HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning/Development Item
REZ05-00019/SUB05-00029: Discussion of an application from S & J Development LLP for
a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR-1), Interim Development Single-Family Residential
(ID-RS) zone and Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned
Development Overlay / Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD5) and a preliminary plat
of Country Club Estates, Parts 3-8, a 154-lot, 82.30 acre residential subdivision located north
of Rohret Road and west of Phoenix Drive.
(45-day limitation period: October 9,2006)
D. Development Item
SUB06-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development Inc for a
final plat a of Windsor Ridge Part Twenty B, a 2-lot, 2.7 acre residential subdivision located
on Lower West Branch Road, north of York Place.
(45-day limitation period: September 10, 2006)
E.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code
Addition of a provision allowing a waiver of the landscape screening standards where the
view from adjacent properties or the street is blocked by natural or human-made features
such that the screening standard is effectively met.
Correction of an obsolete procedure for applying bonus provisions in the CB-5 and CB-10
Zones.
Deletion of redundant language in the description of the retail use category.
Clarification of the rules for separating aisles and drives within parking lots to allow more
flexibility to locate parking spaces along drives in situations where traffic safety will not be
compromised.
Correction of a typographical error regarding the maximum FAR in the CB-5 Zone, as stated
in a footnote to Table 2C-2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial Zones, except
the MU Zone.
Deletion of the list of examples of uses allowed within the Public Zone.
Amend regulations so that basic sign regulations will apply to publicly zone property.
Addition of a cross reference within the historic preservation regulations to clarify that
requests for new access drives for historic properties must be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Amend requirements for daycare uses to clarify standards for drop off / pick up areas and to
increase and clarify the parking requirements to ensure adequate on-site parking for these
uses.
10. Deletion of specific setback requirements for educational facilities in higher density zones
and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the special setback
requirements for educational facilities within single family residential zones.
11. Deletion of special setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in higher
density zones and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the special
setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses within single family
residential zones.
12. Clarification that a building permit is required for retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
13. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding the side and rear setback
requirements for accessory buildings.
14. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding properties that are nonconforming with
regard to parking requirements, landscaping and screening requirements, and outdoor
lighting standards.
15. Correction of typos in the names of zones within Table 5B-1, Sign Specifications and
Provisions in Residential Zones and the ID and OPD Zones.
16. Clarification that the Iowa City Arterial Street Map is based on the JCCOG Arterial Street
Map.
17. Clarification that an exemption listed in the code applies to all tree requirements of Article 5E,
not just the street tree requirements.
18. Amend the light trespass standard so that it will not conflict with the Building Code standard
for required lighting at building exits.
19. Addition of an exemption from the total outdoor light output standards for properties where
the building coverage exceeds 80%.
20. Clarification regarding how standards for architectural style will be administered for new two-
family, multi-family and group living uses in the Central Planning District.
21. Clarification of the description of wholesale sales uses to distinguish these uses from retail
uses.
22. Amend the damage and destruction clauses for nonconforming uses and structures so that
\ calculations are based on assessed value of the property instead of replacement value.
23. Clarification of procedures for obtaining a fence permit.
24. Clarification of the definition of "cottage industry."
25. Amendment to the definition of floor area to make it clear that the area of garage is only
excluded from the calculation of floor area if it is a garage that is attached to the principal
building.
26. Clarification of the definition of "grade," deleting unnecessary language that may be
confusing.
27. Clarification of sensitive lands definitions to be consistent with recently adopted changes to
the sensitive areas regulations.
28. Correction within Table 2C-2(b), Dimensional Requirement for the Mixed Use Zone, to make
it clear that the front setback coverage standard does not apply to nonresidential uses.
29. Correction of maximum residential densities allowed in planned developments to match
maximum residential density in the base zones.
30. Amendments to building articulation standards within the code to clarify how the standards
apply to the "horizontal plane" versus "vertical plane" of a building.
F. Consideration of the August 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes
G. Other Items
H. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetin s:
October 16 October 30
October 19 November 2
November 13
November 16
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ05-00019 and SUB05-00029
Country Club Estates Parts 3-8
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45-Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner
Date: September 7,2006
S&J Development LLP
1157 Flagstaff Drive,
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 358-8730
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants
1917 S Gilbert Street,
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 338-8282
Rezoning from ID-RS to OPD5 (18.58 acres); RR-1 to
OPD5 (44.29 acres); RS-5 to OPD5 and a preliminary
plat for a 154-lot residential subdivision on 83.2-acre
land
Development of Country Club Estates Parts 3-8
North of Rohret Road and east of Slothower Road
Approximately 82.3 acres
Agricultural, Part RS-5, part RR-1 and part ID-RS
North: County owned Poor Farm - P
South: Undeveloped and County Residential - R & AR
East: Residential - RR-1 & RS-5
West: Undeveloped County Residential - R 10
Southwest District Plan - Low density single family
residential
August 23, 2006
October 9,2006
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from previous
development phases of Country Club Estates on the
northeast. A lift station is necessary to serve the
southern half of the subdivision.
2
Public Services:
The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and
refuse and recycling collection services. The Wests ide
Loop transit route serves this area with the nearest
stop located approximately 0.2 miles east on Phoenix
Drive.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Most of the land under consideration for the proposed rezoning and subdivision was annexed into
the City prior to 1972. Approximately 18 acres adjacent to Rohret Road, was annexed in 1994. At
the time, a proposal to rezone the property to Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-
8) and Low Density Single-Family residential zone (RS-5) was considered, however, because of the
lack of sanitary sewer services and the substandard condition of Rohret Road status-quo was
maintained for the land zoned Rural Residential (RR-1) and RS-5, and the newly annexed land was
zoned Interim Development Residential (ID-RS). Since 1994, Country Club Estates Parts 1 and 2
have been subdivided and developed as single-family residential lots. The applicant, S&J
Development LLP, is now requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 44.29 acres of
land from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, and approximately 18.58 acres of land from Interim
Development-Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5) zone. The applicant is also requesting approval for a 154-lot, 82.3-acre residential
subdivision with four out-lots. The applicant is also requesting that the entire subdivision be
rezoned to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-Family Residential (OPD-5) zone to
allow modification of the wetlands and the required buffers.
Staff has met with applicant and their consultants several times in the past to review the concept
plan for this development and to work towards solutions for providing sanitary sewer service and a
street and subdivision design that meets the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Late in the pre-
application review, the applicant provided information regarding the environmentally sensitive areas
on the property. Because the earlier subdivision designs did not include this information, the
subdivision design discussed during the pre-application process did not meet the requirements of
the zoning code.
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning:
The land is located within the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan. The South West
District Plan identifies this land as appropriate for primarily low density residential development.
The current zones RR-1 and ID-RS reflect development constraints and inadequate infrastructure
available in this area. The proposed zoning-Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone-
will allow for a residential development with maximum five dwelling units per acre. Most of the
surrounding land is zoned for large lot residential uses such as RR-1, and County Residential (AR,
R, and R-10) zones, except for the land on the northeast, which is zoned RS-5.
At the time of previous rezoning considerations, neighboring property owners expressed concern
about the development of smaller lot sizes adjacent to the large RR 1 zoned lots on Tucson Place.
At the time Tucson Place was developed in the early 1980's it was the policy of the City to
discourage development west of Highway 218. The City limited the availability of sewer capacity in
this area to control growth. As a consequence Tucson Place was developed using septic systems
which require at a minimum one-acre lots. The City's growth policy has since changed to
encourage full development of land within the city to make efficient use of investments in
infrastructure and to counter sprawl. For this reason RS-5 zoning is appropriate for Country Club
Estates, however the Southwest District Plan does recommend that large RS-5 lots be platted
adjacent to the RR-1 lots to provide a transition. The proposed lots in this area range from
PCDlStaff Reportslsub05_00029_countryclub bobs revisions.doc
3
approximately 11,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Although the proposed lots are larger than
the minimum 8,000 square feet, they are not larger than what is typically platted in most RS-5
neighborhoods. Adherence to the full wetland buffer as discussed below will provide for an open
space corridor and a transition between the existing lower density residential area and the
proposed development. Also as discussed below the applicant has the option of cluster
development to provide for more open space as a transition.
Staff believes that rezoning the land to RS-5 zone would be appropriate and would allow efficient
use of land and infrastructure provided that sanitary sewer service and improvements to Rohret
Road and Slothower Road are funded. Such a zoning will also be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan vision and compatible with surrounding land uses.
Subdivision Design:
The applicant is also seeking approval for a 154-lot residential subdivision on this property. The
proposed subdivision includes four outlots. Outlot A and D contain most of the environmentally
sensitive features-drainage way and wetlands. The applicant is proposing to use Outlot D as a
storm water management facility as well as the wetland mitigation area. Outlot B is proposed as
neighborhood open space to be dedicated to the city, and Outlot C is proposed as a connection
between the proposed neighborhood space and an existing private open space in Country Club
Estates. Except for the adherence to the sensitive areas ordinance requirements discussed below,
the subdivision design generally complies with the neighborhood principles of the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicant has proposed a subdivision with varied lot sizes. The proposed lot areas range
from 9,021 square feet to 27,918 square feet. Most of the smaller lots are located toward the
southern portion of the property. As discussed above larger lots and compliance with the wetland
buffer requirements would help provide a transition to the large RR-1 lots on Tucson Place on the
east.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
The property contains a stream corridor, critical slopes and regulated wetlands. The applicant is
requesting modifications of the wetlands that are regulated by the SAO including:
# 1) The averaging of the wetland buffer to provide a greater buffer in the western portion of
Outlot D and a reduced buffer adjacent to the eastern portion of Outlot D and adjacent to
Outlot A.
# 2) The elimination of wetlands within the proposed Lakeshore Drive right-of-way and in
vicinity of lots 30-32. These wetlands are proposed to be replaced by compensating
wetlands to be constructed in Outlot D.
# 3) The reduction of the 100 foot wetland buffer down to 25 feet for the wetlands located to
the east of lots 3-8.
A Levell! Sensitive Areas Review is required prior to development due to these requested
modifications. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered a type of planned development and
as such must comply with the applicable approval criteria for Planned Development Overlay.
For a property containing a regulated wetland, a Wetland Mitigation Plan is required to be
submitted along with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The mitigation plan should delineate the
wetlands and the required natural buffer area, and delineate a construction area limit. The SAO
strongly encourages avoiding delineated wetland areas and minimizing the impact of development
on the wetlands, and therefore requires through investigation and consideration of alternative
development design before compensatory mitigation is considered. The SAO requires an
undisturbed, 100-foot natural buffer between any development activity and a regulated wetland
unless said development activity is exempted.
PCD\Staff Reportslsub05_00029_countryclub bobs revisions.doc
4
Regarding # 1) the proposed wetland averaging: The Sensitive Area Ordinance provides for buffer
averaging where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional
protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. There is nothing in the
mitigation plan that makes a case as to why any portions of the wetland should have an increased
buffer and therefore a narrower buffer in other areas. Most of the areas where increased buffer
depths are proposed are located in the northwest and southwest corners of Outlot D, adjacent to
lots 13 and 14 and in the drainage easements between lots 75 and 76,82 and 83, and 149 and
150. There does not appear to be a reason to increase the buffer in these areas. Rather, they
appear to be excess land that is not otherwise developable. The code states that buffer averaging
may be allowed to protect wetland or other natural sensitive areas of high value or high diversity by
reducing the buffer for an area where such buffer may be sufficient.
Staff has consulted with Liz Maas, a wetland specialist, regarding the impact of the proposed
development activity on the drainage way and the wetlands. She has indicated that in her opinion
all portions of the wetlands within and adjacent to the drainage way need equal protection to ensure
the continuance of the wetlands, and that there are no sensitive features on the western portion of
Outlot D that need additional protection for aesthetic or environmental reasons. It appears the
added buffer areas in Outlot D would not have been developed anyway due to difficult topography.
Therefore staff believes that the proposal does not meet the SAO requirements for allowing buffer
averaging.
Even if buffer averaging can be deemed necessary or desirable, the buffer width can not be
reduced more than 50 percent. The applicant's proposal does not meet this standard as the buffer
width is less than 50 feet on the proposed lot 29. Staff recommends that the required 1 DO-foot
buffer area should be provided, which will create a 200-foot continuous open space along the
drainage way and the wetlands providing the required protection to the sensitive features, attractive
open space as well as the area for the proposed prairie vegetation as presented by the applicant.
The applicant has the option of proposing clustering of development in the areas outside of the
wetland buffer.
The applicant also proposes to use the Outlot D as one of the storm water management facilities
for the proposed development. This necessitates grading and filling within the stream corridor
limits, the wetlands and their associated buffers. The mitigation plan states that out of the 2.83
acres a total of 1.03 acres will be impacted by this and other infrastructure related development.
