diversity and affordability, and
provide for a more sustainable neighborhood pattern. The form-based code promotes
a compatible mix of non-residential uses, including neighborhood nodes. These nodes
may encompass commercial areas that serve local needs as well as open spaces within
walking distance. Additionally, a key goal of the code is to create a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths that provide easy access to homes and
neighborhood amenities.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the
Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code
for full details.
DEVELOPING IN IOWA CITY’S FORM-BASED ZONING DISTRICTS This document is for reference
only. Please see the Iowa City
Zoning & Subdivision Code for full
details.
Contact the Iowa City Development Services -
Urban Planning to schedule a meeƟng to discuss
the development process.
Anne RusseƩ, Senior Planner
p: (319) 356-5251
e: arusseƩ@iowa-city.org
Staff is available to review concepts prior to formal
applicaƟon submiƩal.
The South District Plan and Southwest District Plan
address the unique issues and opportuniƟes in each
district based on extensive community parƟcipaƟon.
Southwest
District Plan
South
District Plan
AŌer creaƟng a concept of the street network and determining
zone districts, determine what building types will be used for
each block based on the relevant zone district.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
The Zoning Code includes form-based zone informaƟon and standards.
The Subdivision Code includes informaƟon related to street design,
uƟliƟes, public ameniƟes, length and layout of blocks and lots, etc.
Subdivision
Code
Zoning
Code
Review the Future Thoroughfare Map for the planned street
network. Refer to the Zoning Code for the thoroughfare type
standards.
Southwest
District FTM
South
District FTM
Standards
14-2H-9 Review the Future Land Use Map to see what zoning districts
are envisioned for the area. Refer to the Zoning Code for the
zone standards.
Southwest
District FLUM
South
District FLUM
Zones
14-2H-2
Mã ó®ã« P½ÄĮĦ S㥥
Rò®ó D®ÝãÙ®ã P½ÄÝ
CÙã SãÙã NãóÊÙ»
DãÙÃ®Ä ZÊÄÝ
Rò®ó ã« ZÊĮĦ Ι
Sç®ò®Ý®ÊÄ CÊÝ
DãÙîÄ
B箽®Ä¦ TùÖÝ
Sçîã CÊÄÖã
¥ÊÙ Ý㥥
Ùò®ó
Criteria
14-2H-1D
SOUTH DISTRICT FORM-BASED FUTURE LAND USE MAP This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
SOUTH DISTRICT FUTURE THOROUGHFARE MAP This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT FORM-BASED FUTURE LAND USE MAP This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
Rohret South Subarea
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT FUTURE THOROUGHFARE MAP This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
Rohret South Subarea
T3NE—T3 NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE ZONE
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.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Min Max
Front (Façade
Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site [F] 25’ 35’
Corner Design Site 25’ 35’
Side Street (Façade
Zone)1,2
Primary Building [G] 20’ 25’
Accessory Structures [H] 20’
Side Primary Building [I] 10’
Accessory Structures [J] 5’
Rear Primary Building [K] 25’
Accessory Structures [L] 5’
Building Within Façade Zone
Front 50% Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 40%
(design site width – both side setbacks) x façade zone standard =
total length of the façade required within or abutting the façade zone
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 require-
ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
BUILDING FORM
Height
Primary Building 1
Stories 2.5 stories max2
To Roofline3 30’ max [C]
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max
Other 1 story max
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9’ min [D]
Footprint
Depth, ground-floor space 30’ min4 [E]
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.
1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall
not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
4 12' min. for cottage court building type.
PARKING
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
Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines):
Front1
House Large 15’ min behind face of frontage types or building
whichever is closer to the street [Q]
All other building types 50’ min [R]
Side Street 20’ min [S]
Side 5’ min [T]
Rear 5’ min [U]
Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12’ max2 [V]
Distance between driveways 40’ min [W]
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-cochère 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.
14-2H-2.C
ZONE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
T3NE—T3 NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE ZONE
DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER
DESIGN SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY8 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 9 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
Building Types Allowed Min
Width
Max
Width
Min
Depth
Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max
Width
Max
Depth
Max
Width
Max
Depth
Separation
Between Wings
Offset from
Main Body Area Dimension Porch
Projecting
Porch
Engaged Dooryard Stoop
House Large 60’1 95’ 110’2 180’ 1 2.5 1 55’ 55’3 20’ 20’ 15’ 5’4 400 SF A A A A
Duplex Side-by-Side 60’1 75’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 2 48’ 40’3 225 SF/unit 15’ A A A A
Cottage Court 90’1 120’ 120’2 180’ 3 9 1.56 15 32’7 24’ See Code9 See Code9 A A A
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
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 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 5'.
4 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
5 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.
6 Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18’
7 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40’, Min. separation between cottages: 10’
8 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards
9 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards.
Stoop
Allowed Frontage Types
14-2H-6
Allowed Building Types
Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard
Other Form-Based Zone Standards
Use Standards
Site Standards
Civic Space Standards
Architectural Element Standards
Frontage Type Standards
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Affordable Housing Incentives
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-3
14-2H-4
14-2H-5
14-2H-7
14-2H-8
14-2H-9
14-2F-4
14-2H-2.C
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
House Large Duplex Side-by-Side Cottage Court
There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections
14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards).
T3NG—T3 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ZONE
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.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Min Max
Front (Façade
Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site [F] 20’ 30’
Corner Design Site 20’ 30’
Side Street (Façade
Zone)1,2
Primary Building [G] 15’ 25’
Accessory Structures [H] 15’
Side Primary Building [I] 7’
Accessory Structures [J] 5’
Rear Primary Building [K] 20’
Accessory Structures [L] 5’
Building Within Façade Zone
Front 60% Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 50%
(design site width – both side setbacks) x façade zone standard =
total length of the façade required within or abutting the façade zone
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 require-
ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
BUILDING FORM
Height
Primary Building 1
Stories 2.5 stories max2
To Roofline3 30’ max [C]
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max
Other 1 story max
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9’ min [D]
Footprint
Depth, ground-floor space 30’ min4 [E]
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.
1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall
not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
4 12' min. for cottage court building type.
PARKING
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
Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines):
Front1
House Small 15’ min behind face of frontage types or building
whichever is closer to the street [Q]
All other building types 40’ min [R]
Side Street 15’ min [S]
Side 5’ min [T]
Rear 5’ min [U]
Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12’ max2 [V]
Distance between driveways 40’ min [W]
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-cochère 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.
14-2H-2.D
ZONE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
T3NG—T3 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ZONE
DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER
DESIGN SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY 9 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 10 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
Building Types Allowed Min
Width
Max
Width
Min
Depth
Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max
Width
Max
Depth
Max
Width
Max
Depth
Separation
Between Wings
Offset from
Main Body Area Dimension Porch
Projecting
Porch
Engaged Door yard Stoop
House Small 50’1 75’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 1 35’ 45’5 20’ 20’ 15’ 5’6 400 SF A A A A
Duplex Side-by-Side 60’1 75’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 2 48’ 40’5 225 SF/unit 15’ A A A A
Duplex Stacked 50’1 70’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 2 36’ 40’5 15’ 20’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF/unit 15’ A A A A
Cottage Court 90’1 120’ 120’2 180’ 3 9 1.512 111 32’13 24’ See Code10 See Code10 A A A
Multiplex Small 70’ 100’ 110’ 150’ 1 2.5 3 6 50’ 50’5 20’ 30’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF 15’ A A A A
Townhouse (House Scale) 25’3 125’4 100’2 180’ 17 2.5 1 18’ min
30’ max8 50’5 15’ 15’ 8’ 64 SF/building 8’ A A A A
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 9 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: 10 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards.
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or 11 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with u p to 3 units.
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.
12 Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18’
3 Represents 1 townhouse. 13 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40’, Min. separation between cottages: 10’
4 Represents 3 townhouses side-by-side or attached.
5 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 5'.
6 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
7 House-scale building, 2 - 3 buildings 2 - 3 individual townhouses max. per row.
8 Max. width per building: 90’
Stoop
Allowed Frontage Types
14-2H-6
Allowed Building Types
Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard
Other Form-Based Zone Standards
Use Standards
Site Standards
Civic Space Standards
Architectural Element Standards
Frontage Type Standards
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Affordable Housing Incentives
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-3
14-2H-4
14-2H-5
14-2H-7
14-2H-8
14-2H-9
14-2F-4
14-2H-2.D There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections
14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards).
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
House Small Duplex Side-by-Side Duplex Stacked
Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse (House Scale)
T4NS—T4 NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL ZONE
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.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Min Max
Front (Façade
Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site [F] 15’ 30’
Corner Design Site 15’ 30’
Side Street (Façade
Zone)1,2
Primary Building 15’ 25’
Accessory Structures [H] 15’
Side Primary Building [G] 5’
Accessory Structures [H] 3’
Rear Primary Building [I] 15’
Accessory Structures [J] 5’
Building Within Façade Zone
Front 65% Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55%
(design site width – both side setbacks) x façade zone standard =
total length of the façade required within or abutting the façade zone
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 require-
ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
BUILDING FORM
Height
Primary Building 1
Stories 2.5 stories max2
To Roofline3 30’ max [C]
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max
Other 1 story max
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9’ min [D]
Footprint
Depth, ground-floor space 30’ min4 [E]
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.
1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall
not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
4 12' min. for cottage court building type.
PARKING
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 SF None
> 1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 1,500 SF
Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines):
Front1 40’ min [Q]
Side Street 15’ min [R]
Side 5’ min [S]
Rear 5’ min [T]
Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12’ max2 [U]
Distance between driveways 40’ min [V]
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-cochère 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.
14-2H-2.E
ZONE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
T4NS—T4 NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL ZONE
z DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER DESIGN
SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY 8 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 9 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
Building Types Allowed Min Width Max
Width Min Depth Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Max
Width
Max
Depth
Separation
Between
Offset from
Main Body Area Dimension Porch
Projecting
Porch
Engaged Dooryard Stoop
Cottage Court 90’1 120’ 120’2 180’ 3 9 1.511 112 32’13 24’ See Code9 See Code9 A A A
Multiplex Small 60’1 100’ 110’2 150’ 1 2.5 3 6 50’ 50’10 20’ 30’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF 15’ A A A A
Townhouse (Block-Scale) 18’3 1604 100’2 180’ 15 2.5 1 18’ min 30’
max6 50’10 15’ 15’ 8’ 64 SF 8’ A A A A
Courtyard Building Small 100’1 130’ 150’2 180’ 3 17 2.5 10 16 100’ 100’10 30’ width
50’ depth A A A
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 10 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 5'. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or 11 Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18’
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.
12 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site)
3 Represents 1 townhouse. 13 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40’, Min. separation between cottages: 10’
4 Represents 4 townhouses side-by-side or attached.
5 Block-scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row.
6 Max width per building: 120’
7 Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15’ apart.
8 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards.
9 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards.
Stoop
Allowed Frontage Types
14-2H-6
Allowed Building Types
Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard
Other Form-Based Zone Standards
Use Standards
Site Standards
Civic Space Standards
Architectural Element Standards
Frontage Type Standards
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Affordable Housing Incentives
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-3
14-2H-4
14-2H-5
14-2H-7
14-2H-8
14-2H-9
14-2F-4
14-2H-2.E
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse (Block-Scale)
Courtyard Building Small
There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections
14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards).
T4NM—T4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM ZONE
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.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Min Max
Front (Façade
Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site [F] 15’ 25’
Corner Design Site 15’ 25’
Side Street (Façade
Zone)1,2
Primary Building [G] 15’ 25’
Accessory Structures [H] 15’
Side Primary Building [I] 5’
Accessory Structures [J] 3’
Rear Primary Building [K] 15’
Accessory Structures [L] 5’
Building Within Façade Zone
Front 65% Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55%
(design site width – both side setbacks) x façade zone standard =
total length of the façade required within or abutting the façade zone
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 require-
ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
BUILDING FORM
Height
Primary Building 1
Stories 3.5 stories max2 [C]
To Roofline3 40’ max
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max
Other 1 story max
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9’ min [D]
Footprint
Depth, ground-floor space 30’ min4 [E]
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.
1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall
not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
PARKING
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 SF None
> 2,000 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 2,000 SF
Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines):
Front1 40’ min [Q]
Side Street 15’ min [R]
Side 5’ min [S]
Rear 5’ min [T]
Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12’ max2 [U]
Distance between driveways 40’ min [V]
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-cochère 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.
14-2H-2.F
ZONE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard
T4NM—T4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM ZONE
DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER
DESIGN SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY 8 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 9 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
Building Types Allowed Min
Width
Max
Width
Min
Depth
Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max
Width
Max
Depth Max Width Max Depth Separation
Between
Offset
from Main Area Dimension Porch
Projecting
Porch
Engaged Dooryard Stoop Terrace Forecourt
Multiplex Large 75’1 100’ 130’2 150’ 1 3.5 7 12 60’ 60’10 20’ 40’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF 15’ A A A A
Townhouse (Block-Scale) 18’3 130’4,5 100’2 180’ 16 3.5 112 18’ min
30’ max7 50’10 64 SF 8’ A A A A A
Courtyard Building Small 100’1 130’ 150’2 180’ 111 3.5 10 16 100’ 100’10 30’ width
50’ depth A A A A
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 11 Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15’ apart.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: 12 3 max in T4NM-O zone
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 Block-scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row.
