Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-05-2025 Planning & Zoning Commission
PLANNING 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(a)-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 Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner Item: REZ25-0003 Date: March 5, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Foster Road Development, LLC 340 Herky St North Liberty, Iowa 52317 (319) 351-2028 gstiltner(a�stillnerelectric.com Contact Person: Ron Amelon MMS Consultants, Inc 1917 South Gilbert St Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 (319) 631-2703 r.amelon(a)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: Y A 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 18Fi 6' u FEssa s� ry�1 rso 161.9B' 30' 125' (2 37'cN 138' n� PT 20 19� 18 PT 15 PT 15 1 a'° w sas F e:tat,1 21 >. r� B � 21' 1959 22 4' 17 aza PT 20 a� subdivision '1'18 ,7r' 713 �O 24 ais S� �g91. } �o �,L 72227� __.961� ass 5.16- A2,y1 717 6 s 9x y�T CT1',, T,.... PT2 its f' 25 >$ 'si. 19 �g0 s. aa N 166. 825 > .si sss 07 N joo m a -i�e1a T /CT?_y ` ry a Resubdirision°( St 835 }SS ways Saubd esion oT P9-6art z3 p_ f 5eRion 3-] y(/q^p A Resubdmnon M TRACT 4 10g 9, a Portion of Lot 30 .gym 25 .. < o-� / 48.Oz, - �co°war'ssbdans�°�� w 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 Conwa 's Subdivision on St. Anne's Drive 750 \ 3a3 B96 928 � 4 Sns`P` 616 355 331 { N 625 95B V3 B35 Y=1 _ 845 r , � 1396 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. 1 anielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps N W+ E REZ25-0003 ~..: :•••. S 691 E Foster Road CITY OF IOWAWA CIT 0 0.010.01 0.02 Miles Prepared By:Sanzida Rahman Setu I I I I I Date Prepared:February 2025 i An application to rezone 0.06 acre of land from High Density Single-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay(RS-1 . L p, p r a OPD to Low Density Residential • i r 1 1 1 ��� -� 691 Foster , CITY OF IOWA CITY 0.010.01 0.0 Date Prepared:February 2025 RS5 RS12 OPD/RS12 WW S12 RS5 E Foster Rd \n RS5 G RS5 � l \\ RS5 i RS5 a RS12 RS5 An application to rezone 0.06 acre of land from High Density q: Single-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay(RS-12/OPD)to Low Density Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-5) "~ s 'N - �P� RS5 ATTACHMENT 2 Forest Hill Estates Final Plat 1 I N RAILIi� IIfi, fct b FOUND 51a��.,)' FOUND IRON N APPLICATION FOR, FINAL PLAT _ 1. _ L11 L12 L13 L14 SCM L18 a FOUND RAIL 1s �,'��' FOUND RAIL1 r yt FOUND RAIL 2018 JUN I I Phi I: .E;I� 4� hbk v FOUND POST FOUND RAIL . / ENGINEEIIING FOREST HILL ESTATES FOUND RAIL rys CITY CLER l � � ...� � . .. � -_ t TY: I O� s f 'I 0 50 100 200 IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, I CONSERVATION LOT 1 FOUND RAIL `} EASEMENT 3.11 AC. - -- "- ' fir " �• , 4 GRAPHIC SCALE z OUTLOT"A" TO BE RESERVED � r1 j _I- FOR CONSERVATION FOUNDJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA . • IRON r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII Illllllllllllllllllllll Iill Ill llllllllilll F},. m / ROD J / 15ti� y Doc ID: 027054350001 Type: PLA LEGAL DESCRIPTION I , • FOND ` Recorded: PLAT Ca - h I �; N `Y / L55 IRON FOUND RAIL Fee Amt: $12.00 Page Itof0I55:15 AM Lu Y STORMWATER MGMT ESMT — `. c� o W a _ __ _ ROD _. Johnson County Iowa z co `O `n / L13z SET PIN Ln __ + A RESUBDIVISION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL'A' AS RECORDED IN BOOK 32 PAGE S2 OF THE RECORDS F w o C7 LLt z w cQv - - - C66 0.06 AC. Kim Painter county Recorder OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; AUDITOR'S PARCEL 'B' AS RECORDED 1N co �- Z p � z I �`'�r � OUTLOT�C �I<62 PG54 ` w w Y X w w m I ,\ G� FOUND PIN �� L401-1 FOUND BOOK 32 PAGE 53 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA RECORDERS OFFICE; A o LOT 2 PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF N CORNER SEC 3 cD ch ca w 0 a � FOUND � / �" :+y—I �t ` 0.20 A6. IRON L134 --- — FCM . � — — — -... — — --- ---- — — IRON 0.92 AC.- j� — --�OUfVD PIN" ► L.45 � � OUTLOT B-ROD SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, A TRIANGULAR PIECE LAYING IN THE NORTH -- --- — ----- — — — — — — "- ROD m 1 FOUND 25 ELEC. ESMT � � � J FOUND PROJECT NUMBER: HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 — - — — - - WHITE— -L51 -SET4Pd� BK1002-60 -- J - l� IRON — 7 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, AND SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, _ '� l �1O�4� I _ L48 I L50 CAP �i=— -�_ ..:. -- L42 .\ ROD. TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80, EXCEPT THAT LAND I � / / _-._.-.1 .____1.5L.ELEC. ESMT CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR FOSTER ROAD AS RECORDED IN BOOK 3058 PAGE 1 OF 1 / // 1 I FOUND - I / 0 FOUND IRISN BK�' 02-59 PIPELINE THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; THE PARCEL DESCRIBED 1N TRUSTEE S 1 CORNER/SEC 34 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ 1 - - - -- - _ _ -- - - - - -I- - - -- - IRON- - - - - - --/ - -FOU D PIN - - - - - -ROD BENT W— — — _ L88 _ I — `. BK225-6 PROJECT NAME: WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 5696, PAGE 474 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON - - -TCM - - - -- -7' - - - W - ROD / FOUND PIN / I ] `\ COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; PART OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST CONSERVATION �� - - -�� ��` j L,29 // /- EX SANITA Y I EASEMENT LBs Lsa �jsi -► // QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; / �� I %'� / I / SEWER ESMT PART OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP SO NORTH, I I E- I ti CONSERVATION }�l / / BK300 415 / � I o � 1 / � � ,�/ L30 EASEMENT RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; PART OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE / / cD w `v` l� - '� FOREST HILL ESTATES CA W I L97 / 11 l 4 m4 M L14 \< ' SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE / /� �7s �f' I 0 I `� j` 1� Nl�l� / -\ �"o I STORM / I L32 �\ 6 WEST LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; AND ALL OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED / ; �� I 1 I Iw I- / LOT 3 t 1 ��y��y // / �� \, SEWER / I 4879-681 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; ALL LOCATED IN ESMT I I I 6.00 AC. / THE CITY OF IOWA"CITY,JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA: L64 m �` d / I G Vg CO \ I 1 � � � 1114R /a" / / ``' FOUND IRONIII I 1 I I o jrpyWA / CONSERVATION I FOUND IP LOT 4 � I I I �9 i L403 STORMWATER / / p1iGM2 � � '� /� /fOUND PIN EASEMENT I i ROD WPC �\ ENGINEER: SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 50.15 ACRES , AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS I l . I Lu � . OF RECORD. o w I i I ILO ;- 0o MGMT ESMT I 9.52 AC. i I r- 1 ! 1 c� I 1 w Li a �'' / /tiy / -;, /.._ -- /OUND IRON L 14 i 1 0 � 1 Q I W ( I �Irn I / L101 / / / o / - / / I ROD YPC — \\ J141 . PROJECT VICINITY MAP � � � �J� I ' I � I� I1 sEwER� � j k� � FOUND PIN 3�� hbk I 1 / EX. SANITARY �, � ¢ I I I ¢ I I SANITARY I � / i // LOT 5 / I C14 r � <,o SEWER ESMT 1=0U DIP roRM / SEWER ESMT n // 6.53 AC. BK300-412 __ ENGINEERING Io,ra River a \ 1 a I STORMWATER I � i � " ° / } \ /o0 3ti / FOUND PIN I MGMTESMTLT-� �.��, ���� �'/ ��'�♦ �� / e °/ \ �� _ HBK ENGINEERING LLC . VTt m 9 / / \ I ° 1 / 41 v .: L71 j�LTz �1 �1=— f l�` — _ _ LL112 11�c 1 - ' Gnu /j/ 3ro \ ' �/ yl �_ - 509 S. GILBERT ST. PROJECT UNDER RD a h �� GJ+ �1 /6� C18 I C4 ` — C79 C2 L126 // CONSERVATION ' / \� UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND IOWA CITY, IA 52240 LOCATION — / �` z ° L23 L110 HUNDREDTHS PHONE: (319) 338-7557 - J "/ �i SET PIN G'{ j/ 4 EASEMENT i - FOUND PIN FOUND PIN �1y \ f NOTES: ATKINSaR L2 — — 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS GPS MEASUREMENTS IN THE IOWA PLANE STORM WATER plc �` / \ COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE NAD 83. Y x nowA arr r�RPORATs uMITs) . MGMT ESMT wy/ \ / G6 T r -- - - - -' 1' STORM I I / SOUND �1 `{s IRON IOWA DEPARTMENT cs4�/ \�s // ' / / SEWER I / V ' // / 2. OUTLOT C TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR PUBLIC OF LABOR / R.O.W. 4u', x.x r 5 r Yr 14 C tom,JdR l ti, i A' 1 45, C - I!V it,RA I h,s LSTORMWAT�R / / / _ — — — L140 (� EASEMENT (` ROD / 'Ykp" Lsz'k\ MGMT ESMT/ FOUND P - ` - " �'� // REGISTRATION / "I -` ` • - / / -u 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS xE x� r,- �� \�s L738 15 a NO. 00527328 t F V :�,ti ',� ;s" OR I / -(ORM SEWER ` STORM WATER I � �C / /� /` FOUND IR6N ti '%~' k s oG I . \ <s / �` / ESMT / I MGMT ESMT I _ROD YP 4. LOT CORNERS ARE "REBAR UNLESS OTHERWIS=NOTED. WWW.HBKENGINEERING.COM G G o / - -- - --- - _ i L135 4137 44 1 o FI}N19R m a FUTURE FOSTER \ \ ROAD E7C1EN510N o m L25J / i 7 L38 `_ �: 5. ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1:10,000. l s� �� ac x I EX SANITARY SEWER ESMT DEVELOPER: MISSION PT E 0 c `� S� I� 1 ! �/ F �/ r f �-- IE \ \ FOSTER ROAD -opp.Z q ARCH ROG r \ ,p/p� 4,o SAMUEL`r1 FOSTER N! OR AR NEAVE AROkJNECT DEVELOPERS, LLC z fAFT SPEEf)NAY `Pp ` CgROLINEVMITING DR - .� �._ .L'•?•,.,x'�_ ._ HESTREET L11 3 0 VNV NOT TO SC I�,�aRweY L9 r NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA FOUNDPosT FOUND RAIL 319-351-6788 PROPERTY OWNER ATTORNEY: I �� I FOUND RAIL <6 OWNER. JAMES D. HOUGHTON - ANDERSON AND HOUGHTON, LLP_.._._ . L7 FOSTER ROAD FO - 568 HIGHWAY 1 WEST I FOUND RAIL FOUND RAIL DEVELOPERS, LLC IOWA CITY, IA 52246 ; , 319-351.•-8600 FOUND RAIL � 340 HERKY STREET OUTLOT "All �R Q NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 t A FOUND RAIL 319-351-6788 23.81 AC. FO N PIN �3 , LL DATE SUBMITTED: .. N�CORNER SEC 3 I FCM MAY 29, 2018 DRAWING LOG REV ISSUED FOR DATE I- A FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL 04/04/18 FOUND PIN z w. FLU L27 1 r I ` w Z) w S a CORNER SEC 34 f 1 \ I SCM PLAT/PLAN APPROVED 1 - - - --- ` =-- - - - - - - - ��- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- _ - - - - -� - - - - - --_ - - - - -- --- - - _ - -- - - -- _ _ _ - - -� ` by the I — -l- �-- . — � -`- -I i r City of Iowa City INDEX LEGEND Location: PART OF SE 1/4 SEC. 34-T80N-R6W ' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND SURVEYING DOCUMENT WAS p PART OF SW 1/4 SEC. 34-T801I CITY CLERK DATE PREPARED AND THE RELATED SURVEY WORK WAS PERFORMED BY ME STANDARD LEGEND PART OF NE 1/4 SEC.3-T80N-R6W IOWA CITY,JOHNSON, IOWA UTILITY EASEMENTS,AS SHOWN HEREON,MAYOR MA T,INCLUDE SANITARY �C lO Al n ���', OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY Boundary Or Property Lane CONSTRUCTION CT ON PLANS FOR DETAILS.R LINES AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES,AND/OR WATER LINES: SEE PROJECT MANAGER: 7 'Y11 , LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA. Existing Lot Line, Internal - Proprietor: FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS N. BETTIS V PO BOX 2208 UTILITY EASEMENTS,AS SHOWN HEREON,ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE INSTALLATION Section Line AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES REQUIRED BY THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: IOWA CITY, IA 52244-2208 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: X ! Right-of-Way __..... — 8 319-351-6788 Q M y THOMAS E. SIGNATURE DATE Easement(Existing) — — — — — Developer: FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS, LLC - /�i Easement(Proposed)" 340 HERKSY STREET w W • HAtG1 ENSEE : c NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 MiDAMERICAN ENERGY CO.' DATE SHEET TITLE: (n 09a89 � � � THOMAS E.HAGENSEE LICENSE NUMBER 09889 Property Corner,Found 0 319 351-6788 : Property Corner,Set (� Surveyor: Thomas E. Hagensee J -p�x Q MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS DECEMBER 31,201 S. FINAL PLAT � . ® Company: HBK Engineering,LLC CENTURYLINK DA,rE . i Section Corner-Found - i PAGES OR SHEETS COVERED BY THIS SEAL: Recorded Dimensions R 509 S. Gilbert St. ��1!!r!!l11y►�� THIS SHEET ONLY IDWaCIty, lOWa52240 Measured Dimensions (M) Return To: Thomas Hagensee, PLS r 509 S. Gilbert St, MEDIACOM DATE Iowa City; Iowa 52240 SKEET: PAGE May 30,2018-11:10am i:lProject11705401dwg1CAD1Plat1170540-FP-Forest Hill Estates UPDATED.dwg f i PROPERTY LINES f . .. N PARCEL CURVE TABLE 201 s Jun 11 pm 1= w'� hbk E I I 1 -� SNGdN88RING : CURVE# LENGTH RADIUS DELTA � � � � CITY CLERK; _-C1, 373,19' 431.45' 49°33'32" f 1Q!FrA CITY, IC1AI/� - C2 58.46' 433.00' 7°44'07° 5- � --. ._�.� � C3 348.95' 317.00' 63-04-16° 0. 50 .100 200I ti } t l ' C4 69.30' 533,00' 7026'59" LOT 1 GRAPHIC SCALE� CONSERVATION EASEMENT LINES -L19 s 3.11 AC. C5 420.62' 533.00 45°12'57" C6 429.59, 467,00' 52042'20" PARCEL CURVE TABLE 1 i CONSERVATION C7 421,61' 383.00` 63004'17" EASEMENT ry CURVE# LENGTH RADIUS DELTA C40 227.16' 240.38' 54°08'43" / C41 i 00.95` 65.89' 87°46'47" / �� - - - - - - ,AC\ EASEMENT LINES c42 163.93' 114.00' 82°23'19" I I � ��� OUTLOT�C PARCEL CURVE TABLE C43 36.19' 152.58' 1303621" Y i LOT 2 ' ---• ' -� / 0.20:.AC. CURVE# LENGTH RADIUS DELTA C44 51.89' 69.11'. 43°01'14" - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - [j - - - - - - - -T -- 0.92 AC.- // - r i - - - OUTLOT1B� PROJECT NUMBER: C10 23.96' 181.50, 7033'54" C45 37.67' 60.89' 35026'36" 17-0540 C11 21.18' 181.50' 6°41'14" L164 L165 L166 L167 _ -.. ---_---_ n C46 35.00' 43.00' 46°38'15" �W -TL- C12 12.57' 181.50' 3056103" / - - - L. �, CONSERVATION I / PROJECT NAME: ^^ 11 IJ 1 / - �' - EASEMENT C13 57.71' 181.50' 18°13'09" - - - - --- - - - - -f - .- - - _._ - - _._. - - - - - - - �I- -�^===1- - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - // �1 C14 1.42' .138.50' 0°35'08" f I C15 20.13' 138.50' 8°19'43" \CONSERVATION FOREST HILL ESTATES � � � 1 i � C16 22.49' 138.50' 9018'19" !