Because most of the ground within Outlot D will be graded and storm water and sanitary sewer
lines will be installed in the stream corridor and the wetlands within Outlot A, staff believes that the
impacted area may be significantly more than reported in the mitigation plan. (A revised mitigation
plan was submitted on August 30. Staff and the City's wetland consultant have not had sufficient
time to review it and confer with the applicant's consultant regarding this potential discrepancy.)
Most of the impacted area is within the stream corridor limits. The applicant is proposing
compensatory mitigation by enhancing some of the impacted areas of the existing wetlands and
creating new wetland area in Outlot D. The SAO states that the compensatory mitigation can
beconsidered if it is clearly demonstrated that avoiding and minimizing the impact on a wetland is
unreasonable. The SAO further states that 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 the
disturbance will not have an adverse effect on the overall wetland. If compensatory mitigation is
permitted, the SAO requires replacement of comparable habitat at ratio of at least 3:1 (habitat
replaced: habitat lost)-for areas where wetlands are located within a regulated stream corridor.
For other regulated wetlands compensatory mitigation is required at the ratio of at least 1: 1.
Therefore, staff believes if allowed the compensatory mitigation areas should be verified and
revised to reflect the accurate area that is impacted by the development activity. Furthermore, the
plan does not show the required 1 DO-foot buffer for some of the proposed compensatory wetland.
PC DIStaff Reportslsub05_00029_countryclub bobs revisions.doc
5
The City's wetland consultant has also expressed concern about the wetland mitigation and future
maintenance of the sensitive areas. The U. S. Army Core will monitor the wetland mitigation for five
years. After this period the responsibility of maintenance is passed on to the developer or to the
homeowners association. The City's wetland consultant recommends establishing a partnership
with a non-profit conservation group to ensure the quality of the wetlands and the associated buffer
areas are maintained overtime.
Regarding # 2) the elimination of wetlands within the proposed Lakeshore Drive right-of-way and in
the vicinity of lots 30-32, and # 3) the reduction of the 100 foot wetland buffer down to 25 feet for
the wetlands located to the east of lots 3-8: staff recognizes that buffer averaging and reduction for
the portions of the wetlands that are not directly associated with the drainage way can be justified
and meet the SAO requirements provided that the long-tem maintenance of the compensatory
wetland area is diligently addressed. Staff believes that this would provide ample opportunities for
development on the south-eastern portion of the property while maintaining the full required
wetland buffer adjacent to the drainage corridor.
Traffic implications, Access and Street design:
Currently the property can be accessed from Phoenix Drive and partly completed Lakeshore Drive.
The proposed development will include an extension of the southern portion of the north-south
collector street-Lakeshore Drive, which will connect to Rohret Road. The Southwest District Plan
states that the north-south collector street between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road should be
configured so that it is not used as a cut-through route for non-local traffic. The proposed
subdivision can also be accessed by Slothower Road via Melrose Avenue from the north. Both
Rohret Road and Slothower Road are currently narrow, chip-seal surface streets and require
substantial improvements, including right-of-way acquisition. Because this is a major development
with a significant number of new residential lots, vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian and bicycle
traffic on Rohret Road will increase. Improvements to Rohret Road and Slothower Road are not yet
included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Therefore, to provide access to this
development, as a condition for this rezoning, the applicant should improve the portion of Rohret
Road that is adjacent to the proposed lots (lot # 1 and 36) in the first phase of the development.
Development of lots 78 to 154 should not occur until the improvement of the remainder of Rohret
Road is in the CIP. If the applicant intends to develop additional lots along Rohret Road before the
improvement project is included in the CIP, the applicanUowner is responsible for improvements to
the street.
The applicanUowner is required to dedicate land to the City as public right-of-way for both Rohret
Road and Slothower Road, and provide necessary utility and construction easements. The
applicanUowner will also be required to share the proportional cost of improvements of the portions
of these roads that are adjacent to the subdivision.
A portion of Slothower Road near the southwest boundary is in the county jurisdiction. This section
ofthe street does not have a paved surface and is rarely used. If this section of Slothower Road is
not relocated or vacated, eleven lots along Prescott Lane in the proposed subdivision will be
double-fronting lots. To address this concern the applicant should request that the County and
adjacent property owner vacate the southern potion of Slothower Road. If it is not vacated the
subdivision should be redesigned to eliminate the double-fronting lots. Staff recommends that the
vacation of this portion of Slothower Road be a condition for the rezoning and subdivision approval.
As part of the proposed subdivision the east-west neighborhood streets, Tempe Place in the
northern portion of the subdivision, Dunley Drive in the central portion and Tumbleweed Terrace in
the southern portion will be extended to the west boundary of the property. DunleyCourt will create
a connection between Slothower Road and Lakeshore Drive, which will function as the collector
PCDlSlaff Reportslsub05_00029_counlryclub bobs revisions. doc
6
streets between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road. Other new neighborhood streets Cactus Court,
Desert Lane, Desert Court, Dusty Court, Mesa Court, Prescott Lane and Prescott Court, Sundevil
Court, Sunset Terrace, and Wildcat Court will serve the proposed subdivision. The subdivision
contains three cul-de-sac streets in the southern portion extending from Tumbleweed Terrace. Staff
believes that sidewalk connections should be created from the cul-de-sac streets to Rohret Road
for better neighborhood pedestrian connectivity.
To provide adequate secondary access and to minimize traffic related to the construction activity
through the existing neighborhood, the construction of Lakeshore Drive to Rohret Road should be
required in the first phase.
Some of the proposed lots along Slothower Road (# 139-149 and # 67-68) and Rohret Road (# 1,
36, 101, 102, 109, 110, 117, 118, 138 and 139) are double fronting lots. The subdivision
regulations discourage such lots. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that where such lots can not
be avoided, dense landscaping or earthen berm should be used rather than tall privacy fences, to
buffer the rear yards from the arterial street. The preliminary plat shows a landscape buffer 20 feet
north of the street right-of-way. The landscaped buffer should include a mix of evergreen trees and
the landscaping should be planted by the applicant/owner prior to the issuance of any building permits
for these lots. To avoid the long privacy fences along the streets, fences, if any, should be installed to
the north side of the landscape buffer along Rohret Road and to the east side along Slothower Road.
The final plat and legal papers should specify the requirement regarding the fences and the
landscape buffer.
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of:
Based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance, a subdivision of this size is required to
dedicate 1.93 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of dedication. To pool all the neighborhood
space for the Country Club Estates, at the time of previous subdivision plats, staff had
recommended that the neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of should be considered at the time
future proposals. The open space requirements for Country Club Estates Part 1 and 2 (0.25+ 0.40
acres) would be 0.65 acres. Therefore total neighborhood open space required is 2.58 acres. The
proposal identifies Outlot B, containing approximately 4.35 acres, as an area to be dedicated to the
City. Part of Outlot B is proposed to be used as a storm water detention basin for the northern
portion of the subdivision. The Parks and Recreation Commission has considered the plat and
voted in favor of accepting the dedication of Outlot B.
Storm water management:
The plan shows two storm water management facilities located within proposed Outlot B and Outlot
D. Outlot B is proposed to be dedicated to the City to fulfill the neighborhood open space
requirement. The long-term maintenance of this storm water basin needs to be addressed.
Infrastructure fees:
Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required. Payment towards improvement of the
portions of Slothower Road and Rohret Road adjacent to this subdivision will need to be included in
the Conditional Zoning Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ05-00019, rezoning of approximately 82.3 acres located north of
Rohret Road from ID-RS to RS-5 (18.58 acres) and from RR-1 to RS-5 (44.29 acres) and from RS-
5 (19.23) to OPD5 and SUB05-00029, a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Part 3-8, a 154-
lot, 82.3-acre residential subdivision be deferred to allow a redesign which meets the requirements
PCDlSlaff Reporlslsub05_00029_countryclub bobs revisions.doc
7
of the Sensitive Areas Regulations. In absence of a redesign staff recommends that this
application be denied.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1) Provide information about the disturbance of regulated slopes
2) Identify and delineate all the construction limit lines to avoid disturbance of sensitive areas
3) Revise the impacted area of the wetland within the stream corridor limits and compensatory
mitigation
4) Revise the buffers for created wetlands
5) Submit Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan
6) Other deficiencies and discrepancies identified by the City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Plan or plat
3. Wetland Mitigation Report
4. Correspondence
.f
.(/{;-? J //1
../ 1rf /'# // ( . '
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Approved by:
PCDlStaff Reportslsub05_00029_countryclub bobs revisions. doc
0')
C\I
0
0
Vl 0
l- I
L LO
::J 0
l- ce
<( :::>
ex:: (f)
0
0... ---
ex:: 0')
0
U T"""
>- 0
I- 0
U 0
<( I
:s: LO
0 0
U- N
0 W
>- a:
I-
t:
t3
~
~
~
t:
t3
co
I
Ct)
C/)
t::
a:s
a..
-
C/)
Q)
+-'
a:s
+-'
C/)
W
.0
:::::l
()
~
lo...
+-'
C
:::::l
o
()
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD,
FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH & EIGHTH ADDITION
IOWA CITY, IOWA
=r =:~iir~ST.
10"'" CII'J. JOllA. 62l!40
~ 51mnmnn'~ ........"""'
W DE'mDPII!IIT LLP. MANCY WIWB
IIR.IlIIlllSPiZIl I)OOBOIJ'ftlDlIJlllQUl:rn!EE'I'
II.fi7rt.UlS'l'An'DIm: IOUCrrY. IOWA. r.2Z4ll
1O.....crn-.J:I..A.!I22"
Tco
I"' ."~_
12"-1 ~~==-=-~1"~_2O)
-=r~=
-I~(-~
~--
~. ~
f_ .'-" ,,' ............ \
~ ~.:::':~'~:::'- "
1~.--j t- ~- ='l_'''''ffi
-CCNlOOIIUNES(irf<1EMV",-
~ ::::::~:,."
~ .~~.~-,
I
._.~, I
m'~"l:'~J1":..
~
<-v .n . . .
_S:IlI...
,..
'of/ ,
PLAT/PLAN APPROVED
by the
City of Iowa City
UlIurruSEWtNn..s SHO....>KJlEON. ".',,",W"YMOT.
= ~~'t:.g:~iril.Ol~=t~st~~[I['t.:
""''''''-'''''''0.....,..._........,'''''''__........''',
""'"""-'-......"O[1>__"'_"'''''''''''......lOOII[aII
"""'-__..........<aPuD'"""'~"'..."'-.....
(2ZZJ I~;k'"'~'!'\~~ '~~i~OR (3, l)
~~VSl~ 3O~~~~M~~~I~ (1.1)
~26JAC'll(TL4NDCRE""1[D
W!.7JACWERM'OENH"-NCEI.!<:NT
~6_89"CREauIRED100FTBurrr<'
bL.-=..JFllOlol [XISTNG '/IETL"ND
E8750AC....~fl"GEDUPLANDBUF
mO,J:!AC U~I"P~CTIDll'ElLANO
b::::...!::.::.OOTSlDE30'SlREAWCQRRIOOR
Vt1THREOIJESTEOBIJffERREDUC
WA
~~~F. RIIFFF.R CROOR !'iF.i:TIO'N n
o~~~,~~~.
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
~inji
~~ij~
~ !i~
ml~
m!1
1111
iih
II Ih~~m
I, lit. ~~~
i. ~" t:3~
d!linn~~1 UI~~
1 81 2 Rohret Court, Sw
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
August 31, 2006
Commissions
41 0 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Rezoning
To Whom It May Concern:
I stand opposed to the rezonoing of Country Club Estates. Having
lived at 181 2 Rohret Court, Sw for 23 years, this rezoning impacts a
tranquil peaceful neighborhood.
Safety, traffic, aesthetics, wild life impacted, continuation of present
environment, land valuations, vandalism, crime are of arguable concerns.
A developer reaps economic gain from rezoning, maximizes profits,
impacts lives and then leaves. I am left to live with the change starting
with the view out my picture window.
Development of this land seems an inevitability. It is small lot size
and high density of homes I most strongly object to.
Southwest Estates, Kessler Subdivision and homes south of Rohret
Road all have larger lots.
f1u~da
Chester Schulte
August 31, 2006
Karin Franklin
Director, Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Karen:
We just recently received the latest notification from your department regarding the application from S&J
Development LLP requesting a rezoning of the property located within the Country Club Estates development
(REZ05-00019/SUB02-00029). We greatly appreciate the efforts of you and your team in keeping us, and the
other neighbors that are most directly impacted by further development of this property, informed regarding this
action. We also met with Sunil Terdalkar, as well as had additional communications with Sarah Walz, on this
current request in order to better understand the proposal from the developer. Based on our understanding of
what is being proposed, we would like to express the following concerns and recommendations on this issue.
