HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Formal Meeting
Monday, June 27,2005 - 7:00 PM
**City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall **
A. Call to Order.
B. Development Code Item:
· Public hearing on the proposed new Zoning Code (City Code: Title 14).
Amendments to the proposed draft requested at the first public hearing will
be considered.
C. Adjournment
Written correspondence received since the
April 28 public hearing
Zoning Code
Public Review Draft Comment Sheet
The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the
Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission.
Name -'Jql~-C 1)(>(A(".!r'-¡ email: C7'5(~çt-lr'1.ttoc ,CrY4
Mailing address: 4, ''5 AI. (~, I k c/- ZI P code: 52 L Y (
Phone number: 331,- ?7 Z I
THIS IS A: Oquestion Osuggestion .Øcomment REGARDING Section/Page #
I am writing in strong support of the proposed Zoning Code, which is much
needed and long overdue. Not only does it respond directly to the demands
posed by the city's Comprehensive Plan, but it does so in a user-friendly and fair
way that stands to benefit residents while not impeding development. The
proposed Zoning Code offers in reality rather modest changes in what is already
required. In many cases, the new Code does not call for new requirements, but
just more logically regroups existing specifications. Where new regulations are
proposed, they are carefully designed to balance the desires of developers
against the good of the community. I hope that City Council will endorse the hard
work of its Planning and Community Development department and will vote to
adopt this intelligent and reasonable Zoning Code.
rl-¡~- . fl
,Ii II 0.:::;:;,7 ¡J i._
i. ~. u) r..--------·-------·---·--·-..
r<\ ;
ui MAY 1 9 2005 _ 1~~
t....,.......
Deliver or mail to:
OR email:
Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 41 0 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
karen-howard@iowa-city.org
Upcoming Open House Sessions
An 0pþortunity to discuss the code with individual members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Staff
Thurs., March 10
3 - 7 p.m.
Iowa City Public Library
Meeting Room A
Sat., March 12
10 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
City Hall
410 E.Washington St.
Thurs., March 31
3 - 7 p.m.
City Hall
410 E.Washington St.
Public hearing to be announced - check www.icgov.org or call 356-5230
ppdadmlZonlng Code CommentsJndd
'E'
V
V
..c:
II>
Õ
t::
o
''::¡
i3
"
"
..c:
V
"
t:)
"
.....
o
V
"
'Vi
...::.::
V
"
..Q
V
VI
::J
è-
"
II>
VI
V
V
V
t::
"-
'=-
Zoning Code
Public Review Draft Comment Sheet
The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the
Zoning Cod~le uS7fhis form to relay comments to the Commission.
Name J e /1' -I-d email:
Mailing address: 1(1 N.. G/~ ZIP code: 02.2 'f\-
Phone number: ;5 S tt -q 1 ~ (
THIS IS A: Oquestion Osuggestion ~mment REGARDING Section/Page #
I enthusiastically support the revised Zoning Code, which does an
excellent job of helping to implement t2.Îdeas envisioned in the city's
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The simplified, streamlined, and
sensibly updated provisions in the proposed Zoning Code go a long
way towards ensuring that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan-
which include diverse and affordable neighborhoods accessible to
shopping, jobs and recreation; pedestrian-friendly transportation
networks; and protection of the city's natural and historic resources.
The revised Zoning Code will make that Plan a reality and in so doing
will benefit all residents of Iowa City.
re 01"\
.~.,~1 v ¡
,. .--, ,>-? \s \¿¡
¡', ,"-"- >- ,_...,,,-
i U ) í----~-,..,--_·_-
\ ri\.\ ¡ MAY 2 5 2005
U UL
Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 41 0 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city.org
Upcoming Open House Sessions
An opportunity to discuss the code with individual members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Stoff
Thurs., March 10
3 - 7 p.m.
Iowa City Public Library
Meeting Room A
Sat., March 12
10 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
City Hall
410 E.Washington St.
Thurs., March 31
3 - 7 p.m.
City Hall
410 E.Washington St,
Public hearing to be announced - check www.icgov.org or call 356-5230
ppd>dm/Zonlnl Code Comments.lndd
'3'
C )
C )
-t::
VI
~
c:
o
'~
i5
\:)
o
-t::
V
o
1j
o
'-
o
C )
\:)
.¡;;
-"<:
V
o
..c
C )
VI
::J
t-
O
VI
VI
C )
V
C )
c:
4-
'-:::..
-,-..0
Karen Howard
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net]
Friday, May 20, 2005 8:28 AM
Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org
LNA Supports the Proposed Development Code
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission (c/o Karen Franklin)
From: Tim Weitzel, Longfellow Neighborhood Association President
Re: Support for Proposed Development Code
May 20, 2005
This memo is to convey the results of a voice consensus vote regarding support for
proposed development code at the spring general meeting of the Longfellow Neighborhood
Association. The results of that vote were unanimous consent to support that code. If
anything, surprise was expressed that the LNA may not, indeed, have already voiced this
opinion, however the question was raised prior to the first hearing of this code before
the commission whether the letter sent represented only the undersigned or, in fact the
entire neighborhood association. We can now tell you that the entire association has
consented to support that code. Objects regarding the accessory apartments for the new
zoning code would be considered a separate issue. A copy of the minutes of the meeting are
available at your request.
1. Residential Zones
N i ~{ 1 ~'Y'v JtL¿!-{ G ~t-r--
~~~t~~1~.tJ WL~\
-it\\~~ ~ ..¡11-~ Wl~
Proposed Zoning Code
City of Iowa City
.
RS-5 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 60' to 70'. A density bonus of60'
lots is allowed if certain design standards are met. We do not feel this is a "bonus" as 60' foot
lots are currently allowed in the RS-5 zone. The design standards are listed on page 18, #6, and
require an alley unless the garage is set back equal or behind the front façade of the house and
the garage can be no more than 50% ofthe length ofthe front façade ofthe house. This may not
seem like a big deal, but drive around some day and look at all of the homes people have chosen
to build and you will realize how many attractive, comfortable housing designs will no longer be
allowed. The 50% requirement is especially burdensome as it will require a house with a 2 car
garage to be 20 plus feet wide on the non-garage front façade, again eliminating many popular
house plans and potentially forcing houses to be larger and more expensive.
We would recommend a minimum lot of 60', as per the current code, and the garage standards
removed.
A second density bonus of 50' lots is allowed if garages and driveways are accessed from an
alley or private rear lane. We would propose the bonus be lowered to 45' lots if alleys or private
rear lanes are used.
· RS-8 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 45' to 55'. A density bonus of 40'
lots is allowed if garages and driveways are accessed from an alley or private rear lane. We
would propose that the minimum lot size remain at 45', as per the current code, and the density
bonus be changed to 35' lots.
· RS-12 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 45' to 55'. The density bonus allows
30' lots ifthe garage and driveway is accessed from an alley or a private rear lane. We would
propose that the minimum lot size remain at 45', as per the current code.
· On page 18, #6 is the garage design standard as mentioned earlier. It requires the garage design
standards on any lot less than 60' in width. We would propose that this section be removed.
· On page 18, #3, for a single family dwelling, only 1 car is allowed to park in the front setback.
Thus a person with a 2-car garage can have only 1 car parked in their driveway. We feel this is
unenforceable and should be removed from the code.
· The minimum front yard setback has been reduced to 15' in all residential zones. We feel this
presents a problem in that the utility easements are usually in the first 15' ofthe front yard. This
would mean all front landscaping and tress would be in the easement and not likely to be
repaired in the event the easement is needed for repair. We feel the current 20' setback is more
desirable and would even propose an increase to a minimum of a 25' setback which would allow
for larger front yards and the ability for enhanced landscaping. In addition, with the proposed
setback at 15' but garages required to be set back 25', not everyone will want a home design
with the garage 10' behind the front façade of the house and you will thus get a streetscape with
some houses set back 15' and some set back 25' or further. We do not believe this would make
an attractive streetscape.
·
Duplexes and attached single family, commonly called a-lot lines. In the RS-8 zone, the
proposed code only allows duplexes and a-lot line dwellings on corner lots. In addition they must
meet the design standards listed on page 169 and 175-176, including: the main entrance of each
unit must face a different street, the main entry must be demarcated by a covered porch or
canopy or a transom and sidelight windows, the same garage standards as previously discussed,
all windows, doors and roof eaves must be demarcated with 3" trim, all roof eaves must project
at least 12" from the building wall and no unpainted or unstained lumber may be used along any
façade visible from a public or private street.
We feel these design standards are unreasonable and will drive the cost of construction, and
ultimately the price to the consumer, up. We would propose the design standards be removed and
we also propose that duplexes and a-lot line dwellings be allowed by right within the zone, as per
the current code, not just on corner lots. These types of units have become a staple for quality,
market rate affordable housing in Iowa City and surrounding communities.
The same design standards and placement restrictions apply to duplexes and a-lot line dwellings
within the RS-5 zone. We feel restricting these units to corner lots and having each unit face a
different street is acceptable in this zone, however all of the other design requirements should be
removed.
In the RS-12 zone, duplexes and attached single family units are allowed by right anywhere
within the zone, which is great. However the same design criteria apply and we feel should be
eliminated for the above mentioned reasons. In addition, on page 171 additional design elements
are required if you have 4 or more attached units, including where and how much brick you need
on your building and standards for the tront façade and the roofline. We feel these requirements
should be removed as they further drive up the cost of housing.
In several areas of the proposed code, an example being on page 172 under maintenance, it is
required to secure an access and maintenance easement from all lots that abut the a-lot line side
of a dwelling. This is required to be recorded on the deed before the issuance of a building
pennit or occupancy pennit. It is not possible to deed over the property to the consumer before
you build it and thus this requirement can not be met. We propose the access and maintenance
rights be secured in the covenants of the subdivision, as is the current common practice, and this
requirement be removed.
2. Multi-Family Zones
· Under the proposed code, parking is allowed only behind principal buildings and concealed from
view of fronting streets. The current code does not allow parking in the front yard setback area
but allows flexibility to deal with lot topography and corner lots. We would propose parking be
prohibited in front yard setbacks but not required to be behind buildings, as per the current code.
· Page 28, #3c requires that more than 1 building on a lot must be designed to preserve privacy. It
says this can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of
adjacent buildings and units. There are no criteria as to exactly what this means. Windows are
dictated by safety standards and livability issues. If2 multi-family buildings are parallel to each
other does this mean one of the building walls can contain no windows? This would not be
possible. This section needs to at a minimum be better defined and we recommend it be
removed.
This same section prohibits balconies and air conditioning units trom being located along a
building wall that is within 20' of a building wall of an adj acent building on the same lot if that
wall contains window or door openings. Balconies and air conditioning units are by design
within 20' of walls with window or door openings on the building they serve, so why is privacy
important for the adjacent building but not for the adjacent units in the subject building? We feel
this is an unreasonable requirement and we would recommend that this requirement be removed.
.
Page 40, #3b requires an S2 landscape screening standard between any parking spaces where
headlights will shine on a wall containing ground level windows. Even the examples used for
acceptable parking configurations on page 39 have entire building facades that would require the
S2 screening. The S2 screening requires a landscape screen ranging from 2-4' in height and at
least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to a height of no less than 4'. Having entire facades of
buildings where tenants park and enter the building shrouded by 4' tall shrubs in our opinion
poses a serious safety concern. We would recommend this requirement be removed.
.
Page 41, #6 requires entrance doors to individual units located above ground level must be
accessed from an enclosed lobby or corridor. There are many fine apartment buildings designs
that utilize covered stairways and landings to access upper level units. In our opinion this
requirement seems too restrictive and should be removed.
.
Design standards are again found on page 41, section E. These type of design standards lead to
increased construction costs and ultimately higher costs for the residents.
.
Starting on page 42, the design standards in the Central Planning District are very restrictive.
They take up 5 pages and cover items including width of buildings, depth and width of building
modules, window patterns, window sizes, architectural details, such as window and door trim,
decorative banding, stone and tile accents, balcony and stairwell design and location, exterior
building materials, what you will use, how much and where you will put it and the architectural
style of the building. While the Central Planning District is meant to preserve the historic
character of the district, it is a wide reaching district which includes many acres of undeveloped
land in the Northern part of the city. We feel the established historic districts can accomplish the
preservation and historic feel their specific neighborhoods. To have such restrictive, detailed
design standards over such a large area, including large areas of undeveloped land, is
unwarranted.
3. Commercial Zones
· The CN-1 zone, starting on page 68 has some requirements which in our opinion may not be
feasible and are not conducive to commercial uses. The build-to line is set at 5' back from the
front property line and at least 65% of this build-to line must contain a building. This means on a
100' wide lot, at least 65' feet of that lot will contain a building that is no more than 5' back from
the property line. As mentioned before, the first 15' of the front lot is usually reserved for utility
easements. To meet this requirement, in areas already developed utilities would have to be
moved, and in undeveloped areas utilities would need to be placed in a location different from
current practices: We would question if the City Engineering Department and the local utility
companies have been consulted regarding this issue.
This requirement will also force parking to the rear of the lot, or behind the commercial uses.
This is clearly not conducive to a successful small business trying to provide convenience to its
customers. In most successful CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City the building is on the side
or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have easy, convenient access to the
businesses.
By definition, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The proposed code is thus
putting buildings 5' back from the ROW line on the cities busiest streets. We are of the opinion
that this would jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians and would not be
aesthetically pleasing.
Starting on page 71, section L-O we again see building architectural standards. We would
propose that these be removed or modified to be less restrictive.
.
The CB-5 and CB-1 0 zones also have the same design standards found in the CN-1 zone. While
certain design standards seem appropriate in these zones because of the unique nature of our
downtown and the desire to preserve that nature, we need to be certain that the requirements
encourage and promote the revitalization and business health of these areas and are not a
deterrent.
4. Planned Development Overlay Zone
·
As stated in the description and OPD zone should pennit flexibility in the use and design of
structures and land. However, as with the residential zones, we believe that certain design
standards are mandated and that takes away from the flexibility and creativity that should be
allowed. An OPD zoning process should be a tool where the city and developers have an
opportunity to be creative and find new and innovative ways to develop property.
·
Attached single family uses must comply with the design standards mentioned earlier for an RS-
12 zone.