� EASEMENT ^% [ � /L1 a v _ - C17 44.04' 138,50' 18013'11" . C18 58.61' 533.00' 6018'01" � � � ;� LOT 3 /' / I CD C 19 70,87' 316.95' 1 ° 1 [ [ / Lj } 1 / - / {°' 2 48 43 L198 -' { I [ [ �7Iic -� `• y f r / 1,/ / // { ENGINEER: C20 38,61' 28.56` 77026'10" Vv�' r r I LOT 4 [ . I✓ -� C21 59.57 63A0 540 1044 9.52 AC. A. C22 159.44' '101.60' 90°00'00" EASEMENT \ y NSERVATION C23 25.48' 24,08' 60037'01" I' (1 I r I // //^��, _j f l / v LOT 5 ENGINEERING C24 58.96` 50.08' 67"2713" I / { i [ 1 } / / 6.53 AC, - 00 C25 91.39' 75.00' 69048'58" I 1 I \ l `- - ~ r �/ I _ - HBK ENGINEERING, LLC 509 S. GILBERT ST. C26 22.64' 82.68' 15041'07" ° , l 1 J,, 11 1 �� ` _ , IOWA CITY, IA 52240 C27 19.35 36.50 30 22 37 I / �� Li84 PHONE: (319) 338-7557 C28 26.73' 55,00' 29055`42" _L16 1 �- C29 26.51` 317.00' 4047'28" r IOWA DEPARTMENT C30 251.58' 317.00' 45028'14" OF o / \ /� � �- �r �. � � � � _ ^ � � r / / / - _ r � C31 136,35' 4311.45' 18°06'25" J \ // �' / / // \ REGISTRATION L y _ NO. 00527328 C32 83,99' 383.00' 12°33'S2" Vd1M+V.HBKENGINEERING.00M C67 45.01' 533.00' 4050'20" i \ / i 1 C J 452 2' 25' 17°12'27" L1fi8 //i - - \ - EE I / DEVELOPER: C68 135.8 f FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS, LLC I. - - _ .....--.. . HE Y , RK STREET 340 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 319-351-6788 �- OWNER: PROPERTY LINES EASEMENT LINES CONSERVATION EASEMENT LINES.. .. FOSTER ROAD. DEVELOPERS, LLC PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE PARCEL LINE TABLE 340 HERKY STREET LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION LINE# LENGTH DIRECTION NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 L1 253.22' N56015'19"E L21 118.69' N1°16'03"W L41 85.12' S15°44'29"E L60 31.68' S62°04'50"E L80 67.41' S18043'20"E L100 4120' S67030'35"E L120 98,36' S8020'55"E L140 275.53' S88°52'53"E L160 171.67' N2035'19"W L180 26.17' N59037'50"W L200 137.95' N5042'35"W 319-351-6788 L2 131.30' S83031'51"E L22 385.54' N33°44'19"E L42 148.31' S89029'51"W L61 61.11' S38051'03"E L81 66,84' N63002'21"E L101 49.59' N88046'00"E L121 136.67' N80039'45"E L141 60.53' S1007'07"W L161 60.50' N87°24'41"E L181 74.96' N22029'25"E L201 68.25' N84°17'25"E L3 122,00` N55022'45"E L23 83.14' S83°11'17"E L43 62.52' N1014'56"W L62 25.63' S78°14'18"E L82 31.63' S26057'39"E L102 20.00' N7033'20"E L122 .27.57' S8020'54"E L142 149,18' N5042'35"W L162 300,00' N2°35'19"W L182 11.90' S32°01'00"E L202 50.45' No°03'50"E DATE SUBMITTED:. k L4 120.33' N3°23'10"E L24 67.36' S46048'57"W L44 18,04'. N1014'56"W L63 20.00` S11045'42"W L83 163.22' S0029'09"E L103 41.65' N82°26'40"W L123 86.59, N82°14'07'E L143 73,26' N19°53'11"E L163 225.00' N17029'44"E L183 37.89' N83°11'21"W MARCH 13, 2018 L5 184.41' N66°41'11"E L25 247.97' N89°56'10"W L45 132.10' N89030'16"E L64 29.38' N78714'18"W L84 34.05' N89029'51"E L104 5.00' S89°29`51,,"W L124 46.41' S7°45'53"E L144 20.00' S70°25'09"E L164 137.85' S89°29'52"W L184 45.24' N83011'17"W DRAWING LOG L6 120,89' S58020'43"E L26 688.01' N2035'19"W L46 20.34' S15044'29"E L65 56.44' S22023'42"W L85 299.46' N0030'09"W L105 91.82' S0030'09"E L125 13.19' S82014'07"W L145 68.82' S19053'11"W L165 337.39' S89029'51"W L185 60.43' S6048'43"W . REV ISSUED FOR DATE L7 148.51' N86029'30"E L27 1570.94` S89025'10"W L47 64.78' 815044'29"E L66 ' 123.00' N38°51'03"W L86 42.50' S89°29'52"W L106 93.51' S78036'55"W L126 7.83' S8020'54"E L146 130.03' S5042'35"E L166 129.74' N89029'51"E L186 47.57' S8020'54"E A FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL 04/04/18 L8 175.27' N53°26'34"E L28 83.14' S83011'17"E L48 700.42' S89°29'51"W L67 94.66' N16008'11"E L87 35.00' N0030'08"W L107 127.80' N29004'50"E L127 92.06' N33044'19"E L147 15.10' S89028'28"W L167 95.44' S89029'51"W L187 12.58' S53028'20"W L9 508.72' N87051'10"E L29 287.93' N33044'08"E L49 485.84' N0030'09"W L68 30.97' S7303711"W L88 130.00' N89029'52"E L108 70.00' S61°15'44"E L128 186.83' N8°20'54"W L148 89.52' S26°34'16"E L168 181.58' N89°56'10"W L188 20.89' S10027'06"W L10 21.14' N83023'15"E L30 603,15' N89028'31"E L50 582.62' N89°29'51"E L69 20.00' N16022'49"W 'L89 35.00' S0030'08"E L109 80.20' S29004'50"W L129 20.00, N81039'06"E L149 20.00' N63009'28"E L169 62.35' N0003'50"E L189 63.16, S45053'42"W L11 78.49' N84049'36"E L31 22.31' S46058'29"E L51 124.34' N89029'51"E L70 43.72' N7303T11"E L90 42.50' S89029'52"W L110 8.10, S8°20'54"E L130 164.69' S8°20'54"E L150 79,65' S26034'16"E L170 76.79' N22023'42"E L190 69.91, S0°00'01"E L12 252.30' S84°59'17"E L32 155.91' S89028'31"W L52 171.11' S2°10'59"E L71 53.90' S84028'08"E L91 299.14' S0030'09"E . L111 36.91' S82°14'07"W L131 70,70' S33002'22"E L171 152.49' N16008'11"E L191 131.22' N2010'59"W L13 442.75' S88600'13"W L33 141.39' S1,039'24"E L53 438.29' S2°1b`59"E L72 61.79' N72014'56"E L92 67.15' S18043'20"E L112 13.74' N7°45'53"W L132 160.80' S89047'32"E L172 66.76' N37032'20"E L192 155.65' S30058'41"W L14 27.5.90' N89054'16"W L34 161.98' S89015'39"W L54 267.18' S2010'59"E L73 203.07' NO°30'09"W L93 74.84' N78036'55"E L113 27.57' S8°20'54"E L133 77.32' N0045'33"E L173 101.74' N63"30"WE L193 87.61' S78°31'57"E PROJECT MANAGER: N. BETTIS L15 163.68' S70047'48"E L35 130.48' S54003'39"W L55 326,75' N90000'00"E L74 287.57' N0°30`09"W L94 99.01, N0030'09"W L114 125.48' S81°20'16"W L134 31.26' N87047'45"E L174 113.50' N33024'56"E L194 73,01' -S89028'31"W DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: - L16 112.36' N58013'50"E L36 .295.17' S53057'49"W L56 42,47' N1°01'49"W L75 84.50' N0030'09"W L95 25,00' N89029'61"E L115 8.67' S81`39'05"W L135 167.26' . N89056'10"W L175 100.95' N17040'24"W L195 244.26' N89028'31"E QM p„o, L17 18.35' S89°30'10"E L37 132.26' S1057'00"E L76 77.16' S89029'51"W L96 110.19' N0030'09"W L116 93.53' N8020'55"W L136 131.04' S18°09'27"W L176 25.58' N69043'25"W L196 156.80, S0044'21"E . SHEET T1TLE: L18 462.52' N89059'20"W L38 962.88' N89°56'10'W L77 28.56' N72014'56"E L97. 66.79' S89029'51"W L117 . 85.29' N71056'13"W L137 31.56' S89056'10"E L177 .36.44' N3018'26"W L197 80.60, N0°00'QO"E CONSERVATION' L19 183.97' S21043'39"E L39 80.56' N1°14'56"W, L78 26,53' S26057'39"E L98 133.90' S0030'09"E L118 20.00' N18°03'47"E L138 69.00' S18°09'26"W L178 48.80' N44053'17"W L198 73.25' N90000'00"E EASEMENTS AND L20 79.97' S89°41'34"W L40 126.99' N88047'17"E . L79 79.90' N63°02'21"E L99 23.71' . N0030'09"W L119 114,44' S71056`13"E IL L139 139,84' S18°09'26"W L179 71.06' N17°34'02"E L199. 335.79' N38038'35"E TABLES hbk SHEET: PAGE 2 May 30,2018-11:16am I:1Project1170540Idwg1CADNPlat1170540-FP-Forest Hill Estates UPDATED.dwg ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials—Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant Statement LOCATION: APPLICANT: REZONING EXHIBIT (OPD12 TO RS5) A PORTION OF LOT 5 OF"AMENDED"FOREST HILL ESTATES, FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC AND A PORTION QUARTER SECTION ST TER OF TOWNSHIP O 340 NORTH KY DRIVE LIBERTY, A PORTION OF LOT 5 OF FOREST HILL ESTATES NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, NORTH LIBERTY,IOWA 52317 RANGE 6 WEST,OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,IOWA Riq CITY,JOHNSON COUNTY,IOWA. IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA LAND SURVEYOR: PROPRIETOR OR OWNER: RICHARD R.NOWOTNY P.L.S FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 340 HERKY DRIVE 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET NORTH LIBERTY,IOWA 52317 3 LEGEND AND NOTE S IOWA CITY,IOWA,52240 PHONE: 319-351-8282 0 - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) DOCUMENT RETURN INFORMATION: DATE OF SURVEY: Ul"/ll O - PROPERTY CORNERS SET Wo �� (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap LAND SURVEYOR 12-30 2024 embossed with "MMS" ) CIVIL ENGINEERS ® — cLIT "X" LAND PLANNERS — PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES LAND SURVEYORS — CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES — RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS — CENTER LINES LOT LINES, INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS POINT OF oO - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED ��� - EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED 1917 S. GILBERT ST. - BEGINNING 0 5 25 50 EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 ' �D C� GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET (R) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS NORTHWEST i OPD12 1��� �� �. 1"=50' (M) — MEASURED DIMENSIONS (319)351-8282 CORNER OF LOT 25 ' C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER www.mmsconsultants.net UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS R65 0� % REZONING DESCRIPTION - (OPD12 TO RS5) R612 ' ' <310 BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 25 of Conway's Subdivision, to Iowa City, Iowa, a in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 253 of the Records of Date Revision REZONING PARCEL' titi'� LOU 24 the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S03°34'39"E, along the west Line of said Lot 2,807 SF 0.06 AC / ' �,53� 5' o o �� , , 25, and the Southerly Projection thereof, 112.47 feet, to a Point on the Northerly N Right-of-Way of St. Anne's Drive; Thence S59 02 57 E, along the Southwesterly Projection D� Lz O�m LOU �� \� of said St. Anne's Drive, 3.63 feet; Thence N30 57 03 W, 94.87 fee; Thence N53 52 27 E, ��' m 55.57 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Auditors Parcel 2025003 contains 2,807 r 00 LOU 5 Y, mN m ���\/ / ��� square feet, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. BOO GDCSU HO��' C���G° �C � LOCATION MAP - N .T.S. / 2 W 5 ' IN AGGGRDANGE WITH TY1E PLAT THEREOF REGGRD "Oa N yc�61 / R65 IN PLAT f500K (2 REZONING EXHIBIT AT PA6E5 109-110 OF THE s� °' ` / LOU l RECORD OF ThE 011NSON COUNTY REC0RDER"5 0�, / / \\ [/ — - // /OFFICE. GL 00 Interstate 80 10 01 so, ' ' OPDYL s0 X v O Cl) / / 1 U 1\159°02'57"E \\ \\ Pl / / 0 3.63' \\ \ O O \ \ RS1201 a — / O M zoo RS12 IOWA CITY N JOHNSON COUNTY �s� IOWA �oOO vv � REZONING PARCEL ^ D D MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. N �C���QD0�0�00� OoF M30 O D D 04 Date: O 1-20-2025 IN AOCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT ThEREOF RECORD IN ^ � Designed by Field Book No: PLAT ROOK 17 AT PAGE 53 OF THE RECORD OF THE\ � r RLA 1401 M 0 ZHNSON COUNTY REGORDER's OFFICE. \ Drawn by: Scale: 0 i `\ RLW 1"=50' - \\ Bolv. Checked by: Sheet No: \\ sh „�� - o RRN 1 \\ \ Elem- Project No: ° \ e _ IC 11619-003 of: 1 � 1917 S.Gilbert Street RA Iowa City,Iowa 52240 MMS Consultants, Inc. m 31sulta 828 msconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net ........ ..... ........... ........... .. ... ............ j February 6, 2025 E City of Iowa City a1 Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City,IA 52240 c i Re, Portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates E c uj On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of Auditor's Parcel 2025003. The auditor's parcel is a small portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates, located on E. Foster Road. The request is to change the zoning from OPD12 to RS5. The applicant wishes to add this parcel to Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision to make it more appealing to a potential buyer. The property being added is in a conservation easement and will not be buildable but will be under the control of the purchaser of Lot 25 Conways Subdivision. 9 The purpose of the rezoning is so property will not have two different zonings. The RS5 zoning is consistent with Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision and the other lots along St. Annes Drive. LA Respectfully submitted, G ii -a ra Ronald L.Amelon, PE LA C T:\11619\11619-003\11619-0031.01-Rezone.docx �J cu GJ C c w U f i r ��_. .® CITY OF IOWA CITY R& MEMORANDUM 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. INN-1 9r, L PRIMARY BUILING MIN. SIDE SETBACK EXISTING PROPOSED T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) 10, 5' T3 Neighborhood General Zone 7' 5' (T3NG) T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS) 5' 5' T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone 5' 5' (T4NM) T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 0' 0' 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. The duplex side-by-side does not allow wings so an update to the duplex standards is not required. EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE Townhomes I Townhomes 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'. BUILDING TYPE STANDA EXISTING "PROPOSED Max. Wing Width 20' 24' House Large Max. Wing Depth 20' 24' Max. Wing Width 20' 24' House Small Max. Wing Depth 20' 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 EXISTING r——————————— —— I I I I I I I I LLL I I I w I CC cc I j I IN NI I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I Main Body Main Body Main Body I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I ------------1---------------1------------ STREET PROPOSED UPDATE r——————————— —————— ——— I I I I I I I I w I I I IW W I IW Ir cc u~i I I I l in I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Main Body Main Body Main Body I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L-----------1---------------1-------------� STREET Key: 0 wing must be offset from this corner 0 wing does not need lobe offset lrom this corner 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 Max. Main Body 48' 60' Duplex Side-By-Side Width (Single Story 8t Rear- Loaded) Max. Main Body 40' 70' Depth 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'. BUILDING TYPE WSTANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE Max. Main Body 32' no change Width 32' Cottage Court Max. Main Body 24' 30' Depth 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'. 