However, first, to give you some insights on our perspective, we would like to let you know how our family came
to be residents of one of the properties impacted by this proposal. Sarah and I are both native Iowans and
graduates of the University of Iowa and we are very excited to be living back here in Iowa City. We moved back
to Iowa 5 years ago after having lived in the Colorado Springs and Denver metropolitan areas for sixteen years,
upon graduating from the university. There were two key reasons that we chose to make this move; 1) was to
raise our family in an Iowa city that we felt offered and supported the family values that we grew up with, and; 2)
to get away from the unbridled urban sprawl that we encountered while living in Colorado; which we felt greatly
offset many of the wonderful benefits that Colorado has to offer. We do feel that we have made the right
decision to come to Iowa City and have enjoyed the experiences offered by living in such a culturally diverse,
vibrant city.
Knowing that one of the key reasons we moved from Colorado to Iowa was to get away from the urban sprawl,
we wanted to ensure we had an opportunity to understand the short and long range plans from a city planning
direction. Timing-wise, we were fortunate to be able to attend 2 Southwest District planning
meetingslworkshops organized by your department to solicit citizen input to the vision and guidance on future
development in the district, shortly after we moved here. We certainly understand the need (and support the
desire) of our community to continue to grow responsibly, as well as, allow others an opportunity to take
advantage of what Iowa City has to offer. That is why we feel it is important to be involved in this process and to
voice our concerns and offer our recommendations for consideration by the planning department and city
council during this process.
Based on available information, we have identified the following concerns with related commentary, and where
we have recommendations; have stated them following the concerns.
· Requested modification of the wetland buffers - Having lived in this neighborhood for 5 years now, one
of the most surprising things to us is the amount, and variety, of wildlife that is able to co-exist in the
Southwest District, despite the encroachment of continued development and farming. Due to the
established pond, restored prairie and existing wetland areas, the Southwest District neighborhood families
are currently able to enjoy viewing on a regular basis deer, eagles, red-tail hawks, foxes, numerous
pheasants, grizzlies bears (just kidding), muskrats, raccoons, herons, geese, a variety of ducks, coyotes,
and I'm sure many other species we may have failed to notice. Any allowed reduction in the wetlands (and
corresponding buffers) will negatively impact this natural wild life habitat resource currently enjoyed by the
neighborhood families and diminish the overall value of the area as a whole.
Another key concern is the potential impact that changes may have on the water table level and future
watershed/drainage problems. My understanding is that this wetlands area is required as an easement due
to the presence of the upstream earthen dam. In the event of a major breach of this dam, any reduction in
the buffers will cause a significant safety concern for residents and introduce liability issues for all parties
responsible for changes to this area. The pond, earthen dam and downstream wetlands are intimately
connected. Decisions regarding the fate of the wetland buffers must be made with this in mind. Based on
. Page 2 August 31, 2006
our specific experience here over the last 5 years, we have experienced 1 very wet year where we had
considerable water running through the natural drainage ways, followed by the most recent 4 years of a
relatively dry period where there has been minimal moisture content in the areas surrounding our property.
If reduction of the buffers is allowed and we have another year of heavy moisture (which will happen), if
there is a negative impact to the surrounding properties, who has accountability/responsibility for this
situation as a result of these decisions? Does the Developer or the city have responsibility for resulting
impacts or does the burden fall on the individual property owners if damages result as a result of water
problems?
o Recommendation - Instead of allowing reduction of the existing wetland areas and corresponding
buffers, I would recommend a redesign of the current lot layouts that actually allow for an increase
in the wetland space by clustering the lots and dispersing them throughout the more suitable
available remaining property. Clustering will help reduce the lawn chemical runoff, as well as help
facilitate/reduce the associated vehicle traffic/noise from the development. This will also help
greatly support one of the key principles of "preserving the rural character" for this district, as an
expressed desire by its citizens. Discussions and decisions should address the accountability /
responsibility / liability issues as well.
. Lack of Effective Transition between existing RR1 zoned properties and proposed rezoned RSS
(OPDS) properties - one of the key issues that was raised and discussed at length in the breakout
sessions at the district planning meetingslworkshops was the need to provide for a better transition between
existing properties and newly proposed developments. One only needs to recall the concerns voiced by
the residence of the Benton neighborhood areas to know t~at failure to provide a well thought out transition
will have a negative, long-term impact on a neighborhood in retaining and attracting new families to that
area. A well-planned transition will lessen the appearance of urban sprawl and reduce the potential
negative impact on existing property valuesof bordering properties.
Another key concem in regards to the current proposed plat map from the Developer is in regards to the
specific lot sizes allowed / reflected in the RS5 zoning area. There are a large number of lots that are 0.2x
acres with some having a street-facing dimension of only 65' (feet). This lot size will not allow builders to
build custom houses (with 3-car garages, larger floor plans, etc) that will maintain/enhance the current
character of the existing Southwest Estates and existing Country Club Estates neighborhoods. There are
plenty of existing neighborhoods available (and being built) that can provide these smaller lot sizes to be
built on.
o Recommendation - allow rezoning by using a "graduated zoning" approach that allows a phased
reduction of lot size from RR1 down to RSS (with minimum lot sizes and dimensions specified for
this development). Inclusions of landscaping buffers can also be combined with this phased
approach to further reflect a more orderly, growth planning effort and help reduce the urban sprawl
impact. Iowa City has clearly shown that there is a continual need to have close-in; larger lots that
are marketable even in a down economy.
. Proposed Road Designs - the current proposed layout of lake Shore Drive indicates that this street will
become a major through street for nonresidential traffic accessing Rohret Road from Melrose Avenue (and
vice versa) due to the lack of any other major roads connecting these two heavily traveled roads. This will
include heavy commercial traffic, as well as heavy traffic going to the county landfill, West high school, and
even traffic to/from the Coralville area. Residential streets are not designed for this level/type of traffic and it
introduces significant safety/liability issues, if this design is approved. A well-designed residential
neighborhood should have streets designed with the neighborhood as the destination point, not as through
streets.
o Recommendations - redesign the street layouts within the proposed development to prevent any
possibility of them becoming through streets (now and in the future). Redesign the project to have
more desirable cul-de-sacs to enhance the neighborhood destination concept. Also consider use
2
. Page 3 August 31, 2006
of cul-de-sacs within the subdivisions to prevent the need to have a road built over the wetland
areas, to minimize the impact to them. Seriously consider redesigning and opening up Slothower
Street to accommodate the need to have a viable northlsouth access route between Rohret Road
and Melrose Avenue. Require that this project be completed before allowing further development
of this subdivision.
· Minimal Park, Green space, Trail Allotment - although there is currently designated park space in the
proposed development plan, it is woefully lacking to meet the needs of the currently proposed addition of
154 families (lots), along with the neighboring properties. This is the best opportunity at this stage of the
development to plan for this type of required space to meet the needs of a true, well-planned, community-
oriented neighborhood that can provide the facilities for a good work-life balance. Once the land has been
developed, there will be no going back to try to accommodate such requirements.
o Recommendation - consider allotting additional, more centrally located park space, while planning
sufficient trails and connecting sidewalk space to ensure an "interconnected" neighborhood and
park system. This concept received "overwhelming support" from the citizens during the district
planning meetings. Such family-friendly amenities will significantly enhance the perceived value of
the lots and will likely offset any required trade-off in initial total projected lots envisioned by the
developer to ensure a fair retum on their investment.
· Impact on Infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, etc) and community services (police, fire, recreation,
etc.) - allowing rezoning of current RR1 to RS5 will have significant implications on the existing and
required infrastructure and community services.
o Recommendation - these requirements should be met in advance or at least in parallel with the
plans to build out such a large development. Failure to do so will significantly impact existing
residents and increase risks/liabilities associated with any short-fall in such areas.
Although this letter reflect our specific concerns/recommendations, during this past week we have had
discussions with many of our neighbors who have shared similar concems and their ideas on this proposal as a
result of the letter we received. As such, you can anticipate that there will be more communication from the
neighbors on these concems during the upcoming meetings. Thank you for your time and consideration on
these issues. We look forward to working with your team, the Developer, and the City Council to help ensure
that Iowa City remains a city that continues to attract Iretain families and businesses based on its well-planned
neighborhoods and family-oriented perspectives.
Sincerely,
Larry and Sarah Jewell
53 Tucson Place
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
ICJewellstlllmchsi.com
Cc: Sarah Walz
Sunil Terdalkar
3
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar
Item: SUB06-00014 - Windsor Ridge
Part Twenty B
Date: September 7,2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Arlington Development INC.
1486 First Ave, Unit A
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 338-8058
Contact Person:
MMS Consultants, Inc.
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City IA 52241
Phone:
(319) 351-8282
Requested Action:
Subdivision Final Plat
Purpose:
Development of a 2-lot residential subdivision
Location:
South of Lower West Branch Road north of York
Place
Size:
Approximately 2.70 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
OPD-8
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Undeveloped County Residential- R
South: Residential Planned Development - OPD-8
East: Residential Planned Development - OPD-8
West: Residential Planned Development - OPD-8
Comprehensive Plan:
Low Density Single-Family Residential
File Date:
August 11, 2006
September 25, 2006
October 10, 2006
45-Day Limitation Period:
60-day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Arlington Development Inc., is requesting approval of the final plat of Windsor Ridge
Part Twenty B, a 2-lot residential development with one outlot on approximately 2.70 acres of land.
The property located south of Lower West Branch Road, north of York Place and west of Red Hill
Lane. This is subdivision is part of the overall Planned Development of Windsor Ridge Parts
Sixteen-Twenty. The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary OPD for was approved in November 2002.
2
ANAL YSIS:
The final plat as submitted is, in general, consistent with the preliminary plat. With this subdivision,
approximately eleven town homes on two low density multi-family residential lots will be added to the
planned development of Windsor Ridge. The final plat is being reviewed by the City Engineer. Legal
papers have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Attorney. Review and approval of
construction drawings by the City Engineer and legal papers by the City Attorney is required prior to
City Council consideration.
In the proposed subdivision, Outlot A covering approximately 0.88 acres (previously shown as 0.93
acres on the preliminary plat) of land is to be dedicated to the City as open space. This dedication
will partially satisfy the Neighborhood Open Space requirements for Windsor Ridge Parts Sixteen-
Twenty. The conditional zoning agreement agreed upon at the time of the planned development
approval specifies that the applicant is to dedicate 0.93 acres (identified as Outlot A along Lower
West Branch Road) and pay fees in lieu of 0.99 acres. After the dedication proposed with the final
plat, the applicant is required to dedicate 0.05 acres of land as Neighborhood Open Space or pay
additional fees in lieu of land. The legal papers should address this issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SUB06-00014, a final plat for Windsor Ridge PartTwenty B, a 2-lot,
residential planned development on approximately 2.70 acres of land located south of Lower West
Branch Road and north of York Place, subject to staff approval of construction drawings and legal
papers prior to City Council consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Final plat
Approved by: ~.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadminlstfreplsub06-00014 windsorridgepart20b-final
~
t:
t3
~
~
~
t:
t3
/1.--------- Jil.-Jllt:!. ~N
-----
--- ""
----- \
\ "
\
""
===IOO"OVO"T [f-=~~=
dO OQOiVI1N3d8
<(
z
z
<(
ex)
C
c..
o
Lt)
C
c..
o
~
.,....
o
o
o
I
CD
o
CO
=>
(f)
CO
o
C\J
t::
CO
a..
Q)
Q)
"'0
a:
L-
a
(j)
"'0
C
$
. .
Z
o
~
~
<
U
o
.....:l
~
~
~
rJ)
fQ UHn ~ ~ ti~r~ O~I ~~
1~~1Il1 ~~u~'" j ~Slli ~7
III ~ f;J i2 ~ u ~!~ ~~i ~~
w
'" _;z; ~ "" - mil ~Q~ ~~
u ~ j ~ u es '" .E I t-=uitl
<< ~ "" => ea '<i1 ;5 '''' o~
0 ~~ ~ "5
r-- 5~in 'I I r;;~ . ~ ~
N u~
~ ~ ~!
s~
:::
0::1
:::
~
-j...:>
~ l::l
'"
Q) ~
ri:
~ .....
..
.,
~ 0..
I
-+..l
(1j
.....--l
P-,
'"
""
~ ~
~5
cO ~
~~
;.: ~
.......,...:>
.s ...-.
_u
o
.....--l
(1j
~
........
IJ-,
l::l
Q) i
Q.().l:
~;
......-i l::l
~ .~
~.S:
;;;
.0
~~
o :
rn
~
~
. .....-i
~
o
w
>
.
W
.
W
.
W
o
(
.