7 Max width per building: 100’
8 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards.
9 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards.
10 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 5'.
Stoop Terrace Forecourt
Allowed Frontage Types
14-2H-6
Allowed Building Types Other Form-Based Zone Standards
Use Standards
Site Standards
Civic Space Standards
Architectural Element Standards
Frontage Type Standards
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Affordable Housing Incentives
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-3
14-2H-4
14-2H-5
14-2H-7
14-2H-8
14-2H-9
14-2F-4
14-2H-2.F
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
Multiplex Large Townhouse (Block-Scale) Courtyard Building Small
There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections
14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards).
15’ 15 8’
T4MS—T4 MAIN STREET ZONE
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.
BUILDING PLACEMENT
Setbacks
Min Max
Front (Façade
Zone)
Interior Design Site [F] 0’ 10’
Corner Design Site 0’ 10’
Side Street (Façade
Zone)
Primary Building [G] 0’ 10’
Accessory Structures [H] 0’
Side Primary Building [I] 0’
Accessory Structures [J] 3’
Rear Primary Building [K] 10’
Accessory Structures [L] 5’
Building Within Façade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 80%
Side Street 70%
(design site width – both side setbacks) x façade zone standard =
total length of the façade required within or abutting the façade zone
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).
BUILDING FORM
Height
Primary Building 1
Stories 4 stories max
To Roofline2 45’ max [C]
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max
Other 1 story max
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 14’ min [D]
Footprint
Depth, ground-floor space 30’ min4 [E]
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.
1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards.
2 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall
not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
PARKING
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
5,000 SF 0 max
> 5,000 SF 2 max/1,000 SF after first 5,000 SF
Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines):
Front1 40’ min [Q]
Side Street [R]
75’ from front 25’ min [S]
> 75’ from front 5’ min
Side 0’ min [T]
Rear 5’ min [U]
Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12’ max1
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. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
4. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites.
1 With 2' planting strip on each side.
14-2H-2.G
ZONE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning &
Subdivision Code for full details.
T4MS—T4 MAIN STREET ZONE
DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER
DESIGN SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY 8 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 9 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
Building Types Allowed Min
Width
Max
Width
Min
Depth
Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Max
Width
Max
Depth
Separation
Between Area Dimension Dooryard Stoop Terrace Maker
Shopfront Shopfront Gallery Forecourt Arcade
Townhouse (Block-Scale) 18’2 220’3,4 100’1 180’ 15 3.5 3 18’ min
30’ max6 50’10 15’ 15’ 8’ 64 SF 8’ A A A
Courtyard Building Large 100’ 150’ 180’1 200’ 17 3.5 18 24 100’ 140’ 30’ width
70’ depth A A A A
Main Street Building 25’ 150’ 100’1 200’ 1 3.5 Unrestricted11 200’ 120’ Not Required A12 A A A12 A A A A
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
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. Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25' total.
2 Represents 1 townhouse.
3 Represents 8 townhouses side-by-side or attached.
4 Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units.
5 Block-scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row.
6 Max width per building: 200’
7 Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15’ apart.
8 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards.
9 See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards.
10 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 5'.
11 Number of units restricted by Iowa City's adopted Building Code, Fire Code, and Housing Code standards.
12 Only on neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60’ from front of design site.
Allowed Frontage Types
14-2H-6
Allowed Building Types Other Form-Based Zone Standards
Use Standards
Site Standards
Civic Space Standards
Architectural Element Standards
Frontage Type Standards
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Affordable Housing Incentives
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-3
14-2H-4
14-2H-5
14-2H-7
14-2H-8
14-2H-9
14-2F-4
14-2H-2.G
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
Townhouse (Block-Scale) Courtyard Building Large
Main Street Building
Dooryard Stoop Terrace Maker Shopfront
Shopfront Gallery Forecourt Arcade
ALL ZONES
ALLOWED ZONES DESIGN SITES BUILDINGS PER
DESIGN SITE STORIES UNITS PER
BUILDING MAIN BODY 9 WINGS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 10 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES
B箽®Ä¦ TùÖÝ A½½Êó T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Min
Width
Max
Width
Min
Depth
Max
Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Max Width Max Depth SeparaƟon
Between
Offset from
Main Body Area Dimension
House Large A 60’1 95’ 110’2 180’ 1 2.5 1 55’ 55’5 20’ 20’ 15’ 5’
6 400 SF porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop
House Small A 50’1 75’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 1 35’ 45’5 20’ 20’ 15’ 5’
6 400 SF porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop
Duplex Side-by-Side A A 60’1 75’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 2 48’ 40’5 225 SF/unit 15’ porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop
Duplex Stacked A 50’1 70’ 100’2 180’ 1 2.5 2 36’ 40’5 15’ 20’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF/unit 15’
porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop
CoƩage Court A A A 90’1 120’ 120’2 180’ 3 9 1.512 111 32’13 24’See Code10 See Code10 porch projecƟng, dooryard, stoop
Townhouse (House Scale) A 25’3 125’4 100’2 180’ 17 2.5 1 18’ min
30’ max8 50’5 15’ 15’ 8’
64 SF/
building 8’ porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop, terrace
Townhouse (Block Scale) A A A 18’3 130-
22018 100’2 180’ 116 2.5 117 18’ min
30’ max8 50’5 15’ 15’ 8’64 SF 8’
porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop, terrace
MulƟplex Small A A 70’14 100’ 110’ 150’ 1 2.5 3 6 50’ 50’5 20’ 30’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF 15’
porch projecƟng, porch engaged,
dooryard, stoop
MulƟplex Large A 75’1 100’ 130’2 150’ 1 3.5 7 12 60’ 60’5 20’ 40’ 15’ 5’ 225 SF 15’porch projecƟng, stoop, forecourt, terrace
Courtyard Building Small A A 100’1 130’ 150’2 180’ 3 115 2.5 10 16 100’ 100’5 30’ width 50’
depth
porch projecƟng, porch engaged, stoop,
terrace
Courtyard Building Large A 100’ 150’ 180’1 200’ 17 3.5 18 24 100’ 140’ 30’ width
70’ depth stoop, shopfront, terrace, gallery
Main Street Building A 25’ 150’ 100’1 200’ 1 3.5 Unrestricted19
Unrestricted11 200’ 120’Not Re-
quired Not Required dooryard20 , stoop, forecourt, maker shop-
front20, shopfront, terrace, gallery, arcade
Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 10 See 14.2H.6 for the respecƟve building type subsecƟon 7 to see private open space standards.
11 Most rear coƩage (i.e. coƩage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with up
to 3 units.
12 Max. height to mid-point of roof : 18’
13 Max. width of most rear coƩage: 40’, Min. separaƟon between coƩages: 10’
3 Represents 1 townhouse. 14 60’ min in the T4NS zone.
4 125’ - Represents 3 townhouses side-by-side or aƩached. 15 Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15’ apart.
5 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 5'. 16 Block-scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row.
6 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 17 In the open sub-zone (T4NM-O), each townhouse may be divided verƟcally into 3 units.
7 House-scale building, 2 - 3 buildings 2 - 3 individual townhouses max. per row.
18 160 - Represents 4 (T4NS) townhouses side-by-side or aƩached.
130 - Represents 4 (T4NM) townhouses side-by-side or aƩached.
220 - Represents 8 (T4MS) townhouses side-by-side or aƩached.
8 House Scale: Max. width per building: 90’ (T3NG). Block Scale: Max width per building: 120’ (T4NS) 100’ (T4NM) 200’ (T4MS). 19 Number of units restricted by Iowa City's adopted Building Code, Fire Code, and Housing Code standards.
9 See 14.2H.6 for the respecƟve building type subsecƟon 3 to see building size and massing standards.20 Only on neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60’ from front of design site.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if uƟlity 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 reducƟon may not exceed 25' total.
14-2H-6
BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW
14-2H-2There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in secƟons
14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards).
This document is for reference only.
Please see the Iowa City Zoning and
Subdivision Code for full details.
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments
1
DRAFT ZONING CODE TEXT
A. Amend 14-2H-1E, Neighborhood Plan, by adding the underlined text:
E. 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. All requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan
must be identified on site plans and building plans.
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). (Ord. 21-
4866, 11-16-2021)
B. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards
House Large 60' min.1
95' max.
110' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6D
Duplex Side-by-
Side3
60' min.1
75' max.
100' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6F
2
Cottage Court 90' min.1
120' max.
120' min.2
180 200' max.
14-2H-6H
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.
C. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1, 2 (F)
Interior Design Site
Corner Design Site
25' min.; 35' max.
25' min.; 35' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1, 2
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
20' min.; 25' max. (G)
20' min. (H)
Side
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)3
10 5' min. (I)
5' min. (J)
Rear
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
25' min. (K)
5' min. (L)
b. Building Within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of
setbacks.
Front
Side Street
50% min.
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).
3
3 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for
accessory structures used for parking.
D. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (O) Rear (P)
Architectural Features 5' max. 5' max. 5 3' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 5' max. 5 2' 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.
E. Amend 14-2H-2C-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding
the image with the no border:
4
F. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. Required Spaces:
Residential Uses
Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms
3 or more bedrooms
1 min. per unit
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):
Front1
House large
All other building types
15' min. behind face of frontage type or
building whichever is closer to street (Q)
50' min. (R)
Side Street 20' min. (S)
Side 5' min. (T)
Rear 5' min. (U)
c. Characteristics:
Curb Cut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V)
Distance between driveways 40 20' min. (W)
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).
5
(3) Porte-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4) Curb Cut Driveway 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.
G. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards
a. House-Scale:
House small 50' min.1
75' max.
100' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6E
Duplex side-by-
side5
60' min.1
75' max.
100' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6F
Duplex stacked 50' min.1
70' max.
100' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6G
Cottage court 90' min.1
120' max.
120' min.2
180 200' max.
14-2H-6H
Multiplex small 70' min.1
100' max.
110' min.2
150' max.
14-2H-6I
Townhouse5 25' min.3
125' max.4
100' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6K
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.
5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this
building type.
H. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1, 2 (F)
Interior Design Site 20' min.; 30' max.
6
Corner Design Site 20' min.; 30' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1, 2
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min.; 25' max. (G)
15' min. (H)
Side
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)3
7 5' min. (I)
5' min. (J)
Rear
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
25' min. (K)
5' min. (L)
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 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).
3 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for
accessory structures used for parking.
I. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (O) Rear (P)
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' 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.
J. Amend 14-2H-2D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding
the image with the no border:
7
K. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. Required Spaces:
Residential Uses
Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms
3 or more bedrooms
1 min. per unit
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):
8
Front1
House small
All other building types
15' min. behind face of frontage type or
building whichever is closer to street (Q)
40' min. (R)
Side Street 15' min. (S)
Side 5' min. (T)
Rear 5' min. (U)
c. Characteristics:
Curb Cut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V)
Distance between driveways 40 20' min. (W)
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-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4) Curb Cut Driveway 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.
L. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards
a. House-Scale:
Cottage court 90' min.1
120' max.
120' min.2
180 200' max.
14-2H-6H
Multiplex small 70' min.1
100' max.
110' min.2
150' max.
14-2H-6I
Courtyard building
small
100' min.1
130' max.4
150' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6L
b. Block-Scale
Townhouse5 18’ min.3
160’ max.4
100’ min.2
180’ max.
14-2H-6K
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
(c) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or
9
(d) 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.
M. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1, 2
Interior Design Site
Corner Design Site
15' min.; 30' max. (F)
15' min.; 30' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1, 2
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min.; 25' max. (G)
15' min. (H)
Side
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)3
5' min. (G) (I)
3' min. (H) (J)
Rear
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min. (I) (K)
5' min. (J) (L)
b. Building Within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of
setbacks.
Front
Side Street
65% min. (K)
55% min (L)
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).
3 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for
accessory structures used for parking.
N. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
10
a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (O) Rear (P)
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' 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.
O. Amend 14-2H-2E-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding
the image with the no border:
11
P. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. Required Spaces:
Residential Uses
Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms
3 or more bedrooms
1 min. per unit
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):
Front1 40' min. (Q)
Side Street 15' min. (R)
Side 5' min. (S)
Rear 5' min. (T)
c. Characteristics:
Curb Cut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (U)
Distance between driveways 40 20' min. (V)
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-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4) Curb Cut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'.
(5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites.
12
1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites.
2 With 2' planting strip on each side.
Q. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards
a. House-Scale:
Multiplex large 75' min.1
100' max.
130' min.2
150' max.
14-2H-6J
Courtyard building
small 100' min.1
130' max.
150' min.2
180' max.
14-2H-6L
b. Block-Scale
Townhouse6 18’ min.3
160’ max.4,5
100’ min.2
180’ max.
14-2H-6K
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.
R. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1, 2
Interior Design Site
Corner Design Site
15' min.; 25' max. (F)
15' min.; 25' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1, 2
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min.; 25' max.(G)
15' min. (H)
Side
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)3
5' min. (I)
3' min. (J)
13
Rear
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min. (K)
5' min. (L)
b. Building Within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of
setbacks.