10 LCIIIII Vd. am -1 MA10 I IRA3 AMPOSED CHANGE Max. Lot Width 120' no change120' Cottage Court Max. Lot Depth 180' 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 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 (14-21-1-713-2b) 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. PROPOSED CHAN� Width, Clear 15' min Width 12' min Depth, Overall Depth 6' min Elevated < 12" from average finish grade $' min Elevated 12" from 6' min average finish grade EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE I I I I I � I ■ � a rr I � I Setback ROW Street SP[tiack ROW Str=ei Key: (A)-Width (B)-Depth 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 fagade 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. PROPOSED Depth of recessed entries 12" max. Depth of recessed entries 3' max. EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE f, I I � O 4 I I I I Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key: (E)-Depth of Recess Entries 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. EXAMPLE OF SLOPED WALKWAYS (for illustration purposes) �r1 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 fagade 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 ir ALLOWED ENCROACHMEN SETBACK JEATURPq =AR PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED T3 Neighborhood 5' min. 5' max. 3' max. 5' max. 2' max. Edge Zone (T3NE) T3 Neighborhood General Zone 5' min. 5' max. 3' max. 5' max. 2' max. (T3NG) t T4 Neighborhood I 5' min. 5' max. 3' max 5' max. 2' max. Small Zone (T4NS) T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone 5' min. 5' max. 3' max 5' max. 2' max. (T4NM) T4 Main Street 0' min. 3' max. 0' 3' max. 0' Zone (T4MS) L 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. EXISITING PROPOSED CHANGE -----------------I i-----------------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Driveway Width — Curb Cut Width --- -- - -I -- -- ———————————J pip Key: ———- ROW/Property Line 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 (14-21-1-1 E) 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. EE Block Length JIf5CC1 --- 1----- r-----r----T-----r----1-----T-----1 1 I I I I I I I 1 Block Perimeter I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 LOT --L---1---1---1---1---1---J----4 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1cc cc I I I I I I I 1 UJ W I I I I I I I I I UJ w STREET Passage: I I ps. r • I I I I I i I 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 • ' ZONING 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. NO 00k, m �� 1 ; � I lk < iu 1to it f l l 11, IS A ti . ,, 4t !, Ir � ✓ m ®� A This document is for reference DEVELOPING • FORM-BASED ZONING DISTRICTS only.Please see the Iowa City Zoning&Subdivision Codeforfull details. • ni, MEET WITH PLANNING STAFF Contact the Iowa City Development Services- Urban Planning to schedule a meeting to discuss the development process. Anne Russett,Senior Planner p: (319)356-5251 REVIEW DISTRICT PLANS e:arussett@iowa-city.org The South District Plan and Southwest District Plan address the unique issues and opportunities in each district based on extensive community participation. CREATE STREET NETWORK st Southwe South Review the Future Thoroughfare Map for the planned street District Plan District Plan network. Refer to the Zoning Code for the thoroughfare type standards. Southwest South Standards DETERMINE ZONES 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. REVIEW THE ZONING& F_ Southwest Criteria Zones The Zoning Code includes form-based zone information and standards. SUBDIVISION CODES The Subdivision Code includes information related to street design, utilities, public amenities, length and layout of blocks and lots,etc. DETERMINE BUILDINGAfter creating a concept of the street network and determining zone districts,determine what building types will be used for SUBMIT CONCEPT each block based on the relevant zone district. •Staff is available to review concepts prior to formal FOR STAFF application submittal. REVIEW This document is for reference only. SOUTH DISTRICT • , FUTURE , USE MAP Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. 'NJ' r `- Open Space:. r,r P P Farm-based Land Use Designations m _ Public Civic Space - T3 Neighborhood Edge Private Civic Space T3 Neighborhood General a LLLULJ Extension of Existing Public Park/Open Space T3 Neighborhood General-Open - To improve functionality of proposed blocks}-Maybe _T4 Neighborhood Small k s reconfigured to conform to the a istingbaundary if preferred. T4 Neighborhood Small-Open Al Existing Public Park/Open Space T4 Neighborhood Medium Existing&Potential Wetlands/Lagoons t T4-- � Neighborhood Medium-Open T4 Main Street �► o _J ,,. �o � mm ILNO 06 ■ lost, a r � Ibb Mae I 1k. 01, IN r . . . � � ❑� 661 6� � �. 0 50D 1000 FT SOUTH DISTRICT FUTURE THOROUGHFARE MAPD Subdivision Codeforfull details. reference Td Slreel�.L�. ■Cl / 1110C I Net`Noll� w OW 1 Main street without Median:8GROW��n't]�i rkix lEl Pedestrian Z��� :iG�:r■r :I;: ■ ■ r■■a■ R Cw�m i CJ rS�•�R� 1 `r' 11Y Roundabout ■ L LL S rl IY■ 9 rl l I f■ AVE DUE Ir■■MrrO c a 1i I Y. ■■■..��/ ■ r- + 0'ROW 11 ■R■■■r■ � w■h/v/■JLi rr4 dro 111 �' C ^ ^` ^� ExLension of Covered Wagon Drive 111 ';,~L, $�Lr■■M� ■■Y./r■rY� L� �IIIi1 1111111R ii ��'„'���*7 �a ■11111 111111 Ids �� +:; �: .' G::;GG:G:G;:� NIIII 11����■ ` allflllllllllfl ti i +..�.7 64 � L,..Gr � �• ■■ ■■ oe 00 1 b�aaeeo�� G��QGC]G7C � r � ■ eedeonE■6 GQOGO���� 0 500 1000 FT This document is for reference only. SOUTHWEST DISTRICT • , FUTURE , USE MAP Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. ROHRET SOUTH SUBAREA Q8 8 aeope o o �y4aae■� ' °°� "°' a a e�°�•o �$o �~ YL� �57Q��pf S P.O.+� ever •r a r� a■ pea o v 4� E� Av ® 1 Special Thoroughfares two o. a ' a a a a;-1- 8 R was n mo�4v;Q' a 1"6� w s a�a Q E ' q AIkeY :n 'Q, ❑`�a ,qy, ■ o. Passage L 4" 9 a wC e e T e o aud" �eoc❑ �a p ! ! • w o e v a Boma qyp Future Land Use O �. Private Open Space - Public Open Space T3: Neighborhood Edge ) T3: Neghborhood General •, - _T4: Ne�hharhood Small . r `0 3 a T4: Ne hborhood Medium r 11 tl - T4; Main Street 00 Open ♦ School Site Other Chic,., ■, ,,, � Commercial _� 4— [ -Commercial Office ' ®■ qq 0. � 0 � `000 ► , , ., fnGNP 1- > . ~ %Nh p 7 � a .�° ~ �7���� - [n I � •L s 4 r 1.14 015 n.5 75 - � a _ _� gyp. . * �. _ I Miles 6 • DISTRICTUTHWEST THOROUGHFAREFUTURE . This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. ROHRET SOUTH SUBAREA 'p 0 s.■+ v■o n■•'rw�a• aMi,� � 'w ■ ft.3, t - r �w i Thoroughfare Types 0 C e n rq• e +9ya� r.� ; . Alley(20'ROW) ift Passage(20'ROW) b � 9MainStreet w Median(100'ROW;D'Utill[y Easemen[Area] +�■� " $ f.w �® n "a�fi . Neighborhood Street(70'ROW, 10'Utility Easement Area) " 1� ` ■ ap 'v w + `��J� + +�q � - Main Street w/o Median(80'ROW;0'Utifily Easement Area) O [� ■ too o+acnea Avenue 2-No Par N(100'ROW; 15'Utility Easement Area) (0 Avenue 3(100'ROW: 15'Utiliry Easement Area) " +! tip...■y, °� v■ Avenue 5(Undetermined ROW; 15'Utility Easemen[Area) • }II t r■ ;■ ita Future Land Use "` It L , Private Open Space alp Public Open Space •v ° C3 Blocks n 04 r - m 1 A " h > - as A Lc 0.25 ` 0.5 075 4L Miles 4 NEIGHBORHOOD ' This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. A walkable neighborhood environment of detached,small-to-large building � e /"\\ a 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 Required Spaces 1 A Min Max ` Residential Uses Front(Fagade Interior Design Site[F] 25' 35' Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit Zone)1'' Corner Design Site 25' 35' ° 3 or more bedrooms 2 min per unit Side Street (Fagade Primary Building[G] 20' 25' Non-Residential Uses Zone)1'' Accessory Structures[H] 20' ° 1,500 SF None Side Primary Building[I] 10, >1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF afterfirst 1,500 SF Accessory Structures[J] 5' / Setbacks(Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Rear Primary Building[K] 25' ° OO Fronts Accessory Structures[L] 5' House Large 15'min behind face of frontage types or building BuildingWithin Fagade Z whichever is closerto the street[Q] one General Note:the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Front 50% All other building types 50'min[R] Total length of facade required within or abutting the BUILDING e Side Street 20'min[S] facade zone,exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 40% Height Side 5'min[T] Primary Building 1 Rear 5'min[U] (design site width—both side setbacks)x facade zone standard= Stories 2.5 stories max' Characteristics total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone To Roofline' 30'max[C] Curb Cut Width 12'max'[V] Standards Accessory Structure(s)1 Distance between driveways 40'min[W] 06 Carriage House 2 stories max Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with 1.Parkin may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. section 14-2H-7(Architectural Element Standards). Other 1 story max g y y v. Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9'min[D] 2.Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) 1If utility easement is 10'as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type Footprint standards per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards). (14-2H-9),subtract 5'from required setback. Depth,ground-floor space 30'min [E] 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. Standards W 4.Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be 5.A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. paved(except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes)and is subject to the require- 1.Design site coverage defined b max.building size of primary building type allowed and 1 carriage house per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)and Item 5(Building Placement) Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. ments in section 14-2H-8(Frontage Type Standards). standards of this zone. z With 2'planting strip on each side. y y 1 See section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)for refinements to massing and height standards. T i .5 refers to an occupiable attic. -----.-- -----�--.� ) g g g g articnot le 14-9A(General Definitions).e included in the maximum uildin height measurement.See building height n a m , Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage.Solar energy systems shall 4 =1� 12'min.for cottage court building type. 0 � i O i111 0 v N ---------------- IL-----J I Fps fi --- Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Street(Fran[:Narrowest Side) I Key . Buildable Area j Key Key ----ROW/Design Site Line Accessory Structure(s) - ROW Line ----ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area ---Setback Line Facade Zone Row Line Mid-Point of Roof ---Building Setback Line Frontage Type NEIGHBORHOOD ' STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. 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-B.B.5(Frontage Type Standards). BUILDINGS PER UN�TS PER• :•� PRIVATE•• "-,.ALLOWEDFRONTAGE DESIGN SITE BU LDING Min Max Max Max Max Max Separation Offset from Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Width Width MI& Min Max Max Min Max Width Depth Width Depth Between Wings Main Body Area Dimension projecting Engaged Dooryard Stoop House Large 60i1 95' 110iz 180' 1 2.5 1 55' 55i3 20' 20' 15' 5i4 400 SF A A A A Duplex Side-by-Side 60" 75' 100'z 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40i3 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A Cottage Court 90'1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.5' 15 327 24' See Code' See Code' 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. z 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'. °Except when used for parking,front parking setback shall complywith 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. B Max.height to mid-point of roof:18' 7 Max.width of most rear cottage:40',Min.separation between cottages:10' aSee 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards 'See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES OTHER FORM-BASED ZONE STANDARDS ' House Large Duplex Side-by-Side Cottage Court Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard Use Standards alff T ■` "'' * Site Standards ® Civic Space Standards ® Architectural Element Standards Stoop Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards ` Affordable Housing Incentives NEIGHBORHOOD ' STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. 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 7 (Setbacks / Required Spaces Min Max / J Residential Uses Front(Fagade Interior Design Site[F] 20' 30' C ° tz [ �` � Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit Zone) Corner Design Site 20' 30' /- 1, i 3 or more bedrooms 2 min per unit Side Street (Fagade Primary Building[G] 15' 25' Non-Residential Uses Zone)t,' = Accessory Structures[H] 15' �' 1,500 SF None Primary Building[I] 7' ` Side >1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF afterfirst 1,500 SF Accessory Structures[J] 5' ft� Setbacks(Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Primary Building[K] 20' ' Front1 Rear Accessory Structures[L] 5' �OO��� House Small 15'min behind face of frontage types or building Building Within Facade Zone General Note:the illustration above are intended to provide o brief overview of the zone'ond are descriptive in nature. whichever is closer to the street[Q] Front 60% RM All other building types 40'min[R] Total length of facade required within or abutting the BUILDING e Side Street 15'min[S] facade zone,exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 50% Height Side 5'min[T] Primary Building t Rear 5'min[U] (design site width—both side setbacks)x facade zone standard= Stories 2.5 stories max' Characteristics total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone To Roofline' 30'max[C] Curb Cut Width 12'max'[V] Standards Accessory Structure(s)t Distance between driveways 40'min[W] 06 Carriage House 2 stories max Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with 1.Parkin may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. section 14-2H-7(Architectural Element Standards). Other 1 story max g y y v. Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9'min[D] 2.Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) 1If utility easement is 10'as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type Footprint standards per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards). (14-2H-9),subtract 5'from required setback. Depth,ground-floor space 30'min [E] 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. Standards W 4.Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be 5.A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. paved(except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes)and is subject to the require- 1.Design site coverage defined b max.building size of primary building type allowed and 1 carriage house per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)and Item 5(Building Placement) Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. ments in section 14-2H-8(Frontage Type Standards). standards of this zone. z With 2'planting strip on each side. See section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)for refinements to massing and height standards. r 1T �}[ z".5"refers to an occupiable attic. y ) I• I mm I• a Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage.Solar energy systems shall m not be included in the maximum building height measurement.See building height in - h l 14 article 14-9A(General Definitions). I I 0� Q� N °12'min.for cottage court building type. 0 I .. Om�� I I • I --- - L------ I' IT Street(Front Narrowest Side) I Key . Buildable Area j Key Key ----ROW/Design Site Line Acce5sory Structure(5) - ROW Line ----ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area ---Setback Line Facade Zone ROW Line Mid-Point of Roof ---Building Setback Line Frontage Type NEIGHBORHOOD 'AL ZONE BUILDING TYPE STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. 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-B.B.5(Frontage Type Standards). BUILDINGS PER UN�TS PER PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Min Max Min Max Max Max Max Max Separation Offset from Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Width �M Depth Depth` Min Max Max Min Max Width Depth Width Depth Between Wings Main Body Projecting Engaged Door yard Stoop House Small 50" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 1 35' 45" 20' 20' 15' 56 400 SF A A A A Duplex Side-by-Side 60i1 75' 100i2 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40" 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A Duplex Stacked 50" 70' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 36' 40" 15' 20' 15' 5' 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A Cottage Court 90i1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.512 111 32i13 24' See Code10 See Code10 A A A Multiplex Small 70' 100, 110, 150' 1 2.5 3 6 50' 50i5 20' 30' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' A A A A Townhouse(House Scale) 253 125A 100'2 180' 17 2.5 1 18'min$ 50'5 15' 15' 8' 64 SF/building 8' A A A A 30'max 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. 6See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 2Min.depth may be adjusted as follows: 10 See14.2H.6for 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 up 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 12 Max.height to mid-point of roof:18' Plan.Min.depth reduction may not exceed 25'total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 13 Max.width of most rear cottage:40',Min.separation between cottages:10' °Represents 3 townhouses side-by-side or attached. 6 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. House-scale building,2-3 buildings 2-3 individual townhouses max.per row. a Max.width per building:90' ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES OTHER FORM-BASED ZONE STANDARDS House Small Duplex Side-by-Side Duplex Stacked Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard Use Standards Site Standards I i Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse(House Scale) Stoop —` �(�■ -•� � ` � �e�. � �=�- � Frontage Type Standards Ylfl llln 1 W' Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives � rye_ NEIGHBORHOOD ' This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-medium-footprint,moderate -intensity housing choices from cottage court,multiplex small,courtyard building y !.- small to townhouse,supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail and services. BUILDING PLACEMENT Setbacks / Required Spaces Min Max Residential Uses Interior Design Site F 15' 30' Front(Facade g [ ] !� `a,, Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit Zone Corner Corner Design Site 15' 30' 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit a Side Street (Fagade Primary Building 15' 25' Non-Residential Uses Zone)1'2 Accessory Structures[H] 15' /r i ° 1,500 SF None Primary Building[G] 5'Side >1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF afterfirst 1,500 SF 4 Accessory Structures[H] 3' a 0��00 Setbacks(Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Rear Primary Building[I] 15' h= Frond 40'min[Q] Accessory Structures[J] 5' Side Street 15'min[R] Building Within Fagade Zone General Note:the illustration above are intended to provide nef overview of the zone and are descriptive In nature. Side 5'min[S] Front 65% Rear 5'min[T] Total length of facade required within or abutting the a Characteristics facade zone,exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55% Height Curb Cut Width 12'maxZ[U] Primary Building 1 Distance between driveways 40'min[V] (design site width—both side setbacks)x facade zone standard= Stories 2.5 stories max Z Standards total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone To Roofllne3 30'max[C] 1.Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. Standard Accessory Structure(s)1 2.Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) � Carriage House 2 stories max standards per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards). 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Other 1 story max 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. section 14-2H-7(Architectural Element Standards). Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9'min[D] 4.Curb cutwidth along alley may exceed 12'. 1If utility easement is 10'as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type Footprint 5.A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. (14-2H-9),subtract 5'from required setback. Depth,ground-floor space 30'min [E] 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. Standards z With 2'planting strip on each side. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be 1.Design site coverage defined by max.building size of primary building type allowed and paved(except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes)and is subject to the require- carriage house per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)and Item 5(Building Placement) ments in section 14-2H-8(Frontage Type Standards). standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)for refinements to massing and height standards. m } ', z".5"refers to an occupiable attic. � rW T� 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage.Solar energy systems shall t not be included in the maximum building height measurement.See building height in Ir a article 14-9A(General Definitions). 0-11 °12'min.for cottage court building type. III III III � i ii lilli iA[*_ L - ----------------- -------------- , Street(Front.Narrowest Side) Street(Front:Narrowest Side) I Key Buildable Area ' j Key Key ----ROW/Design Site Line Accessory structure(s) - ROW Line ----ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area ---Setback Line 0 Facade Zane now Line Mid-Point of Roof - -Building Setback Line NEIGHBORHOOD ' STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. 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-B.B'(Frontage Type Standards). BUILDINGS PER DESIGN UN�Ts PER MAIN BODY' ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Max Max Max Max Separation Offset from Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Min Width Min Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Area Dimension Dooryard Stoop Width Depth Width Depth Between Main Body Projecting Engaged Cottage Court 90'1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.511 112 32'13 24' See Code' See Code' A A A Multiplex Small 60" 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 630' 50'10 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' A A A A max Courtyard Building Small 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 3 1' 2.5 10 16 100, 100'10 30'width A A A 50'depth 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 2Min.depth may be adjusted as follows: increased by5'. 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. iz Most rear cottage(i.e.cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) Min.depth reduction may not exceed 25'total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 13 Max.width of most rear cottage:40',Min.separation between cottages:10' °Represents 4 townhouses side-by-side or attached. 6 Block-scale building,4-8 individual townhouses max.per row. 6 Max width per building:120' Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15'apart. a See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 9See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES OTHER FORM-BASED ZONE STANDARDS Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse(Block Scale) Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard Use Standards ialff liig - Site Standards ��-- Civic Space Standards iml bilbill — � Architectural Element Standards Courtyard Building Small Stoop uo Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards ` Affordable Housing Incentives NEIGHBORHOOD ' This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. A walkable neighborhood environment with medium-footprint,moderate- \ 1 A 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 i 11, Required Spaces 1, r Min Max ; 1 1 l Residential Uses Front(Fagade Interior Design Site[F] 15' 25' Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit Zone)1'2 Corner Design Site 15' 25' 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit Side Street (Fagade Primary Building[G] 15' 25' Non-Residential Uses Zone)1'2 Accessory Structures[H] 15' ° 2,000 SF None Side Primary Building[I] 5' >2,000 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 2,000 SF Accessory Structures[J] 3' 1 � Setbacks(Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Primary Building[K] 15' � S I Fronts 40'min[Q] Rear Accessory Structures[L] 5' �00 Side Street 15'min[R] Building Within Fagade Zone General Note:the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Side 5'min[S] Front 65% Rear 5'min[T] Total length of facade required within or abutting the a Characteristics facade zone,exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55% Height Curb Cut Width 12'maxZ[U] Primary Building 1 Distance between driveways 40'min[V] (design site width—both side setbacks)x facade zone standard= Stories 3.5 stories maxZ[C] Standards total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone To Roofllne3 40'max 1.Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. Standard Accessory Structure(s)1 2.Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) � Carriage House 2 stories max standards per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards). 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with Other 1 story max 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. section 14-2H-7(Architectural Element Standards). Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9'min[D] 4.Curb cutwidth along alley may exceed 12'. 1If utility easement is 10'as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type Footprint 5.A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. (14-2H-9),subtract 5'from required setback. Depth,ground-floor space 30'min [E] 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. Standards 1 With 2'planting strip on each side. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be 1.Design site coverage defined by max.building size of primary building type allowed and paved(except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes)and is subject to the require- carriage house per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)and Item 5(Building Placement) ments in section 14-2H-8(Frontage Type Standards). standards of this zone. r T y [ 3 lding 5"refers Yos to an oc�uBialble attic. Standards)for refinements to massing and height standards. Typical) measured from average finished g rade along the frontage.Solar energysystems shall — I not be included in the maximum building height measurement.See building height in Ir I I © article 14-9A(General Definitions). v �— II � I I I 4 I I I I I I I I { i III II I II I I I I , ------ L---------�sslt��4i:aferoeotnre�------- -J T I Street(Front:Narrowest Side) iStreet(Front:Narrowest Side) Key . Buildable Area I Key Key - ROW!Design Site Line �\Accessory Structure(s) - ROW Line ----ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area ---Setback Line 0 Facade Zane Row Line Mid-Point of Roof --Building Setback Line NEIGHBORHOOD ' STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. 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-B.B.5(Frontage Type Standards). BUILDINGS PER UNITS PER ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Min Max Min Max Separation Offset Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED —Width _Width Depth.,�h Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Between from Main Area Dimension Projecting Engaged Dooryard Stoop Terrace Forecourt Multiplex Large 75i1 100' 130" 150' 1 3.5 7 12 60' 60i10 20' 40' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' A A A A Townhouse(Block-Scale) 18i3 130'4,6 100i2 180' 16 3.5 112 18'min 50'10 15' 15 8' 64 SF 8' A A A A A 30'max Courtyard Building Small 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 111 3.5 10 16 100, 100'10 30'width A A A A 50'depth Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit—See 14-2H-6C for details 1Min.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. 2Min.depth may be adjusted as follows: 123 max in T4NM-0 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. 