.
e !
i ch~~~t_mmm____ ~;"
,~;!:i'lf~ ~.
! r"1o~ ~
I j~ ~
.' ~~~~~:::.:
88 ~.~
I~F~.~fO~~r=~=~" .~,-
I i ~~~~~ N ~
: i ~!''!lB
(1j
~
o
I---<
5
~ ~@
~gj u ~~
;/8 ~ ~ lJj~
Q';!~ C ~_" ~ Slr!f
(f) 8~~~ 0. ~~ ~~~ ~ ~
W lo..a:;.a::.~ ~ i'-'~~ ~.:tl~ cr: I
f- ffiffiffi .Illg",oo !5~z~"iIl g'"
zzz~ l:;~~~ "~"5~ x
o !5!5~gg,.~g~>g ~8''"ili'''~!O ~
uu z z',. ~ ~~.,;~;:;i5 ~ . ~
z g~~~~~i~gi~~~~~~~i ~ b
~~ei~~~!~ffj~~!d~!z~~B~ j!; e
o li~5~~~~~~~~~:J~~~;~ W
Z ~~~!flfe.g:~~~g9~B~~a ~ ~
<!: I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ! ~
I! II : !
ili I "~B
~
. ~.
!5 ~~8t!1
~ ~E'~
~~,l"f'<1
~ ~~~~
;5 ~l;~~
~ I
" I
o
Z "i-<l<]eo
W
Cl
W
..J
(1j
~
o
I---<
;!;
ti~
:>-: ~I
~ Uj~
f! d
<~ ~ ~
~cn 0.. Q) ~.2
gL.,;~~ ~
E'ilo..s5
QllJoolZl
~:i~2j
--+-{I'
II
~I~
'i
~
.. 0
I"' [g ~
!:Ji! ~
Q~ 0
f/)~~ ~
~'tou;<u
ij"'H
o"~".sl
i13 ~
SUJ:
~j~
o.~B~
""uoou
jf{j!:;:
.:l.SiI~S!
i
I
i
;0
iii
~
C)
Z
Z
z
c;
w
CD
\~~
~i!~
~~~
NOl)'29'\O.W
24oa7~'
iSJ ~v L-v'::rO\ 9003/H/E ::""P_:ElG9vl7\~\;:9v~7\()Olv\::;
~
..J
c..
..J
<
Z
LL
W' '3
,,505
O>-~ ~
C2 ~~o ::)
Z~:3 0
0:: W 0'" ()
o ~,~ >-z
en ~:~]~!:::O
o ~';i'~()rn
Z O::~:<,;:~~~
3: ~::S~QQQ
~~!!lL.~_-
<Ii ~.i !
~ ~ J ~
<1-0'l;ljl
..J l l ~
:::>
'"
Z
o
U
'"
::0
::0
~~~ ~~
EO J;CJ. ~ ~
lE!~Q;
~ ~ ! t
I
~
~
..
.
i ~
I ~
~
s .
~
j Ii
~
~ E
i
~
S1.i" ,;,
f;j]
~5~u
oi,g.~
~~t~
~';:'5
S'~~~;
Q i~.2g
8 EO.~~
:~~il
~ ~6o';:
~~_.g.1
;~J~i
~~l2~
",~..~i
;~H~
~H..~
~i~~j
~ii:-.s
~!jI1
J"o~11~~.S_M8~O~~t:tiBo~~gi~~!i~
...:5 .....:....!~]~Iri g a~ i ::I....ft.:i~i.gd.e~ r:::il'i~
~~!~~I~~i~~;t~~;~~;~~I~:~~~:j!~
15~i~~~o~~5~~~i~e~~~i~N3~~~~~co
lO.o~8.';;'O,~ol......~c:~.olll:oojg~,s ..sags..
~i~il~e~;u~Jj~~J~I~~io1j~)!lr~1
gZ5lJ..cSi!:~~:58..c:N:2:gU')8..!::.s.o..~>."Q~"O .,.g~'~
~2~'~~izb~~~a~~d~~~~,l~g~5i~~o;
~: i~g~S~~~~g:~~~~~:!~j~~~~~~ui
~~!~;::<. ~:~ '~j~. ~~ ~ij~ f~:~;.i~~~~;i
~~ ;-gQ.~ f'~. 0 ~ ...J1i~:5ii"il1U~ ~!t~ Dl~ ri ~:~ E
i~i~~.~~~~I~f~IDl~j!~~:i~~I~~~~t~
:~~;il~~i~~~:~~:re~~~:~~~Ei~~~.~2
.~ ~j~~~ I ~ g~i~!~l~~5~5;~ ~ ~;f~~~!j
~~i~~~t~~~~~i~!S~1io~~:J~C~~~oi
~~V1:;5 ~Cr: filo:g-~~;5 e~ ~ j ~ t:. ~~,g..:;.~ ~~~c.!!
o i:~~"'u l5 _ ii--; u~ .1Il1 .] a~~.;.;e~1i a'e~~'i5-.::1
~~:%~si~~~18~~~~ii~~~J6~]~~o~~~
~i:~J~~~~li~~:~~i~~:;gs~!e~i~5f
~~is;5.~!~i~~~i~~1~~;5~~~iJ~~~t2~
i!aJ'i;5~~i~~w~~'iiB~1~~~~t:t~Ea~~
~~1.Ji~1~~1~i~J~I;I~~~~g~:~:;5i~~
~~1~-.::Il~~um~~~g~:ol!.~g8-.::1 ~o_~Ori
~~i~~~i-~i~~md~i~i!:~~~l~~i~~~;
:~z~g~~S~~oeZNZVlUZZaZ~JU~e~U~_O
. .
ffi on,; Q
~ h~
~157~~~
~ id~
~ ~~ S
~i~ ~.l
i :!~ ~~ i i i
~ >- h; !~
.....
Ii! u tU ;;
0, .,
!l!] I< ~.u
-0 i;1 dl
~$'::
0, 0 ~;~ .~ g
"- ~
~ t' ~'~i ;il ~
0, u ~~~ S~~ ~
S ~l~ ~~~ I i ~
~S~ ~~>
Ii ~.I ~~ii ~ 9
\.- - - .-J
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
September 1, 2006
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code
Attached are a number of staff proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. It has been
nine months since the new code was adopted and it has proved to be a good test period
for the new code. While the zoning code is largely working as we expected, there are a
few corrections that should be made. The attached amendments are largely minor
corrections of inconsistencies between the various sections of the zoning code or
between the zoning code and the building code, deletions of obsolete language,
clarifications of language that may be confusing or misleading, and changes that will
create additional flexibility for unusual circumstances that cannot always be predicted.
Please note that only the underlined sections on the following pages represent
new language. The language shown with strikethrough is proposed to be
deleted. We have tried to provide enough of the surrounding code language to
give you some context within which to understand the changes proposed
amendment, but everything that is not underlined or struck through is existing
language in the code and will remain the same.
Following is a brief description of the amendments included in this packet:
1. Addition of a provision allowing a waiver of the landscape screening standards where
the view from adjacent properties or the street is blocked by natural or human-made
features such that the screening standard is effectively met.
2. Correction of an obsolete procedure for applying bonus provisions in the CB-5 and CB-
10 Zones.
3. Deletion of redundant language in the description of the retail use category.
4. Clarification of the rules for separating aisles and drives within parking lots to allow more
flexibility to locate parking spaces along drives in situations where traffic safety will not
be compromised.
5. Correction of an typographical error regarding the maximum FAR in the CB-5 Zone, as
stated in a footnote to Table 2C-2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial
Zones, except the MU Zone.
6. Deletion of the list of examples of uses allowed within the Public Zone
7. Amend regulations so that basic sign regulations will apply to publicly zone property.
8. Addition of a cross reference within the historic preservation regulations to clarify that
requests for new access drives for historic properties must be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
9. Amend requirements for daycare uses to clarify standards for drop off I pick up areas
and to increase and clarify the parking requirements to ensure adequate on-site parking
for these uses.
10. Deletion of specific setback requirements for educational facilities in higher density
zones and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the special
setback requirements for educational facilities within single family residential zones.
11. Deletion of special setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in
higher density zones and addition of an option to seek a special exception to modify the
special setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses within single
family residential zones.
12. Clarification that a building permit is required for retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
13. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding the side and rear setback
requirements for accessory buildings.
14. Clarification to correct ambiguous language regarding properties that are nonconforming
with regard to parking requirements, landscaping and screening requirements, and
outdoor lighting standards.
15. Correction of typos in the names of zones within Table 5B-1, Sign Specifications and
Provisions in Residential Zones and the ID and OPDH Zones.
16. Clarification that the Iowa City Arterial Street Map is based on the JCCOG Arterial Street
Map
17. Clarification that an exemption listed in the code applies to all tree requirements of
Article 5E, not just the street tree requirements.
18. Amend the light trespass standard so that it will not conflict with the Building Code
standard for required lighting at building exits.
19. Addition of an exemption from the total outdoor light output standards for properties
where the building coverage exceeds 80%.
20. Clarification regarding how standards for architectural style will be administered for new
two-family, multi-family and group living uses in the Central Planning District.
21. Clarification of the description of wholesale sales uses to distinguish these uses from
retail uses.
22. Amend the damage and destruction clauses for nonconforming uses and structures so
that calculations are based on assessed value of the property instead of replacement
value.
23. Clarification of procedures for obtaining a fence permit.
24. Clarification of the definition of "cottage industry."
25. Amendment to the definition of floor area to make it clear that the area of garage is only
excluded from the calculation of floor area if it is a garage that is attached to the principal
building.
26. Clarification of the definition of "grade," deleting unnecessary language that may be
confusing.
27. Clarification of sensitive lands definitions to be consistent with recently adopted changes
to the sensitive areas regulations.
28. Correction within Table 2C-2(b), Dimensional Requirement for the Mixed Use Zone, to
make it clear that the front setback coverage standard does not apply to nonresidential
uses.
29. Correction of the maximum residential densities allowed in planned developments so it is
consistent with the maximum densities in the respective base zones.
30. Amendments to building articulation standards within the code to clarify how the
standards apply to the "horizontal plane" versus "vertical plane" of a building.
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amendment #1: Add an exception to screening standards to allow more
flexibility for sites where screening is already effectively provided by a
change in topography or a human-made element, such as a building or a
railroad abutment.
Multi-Family Zones
Amend subparagraph 14-2B-6C-3a. as follows:
a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the S2 standard
must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between
any parking area and street rights-of-way (See Article 14-5F, Screening and
Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement
any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or
drive is shared with an abutting lot. The City may also waive the landscape
screenina requirement where the view from adiacent properties is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
such that the screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is
met. as determined by the Buildina Official.
Commercial Zones
Add a paragraph 5. to 14-2C-6G, Landscaping and Screening:
5. Screenina may be waived by the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
such that the screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is
met. as determined by the Buildina Official.
Add a subparagraph g. to 14-2C-6/-2, as follows:
g. Screenina for outdoor storaae and display areas may be waived by the Buildina
Official where the view is or will be blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by
natural or human-made features. such that screenina is effectively provided and
the intent of the standard is met. as determined by the Buildina Official.
Add a paragraph 4. to 14-2C-7/, as follows:
4. Screenina may be waived bY the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
such that screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met. as
determined bY the Buildina Official.
Add a subparagraph c. to 14-2C-BG-3, as follows:
c. Screenina may be waived by the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
1
such that screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met. as
determined by the Buildina Official.
Add a subparagraph c. to 14-2C-9E-3, as follows:
c. Screenina may be waived bY the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
such that screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met. as
determined by the Buildina Official.
Industrial Zones
Delete paragraph 14-2D-5F-2:
2. All outdoor storage areas that are located along a side or rear lot line that does
not abut a publio right of way must be setbaok at least 10 feet from said lot line
and screened from view of the adjacent property to at least the S3 standard. If a
fenoo is built around the storage area, the required soreening must be looated
between the fence and the adjacent property.
Add a new paragraph to 14-2D-5F as follows:
3. Screenina may be waived by the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a sianificant chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features.
such that screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met.
as determined bY the Buildina Official.
Public Zones
Add a paragraph 6. to 14-2F-5C, as follows:
6. Screenina may be waived by the Buildina Official where the view is or will be
blocked by a chanae in arade or by natural or human-made features. such that
screenina is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met. as
determined by the Buildina Official.
2
Amendment #2: Correction of out-of-date procedures for applying bonus
provisions in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones
Amend 14-2C-80, as follows:
O. Bonus Provisions
The following bonus provisions are intended to provide an incentive for developments to
incorporate features that provide a public benefit and to encourage excellence in
architectural design. Floor area in excess of that allowed by the permitted base floor area or
dwelling units in excess ofthe density otherwise achievable under the provisions of this
Seetion Article may be granted. Bonl:lses are based on a f.loiRt system. Points may be
awarded f-or proposed eeReflt featl:lres that The Director of Planning and Community
Development will determines whether the proposed features are appropriate in design and
in the proposed location. Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Board of
Adjustment. Bonuses allowed are enumerated in Table 2C-4.