·
Multi-family and duplex uses must comply with the design standards of multi-family zones as
mentioned earlier.
·
All commercial development must comply with the CN-1 standards, which as discussed
previously may not even be feasible.
·
There is an undue emphasis on pedestrian-oriented street frontages with limited interruptions
from driveways. This is a design feature found in a particular design philosophy, but not
necessarily a desired feature in all development design in all situations.
·
Alleys or rear lane access are required on all lots, if the lot dimensions are reduced, unless the
garage standards are met.
·
On page 113, section 2c1, it states that private streets are discouraged, however throughout the
entire proposed code the use of alleys and private rear lanes is encouraged and sometimes
required. It is our assumption that both alleys and private rear lanes are considered private streets
as there is no provision in the code for these to be dedicated to the city. Section 2c3 states that
the developer must submit legally binding papers setting forth the procedures for maintaining
private streets and providing garbage removal and snow removal and how these services will be
paid for. Thus the proposed code encourages and sometimes requires alleys or rear entrance
private streets, but makes the upkeep and routine maintenance the responsibility of the residents,
thus further affecting the affordability of housing. We believe at a minimum, that ifthe city is
going to require alleys, that they should also take responsibility for the routine maintenance and
the long tenn care of those alleys.
L~l )tIV:'-ðj"h ¿tl¡:d/cv ~üI~ ~ 'ill!
fdiJ /¡¿ Auy ~
If we are going to keep the "Sensitive Areas Ordinance" in the
zoning ordinance the following should be considered:
Kar'-fl ,,- J-.wr7~
~~.
øf- Co4.
pU~{p-.-.
~v¡;'
Remove any requirements for a Level II review if the applicant
does not wish to utilize cluster design or otherwise modify the
underlying zone requirements.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS:
C. Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. . . this section needs
to be re-captioned. There is nothing in the section that is
relative to "mitigation" as the terminology is used by the COE
and/or other wetland specialists. Possibly the section would be
more appropriately captioned WETLAND PROTECTION PLAN.
As such this paragraph should be located after the Wetland
Delineation paragraph, so the process is sequential with the
procedures required to determine whether a wetland exists.
E. Wetland Buffer Requirements. . . the opening
paragraph needs to be modified to take in to account the
considerations relative to constructed and/or altered wetlands
where "natural" landscape(s) adjacent to the wetland
probably will not exist.
G. Compensatory Mitigation. . . the references to specific
replacement ratio(s) should be eliminated and replaced with
"as required by the COE" to avoid conflicts and confusion.
G.4.e. The COE has specific monitoring requirements that
must be met. This section does not add anything other than
another level of unnecessary review and should be replaces
with a requirement to provide duplicate copies of the COE
required reports only if there is some reason that the City thinks
there is a need for duplicate jurisdiction.
REGULATED SLOPES:
My personal opinion is that the normal lay person relates
percent slope to degrees of an arc or possibly a percentage of
90 degrees, and has little or no perception of slope.
THERE IS NO CORRELATION.
LOPE LINES
(8;33,},o)· .
WAlBLE STREET GRADE
1
To illustrate this I have prepared a handout for your
visualization. The handout illustrates lines at various angular
degrees in the top half and the same lines labeled with percent
slope in the bottom half.
Demonstration: Top of pole is set at 10 feet and the
ground distance to the ends of the ribbons is 25 feet
Pink ribbon is 40% slope = current protected
slope
Yellow green ribbon is 3 V2 : 1 or 29% = current
allowed grading
Light blue ribbon is 25% slope = current critical
slope
Dark Blue ribbon is 18% slope = current steep
slope
I would like to see the slope section completely re-written to
correlate slopes with degrees of protection. I.E. The greater the
percentage of slope, the greater the degree of constructed
slope protection to be provided. Current "protected slopes"
could be modified as long as the resultant slope is less than
40%. Created slopes in excess of 33% should have specific
engineering to assure stability and erosion control.
If the current format is retained, all references to "Steep Slopes"
should be eliminated. There are no special requirements or
design considerations within the ordinance for steep slopes,
other than a requirement to delineate them on plats/plans.
Raise the thresholds for critical and protected slopes and allow
for:
Critical slopes requirements should coincide with the maximum
allowable grading, without special engineering, in the grading
ordinance. IE 3.5 : 1 or 29%.
Protected slopes should be modified to allow those slopes,
completely contained within the property limits, to be graded
to eliminate the hazards associated with protected slopes. The
buffer requirements, if retained, should only be applied to
· "
slopes in excess of 1 V2 to 1 (65%) slopes, or 2: 1 (50%) slopes
located within 50 feet of an adjacent property.
Wooded Areas:
What is the justification for applying differing levels of protection
for different zones? A tree is a tree whether it is in a
commercial zone or an ID/RRl zone. In my view there is more
justification for providing protection of "Land Mark Trees" than
there is for all of the rest of the information in the woodland
section.
Karen Howard
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net]
Friday, June 17, 20057:42 AM
Bob Miklo; 'Sunil Terdalkar'; Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org
Draft minutes for the P&Z hearing
I just want to make a formal statement that there was no delegate, official
or otherwise, directed to attend the P&Z hearing on April 28.
Had the HPC not been in its own meeting at the time, I would have attended
the hearing and made a note of this fact at the time. It would probably be
useful to make this corretion before the minutes are approved.
Additionally, in reviewing the public draft of code revisions and in
discussion with staff, it is apparent there are sufficient means to
accomodate Mr. McCallum's request that he made in the name of the
commission.
Tim Weitzel, Chair ICHPC
~"1tþdj ~~ it 12-
1
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE ZONING CODE
(and associated provisions in 14-48)
Zones
I
ily Residenti
Single Fam
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
a
-
Proposed Amendment
14-2A
Commission d
staff to draft an
amendment to this effect
for their consideration
rected
Staff is In support of this amendment
In the current RNC-12 Zone, there is a provision that grants
conforming rights to existing multi-family uses, such that they can
be expanded or torn down and rebuilt provided they do not exceed
the legal density in effect at the time the area was rezoned to RNC-
12.
Draft language to keep existing
conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone
conforming
1
We could draft language similar to what we have in the RNC-12
Zone and apply it to existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone
This would grant legal conforming rights to existing conforming
duplexes, but would not allow development of new duplexes on
interior lots in the RS-8 Zone.
Gary Klinefelter
Requestor:
t is not the intent of the new regulations to create numerous
nonconforming uses. The proposed amendment would produce a
solution for existing owners of duplexes and also allow future
development of the RS-8 Zone as a small lot single family zone,
rather than as a duplex zone. In addition, RS-8 zoned areas that
contain a number of existing duplexes will be considered for
rezoning to RS-12.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
this
this making
Staff does not support
change.
The intent of rewriting the RS-8 Zone regulations was to create a
zone that would encourage the development of more affordable,
small lot single family homes. The current regulations encourage
whole areas to be developed as duplexes, thus reducing the
attractiveness of the RS-8 Zone for small, detached single family
homes
In the RS-8 Zone allow duplexes on
both interior and corner lots. Remove
provision that specifies that duplexes
are only allowed on corner lots in the
RS-8 Zone.
2
In the draft, new opportunities for duplexes are provided in the RS-5
Zone on corner lots. Duplexes are also allowed in the RS-12 Zone
and in all the Multi-family Zones. Keeping existing duplexes in the
RS-8 zone conforming and allowing new duplexes on corner lots
will create allow a greater mix of affordable housing types within a
neighborhood.
Requestor: Gary Klinefelter; Steve
Gordon/ Land Development Counci
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff recommends establishing the
minimum lot width at 70 feet in the RS-
5 Zone and allowing it to be reduced
through the bonus density provisions
provided in the new Code. The bonus
density provisions would allow a
subdivision with a mixture of lot widths
from 50 feet on up, provided that
garages were located on the lot so that
they do not dominate the street. Front-
loaded garages are allowed provided
they take up no more than 50% of the
front façade of the home and are not
located forward of the front façade of
the home
In the current Code the minimum lot width in the RS-5 Zone
feet. However, in Iowa City the average lot width in RS-5
subdivisions over the last 10 years is 83 feet. In fact, only 5
subdivisions out of 42 have an average lot width less than 70 feet.
is 60
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements
in the Single Family Residential Zones
(p.16) - In the RS-5 Zone, change the
minimum lot width for detached single
family dwellings from 70 feet to 60 feet.
3
For comparison, in Coralville the minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone
(their equivalent zone to RS-5) is 80 feet. With the increasing
demand for 3-car garages, a lot width of 70 feet is the minimum
necessary to provide room for a house with a three car garage that
doesn't completely dominate the front façade of the home. Even on
a 70 foot wide lot, subtracting 10 feet for the required side yards,
leaves only 60 feet of lot width for the home and the garage. Three-
car garages are 30+ feet wide with driveways and front yard paving
to match. With only a 60-foot lot width very little space remains for
the front façade of the home, for front yard landscaping and trees,
sidewalks, and on-street garking.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Commission indicated
little interest in changing
the minimum lot width for
detached single family
dwellings in the RS-8
and RS-12 Zones to 45
feet.
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration to add a
density bonus provision
that would allow flexibility
for front-loaded garages
on lots less than 55 feet
if they can meet the
garage placement
standards.
Staff recommends establishing the
minimum lot width for detached single
family homes in the RS-8 and RS-12
Zones at 55 feet and allowing it to be
reduced through the bonus density
provisions provided in the new Code.
The bonus density provisions would
allow a subdivision with a mixture of lot
widths from 30 feet on up, provided
that garages were located on the lot so
that they do not dominate the street.
Staff recommends adding a provision
to the density bonus provisions for the
RS-8 and RS-12 Zones that would
allow front-loaded garages on lots less
than 55 feet wide, provided they take
up no more than 50% of the front
façade of the home and are not located
forward of the front façade of the
home.
In today's new home market it is rare that a detached single family
home is built without at least a 2-car garage. The width of a 2-car
garage is 20-24 feet wide. Subtracting 10 feet from the lot width for
the required side yards would leave only 35 feet for the building. A
front-loaded 2-car garage would take up about 2/3 of the front
façade of the home. If all the lots along a street frontage were 45
feet wide, there would be very little space for front entries,
landscaping, street trees, sidewalks, and on-street parking. If a
whole neighborhood is built in such a manner, it would not be very
pleasant or safe for pedestrians nor would it have the residential
character enjoyed by the majority of the existing neighborhoods in
Iowa City.
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements
in the Single Family Residential Zones
(p.16) -In the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones,
change the minimum lot width for
detached single family dwellings to from
55 feet to 45 feet.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
4
For comparison purposes, in Coralville the minimum lot width for
detached single family homes in the R1 (8) and R-2 Zones, which
are equivalent to our RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, is 50 feet.
55 feet is the minimum necessary to allow a 2-car front-loaded
garage that doesn't dominate the front façade of the home
This provides far greater flexibility to
build small lot single family
neighborhoods by riqht than is allowed
in any community surrounding Iowa
Ci~
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to these standards. Changes
to the dimensional standards in the
new code will allow the development of
more attached units by right.
Standards should be established to
ensure that the residential character of
the resulting neighborhoods meet the
expectations and vision expressed in
Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan.
It is not unusual for cities to require certain design provisions for
attached dwellings. With dwellings located so close together,
differences in quality or design of the units is more pronounced and
can detract from the property values in the entire neighborhood.
Iowa City has a much more liberal allowance for duplexes and
attached single family dwellings than surrounding communities.
The standards proposed are not expensive or difficult to meet. A
certain "style" of home is not required. Expensive building materials
are also not required. It should also be noted that currently
townhouses are effectively excluded from single family zones due
to the current lot requirements. Since the lot requirements are
being modified to make it easier to build duplexes, attached single
family houses, and townhouses, it is necessary to address issues of
design, street access, setbacks, and building entrances; all of which
are currently addressed through'the planned development rezoning
process
14-4B-4A-2 and 14-4B-4A-3 and 14-4B-
4A-5 (pp. 168-176) In all the single
family residential zones, remove the
"design provisions" for duplexes and
attached single family (townhouses).
They do not specify which "design
standards" they want removed.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
5
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
this
making
Staff is in support of
change
For comparison purposes, Coralville does not allow duplexes or
townhouses in its single family residential zones. In its Two-Family
Residential Zone, attached single family dwellings and detached
single family dwellings must meet certain design standards that
specify color, roof pitch, and exterior building materials. In
Coralville's Mixed Housing Residential Zone townhouses must meet
these same design standards.
more
Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for
affordable. small-lot single family homes in Iowa City.
14-2A-7A-1. (p.20) Single Family
Bonus Options in the RS-5 Zone -
Change bonus density provision in the
RS-5 Zone to allow lot widths to be
reduced to 45 feet (instead of 50 feet) if
alleys or rear lanes are utilized for
vehicular access
6
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff is in support of making this
change, but believes that other
provisions may be needed to prevent
monotony along street frontages.
Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more
affordable, small-lot single family homes in Iowa City. However, 35
feet is very narrow for detached single family homes. Other design
considerations may be necessary to ensure that homes located so
close together are placed on the lot in a manner that will maximum
privacy and allow for some private open space on the lot. In
addition, given that there will be more dwelling units along a single
street frontage, measures to prevent monotony should be
considered.
14-2A-7A-2. (p.20) Single Family
Bonus Options in the RS-8 Zone -
Change bonus density provision in the
RS-8 Zone to allow lot widths to be
reduced to 35 feet (rather than 40 feet)
if alley or rear lanes are utilized for
vehicular access
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
DeveloQment Council
7
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
this
n support of making
Staff is not
change.
On lots less than 60 feet in width, if front-loaded garages are not
carefully located on the lot, they can dominate the front façade of
the home, cause excessive front yard paving, leave little space for
street trees and front yard landscaping and on-street parking.
Some have suggested that increasing the front yard setback will
solve this problem. However, homes with 2 and 3-car garages that
face the street require wide driveways. Pushing the homes back
from the street only makes it necessary to build longer driveways
and use more paving in the front yard. While there may be a few
more feet in which to plant a tree, the front yard will still be
dominated by paving and blank garage doors.
Remove provision 14-2A-6 (p.18),
which states that "on lots less than 60
feet in width, garages and off-street
parking areas must be located so that
they do not dominate the streetscape.