5In the open sub-zone,each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 6Block-scale building,4-8 individual townhouses max.per row. 7 Max width per building:100' aSee 14.2H.6for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 95ee 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 by5'. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES OTHER FORM-BASED ZONE STANDARDS Multiplex Large Townhouse(Block-Scale) Courtyard Building Small Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard Use Standards Ago PillVb iaru� ri -� M1 - Site Standards Ir nll r ® Civic Space Standards kiiis — ® Architectural Element Standards Stoop Terrace Forecourt �!►/ Frontage Type Standards ® Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives STANDARDST4MS-T4 MAIN STREET ZONE ZONE This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning& Subdivision Code for full details. A walkable,vibrant district of medium-to-large-footprint,moderate-intensity, �y 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. G BUILDING PLACEMENT 1 Setbacks \ Required Spaces Min Max �y ,7 Residential Uses Front(Fagade Interior Design Site[F] 0' 10' \ i�� � Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit Zone) Corner Design Site 0' 10, \ 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit Side Street (Fagade Primary Building[G] 0' 10, 1l % Non-Residential Uses Zone) Accessory Structures[H] 0' I�. 5,000 SF 0 max Primary Building[I] 0' I >5,000 SF 2 max/1,000 SF after first 5,000 SF Side Accessory Structures[J] 3' 44 Setbacks(Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Primary Building[K] 10' Rear u � O �O 1�� Front' 40'min[Q] Accessory Structures[L] 5' � 0�� Side Street [R] Building Within Fagade Zone General Note:the illustration above are intended to provide o brief overview of the zone and are descriptive nature. 75'from front 25'min[S] Front 80% >75'from front 5'min Total length of facade required within or abutting the a Side 0'min[T] facade zone,exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 70% Height Rear 5'min[U] Primary Building' Characteristics (design site width—both side setbacks)x facade zone standard= Stories 4 stories max Curb Cut Width 12'max' total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone To Roofline' 45'max[C] Standards Accessory Structure(s)' 1.Parkin may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. Standards g v v v. = Carriage House 2 stories max g 2.Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with standards per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards section 14-2H-7(Architectural Element Standards). Other 1 story max p ( g vp )� Ground Floor Ceiling Height 14'min[D] 3.Curb cutwidth along alley may exceed 12'. 2. Utility easement required in alley as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare Footprint 4.A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. type(14-2H-9). Depth,ground-floor space 30'min [E] 'With 2'planting strip on each side. Standards 1.Design site coverage defined by max.building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)and Item 5(Building Placement) standards of this zone. 'See section 14-2H-6(Building Type Standards)for refinements to massing and height standards. � �ti , 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). F 1 mn 01 I � 14 O i i 1 Street(Front Narrowest Side) i Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key Buildable Area . Key Key - ROW/Design Site Line 1 Accessory Structure(s) - ROW Line ----ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area ---Setback Line Facade Zone ROW Line Mid-Point of Roof - - Building Setback Line T4MS-T4 MAIN STREET ZONE BUILDING TYPE STANDARDSThis document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. M = BUILDINGS PER UN�Ts PER• :•� PRIVATE••EN SPACE' ALLOWED FRONTAGE DESIGN SITE BU LDING r III, III Min Max Min Max Max Max Separation Maker BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Width Width Depth Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Width Depth Between Area Dimension Dooryard Stoop Terrace Shopfront Shopfront Gallery Forecourt Arcade Townhouse(Block-Scale) 18i2 220i3,4 100i1 180' 15 3.5 3 18'mint 50i10 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' A A A 30'max Courtyard Building Large 100, 150' 180i1 200' 17 3.5 18 24 100, 140' 3 A A A A 0'depth Main Street Building 25' 150' 100i1 200' 1 3.5 Unrestricted11 200' 120' Not Required Al2 A A Al2 A A A A Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit—See 4-2H-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' Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15'apart. 8See 14.2H.6for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 9See 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 BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES OTHER FORM-BASED ZONE STANDARDS Townhouse(Block-Scale) Courtyard Building Large Dooryard Stoop Terrace Maker Shopfront Use Standards Site Standards fl — ® Civic Space Standards Will! Architectural Element Standards Main Street Building Shopfront Gallery Forecourt Arcade Frontage Type Standards Iry Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives ALL ZO N ES BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OVERVIEW This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections 14-2H-6.8.6(Building Type Standards)and 14-2H-8.8.5(Frontage Type Standards). ALLOWED ZONES DESIGN SITES UNITS PER MAIN BODY' PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 10 ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES �fflm BUILDING Min Max Min Max Separation Offsetfrom BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Width Width Depth Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Max Width Max Depth Between Main Body Area House Large A 60" 95' 110'2 180' 1 2.5 1 55' 55'5 20' 20' 15' 5r6 400 SF porch projecting,porch engaged, dooryard,stoop House Small A 50" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 1 35' 45'5 20' 20' 15' 5'6 400 SF porch projecting,porch engaged, dooryard,stoop Duplex Side-by-Side A A 60" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40'5 225 SF/unit 15' porch projecting,porch engaged, dooryard,stoop Duplex Stacked A 50" 70' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 36' 40'5 15' 20' 15' 5' 225 SF/unit 15' porch projecting,porch engaged, dooryard,stoop Cottage Court A A A 90'1 120' 120'2 180' 3 9 1.512 111 32'13 24' See Code10 See Codelo porch projecting,dooryard,stoop Townhouse(House Scale) A 25'3 125" 100'2 180' 17 2.5 1 18'min$ 50'5 15' 15' 8' 64 SF/ 8' porch projecting,porch engaged, 30'max building dooryard,stoop,terrace Townhouse(Block Scale) A A A 18'3 1308 100'2 180' 116 2.5 117 18'min" 50'5 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' porch projecting,porch engaged, 220 30'max dooryard,stoop,terrace Multiplex Small A A 70'14 100, 110, 150' 1 2.5 3 6 50' 50'5 20' 30' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' porch projecting,porch engaged, dooryard,stoop Multiplex Large A 75" 100, 130'2 150' 1 3.5 7 12 60' 60'5 20' 40' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' porch projecting,stoop,forecourt,terrace Courtyard Building Small A A 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 3 115 2.5 10 16 100, 100'S 30'width 50' porch projecting,porch engaged,stoop, depth terrace Courtyard Building Large A 100, 150' 180" 200' 17 3.5 18 24 100, 140' 30'width stoop,shopfront,terrace,gallery 70'depth 1 Unrestricted" 200' Re- dooryard20,stoop,forecourt,maker shop- Main Street Building A 25' 150' 100' 200' 1 3.5 Unrestricted11 200' 120' quired Not Required front20,shopfront,terrace,gallery,arcade Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit—See 14-2H-6Cfordetails 1 Min.width may be reduced by 10'ifvehicle access is provided from rear. 10 See14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. z Min.depth may be adjusted as follows: 11 Most rear cottage(i.e.cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear ofthe design site)may be a building with up a. It may be reduced by 10'if utility easement is relocated to alley;and/or 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 ofthe Comprehensive 12 Max.height to mid-point of roof:18' Plan.Min.depth reduction may not exceed 25'total. 13 Max.width of most rear cottage:40',Min.separation between cottages:10' 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 14 60'min in the T4NS zone. 4125'-Represents 3 townhouses side-by-side or attached. 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 ofthe 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)ofthe zone. 11In the open sub-zone(T4NM-O),each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 7 House-scale building,2-3 buildings 2-3 individual townhouses max.per row. 1s 160-Represents 4(T4NS)townhouses side-by-side or attached. 130-Represents 4(T4NM)townhouses side-by-side or attached. 220-Represents 8(T4MS)townhouses side-by-side or attached. 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. 9See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 20 Only on neighborhood(side)streets and min.60'from front of design site. ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments DRAFT ZONING CODE TEXT A. Amend 14-2H-1 E, 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-E (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. `"'"QPQ ^""P@I4& 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 4-2H-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. 110' min.2 14-2H-6D 95' max. 180' max. Duplex Side-by- 60' min. 100' min.2 14-2H-6F Side! 75' max. 180' max. i Cottage Court 90' min. 120' min.2 14-21-1-61-1 120' max. 490 200' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-21-1-5) 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)',2 (F) Interior Design Site 25' min.; 35' max. Corner Design Site 25' min.; 35' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building 20' min.; 25' max. (G) Accessory Structure(s) 20' min. (H) Side Primary Building 49 5' min. (1) Accessory Structure(s)3 5' min. (J) Rear Primary Building 25' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 50% min. Side Street 40% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), 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 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 2 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 (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 5' max. 5' max. ' max. 5' max. Stairs X 5' max. ' 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 14-21-1-8 (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: y r-----� I r---4b--, I r------ I I I min. I I I � I ICI ICI I min. I I I I I I© I v T C j Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage T e 3 I I min. � II II I OBI AEI I I I i I i min. min. F W � Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type 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 1 min. per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non-Residential Uses 1,500 sf. None > 1,500 sf. 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' House large 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) All other building types 50' min. (R) Side Street 20' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Sib-Gut 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). 4 (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) GuFb Cut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 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. 100' min.2 14-2H-6E 75' max. 180' max. Duplex side-by- 60' min. 100' min.2 14-2H-6F sides 75' max. 180' max. Duplex stacked 50' min. 100' min.2 14-2H-6G 70' max. 180' max. Cottage court 90' min. 120' min.2 14-2H-6H 120' max. 4-88 200' max. Multiplex small 70' min. 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150' max. Townhouses 25' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K 125' max.4 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 3 townhouses side byside ^r -a++-arhead s 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)' 2 (F) Interior Design Site 20' min.; 30' max. 5 Corner Design Site 20' min.; 30' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max. (G) Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building 7- 5' min. (1) Accessory Structure(s)3 5' min. (J) Rear Primary Building 25' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 60% min. Side Street 50% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), 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 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side-By-Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. 1. 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 (0) 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 14-21-1-8 (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: 6 r-----� I r---4b--, I r------ I I I min. I I I II III III I I i min. I I I I I I© I I imp --)-. I I I I I y I I L-- I I N .—J ---J T C j Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage T e min. I I II III III I 1 04 ,E+ 1 1 I I i min. I I I .I I • I l j mm ©� I � N min. min. F W � Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type 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 1 min. per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non-Residential Uses 1,500 sf. None > 1,500 sf. 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' House small 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) All other building types 40' min. (R) Side Street 15' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Curb-Gut 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-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) GuFb-Sut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 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. 120' min.2 14-2H-6H 120' max. 490 200' max. Multiplex small 70' min. 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150' max. Courtyard building 100' min. 150' min.2 14-2H-6L small 130' max.4 180' max. b. Block-Scale Townhouses 18' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K 160' max.4 180' max. 