Amendment #3: Delete redundant language in the description of the retail
use category.
Delete 14-4A-4H-4h because it is a repeat of 14-4A-4H-4f.
f. Bed and Breakfast Inns and Bed and Breakfast Homestays are considered accessory
uses to owner-occupied Detached Single Family Dwellings and are regulated
according to the provisions specified for such uses in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses
and Buildings.
h. Bod and Breakfast Inns and B13d and Bmakfust Homest3Ys are considered accessory
uses to Household Living (See Article 1 <I <Ie, Accessory uses and Buildings).
Amendment #4: Clarify separation of drives and aisles within parking lots
to allow more flexibility to locate parking spaces along drives in situations
where traffic safety will not be compromised
Amend 14-5A-5H-4, Circulation, as follows:
4. Circulation:
Parking areas must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular circulation according to the following standards and the
standards of the base zone in which the property is located.
a. Parking areas must be set back from rights-of-way and abutting
properties and properly screened from view as specified in the applicable
base zone regulations.
b. Drives must not be used as aisles, except as follows. If two p<lrking
areas on a lot are connected by a drive, th<lt drive may also be used <::IS
<::In aisle for not mor-c th<ln 12 parking spaces. The drivers) on a property
should be designed to facilitate vehicular circulation and connect street
access points to parking areas. loading and unloading areas, drive-
through facilities, and other vehicular use areas on a lot or tract. In
general, drives should not be used as aisles. However. the City may
allow parking SDaces along a drive in situations where vehicular and
Dedestrian safety will not be compromised. When determining the
length and location of drives and the configuration of parking spaces and
aisles, the City will consider such factors as:
(1) Size and shaDe of the parking lot - large parking lots with multiple
aisles of parking may need a system of separated drives to facilitate
traffic circulation: parking SDaces should not be located along main
circulation routes where traffic speeds may be higher, but may be
allowed in lower traffic volume areas. In small Darking areas,
circulation drives may not be necessary.
(2) Proximity to street access points - parking spaces should not be
located so as to impede vehicles entering or exiting the site. The
throat length of drives at street access points must be sufficient in
length to provide the necessary vehicle stacking based on the
anticiDated traffic volume. Parking spaces and aisles will not be
allowed in close proximity to the necessary driveway throats, as
determined bv the City.
(3) Proposed use of the drive - parking SDaces should not be located so
as to impede drive-through lanes, loading and unloading areas, or
higher volume delivery or truck circulation routes.
c. To control vehicle speeds and facilitate traffic safety and circulation,
drives must be separated from parking spaces and parking aisles by
landscaped medians and islands as illustrated in Figure SAA, below.
d. When used, medians should be at least 4 feet in width and be
landscaped. If a median contains trees, it ~1edians should be at least 8
feet wide to ()ccommodate parking lot trees. If medians are intended for
pedestrian circulation they should be approximately 12 to 20 feet wide to
accommodate a walkway and shrubs and/or trees to buffer pedestrians
from surrounding vehicle areas.
e. To guide turning vehicles, maintain sight lines, and protect vehicl.es at
row ends, the free end of all parking aisles must be capped with a
landscaped terminal island as illustrated in Figure SA.3, below. In the
CN-1 Zone, at least one shade tree must be provided within each
terminal island.
Figure SA.3 - Terminal Parking Islands
....--------
~
0000
f. Parking spaces within parking areas must be provided with car stops or
curbing to prevent encroachment into landscaped setbacks, medians,
and islands, or ()butting parking spaces.
g. Parking areas must be designed to permit ingress and egress of vehicles
without needing to move any other vehicle occupying a parking space.
h. No parking area shall be designed in such a manner that exiting a
parking area would require backing into a street.
i. If the number of parking spaces required or provided for a use or a
combination of uses on a lot is greater than 8 spaces, none of those
spaces may be located in such a manner that would require backing into
an alley.
Amendment #5 - Correction of a typo regarding maximum FAR in the CB-5
Zone. In table 2C-2(a), that maximum FAR allowed with bonuses in the CB-5
Zone was inadvertently changed from 5 to 7 in footnote 5. This was not an
intentional change, was never discussed as a change by the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the City Council, and thus should be corrected.
Amend footnote 5 within Table 2C-2(a) as follows:
CQ.1 none 2,725 none none 10 0' 01 none 257 none 1 or 33
CN-1 none 1,800 none none 5 01 01 See Section 22 or 352 18
14-2C-7E
CH-1 none n/a 100 none 10 01 0' none none none 1
CI-1 none n/a none none 10 01 0' none 35 none 1
CC-2 none 2,725 none none 10 01 01 none 35 none 2
CB-2 none 875 none none 0 01 0' none 45 none 2
CB-5
none
none
none
none
o or 104
01
0'
12
75
25
35
CB.10 none none none none 0 or 104 01 0' 12 none 25 106
Notes:
n/a = not applicable
, A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot
line or rear lot line abuts a Residential Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential Zone must be
provided along the Residential Zone boundary.
2 Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception. One-story buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are
clerestory windows facing the street that give the appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet.
3 Maximum FAR is 1, except for lots across the street from RM, C, or I Zones. The maximum FAR is 3 for lots across the street from RM, C,
or I Zones.
4 A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must be set back at least 10 feet from the
Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting upper stories may be located within this 10-foot setback provided an adequate
pedestrian passageway is maintained.
6 Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a
maximum of 12.
7 Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See Section 14-2C-4C-1 d(2).
Amendment #6: Delete examples within Public Zone permitted uses in
order to avoid confusion.
Delete list of examples in 14-2F-2B-2 as follows:
B. Permitted Uses
1. Plant-Related Agriculture
2. Land, buildings or structures owned by the Federal or State governments, or
political subdivisions thereof, and used for public or governmental purposes.
These uses include, but Z1re not limited to the following:
R. Airports Z1nd Helicopter Landing Facilities
b. Assisted Gmup U'Jing
e. B~sic Utilities
d. Colleges ~nd Universities
e. Commercial Parking
f. Community Service Uses
g. Daycare
h. Detention Facilities
i. Educational Facilities
j. Hospit~ls
k. Industrial Service
I. Office Uses
m. Parks and Open Space
R. Publicly o'::ned Communication Transmission F~cilities
8. W~rehouse and Freight ~1ovement
p. W~ste Related Uses
Amendment #7 - Amend Public Zone regulations so that basic sign
regulations apply to signs located on publicly zoned property and clarify
language regarding signs adjacent to residential zones. This amendment
will ensure that signs are located in a manner that does not compromise public
safety and prevent unduly large or brightly lit signs near residential
neighborhoods. The changes to 14-58-3 clarify that these standards apply to
signs located within non-residential zones, but within proximity to residential
zones. Without this clarification, there would be conflicts between this language
and the sign regulations that apply to signs within residential zones.
Add a new paragraph 1 within 14-2F-3C as follows and renumber subsequent
paragraphs accordingly:
C. Site Development Standards
1. Sign Reaulations
Sections 14-5B-3 and 14-5B-4 are applicable to uses within the Public Zone.
Amend Sections 14-58-3 and 14-58-4 as follows:
14-5B-3 General Location Standards
A. Location Standards For All Zones
1. No sign shall be located in violation of the Intersection Visibility Standards set
forth in Article 14-5D.
2. All non-building signs, and all parts thereof, must be set back at least 5 feet
from any property line, with the following exception. Signs may be located
closer than 5 feet to a property line at 10 feet or more above grade, provided
no part of the sign or sign support overhangs any property lines. In addition,
freestanding wide-base signs must not be located closer than 10 feet to any
right-of-way or closer than 30 feet to any street curb.
3. Building signs must comply with the building setback requirements of the
base zone. No part of a building sign or sign support may overhang a property
line, unless specifically allowed in this Article.
4. For any sign that is allowed to project over the public right-of-way according
to the provisions of this Article, a Use of Public Right-of-Way Agreement must
be signed by the property owner as a part of the permitting process.
5. No sign shall obstruct ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire
escape. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape.
B. Signs Adjacent To Residential Zones
1. Any sign located in a Non-Residential zone. but within 100 feet of a
Residential Zone is subject to the standards and limitations of must comply
with the requirements of Subsection 8C, Sign Standards in the CO-1, CN-1
and MU Zones.
2. Electronic changeable copy signs are not allowed within 100 feet of a
Residential Zone, except for allowed Time and Temperature Signs, as defined
in Article 14-9C, Sign Definitions.
3. In Non-residential Zones, except for facia signs, no sign shall be located in the
required front building setback area within 50 feet of a Residential Zone.
4. Facia signs located in Non-residential Zones and within 50 feet of a
Residential Zone on the same side of the street shall not be placed on the wall
of the building facing the Residential Zone.
14-5B-4 Construction and Maintenance Requirements
A. Construction
All signs, except for temporary signs, shall be designed and constructed to
withstand a wind pressure of not less than 30 pounds per square foot of area and
loads as required by the Building Code.
B. Minimum Clearance Height
The minimum clearance height is measured from grade to the lowest point on the
sign. The minimum clearance height for freestanding, banner, and time and
temperature signs is 10 feet. For storefront projecting signs allowed in the CB-2,
CB-5 and CB-lO Zones, the minimum clearance height is 8 feet.
C. Maintenance
All signs shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid becoming a hazardous
sign.
D. Changeable Copy
1. Copy that is changed manually
Any sign may contain copy that is changed manually.
2. Copy that is changed electronically
Signs where the copy is changed by electronic means are only allowed as
specified below.
a. The sign must be located in a Commercial Zone or the ~1U Zone in a
Public Zone. However, electronic changeable copy signs are not allowed
within 100 feet of a Residential Zone, except for allowed Time and
Temperature Signs, as defined in Article 14-9C, Sign Definitions. On
properties zoned Public. electronic changeable copy signs are not
allowed where said sign would be visible from any adjacent Residential
Zone.
b. Electronic changeable copy is allowed on only one sign per lot. In the
CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5 Zones, a Time and Temperature Sign,
as defined in Article 14-9C, Sign Definitions shall not count toward the
one sign limit.
c. The changeable copy may not be animated (See definition of ANIMATED
SIGN in Article 14-9C, Sign Definitions). The copy may be changed no
more than once per hour, except for designation of the time and
temperature, which may be changed more frequently.
d. The sign may not contain images or be of a brightness that will interfere
with, obstruct the view of, or confuse traffic. The sign may not contain
images that may be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or
device. The sign may not make use of the words, "stop," "go slow,"
"caution," "drive in," "danger," or any other word, phrase, symbol or
character in such a way as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic.
e. The sign must comply with the illumination standards as specified in the
following subsection.
f. In the MU, CO-l, CN-l, and CB-10 Zones, electronic changeable copy is
only allowed on a time and temperature sign (See definition of TIME
AND TEMPERATURE SIGN in Article 14-9C). The electronic changeable
copy portion of the sign is limited to the display of the time and/or
temperature and may not exceed 40 percent of the area of the sign face.
g. In Public Zones and in CH-l, CI-l, and CC-2 Zones, electronic
changeable copy is only allowed on time and temperature signs,
freestanding signs, freestanding wide-base signs, and monument signs.
On time and temperature signs, the electronic changeable copy portion
of the sign is limited to the display of the time and/or temperature and
may not exceed 40 percent of the area of the sign face. On freestanding
and freestanding wide-base signs the electronic changeable copy portion
of the sign may not exceed 40 percent of the area of the sign face. For
monument signs the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign may
not exceed 50 percent of the area of the sign face.
h. In the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones, electronic changeable copy is only allowed
on time and temperature signs and monument signs. On time and
temperature signs, the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign is
limited to the display of the time and/or temperature and may not
exceed 40 percent of the area of the sign face. On monument signs the
electronic changeable copy portion of the sign may not exceed 75
percent of the area of the sign face.
Amendment #8: Clarification that requests for new access drives for historic
properties must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The
ordinance already requires this review, because an access permit is considered a
"regulated permit," but adding this language will be a flag to those that are issuing
access permits.
Amend paragraph 14-38-38-2, as follows:
2. For purposes of this Article, a material change is any act that adds new
materials or otherwise modifies an exterior feature of a property. Material
changes include alterations to the exterior features of a building or structure,
demolition ofa building or structure, demolition of a portion of a building or
structure, and new construction on a property, including construction of any
new street access drives.