Front
Side Street
65% min. (K)
55% min (L)
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).
3 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for
accessory structures used for parking.
S. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (O) Rear (P)
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' 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.
T. Amend 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding
the image with the no border:
14
U. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. Required Spaces:
Residential Uses
Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms
3 or more bedrooms
1 min. per unit
2 min. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
2,000 sf.
> 2,500 sf.
None
2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 2,000 sf.
b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line):
15
Front1 40' min. (Q)
Side Street 15' min. (R)
Side 5' min. (S)
Rear 5' min. (T)
c. Characteristics:
Curb Cut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (U)
Distance between driveways 40 20' min. (V)
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-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4) Curb Cut Driveway 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.
V. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards
a. Block-Scale:
Townhouse4 5 18' min.1 2
220' max.2, 3 3,4
100' min.1
180' max.
14-2H-6K
Courtyard building
large
100' min.
150' max.
180' min. 1
200' max.
14-2H-6M
Main street building 25' min.
150' max.
100' min. 1
200' max.
14-2H-6N
(1) 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 2 Represents 1 townhouse.
2 3 Represents 8 townhouses side-by-side or attached.
3 4 Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units.
4 5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this
building type.
W. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
16
a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)
Interior Design Site
Corner Design Site
0' min.; 10' max. (F)
0' min.; 10' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
0' min.; 10' max.(G)
0' min. (H)
Side
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)1
0' min. (I)
3' min. (J)
Rear
Primary Building
Accessory Structure(s)
15' min. (K)
5' min. (L)
b. Building Within Facade Zone
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 easements requiring in alley as identified by the applicable abutting
throughfare type (14-2H-9)
1 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for
accessory structures used for parking.
X. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (O) Rear (P)
Architectural Features 3' max. X 3' max. X 3' max. X 3' max.
Stairs X 3' max. X 3' max. X 3' 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.
17
Y. Amend 14-2H-2G-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding
the image with the no border:
Z. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. Required Spaces:
Residential Uses
Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms
3 or more bedrooms
1 max. per unit
1.5 max. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
5,000 sf. 0 max.
18
> 5,000 sf. 2 max./1,000 sf. after first 5,000 sf.
b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line):
Front1 40' min. (Q)
Side Street
75’ from front
> 75’ from front
(R)
25’ min. (S)
5’ min.
Side 0' min. (T)
Rear 5' min. (U)
c. Characteristics:
Curb Cut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V)
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) Curb Cut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'.
(4) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites.
1 With 2' planting strip on each side.
AA. Amend Table 14-2H-4E-1, Adjustments to Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
Table 14-2H-4E-1: Adjustments to Standards
Eligible Standards and
Allowed Adjustments
Required Findings Adjustment/Amount
of Adjustment
Design Site
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.
Increase the maximum
allowed.
1 Demonstrates that one or more of
the following special
circumstances apply to the
property, which make it
impractical to comply with the
subject regulation:
a. The adjustment is needed to
avoid a regulated sensitive
area.
b. The adjustment is needed to
reduce the amount of grading
No Limit
19
needed due to the property’s
existing topography.
c. The alignment of an existing
street that must be extended
creates a configuration that
makes compliance impractical
due to irregularly shaped
blocks.
d. Corner design sites within
non-rectangular blocks (see
figure below).
2 The building(s) complies with the
setbacks of the zone.
3 The adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood.
Building Setbacks
Facade Building Within
Facade Zone
Reduction of the minimum
amount of facade building
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 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.
Up to 10% of the standard.
20
Parking Location1
Front Setback1
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.
Characteristics
Increase in driveway width 1 The adjustment is needed to
access a parking area for a
building with 3 or more units.
2 Alley access is not feasible.
Up to 18’ driveway width
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'.
1 There will be little or no impact on
the adjoining properties or the
surrounding neighborhood.
2 The height is necessary to
achieve the objectives of this sub-
section or is required for health and
safety.
Up to 33% of the standard.
Affordable Housing
Zones (14-2H-2)
Select one of the following
minor adjustments.
1 The adjustment is in a building
that contains Affordable Housing
units.2
2 The adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood.
3 The adjustment is consistent with
the intent of the standard
being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and District Plans.
Building type design site
depth may be adjusted by
up to 15'3; or
Building type design site
width may be adjusted by up
to 15%; or
Minimum amount of facade
building required within the
facade zone may be
reduced by up to 20%.
Building Type Standards
(14-2H-6)
Select one of the following
minor adjustments.
1 The adjustment is in a building
that contains Affordable Housing
units.2
2 The adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood.
3 The adjustment is consistent with
the intent and the standard
being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and District Plans.
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
21
Additional
Minor Adjustments
Select an additional
minor adjustment each for
the two sets of
minor adjustments for
affordable housing
described above.
The Affordable Housing units are
income restricted to households
making 50% or less of the Area
Median Income.2
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'
BB. Amend Table 14-2H-6D-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Height: T3NE
Max. number of stories 2.5
b. Main Body1:
Width 55' max. (A)
Depth2 55' max. (B)
c. Wing(s)1
Width 20 24’ max. (C)
Depth 20 24’ max. (D)
Separation between wings 15’ min.
Offset from main body 5’ min.3,4 (E)
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 5'.
3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in
Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public
22
right-of-way, then the minimum is 0’.
CC. Amend Table 14-2H-6E-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Height: T3NG
Max. number of stories 2.5
b. Main Body1:
Width 35' max. (A)
Depth2 45' max. (B)
c. Wing(s)1
Width 20 24’ max. (C)
Depth 20 24’ max. (D)
Separation between wings 15’ min.
Offset from main body 5’ min.3,4 (E)
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 5'.
3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in
Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public
right-of-way, then the minimum is 0’.
DD. Amend Table 14-2H-6F-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding
the underlined text:
a. Height: T3NE T3NG
Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5
b. Main Body1:
Width2 48' max. (A)
Depth2 3,4 40' max. (B)
c. Standards:
(1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with
section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards).
23
(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 5'.
2 When units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the max. main body width
may be increased to 60’.
3 When units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the max. main body depth
may be increased to 70’.
4 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding
garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased to 45'.
EE. Amend Table 14-2H-6G-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Height: T3NG
Max. number of stories 2.5
b. Main Body1:
Width 36' max. (A)
Depth2 40' max. (B)
c. Wing(s)1
Width 15’ max. (C)
Depth 20’ max. (D)
Separation between wings 15’ min.
Offset from main body 5’ min.3,4 (E)
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 5'.
3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in
Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public
right-of-way, then the minimum is 0’.
24
FF. Amend Table 14-2H-6H-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
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 Body1:
All Cottages
Width 32' max. (A)
Depth2 24 30' max. (B)
Most Rear Cottage
Width 40' max. (C)
Depth 24 30' max. (D)
Separation between cottages 10' min. (E)
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.
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 5'.
GG. Amend 14-2H-6K-1, Description, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
a. A small-to-large sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of three (3) two (2) to
eight (8) townhouses placed side-by-side. Each townhouse consists of one (1) unit or, up to three (3)
stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this the house-scale townhouse 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.
HH. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-2, Number of Units, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
Units per primary building 1 max.
3 max. in T4NM-O; T4MS
Primary buildings per design site 1 max.
House-scale building, : attached – 2 townhouses min. 3 townhouses max. , detached
– 2 townhouses minimum - 3 building, 2 - 3 individual townhouses max. per row
T3NE X
T3NG A
T4NS X
T4NM X
25
T4MS X
Block-scale building,: attached – 4 townhouses min, 8 townhouses max. 4 - 8
individual townhouses max. per row
T3NE X
T3NG X
T4NS A
T4NM A
T4MS A
Key: A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
II. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the
underlined text:
a. Height: T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5
b. Main Body1:
Width 18’ min.; 30' max. (A)
Depth2 50' max. (B)
Max. width per building 90’ 120’ 100160’ 200’ (C)
c. Wing(s)1:
Width 15’ max. (D)
Depth 15’ max. (E)
Separation between wings3 8' min. (F)
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) In T4NM-O 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 5'.
3 No separation is required for wings used for parking, when entirely behind attached
townhomes.
JJ. Amend 14-2H-7B-2b, General Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
b. Ground floor glazing on residential buildings shall be thirty fifteen percent (30 15%) minimum with a
minimum of one (1) window on the ground floor of each building elevation and on. Attached garages
are excluded from this standard and calculation. Ground floor glazing on shopfronts shall be seventy-
five percent (75%) minimum.
26
KK. Amend 14-2H-8C-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the
no border:
LL. Amend Table 14-2H-8C-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
Width, Clear 15 12' min.1 (A)
Depth, Overall
Elevated < 12" from average finish grade
Elevated 12" from average finish grade
(B)
8' min.
6' min.
Height, Clear 8' min. (C)
Stories 2 stories max.1
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (D)
27
Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-
2H-9). (E)
1 Clear width Width reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-2H-6H) building
type. Story height maximum reduced to 1 story.
MM. Amend 14-2H-8D-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with
the no border:
NN. Amend Table 14-2H-8D-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
Width, Clear 15 12' min. (A)
28
Depth, Overall
Elevated < 12" from average finish grade
Elevated 12" from average finish grade
(B)
8' min.
6' min.
Height, Clear 8' min. (C)
Stories 2 stories max.
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (D)
Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-
2H-9). (E)
Encroachment Area of Building Facade
Depth
Width
6' max. (F)
1/3 min. of overall building facade1 (G)
1 May not exceed porch clear width ( (A) )
OO. Amend 14-2H-8E-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with
the no border:
29
PP. Amend Table 14-2H-8E-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
Depth, Clear 10’ min. 1 (A)
Length 15' min. (B)
Distance between glazing 4' max. (C)
Depth of recessed entries 12" 3’ max. (D) (C)
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (E) (D)
Height of dooryard fence/wall above finish
level
36" max. (F) (E)
Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-
2H-9). (G)
1 Reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-2H-6H) building type.
QQ. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
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.
Stoop landings may be accessed via stairs, ramp, or a sloped walkway. Stairs or ramps from the stoop
may lead directly to the sidewalk or may be parallel to the sidewalk.
RR. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image
with the no border:
30
SS. Amend Table 14-2H-8F-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
Width, Clear 5' min. (A)
Depth, Clear 3' min. (B)
Height, Clear 8' min. (C)
Stories 1 story max.
Finish level above sidewalk average finished
grade along frontage
12" min. (D)
Depth of recessed entries 12" 3’ max. (E)
Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-
2H-9). (F)
TT. Amend 14-2H-8G-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the
no border:
31
UU. Amend Table 14-2H-8G-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
Width, Clear 15' min. (A)
Depth, Clear 15' min. (B)
Ratio, height to width 2:1 max. (C)
Height from sidewalk 12” max. (D)
Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-
2H-9). (E)
VV. Amend 14-2H-9B-3, Miscellaneous, by adding the underlined text:
3. Miscellaneous:
a. Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building facade.
b. Ramps shall be parallel to facade or along the side of the building.
32
c. Sloped walkways shall connect to the public sidewalk or driveway.
c. d. Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements.
d. e. Gates are not allowed.
e. f. All doors shall face the street.
WW. Amend 14-2H-9B-2, by adding the underlined text:
1. 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 of
Neighborhood and Development Services shall find that the proposed adjustment meets the
following criteria:
XX. Amend Table 14-2H-9L-2, Overall Widths, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined
text:
a. Widths:
ROW Width 20' (A)
Pavement Width 10' (B)
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-6J5I (Passage) for additional standards.
(4) Passage shall be open to the public at all times.
YY. Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, by adding the underlined text:
…
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. awnings, balconies, bay windows, belt courses, canopies,
chimneys, cornices, eaves, light fixtures, and windows and door surrounds.
…
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).
DRAFT LAND SUBDIVISIONS CODE TEXT
ZZ. Amend 15-3-4A, Blocks, by adding the underlined text:
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:
33
a. Except as required by Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones And Standards), to 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.
Table 15-3-4A-1: Block Size Standards
Zone Length (max.) Length (max.)
With Passage1 Perimeter Length
Perimeter
Length With
Passage1
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.
1 In compliance with the standards for a passage in sub-section 14-2H-9L (Passage).
2 Adjustment to block size standards may be requested according to the approval criteria and
procedures for adjustments contained in 15-3-4A-5.
(2) Blocks shall be a minimum width to result in two (2) 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.
5. Adjustments to Block Size Standards
34
a. The individual block lengths and the total block perimeter standards of each zone in this
section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision process. In considering an adjustment, the
Director of Neighborhood and Development Services shall find that the proposed adjustment
meets the following criteria:
(1) Demonstrates that one or more of the following special circumstances apply to the
property, which make it impractical to comply with the block size standards:
1. The adjustment is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area.
2. The adjustment is needed to reduce the amount of grading needed due to the
property’s existing topography.
3. The adjustment is needed because the alignment of an existing street that must be
extended creates a configuration that makes compliance impractical.
4. The adjustment is needed because the abutting neighborhood is designed with longer
blocks that impact the proposed development. The new blocks abutting the existing
longer blocks cannot accommodate new streets and pedestrian passages are
infeasible.