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 8 (d) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-21-1-5) 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 byside 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)'°2 Interior Design Site 15' min.; 30' max. (F) Corner Design Site 15' min.; 30' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)' 2 Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max. Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building 5' min. kG) Accessory Structure(s)3 3' min. {#) Rear Primary Building 15' min. 04 Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. 4�LLJ b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 65% min. {144 Side Street 55% min {1.4 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), 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 14-21-1-8 (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: 9 a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) 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 14-21-1-8 (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: i----�i I i----- min. I I I C I I I I I O I j © min. i I I y I I i min. i N I I I I I I I I r I I 1 L ---J L-----J I L-----J I Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line 10 I I I I j l i I I I I I I � I I O i © min. i l owl v v j l l i l I r I I f —O Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key - ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line 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 1 min. per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non-Residential Uses 1,500 sf. None > 1,500 sf. 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 15' min. (R) Side 5' min. (S) Rear 5' min. (T) c. Characteristics: 96-Sut 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-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) G6iFb-Slit Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 11 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. 130' min.2 14-2H-6J 100' max. 150' max. Courtyard building 100' min. 150' min.2 14-2H-6L small 130' max. 180' max. b. Block-Scale Townhouse6 18' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K 160' max.4,5 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses side by side r -a++-a,.head 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)' 2 Interior Design Site 15' min.; 25' max. (F) Corner Design Site 15' min.; 25' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max.(G) Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building 5' min. (1) Accessory Structure(s)3 3' min. (J) 12 Rear Primary Building 15' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 65% min. (K) Side Street 55% min (L) c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), 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 14-21-1-8 (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 (0) 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 14-21-1-8 (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: 13 i----�i j i----- min. I I III II � I I I I I I I I I I III II i i 1 I 04.1.E-1 j I j-<-- v min. I I I y I I I min. I N j l I i 1 I r I I Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line li I ill � I I I I I i I i I I I I I I 04 min. I I I Q�I � N I °1 min. I I I I I I min. I N j l I i I I r I I Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key - ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line 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 1 min. per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min. per unit Non-Residential Uses 2,000 sf. None > 2,500 sf. 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 2,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): 14 Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 15' min. (R) Side 5' min. (S) Rear 5' min. (T) c. Characteristics: GuFb Gw Driveway Width 12' max.2 (U) Distance between driveways 48 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-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) C;6irb-C6it Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. 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: Townhouse45 18' mina? 100' mina 14-2H-6K 220' max.�3 4 180' max. Courtyard building 100' min. 180' min.-! 14-2H-6M large 150' max. 200' max. Main street building 25' min. 100' min.1 14-2H-6N 150' max. 200' max. {�} Min. depth may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts a new civic space ) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.{2}Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25' total. 42 Represents 1 townhouse. 23 Represents 8 townhouses side by side ^r -a++-a,.head 34 Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 45 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: 15 a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone) Interior Design Site 0' min.; 10' max. (F) Corner Design Site 0' min.; 10' max. Side Street (Facade Zone) Primary Building 0' min.; 10' max.(G) Accessory Structure(s) 0' min. (H) Side Primary Building 0' min. (1) Accessory Structure(s)i 3' min. (J) Rear Primary Building 15' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 80% min. Side Street 70% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Utility easements requiring in alley as identified by the applicable abutting throughfare type (14-21-1-9) 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 (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3 X 3 X 2-�X 3' max. Stairs X 3 X 2�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 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. 16 Y. Amend 14-2H-2G-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 0 ©� v I Y min. rnui. iniri. v I I Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line _ _ _� _ _ _ _ 0min. ©1ID� I min. Street(Front:Narrowest Side) Key - - ROW/Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line 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 1 max. per unit 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 max. per unit Non-Residential Uses 5,000 sf. 0 max. 17 > 5,000 sf. 12 max./1,000 sf. after first 5,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' 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) c. Characteristics: G6irb G6i 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 14-21-1-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) G6irb G6it Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (4) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 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 Required Findings Adjustment/Amount Allowed Adjustments of Adjustment Design Site Design Site Dimensions (Depth/Width) Decrease in the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. required or increase the an existing feature including, but not maximum allowed. 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. Increase the maximum 1 Demonstrates that one or more of No Limit allowed. 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 18 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). Additional Width with Adiustment Max.Width 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 C-,r acauc Building Within Facade Zone Reduction of the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 20% of the standard. amount of facade building an existing feature including, but not required within the facade limited, to a tree or utility. zone. 2 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. Building Footprint Size of Main Body or Wing(s) Increase in the allowed 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. length or width. 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. 19 Parking ' ^ .A.4 Front Setback! Reduction in the required 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. parking setback. 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. Characteristics Increase in driveway width 1 The adjustment is needed to Up to 18' driveway width access a parking area for a building with 3 or more units. 2 Alley access is not feasible. Screening Maximum Screening Height Increase in the total height 1 There will be little or no impact on Up to 33% of the standard. of screens and the retaining the adjoining properties or the walls that they are mounted surrounding neighborhood. on or attached to beyond 6'. 2 The height is necessary to achieve the objectives of this sub- section or is required for health and safety. Affordable Housing Zones (14-2H-2) Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building type design site minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing depth may be adjusted by units.2 up to 1513; or 2 The adjustment fits the Building type design site characteristics of the site and the width may be adjusted by up surrounding neighborhood. to 15%; or 3 The adjustment is consistent with Minimum amount of facade the intent of the standard building required within the being adjusted and the goals of the facade zone may be Comprehensive and District Plans. reduced by up to 20%. Building Type Standards (14-2H-6) Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building main body and wing minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing standards may units.2 be adjusted by up to 15%; or 2 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the Maximum building height surrounding neighborhood. may be increased by up to 3 The adjustment is consistent with 0.5 stories.4 the intent and the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans. 20 Additional Minor Adjustments Select an additional The Affordable Housing units are An additional minor adjustment each for income restricted to households minor adjustment to each of the two sets of making 50% or less of the Area the minor adjustments for Median Income.2 minor adjustments described affordable housing for Affordable Housing described above. above. ' In compliance with section 14-2H-3 (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 Body': Width 55' max. (A) Depth 55' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 29 24' max. (C) Depth 29 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min.3 (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 21 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 Body': Width 35' max. (A) Depth2 45' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 2G 24' max. (C) Depth 28 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' m in.34(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 Body': Widths 48' max. (A) Depth 3y4 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). 22 (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. garages) the maxim,,m main her rb, epth magi be inrro�cor•! hi F o 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'. a 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 Body': Width 36' max. (A) Depth 40' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 15' max. (C) Depth 20' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min. (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'. 23 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 Body: All Cottages Width 32' max. (A) Depth 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 thFee 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 mayafse be detached `"^th minim-aI separatieRG hehyee.n build) rrs This type is typically IGGated within rvmerlerate to high iRteRsity Reighherheeds er Rear a Reighherheed 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-0; T4MS Primary buildings per design site 1 max. House-scale building,—: attached —2 townhouses min. 3 townhouses max. , detached —2 townhouses minimum - 3 h„ilydiRg te,n,r,he„ses max. per T3NE X T3NG A T4NS X T4N M X 24 T4MS X Block-scale building;_ attached - 4 townhouses min, 8 townhouses max. 4--8 i nrdiyirdi a t-m.1 ices mw per rGw T3NE X T3NG X T4NS A T4N M 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 Body: Width 18' min.; 30' max. (A) Depth2 50' max. (B) Max. width per building 90, 120' 498160' 200' (C) c. Wing(s)': Width 15' max. (D) Depth 15' max. (E) Separation between wings 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-0 and T4MS, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 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 tY fifteen percent (88 15%) minimum with a minimum of one (1) window on the ground floor of each building elevations se. Attached garages are excluded from this standard and calculation. Ground floor glazing on shopfronts shall be seventy- five percent (75%) minimum. 25 KK.Amend 14-2H-8C-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: I ■ ■ p Setback ROW Street I Mir ■ 0 ■ 0 ■ I � Setback ROW Street LL. Amend Table 14-2H-8C-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lear 4& 12' mini (A) Depth, Overall (B) €tevFte� rn average f1TRTGh grade 8, min. €Iev;;ted #e a f sh e U min. Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 2 stories max.1 Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (D) 26 Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 21-1-9). (E) 1 Glear Width reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-21-1-61-1) 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: I I I � I ' I I ®, II ® I � I i -J I Setback ROW Street I I o I I ' I ' I I i -J I I � Setback ROW Street NN. Amend Table 14-2H-8D-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lear 4& 12' min. (A) 27 Depth, Overall (B) frem average f� rRiSh grade A'GTI'T T €Iey�tedfe �er �+� slie 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 6' max. (F) Width 1/3 min. of overall building facade' (G) May not exceed porch clear width ( (A) ) 00. Amend 14-2H-8E-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: I I I I o � I I I r I I � I I I I411111111111111111I ° Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key — — ROW/Design site Line ----- Setback Line 28 i A i I O r I � I � I I 0 I Setback ROW Street SHtbB(k ROW Street Key ---- ROW/Design site Line Setback Line PP.Amend Table 14-2H-8E-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Depth, lea 10' min. 1 (A) Length 15' min. (B) rlic4_nno betweeR gla ^L max /(''\ Depth of recessed entries 42-! 