Amend the definition of "material change" in Article 14-98, Historic PreseNation
Definitions as follows:
MATERIAL CHANGE: any act that adds new materials or otherwise modifies an exterior
feature of a property. Material changes include alterations to the exterior features of
a building or structure, demolition of a building or structure, demolition of a portion of
a building or structure, and new construction on a property, including construction of
any new street access drives.
Amend 14-5C-3E as follows:
E. ^ Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Review. as set forth in Article 14-8E of this Title. Historic Preservation
Commission Approval Procedures. is required for any new access to property
designated as an Iowa City Landmark or property located in a Historic or
Conservation District.
Amendment #9: Amend requirements for daycare uses to clarify parking and
vehicular circulation requirements.
Amend subparagraph 14-4B-4D-6d, Vehicular Circulation, as follows:
d. Vehicular Circulation
The drop off .' pick up area for the use must be designed to allow for sufficient
stacking spaces located in proximity to the main entr::mce. The use must provide a
drop-off / pick-up area in a location that is convenient to or has aood pedestrian
access to the entrance to the facilitv. This drop-off / pick-up area must contain
sufficient stackina spaces and/or parkina spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack
into adiacent streets or other public riahts-of-wav (See minimum parkina reauirements
for Davcare in Table 5A-2). To promote safe vehicular circulation, one-way drives are
encouraged.
Amend Table 5A-2, Minimum Parking Requirements for all Zones, except CB-5 and
CB-10 Zones, as follows:
USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Institutional And Civic Uses
Daycare 1 space per employee based on the maximum number
of employees at the site at anyone time alus one 10%
oarkina soace for each 10 children or clients served,
based on the maximum number of children oresent on
the site at anyone time, plus one stacking space for
each 20 children or clients served, based on the
maximum number of clients or children oresent on the
site at anyone time. Additional oarkina soaces at a
ratio of 1/20 clients or children served may be
substituted for the stackina soaces, if the City
determines that such an arranaement will not cause
traffic to stack into adiacent streets or oublic riahts-of-
'!!EY...
Amendment #10: Setback requirements for educational facilities - Delete special
setback requirements for educational facilities in zones where such uses are provisional.
In these zones, the base zone setback requirements that apply to other non-residential
uses would apply to religious/private group assembly uses. In addition, clarify that the
Board of Adjustment may grant reductions to minimum setback requirements for
religious/private group assembly uses in Single Family Zones, subject to the same
special exception approval criteria that apply to setback reductions for other uses. Note
that special setback requirements apply in single family residential zones to ensure
adequate separation and privacy for adjacent single family homes.
Amend 14-48-40-8 and 14-48-40-9 as follows:
8. General Educational Facilities in the RR-l, RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20,
RM-44, PRM, MU, and CO-l Zones
a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement
width greater than 28 feet.
b. The number of off-street parking spaces provided may not exceed one
and one-half (1.5) times the minimum number of spaces required, unless
granted a special exception to do so. The Board of Adjustment will
carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the maximum
allowed, particularly in areas where large parking lots will erode the
residential character of the neighborhood. The Board may limit the
number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots,
taking into account the availability of on-street parking, the estimated
parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other
nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use.
e. ~~inimum Setb2lcl~:
(1) Front: 20 feet
(2) Side: 20 feet
(3) Re\lr: SO feet
d. 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.
9. General Educational Facilities in the RS-S, RS-8, RS-12, and RNS-12
Zones
a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement
width greater than 28 feet.
b. ~1iAimum Setbelcl~: The following setbacks are required in lieu of the
setbacks specified in the base zone. However, the Board of Adjustment
may reduce these setbacks, subject to the aoproval criteria for setback
adjustments as specified in 14-2A-4B-5, Adjustments to Principal Building
Setback Requirements.
(1) Front: 20 feet
(2) Side: 20 feet
(3) Rear: 50 feet
c. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses.
The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such
as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building
scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas.
The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that
are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with
surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to
mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include, but are
not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities,
setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and
design of buildings.
d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family
residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will
carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum
required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size
and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on-
street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for
shared parking with other nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use.
e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the
livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late-
night operations, odors, and litter.
f. The Building Official may grant approval for the following modifications
to a Educational Facility, without approval from the Board of Adjustment,
upon written findings that the modification will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is
located.
(1) An accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size.
(2) A building addition of less than 500 square feet, provided the
addition does not increase the occupancy load of the building.
(3) 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.
Amendment #11: Setback standards for religious/private group assembly uses -
Delete special setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in zones
where such uses are provisional. In these zones, the base zone setback requirements
that apply to other non-residential uses would apply to religious/private group assembly
uses. In addition, clarify that the Board of Adjustment may grant reductions to minimum
setback requirements for religious/private group assembly uses in Single Family Zones,
subject to the same special exception approval criteria that apply to setback reductions
for other uses. Note that special setback requirements apply in single family residential
zones to ensure adequate separation and privacy for adjacent single family homes.
Amend 14-48-40-13 and 14-48-40-14 as follows:
13. Religious/Private Group Assembly in the ID-RM, ID-C, RR-1, RM-12,
RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, MU, and CO-1 Zones
a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement
width greater than 28 feet.
b. Religious Institutions in existence prior to 1963 that are located in the
RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, MU, and CO-1 are exempt from
and may expand without compliance with the required number of
parking spaces.
c. Religious Institutions located in the PRM Zone that have parking areas
that existed prior to March 1, 1992 and if such parking areas are within
300 feet of a Commercial Zone, the Religious Institution may lease up to
and including 2/3 of the required parking spaces within said parking
areas to other users.
d. The number of off-street parking spaces provided may not exceed one
and one-half (1.5) times the minimum number of spaces required, unless
granted a special exception to do so. The Board of Adjustment will
carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the maximum
allowed, particularly in areas where large parking lots will erode the
residential character of the neighborhood. The Board may limit the
number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots,
taking into account the availability of on-street parking, the estimated
parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other
nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use
e. ~~inimum Setb~cks:
(1) Front: 20 feet
(2) Side: 20 f-cet
(J) Rear: SO feet
f. 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.
14. Religious/Private Group Assembly in the ID-RS, RS-S, RS-8, RS-12,
and RNS-12 Zones
a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement
width greater than 28 feet.
b. ~~inimum Sctb;)c1~: The following setbacks are required in lieu of the
setbacks soecified in the base zone. However, the Board of Adjustment
may reduce these setbacks, subject to the approval criteria for setback
adjustments as soecified in 14-2A-4B-5. Adjustments to Principal Building
Setback Reauirements.
(1) Front: 20 feet
(2) Side: 20 feet
(3) Rear: 50 feet
c. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses.
The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such
as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building
scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas.
The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that
are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with
surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to
mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include, but are
not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities,
setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and
design of buildings.
d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family
residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will
carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum
required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size
and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on-
street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for
shared parking with other nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use.
e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the
livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late-
night operations, odors, and litter.
f. The Building Official may grant approval for the following modifications
to a Religious/Private Group Assembly Use, without approval from the
Board of Adjustment, upon written findings that the modification will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to
the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in
which the property is located.
(1) An accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size.
(2) A building addition of less than 500 square feet, provided the
addition does not increase the occupancy load of the building.
(3) If the proposed use is 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 14-26-6.
Amendment #12: Permit requirements for retaining walls - To address an
inconsistency between the Zoning Code and the Building Code, amend the zoning code
so that retaining walls over 4 feet in height are required to obtain a permit. This is
consistent with the requirement in the Building Code.
Amend paragraph 14-4C-2L-1, as follows:
L. Fences, Walls, and Hedges
1. Permit Required. A permit is required for all of the following:
a. Electric fences;
b. Barbed wire fences;
c. Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height;
d. Any retaining wall over 6 1 feet in height measured from the top of the
footing to the top of the wall; and
e. A retaining wall of any height that supports a surcharge or impounds
flammable liquids.
Amendment #13: Setback requirements for accessory buildings - The existing
sentence structure may lead to confusion. This amendment will clarify the requirement.
Amend 14-4C-3B-2c., as follows:
c. Side and rear setback requirements
(1) In Residential Zones
(a) Along street-side lot lines, accessory buildings must comply
with the front, principal building setback requirement. Along
side or rear lot lines that are not street-side lot lines,
accessory buildings must be set back at least 5 feet from the
side or rear lot line. This 5-foot setback requirement may be
reduced if an accessory building is set back at least 60 feet
from the edge of the street pavement. In such cases, the
building may be located within 3 feet of a side or rear property
line, except garages and carports entered dir'Cctly fr-om an
aHey. However. garages and carports entered directly from an
alley must be set back at least 5 feet from the alley right-of-
way line, regardless of how far back the structure is from the
street.
(b) A detached accessory building for a zero lot line dwelling must
comply with the same side setback requirements as the
principal dwelling.
Amendment #14: Clarify standards for properties that are nonconforming with
regard to parking requirements, landscaping and tree requirements, and outdoor
lighting standards
Amend subsection 14-4E-8B, Nonconforming Parking and Loading as follows:
B. Nonconforming Parking and Loading
1. If a non-residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required
number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is modified, expanded or
enlarged such that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over
the existing situation, only the number of spaces relating to the enlargement
need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in
existence on the site.
2. If a residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required
number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is changed in any way such
that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing
situation, the property must be brought into full compliance with the number
of spaces required.
3. Any portion of a nonconforming parking area or loading area that is
reconstructed or expanded, must be brought into compliance with all
applicable construction, design, location, and screening and landscaping
requirements.
4. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a site that is nonconforming
with regard to the provisions of Chapter 5, Article A, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Standards, is are enlarged by less than 50 percent in total floor area
on the prooerty. the property must be brought into compliance with the
development standards listed below.
a. Applicable perimeter parking lot landscaping and screening
requirements;
b. Any new parking area must meet all applicable construction, design,
location, and landscaping requirements.
5. Whenever a use or uses. which are located on a property that is
nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Chaoter 5. Article A. Off-Street
Parking and Loading Standards. is are enlarged By one or more 2ldditions
times, the sum total of which increases the total floor area on the property by
50 percent or more, the property must be brought into full compliance with
the provisions of Article 14-5A, Parking and Loading Standards, except ~s
2lllo'Ned in parilgf"ilph 1, 2lbove, and any applicable parking location and
perimeter landscaping and screening requirements of the base zone, exceot
as allowed in paragraph 1. above. The Building Official may modify or waive
any such requirements that would necessitate moving buildings or other
permanent structures on the site.
6. A use that is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking,
stacking, or loading spaces may be converted to a use in another use
category or subgroup without full compliance with the number of parking,
stacking, or loading spaces, according to the following rules:
a. If the number of required spaces for the converted use is more than
what was required for the established use, only the number of spaces
beyond what was required for the established use need to be provided.
These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the
site.
b. In addition to any additional spaces required in subparagraph a., as
many spaces as the lot will accommodate must be provided, up to the
number needed to fully comply with the standard.
Amend 14-4E-8D, Nonconforming Landscaping/Screening, and 14-4E-8E,
Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting, as follows:
D. Nonconforming Landscaping/Screening
Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a propertY that is nonconforming
with regard to the screening, landscaping, and/or tree standards of this Title, are is
enlarged By one or more times ~dditions, the sum total of which increases the total
floor area on the property by 10 percent or more, the property must be brought
into full compliance with any applicable screening and landscaping requirements of
the base zone and of Article 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special
Exceptions and Provisional Uses. In addition, such a property must be brought into
full compliance with Street Tree and Residential Tree requirements contained in
Article 14-5E, Landscaping and Tree Standards. Rules governing the provision of
trees and landscaping for nonconforming parking and loading areas are stated in
subsection B, above, Nonconforming Parking and Loading. The City may waive any
landscaping or screening requirement that cannot be met due to a conflict with any
other requirement of this Title. Conflicts with non-required elements of a
development do not qualify for this waiver.
E. Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting
1. Any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture
is aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re-
aim the existing fixture.
2. Upon repair, replacement, or relocation of any luminaire, such luminaire must
comply with any applicable requirement that it be fully shielded.
3. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is
nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor
Lighting Standards, is are enlarged by less than 50 percent in total floor area
on the property, any new outdoor lighting installed due to the enlargement
must fully comply with the Outdoor Lighting Standards. Existing
nonconforming lighting may remain, except as specified in paragraphs 1. and
2., above.