5. The adjustment is needed because a single-loaded street or passage has been
determined to be undesirable for the block to protect the sensitive nature of public
parkland.
6. The adjustment is needed because visibility and access to public parks, civic uses,
and natural open spaces are provided through other means besides a single-loaded
street.
(2) The adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
property is located.
(3) The adjustment requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
(4) The requested adjustment complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws, and
regulations.
Date: February 28, 2025
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Update on Comprehensive Plan Update & Steering Committee
Introduction
At the Commission’s February 19, 2025 meeting, Commissioner Craig requested and an update
on the Comprehensive Plan update, as well as a list of those members on the Steering
Committee.
Comprehensive Plan Update
The Steering Committee met for the first time on January 22, 2025. At this meeting, the consultant
team presented the slides provided in Attachment 1. The presentation covered the project
schedule, what a comprehensive plan is and how it differs from zoning and subdivision
regulations. A portion of the meeting was used to obtain feedback from the Steering Committee
through a series of visioning questions. The questions and responses from the Steering
Committee are also provided in Attachment 1.
Attachment 2 is a list of the Steering Committee members. In creating this committee, staff aimed
to create a membership that was diverse in terms of policy areas and expertise, race, ethnicity,
and gender.
Next Steps
The consultant team is currently working on an existing conditions analysis, which involves the
documentation of demographic and socio-economic trends in a manner that can be easily
understood by members of the community. The analysis will cover population trends, summarize
land use patterns, and discuss issues related to housing, economic development, and
transportation. This analysis will be presented to the Steering Committee at their meeting on
March 10, 2025 and on May 6, 2025 at 4 PM at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council.
Attachments
1. Steering Committee Presentation & Meeting Results, January 22, 2025 Meeting
2. List of Steering Committee Members
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Steering Committee Presentation & Meeting Results
January 22, 2025 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 2
List of Steering Committee Members
Name Organization Policy Area/Group Representing
Mike Hensch Chair, Planning & Zoning Commmission Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Miller Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Zoning Commission
Chad Wade Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Zoning Commission
Josh Moe City Council City Council
Megan Alter City Council City Council
David Kieft UI, Senior Director of University Real Estate University of Iowa
Laura Cottrell ICCSD, ED of Diversity & Cultural Responsiveness Iowa City Community School District
Sara Marshall VP Mortgage Loan Officer, GreenState Credit Union Residential Banking
Jen Nguyen JHN Books Local Realtor
Evan Doyle Program Manager Comm & Economic Dev., Greater Iowa City Economic Development
Betsy Potter Executive Director, Iowa City Downtown District SSMID
Maurice Davis Executive Director, South of 6 SSMID
Simon Andrew Executive Director, The Housing Fellowship Housing Advocacy
Jessica Andino Executive Director, Affordable Housing Coalition Housing Advocacy
Angie Smith Climate Action Commission Climate/Environment
John Schickedanz Director, The Englert Arts & Culture
Matthew Monsivais USG Council Liaison College Student Representative
Tony Branch Youth Engagement Director, United Action for Youth Youth/Bicycle Advocate
Aminata Taylor Owner, Taylor Tax & Accounting Minority Business Owner
Ayman Sharif Executive Director, Center for Worker Justice Immigrant Advocacy
Alex Carrillo Home Builders Association Representative Development Community
Andy Hodge Project Manager, Hodge Construction Developer
Ashley Laux Morningside-Glendale Neighborhood Neighborhood Representative
Mohamed Joreya Wonderful Westside Neighborhood Neighborhood Representative
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 19, 2025 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Steve Miller, Scott
Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Anne Russett, Liz Craig
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Jon Marner, Stephen Voyce, Sharon DeGraw,
Jennifer Baum, Bethany Berger, Marie Wilkes, Audrey Bahrick,
Matthew Solinger, Matthieu Bigger, Orville Townsend, Andrew
Evans
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a
proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and
north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the
following condition:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow
access and also construct a dedicated left-turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
By a vote of 6-1 (Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0001,
a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor
Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres)
subject to the following conditions:
1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no
building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the
subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning
ordinance to which this Agreement is attached.
2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as
shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling
unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone.
3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and
easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary
Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement
on the western 1O' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge
Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned,
and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are
tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
6. S3 screening be added to the southern retaining wall.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 2 of 27
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ24-0016:
Location: North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 7.2 acres of land from Interim Development Single-
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone.
Commissioner Miller recused himself from this item due to conflict of interest.
Conley began the staff report showing where the subject property is located, it borders Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, which is an arterial road, as well as Melrose Avenue, to the north is St.
Andrew Presbyterian Church, to the Northwest is existing multifamily apartment living and then
there are single family homes to the east and the south of the subject property. Additionally,
Conley stated the subject property is the only undeveloped area east of Highway 218. She next
shared the zoning map, the subject property is zoned ID-RS, the properties to the north and the
south are both zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) with a Planned Development
Overlay zone. The properties to the east are zoned Rural Residential (RR-1) with a Planned
Development Overlay and then to the west side of the subject property is primarily Highway 218
with the Institutional Public (P-2) zone to the south.
Regarding the background for this application, the subject property is located along two arterial
streets and is near Highway 218. The property does contain sensitive areas such as woodlands,
wetlands and regulated slopes found along the northern border. The IC2030 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map originally identified this area appropriate for two to eight dwelling
units per acre then in 2016 there was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted by St.
Andrew Presbyterian Church that changed the subject property’s land use designation to Office
Commercial. Conley explained the Office Commercial land use designation is assigned to areas
intended to provide the opportunity for a variety of commercial uses. Conley noted the subject
property is currently for sale and the owners have expressed an interest in rezoning it to provide
more clarity and certainty to future buyers regarding development potential.
Conley next reviewed the rezoning exhibit that was provided by the applicant noting an existing
30 foot pipeline easement that runs north/south of this property on the eastern side. She also
shared the sensitive areas exhibit that was also provided by the applicant which also indicated
that existing pipeline easement on the eastern border, near the sensitive areas, which would be
the construction area limit line.
Staff's analysis of the subject property’s current zone, the ID-RS zone provides for areas of
managed growth in which agricultural and other non-urban areas of land may continue until the
City can provide services and urban development can occur. The ID-RS zone has a limited
selection of land uses allowed, for example detached single family, communication transmission
facility uses, parks and open space, religious and private group assembly uses and agricultural
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 3 of 27
uses, specifically plant and animal related are all part of that selection. Plant related agriculture is
the only permitted land use allowed and detached single family dwellings would require a
minimum of five acres to be allowed in this zone. Commercial uses are allowed subject to
specific standards in the ID-RS zone. These include general and intensive animal related
commercial uses; however, any outdoor facilities associated with these uses are required to be
setback at least one hundred feet from any lot line.
Staff next looked at the proposed zone. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned
to Mixed Use (MU) zone. The purpose of the MU zone is to provide a transition from commercial
and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The mix of residential and
commercial uses allowed in this zone include lower scale retail and office uses and a variety of
residential uses that require special consideration of building and site design. Some of the
allowed commercial uses include office uses, community service, sales oriented and a variety of
others. The staff report includes a table that lists all of the allowed uses in this zone. Conley
pointed out that the MU zone does not allow for drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing
uses or any industrial uses (such as bars, gas station, car washes, etc.).
Conley next reviewed the rezoning review criteria. These are the criteria used to review all
rezonings. First, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with
existing neighborhood. For criteria number one, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan staff
was only able to utilize the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan since there's currently no district plan
for the Northwest Planning District. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA16-0001,
changed the subject property’s land use designation from two to eight dwelling units per acre to
Office Commercial. Resolution 16-129 noted that the Amendment was warranted due to the
subject property’s close proximity to Highway 218 and the Comprehensive Plan’s general
principles that encourage buffers between residential development and major highway uses and
that a CO-1 zone is an appropriate zone near residential neighborhoods and an appropriate
transition to more intense uses. Due to the similarities between the CO-1 zone and the MU zone
staff finds that the proposed MU zone aligns with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as well. Furthermore, drinking establishments, quick vehicle service uses, outdoor
storage and display oriented retail are not allowed in the CO-1 zone are also not allowed in the
MU zone. Additionally, drive throughs are not allowed in the MU zone.
The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following goals and strategies that are supported by
the rezoning request. These goals include to encourage compact, efficient development that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending
infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City and
to encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. The strategies that the
Comprehensive Plan includes are to ensure that infill development is compatible and
complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, ensure a mix of housing types within each
neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and all incomes, and lastly identify
and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and
infrastructure is already in place. Conley stated the proposed rezoning aligns with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals and strategies listed here because they focus on encouraging infill
development and a diversity of housing types. Due to the subject property being surrounded by
developed land currently serviced by City services, if rezoned to the MU zone, the diversity of
housing types that the MU zone would encourage what is listed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 4 of 27
Staff next looked at the compatibility with existing neighborhood and found that the subject
property is surrounded by single family, multifamily, and the institutional use to the north (St.
Andrew Church). Also, the neighborhood includes regulated sensitive areas, for example the
woodlands abut the Walnut Ridge single family homes to the east, and there is that 30 foot
pipeline easement along the eastern border of the subject property which does not allow for any
development within the easement. Therefore, these features together help create and leave a
natural buffer. Additionally, any development would need to comply with all Mixed Use site
development standards, which are aimed to ensure building sites are designed to be inviting to
pedestrians. These standards regulate service parking, screening, building scale, articulation,
orientation and other things. The Mixed Use zone is also in the medium illumination district that
allows for more lighting than a single family zone, but still regulates light trespassing standards
and shielding in order to prevent light from extending onto adjacent properties.
Next Conley reviewed the transportation and public infrastructure. Camp Cardinal Boulevard
access contains a median that limits ingress and egress, therefore, as part of this staff is
recommending that the owner reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a
dedicated left turn on Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the
property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number
1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow
access and also construct a dedicated left-turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Conley noted staff did not receive any written correspondence from the public and a good
neighbor meeting was held on January 23, 2025.
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by City Council.
Elliott asked about the good neighbor meeting as it was not addressed in the agenda packet.
Conley noted staff received the summary at a later date, so it was not included in the time of
packet publication. Elliott asked what if any the concerns were. Conley stated at the good
neighbor meeting the general concerns were about the lighting of any future development on the
subject property and lighting trespassing on to the adjacent properties. Staff was at the good
neighbor meeting and did discuss that the City does have specific site development standards
that would regulate the lighting on the future development. Russett noted there were probably
only three or four people there so they didn't hear a number of concerns, most people just were
curious what was being proposed.
Wade asked if that left turning lane from Camp Cardinal would go into this development and
Conley confirmed it would.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Shoemaker & Haaland Professional Engineers) noted to the east is that 30 foot
easement for the pipeline, and then the wooded area which would put them a distance from
those properties in Walnut Ridge and the closest house to that pipeline easement is more than
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 5 of 27
300 feet.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone
7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave
(Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following
condition:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to
allow access and also construct a dedicated left-turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Elliott seconded the motion.
Townsend noted concern with the commercial section and not having any idea what kind of
businesses would be going there.
Elliott states she thinks it's a good use of the land, it's infill property and she likes the diversity of
housing options that are available.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Miller recused).
Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting.
CASE NO. REZ24-0001:
Location: 900, 902, 906, and 908 N. Dodge St. and 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor St.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi-Family Residence (R3B) zone to
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD).
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the property noting Happy Hollow Park
located to the south of the subject property. She next reviewed the zoning map, which shows
the current zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property
currently includes several different zoning designations, it has some Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS- 8) zone on the southeast corner, High Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-12), and then there are Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi-
Family Residence (R3B) zone. The existing R3B zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s.
To the south is some Public Zoning for the park and most of the rest of the zones around the
subject property are zoned single family.
In terms of background, Russett noted in 1987 there was an Iowa Supreme Court decision
related to this property. At the time there were properties zoned R3B (again a multifamily zone
from the 1970s) and a developer obtained building permits to construct an office building and an
apartment building. The City revoked the building permit and rezoned some of the parcels to
only allow single family and duplex residential so the owner sued the City and the Court
determined that the City's actions were unreasonable. As a result of the Iowa Supreme Court
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 6 of 27
decision, several lots remained zoned R3B. Then in 2011 there was a rezoning request to
rezone property along North Governor Street to RM-12 Low Density Multi-Family Residential,
and that rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 units on the eastern portion of the
subject property. The City Council denied the rezoning and directed staff to explore designating
the properties to no longer allow multifamily development. In 2012, based on Council direction,
the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Central District Plan to change the
Future Land Use Map from Low Density Multi-Family to Single-Family and Duplex residential
on several properties. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was accompanied by several City
initiated down zonings, meaning a rezoning of property from a multifamily zone to a duplex or
single family zone, and these actions by the City also resulted in a lawsuit in 2018 (TSB
Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City) and in that case the Courts
determined that the Kempf decision from 1987 prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning
ordinance and the property owner was permitted to move forward with multifamily development
consistent with the R3B zoning. Therefore, that is why today the zoning on the subject property
is a mix of R3B from the 1970s and some current multifamily RM-20, and some single family.
This property has a long and complicated zoning history.