8
"
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
On larger lots, this is not as much of a concern because there is
more open space to work with. Since most single family
neighborhoods built in the last 10 years in Iowa City were built with
lots greater than 70 feet in width, it has not been much of a
concern. However, in the last several years the City has received a
number of requests to reduce lot sizes and lot widths through the
planned development process. If smaller lots are going to be
allowed by right in Iowa City without having to go through a planned
develogment grocess, garage glacement should be addressed.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not recommend changing
the standards.
Duplexes are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. There
been concern expressed by neighborhood groups that such
allowance will detract from existing and new single family
neighborhoods. However, allowing duplexes on large corner
with certain design provisions in place will ensure that such
dwellings fit into the character of single family neighborhoods and
will also provide needed affordable housing options throughout
Iowa City neighborhoods.
has
an
lots
14-4B-4A-2 (p.168) and 14-4B-4A-5
(p.175) - In the RS-5 Zone, keep the
provision that duplexes and attached
SF dwellings are allowed on corner lots
with each unit facing a different street,
but remove other standards. Requestor
did not specify which standards should
be removed.
9
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration, to allow
"non-required" parking In
a driveway, but
requested that the
language be drafted such
that it wouldn't
Staff is in support of amending the
language to allow non-required parking
to be allowed on a regularly
constructed driveway.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The intent of requiring a front building setback is to maintain some
open space along the front of residential lots. Previous to 1980, no
parking was allowed in the front setback. Around 1978, the current
exceptions were added to the Code allowing some area of the front
setback to count toward a property's required parking.
Remove 14-2A-6C-3 (p. 18) - Parking is
not permitted in the front building
setback, with a few listed exceptions
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
10
encourage more paving
in the front setback.
The provision in the current ordinance and has never been a
problem. The City does not send enforcement officials out to tell
people they cannot park in their driveway. However, if this provision
is eliminated entirely, entire front setbacks will be allowed to be
paved as parking lots for both required and non-required parking.
This would have a deleterious effect particularly in residential
neighborhoods close to the University, where there are many
properties rented to groups of students. Occupancy for single
family rentals and duplexes is directly related to the amount of
parking provided on the lot, so there is an incentive for landlords to
pave over large parts of existing lots so that they can rent to more
students.
While deleting this provision entirely would be a problem, it may be
possible to draft language to clarify that non-required parking may
be located on a driveway that provides access to a required parking
space. That way, residents could park in their driveway, but would
not be allowed to establish a parking lot in the front setback.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft
due to the fact that a
developer can always
establish a setback line
further from the street if
he/she so chooses
Staff does not recommend increasing
the minimum setback.
The Code establishes a minimum setback, but does not prevent
developers from establishing a greater setback along a given street
or within a particular subdivision. If a developer desires a greater
setback, a covenant can be established with the subdivision.
However, establishing a greater minimum setback in the Zoning
Code prevents anyone from establishing a neighborhood with
homes located closer to the street. In other words, the lower the
minimum setback the more flexibility there is to establish whatever
setback is desired by the developer based on the proposed
subdivision design and the topography and physical features of the
land.
Table 2A-2 (p.16) Increase the
minimum setback in residential zones to
25 feet. (In the proposed Code, the
minimum setback for the principal use is
15 feet. In the current code, the
minimum setback is 20 feet.)
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
11
For instance, if a subdivision is proposed with small lots with
vehicular access from an alley and utilities also located in the alley,
allowing homes to be located closer to the street will allow more
space in the rear for yard space, utilities, and the garage. Without
utilities and a driveway in the front, 15 feet is enough room for front
yard landscaQing and street trees.
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration
this
making
Staff is In support of
change.
The intent of this special exception option is to make it possible for
historic properties to be adapted to new uses and preserved over
time. The language can be changed to address this issue
14-2A-7B (p.21) Historic Preservation
Exceptions - Request to change the
word "necessary" within the Board of
Adjustment approval criteria. The
requestor feels that this word may be
interpreted so strictly that it would make
it difficult for most properties to meet the
standard.
12
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration that would
clarify this issue.
Staff is In support of this change
to address this issue
The language can be clarified
Mark McCalhon
14-4B-4A-2i (p.170) 14-4B-4A-3g
(p.172); 14-4B-4A-4a & e. (p.174) -
With regard to maintenance easements
required for zero lot line dwellings, it
was suggested that such easements be
recorded with the subdivision rather
than with the deed to the property.
Reg uestor:
13
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Zones
I
ily Residentia
Iti-Fam
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
Mu
Proposed Amendment
-
14-28
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
this
Staff does not recommend making
change
Eliminating this standard would be a change to the current
ordinance in many multi-family areas.
In the Central Planning District, the PRM, and the RIO Zones
parking is currently not allowed between the building and the street.
This location standard is intended to prevent parking lots between
buildings and the public sidewalk. Since most of the City's multi-
family zones allow a mix of housing types, this standard helps to
prevent large parking lots located along the street and immediately
adjacent to smaller scale homes and duplexes.
14-2B-6C: Location and Design
Standards for Surface Parking and
Detached Garages: Remove provision
that parking has to be located behind
buildings, but keep the provision that
parking may not be located within the
front-yard setbacks.
14
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Keep new standard to provide
maximum flexibility in locating buildings
on a lot, without compromising privacy
and fire safety. Specific suggestions
from the LDC on how to make the
language more clear and objective
welcome.
are
The standard in the current code is that if more than one principal
building is located on a single lot, the buildings must be separated
by a horizontal distance equal to the height of the tallest building.
This means that in most cases buildings have to be at least 25 to 35
feet apart. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that
this was excessive and if efforts were made to locate windows, air
conditioning units and balconies in such a way as to preserve
privacy between dwelling units, then buildings could be located
closer together. This new provision adds flexibility to the Code.
14-2B-4B-3c. Lots with Multiple
Buildings: Remove provisions regarding
designing buildings to maintain privacy
between dwelling units.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
15
Alternatively, leave the standard the
same as in the current code: 14-6Q-2E-
2: Where more than one principal
building is permitted on a lot the
buildings must be separated by a
horizontal distance that is equal to the
heiç ht of the highest building.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
this
Staff does not recommend making
change
This standard is currently in place in the PRM and RIO Zones.
It is intended to keep bright headlines from shining into windows of
a ground level apartment. The S2 screening is a low level screening
of shrubs between 2 and 4 feet in height, which is typical of the size
of shrubs planted outside many homes, multi-family buildings, and
commercial businesses. It is not an onerous standard to meet.
14-2B-6C-3c. (pAD) Remove
requirement for S2 screening between
parking areas and building walls that
contain ground level windows into
dwelling units.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Develogment Council
16
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section
Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are
currently prohibited in the PRM and RIO Zones. They are
strictly regulated in other MF zones
This provision does not preclude exterior stairwells, but states such
stairwells must not be used as the primary means of access to an
upper floor dwelling unit.
14-2B-6D-6 (p.41) Remove the
requirement that access to entrance
doors of any individual dwellings units
located above the ground level must be
provided from an enclosed lobby or
corridor and stairwell.
17
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, THE RIO ZONE, AND THE PRM ZONE.
14-4B-6E (p.41-42): Building Scale
Suggests that these standards are not
necessary and lead to increased costs.
18
The intent of these building scale standards is to break up the
façade of multi-family buildings that tend to be larger than
surrounding residential dwellings, such as single family homes,
duplexes, and townhouses. These regulations help buildings to fit
into neighborhoods where there is a mix of housing types.
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
These regulations were adopted about 5 years ago. They have
been quite effective and resulted in more functional and attractive
multi-family buildings in areas that have a mix of housing types.
14-2B-61 (p.45-46) Additional Standards
in the Central Planning District. LDC
feels that these standards are too
restrictive. Made no specific suggestion
for changes
19
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff feels the new standards will work
better than the existing point system
and will be applied more consistently
over time. Duncan and Associates, the
consultant that analyzed the City's
zoning code, also recommended
making the standards more objective
and easier to administer fairly and
consistently. Staff does not recommend
going back to a point system.
Currently, the Multi-Family Design Standards only apply in the
Central Planning District. Certain standards are mandatory and
some are administered through a point system. The point system
has proved cumbersome and difficult to administer. It was also
difficult for developers to know what was expected, because there
was no guidance on how the various architectural elements should
fit together. Picking and choosing from the point menu would
sometimes result in a building with a hodge-podge of architectural
elements that did not work well together. It also requires that each
building be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
14-28-6 Multi-Family Site Development
Standards. Questioned whether it was a
good idea to substitute the proposed
objective standards for the previous
point system that was administered by
the Design Review Committee. Also
stated the opinion that there was an
over-emphasis on historic features on a
building. No specific changes were
requested.
20
In the proposed draft of the Code the mandatory standards from
current code have been applied citywide. These will be
administered through the site plan review process and will not
require approval by the Design Review Committee. In the Central
Planning District, the PRM Zone, and the RIO Zone, all areas that
currently have design standards that are administered through the
Design Review Committee, Design Review will continue to be
required. Except for 14-28-61 (p.45-46), there are no standards that
refer to historical architectural styles. The standards in 14-28-61 are
only applied in the Central Planning District and will replace the
previous point system
the
Larry Svoboda
Requestor:
The vast majority of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
have nothing to do with history or architectural styles. They
address location and screening of parking areas, location and
design of building entrances, building bulk and scale, and height,
location of balconies and exterior stairways, building materials,
location and screening of mechanical equipment, and design of
storefront commercial space in mixed-use buildings in the RIO
Zone.
It should also be noted that exceptions to these standards are
allowed through the minor modification process both for sites that
are difficult to develop due to the topography and for building
designs that are unique or innovative.
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration that would
change the name of the
RIO Zone to Mixed Use
(MU)
this change
The staff supports making
In the proposed code the RIO Zone has been amended to allow a
wider variety of commercial uses, not just office uses, as well as a
whole variety of residential uses. Changing the name of the zone to
Mixed Use may more accurately describe the nature of the zone
Change the name of the Residential-
Office Zone (RIO) to Mixed Use Zone
(MU).
21
Nila Haug
Requestor:
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration, but to
ensure that there is a
step-down provision for
properties located
adjacent to a SF Zone
or an existing single
family use.
Staff supports making this change,
provided buildings are required to step-
down to 2-1/2 stories within 15 feet of a
property that contains an existing Single
Family Use or a property that is zoned
Single Family Residential.
Since the RIO Zone allows both single family residential uses and
commercial uses to locate side-by-side, this height limitation is
intended to prevent large commercial building overshadowing next
door residential dwellings.
Eliminate the provision in the Code that
restricts buildings to 2-1/2 stories in the
Residential/Office Zone
22
However, in the proposed code there is a height step-down
requirement in all the multi-family zones when buildings are located
adjacent to single family dwellings or single family zones. With
these provisions in place, the RIO restriction to 2-1/2 stories may
not be as necessary.
Nila Haug
Requestor:
Zones
Commercial
14-2C
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
-
Proposed Amendment
Commission directed staff
to draft an amendment for
their consideration, that
would make "Community
Service - Shelter Uses"
special exceptions in all
zones, exception the CB-
5 Zone. They also
requested that staff look
into what kinds of zoning
standards other
communities have in
place for shelter uses.
Staff supports making the proposed
change in the CI-1 Zone and also
supports re-examining how shelters
are approved in other zones as well
Transient housing is currently only allowed by special exception In
the CI-1 Zone. In the proposed Code there are a number of zones
where transient housing was changed from a use that is allowed by
special exception to a provisional use. If the Commission is going
to re-examine the decision in the CI-1 Zone, it might be a good idea
to re-examine all the zoning districts where a similar change to
provisional approval is proposed.
to a
14-
14-2C - Table 2C-1 (p.55) Change
"Community Service - Shelter" back
Special Exception in the CI-1 Zone.
Make changes accordingly in Article
48.
this
Many requested
Requestor:
change
23
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the current
ordinance.
Staff does not recommend making
this change
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
the
prior to
areas built
CN-1
There is an exemption provision for
adoption of these standards
The current standard for an arterial street ROW is 100 feet. A two-
la'ne arterial would typically have a 34-foot pavement width. A four-
lane arterial with a center turn lane would typically have 60 feet of
pavement. So even with a multiple-lane arterial and a 5-foot build-
to line, the buildings would still be a minimum of 25 feet from the
street pavement, leaving ample space for street trees and safe
pedestrian amenities. Since the sidewalk is located in the public
ROW, the separation between vehicles in the street and
pedestrians along the sidewalk is not affected by the fact that the
buildings are located closer to the ROW. The LDC seems to be
advocating for parking lots located close to the ROW instead of
buildings, which would leave pedestrians to negotiate between
street traffic on one side and parking lot traffic on the other. Since
neighborhood commercial areas are intended to serve residents of
adjacent neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is likely to be
more significant. The build-to line and other building bulk standards
are intended to foster more pedestrian-friendly commercial areas.
14-2C-7E (p.69) CN-1 Zone Build-To
Line: Question the need for the build-to
line standard and whether it creates a
problem for CN-1 zones that are
already developed. They also question
whether establishing a built-to line five
feet from the ROW line is a good idea if
the frontage is along an arterial street.
24
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the current
ordinance.
Staff does not recommend making
this change
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The intent of these parking location standards is to encourage
neighborhood commercial areas that are conducive to walking and
biking as well as vehicular traffic.
14-2C-7F (p.69) CN-1 Zone location of
parking and loading areas. Questioned
provision that states that no more than
35 percent of the street frontage of a lot
may be comprised of off-street parking
spaces that are located between the
building and the street.
25
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
Development Council.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the current
ordinance.
Staff does not recommend making
this change
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
These are standards to promote pedestrian-friendly retail
commercial areas. Many communities across the country have
adopted similar standards to promote attractive, pedestrian-friendly
neighborhood commercial areas.
14-2C-7L - 70 (p.71-72) - CN-1 Zone
building standards for street-level
windows, building bulk, building
entrances, and balconies. LDC
requests that these be removed.
26
Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land
DeveloQment Council.
Commission directed staff
to draft amendments for
their consideration. They
indicated interest in
adopting standards for big
box stores, similar to what
is proposed for the
proposed Walmart.