4. Whenever a use or uses, which are located on a property that is
nonconforming with regard to the provisions of Article 14-5G. Outdoor
Lighting Standards, is are enlarged By one or more times ~dditions, the sum
total of which increases the total floor area on the property by 50 percent or
more, the property must be brought into full compliance with the provisions of
Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
Amendment #15 - Correct typos in names of zones in Table 58-1: Sign
Specifications and Provisions in Residential Zones and the 10 and OPOH Zones
Amend Table 58-1 as follows:
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
RNS-12, ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG
RNS-20, RM-44, PRM
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
RNS-12, ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG
RNS-20, RM-44, PRM
1 Only one sign is permitted; one facia sign, one awning sign, or one monument sign (See 14-5B-8A-1.b.,above)
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
RNS-12
Facia Sign1
ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG- RNS-20,
RNG-RM-44, PRM
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
RNS-12
Monument Sign1
ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG RNS-20,
RM-44, PRM
Awning Sign1
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
RNS-12, ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG
RNS-20, RM-44, PRM
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNG
Directional signs RNS-12, ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG
RNS-20, RM-44, PRM
Small
identification sign
ID-RS, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12,-RNG
RNS-12, ID-RM, RM-12, RM-20, RNG
RNS-20, RM-44, PRM
Integral sign
Public Flags
4 sq. ft.
12 sq. ft.
12 sq. ft. per sign face.
May be double-faced for a
total area of 24 sq.ft.
24 sq. ft. per sign face.
May be double-faced for a
total area of 48 sq. ft.
12 sq. ft. or 25% of awning
surface, whichever is less
2 sq. ft. per face
May be double-faced for
total area of 4 sq. ft.
2 sq. ft.
2 sq. ft.
Max. Height: Top of first
story.
Limited to identification
only, except as allowed for
Institutional Uses.
Not allowed for Single
Family and Two Family
Uses.
Max. Height: 5 ft
Limited to identification
only, except as allowed for
Institutional Uses.
Not allowed for Single
Family and Two Family
Uses.
Max. Height: 5 ft
Limited to identification
only, except as allowed for
Institutional Uses.
Not allowed for Single
Family and Two Family
Uses.
Max. Height: Top of first
story
Limited to identification
only, except as allowed for
Institutional Uses.
Not allowed for Single
Family and Two Family
Uses.
The sign must be a building
sign.
Up to one of these signs is
allowed per building.
No permit is required.
Up to one of these signs is
allowed per building.
No permit is required.
No permit is required.
Amendment #16 - Clarify that the Iowa City Arterial Street Map is based on the
JCCOG Arterial Street Map
Amend 14-5C-2E as follows:
E. Arterial streets, as referenced in this Article, are those streets shown on the Iowa
City Arterial Street Map in Figure SC.l, below, and include future arterial streets as
shown on the map. Said maD is based on the JCCOG Arterial Street Map. as
amended. If the JCCOG Arterial Street MaD. as amended. conflicts with the Figure
Sc.t. the JCCOG map will supercede Figure Sc.1.
Amendment #17 - Clarify that exemption in commercial zones applies to all tree
requirements of Article 5E, Landscaping and Tree Standards, not just the street
tree requirements.
Amend paragraph 14-5E-2B-3, as follows:
B. Exemptions
The following are exempt from the requirements of this Article:
1. Any individual lot occupied by a Detached Single Family Dwelling or a
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwelling, including Group Households, if located
within such a dwelling.
2. Property in the ID and C8-10 zones.
3. In Commercial Zones, property developed in accordance with the setback
requirements of the base zone in such a manner that insufficient area is
available to achieve compliance with the street tr-ce requirements of this
Article: however, all trees that can be provided in compliance with the street:
tree-requirements must be provided.
Amendment #18 - Clarify light trespass standard for required lighting at building
exits so that the Zoning Code standard is consistent with the Building Code
standard.
Amend paragraph 14-5G-4C-4, as follows:
4. Illumination must not exceed 0.5 initial horizontal footcandles and 2.0 initial
maximum footcandles as measured at any point along a property boundary
that is adjacent to or across the street from properties that are zoned
Residential, CN-l, or CO-I. The City may increase the maximum up to 1.0
horizontal footcandles for Building Code required lighting on buildings located
on or close to the property line. However, lighting must be located and
shielded in a manner that will be least obtrusive to any abutting residential
properties.
Amendment #19 - Create exemption from the total outdoor light output standards
for properties where the building coverage exceeds ~O%.
Amend 14-5G-5A and Table 5G-1, as follows:
A. Maximum Outdoor Light Output
1. Total outdoor light outDut defined
The total outdoor light output on a property is the total amount of light,
measured in initial lumens, from all bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. It
includes all lights and luminous tubing used for display lighting, general
illumination, architectural/accent lighting, and lights used for external
illumination of signs, but does not include lights used to illuminate internally
illuminated signs or luminous tubing used in neon signs. For bulb types that
vary in their output as they age, such as high pressure sodium, fluorescent
and metal halide, the initial lumen output, as defined by the manufacturer, is
the value to be considered when calculating total outdoor light output.
2. Applicabilitv
The total outdoor light output on any property that issubject to the provisions
of this Article may not exceed the limits in Table 5G-l, exceot for those that
are exempted in paragraph 3, below and in Section 14-4G-7. The values in
this table are upper limits and not design goals; design goals should be the
lowest light levels that meet the requirements of the task.
3. Exemptions
a. Seasonal decorations, permitted between Thanksgiving and the end of
January, are not counted toward these limits the total outdoor light
output.
b. In the E2 and E3 Districts, properties where the building coverage is
80% or greater are exempt from the maximum total outdoor light output
standard, but are subject to the limitation on unshielded fixtures, as
stated in Table 5G-1, below.
B. Lighting Environment Districts
All Residential, Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zones are grouped into three
lighting environment districts that control lighting output on applicable lots in each
zone. Uses, for which the lighting standards are applicable, located within the
Public (P) Zone must comply with the lighting requirements of the adjacent zone;
those on the border between two or more zones must comply with the standards
of the strictest adjacent zone. Zones are grouped into the lighting environment
districts as follows:
1. Low Illumination District, E1
Areas of low ambient lighting levels. This District includes single-family and
low-density multi-family residential zones. This District applies to the
following zones: ID-RS, ID-RM, RR-l, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, and RNS-12.
2. Medium Illumination District, E2
Areas of medium ambient lighting levels. This District includes higher density
multi-family zones and lower intensity commercial and office zones. This
District applies to the following zones: ID-C, ID-I, ID-RP, CN-l, CO-l, PRM,
RM-20, RM-44, RNS-20, and MU.
3. High Illumination District, E3
Areas of high ambient lighting levels. This District includes higher intensity
commercial, industrial, and research zones. This District applies to the
following zones: CC-2, CH-l, CI-l, CB-2, CB-5, CB-l0, 1-1, 1-2, RDP, and ORP.
C. Measuring Total Outdoor Light Output
1. The maximums in Table 5G-l are based on a calculation of initial lumens per
net acre. The lot size less the total building coverage of the lot determines
the number of net acres used for this calculation.
2. Lumen output from an under-canopy or under-eave light fixture mounted 15
or more feet from any edge of the eave or canopy will be measured at 0.5 its
full value.
Amendment #20 - Clarify how standards for architectural style will be
administered for new two-family, multi-family and group living uses in the Central
Planning District.
Amend 14-28-6/-3, as follows:
3. Architectural style
The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof
form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a
building are generally compatible with the historic character of the Central
Planning District. From the str-cet, New buildings should appear similar to a
large house or a small historic apartment building.
a. Any building elevation that is within public view (See definition of PUBLIC
VIEW, WITHIN), the following ;:Jrchitectur;:J1 clements must be designed
in a manner that is consistent with a historic architectural style typical of
residential buildings in the Central Planning District. However, building
facades that are visible only from public alleys are not subject to these
standards. The aoplicable architectural styles are as follows: Italianate:
Queen Anne: Colonial Revival: Craftsman: Craftsman Bungalow:
American FoursQuare: Prairie School: Period Revival: and Eclectic. The
applicant must indicate in detail how each of the following architectural
elements in the proposed building are consistent with one of these
architectural styles as described in the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook, as amended.
(1) Form and mass of the building;
(2) Roof configuration and pitch;
(3) WiRdo..... Style and placement p(]ttern of windows and doors;
(4) Window and door trim, eave boards, frieze boards, and other trim;
(5) Porch and entrance features;
(6) Building details and ornamentation.
b. Detailed information regarding historic residential building styles is
available in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. The Design
Review Committee and the Historic Preservation Commission will use this
information as a means to evaluate new buildings in the Central Planning
District.
c. Alternative designs that have been prepared by a licensed architect may
be acceptable and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment #21 - Clarify description of wholesales sales uses to distinguish more
clearly from retail uses.
Amend 14-4A-5G, Wholesale Sales Uses, as follows:
G. Wholesale Sales Uses
1. Characteristics
Firms that are primarily involved in the sale, lease, or rent of products
prim;Jrily intended for to retailers; to industrial, institutional, or commercial
business users: or to other wholesalers: or acting as agents or brokers and
buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such individuals or
companies. The uses emph;Jsize on site sales or order t(lldng (lnd often
include displ(l)' (lr-cas. Businesses mayor may not be open to the general
public, but sales to the general public are limited. Products may be picked up
on site or delivered to the customer.
2. Examples
Wholesale sales and rental of heavy trucks, machinery, equipment, building
materials, special trade tools, welding supplies, machine parts, electrical
supplies, janitorial supplies, restaurant equipment, and store fixtures; mail
order houses; wholesalers of food, clothing, auto parts, and building
hardware.
3. Accessory Uses
Offices; products repair; warehouses; parking; minor fabrication services;
repackaging of goods.
4. Exceptions
a. Firms that engage primarily in sales to the general public or on a
membership basis are classified as Sales-oriented Retail.
b. Firms that are primarily storing goods with little on-site business activity
are classified as Warehouse and Freight Movement.
c. Wholesale plant or tree nurseries are classified as Agriculture.
Amendment #22 - Change damage and destruction clause for nonconforming
uses and structures to read "assessed" value instead of "replacement" value.
Using the term "replacement" value rather than "assessed" value has been problematic.
This became apparent after the recent tornado. It was difficult and sometimes costly for
property owners to determine "replacement" value, because this value is not always
available from the insurance company and is subject to widely varying estimates. Staff
recommends returning to the wording used in the old code, "assessed value," which is a
value that is much easier to determine.
Amend 14-4E-5E, Damage or Destruction (of Nonconforming Uses), as follows:
E. Damage or Destruction
1. Any structure for a nonconforming use which has been destroyed or damaged
by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than
75 percent of the replacement assessed value of the structure at the time of
damage or destruction, may be restored for the same nonconforming use as
existed before such damage. However, the nonconforming use must not be
enlarged to more than what existed before such damage occurred. Any such
restoration must be completed within 2 years of the date the structure was
destroyed or damaged; otherwise the property must revert to a conforming
use.
2. A lot or portion of a lot on which is located a structure for a nonconforming
use that has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a
public enemy to the extent of 75 percent or more of the replacement
assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, must
revert to a conforming use.
3. For purposes of this subsection, the extent of the damage will be determined
by the Building Official based on credible evidence provided by the property
owner.
Amend 14-4E-6C, Damage or Destruction (of nonconforming structures), as follows:
c. Damage or Destruction
1. Any nonconforming structure that has been destroyed or damaged by fire,
explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than 75
percent of the r-cplJccmcnt assessed value of the structure at the time of
damage or destruction, may be restored to the same degree of nonconformity
or less. Any such restoration must be completed within 2 years of the date the
structure was destroyed or damaged; otherwise the structure may not be
restored, except in compliance with the provisions of this Title.
2. Except for designated Historic Landmarks or key or contributing structures in
a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, a nonconforming structure that has
been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public
enemy to the extent of 75 percent or more of the rcpl<lccmcnt assessed value
of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, may not be restored
except in compliance with the provisions of this Title.
3. A nonconforming structure that is a designated Historic Landmark or a key or
contributing structure in a Historic Preservation or Conservation District
Overlay Zone may be reconstructed upon its original foundation or the site of
the original foundation regardless of the extent of the damages, provided it is
reconstructed as nearly as possible to the original exterior design. A certificate
of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission is required prior
to commencing reconstruction.
4. For purposes of this subsection, the extent of the damage will be determined
by the Building Official based on credible evidence provided by the property
owner.
Amendment #23 - Clarify procedures for a fence permit
Amend 14-88-4, Fence Permit, as follows:
A. Permit Required
Prior to construction of any of the following types of fences or walls, a feAee
building permit must be obtained from the Department of Housing and Inspection
Services.
1. Electric fences;
2. Barbed wire fences;
3. Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height;
4. Any retaining wall over 6 feet in height measured from the top of the footing
to the top of the wall; and
5. A retaining wall of any height that supports a surcharge or impounds
flammable liquids.
B. Submittal Requirements
1. An application for a feAee building permit must be filed with the Department
of Housing and Inspection Service on application forms provided the City.
2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form.
C. Approval Procedure
1. Upon receipt of a complete application the Building Official or designee will
review said application for compliance with the standards and requirements
for fences, walls, and hedges as set forth in Article 14-4C of this Title,
Accessory Uses and Buildings.