Russett also wanted to mention that the City is acting as a co-applicant to this rezoning for
several reasons. First, the City would like to see a cohesive development on the subject
property, as opposed to that which would be allowed under the current zoning. The City would
also like to see compliance with modern zoning regulations, which include the sensitive areas
ordinance and the multifamily site development standards which regulate things like screening,
parking, design, and building materials. Lastly, the City Council Strategic Plan includes a goal
related to establishing partnerships and collaborations, particularly in the interest in advancing
the City's housing goals. As staff has discussed many times with the Commission, an important
aspect of meeting the housing goals is increasing the overall supply of housing in the community.
Russett did note the applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024.
Russett showed slides of photographs of the subject property. She noted the vacant office
building and the existing apartments. The eastern portion of the subject property is mainly
surface parking, there are some trees along the southern border of the property and an existing
duplex on the subject property.
Russett reiterated the current zonings are Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 8)
zone and High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zones which allow single-family and
duplex residential. The RS-12 also allows townhome style multi-family up to six units attached.
Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi-family residential and the maximum height in these zones is
35'. The R3B zone also allows multi-family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750
square feet which equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area
zoned R3B the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum
height in the R3B zone is 45' and 3 stories.
The proposed zoning is for the majority of the property to be Medium Density Multi-Family (RM-
20) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to
sensitive areas. The northwest piece would be High Density Single-Family (RS-12) zone with a
Planned Development Overlay. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling
units per acre with the maximum height of 35’. The applicant is not requesting any waivers with
this OPD application and if this rezoning is approved any future development and redevelopment
of the property must substantially comply with what is shown on the OPD plan. Staff is
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 7 of 27
recommending a condition that as part of this project the final plat of the property must go
through a replat so that the lots follow the proposed rezoning boundaries.
Russett next shared the preliminary plan and development overlay plan. The project proposes
redevelopment of the land along North Governor Street and would include the demolition of the
two single family homes that currently exist at the southern portion of the site, as well as the
demolition of the vacant office building to the north. There are two multifamily residential
buildings being proposed, each contain 42 units for a total of 84 units, and the plans show storm
water being located on site. The open space is proposed on the southeast corner and the
parking is internal to the buildings, as well as there is some surface parking located behind the
buildings. The plans also include a sidewalk along North Governor Street.
Russett reviewed the landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to keep 15 existing mature
trees on the southern portion of the boundary and proposing to add several more, around 54, on
the remainder of the property. Several will be street trees proposed along North Governor Street.
Russett reiterated since the proposed rezoning complies with all development standards, there
are no waivers requested, and the OPD is required due to the sensitive areas impact. The
criteria to consider with this rezoning are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. In terms of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 Plan as well as the Central District Plan both apply to this land.
The Future Land Use Map of the IC 2030 Plan shows the majority of the site, the properties
along North Dodge and into the site, are all designated as appropriate for multifamily
development up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan also shows that a
majority of the site is appropriate for multifamily. However, unlike the IC2030 Plan the Central
District Plan does show some single family to the north, as well as open space in the middle of
the property. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision and both Plans
envision this area as allowing multifamily development, up to 24 dwelling units per acre, which is
the maximum density allowed in the proposed OPD/RM-20 zoning district.
Russett noted in addition to the Future Land Use Map there are several goals and policies that
support the proposed development. In terms of land use goals, there's goals encouraging
compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected with existing neighborhoods,
while ensuring that infill development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There
are housing goals that encourage a diversity of housing types that ensure a mix of housing types
within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types, at all incomes, and
supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there's existing services and
infrastructure. In terms of environmental goals, the Plan encourages compact and efficient
development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure, discourages
sprawl and again promotes infill development. Lastly, in terms of parks and open space goals
Russett stated there's a goal to improve overall access to the parks throughout the City.
Looking at the Central District Plan the housing and quality of life element includes a goal to
promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in
residential properties throughout the District and by supporting new housing opportunities.
Russett acknowledged that although this proposal isn't necessarily reinvesting in residential
properties, it will result in the removal of the vacant office building and provide much needed
housing units. There's also a statement within the Central District Plan specific to the subject
property and to the history with the R3B zoning, which notes that this area is zoned R3B and it
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 8 of 27
should be rezoned to a valid designation, such as RM-20.
In terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood character Russett first talked about the
existing context of what surrounds the subject property. Again, there is Happy Hollow Park to the
south, across Governor Street to the east there's single family residential, to the north there's a
mix of duplex and single family and to the west, on the subject property is an existing multifamily
building as well as two duplex units, and then further south, there's single family. In terms of
compatibility Russett reviewed the site design, open space, landscaping, as well as substantial
compliance with the OPD, which states no more units than currently exist on the western portion
of the property could be built. The OPD would also ensure a transition from the detached single
family from the south to the multifamily to the north. One condition that staff is recommending is
prior to the final platting of the subject property the duplex building needs to be converted to a
single family unit to ensure compliance with the density standards.
Russett acknowledged the preliminary plan and the development overlay plan was designed to fit
into the neighborhood, which includes a mix of housing types. Again, there's two multifamily
buildings being proposed that front North Governor Street, the front of that northern building that
fronts North Governor Street is about 70’ and it's positioned in a way to lessen the impact of the
larger scale building from the Governor Street right of way. Russett stated the same is true for
the southern building, which is positioned at an angle which allows the longest side of the
building to be positioned further away from North Governor. Again, there's open space provided
in the southeast corner and both buildings would be a maximum of 35’. There is landscaping
being proposed that maintains some of the mature trees to the south and more landscaping
proposed throughout the site. Russett noted also there are no plans at this time for
redevelopment along the North Dodge Street side of the property, however any future
development that's proposed on lot two will be required to substantially comply with this
preliminary OPD plan and that no more dwelling units then currently exist could be developed on
the site. This OPD plan also shows a transition from the existing single family south to the
multifamily must be maintained in some way if that area is ever to be redeveloped.
Russett showed the elevations for the proposed buildings, they have incorporated entrances to
individual dwelling units from the exterior to create more of a town home style feel and this also
helps to break up the long façade with the pedestrian walkways that provide connections into
individual units.
The subject property is bordered on the west by North Dodge Street and on the east by North
Governor Street, both of these streets are one way streets and they're both arterials. The existing
capacity for both streets is between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicle trips per day and are currently
operating well below that between 5,600 and 6,200 average trips per day. The site also has
access to Iowa City Transit on both the North Dodge Street and the North Governor Street sides.
As mentioned this is an infill project, so there's access to existing sewer lines and existing water
lines. Staff is recommending several conditions related to transportation and public utilities. The
first is the dedication of public right of way and easements along North Governor Street to
increase the right of way and allow for the construction of a sidewalk. The second condition is
that a dedication of a temporary construction easement along North Dodge Street which will help
with the planned reconstruction of Dodge Street, which is planned for 2027-2028, and lastly, the
Water Superintendent recommended the abandonment of existing water lines for the North
Dodge Street Apartments. These lines currently come off North Governor and he would like
those lines to be abandoned and instead have water lines connect to the North Dodge water
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 9 of 27
main.
Russett stated this property does have sensitive areas, in particular critical slopes. Staff can
approve up to a 35% impact of critical slopes and the proposal is 86% of the critical slopes to be
impacted, and that's why it's coming to the Commission for review.
Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of
land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and
OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions:
1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no
building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the
subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning
ordinance to which this Agreement is attached.
2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as
shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling
unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone.
3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and
easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary
Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement
on the western 1O' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge
Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned,
and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are
tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending
applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City
Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review
application which will be reviewed by City staff.
Hensch asked if storm water was managed on site or is it just all runoff, there doesn’t appear to
be any storm water detention and most of the site is paved. Russett replied there is some open
space to the south but there isn’t any storm water detention.
Hensch noted there's currently no sidewalk on the Governor side, is that because the existing
commercial facility appears to have not been used for at least 20 years. Russett is unsure.
Hensch is unsure exactly how long it's been but the last tenant in that building was Johnson
County, it's public health and social services were there and was a pretty intensive use in that
facility at that time.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 10 of 27
Hensch noted there are no waivers requested by the applicant for this rezoning which Russett
confirmed was correct. Hensch asked about the maximum height of the current and the
proposed multifamily buildings and how many units are in the current building. Russett replied
the new building will be 35’ which is also the same height of the current multifamily building, and
there are currently 29 and 12 units in the existing buildings.
Elliott asked about the landscaping proposed and is there any teeth to the landscaping plan.
Russett explained similar to approving the OPD plan, the landscaping plan is part of that so
they'll need to substantially comply with the landscaping as well.
Quellhorst asked if staff feel that the proposed rezoning would offer some environmental
protections because the legacy R3B zone wouldn't be subject to things like the sensitive areas
ordinance. Russett replied possibly but the main concerns with the existing R3B zoning is the
hodgepodge nature of it. Also the three properties that are zoned R3B are not contiguous and
don't abut each other so it'd be three separate developments on three separate parcels and not
subject to the sensitive areas ordinance and since this site has some sensitive areas, mainly
slopes, if they stayed with the R3B zoning the could remove all trees. Quellhorst noted basically
today, the way the site is zoned, one could construct relatively high density housing projects that
would be interspersed and wouldn't be connected. Russett confirmed that.
Quellhorst asked about the fact that 86% of critical slopes would be impacted and how that
impact is evaluated and does that happen as part of the application process. Russett explained
it happens as part of this rezoning. Staff is allowed to administratively approve up to 35% of
impacts but anything beyond that requires an OPD rezoning and has to be reviewed by the
Commission, but in terms of specific criteria, there aren't any specific criteria that need to be met
to allow them to impact more than 35%.
Quellhorst asked if staff has any concerns with the impact to critical slopes. Russett stated a lot
of the impacts are due to the accommodation of the stormwater management system on the site
and the development in general, but this is an infill site and staff thinks the benefits of more
density and more housing offset the impacts to the critical slopes.
Craig asked about the retaining wall that is shown on the images at the southwest corner of the
slanted building, likely because of the slopes, but how tall is that retaining wall and what does it
look like from the park. Russett stated there will be some existing trees along the wall and
behind the retaining wall that will be seen when looking to the north from the park. She is not
sure of the height of the retaining wall, the applicant can answer that question.
Craig noted the significant elevation change down to Happy Hollow Park and just wanted to say
for the record that if this project were to move forward, she certainly hopes that the City would
take responsibility to add sidewalks to both sides of Happy Hollow Park for people who are trying
to traverse that side without crossing Governor to get to downtown or anywhere close to
downtown.
Miller noted staff mentioned that it needs to be an OPD because of more than 35% of critical
slopes are impacted, if that wasn’t the case what would happen and if less than 35% of the
critical slopes were impacted could City staff just rezone the whole thing to RM-20. Russett
explained it wouldn't require the OPD, the overall project would still require a rezoning, but it
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 11 of 27
wouldn't require an OPD, it would still have to go through P&Z and Council.
Miller asked about the multifamily development standards because a lot of the correspondence
they received from the public was about how many trees they were taking out and his initial
challenge with the current design is just the way that building along Governor was diagonal and if
it was more parallel to the street they could potentially save a lot of those trees and put the open
space behind the buildings like it was identified in the Central District Plan. He appreciates the
walk up units, but they don't face the street. Russett acknowledged it could have been realigned
so it all fronts North Governor, but it probably would have been a shorter building and with that
there's some economies of scale of designing one building and it would get rid of the open space
feature. Overall, it probably would have resulted in fewer units and a smaller building.
Miller asked about the maximum setback. Russett noted there are easements that run through
this property and the building can't be set further towards the street and they will need the
applicant to request a minor modification to that, which is an administrative review.
Wade asked if there is a significant difference to the City being the co-applicant on this versus
just being staff supported. Russett acknowledged it's not something that they’ve done for map
amendment before, they have done it for text amendments where the City has been the
applicant, so there are rezoning applications where the City is the applicant. This is different and
it's because of the history of the property and the complexity of the property and the lawsuits that
exist so looking at it in the context of what can be built now with the current zoning and trying to
get to a compromise with the property owner to have a better project than what could currently
be built on the existing zoning designations. However, with the City being a co-applicant that
changed nothing in the rezoning process or staff review.
Townsend noted there are two Habitat homes right there on North Governor and also several
rental homes on North Dodge so are any of these new homes going to be affordable. Russett
replied no, they're going to be market rate. Townsend stated 84 units going in that area and none
of them are affordable. Russett reiterated that one of the City Council’s strategic plan goals is
collaborating and creating partnerships for ways to reach the City's housing goals, and one of the
ways to achieve some of the housing goals is just increasing overall supply, not necessarily
having income restricted units, but getting more units online that could be used by someone who
needs housing. Townsend acknowledged they need more housing units in the City at all income
levels but in that area there are a lot of affordable places and if these units will be at market
value that would be way above what would normally would be there.
Hensch asked if the only areas that are required to have a 10% affordability requirement is in
Riverfront Crossings or annexed land and Russett confirmed that's correct.
Hensch asked about the R3B zoning and if that's a legacy zone not used anymore are there any
other parts of Iowa City that still have R3B or is it only because of the litigation that it's still affixed
to these parcels in this area. Russett confirmed it's only because of the litigation.