Staff is not opposed to exploring
options for regulating big box retailers,
but will take direction from the
Commission about whether to draft
amendments for the new zoning code
or undertake it as a separate work
project in the future.
A number of new standards were added to the Code for commercial
areas: new screening standards for parking lots; new design
standards for large parking lots; standards for outdoor storage and
display; new standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
circulation. However, other than in the CN-1 Zone, there are no
standards that regulate the size, bulk, and façade articulation of
commercial buildings. Standards are currently in place in the CB-5
Zone and proposed in the CB-10 Zone to prevent development that
would damage the pedestrian-friendly character of the downtown
14-2C: Commercial Zones - Request to
establish standards for large
commercial retailers ("big box" retailers)
to keep such developments compatible
with the character of the community, to
reduce large parking lots, and to
provide better pedestrian amenities.
27
14-2C-8H. (p. 75) Drive-Through
Facilities (in the CB-5 and CB-10
Zones). Allow drive-through facilities by
special exception in the CB-1 0 Zone
particularly for banks.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the current
ordinance.
Staff does not recommend making
this change
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Garry Klein
Requestor:
28
Drive-through facilities are not currently allowed in the CB-5 and
CB-10 Zones, since they are auto-oriented uses that require curb
cuts onto busy downtown streets and would require significant
areas of a site to be devoted to vehicle maneuvering. Such
facilities may erode the pedestrian-oriented character of the
downtown by creating incentives to replace active building uses
with driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas
Marc Moen
Requestor:
The downtown currently contains numerous banking establishments
that exist without drive-through facilities. Most of these banks have
branches in other areas of town that contain drive-through facilities
to serve their customers needs.
Commission directed staff
to draft an amendment for
their consideration making
some allowance for such
facilities in the CN-1
Zone.
Staff is in support of making
change, provided there are 1
on the height and specific
requirements for camouflaging the
facilities. Alternatively, the Code could
be amended in the future after some
additional research and discussion
this
mitations
n the new code, a number of changes were made to clarify the
regulations for communication towers based on recommendations
from a joint committee of staff and communication providers from
Iowa City and surrounding communities.
14-2C: Commercial Zones - Allow
stealth cell tower facilities (towers that
look like flag poles, light poles, etc.) in
Neighborhood Commercial Zones.
29
U.S. Cellular
Tim Lynch
Requestor:
Overlay
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff
Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
Planned Development
Proposed Amendment
-
14-3A
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
Staff does not
recommend making
any changes to this
section.
There is no provision in the code that requires alleys to be private rather than public.
The City Code, through the planned development process and through subdivision
regulations provides a means by which land for public improvements is dedicated to the
City (See 14-3A-4F & G. Dedication of Public Right of Way and Streets. See also the
subdivision regulations, which are in a separate part of the City Code.)
Subsection K, referenced by the LDC, applies when a developer is specifically
requesting private streets, including private rear lanes or alleys. In the event private
streets are requested, certain standards must be met in order to provide for
maintenance and services. The reason that the ordinance states that private streets are
discouraged is because once they are built, residents, not aware that they are private
streets, assume that the City is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the streets
and will often call to complain when services and maintenance are not properly
provided.
14-3A-4K-2. (p.112) Modifications to
Street Standards. Mr. Gordon stated
that he and the Land Development
Council assume that alleys and rear
lanes are considered private streets as
there is no provision in the Code for
these to be dedicated to the City. They
object to this because when streets or
alleys are private, maintenance,
garbage and snow removal is the
responsibility of the private owners
through a homeowner's association or
similar entity and they feel this
increases costs to the consumer.
30
Commission
indicated little
interest in making
this change to the
draft.
Staff does not
recommend making
these changes.
In the current planned development regulations, any variations from the requirements
and standards of the underlying zoning designation must be specified on the plan and
approved. However, in the current code it is unclear what the underlying zoning
requirements are. In the proposed code, the provisions make clear what those
underlying standards are. Standards that might otherwise be difficult to find in other
places in the code are listed in this section for clarity and ease of use. If, for example,
the underlying zoning is RS-5, the planned development ordinance allows you to build
a whole variety of housing types and commercial uses as well. Since townhouses,
duplexes, multi-family buildings, and commercial uses are not generally allowed in the
RS-5 Zone, it is difficult to determine what zoning standards would apply. The
proposed code contains basic standards for duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family
buildings that are fairly standard across all the zones. For clarity and ease of use, the
applicable standards are referenced here. Since any commercial development
proposed for property zoned residential must be small-scale in order to fit into a
residential planned development, applying the CN-1 zone standards seems the most
appropriate.
14-3A-4 (starting on p. 104) Approva
Criteria
The LDC feels that certain design
standards are mandated which takes
away from the flexibility and creativity
that should be allowed in a planned
development. They refer to the
following:
· Attached SF uses must comply with
the standards for the RS-12 zone,
· MF uses and duplexes must comply
with MF site development standards
· Commercial development must
comply with the CN-1 Zone site
development standards.
31
Note that for planned developments where the underlying zoning is commercial, the
qeneral commercial site development standards apply, not the CN-1 Zone standards.
In the current code, planned developments are not allowed on land zoned commercial
so this is a new allowance that creates more opportunities for creative commercial
development in the community.
the proposed
Land
Requestor: Steve Gordon/
Development Council.
No specific changes to
draft were proposed.
Keep in mind that through the planned development process, developers have great
latitude to request land uses and modifications to the underlying zoning requirements
that are not allowed in the standard zones, but city officials and decision-makers and
developers need to know what the underlying standards are before they can be
modified or varied. Subsection 14-3A-4K (p.109) contains the procedures and
standards for requesting modifications to the underlying zoning requirements. In
addition, there is also an overarching "exceptions" section that allows modifications to
the approval criteria (See 14-3A-7 on p. 115).
Unlike the current ordinance, the provisions of Article 14-3A state clearly what
standards are applicable to the property, making it much easier to submit a complete
application with fewer deficiencies. This should help to streamline the process for all
involved. In addition, the Article 14-3A provides maximum flexibility to request
modifications to those standards for creative and innovative subdivision designs.
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
14-4A: land Use Classification
Proposed Amendment
Commission directed staff
to draft an amendment for
their consideration.
Staff recommends making
this change
The requestor is veterinarian. In discussions at one of the Commission's open
house sessions, he mentioned that there is a need for overnight
accommodations within some veterinary facilities in cases where animals
need around-the-clock monitoring and care.
Since the list of accessory uses for each land use category is not intended to
be exhaustive of all of the types of accessory uses that might exist, sleeping
accommodations for vet clinics would not necessarily be excluded. However,
adding the language requested will provide additional information and
clarification
14-4A-4B (p.147) Animal-Related
Commercial Uses - Request to add
language to this use category definition
to make it clear that overnight sleeping
facilities for staff would be allowed as
an accessory use in veterinary
establishments.
32
Allan Berger
Requestor:
14-4C: Accessory Uses
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff
Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
Proposed Amendment
Commission indicated
little interest in
disallowing accessory
apartments or creating
new location standards
The Commission
indicated that they
would like to see how
the new stricter
enforcement standards
proposed in the draft
work, before any
additional restrictions
are considered.
Staff does not
recommend
eliminating the
opportunity for
accessory
apartments or
creating additional
location standards
for such uses
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Sometimes called "granny flats," accessory apartments provide the opportunity for a homeowner
to provide semi-private living quarters for an elderly or disabled relative, a nanny, or other
person seeking affordable housing. Currently, the Zoning Code allows accessory apartments on
any single family owner-occupied property, either within the principal structure or in an
accessory structure (such as a garage), provided certain conditions are met. While accessory
apartments have been allowed for a number of years, there are only a handful of property
owners that have taken advantage of these provisions.
14-4C-2A. (p.198) Accessory
Apartments. Disallow
accessory apartments in the
RS-5 and RS-8 Zones.
Alternatively, change the
provisions to restrict accessory
apartments to large lots or lots
that back up to public open
space
33
Following is a list of the changes proposed to the accessory apartment regulations
· Accessory apartments would not be allowed in the RNC-12 Zone. (They are currently
allowed in any single family home in any zone.)
· Currently, at least one person residing on the property must be disabled or elderly. In the
proposed code this restriction has been removed, but maximum occupancy on the
property is still limited to what would be allowed for the property without the accessory
unit (see next bullet) and the property must be owner-occupied.
· Occupancy on the property is limited to what is currently allowed for the principal dwelling
(one "household," as defined in the Code). In other words, no additional unrelated
persons (roomers) would be allowed beyond what is currently allowed in the particular
zone in which the property is located. So, the maximum occupancy of the property with
or without the accessory apartment is exactly the same. The language in the current
Code is vague, so it is necessary to clarify this point. The intent is not to double the
allowed occupancy, but rather to allow a semi-private living arrangement for a member of
the "household."
Requestors: Longfellow
Neighborhood Association
Accessory apartment rental permits
completion of a housing inspection.
Size of the accessory unit is limited to 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, 50%
of the floor area of the accessory dwelling, or 650 square feet, whichever is least. (In the
current and the proposed code accessory apartments are limited to one bedroom).
There are a number of safeguards already built into the regulations to ensure that these
units are only allowed on owner-occupied properties. For example, the property has to
record on the covenants of the property that their right to an accessory apartment ceases
upon transfer of Title.
after
(instead of 3),
be renewed every 2 years
must
·
·
·
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
The Commission
indicated that they
would like to see how
the new standards
proposed in the Code
work, before any
additional restrictions
are considered.
Since there are a
number of new
limitations and
regulations
proposed in the new
code for home
occupations, staff
does not
recommend making
this change at this
time. Instead staff
recommends waiting
to see how well the
new restrictions are
working and making
any necessary
adjustments in the
future if needed.
In order to prevent nuisance issues, new definitions and restrictions were added the home
occupation regulations requiring that home occupations where customers frequent the site on a
regular basis (Type B Home Occupations) must obtain a home occupation permit from the city,
so that they are aware of the regulations and can be monitored by the city more easily. A new
restriction was also added limiting customer or client visits to 10 per day.
14-4C-2M (p. 206) Home
Occupations - Requests that
Type B home occupations be
limited so that clients or
customers were not allowed to
frequent the site on weekends.
34
be
these regulations wi
nuisance issues
to prevent
As with many regulations that are Intended
enforced on a complaint basis
Diana Baculis
Requestor:
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
More research is
needed before such a
change would be
considered.
Without further
research on this
issue, staff does not
recommend making
a change at this
time.
Some initial research on windmill generators was conducted several years ago. A general
finding of this research was that such facilities often generate a level of noise that may be a
nuisance to surrounding properties.
14-4C - Accessory Uses -
requested that windmill power
generators intended for on-site
power generation be allowed
as an accessory use. The
requestor did not specify which
zones he thinks they should be
allowed in.
35
Allan Berger
Requestor:
Parking and Loading Standards
14-5A - Off-Street
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
Proposed Amendment
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration that would
allow some structured
parking at the ground
level, but not along
street fronts.
Commission asked staff
to investigate the typical
depth of a commercial
storefront, e.g. 30 feet?
50 feet? other?
Staff recommends easing the proposed
standards to allow some ground level
structured parking, provided the first 30
feet of the lot depth is reserved for
active building uses, i.e. no structured
parking along the street front (this is
similar to the current standard in the
CB-5 Zone). Staff feels that private, off-
street surface parking should not be
allowed in the CB-10 Zone. If it is, it
should only be allowed from an alley
behind buildings, not along the street
front.
Private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone is currently only
allowed by special exception. However, the current ordinance does
not give the Board of Adjustment much guidance regarding what
factors should be considered when reviewing these requests. The
standards in the proposed code would prohibit off-street surface
parking and ground level structured parking.
14-5A-3D (p.228) Maximum Parking in
the CB-1 0 Zone - Concern expressed
about the new approval criteria for
private, off-street parking in the CB-10
Zone. Would like to see some
allowance made for parking at grade
either within a parking structure or in
surface parking lots.
36
Marc Moen
Requestor:
Commission indicated
little interest in allowing
surface parking in the
CB-10 Zone.
Sensitive lands and Features
I
14-5
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
-
Proposed Amendment
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration, but
indicated no interest In
changing the substance
of the regulations.
Making the suggested changes might
clarify the regulations for a layperson.
However, use of the term "mitigation" is
well established and understood by
wetland professionals, who are the
persons most likely to use the
ordinance. Changing the terms used
will make our ordinance less consistent
with federal regulations. See attached
memo from Julie Tallman, Development
Regulations Specialist, regarding this
issue. Perhaps a better means to
clarify the regulations would be to add
definition of "mitigation" to the Code.
the regulations
This would not be a substantive change to
14-51-6C. (p. 311) Wetland Mitigation
Plan Required. Rename this section
"Wetland Protection Plan" and reorder
provisions sequentially.
37
a
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the
current ordinance
Some cross reference to this paragraph
14-51-6F-7 could be added to 15-51-6E-
1 if necessary for clarification
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Mr. Schnittjer concern is addressed in Paragraph 14-51-6F-7
(p.313). It states, "Where it is determined that the area occupied by
the required buffer provides little natural protection to the wetland
due to previous land disturbance, enhanced vegetative cover must
be provided within the buffer area to help filter and slow the flow of
surface water. The enhanced vegetation shall consist of species
that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas."
15-51-6E-1 (p. 311). Wetland Buffer
Requirement. Opening paragraph
should be modified to take into account
the consideration relative to constructed
and/or altered wetlands where "natural"
landscapes(s) adjacent to the wetland
probably will not exist. No specific
language provided by requestor.
38
Land Development
Larry Schnittjer,
Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the
current ordinance
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The replacement ratios were intentionally included in the ordinance
by the original committee that crafted the sensitive areas ordinance
Knowing that federal regulations might change over time, the
committee wanted to provide some certainty and consistency with
regard to wetland mitigation in Iowa City. The replacement ratios in
the current and the proposed code are based on ratios used in
model wetland ordinances from other communities around the
region.
14-51-6G. Compensatory Mitigation.
The references to specific replacement
ratios should be eliminated and
replaced with "as required by the COE'
to avoid conflicts and confusion.
39
Land Development
Larry Schnittjer,
Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the
current ordinance
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section of the Code.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
It is not clear how moving the regulations to another part of the
Code will result in an improvement or any greater protection for
regulated stream corridors. There is already differentiated buffer
requirements based on the type of stream and reductions are based
on clearly stated approval criteria.