3' max. {DAL Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. {€ LQJ Height of dooryard fence/wall above finish 36" max. {F4 (E) level 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-oamps# steer may lead thP—ss G f "'IL A-F may be parallel te the sidewalk RR. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 29 I I I I I 0 I • A I 0 1 I V I 0 Q . Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key — — ROW/Design site Line Setback Line it I 00 I A I I I � � j Setback ROW Street Se�back ROW Street Key --.— ROW/Design site Line Setback Line SS.Amend Table 14-2H-8F-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lear 5' min. (A) Depth, r� 3' min. (B) Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 1 story max. Finish level above s;0dk average finished 12" min. (D) grade alonq frontage Depth of recessed entries 42-� 3' max. (E) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 21-1-9). (F) TT. Amend 14-2H-8G-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 30 I I j I I*-0 I I n Fri i o ll j I� I nH EAft I I Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW/Design site Line Setback Line II I j HH 10 I I lul 0o Qdt Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Sheet Key — — ROW/Design site Line Setback Line UU. Amend Table 14-2H-8G-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, Glear 15' min. (A) Depth, leaf 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) W.Amend 14-21-1-913-3, 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. 31 c. Sloped walkways shall connect to the public sidewalk or driveway. d. Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements. 4,e. Gates are not allowed. 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 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-,6451 (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: , light fixti irec GaRG Piec and ba'GGniec, awnings, balconies, bay windows, belt courses, canopies, chimneys, cornices, eaves, light fixtures, and windows and door surrounds. ci ih_certinn 14_2l--I_6K (T_GWnhnl ice) 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: 32 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 Length (max.) Perimeter Zone Length (max.) With Passage' Perimeter Length Length With Passage' T3 NE 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max. T3 NG 500' max. 800 max. 1,600' max. 21200' 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 fora 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 admustments 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 33 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: M 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. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be incurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the Property is located. The adjustment requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified. The requested adjustment complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws, and regulations. 34 r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM 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: • Slr Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Steering Committee Presentation & Meeting Results January 22, 2025 Meeting Iowa City Comp 11 rehensive Plan tme•.■r■.■r•.■r�.�r���r.�•r.••r.•rr.•r. ••r.�•r.�•..a•..r■..r•.•r�.■r..■■..■■..rr.err.•r..•r..•r..•r.�•r.�•r.r•.■r•.■r■ .*■�.�r..�r..rr.�rr.•r..•r..•r..•i.f•.a■..r•..��.�r�.■•..�r. Steering Committee Kick-Off Meeting Ja n ua ry 22, 202.5 conFLUEnCE % % NJ ) Meetoing Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Project Scope + Schedule 03, Comprehensive Planning 11 +. Steering Committee Doles + Responsibilities . Existing Conditions Highlight . Visioning Questions 07, What's Net' HFITPHEF JIE HIFE E�► E ,., k Principal-In-charge senior Planner Confluence Confluence �BE1� EIL EBEI Filll �# . Project Planner Project Planner Confluence Confluence Introductions FED Hr ULIbkfd# k ZVI kBEHII a . 1p ,41 senior Lead Planner senior Date An�l�r�t + D�v�l�p�r Introductions What's your name? What's your role in the community? What is your favorite ice cream flavor? PHASE 1: PHASE 2: PHASE : PHASE +: PHASE Existing Public + Establish Draft Plan + Final Plan + Conditions St k h ld Vision + Goads Evaluation Adoption Assessment Engagemen and Kerr Pests PHASE 1: Existing Conditions Assessment - Pre-Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff Public Outreach Plan Kick-Off Meeting with Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (SC) - I eview of Existing Plans City Council Information Meetings - Build-Out Analysis PHASE - Data Gathering and Existing Conditions Analysis Existing Conditions - Project Hell ite Launch Assessment Statistically Valid Community Survey - Existing Conditions Analysis Peview Meeting with S - Existing Conditions Analysis Review Joint Workshop With Pl a nI n Commission and City Council - Existing Conditions Assessment Report PHASE : Public + Stakeholder Engagement - Engagement + Publicity Review with City Staff Interactive Engagement Activities on Welosite - Community Listening Sessions - Stakeholder Interview + Focus Groups Strategic Opportu pity C harettes Special Events PublicPHASE 2: - Public leeting Hew-To Guide Stakeholder - Public Visioning Neighborhood Workshops Engagement - Public + Stakeholder Engagement Review with SC PHASE : Establish Vision + Goals and Key Recommendations Project Goals and Vision Statement - Key I ecommendations Summary Report Department Head Kerr Recommendations Peview Meeting PHASE 3: Establish PHASE : Draft Plan + Evaluation - Vision and Scenario Analysis and Future Land Use Plan Planning Frameworks Draft Plan - Draft Plan F eview Sessions with S Draft Plan Public Open House Draft Plan Joint Workshop with Planning Commission and City Council PHASE 4: Draft Plan + - Public Comment and I eview Period PHASE : Final Plan + Adoption - Final Draft Plan - Planning Commission Public Hearing - City Council Public Hearing - Final Plan Deliverables ExistingPhase 7. Conditions Analysis INNER Project Kick-Off Meeting and City staff November 14, 2024 Public Outreach Plan December 2024 Bi-Weekly Check-In Meetings Ongoing throughout planning process City Council Information Meetings (2-3 Meetings) Ongoing Starting on January 21, 2025 WE ARE HERE E Project Kick-OfP with CPSC (CPSC #1) January 22, 2025 Project Website Launch January 2025 Statistically Valid Community Survey February-May 2025 Existing Conditions Analysis Review Meeting J CPSC (CPSC #2) March 2025 Existing Conditions Analysis Review Joint Workshop wf PC + CC March 2025 Phase 2., Public & Stakeholder Engagement Engagement + Publicity Review with City staff March 205 Online Engagement Begins in March 2025 and oantinues through to adoption Community Listening Sessions (5 meetings) March-May 2025 Stakeholder Interviews + Focus Group Meetings April-June 2025 Strategic Opportunity Charett�s (2 Charettes) Jun�.—July 2025 Special Events (5 events) March-July 2025 Public Meeting How-To Guide Available starting March 2025 Public Visioning Neighborhood Workshops {5 meetings} May-July 2025 PubIIC Input + Survey Results Review w/CPSC (CPSC ##3) July 2025 Phase 3. Establishment of VIslon and Goals _101011111111 Department Head Key Recommendations Review Meeting July 2025 Phase 4: Draft Plan P Evaluation —IT-Illinois I I III I I I I Draft Plan Review Meetings wvf CPSC(CPSC #4-8) September 2025-December 2025 Stakeholder Interview + Focus Group Follow-Ups February 2026 Draft Plan Publ is Open House (4 events) February 2026 Draft Plan Joint Workshop wl PC and CC February 2026 Public Comment and Review Period March 2026 Phase 5. Fina I • • r r tion , ,,,,,,own Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing April 026 City Council Public Hearing May 2026 PC Planning&Zoning Commission CC City Council CPSC Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Co prehensive Plannilng 101 M M9 ComprehensivePlan Defined The comprehen ive Plan i the uidir � policy document for growth and development in the city. It establishes the high-level land use policy vision that informs and guides decisions related to the built environment. Comprehensive Plans are adopted by resolution and are not regulatory. The Comprehensive Plan includes a vision statement and associated goals and strategies that cover a range of topics, including land use, housing, economic development, trai portation, environment and resources, parks and open space, and arts and culture. The Comprehensive Plan also includes a broad community vision statement and incorporates neighborhood design principles that are focused on creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 ComprehensivePlan Elements Focus Future Development & Public Investment Encourage Strong Economic Base Serge as Community Information + Data Hub Analyze Existing Conditions Evolve as Community Changes Establish Goals Guide and Recommend Encourage Community Engagement Identify and Build upon Community Character Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 What t is typically included in a Comprehensive Plan? Mapping (existing conditioner Future Land Use Plan, build-out analysis) - EonmicMarlt Analysis Invntrf existing conditions: - Natural resources open space conservation - Historical / cultural identification and protection - Housing - Economic development - Transportation and mobility - Services and facilities - Goals, policies, and action items Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 What is the role of the Future Lang! Use Plan? 311,I.x i i a << Guides decision making related to , re zonings and development proposals as they are brought to the Planning r - ,- A ommission and City Council � � � � � �. � ` ,.i} -,,�-� � 40 - - i % . r 4 ! Designed to create ideal land use T IL schemes for the future of the cityPhji, . ,ill= r }: �`, � y4� May require modifications over time t adapt to the ever-changing economic I ; ,,I __ environment - <( Last plan was adopted in 2013 - I+.'a Fll'.A 4k�l1nFglry1 ,1�.I �S3 1iL4a � 7NXkf4ixNLMt �' VI,h51�x hrllr�hrn.ir t�p.n 4iun - NdKbh�rn di mim Q WF Fr.eu-r . aaurdi. Future Land Use, Iowa City {t,d: .h n.um,q $eyed au)Panning Df&Kas Comprehensive Plan Relationship • ZoningICLJ� t I`+lv'v �nstrution Pr�serv� Building sensitive Design + Areas F�rr�n standards Id�n�if dequatZoningIntent Permitted provision of Land Uses publio b one servioes reeving Parking R�quirernents Regulations inirr�um ��nt��oaping Requirements Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 What is the role of the Zoning map' << The Zoning Map designates zones - -----— within the it is Corporate Limits << The Zoning Code creates the set of standards and regulations for each ,i~ ` designated zone or development k 'Jiff typology << The Comprehensive Plan establishes a high-level land use policy vision � .Fy that informs and guides decisions M Y is when developing zoningregulations � � < The Zoning Code and Zoning Map aligns with the adopted policy vision r a n d a is with i n the Co onsiv - - PlanEmil rr P roi , P :. Luri1TMp Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 Plan Chapters - Community Vision Statement - Backg rou nd - How We Crow unique oipleneigh nrhood festivals 1 � 43tilQ �A education:� "� � x °S�+ C1p1Land . r 1 4.0 trails eve>nt1�1s .`' 1L 1 , �a� at 1 e fall opted - H o u i n messes j - , i�� bR , w y_ w :ulture hibrt� l f..GY like library g .e..p� .::��,o.,,:towra �cc.saibie 6aca1 - Ecoro n i Development au�tm � � a � a `"" historic �"— - Tra nportation - Environment & Pesources Mlow city - Parks and Open Space 1C2030: Comprehensive Plan Updare Adopted May 14_2013 - Arts and Culture Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 Vision Statement Iowa City is an energetic and friendly community, renowned for its arts and culture, healthcare and education, and distinctive local businesses. The small- town character of our neighborhoods combin d with the big -city vitality of our Downtown and university campus make Iowa City a unique and appealing place for people of a II ares. These assets define our sense of place and are the foundation f our stable economy. Comprehensive Plann *ing 101 Vision Statement Continued - Fostering a resilient local economy that increases the tax base, stimulates job growth, and promotes the overall prosperity and progress of our people; - Protecting and enhancing the environment and encouraging the responsible use of our natural and energy resources; Providing safe and efficient ,nodes of trawl for all in order to ensure the opportunity for full participation in com m u n ity life and efficient use of resources; - Creating attractive and affordable housing for all people—housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our city - Festering communication among owners, redevelopers, and occupants to mitigate the impact of redeveloping existing residential properties - Promoting opportunities for civic engagement and human development for all who call Iowa City homer - Encouraging and supporting collaborative efforts with the University of Iowa, the Iowa City Community Scheel District, Johnsen County, and other neighboring jurisdictions for the rnutuaI benefit of all communities. Steeri ng Committee Doles + Responsibilities Be an advocate for the plan and the public input process M 0 Provide feedback to the consultant team on opportunities, challenges, and goals F ?view draft materials and presentations and provide feedback Engage in the discussion of ideas and visions for the community's future *44 Attend 8 committee meetings and participate in public input opportunities 44, over the next 16 months EExist'ing Cond *it*ions H *Ighl *lghts We gill be analyzing: - A preliminary assessment of issues and opportunities - Community profile with population and housing analysis - An employment and economic analysis - A preliminary transportation assessment - F e u Its of the Bu i Id-Out Analysis at our next Steering rd y �7mple ne l:�#Lgh�o�Laad tfVd t r y I e� liwL k o' in music] r rrVlblr a,,fri ly+ = trans 4. # . evfn-to ? in ndao businessesl a�a«�t �� • culture "#`hb rh ci i Ubrary like ; historic + x 40 PC 910wacity IOWA CITY Climate Action and IC2030. Comprehensive Plan Update -•��""� Adopted May14.2013 Adaptation Plan c�i, , cItY ,,;IJlq* StrategicPlan downtown & riverfront crossings master plan NIIIIIIIPW 2024 a FRI H - - r,, i IF .,, isioning Quest'ipons V 0 0 0 1. What is one word you would use to describe Co aCity? Why de you choose to live in Iowa City? . What has been the let change you have seen in Iowa City in the last five years? +. What do you th ink is Iowa City's greatestCity' asset? S. What are housing-related issues and opportunities in Iowa City? . What are economic development-related issues and opportunities in Iowa City? . What are some transportation-related issues and opportunities in Iowa City? . What are other challenges the community faces? . Who are the key Stakeholders we Should reach out to for this planning effort? isioning Quest'ipons = L What is one word you would use to describe Iowa City? education university town intellectual on-the-move � exciting �, � � 60 � inclusive dynamic Q � :� �� vibrant cultured Q ° � � o � , welcoming home � (D � � accessible lively � arts � o a� 0 V 0 0 0 isioning Quest'ipons IF- Why do choose to live in Iowa City? 1 13 13 1 grew up here My farnil)r is here I work here I go to school General quality Size of the city K-12 schools Housing I do not live here here of life/amenities availability isioning Quest'ipons MM What has been the best change you have seen in Iowa Cityin the last ie years? -Downtown development and -Transportation (Free Mass Transit) -Northside Open Streets redevelopment -Growth mentality -Increased biking lanes -Downtown density growth -Large-scale private student housing -Downtown Street cape Updates -continued' strong downtown -FiImScene at the Chauncey -Farmers Market -Increased diversity -Food dining destinations -Senior housing facilities -World classartits performing here -Harsher Auditorium -People -Faring meter and ramp rate increases -ARPA Funding impartn small -Historic Ped Mall oranizations -ParkMobile parking meter -Heritage and Historic Districts -Growth of arts and ongoing support -Diverse festivals (i.e., Latino Felt, of literature -Affordability Jazz Festival, Iowa Arts Festival) isioning Quest'ipons What think is Iowa City's greatest asset? -Downtown -People/Community -Community organizations members/Pesidents -Arts & Culture -1lalkability -Entitlement pity status for H�Jb -Parks funding -String bureaucracy� ity staff force/Professional Staff -Uniersity of Iowa -HOME/CDBG funding and -Big Ten collegiate city corr�pet itie grant application -Destination for tourists and visitor -Hawkeye tearn spor -pity of Literatures and � rriter -LBT + friendly t -Ioa Firer -Big City feel on a small kale; small -Health are town feel -Educated citizenry Now- Whatisioning Quest'ipons are housi n = related issues and opportunities in Iowa City? -High real-estate taxes -Out of State investors raising cost of -Small number of developers -Lacking affordabili affordable housing ty/Expensive -Rod tape housing -Not enough mixed-use housing -segregation of diverge population -High rent costs -Increase density -Exclusionary coning -High cost of rentals appropriate for -Need for walkable neighborhoods families outside of the downtown college - pportunitie for more diverge drinking gene density downtown-Small rent stock -Parking costs for rentals -Lack of senior living facilities 4-Predatory landlords/La of educational requirements -Need for smaller, denser, and -Lack of a variety of housing type -Manufactured home community attractive SF developers residents exploited -Shortage on homeownership isioning Quest'ipons --Now- What are housi n = related issues and opportunities in loom City? ( -NIMBY' - veraturation of rentals -Integrating professional and social -Need for middle housing - irbnb and State regulation se rvi ces. nearby -mall business encouragement and -student Houir�g -Ruing fiat mod el i needed incentives -Unhoued individuals -Underutiliation of current homes -Need for improved regional -Costly mortgages empty rooms) transportation planning -Propertytaes impact on residential -Increase height limits -Emerging community groups to be and commercial properties -Decrease parking requirements taken as opportunities -Single-ogress buildings -Lack of industrial facilities, operations, and job opportunities isioning Quest'ipons What are economic development- related issues and opportunitiesin Iowa Ci -No mountains, no beaches (hard to -How can we focus on development -Remove red tape and be more attract talent) opportunities that keep money in competitive our onnrnunit and are also ood -Workforce attraction�retentian for the community? -open to growth (Lack of housing, childcare, and transportation) -University of Iowa represents too -Diversify de� eloprr�ent much jabs opportunities -Lack of living wage paging employers -Limited for-profit corporations -Peapl don°t undrtand opt to develop/build -Cost of living -Need to incentivize office workers to work downtown -Uni er ity schedule for leaping -Cost and availability of childcare apartments/homes -Need to be intentional and -Predatory landlords with bloated aggressive / not lean on the -" ed State" lease rates well above mar etvaIue University (Commercial and residential) -Increae the property tax paying profit isioning Quest'ipons What are economic development- related issues and opportunities in Iowa Citp. ( -Slow employer growth beyond -Growth momentum in other -Free fare is great, bike paths are university corridor cities wond rfuI -Increase people of color who own -Lack of availability of mixed-use -Housing is too separated from variety of businesses zoning restaurants and cafes -State policy and regulations -fro destination attractions -Vacant ccmmercial spaces -Lack of affordable and right-sized -fro one vacations to Iowa City -bleed for more investors that arc commercial space people of color -More regionally connected bike -Retaining graduates of the trails - ommercial property tax University isioning Quest'ipons What are some transportation ed Issues and opportunitiesin logo City?, -No protected bike lanes -Major thoroughfares divide community -Critical services that can't be accessed on public transit easily (new drivers license -Connectivity through bus routes -bleed for more crosswalks and safe places office) to cross on major streets -Perception that Iowa City is bike friendly, -Off-road bike trails however it does not feel safe to be on a -neon-car travel to Eastern Iowa Airport bike in many parts of the city (CID) and lack of direct service to CID -nleed for downtown bus transit station/Interchange infrastructure -Lack of stable bus routes from Iowa City -Direct flights impact recruitment of to Cedar Rapids people, businesses, and industries -Good, quality City Streets -Train use -Student parking in neighborhoods -Dynamic pricing for parking meters and ramps -Evening and weekend service options - RANDI C passenger train from Iowa City to cedar Rapids -Priority for E -Lack of public transportation accessibility to neighboring cities -Multi jurisdictional transit in MP 's our -High costs and interest rates size -Car dependent community/Automobile -North Liberty connection to bus route and centric other housing communities/neighborhoods isioning Quest'ipons What are other challenges the community faces? -Budget restrictions and cutting -Conditions of our resources for -R sources to fund our vision services unhousod peoples (E . Shelter -Su pporting critical services offered House -Lack of growth ) through nonprofit service agencies -supporting rye or�nrnunity -Balancing historic preservation with members (Immigrants and -rime rate is increasing encouraging growth refugees) with access to services, _Predatory and out of state -Employment - good jobs equal resources, and community commercial landlords community vitality -Slog growth -Utilization of the Iowa Fiver -Large undocumented community -Misinformation/bad local news _Need to have Universit financial Frith concerns for accesing housing �' and employment -Not enough local workforce in corr�rnitrr�entto increase student trades to match upcornin� demand -Community Not only for Freshman) -Resistance to change -conflicts between Iowa pity°s - or-nmunit resistance to change -Analysis paralysis desired vision and state/federal policies isioning Quest'ipons Who are the key st ke I rs we should reach out to for this I n n i n effort? -Cady Gerlach {Project Better -Fred Newell (bream City) -Members of faith communitles Together) -4Cs of Johnson County -Families served by Open Heartland -Esucha Mi Voz Sloan Immigrant Advocacy Croups -Angie Jordan (youth of -Not just non-profits -Crissy Can anelIi (Shelter House) -Neighborhood Centers of Johnson -Local member-based organizations County -Caitlin Clark -High school students -Johnson County Supervisor -Young voices -Maahir Salih (Iowa Intornational Center -'�oun� profos.sionals rho didn't go to college after In ih school -Bruce Teague -Audrey We ier (Iowa City Bike -Steve Poe ( al noII) Library) What's Next .7 Near-Term - Existing Conditions Analysis Project Website Launch Mid-Term ETC S u rvy Existing Conditions Review Sessions - Stri ng Corte m itt TBD - Joint Workshop - Planning Commissior + City Council May 6, 2025 ExistingPhase 7. Conditions Analysis INNER Project Kick-Off Meeting and City staff November 14, 2024 Public Outreach Plan December 2024 Bi-Weekly Check-In Meetings Ongoing throughout planning process City Council Information Meetings (2-3 Meetings) Ongoing Starting on January 21, 2025 WE ARE HERE E Project Kick-OfP with CPSC (CPSC #1) January 22, 2025 Project Website Launch January 2025 Statistically Valid Community Survey February-May 2025 Existing Conditions Analysis Review Meeting J CPSC (CPSC #2) March 2025 Existing Conditions Analysis Review Joint Workshop wf PC + CC March 2025 Phase 2., Public & Stakeholder Engagement Engagement + Publicity Review with City staff March 205 Online Engagement Begins in March 2025 and oantinues through to adoption Community Listening Sessions (5 meetings) March-May 2025 Stakeholder Interviews + Focus Group Meetings April-June 2025 Strategic Opportunity Charett�s (2 Charettes) Jun�.—July 2025 Special Events (5 events) March-July 2025 Public Meeting How-To Guide Available starting March 2025 Public Visioning Neighborhood Workshops {5 meetings} May-July 2025 PubIIC Input + Survey Results Review w/CPSC (CPSC ##3) July 2025 Phase 3. Establishment of VIslon and Goals _101011111111 Department Head Key Recommendations Review Meeting July 2025 Phase 4: Draft Plan P Evaluation —IT-Illinois I I III I I I I Draft Plan Review Meetings wvf CPSC(CPSC #4-8) September 2025-December 2025 Stakeholder Interview + Focus Group Follow-Ups February 2026 Draft Plan Publ is Open House (4 events) February 2026 Draft Plan Joint Workshop wl PC and CC February 2026 Public Comment and Review Period March 2026 Phase 5. Fina I • • r r tion , ,,,,,,own Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing April 026 City Council Public Hearing May 2026 PC Planning&Zoning Commission CC City Council CPSC Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee 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 En Iert 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 A man 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 Morn ingside-Glendale Neighborhood Neighborhood Representative Mohamed Jore a lWonderful Westside Neighborhood lNeighborhood Representative MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2025 —6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A 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 10' 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 (R313) 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 (R313) zone. The existing R313 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 R313 (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 R313 zoning. Therefore, that is why today the zoning on the subject property is a mix of R313 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 R313 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 R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 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 R313 zoning, which notes that this area is zoned R313 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 fagade 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 10' 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 R313 zoning and if that's a legacy zone not used anymore are there any other parts of Iowa City that still have R313 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 Manner 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. Manner 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 Voyice (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 '/2 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 '/2 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 '/2 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 '/2 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 R313s, 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 R313 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 R313 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' facade 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 10' 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 1014 10118 11115 1216 12120 1117 217 2121 413 511 6126 914 9118 11120 1214 2119 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 -- -- I -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- 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