Wade asked about the tree screening between this development and Happy Hollow Park.
Russett explained the existing trees that are along a portion of the proposed lot one would
remain and then there's some trees that are being planted on the eastern side. Wade noted it
looks like a fair number of trees would be taken out under this proposal. Russett confirmed that
but wanted to note even though there are critical slopes, there's no woodlands on the property
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 12 of 27
that are regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance so they're not limited in terms of the number
of trees that could be removed.
Hensch asked about the trees being removed and if they are oaks, maples or what. Russett
stated she was unsure.
Elliott noted regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and there's a lot of single family
homes, and while she understands the infill and the need for more housing, why so much more
housing. Russett explained the current R3B zoning would allow up to 84 dwelling units and the
proposal is for 84 dwelling units. She stated these are certainly larger than the single family
homes across the street but this property has been envisioned to allow multifamily development
and it's currently zoned to allow multifamily development. Russett also stated with the
multifamily site development standards there's requirements in terms of articulation and building
materials that help minimize the size of the building. Again, they're proposing the exterior
entrances which help break up the building and make it into modules and those are the points
that were in the staff report that point to compatibility with the neighborhood. Also, when looking
at it from the street, at least for the northern building, the shorter frontage fronts the street and it’s
also pushed back a little further, same with the southern building and the diagonal orientation
which helps to minimize the size.
Hensch noted the current parcels are zoned RS-8, RS-12, RM-20 and R3B so if there was no
rezoning and each parcel was developed at its fullest zoning capacity, would that not be more
dwelling units per acre than what this proposed project is. Russett stated the R3B allows more
density and is actually more than RM-20 at 58 dwelling units per acre. The OPD RM-20 is 24
dwelling units per acre so combining all properties it may be possible.
Townsend asked if there is a possibility to have stop lights installed. Russett replied no, the
transportation staff and engineering staff reviewed this and there was no discussion of traffic
signals or any off-site improvements. Townsend noted she travels that area during rush periods
and it's not easy to get in and out of those areas.
Miller noted the other thing that they heard a lot from the public about was the lack of affordable
housing and with the OPD rezoning process is that even something that could be suggested.
Russett explained the only times they require income restricted units is in Riverfront Crossings
and through an annexation. Alternatively, it would have to be through a condition of this rezoning
and to apply that condition the Commission would need to demonstrate that this rezoning creates
some sort of public need that could justify that condition.
Miller asked if it has ever been done outside of Riverfront Crossings or an annexation plan.
Russett stated it was done with Forest View because there were existing residents in
manufactured housing units that were going to be displaced with the rezoning.
Townsend asked with the City being a co-applicant does that affect the units, Russett replied it
doesn’t. Townsend asked then why is the City is acting as a co-applicant. Russett explained to
demonstrate the concern with how the property is currently zoned, so they are joining the
applicant to put forth this rezoning due to concerns about what could be developed under the
existing zoning and the hodgepodge nature of that. The City is hoping to get a better
development project with this rezoning than what would be allowed under current zoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 13 of 27
Townsend asked if as the co-applicant the City could request some of those units be affordable.
Russett replied no, again it would have to be a condition of the rezoning and the Commission
would need to demonstrate why the rezoning is creating a public need and justify why that would
be needed for this rezoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer for this application and will try to
address some of the questions that that arose from Commission members. The first one is the
orientation the building on the southeast corner. Part of the reason for that orientation is to pull
that facade back away from Governor Street and to lessen the impact for the neighborhood from
Governor Street. The other benefit to that is the highest point of the site is that southeast corner,
so this also addresses some of the questions about the sensitive slopes. Most of the slopes that
are being impacted are in that corner, they're actually man-made altered slopes and were put
there quite a while back as part of the construction of those homes and when Happy Hollow Park
and some of the other history of the site was developed. Those aren't original natural slopes,
those are man-made slopes. Back to the orientation the building, by rotating it away it allowed
them to sink the building down just a little bit lower from that southeast corner so as someone
comes down Governor Street the building is going to appear closer to two stories, as opposed to
the full three stories.
Marner also addressed the tree preservation. Again, one of the intents to rotate that building was
to allow them to preserve as many trees as possible. There are quite a few mature existing trees
there on the park property that would not be touched. He acknowledged during the good
neighbor meetings there was concern expressed about some of those trees being preserved so
the building orientation was to help facilitate preserving as many of those trees as possible. He
thinks there's a couple large cottonwoods in that area. Last but not least, some of the other trees
that were spoken about in that open space area, as Russett pointed out on the Central District
Plan one of the goals was to have a little bit of open space in that area and they also
accommodate that. Obviously, they have to provide storm water detention, but that is the area
where they were able to preserve some of those larger specimen trees. Regarding inventorying
those trees, they went out and did an investigation and they were nicer specimen trees, not
scrub trees, the ones that are identified are the better specimen trees in that area.
Hensch asked about the easements going from the northeast to the southwest, how many
easements are there and what type. Marner stated there's two easements there, one is for an
existing public sanitary sewer that runs through the site and it runs straight through the site, as
opposed to bending partway through. City staff has investigated that and he knows there's some
other concerns about the capacity of that sewer and they’ve discussed with City staff throughout
this process whether that sewer was adequate and the determination was made that it is
adequate at this time so the easement is to ensure protection of that and provide access for City
officials and for maintenance and repairs. The other easement is for storm sewer and it's actually
conveying the storm sewer from the low point in Governor Street that's right on the northeast
corner of the site, through the property into the storm sewer that then runs southwest down
through Happy Hollow Park. Hensch asked what the widths of those easements are. Marner
stated the sanitary sewer easement is 30’ wide and the storm sewer is 40’ and 30’ as it varies in
width through the site.
Hensch asked about some of the slopes being created by previous grading, where were those
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 14 of 27
slopes created. Marner pointed on the map to those slopes around the backside of the two units
that are constructed on that corner. It was pushed out to establish the flat grade for those units
and that's where the slopes were created.
Lastly, Hensch asked about the angle of that building, was the angle just a mass and scale issue
of trying to decrease the appearance of mass and scale as people are going from South
Governor to North Governor. Marner acknowledged that was part of it, it served two purposes,
rotating that building served to pull it away so as one is approaching the site they’re not seeing
one continuous block length from Governor Street, it's rotated and provides a little different
visual. It allowed the trees to remain which will also help soften that visual. Regarding the
question about what it’s going to look like from Happy Hollow Park Marner stated those
specimen trees on the park property will still be there and will help buffer some of that visibility.
Marner also reiterated rotating the building allows them to set it down in the site a little bit so that
it's closer to two and a half stories visible.
Hensch asked about the retaining wall, what would it look like, what will the height be, and what
will it be constructed of. Marner replied it's an engineered wall varying from 5’ to 13’ in height.
Hensch asked if someone is down in the park, say on the ball field, what is the change in
elevation up to the base of the retaining wall. Marner is not sure because that's not on part of
the rezoning but just by observation his rough estimate is 5’ to the property line and then a few
feet of rise to the retaining wall.
Hensch asked if there is any screening in front of the retaining wall, because that would certainly
help. Marner said not currently but certainly that's something that could be discussed. Marner
noted one other idea regarding the retaining wall is as it follows along the south edge then bends
and goes northwest to follow the building, they could lessen the height of the wall by rotating it
back down closer to the property line and that would allow them to slope from the building down
and meet closer to the grade in doing so, although that would also remove more trees.
Craig thinks it's better to have the retaining wall and keep the trees, it feels like they're protecting
the park more as opposed to just blending it all right into the park. Marner noted that's one of the
goals expressed during the good neighbor meeting. He also noted there was a second, not a full
good neighbor meeting, but they met with some other concerned, interested neighbors at their
office with Russett maybe a month and a half after the first neighbor meeting and those were
concerns that were consistently expressed. Therefore, they worked with the design and grading
to try to save as many trees to accommodate those requests as best as possible.
Craig wanted to make a positive comment, while she thinks these are huge buildings the options
for bicycle parking are fantastic as this is a prime location for people who want to bike and to
have covered bicycle parking. She would just also encourage some E vehicle options in those
parking garages.
Stephen Voyce (829 N. Dodge Street) lives directly across from 900 and 902 Dodge Street and
wanted to speak on behalf of some of his affected neighbors. He read the planned development
overlay and the RM-20 elements of the zoning ordinance that the Commission are to consider
when reviewing the proposal and the following words stood out. “This zone, RM-20, is
particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access
to all City services and facilities”. Voyce fails to see how the proposed rezoning complies with
that statement. The property is not adjacent to a commercial area, the lack of a sidewalk on
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 15 of 27
Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians, and as someone who only rides
a bike and does not ride a car those are extremely dangerous streets in that area without
sidewalks. Voyce stated this location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan
based on the words written in the zoning code. Moreover, the RM-20 zone also says “careful
attention to site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one
location are compatible with one another.” Voyce stated the site and building design shows little
compatibility with the existing single family duplexes and apartment buildings in the
neighborhood, in order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be an
astounding 236’ long. Compare that to a standard city block of 300’ these buildings will be almost
an entire block in length, and the image shows it. Although the City must abide by the court
ruling that imposed the R3B zoning on parts of this property it should not go beyond that to
approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family duplexes and existing apartment
buildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multifamily buildings are appropriate here, but not
these two enormous buildings. The zoning codes also states “the OPD zoning will not be
contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
amended or harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods” more it says it “should encourage the
preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to
the natural features of the surrounding area”. Voyce questions how does this OPD plan comply
with these provisions in the zoning code, it simply does not. The staff report acknowledges that
86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed. That just shows
that the proposed very large scale buildings do not take into account these natural features, they
are simply too large for the property. Voyce notes these are the standards that the Planning and
Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning. The general standards
reads “the density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building, mass and scale”. Again,
the proposed 236’ long buildings are way out of scale, even with the existing apartment
buildings, and in no way complement the adjacent development. Number two, “the development
will not overburden existing streets and utilities”. There are no sidewalks on the west side of
Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although the developer will put in
sidewalks on his property, they will lead essentially to nowhere. The staff report contains very
little about the environmentally sensitive areas, other than to say the 86% of critical slopes will be
graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park appears to be removed.
Voyce reviewed the sensitive areas section of the zoning code and it states the intent is to
“preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly the wooded hillsides” and it says
“encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. If
disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes is proposed, a level two sensitive area review is
required”. Voyce stated level two requires Planning and Zoning review and if 86% of critical
slopes are to be wiped away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be
removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code
to develop the city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas. It does not because
too much development is being proposed on this property.
Sharon DeGraw (Northside) submitted a letter but noticed only a portion of it made it to the
Commission in the agenda packet. She is writing as a resident of the Northside neighborhood
and the Goosetown apartment development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a
long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow
against the City. As a Commission charged with responsibility to serve the public she would like
to point out that they may find themselves in an unusual position reviewing an application which
began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB Holdings) and is now a joint rezoning
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 16 of 27
petition from TSB and City staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non-biased
evaluation so how does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition
when the City staff is a co-applicant of a controversial rezoning. DeGraw personally has a
feeling that if the Commission voted this down City staff will just march it over to City Council
anyway. Aside from the procedural concerns DeGraw noted there are problems with the
rezoning petition and the development proposal. Page one of the staff report states the proposed
development would allow the demolition and replacement of the buildings along North Governor
Street, including the existing vacant commercial office building. So why does the plan include the
rezoning of properties on Dodge Street, specifically 900and 900 ½ North Dodge Street, where no
infill development is proposed. Apparently, density from the Dodge Street properties can be
transferred to a Governor Street address to increase the maximum size of the building and the
number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown apartments
have issues too, they are much too large for the neighborhood. These are two three story
buildings, dimensions 236’ times 70’ making each building almost the length of one city block,
and there are no other buildings on that scale in the neighborhood. There are 133 parking
spaces and other paving’s which is equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures.
There are only two or three guest parking spaces, that's not enough. Construction of the
development, as presented, will remove 86% of the critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow
Park and DeGraw thinks that if someone is standing at the basketball court they could see 40’ of
the building that will be 14’ from the park edge boundary. A significant retaining wall, as a
structural necessity, will be built at the bottom of the hill in a sensitive wooded overlay at the
north end of Happy Hollow Park, the retaining wall will be 5’ to 14’. Clearly, the development has
too many units, the buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, and the scale of the
development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher
density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing
units in the city, DeGraw states that can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the
proposal to omit the address 900 and 900 ½ North Dodge Street from the rezoning. Page six of
the staff report shows figure four, the Central District Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Map,
and it exhibits 900 and 900 ½ North Dodge Street as RS-12 property. It's transitional and
appropriate next to single family homes and any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the
Central District Plan. DeGraw is supportive of redeveloping the land, having North Governor
Street addresses on the R3B zoned lots, and sees no need for the lots having North Dodge
Street addresses to be rezoned. That is adding density above what the court decision imposed.