14-51-7 (p. 315) Stream Corridors-
This section should be moved to the
storm water management section of the
code and as such the buffers could be
applied to a specific need of a stream
corridor and not just based on where
that line is on the map
40
Land Development
Larry Schnittjer,
Council
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the
current ordinance
The change suggested is counter to the
intent of the sensitive areas ordinance
Staff is opposed to making such a
significant reversal in policy and
regulation without a community-wide
debate.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Mr. Schnittjer would like this section of the code modified to allow
any slope to be altered or engineered so that they are no longer
steep. This assumes that any slope no matter how steep can be
graded and engineered to prevent erosion and land slides on to
adjacent properties.
14-51-8 (p.316) Regulated Slopes -
Requestor would like this section
rewritten to correlate slopes with
degrees of protection, Le. the greater
the percentage of slope, the greater the
degree of constructed slope protection
to be provided.
41
It is clear from his comments that Mr.
Schnittjer would like the City to do a
major rewrite of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Changes were made to the
ordinance about two years ago that
allow greater use of administrative
reviews as opposed to the more lengthy
overlay rezoning process. No other
significant changes to the sensitive
areas ordinance were contemplated
during this rewrite.
One of the primary reasons the sensitive areas ordinance was
adopted was due to severe erosion problems caused by
inappropriate grading and cutting of slopes. Grading changes the
topography, the hydrology, and the drainage patterns of a site.
Erosion also increases in proportion to the amount of lost
vegetation. Therefore, controlling clearing and grading on steeply
sloping sites is the first step in controlling erosion.
Land Development
Larry Schnittjer,
Council
The ordinance already allows "manmade" protected slopes to be
altered, but protects naturally formed ravines where the soil is
stabilized by existing trees and understory vegetation. In addition,
the sensitive areas ordinance was amended recently to allow up to
35% of the critical slopes on a site to be disturbed without the need
for a sensitive areas rezoning.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the
current ordinance.
The Commission
indicated that creating
new standards for
landmark trees is
beyond the scope of
this project, the
Commission indicated
interest in pursuing
such amendments at a
future date.
Staff does not recommend making
changes to the woodland regulations at
this time. However, formulating a
strategy to protect landmark trees is a
worthy goal and could be added to the
Commission's future work program
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The purpose for regulating woodlands as stated in the ordinance is
to reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wooded areas
located near wetlands, along stream corridors, and on steep slopes
Protecting woodlands also helps reduce erosion and siltation;
minimizes destruction of wildlife habitat, and encourages
subdivision and site plan design that incorporates groves and
woodlands as amenities. There is a difference in the amount of
woodlands that must be retained based on the zoning of the
property. There are two reasons for this. First, undeveloped
residential land, particularly land zoned Rural Residential or Interim
Development often contains larger areas covered by woodlands
undisturbed by development activity. Secondly, it is easier to
preserve woodlands and other natural features when the density of
development is lower. Therefore, the lower density zones are
required to retain more woodland area than the higher density
zones.
14-51-9 (p.318) Wooded Areas-
Requestor questioned the justification
for applying differing levels of protection
for different zones. He also opined that
there is more justification for providing
protection for "land mark trees" than
there is for woodlands in general.
Land Development
Larry Schnittjer,
Council
42
The Commission has had some preliminary discussion about
providing some protection for "landmark trees." Such an effort
would require defining "landmark trees" and formulating a strategy
to grotect them over time.
The Commission
indicated that they
would like to keep the
language fairly
generic, so that any
operational changes at
the state level do not
affect local
ordinances. They
directed staff to
discuss the suggested
changes further with
the requestor and draft
any minor changes for
their consideration that
might clarify the
re..9...ulations.
Staff supports making changes that help
to clarify the regulations without adopting
language that describes in unnecessary
detail operational procedures at the State
level.
The changes suggested are clarifications to existing regulations.
However, we should be cautious about adopting language into the
code that describes in detail operational procedures at the State
level, because these can change over time.
14-51-12 (p.322) Archeological Sites-
Request that the language be clarified
to spell out the operational procedure at
the State, so that there is no confusion
or mistakes made when determining
protections for archeological sites.
43
Requestor: Tim Weitzel, Registered
Professional Archeologist
rements
i
Neighborhood Open Space Requ
14-5K
-
Informal
Meeting
Discussion
5-23-05
Staff
Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
-
Proposed Amendment
Commission
directed staff
to draft
language that
would clarify
current
practices, but
are not
interested in
making
substantive
changes to the
ordinance
Staff recommends
making some changes
to the language in the
zoning code to make it
clear that any
improvements
required prior to
dedication will be
specified in the
subdividers
agreement.
has
t
THESE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The City does accept dedicated parkland in the same manner as other public improvements; that is when
been improved as specified in the subdivision's legal papers and as per City Code.
14-5K. (p.333-337) Neighborhood
Open Space Requirements. The
Land Development Council
requests:
44
The subdividers agreement typically specifies what improvements, if any, must be made to open space before it is
dedicated to the City. Trying to write general standards in the zoning code that would be appropriate in all cases
would be very difficult. Each piece of land has its own topography and characteristics. The subdividers agreement
is a much better vehicle for establishing specific improvements that must be taken care of before the City accepts
the land as public parkland.
Staff does not
recommend making
any changes to the
current system of
administering the fees
paid in lieu of
dedication.
Payment of fees in lieu of dedication:
Rather than require land dedication in subdivisions where there is no open space appropriate for a neighborhood
park, the City collects fees equivalent to the cost of the land that otherwise would have been dedicated. The funds
are then used to purchase more suitable parkland in close proximity to the subdivision or the funds are used to
improve an existing park in the area. For example, the fees collected in lieu of open space for the Southpointe
subdivision were used for the expansion and improvement of Wetherby Park, which is approximately 500 feet from
Southpointe
Reducing the amount of time the City has to use any funds paid in lieu of dedication would be difficult given that
the City has a five-year capital improvements plan. Getting new parkland improvements into the queue in two or
three years may not always be possible. In addition, most subdivisions take more than 2 or 3 years to build out.
Reordering other capital improvement priorities in the community to establish parks in an area where few homes
currently exist seems unreasonable. Waiting until more homes are built out also allows the Parks Department to
solicit input from residents about how they would like the funds used and what improvements are most desired.
The City makes every effort to use open space fees within the time allotted in the current ordinance. Setting up a
system to automatically refund fees to current owners of property within a subdivision after a certain period of time
may entail considerable administrative oversight and cost.
It is unreasonable to require that open space fees be used to establish parkland within the boundaries of the
specific subdivision. If there was land suitable for a park within the subdivision, presumably fees would not have
been paid in lieu of dedication. The developers, the City, and the future residents of a subdivision all benefit from
this system of parkland creation. If fees can be pooled from several adjacent subdivisions, the resulting parkland is
likely to be more attractive and usable for all area residents. The alternative would be for the City to eliminate the
option for developers to pay fees in lieu of dedication.
That parks be considered a
public improvement and be
accepted as a dedication
when all the other public
improvements are accepted
by the City.
More objective standards in
the code regarding how a site
should be prepared before
dedication, e.g. grading,
trimming of trees, seeding
etc.
Regarding payment of fees in
lieu of dedication, they would
like the period of time for the
city to use the funds to be
reduced from 5 years to 2 or 3
years. They would also like
the funds automatically
refunded to property owners
and not require them to apply
for a refund. They also feel
that fees should be used for
the particular subdivision, not
for neighborhood parks.
·
·
·
Requestor: Mike Pugh. Land
Development Council
14-4E - Nonconforming Situations
Proposed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
45 14-4E-9 (p. 226) Regulation of Changes to the occupancy standards in the proposed code are not Staff recommends making this change. Commission directed
Nonconforming Residential Occupancy. intended to impact existing rental properties or properties where a staff to draft an
Make a change so that persons that building permit was issued prior to the release of the public review amendment for their
have been issued a building permit and draft of the zoning code. consideration.
made substantial progress on a project
based on the current occupancy
standards will be grandfathered in at the
current standards, even if they do not
yet have a rental permit.
Requestor: Michael McLauqhlin
Procedures
I
Review and Approva
14-8
Informal
Meeting
Discussion
5·23-05
Staff Recommendation
Explanatory Notes
-
Proposed Amendment
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
this change
Staff does not recommend making
This requirement is intended to supplement the opportunities for
public input into a development proposal. If information is provided
early in the planning stages of a project, it can help to dispel
misinformation and may help to foster better communication
throughout the development review and approval process. The
public hearing process is not the best means to foster a dialogue
between parties, but is a means to provide input to the Commission
and the Ci~ Council.
14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting
Required. Remove this requirement.
Requestor: Dan Smith. Land
Development Council
46
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
Staff encourages full participation by all those
who might be affected by a development,
including those who may be future residents of
the neighborhood. However, it would be difficult
to make this a requirement in the code, since it is
often unknown who will be living in a new
development. Therefore, staff does not
recommend making a change to the ordinance
There is nothing in the regulations that would prevent a developer
from inviting prospective tenants or home buyers to the
neighborhood meeting.
14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting
Required. Request to re-write this
provision to provide a greater possibility
of participation by people interested in
or who would be living in the proposed
development to attend the meeting.
Requestor: Charlie Eastham, Greater
Iowa City Housing FellowshiQ.
47
Commission
req uested that
staff remove
this section
from the
proposed
zoning code
the
this section from
removing
Staff recommends
Zoning Code.
the
(Note: It will remain in its current form within
site plan review section of the City Code.)
This section was copied from its current location in the site plan
section of the City Code. It was included in the proposed zoning
code, so that users of the Code would not have to flip to a different
section of the City Code to find out the procedures for a
performance guarantee if one was required. No new requirements
were added to the City Code for performance guarantees. This
section merely describes the procedure to be followed if a
Qerformance guarantee is required.
14-88-9 (p. 359) Performance
Guarantees. Remove this section
48
Requestor: Dan Smith. Land
Development Council
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
If more certainty is desired regarding requests for
amendments to approved OPD Plans, staff
recommends amending the proposed code using
language from the existing zoning code
The existing language in the Code is more restrictive than the
proposed language regarding changes to approved OPD Plans. It
only allows minor changes in building arrangements. The existing
language in 14-6J-2D-1 Ga. states:
"Minor changes in building arrangements that do not substantially
alter the character of the development are permissible without
further City Council action. Any other changes, including changes
in street locations, land use and buildinga arrangements, shall be
considered as material changes to the approved plan. Such
changes must be approved as amendments in accordance with the
procedures set forth in D2." (Preliminary PDH Plan Approval).
14-8D-7E (p.378) Amending Approved
OPD Plans or Sensitive Areas
Development Plans. Request
clarification of the phrase "character of
development" with regard to requests
for changes to an approved planned
development.
49
Requestor: Dan Smith. Land
Development Council
The proposed code, while somewhat more ambiguous, provides
more flexibility (See 14-8D-7E (p.378)
Amendment #1
Insert this subsection into 14-2A-7 Special Provisions:
A. Two Family Uses and Attached Single Family Dwellings in the RS-8 Zone
Existing Two Family Uses and Attached Single Family Dwellings located on interior
lots in the RS-8 Zone that were conforming with regard to use and minimum lot
area per unit requirements as of (day prior to adoption of new code) shall be
considered conforming with regard to use and minimum lot area per unit
requirements regardless of location. Any building containing a conforming use may
be torn down and rebuilt to its present density or to the allowed density in the RS-
8 Zone, provided that it conforms to all other provisions of this Title. This provision
does not exempt a property from compliance with other relevant dimensional
standards, site development standards, use regulations, or any subsequent
amendments to this Title that pertain to the property.
Amendment #4
Amend 14-2A-7A Single Family Density Bonus Options as follows:
14-1A-l S. ecial Provisions
A. Single Family Density Bonus Options
1. RS-S Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-5 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under the
following conditions.
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 60 feet and the minimum
frontage may be reduced to 40 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph e.6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 50 feet and the
minimum lot frontage may be reduced to 30 feet;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 6,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
2. RS-8 Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-8 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under the
following conditions:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 45 feet and the minimum
frontage may be reduced to 30 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph e.6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 40 feet and the
minimum frontage to 25 feet;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 4,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
3. RS-12 Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-12 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under
the following conditions:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 45 feet and the minimum
frontage may be reduced to 30 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph (,6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 30 feet and the
minimum frontage to 20 feet;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 3,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
Amendment # 10
Insert the following underlined subparagraph into 14-2A-6C-3:
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the
following situations:
a. For Single Family Uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be
provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly
constructed aisle, provided not less than 50 percent of the front principal
dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and other
impervious surfaces.
b. For Two Family Uses and Group Households, 2 of the required parking
spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a
regularly constructed aisle, provided not less than 50 percent of the front
principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and
impervious surfaces.
c. For Single Family Uses, Two Family Uses, and Group Households, up to 3
non-required parking spaces mav be provided in the front principal
dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly
constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located
in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than 50
percent of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space,
free of buildings and impervious surfaces.
Amendment #12
Amend 14-2A-7B (Special Provisions in the Single Family Zones) as follows:
B. Historic Preservation Exceptions
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional. or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver is necessary will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2B-BA (Special Provisions in the Multi-Family Zones) as follows:
B. Historic Preservation Exceptions
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver is necessary will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register
of Historic Places to be adapted and re-used as a Community Service Use,
Specialized Educational Facility, or Hospitality-Oriented Retail Use. In addition
to the general special exception approval criteria listeq in Article 14-4B, the
applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Board to grant
this exception:
a. The exception is necess;:¡ry will help to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or
cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2C-9A (Special Provisions in Commercial Zones) as follows:
C. Historic Preservation Exception
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any
dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5
or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or
occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the
National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception
approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be
met:
1. The modification or waiver is ncccss~ry will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
2. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2£-68 (Special Provisions in Interim Development Zones) as follows:
D. Historic Preservation Exceptions
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver is ncccss~ry will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register
of Historic Places to be adapted and re-used as a Community Service Use,
Specialized Educational Facility, or Hospitality-Oriented Retail Use. In addition
to the general special exception approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B, the
applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Board to grant
this exception:
a. The exception is ncccss~ry will help to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or
cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amendment #13
Amend 14-4B-4A-2i and 14-4B-4A-3g. as follows:
i. Maintenance
A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from
the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The
easement must ensure access for maintenance of the exterior portion of
the building wall located on the lot line and other common elements,
such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a
covenant on the deeds on the applicable lots. Proof of such recording
must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or occupancy permit.