She urges the Commission to reject the rezoning application, having a rezoning petition which
removes the property 900 and 900 ½ North Dodge Street would likely result in a density more
appropriate for the sensitive property. DeGraw shared a handout to show is the lot that has a
rectangle and an arrow around as a designated lot that should not become RM-20, it’s supposed
to be transitional RS-12 and it sits next to 830 North Dodge Street, which is a single family
residential home. The other thing in her handout is to show where there is the R3B zoning is
they have the choice to leave that as is and to not vote it in favor of this, and just hold on to those
R3Bs, she doesn’t believe all of it could be developed as planned.
Jennifer Baum (814 Dewey Street) is in agreement with DeGraw that the buildings are just too
big for the lot and the parcels that are in the little corner have no business being included in that
property. Baum does agree that the area needs to be rezoned but the little properties there are
simply giving away for two bigger buildings and if those buildings had a third cut off, it might be
able to work. Baum stated having that many people in that space is going to increase the traffic
on the northside, even on the streets that are not Governor and North Dodge, because people
have to get from one side to the other side as they're both one ways, so to do that one has to cut
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 17 of 27
through extremely residential areas like Deweyville, where she lives as the ad hoc mayor. She
noted people going to HyVee from Governor Street assume that it's a shortcut and go through
there about 40 miles an hour, they already have trouble with that, they already stand on the
street corner and yell at people because they have lots of small children and are hoping to have
more and hoping to have a development on North Summit that includes families. So, they're
looking to put more families in their neighborhood and when they start increasing the number of
humans that only have one recourse in egress and ingress, they have to figure out how to get to
that one spot. Baum stated there's been no discussion about putting an alley or a way of getting
through from the North Dodge property to the Governor property and that is problematic. If they
gave these folks a way to go between those two properties, where there is actually room
because they made a smaller number of units, they could have a little more space to put in a way
so that people could get across those two lots and from one side of the one way to the other one
way. Baum stated that would relieve all that traffic that's trying to make a shortcut somehow
really fast through the neighborhood. She stated all they have in their neighborhood is humans
that are either alive or dead and the dead folks have visitors. The people that live on her streets
go really slowly and don't want people going by that fast. They finally, after 10 years of fighting,
got semis off our street and this is just going to set them back. Baum stated there's a way to
make it a little bit easier and still have infill, still have apartments, still have housing, even though
it's not going to be affordable for a majority of humans that live in the Midwest, and not destroy
the neighborliness of the neighborhoods.
Bethany Berger (Northside) states she lives probably about an eight minute walk from where the
proposal is and wanted to speak in support of the proposal. One thing that hasn't been
necessarily mentioned is that this development is also a short walk from the HyVee, it's a short
walk from the Ace Hardware, this is an ideal place to put housing where people actually can walk
to various services, so they won't need to drive all the time. She noted looking at the site now,
it's really an eyesore, it’s an abandoned office building and big parking lot, so the new buildings
will make the landscaping there will be much more attractive than some of the buildings that are
currently there. Berger stated one of the things that she loves about Iowa City is its walkability
which is a truly unique thing. She lived in Connecticut for a long time and it's a unique thing that
Iowa City has so in order to preserve that walkability they need dense housing where people can
walk to services. Berger also really liked reading about the plants that are going to be planted
there and really appreciated that.
Marie Wilkes (917 N. Governor Street) stated she moved to Iowa City in the early to mid-1980s
and bought her home at 917 North Governor in 1987. She is very committed to Iowa City and
been a taxpayer of property taxes for almost 40 years. She has raised two children here and
loves the northside. She’d love to get rid of that empty lot but she also knows something about
how that road is, having had at least three cars in her front yard, her house is just a little bit
beyond where it goes straight, then there's a curve and a dip, and when the road is icy people
end up in her yard, she is concerned when they have had possibly 100 cars in and out. Over the
last 40 years there's been traffic that has increased over time and thank God it was so
complicated for everyone to decide to develop First Avenue, but it did lessen the traffic a little bit
on Governor, but it's still building. Because they’re doing a good job in progressing and trying to
make those hard decisions she asks the Commission to make this decision, not for money today,
but for the citizens that live and are committed to Iowa City as a unique eco structure. Iowa City
is very walkable. She took a class at the University that talked about how unique Iowa City is in
that they had an area that busses, people were dropped off, they could walk through downtown,
they can walk their children to school. With this development they will have how many extra
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 18 of 27
people coming in, and how close are they to Horace Mann and to Preucil, how will that limit
children that have been able to be raised in an area that makes them able to be independent and
learn those decisions earlier. Wilkes stated its hard decisions and she appreciates the people
that they vote in to municipal offices to conduct the business that most are too busy to do, but the
Commission finds the time to do it so she would ask them simply to think logically about why are
they considering more density. Nothing has changed from 2011 when it was turned down. If
someone can explain the difference to her she’d gladly listen but she doesn’t see how they’re
able to support comfortably and welcome that many people into this neighborhood. Wilkes
stated they are good neighbors and like to walk and say hi to each other and walk down to City
Park to enjoy the fireworks and back safely on Fourth of July and walk down to Hamburg Inn on
a Saturday or Sunday for breakfast, they’re the people in this neighborhood, so please think
about them.
Audrey Bahrick (830 N. Dodge Street) is a 25 year owner and resident of 830 North Dodge
Street, her home is visible at the very bottom southwest corner and shares a driveway with the
900 North Dodge Street duplex. She opposes the request for rezoning in its current state and
requests removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 North Dodge Street. She is wholly
supportive of a multifamily infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of
the existing neighborhood, the critical steep slopes and the relationship to the public park. Her
understanding is that Planning and Zoning reviews the application through a lens of consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and with compatibility with the neighborhood. The Barkalow/City
rezoning proposal is problematic in regards to both principles. Rezoning the 900 North Dodge
Street duplex is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because historically City Council and
Planning and Zoning recognized that the R3B high density multifamily zoning on portions of the
proposed rezoning was a spot zone and was considered a mistake. They called it a mistake.
They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood and was prevented by the Iowa
Supreme Court. Now staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the
court allowed. Regarding rezoning 900 North Dodge Street, staff offer a rationale of desiring
consistency with the RM-20 portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the
nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan.
What was once understood as a spot zone has now become the model for density. Second, the
staff promotion of a value of consistency of zoning within the required OPD is contradicted by
leaving one of the North Dodge Street duplexes as is, the northwest one, but rezoning the other
to RM-20. Bahrick stated it's not specified in the staff report that the fact that the OPD allows
unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings. So what's
occurring is that the 900 North Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 square feet, but only
5000 square feet are required for a single family home. By rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street
duplex from RS-12 to RM-20 and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr. Barkalow was
able to transfer unused density, gaining six of his 84 units in the proposed two buildings. This is
obliquely acknowledged on page 10 of the staff report where it is stated that the owner shall
convert the existing duplex to one dwelling to ensure compliance with the maximum density
standards of the zone. It took her a long time to understand why are they including her neighbor
there when there's no plan to redevelop it, they’re capturing density. The two North Dodge Street
properties she has been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the
Central District Plan as RS-12 single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that
these properties are to serve as transition zoning. Bahrick stated she has invested a significant
portion of her financial resources in her home at 830 North Dodge Street adjacent to the 900
North Dodge Street duplex with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is a reliable
document. It seems to her now the City is prepared to override the Comprehensive Plan and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 19 of 27
Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood.
The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include 900 North Dodge Street in its decision
and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan.
Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at
900 North Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park
and removing most of the trees on the border development. Bahrick stated it does seem that the
City may be concerned if they don't go along with the current proposal that the development
could be worse due to what's allowed by the Supreme Court decision however, given the odd
shape of the court imposed R3B zonings, the three disparate plots, and the steep slope on lot 51
which may make it difficult even to build on, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely that
Mr. Barkalow could, in practice, achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R 3B zone.
Bahrick asks the Commission to send the plans back to the staff and the developer back to the
drawing board to devise a plan that works better environmentally and is more environmentally
sensitive.
Matthew Solinger (1001 N. Summit Street) has lived in the neighborhood for about 10 years and
has been working as a delivery driver in it for a little longer than a year. He mostly wants to bring
up issues with the design and traffic, because that's a lot of people that are all going to be
leading right out into Governor, which they all know is a one way, and that driveway is right at the
top of the hill. People like to drive fast, they're going to be coming up it and without some kind of
stop light or something, there's going to be problems. While people have mentioned biking and
walking, which are great, but if people try to bike out onto Governor, eventually they're going to
die. It's bad. It could be fixed again with a light or something, maybe a sidewalk going the other
way so one could walk to the Ace Hardware or the HyVee without having to get on the road.
Seems like something that could be brought into this plan. Also, Solinger stated when somebody
says market range he hears rich jerks. If they said they're going to put people that need a cheap
place to live in here, he’d feel better about it personally.
Matthieu Bigger (519 N. Johnson Street) noted everybody has made so many great points and
he’ll try not reiterate too many things but first has to concur on both market prices and the fact
that the units would be one and two bedrooms only. Staff, P&Z folks, and planning people need
to figure out if that would indeed help with providing options for people, for households of all
types and of all incomes, if that would really increase of the stock that is needed in the city. He is
hoping that they have access to that information. The City has sometimes fought for three and
four bedroom housing because they are trying to limit the density of student housing, but if they
want families to move into those units, or into that current empty lot, he imagines they would
want more than one and two bedroom housing. Regarding traffic, between the danger of
Governor Street, he wishes people would test going up that hill in the winter, the lack of access
to busses on Dodge Street and to bike down the city, it just doesn't make any sense. Bigger
acknowledged he is not a planner but between that and the great points before about the what
seemed to be unnecessary rezoning of some of the RS-12 lots, they could cut off the current
RM-20 down the middle and then avoid the houses on the southeast and have two and a half
acres ready for an RM-20. They would take over all the R3B, some of the current RM-20 and
could still put in maybe 40-50 units. That would alleviate some of the concerns with traffic, which
will be extreme. Bigger notes he loves going through Deweyville. He usually walks or bikes
through it. He definitely never comes down there from the north in his car, but people do, just
like the northside has had concerns with people crossing and taking Ronalds and choosing a
cobbled street to go from Dubuque east, he doesn’t know why, it seems crazy, but people do it.
He loves those streets, but again he does it on his bike because it's fun. Regarding the slopes,
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 20 of 27
even if some of those were man-made per code encroachment must be minimized for critical
slopes. That would not be done. Regarding storm water, do they know if there's current issues
with stormwater and would doing all this actually make things worse with potential issues with
flooding. If this is to proceed they need to think about permeable pavers. Also light pollution was
mentioned and this will be more light pollution then with just houses. With big lots there's a lot of
lights and LED lights have been proven to be convenient and cheap and not consume much
electricity but they're awful for wildlife. Also cutting about an acre of trees won't be good for
wildlife, but whatever is left of the wildlife will not be happy with all that artificial light day and
night. Bigger would also love staff to check the code for the distance that is needed between a
playground and a building, he saw somewhere that one can install a playground only if it's 20
feet from a property line. Working backwards from that there's currently a basketball court that
would be too close to what would come. Finally, market price is an ugly and contentious
buzzword. Is this really what is needed, maybe it hasn't come yet but there's going to be an
enrollment cliff at the universities in the Midwest so if this is targeting students, who knows what
is going to happen to those units, sadly demographics in Iowa is not going the right direction.
Orville Townsend (713 Whiting Avenue) noted he is a victim of his wife's take your husband to
work initiative so as he has been sitting here this evening and observing, it dawned on him that
this Commission is not only citizens who have volunteered to give their time to help make the city
a better place, but they also have some influence and some impact. The area he'd like to
address is affordable housing and affordable housing is just what it says affordable. Townsend
stated affordable is the big word, it's no problem when one can afford it, but unfortunately in this
community there's so many people who can't afford it. This Commission is in a position to be
able to make a difference, they have a lot of cases that come before them and a lot of
opportunities to initiate efforts that can help to make the City’s affordable housing better.
Townsend noted while he has a house and it's very comfortable he remembers a time when he
was a student and it was a nightmare. He hadn't gotten a job yet after he graduated from college
and was struggling just trying to make it so affordable housing is something that is important,
because when someone is struggling, they have a lot of things coming at them that they have no
control over. Townsend encourages the Commission to do anything they can to assist the City in
improving this affordable housing initiative.
Andrew Evans (941 Dewey Street) lives within 500’ of the proposed site and works as an
architect in Iowa City. He wanted highlight a few points, first is how much is the developer held
to the specifics of the plans and elevations that are contained within this proposal, assuming that
the zoning change would pass. Any means of holding the developer to the plans would be
beneficial, especially items like the unit setbacks are very beneficial in taking this from a 236’
long building and segmenting it to match more of the single family scale that folks have been
discussing. Evans does have concern that when value engineering comes into play, that instead
of having those delineated units it once again starts to appear like a 236’ mass that people have
expressed concern with. Evans also noted the wall to the south of the site right now doesn't
have a material called out and he is concerned that is a large concrete graffiti-ready wall there.