Amend 14-4B-4a. as follows:
1. Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
a. Procedure
Any restrictions or easements required in subparagraphs b. through e.
must be recorded as a covenant on the deeds of the applicable lots.
Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building
or occupancy permit.
Amendment #22
Amend 14-2B-4C-1 as follows:
1. Maximum Height
a. Purpose
The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building
scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air,
and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other
buildings in the vicinity.
b. General Standards
Generally, the maximum height standards for structures in Multi-Family
Residential Zones are stated in Table 2B-2. This table is located at the
end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are
addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings.
c. Specific Standards
(1) ,In the R/O Zone, buildings m;JY not exceed 2 1/2 stories in height.
In other ~1ulti Family Zones, If any portion of a building is within
15 feet of a Single Family Residential Zone boundary, then the
portion of the building located within 15 feet of said zone may not
exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
(2) In the RIO, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 Zones, if any portion of a
Two Family Use, Multi-Family Use, or a Non-residential Use is
located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single
Family Use, then the portion of the building located within 15 feet
of said property may not exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
Detached SF
and Detached 3,000 3,000 30 20 5/1510 5+22 20 359 203 50% 50%
Zero Lot Line
Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 20 5/1510 5+22 20 359 203 50% 50%
Attached SF 3,000 3,000 20/288 20 5/1510 0/105 20 359 183 50% 50%
Multi-Family 5,000 2,725 45 20 5/1510 5+22 5+22 359 203 50% 50%
Group Living 5,000 See 45 20 5/1510 5+22 5+22 359 203 50% 50%
Art,4B
Non-residentiaP none n/a none 20 5/1510 5+22 5+22 359 n/a 50% 50%
Notes:
n/a = not applicable
INon-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
2 Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story,
3 A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length.
4 See the Special Provisions of this Article.
5 See Article 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
6 The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet. However, garages must be set back at least 20 feet.
7 The principal dwelling must be set back at least 10 feet. However, garages must be set back at least 20 feet.
8 Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only two units are attached,
lots must be 28 feet wide,
9 MaxiR'lIJFR hoight is 35 foot, blJt in AO ease shall a blJilding excoed 2 1!2 stories. Additional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to
Single Family Zones or Single Family Uses (See Subsection 14--2B-4C, Building Bulk Regulations).
10 Minimum setback is 5 feet. Maximum setback is 15 feet.
111f the Single Family Density Bonus Options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may
be reduced accordingly (See Section 14-2B-4A, Minimum Lot Requirements).
~^ddilional height rostrietioAs FRay apply OA properties adjacont to Single FaFRily Zones or Singlo FaFRily Uses (See SubsectioA 1428 4C, BlJilding
BlJlk Rogulations).
Amendment #23
Amend Table 2C-1 as follows:
Household Living Uses Detached Single Family Dwellinos
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellinos
Attached Single Family Dwellings
Duplexes
Group Households PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family Dwellings PR PR S PR PRlS
Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living PR S
Independent Group Living
Fraternal Group Living
Commercial Uses
Adult Business Uses PR
Animal-related General S PR PR PR PR
Commercial Uses Intensive PR
Commercial Outdoor P P S
Recreational Uses Indoor PRlS PR P P P P P
Commercial Parking PR PR
Uses
Eating and Drinking S PRlS P P P P
Establishments
Quick Vehicle Servicing S PR PR PR PRlS
Uses
Office Uses' General Office P PR P P P P P
Medical/Dental Office P PR P P P P
Retail Uses Sales-oriented PR PR PR P P P
Personal Service-oriented P PR P P P
Repair-oriented P P P P
Hospitality-Oriented Retail PR PR P P P P
Outdoor Storage and Display- P PR
oriented
Surface Passenger P P P P
Service Uses
Vehicle Repair Uses PR PR S
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service Uses P
Manufacturing and Technical/Light Manufacturing PR
Production Uses General Manufacturing PR
Heavv Manufacturing S
Salvage Operations
Self-Service Storage P
Uses
Warehouse and Freight P
Movement Uses
Waste-Related Uses
Wholesale Sales Uses P
Institutional And Civic Uses
Basic Utility Uses PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS
Community Service General Community Service P S S P P P
Uses Community Service - Shelter S PR PR PR PR
S S S
Daycare Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR
Detention Facilities S
Educational Facilities General PR P P
Specialized P PR P P P
Hospitals PR
Parks and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR
Uses
Religious/Private Group
Assembl Uses
Communication PR PR PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS PRlS
Transmission Facility
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception
Amend Table 28-1 as follows:
Household Living Uses Detached Sinale Familv DwellinQs P P P P
Detached Zero Lot Line DwellinQs PR PR PR PR
Attached SinQle Family DwellinQs PR PR PR PR
DuÓlexes PR PR PR PR
Group Households PR PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family DwellinQs P P P P P P
Group Living Uses Assisted GroUD Livina S PR PR PR PR PR
Indeoendent Group Livina PR PR PR
Fraternal Group Livina PR PR PR PR
Commercial Uses
Eating and Drinking S
Establishments
Office Uses General Office P
Medical/Dental Office P
Retail Uses Sales-oriented PR
Personal Service-oriented S PR
ReDair -oriented
HosDitalitv-Oriented Retail PR PR PR
Outdoor Storage and Display-
oriented
Institutional And Civic Uses
Community Service General Communitv Service S S S S S S
Uses Community Service - Shelter S S S AA AA S
S S
Daycare Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR
Educational Facilities General PR PR PR PR PR PR
SDecialized PR PR
Parks and Open Space PR PR PR PR PR PR
Uses
Religious/Private Group PR PR PR PR PR PR
Assembly Uses
Other Uses
Communication PR PR PR PR PR PR
Transmission Facility
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception
Delete 14-48-40-5 and amend 14-48-40-6 as follows:
6. Community Service - Shelter in the R~4 12, RÞ1 20t RNS 20, RIO,
and CO 1 lanes
a. Maximum Density
(1) In the RM-12 and RIO Zones: 750 square feet of lot area per
permanent resident and 200 square feet of lot area per temporary
resident.
(2) In the RM-20, RNS-20, and CO-l Zones: 550 square feet of lot area
per permanent resident and 200 square feet of lot area per
temporary resident.
(3) In the RM-44, PRM Zones, CI-l, and CC-2 Zones a minimum of 300
square feet of lot area per permanent resident and 200 square feet
of lot area per temporary resident is required.
b. Nuisance Issues
The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on nearby
residential or commercial uses due to loitering, noise, glare from lights,
late-night operations, odors, outdoor storage, and litter.
The applicant must submit a site plan and a shelter management plan
that address these issues. The management plan must include a litter
control plan, a loitering control plan, a plan for on-site security, and a
conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisance issues if they occur. The
site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted along with
the application for a special exception or if allowed as a provisional use,
such plan must be included with the materials submitted for site plan
review.
c. Site Development Standards
(1) If the proposed use in located in a Residential Zone or in the
Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi-Family Site
Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6.
(2) In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, Community Service - Shelter uses
must be located above the street level floor of a building.
(3) The proposed facility must comply with the minimum standards as
specified in the Iowa City Housing Code, as amended.
Amendment #27
Add the following subsection to 14-2C-6 Commercial Site Development
Standards:
K. Standards for Large Retail Uses
1. ADplicability
The Drovisions of this subsection aDDly to retail uses over 50,000 square feet
in size. The intent of these standards is to facilitate adaptive reuse of large
retail commercial structures, to moderate scale of large buildings, and to
ensure consistent appearance with other shoDping center developments.
2. Facades and Exterior Walls
a. Facades over 100 feet in length that are visible from public streets
and/or include public entrances shall incorporate wall projections or
recesses a minimum of 3 feet in depth for a minimum of 20 contiguous
feet within each 100 feet of façade length. Such recesses and/or
proiections shall extend over a minimum of 20 percent of the length of
the façade and no uninterrupted facade may exceed 100 feet in length.
b. For facades that face public streets or include public entrances, features
that provide visual interest such as arcades, storefront windows that
allow views into the interior of the building, display windows that are set
into the building wall, entry areas, awnings or similar features must be
incorporated along at least 60 percent of the façade.
3. Buildina Details
Buildings must include details and features that provide visual interest reduce
the perception of the mass of the building, and provide a cohesive pattern to
the building. Any building façade that faces a public street or includes a public
entrance shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At
least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall
repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet. These visual Datterns must be
cohesive with the articulation of the façade.
a. Color change
b. Texture change
c. Material module change
d. Expression of an architectural or structural bay through a change in
plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset reveal or
projection.
4. Roof Details
a. Flat roofs must incorporate Darapets that conceal rooftop equiDment
such as HV AC units from Dublic view. The average height of such
parapets shall not exceed 15 Dercent of the height of the supporting wall
and at no point shall exceed 1/3 of the height of the SupDorting wall.
Such paraDets shall feature a three-dimensional cornice treatment.
b. Sloping roofs must not exceed the average height of the sUDporting walls
and must include overhanging eaves that extend no less than three feet
past the supDorting walls.
c. The roof of the building must be designed with three or more roof slope
planes. It is encouraged that changes in the roof correspond with
articulation of the building façade.
5. Buildina Materials
a. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building
materials, including brick, masonry, stone, stucco, or textured concrete
masonrv units. Predominantly is defined as at least 75 percent of the
exterior of the entire building, but not necessarily of each building wall.
For example, use of such materials may be concentrated along building
walls that are visible from public streets or that contain public entrances.
b. Use of smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels,
Drefabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets should be minimized. If
used, these materials may cover no more than 25 percent of the exterior
of the entire building and should be reserved for building walls that are
less visible to the public.
6. Entrvways
Each principal building shall have a clearly defined, highly visible customer
entrance with no less than three of the features listed below. Where
additional stores are located within the Drincipal building, each store shall
have at least one exterior customer entrance with no less than three of the
following features:
a. Canopy or portico:
b. Overhang:
c. Recess/proiection:
d. Arcade:
e. Raised cornice parapet over the door:
f. Archway;
g. Outdoor Datio;
h. Display windows:
i. Storefront windows that allow views into the interior of the store:
j. Tile work and moldings that are integrated into the building structure
and design;
k. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaDed areas and/or
Dlaces for sitting.
Add the following definition to Article 14-9A, General Definitions:
ARCADE: A continuous, covered passageway parallel to and open to a street,
private or public open space, or building, and typically accessible and open to
the public.
Amendment #29
Amend 14-4B-4E-5 and 14-4B-4E-6 as follows:
5. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the
ID-C Zone; Privately-Owned Communication Transmission Facilities
in Public Zones.
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the
ID-C Zone, and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are
met:
(1) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the
zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones.
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-5, and CB-10
Zones and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone,
antennae may not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached
or screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent
property to at least to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
and Buffering Standards). If the equipment is located on the roof it
must be set back and screened so that it is not within public view
or appears to be part of the building.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones,
the ID-C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones,
provided it complies with the following approval criteria:
(1) ~ If the proposed tower will flat be located in an ID-C Zone that
is intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according
to the Comprehensive Plan,as amended, then it must comply with
any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones.
(2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area. The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial
properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower.
(3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the
surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include towers
camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with
the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles.
(4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended. In the ID-C (except in areas intended for CN-
1), CH-l, CC-2, CI-l, CB-5, and CB-lO Zones, communications
towers are exempt from the maximum height standards of the base
zone, but under no circumstance may the tower be taller than 120
feet from grade. In the CO- 1, CN- 1, and any ID-C Zone intended
for CN- 1, communications towers must complY with the same
height standards that would apply to the type of structure to which
they are attached. For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a
light pole, flag pole. or utility pole it must not exceed the height
limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
standard exists in the code, it must be designed to be of similar
height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the
tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop
structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height
standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the
building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar
rooftop structures.
(5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or
commercial property.
(7) The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a
principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones. In other Commercial Zones and in Public Zones, the tower
must not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal
regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines,
strobe lights may not be used.
(9) The proposed tower may be designed and constructed to
accommodate up to twp additional users, provided this additional
capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately screening
or camouflaging the use.
(10) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower or the
owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use.
6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research
Park Zones and the ID-RP and ID-I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research
Park Zones and in the ID- I and ID-RP Zones, provided the antenna is
mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop,
light pole, or utility pole.
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID-I, 1-1 and 1-2 Zones and
by special exception in the ID-RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and 10-
RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment buildings must be
screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering
Residential or Commercial Zone to at least the 53 standard (See
Article 14-SF, Screening and Buffering Standards).
(3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least two additional users.
( 4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed bv the owner of the tower or the
owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use.
Amendment #32
Amend 14-4A-4B Animal-Related Commercial Uses as follows:
A. Animal-Related Commercial Uses
1. Characteristics
Commercial services related to the temporary care, medical treatment, or
cremation of domestic animals. Uses are divided into two subgroups based on
the intensity of the use, outdoor activity on the site, and the potential for
noise and odor related externalities.
2. Examples
This category includes uses from the two subgroups listed below
a. General: Veterinary clinics; animal grooming establishments; pet
crematoriums.
b. Intensive: Kennels; stables.
3. Accessory Uses
Boarding facilities and pet crematoriums within veterinary clinics; overnight
sleeping accommodations for staff; parking; outdoor animal exercise areas
associated with kennels and stables
4. Exceptions
a. Pet and pet supply stores are classified as Sales-Oriented Retail.
b. Pet crematoriums may also be considered an accessory use to a
mortuary or funeral home.
Amendment #36
Amend 14-5A-3B Maximum Parking in the CB-10 Zone as follows:
A. CB-10 Zone
1. Off-street parking is not required for any Use.
2. Private, off-street parking is permitted only after approval of a special
exception, except for Hospitality-Oriented Retail Uses.
3. Hospitality-Oriented Uses are allowed up to 1-1/4 parking spaces for each
guest room and parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of any meeting
or convention facilities without going through the special exception process.