He acknowledged the representative for the developer pointed out that the three story building
will actually be more like two and a half in many parts of the site, but if the side yard elevation
that's attached as part of this evening's document is accurate for that elevation, he is not sure
how the walk up units would work for a building that is sunken half a story into the ground. If
anything it'd likely rise up from there and having elevated porches. Regarding elevations, looking
briefly at topographical maps, it looks like Happy Hallow Park sits somewhere between 710’ and
720’ of elevation and the building is proposed at 735’, the edge of the site is between 735’ and
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 21 of 27
745’ so that's a massive grade increase. Evans also acknowledged the trees to the south of the
site, demoing some of those trees is pulling back the curtain and so this is elevated on a platform
and serves as a billboard for all that traffic coming up North Governor. By pulling back that
curtain, instead of exposing a 70’ façade they're now exposing a 236’ facade. The idea of pulling
back for more green space and setback works well for sites that are accessed from 360 degrees,
but here 98-99% of the eyeballs on this site are coming from the south up that road. So if it was
just 70’ wide and more parallel with the road, it would appear actually much more in scale with
the rest of the houses. Evans noted that on Mormon Trek Road between Benton and Rohret
Roads are townhomes very similar to the designs currently proposed here and those run parallel.
He uses that comparison because there's sidewalks in front of bunches of town home units and
so those are unparallel and he doesn’t think anyone is offended by those even though there's not
a massive, angled setback. Evans stated another resident of the area, Jennifer Baum, brought
up alley connection and access between the two units and he thinks if they're proposed as a
package deal, then that should be used as an advantage. When arterial roads, like Dodge and
Governor are seen as one ways that's viewed on the whole city scale, it makes a ton of sense,
but unfortunately when on one side you can only use what's in front of you and can't use both
that are advantageous. Therefore, creating the alley access would be very beneficial. Evans also
noted many of the roads people are cutting through, many of the neighborhood roads, don't have
sidewalks or are brick and so those are much more popular for bikers and walkers than other
neighborhoods. If the City is encouraging bikers, with this new development and someone has to
bike downtown, what route are they taking. If the developer is encouraged to connect the two via
some sort of path, even if it’s not a full connection of the parking lots, that'd be very beneficial to
the safety, because no person in the right mind is going to hop on their bike, ride uphill north a
quarter mile just to loop back down into town. As a co-applicant he thinks that puts the City in
more responsibility to step up and make beneficial moves for the park, the compatibility with the
existing neighborhood, as well as connection with the alley. His final point would be with the
environmentally sensitive areas, it's just a bit concerning to him that there were only like five lines
of text on that about crossing the 35% threshold to 86% and some points were made about
artificial slopes, but none of those slopes are near the road, so to him that point is moot and
perhaps there are some more creative ways to configure the site to bring that 86% number much
lower. He thinks it'd be beneficial and would counter that the 236’ of the building would leave
most of the slopes and highlight the 70’ facade instead to maintain the economy of scale that
was referenced earlier.
Jennifer Baum wanted to add speaking of wildlife there's a herd of about 40 deer that every night
goes from the ravine on the other side of Dodge Street, go through Happy Hallow Park, come up
across Governor, go up the hill into Deweyville and then on into the cemetery and Hickory Hill.
So, thinking about safety and driving again the more people on that street the more likely deer
are going to get hit.
Sharon DeGraw noticed in reading the staff report there was a fee in lieu paid and she believes
that that means rent, a fee in lieu is the cost of doing business that's going to be passed on to
future renters, making the property more expensive to rent. Also, when a small group of
neighbors did talk to the MMS engineers and asked for a walkway that would connect the
apartment complex buildings to the park as that would be a nice way for people to get to the park
safely, that was turned down. She thinks that's an incredibly important thing that should be
added as somehow in the course of this discussion it was misinterpreted that they were wanting
to keep people away from the park and that's not true at all, they want people to use the park,
they're just trying to figure out safe ways they can access the park.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 22 of 27
Matthieu Bigger wanted to read verbiage from code. In the RM-12, RM-20 and RNS-20 zones, if
any portion of a two family use, multifamily use, group living use, or nonresidential use is located
within 15’of a property that contains an existing single family use, then the portion of the building
located within 15’ of said property may not exceed two and a half stories in height. Bigger is
pretty sure that in all of this there's something that's 15’ away from said property and somebody
should check. Also, a point of sustainability, which the City cares about, if 905/909 North
Governor ought to be razed, the City as a co-applicant, maybe can exercise some light pressure
to please include deconstruction of said houses instead of straight razing and demolition and
sending to the landfill. The house may not have immense historical value but it would be nice to
see if there's elements that could be salvaged for somebody else to use.
Jon Marner (MMS) briefly added a couple of comments based on some of the additional
concerns expressed by the community and the neighbors. Regarding the proposed grade and
the question raised earlier about elevations, the elevation of park at the southeast corner, directly
east from the proposed amenity gathering area, is approximately 745’ and the proposed building
elevation for the finished first floor is 736’ so it sits 9’ below that elevation at the retaining wall.
That's part of how they would accommodate that gathering seating area amenity is to have a
retaining wall out closer to the right of way to allow that seating area and it steps up slowly from
the building and allows that town home entrance for that building. The other question raised was
the existing elevation just north of the basketball court which is about 718’ and it does slope up to
the retaining wall and the existing grade at the bottom of the proposed retaining wall is about
722’ so about 4’ of elevation change just from the property line to the bottom of the retaining wall.
Marner noted it was expressed about the desire to have a pedestrian connection to the park and
that was discussed with staff whether that was desired by Parks and Rec and the understanding
at the time was that the Parks Department did not desire for there to be a pedestrian connection
directly from the units down to the park. There may be an opportunity in the future, via sidewalk
or any potential capital improvements or City improvements to Governor Street, to utilize that
access to come down to the park for this development.
Craig asked how about a pedestrian exit over to Dodge Street, a bicycle or pedestrian trail.
Marner stated they did look at that and it was another consideration but just along the property
line, east of the existing parking lot, there's a dumpster pad with a retaining wall and the grades
on the west part of the site are significantly higher than the east part of the site. Also, that's some
of the areas they’re trying to protect and it would be challenging at best to get a an accessible
path from east to west through the site because of the elevation change.
Audrey Bahrick stated regarding having a trail from the development to the park, to read from
page 50 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan it states there is a requirement to “identify and plan for
the development of trail connections as part of all new developments.” Bahrick stated the
proposed development turns its back on the park offering no designated pedestrian access for
residents of these buildings and that is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan. To assume
that residents would simply walk through the formerly wooded threshold to the park is not
possible because of a retaining wall from 4’ to 13’ high is planned that will separate the
development from the park. She’d like everyone to imagine a parent with a child going to the
park, or a parent with a stroller, or someone with mobility limits, trying to get to that park from this
development, that's just not happening. They need to go out the exit onto Governor Street, and
then there's a sidewalk to nowhere, cross mid-block on a state highway, walk down to Brown
Street, walk across Brown Street a whole city block to get to the entrance of the park, because
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 23 of 27
it's just not accessible from the site. Developments should relate to the amenities, that's also
part of the Comprehensive Plan, that there should be a relationship there, and this development
literally is turning its back on the park.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Quellhorst recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49
acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately
0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions:
1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no
building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat
resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries
established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached.
2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex
as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one
dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the
zone.
3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and
easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer.
4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction
easement on the western 1O' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary
Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and
906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street
shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall
be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Craig seconded the motion.
Quellhorst began Commission discussion wanting to thank everybody for a great discussion
tonight, he made the motion he made because he thinks they need more housing. People pay
too much for housing and a lot of people can't afford to live here so if they want to change that
they need to build more housing units. This is an opportunity to do that, which would bring
housing prices down for all. The land seems very well situated to multifamily development, it's
largely unused, close to two arterial streets, public transportation and a grocery store.
Additionally, if they don't do this it seems likely to that there would be a similar development, but
it would be worse because it would be less well organized and not subject to modern zoning
standards. So for those reasons he supports the motion.
Craig echoed what Quellhorst said would just add that one of the points people made tonight
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 24 of 27
was families, and that maybe they wouldn't be feel comfortable in a one or two bedroom
apartment. She can't remember what the national statistics are, but in Iowa City 40% of the
housing units are for one person so they have to build housing for everybody. She acknowledged
if she had her druthers it'd be a little bit smaller, but it's bringing housing that is desperately
needed. She doesn’t believe it is incompatible with the neighborhood, it's going to fit in and the
people are going to be able to bike, walk and the livability of the neighborhood is increased.
When more people are added more activities happen and she will support the project.
Hensch first wanted to commend everybody and thank them for showing up tonight noting it's
hard to show up in public and speak but he listened carefully to every word said and read every
word submitted in writing. He personally will support this application, and his reasons are
affordable housing. They have to do something and the only way to do that is either lower the
price or increase the supply and this is definitely going to increase the supply. Unfortunately,
since no one is displaced they can't add a condition that there be affordable housing but so
everybody knows, right now there is a steering committee meeting to update the current
Comprehensive Plan, because every 10 years they're required by law to update that, and he’s a
member of that steering committee and will advocate strongly that affordability be included in all
zoning areas, not just Riverfront Crossings and annexations. Just to address a couple issues
people had about traffic concerns, Hensch completely understands that. He’s been in Iowa City
since 1985 and that was an intensive commercial use there, where that office building is, with
probably hundreds of people coming going every day with DHS there, so the traffic flow has
already been seen. Also the idea of an alley access, he respects that being brought up but
doesn’t think that's a good idea because all alley accesses turn into cut-throughs and it leads to
increased speeds, and any residents around there will rue the day that an alley or a cut-through
was put through that property, because people want to go the shortest way they can when
they're getting somewhere, or at least what they think it's the shortest way, and then the people
that live there pay for that. Lastly, because he is the chair, he can’t make a motion or second it,
but would ask that they add another condition if the motion maker and seconder would approve,
to add S3 screening (the highest level of screening) at the base of that retaining wall for the
purpose of making it look green and when people are in the park and look up they just don't see
a bare wall, they'll see foliage, they'll see plants, they'll see vines and beautification. Also, Iowa
City has a horrible problem with graffiti and if they can do anything to keep people from spray
painting that wall, they need to do that. Hensch stated he will be voting yes and hopes that they
can make a consideration for adding another condition to the five that currently exist.
Elliott likes the idea of a consideration for S3 screening and would vote yes with that and if they
could add a consideration for some kind of walkway path to the park.
Hensch noted the Recreation Commission may not have agreed to that nor was it in the
Comprehensive Plan but since the City is a co-applicant it seems they can put as a consideration
that idea because it is very odd there is no sidewalk to get to the park on Governor Street, they
could at least ask that it gets pushed forward to the Recreation Commission to try to get in a
capital plan.
Quellhorst stated there would be a sidewalk to the park, because there's going to be a sidewalk
that runs down Governor as part of the property development. Hensch replied that only goes to
the property line. Craig stated the City has to take responsibility for bringing that sidewalk down
to Brown Street. Quellhorst stated that is outside the scope of this particular proposal and they
cannot saddle the cost to the developer, because it is not their project. Hensch agreed but
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 25 of 27
stated they could at least advocate or communicate to recreation department to consider putting
it in their capital plan at some point, to extend that sidewalk so people can safely get down to the
park. The City is a co-applicant so they can suggest it be presented to the Recreation
Committee, even just by a memo to consider on their capital plan.
Russett stated they can certainly pass along the interest of the Commission to have a sidewalk,
that's probably something the public works department would look at since it's in the public right
of way, but she is uncertain now how they would add it as a condition and not have it be placed
on the owner.
Hensch asked if they can get staff assurance that they will forward that to public works and
Russett confirmed absolutely staff will pass that along.
Regarding adding a condition of S3 screening at the retaining wall Quellhorst thinks screening is
generally a good idea but is not familiar with the cost or logistics associated with that and would
staff any have any position on that. Hensch noted the applicant actually agreed to it already,
they said they wouldn't have no objection to that. Russett confirmed staff thinks it's a reasonable
request as well.
Quellhorst moved to amend the motion to add a sixth condition that S3 screening be
added to the retaining wall. Craig seconded the amendment.
Townsend noted she probably be the only no vote on this one because as she is looking at these
units and the neighborhood, the buildings are huge and, in her opinion, it needs to be
reconfigured as it just doesn't fit in with the look of the neighborhood.
Miller agrees and is all for density and infill, but the scale of the buildings and how they relate to
the street don't feel appropriate, and he doesn’t think it's because of the density they could fit that
many units on this site in a more appropriate way with stepping a little bit more. The explanation
about making the buildings identical is economical but it doesn't feel like the right long term
solution. But he agrees overall and may have designed qualms with it but they’re in an affordable
housing crisis and getting the units is the most important thing at this point.
A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-1 (Townsend
dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 4, 2024:
Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 4, 2024. Townsend seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Townsend nominated Quellhorst for chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion
passed 7-0.
Craig nominated Elliott for vice-chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed
7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2025
Page 26 of 27
Townsend nominated Wade for secretary, Elliott seconded, a vote was taken and the motion
passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted the two rezonings at Western Homes and Cardinal Heights that the Commission
saw a while ago with changes to the OPD were both approved at Council.
Russett stated the next meeting will be on March 5 with no meeting on March 19 due to spring
break.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Quellhorst seconded and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
10/4 10/18 11/15 12/6 12/20 1/17 2/7 2/21 4/3 5/1 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X
PADRON, MARIA X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
WADE, CHAD X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member