Any parking spaces allowed under this maximum must meet the approval
criteria specified in subparagraphs b. through e., below. Any parking spaces
requested beyond this maximum must be approved by the Board of
Adjustment as a special exception and meet all of the approval criteria listed
in paragraph 4, below.
4. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria specified in
Article 14-4B, applications for a special exception for private off-street parking
in the CB-10 Zone must meet the following specific approval criteria:
a. The applicant must demonstrate through a parking demand analysis that
the number of parking spaces requested does not exceed the demand
for parking for the specific building or project proposed and that the
parking demand cannot be satisfied through the public parking system.
Only proposals for long-term parking will be considered. Short term
parking demand should be satisfied through the public parking system.
b. Surface parking is not permitted.
c. Underground parking is preferred over above-ground structured parking.
The design of any underground parking must not detract from or prevent
active building uses on the ground-level floor of the building. To that
end, the ceiling height of any underground parking level may not extend
more than 1 foot above the level of the adjacent sidewalk.
d. Above-ground structured parking may be approved only if the specific
project or building for which the parking is being requested has an FAR
of at least 7, excluding any structured parking in the FAR calculation.
e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the
following standards apply:
(1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent
ground floor storefront uses. Structured parking is-flet may be
permitted on the ground-level floor of a building, provided that a
substantial portion of the ground level floor of the building is
reserved for and built to accommodate storefront uses. Parking is
not allowed within the first 50 feet of lot depth as measured from
the front building line. The structured parking facility must
otherwise meet the standards for structured parking facilities as
specified in subsection 14-5A-5F of this Title.
(2) The proposed garage openings (entrance/exits) will not detract
from or unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Vehicular
access to parking located within or under buildings must be from a
rear alley or private rear lane, whenever possible. Garage openings
along the primary street frontage are not permitted if access is
possible from another street or from a rear alley, private street or
private rear lane. If there is no other alternative, a garage opening
may be allowed along the primary street frontage, if the Board
determines that the opening(s) will not detract from or unduly
interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Garage openings shall
be built to the minimum width necessary for access.
(3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public
or private street must appear to be a component of the façade of
the building through the use of building materials, window openings
and façade detailing that is similar or complementary to the design
of the building.
(4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so
that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly visible
to a pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less
than 10 feet. Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs
may be required.
Amendment #37
Amend 14-51-6, Jurisdictional Wetlands, as follows:
A. Purpose
The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm
water is naturally retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving
water quality, recharging ground water resources, providing erosion control
and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or
other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and
beyond that provided by the Federal and State government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of
wetlands.
B. Wetland Regulation By Other Agencies
The approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan under the provisions of this
Article is in addition to the applicant's need to obtain permits required by other
local, State, or Federal agencies, and does not alter the applicant's obligation to
satisfy and obtain all other applicable local, State or Federal regulations and
permits.
C. Wetland Delineation
1. Prior to any development activity occurring on a site containing a potential
regulated wetland, the property owner must provide a delineation of the
wetland area. Determination of jurisdictional wetlands must be made either by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or its successor, or by a wetland specialist.
If completed by a wetland specialist, the wetland delineation must be
reviewed and accepted by the U.S. Army Corps, or its successor. Delineation
of wetland areas must be completed prior to the submittal of a Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for review.
2. If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within
lSD feet of the apparent edge of a suspected or potential wetland area on the
site, the requirement for delineation by a wetland specialist or the Corps may
be waived by the City. In the case of a waiver, the property owner shall grant
an easement running in favor of the City, an approved conservation group, or
other approved organization for the purpose of retaining the wetland and the
surrounding lSD-foot protection area as undeveloped natural open space.
D. Wetland Mitigation Protection Plan Required
1. A Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property containing a regulated
wetland shall include a Wetland ~4itigation Protection Plan demonstrating that
all regulations of this Section will be met. Avoiding a delineated wetland area
and minimizing the impact of development on a wetland is strongly
encouraged, and must be investigated before compensatory mitigation will be
considered.
2. A Wetland ~1itig~tion Protection Plan shall include the following information:
a. The boundaries of the delineated wetland and the required natural buffer
area;
b. Delineation of a construction area limit and specification of associated
restrictions thereof;
c. The type and location of erosion control measures to be placed on the /-
property prior to any other development activity occurring on the site;
d. Certification by a wetland specialist or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
or its successor, regarding the wetland delineation, if required;
e. Information regarding the characteristics of the wetland necessary to
determine the allowable buffer reduction as provided in subsection E of
this section, Wetland Buffer Requirements, if a reduction is requested;
f. A storm water management plan demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of the Iowa City storm water regulations and related
municipal design standards.
E. Wetland Buffer Requirements
1. An undisturbed, 100-foot natural buffer shall be maintained between any
development activity and a regulated wetland unless said development
activity is exempted pursuant to Subsection 2C of this Article, Exemptions.
The required setbacks established for the base zone shall be measured from
the buffer edge, and are in addition to the required buffer. This setback
requirement applies to parking lots as well. (For example, the RS-5 District
requires a 20-foot rear setback, which would be measured from the outside
edge of the required 100-foot buffer. As a result, no building or parking lot
could be located within 120 feet of the wetland.)
2. Buffer averaging may be permitted or required where an increased buffer is
deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of
a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. In this situation, the width
of the required buffer around other areas of the wetland may be reduced by
up to 50 percent, but the area of the provided buffer must be equal to or
greater than the total area of the required buffer. Any request for buffer
averaging requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Buffers that have been
reduced according to the provisions of the following paragraph may not be
averaged.
3. The applicant may request a reduction of the required natural buffer in certain
instances enumerated below. Any request for a reduction in the natural
wetlands buffer requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Buffers that have
been averaged according to the provisions of the previous paragraph may not
be reduced.
a. The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 50 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
(1) Is less than 5 acres in area; and
(2) Does not contain species listed by the Federal or State government
as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural
habitat for those species; and '
(3) Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent
occurrence or of regional significance; and
( 4) Is not located within a regulated stream corridor.
b. The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 75 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
(1) Satisfies the criteria for Natural Buffer Reduction, in subparagraph
a, above; and
(2) Does not, in a year of average precipitation, contain standing water
at any time during the calendar year; and
(3) Is not a forested wetland; and
(4) Does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or
regional significance.
c. In addition to the qualifying criteria listed above, the City shall consider
the following factors in determining whether or not to reduce the
required buffer:
(1) The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on
the wetland; and
(2) The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to
the wetland; and
(3) The physical characteristics of the site and the wetland; and
(4) Any other factor related to the short- or long-term environmental
stability and health of the wetland.
F. Design Standards
1. No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining, or other development activity
is allowed within a regulated wetland or required buffer area, unless said
activity is part of an approved Wetland ~1itigJtion Protection Plan or is a use,
activity or structure allowed according to subsection 2D of this Article, Uses,
Activities and Structures Allowed Within Protected Sensitive Areas.
2. For property not served by a City sanitary sewer system, the location of septic
tanks, soil absorption systems, holding tanks, or any other element of an on-
site sewage disposal system must meet the required setbacks specified in the
base zone, as measured from the buffer edge.
3. To mitigate negative impacts of development and limit sedimentation, the
direct discharge of untreated surface water from a development site or a
developed area into a wetland may be prohibited. The partial treatment of
storm water runoff through the use or combined use of constructed wetlands,
detention basins, vegetative filter strips, sediment traps or other means
before the storm water runoff reaches a wetland may be considered as part of
a Wetland ~~itig;:¡tion Protection Plan. In such case, the discharge should not
increase the rate of flow or decrease the water quality of the wetlands unless
it can be shown by a wetland specialist that an increase in the rate of flow will
enhance rather than adversely impact the wetland.
4. On any lot containing a regulated wetland, erosion control measures, whether
required under the Title 17, Chapter 8, Grading Ordinance, or as part of a
Wetland ~1itig;:¡tion Protection Plan approved under the provisions of this
Article, must be installed prior to any development activity occurring on the
site.
5. The planting of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native varieties,
in regulated wetland or buffer areas is prohibited. Only non-intrusive native
species shall be used to supplement existing vegetation.
6. The removal of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native varieties,
within a regulated wetland or buffer area may be permitted when approved
as part of an approved Wetland ~4itigation Protection Plan.
7. Where it is determined that the area occupied by the required buffer provides
little natural protection to the wetland due to previous land disturbance,
enhanced vegetative cover must be provided within the buffer area to help
filter and slow the flow of surface water. The enhanced vegetation shall
consist of species that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas.
G. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation may be permitted only if it is clearly demonstrated that
avoiding and minimizing the impact on a wetland is unreasonable. A permit for any
development activity within a wetland area is required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or its successor. If a permit is granted for development activity within a
wetland, compensatory mitigation shall be required based on the following criteria,
unless a greater degree of compensation is required by the Corps or its successor:
1. Wetlands containing the following characteristics shall be considered
protected, "no build" wetland areas. Compensatory mitigation will be
considered only if the wetland disturbance is relatively small in relation to the
overall wetland and if it can be shown that the disturbance will not have an
adverse impact on the overall wetland. In wetlands with the following
characteristics, if compensatory mitigation is permitted, the required
replacement ratio of comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall be at
least three to one (3: 1).
a. Wetlands containing species listed by the Federal or State government
as endangered or threatened, or containing critical or outstanding
natural habitat for those species; or
b. Wetlands containing the presence of diverse plant associations of
infrequent occurrence or of regional importance; or
C. Wetlands located within regulated stream corridors as defined in this
Article.
2. The replacement ratio of comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall be
at least two to one (2: 1) for wetlands not containing the characteristics listed
in paragraph 1, above, but which do contain the following characteristics:
a. Standing water throughout the calendar year under average
precipitation,
b. Forested wetlands, or
c. Wetlands providing a known habitat for migratory birds of regional or
local significance.
3. Compensatory mitigation for all other regulated wetlands shall be at a ratio of
at least one to one (1:1). If said wetland or the replacement habitat is
enhanced to so that it contains one or more of the defining characteristics
listed in paragraphs 1 or 2, above, the required replacement ratio may be
reduced to 0.5:1.
4. When compensatory mitigation is proposed, the Wetland ~4itig(]tion Protection
Plan described in this Section must be prepared by a wetland specialist. A
Wetland ~4itig~tion Protection Plan that includes compensatory mitigation
must include the following components:
a. An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine
the appropriate replacement ratio;
b. A clear statement of the goals of the compensatory mitigation, including
specific statements regarding the expected rate of establishment of a
vegetative cover over specified periods of time;
c. Analysis of the soils, substrate and hydrology of the proposed site of the
constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide a
proper growing medium for the proposed vegetation;
d. A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native,
noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as
much of the native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as
. well as the upper 6 to 12 inches of the soil is encouraged; and
e. Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland
area for a period of 5 years, and identification of the party responsible
for replanting in the event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in
a failure of over 30 percent of the planted stock. Information collected
during the monitoring process must be submitted to the City annually
and include the following:
(1) Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover
established in the new or enhanced wetland;
(2) Wildlife presence;
(3) Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions and ground
and surface water interactions; and
(4) Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies
identified in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a failure to
establish a vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign
species.
Alternatively, rather than change "Mitigation Plan" to "Protection Plan," add a new
definition to 14-9E, Sensitive Lands Definitions, as follows (see memo and
recommendation from Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist):
MITIGATION: The process of avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or
compensating for losses or potential losses to an environmental or sensitive
feature due to development activity. For example, a wetland mitigation plan is
used to illustrate the methods that will be employed to avoid, minimize,
rectify, or reduce the impacts of development activity on a protected wetland.
When impacts on a protected wetland are unavoidable, a wetland mitigation
plan will describe the methods of compensating for any losses.
~'&-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMO
TO: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission _
FROM: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist 1
DATE: 15 June 2005
RE: "Mitigation" for wetlands in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO)
Karen Howard and I have discussed Larry Schnittjer's concern that the SAO mis-uses the term
"mitigation", and his proposal that a more appropriate word might be used to describe the process
whereby wetlands are protected and preserved,
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Schnittjer's argument that the SAO's use of the word "mitigation" is
in conflict with Corps of Engineers (COE) terminology and the language used by other wetland
specialists. I think that the SAO appropriately uses the term "mitigation" to describe the process
by which a development is designed to avoid impacts on a wetland; minimize unavoidable impacts
on a wetland; or in extreme cases, compensate for losses by creating a wetland area on-site or
off-site.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines "mitigation" as a progression of five steps (40
CFR 1508,20), The steps are described intentionally in this order: avoiding; minimizing; rectifying;
reducing; or compensating for losses.
A guidance letter issued by the COE (RGL 85-8 "Clarification of Mitigation Process") helps explain
how COE district engineers consider resource losses during their review of a proposed project,
based on 40 CFR 1508.20. Briefly, the first degree of mitigation assumes no impact. Progressive
degrees of mitigation assume increasing impaots, and it is during the fifth stage of mitigation that
off-site compensation would be designed,
There is recognition among professionals working in the field of resource preservation that
mitigation is a process that leads to an outcome. Mitigation - first of all - avoids impacts. The
outcome of a wetland mitigation plan will range from complete avoidance of impacts to off-site
compensation.
In the larger population, there is a troublesome assumption that "mitigation" means
"compensation". I propose that staff clarify the definition of "mitigation" in the SAO so it is more
evident as a process, and better separated conceptually from the varying degrees of habitat
restoration and compensation that occur with increasing impacts on a jurisdictional wetland,
Our ordinance relies on COE criteria for defining a "jurisdictional wetland", and our ordinance
relies on COE standards for establishing what constitutes a "wetland professional". I think it is
appropriate to use the term "mitigation" in a manner that is consistent with COE language.
Attachments: 40 CFR 1508 (from gpo.gov); Guidance Letter RGL 85-8
W AIS Document Retrieval Page 1 of 1
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 40, Volume 29]
[Revised as of July I, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 40CFR1508.20]
[Page 661-662]
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER V--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PART 1508--TERMINOLOGY AND INDEX--Table of Contents
Sec. 1508.20 Mitigation.
Mitigation includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation.
[[Page 662)]
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-binlwaisgate.c!:á?W AISdocID=872066230716+6+0+... 6/15/2005
Record of Decision or Statement of Findings for
the decision, and a brief swnmary of the issues. If
within 10 working days of the date of the district
engineer's letter to OCE further guidance has' not
been received, the district engineer will proceed
with his proposed action.
RGL 85-7:
Superfund Projects
Issued 7/5/85 Expires 12131/91
1. Recently, the Chief Counsel, Mr. Lester Edel-
man, responded to a letter from Mr. William N.
Hedeman, Jr., Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, EnvirOÍlßlentaI Protection
Agency (EP A) Which dealt with the need for
Department of Army authorizations for the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability-Act (CERCLA) actions. This
letter summarizes Mr. Edelman's opinion and
provides operating guidance for field interaction
with the EPA.
2. The EPA's basic position is that Congress did
not intend for CERCLA response actions to be
subject to other environmentaIlaws. Rather, as a
matter of sound practice, CERCLA response ac-
tions generally should meet the standards estab-
lished by those laws. Consequently, it is the EPA's
position that neither it nor the states, in pursuing
response actions at the loéation of the release or
threatened release under the authority of
CERCLA, are required to obtain penn its under
Section 404 of the Oean Water Act or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act for those actions.
3. Mr. Edelman stated in part that he has Some
reservations about the position that the EPA has
taken. Nevertheless, he recognizes that the' EP A
has the primary authority for theinterpret¡ttiòn
and applitation of CERCLA, and thêrefore
would defer to the EPA's reading of ¡tsown
statutory authorities, at least for the time being.
4. In light of this legal opinion, FOAs should not
require applications for the EP A or state
response actions at the location òf the release or
threatened release pursued under 'the -. authoÍity
of CERCLA. Any pennit applications in process
should be tenninated.
5. Both the EPA and OCE believe that theFOAs'
expertiSe in assessing the public interest factOtŠ
for dredging and filling operations can contribute
to the overall quality of the CERCLA - response
action. The Director of Civil Works will be estab-
~hing a group from IDS staff to work with the
EP A staff to develop a framework for integrating
the Corps Section 10, Section 404 and, if ap_
propriate, Section 103 concerns into the EPA's
substantive Superfund reviews.
6. Until specific guidance is provided from OCE,
FOAs should provide technical support to the
EPA regions and/or the states on matters within
their field of expertise.
RGL 85-8:
Implementation of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
in the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program
Issued 11/8/85 Expired 12/31/87
1. Purpose: This document clarifies existing
statutory and regulatory standards in the Corps
of Engineers (Corps) regulàtory program and
clarifies the role of the Department of the Inte-
rior, actfug through the Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), in establishing fish and wildlife mitiga-
tion for projects proposed to be authorized by
penn it. The document brings together existing
guidance for implementation of fish and wildlife
oùtigation within the program. The objective is to
improve interagency and intra-agency under-
standing of. adnùnistration of the present - pro-
gram regarding mitigation.
2. Definitions:
Mitigation: Mitigation is defined in the Council
on Environmental Quality's REGULATIONS
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROCE-
DURAL PROVISIONS OF TIIE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POllCY ACT (40 cm
1508.20). TlJese regulations describe five ele-
ments which may be cOlisidered to develop justifi-
able measures to avoid, minimize, rectity, reduce,
and compensate' for project-induced 1000sês.
3. Policy:
a. The Service's comments arid fiSh and wildlife
mitigation recommendations on projects
proposed to be- authorized' by . pennitåre to be
given full consideration,' as appropriate
throughout ~pennit 'application process, áDd in
making public interest review detennfuåtions (16
U.S.C'. 661(b»: .
b. The five elements of mitigation (see paragraph
2) are to be considered by the district engineer as
. 195 .
WTI, Inc. 1990
. (3) To the maximum extent practicable, the dis-
trict engineer shall use and incOlporate, by refer-
ence, existing docuJIlentation prepared for
compliance with NEPA, 404(h)(1) guidelines,
and/or the public interest review.
5. Expiration: The Corps will notify in advance the
Service if there are any changes proposed to this
RGL.
RGL86-1:
Plowing
Issued 2/11/86 Expired 12/31/88
1. The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the
applicability of Section 404 to plowing. .
2. Since 1975, Corps regulations have excluded
"plowing...for production of food, fiber, and
forest products" from the definition of a dis-
charge of dredged or fill material (33 CFR
323.2(j) and (1). "Plowing" is defined in 33 CFR
323.4(a)(I)(ili) (D).
? Plowing for the purpose of producing food,
fiber, and forest products and meeting the defini-
tion in Section 323.4 will never involve a discharge
of dredged çr fill material. Such plowing is not
subject to any of the provisions of Section 404
including the Section 404(t) exemption limita-
tiODS. Section 404(t) is applicable to those ac-
tivities that do involve a discharge but are
statutorily exempted from the need to obtain a
404 permit.
4. Not all activities involving the use of a plow,
disc, or similar equipment will satisfy the defini-
tion of plowing. For example, using a plow to dry
the surface of a peat bcg to facilitate mining is not
plowing since it is not fol' the purpose of produc-
ing food, fiber or forest products. Also, the use of
a plow to ,divert a braided stream feeding a wet-
land is not plowing because the purpose is to
change a water of the United States to dry land.
Thus. these activities are regulated under Section
404 if they occur in a water of the United States.
5. This guidance expires 31 December 1988 unless
, sooner revised or rescinded.
RGL86-2:
Nationwide Permit at 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23):
Categorical Exclusions
Issued 1/17/86 Expired 12131/88
1. We have concurred with the determination
made by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) that
those categorical exclusions which they have
listed at 516 DM 6, Appendix 9 (48 FR 17151)
which may be subject to Department of the Anny
penn it authority as published in 49 FR 13568-9
(copy enclosed) comply with the provisions of the
subject nationwide permit.
2. We have notified the BR that we consider the
tenn"unique geographical features," atitem 2 in
their checklist, to include "special aquatic sites,"
as defined at 40 CFR 230.40-230.45. BR also
recognizes that under the nationwide pennit - the
division engineer retains the authority to require
an individual pennit on a case-by-case basis. In
order to accomodatethis provision of our regula-
tioDS, BR has agreed that in those cases where the
decision on a project was close because of factors
of regulatory concern to the Corps, but the
project was categorically excluded, it will wonn
the appropriate Corps district office of the full
scope of the proposed work. The district engineer
may then seek discretionary authority as he
deems necessary. These activities include those
projects involving more than a small amount of
fill; activities with the potential to cause more
than minor water quality impacts; and, activities
involving the use of explosives near waters with
significant fisheries resources~ 'The district en-
gineer should coordinate with the Bureau of
Reclamation regional offices and other inter-
ested parties on what constitutes a "small amount
of fill."
3. This guidance is applicable only in the 17
western states where the Bureau of Reclamation
operates. This guidance expires 31 December
1988 unless sooner revised or rescinded.
RGL86-3:
Section 404(1)(1) Exemption of Farm and Forest
Roads (33 CFR Part 323.4(a)(6»
Issued 4/4/86 Expired 12131/88
1. EPA headquarters provided the following
J guidance to its Region X about what constituted
a forest road, the construction of which is ex-
. 197· WTI¡ Inc. 1990
Amendment #43
Amend 14-5/-120, Notification, as follows:
A. Notification
When the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I indicates that an archaeological
site is located in the quarter section within which a site plan, planned development
or a subdivision is proposed, the City will forward the site plan or subdivision plan
to the State Archaeologist (State) and the State Historic Preservation Officer for an
opportunity to comment. The City may also so ok commont from the State Historic
Prosorvation Officor. The State will notify the City if a recorded archaeological site
exists within the area of the site plan, planned development or subdivision. The
State will also notify the City if the site is of such archaeological importance that it
requires further study by the State or a State-approved archaeologist. If the State
identifies such site, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission or its
successor shall be notified and may proceed toward historic designation of the site
as set forth in Article 14-8E, Historic Preservation Commission Approval
Procedures.
Amendment # 44
Amend 14-5K-3C. Procedure for Dedication of Land, as follows:
6. Responsibility for Site Preparation
a. The City may require the subdivider or developer to grade and seed
those portions of the dedicated land to be improved prior to dedication
of the property and prior to City's acceptance of the dedication.
b. Where the dedicated land is located adjacent to a street, the subdivider
or developer shall remain responsible for the installation of utilities,
sidewalks and other improvements required along that street segment.
c. Prior to dedication. the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for
restoring satisfactory ground cover and controlling erosion on land to be
dedicated that has been disrupted as a result of development activities
by the subdivider or developer.
C. Procedure for Dedication of Land
1. The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision
plat or preliminary Planned Development Plan, whichever is applicable. The
subdivider or developer shall designate the area or areas of land to be
dedicated pursuant to this Article on the preliminary subdivision plat or
Planned Development Plan. Where wetlands have been delineated on the
property, the preliminary subdivision plat or Planned Development Plan shall
also identify the boundaries of such wetlands.
2. Upon receipt of the preliminary subdivision plat, the Director of Planning and
Community Development (PCD) shall submit a copy to the Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation for review by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall submit
recommendations concerning the land to be dedicated to the Planning and
Zoning Commission within 21 business days of the receipt of a complete
application for preliminary subdivision plat or preliminary planned
development.
3. Once the prelimin~ry final subdivision plat or prelimin~ry final planned
development is approved and any public improvements required to be
installed by the subdivider or developer within the land to be dedicated have
been installed, approved, and accepted by the City, and the subdivider or
developer has completed site preparation pursuant to paragraph 14-5K-3B-6.
above, the subdivider or developer shall provide a properly executed warranty
deed conveying the dedicated land to the City within 2 years of prelimin~ry
final plat approval (or preliminary final planned development approval) or by
the time the City issues 50 percent of the certificates of occupancy for the
subdivision, whichever is earlier at the discretion of the City; or as otherwise
specified in the subdivider's or developer agreement.
4. Prior to dedic~tion, the subdivider or developer sh~1I be responsible for
restoring s~tisfactory ground cover ~nd controlling erosion on I~nd to be
dedicJted, which hJS been disruptcd JS J rcsult of dcvclopmcnt Jctivitics by
thc subdividcr or dcveloper.
5. The City shall formally accept the dedication of land for open space, parkland
or greenways/trails by resolution.
Amend 14- SK-6A, Use of Funds as follows:
A. The City's Neighborhood Open Space Plan, as amended, divides the City into
Neighborhood Open SDace Districts. All payments in lieu of dedication shall be
deposited in a special neighborhood open space account designated by the name
of the contributing development. All payments will be used to acquire or develop
open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that are located
within the Neighborhood ODen Space District containing the subject subdivision or
planned development and will benefit the residents of the subdivision or planned
development for which payment has been made.
Amendment #45
Amend subsection 14-4E-9C, Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy, as
follows:
C. The maximum occupancy as determined by the Building Official based on the
applicable regulations effective March 1.2005 will be applied to any residential use
for which a valid building permit was issued on or prior to March 1. 2005 andlor for
which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (insert effective date of new
ordinance). For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this
maximum occupancy.
Amendment #48
Delete 14-48B-9 Performance Guarantees:
.... .. .
Aï PurpÐse
rerform~nce gu~r~ntees ensure th~t improvements connected with ~ proposed
development ~re completed ~s required by this Title. Perform~nce gu~r~ntees m~y
be required to ensure completion of ro~d\vays, lighting, utilities, sidew~II(-s,
dr~in~ge, fences, screening, w~lIs, I~ndsc~ping, ~nd other such improvements
required by this Title.
S. RequifelfleFlt
A Performance Cu~r~ntee may be in the form of ~ c~sh deposit, certified checl(, or
irrevoc~ble st~ndb't' letter of credit. The perform~nce guar~ntee must be for the
~mount of the estim~ted cost of the improvements, to be determined by the
~pplic~nt ~nd verified by the City.
& PfÐcedHre
-h Upon issu~nce of a building permit for ~ proposed development, the City m~'ý
require ~ perform~nce gu~r~ntee.
~ \.^;/hen ~ performance gu~r~ntee is required, ther-c shall ~Iso be provided a
prescribed period of time within which improverpents must be completed.
3-; INhere ~ perform~nce gu~r~ntee is not required upon issu~nce of ~ building
permit ~nd the improvements c~nnot be completed prior to occup~ncy or
commencement of a use, the Building Offici~1 may issue a tempor~ry
certific~te of occupancy ~nd require the ~pplicant to deposit ~ perform~nce
gu~r~ntee ~s set forth in this section.
4; Upon s~tisfactory completion of the improvements for which the perform~ncc
gu~r~ntee is required, ~s determined by the City, the City sh~1I return the
perform~nce gu~rantee to the âpplicant.
5-;- In the event th~t the âpplicùnt defâults in mâking the improvements for which
o perform~nce gu~r~ntee is required or f~ils to complete the improvements
within the time prescribed by the City, the City sholl h~ve the right, but not
the oblig~tion, to use the perform~nce guorântee deposited, together ·t\'ith
~ny interest e~rned ther-con, to complete the improvements through contract
or otherwise. This includes the specific right to enter upon the subject
property to moke the improvements. If the perform~ncc gUâr~ntee is not
sufficient to 0110·.... the City to complete the improvements for which the
gu~r~ntee 'NOS posted, the ~pplic~nt shall be required to p~y the City the
~mount by v.'hich the cost of completing the improvements exceeds the
omount of the performonce gu~r~ntee deposited. Should the City use the
performoncc guor~ntee or ~ portion thereof to complete the required
improvements, ~ny ~mounts rem~ining otter completion shâll be applied first
to the City's odministrâti'Ý'e costs in completing the improvements, v:ith ~m'f
balance remaining being refunded to the applicant. At the time the
performance guarantee is depositcd, the applicant shall enter into a written
agrcement 'with the City, '.vhich incorporates the performance guarantee
rcquircments set forth in this scction.
Make the following change to 14-51-5C:
C. Performance Guarantee
A Performance Guarantee may be required to ensure completion of conservation
measures, including plantings and other mitigation or maintenance efforts, as
stipulated in this Article. Required performance guarantees must be submitted
according to the procedures for Performance Guarantees as set forth in Title 18 of
the City Code, Site Plan Review Article 11 8B, Administrati'/e Appro'/al Procedures.