2. The Building Official will issue the permit once it has been determined that all
applicable provisions of Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings, have
been met.
Amendment #24 - Clarify the definition of cottage industry deleting the term "on-
site," because many retail businesses also conduct a significant amount of
business from online computer sales.
Amend the definition of Cottage Industry in Article 14-9A, as follows:
COTTAGE INDUSTRY: A firm that manufactures and/or assembles goods that are
intended for on site retail sales to the general public for person()1 or
household consumption. The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other
outlets or firms, but on site, retail sales is a significant component of the
operation. The manufacturing component for such a firm is small in scale.
Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial zones to keep the uses
in scale and character with surrounding land uses.
Amendment #25 - Amend definition of floor area to make it clear that the area of a
garage is only excluded from calculation of floor area if it is a garage that is
attached to the principal dwelling.
Amend the definition of Floor Area in Article 14-9A, as follows:
FLOOR AREA: The total area of all floors of a building, or a portion of a building,
measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the center line of walls of attached
buildings or uses. Floor area includes all space within the building, including space in the
basement or cellar, if such space is used for a principal or accessory use. However,
floor area does not include the area of gor:Jges, porches, balconies and other
appurtenances. When calculating the floor area of a principal dwelling, the area of any
attached garage is excluded. Floor area of basements and cellars is excluded from the
calculation of FAR (See FLOOR AREA RATIO).
Amendment #26 - Clarify the definition of "grade."
Amend the definition of Grade in Article 14-9A, as follows:
GRADE (Adjacent Ground Elevation): The average point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between
the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than five
feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the
building. When the finished surface of the ground has been raised by adding
fill to create a higher grade around a building for determining the building
height or number of stories, the slope of the fill within 20 feet of the building
shall not exceed 4 horizontal to one vertical or 25 percent.
Amendment #27 - Clarify Sensitive Lands Definitions to be consistent with the text
of the code.
Amend the following definitions within Article 14-9E:
SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A plan required to be submitted and
approved in conjunction with a Level I or Level II Sensitive Areas Review
sensitive areas overlJ'{ rezoning that delineates construction areas limits and
designates protected sensitive areas and associated buffers within a planned
development.
LEVEL II SENSITIVE AREAS REVIEW SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE:
A planned development rezoning that is required prior to any development
activitv that is not otherwise exempted. on anv ef-a tract of land that contains
regulated sensitive features as specified in Article 14-51. Said rezoning
requires the approval of a sensitive areas development plan, which delineates
construction area limits and designates protected sensitive areas and their
associated buffers on said tract.
LEVEL I SENSITIVE AREAS REVIEW SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN: An
administrative review site plJn of a sensitive areas development plan required
prior to any development activitv that is not otherwise exempted on property
that contains any regulated sensitive feature as specified in Article 14-51. but
for which a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is not required. for de'/elopment
on a tr~ct of laRd that does not require a sensiti'v'e areas overlay rezoning Jnd
is not otherv.'ise exempt, but which contJins sensitive areas thJt warrJnt
protection under the provisions of Article 11 51, Sensitive LJnds and Features.
Amendment #28 - Correct dimensional requirements table to reflect that the front
setback coverage standard does not apply to nonresidential uses. This correction
will make the table consistent with the text of the code.
Amend Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), as
follows:
MU Detached SF
and Detached 3,000 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50%
Zero Lot Line
Two Family 3,600 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 20 355 50% 50%
(Duplex)
Attached SF 1,800 1,800 20/284 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50%
Multi-Family 5,000 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% 50%
Group Living 5,000 See 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% 50%
Art.4B
Non-residentiaP nla 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% ~
none none .~
Notes:
nla = not applicable
1 Non-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. For Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings, see applicable
setback regulations in 14-4B.
3 See applicable setback requirements in Article 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
4 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.
5 Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a Two Family Use, Multi-Family Use, Group Living Use, ora Non-residential Use is
located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single Family Use or within 15 feet of a Single Family Zone boundary, then the
portion of the building located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
6 Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See 14-2C-9D, Maximum Setbacks.
Amendment #29: Correction of maximum residential densities allowed in
planned developments to match maximum residential density in the base
zones.
Amend Table 3A-1 as follows:
RR-1 1
RS~ 5
RS~ 8
RN~12 8
RS-12 13
MU ~24
CO-1 15
CN-1 ~24
CC-2 15
RM-12 15
RNS-20 24
RM-20 24
RM-44 43
PRM 4~
*Density bonuses are available in the PRM Zone that would increase the
allowed density beyond the fj ure in this table.
Amendment # 30: Clarify language in the code that refers to the vertical plane of a
building versus the horizontal plane of a building.
Amend paragraph 14-2B-6E-2 as follows:
2. In the Central Planning District
The width of the front facade of new buildings must be no more than 40 feet.
Buildings may exceed this limitation if the street f~cing, horizontal plane of
any street-facing fac;ade of the building is broken into horizont~1 modules that
give the appearance of smaller, individual buildings (See Figure 2B.8, below)
Each module must meet the following standards:
a. Each module must be no greater than 30 feet and no less than 10 feet in
width and must be distinguished from adjacent modules by a variation in
the wall plane of at least 16 inches in depth. For buildings that are 3 or
more stories in height, the width of the module may be increased to 40
feet.
b. Each module must have a corresponding change in the roofline.
c. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least
one of the following means:
(1) Variation in material colors, types or textures;
(2) Variation in the building and/or parapet height;
(3) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding,
reveals, stone, or tile accents;
(4) Variation in window pattern.
(5) Variation in the use of balconies and recesses.
Figure 2B.8 - Horizent;J/ Building modules that break UD the horizontal DIane
f--Module--1
f--Existing--l
~Module-l I--Module~
New MF Building
l--Module--1
!--Existing--!
Within the subsection regarding standards for large retail uses, amend paragraph 14-2C-
6K-3, Building Details, as follows:
3. Building 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 fa~ade 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 rcpcJt occur horizontJlly along the vertical
plane of the building. An example of a change that occurs on the vertical
plane would be a change from stone on the lower portion of the building to
stucco on the upper portion. All elements that occur along the horizontal
plane of the building shall repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet. These
visual patterns must be cohesive with the articulation of the fa~ade.
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.
Within the section regarding the site development standards in the CN-1 Zone, amend
14-2C-7M, Building Bulk and Articulation, as follows:
M. Building Bulk and Articulation
1. The maximum length of any building wall is 270 feet. This standard applies
whether the building contains a single business or multiple businesses or
storefronts.
2. For buildings greater than 50 feet in width, the street f~cing horizontal plane
of any street-facing fa~ade of the building must be broken into horizont~1
modules that give the appearance of smaller, individual storefronts. These
modules must meet the following standards.
a. Each module must be no greater than 50 feet in width.
b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least
three of the following means:
(1) Variation in the wall plane by recessing a building module from the
adjacent building module;
(2) Variation in material colors, types or textures;
(3) Variation in the building and/or parapet height;
(4) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding,
reveals, stone, or tile accents;
(5) Break or variation in window pattern;
(6) Variation in the use of upper floor balconies and recesses.
In the section regarding site development standards in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones,
Amend 14-2C-BM, Building Articulation, as follows:
M. Building Articulation
1. For buildings greater than 50 feet in width, the street f~cing horizontal plane
of any street-facing fa<;ade of the building must be broken into horizont<ll
modules that give the appearance of smaller, individual storefronts. These
modules must meet the following standards.
a. Each module must be no greater than 50 feet in width.
b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least
three of the following means:
(1) Variation in the wall plane by recessing a building module from the
adjacent building module;
(2) Variation in material colors, types or textures;
(3) Variation in the building and/or parapet height;
(4) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding,
reveals, stone, or tile accents;
(5) Break or variation in window pattern;
(6) Variation in the use of upper floor balconies and recesses.
Within the section regarding site development standards in the MU Zone, amend
14-2C-9G, as follows:
G. Building scale for Multi-Family, Group Living, Commercial, and
Civic/Institutional Buildings
The width of the front facade of new buildings must be no more than 40 feet.
Buildings may exceed this limitation if the str'Cct f~cing horizontal plane of any
street-facing fac;ade of the building is broken into horizontal modules that give the
appearance of smaller, individual buildings. Each module must meet the following
standards:
1. Each module must be no greater than 30 feet and no less than 10 feet in
width and must be distinguished from adjacent modules by a variation in the
wall plane of at least 16 inches in depth. For buildings that are 3 or more
stories in height, the width of the module may be increased to 40 feet.
2. Each module must have a corresponding change in the roofline.
3. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least one
of the following means:
a. Variation in material colors, types or textures;
b. Variation in the building and/or parapet height;
c. Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals,
stone, or tile accents;
d. Variation in window pattern.
e. Variation in the use of balconies and recesses.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
AUGUST 17, 2006
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Bob Brooks, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Terry
Smith
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek, Drew Westberg (Planning Intern)
OTHERS PRESENT: John Moreland, Florence Stockman, David Noise, Kevin Digmann, Dave Ricketts,
G.T. Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), SUB06-00010, a final plat of Silvercrest
Residential Community Part 3, a 7-lot, 12.17-acre residential subdivision located south of American Legion
Road and east of Scott Boulevard subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to
consideration by City Council.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), REZ06-00022, a rezoning of approximately
49.05-acres of land located south of Lower West Branch Road, north of Court Street from Low Density Single
Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family Residential
(OPD-5) zone and SUB06-00013, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Stone Bridge
Estates Parts 5-9 and Resubdivision of Outlot C of Part Four, a 139-lot, approximately 49.05-acre residential
subdivision subject to resolution of the discrepancies pertaining to drainage of hydric soil and the required
minimum 60-foot lot width
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-1 (Plahutnik voting no, Shannon absent), an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Southside Design Plan on page 23 to strike the sentence "CB-5
would remain the preferred zoning is this district." and replace it with, "Either CB-5 or CB-10 zoning are
appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the property providing a logical extension of the
downtown and adequate services for the density proposed." .
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), REZ06-00015NAC06-00005, a rezoning of
1.12-acres of property located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone
to Central Business (CB-10) zone and the vacation of the east/west alley in block 102 to allow its relocation
subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement addressing the following conditions:
. A requirement for a minimum of one floor of commercial development above the ground floor.
. A minimum of 80 residential parking spaces to be provided below grade.
. Payment of parking impact fees for residential units for which on-site parking is not provided based on the
CB-5 residential parking requirements.
. The property shall contain a maximum of 200 residential units with a mix of studio or 1, 2, or 3-bedroom
units.
. No more than 30% of the residential units shall contain 3 bedrooms.
. The building shall be a minimum height of 7 stories.
. There shall be a 10-foot building setback from the Burlington Street right-of-way.
. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City to provide public alley circulation through Block 102 as
determined adequate by the City.
. A plan for landscaping of the court yard area will be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Design
Review Committee. The plan shall include a central feature such as a fountain, reflecting pool or public art
element, public seating areas, landscaping beds or large planters. A minimum of 50% of the paving
surface shall consist of decorative materials such as clay, concrete or stone pavers. The court yard shall
be screened from the service area.
. Design Review Committee approval will be required for the final design of the building based on the
criteria listed in the Staff Report.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17,2006
Page 2 of 10
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), CU06-00002, that Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending that the application by GT Karr for a conditional use
permit to allow a home improvement business, be approved subject to the term of the permit being tied to the
ownership of the property by the applicant.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent), CZ06-00002, that Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending that the application by Robert Wolf to rezone 0.58-acres
of property from Residential (R) to Manufactured Residential Housing (RMH) be approved subject to the
property being used only for a storm shelter, associated parking and open space.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB06-00010, discussion of an application submitted by Dial Corporation for a final plat of Silvercrest
Residential Community Part 3, a 7 -lot, 12.17 -acre residential subdivision located south of American Legion
Road and east of Scott Boulevard.
Miklo said this was the final plat; the zoning had been in place for years but had recently been amended to
adjust the mix of housing types on the property. The property was now being subdivided into 7 individual
residential lots which would contain a mix of housing types including a 58-unit apartment building, a 27-unit
building, an existing 24-unit building and eight duplex style units on the southern portion of the property as well
as a detention basin. Staff recommended approval subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction
drawings prior to consideration by City Council.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SUB06-00010, a final plat of Silvercrest Residential Community
Part 3, a 7 -lot, 12.17 -acre residential subdivision located south of American Legion Road and east of Scott
Boulevard subject to Staff approval of legal papers and construction plans prior to consideration by City
Council. Eastham seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
REZ06-00022/SUB06-00013, discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development for a rezoning
of approximately 49.05-acres of land located south of Lower West Branch Road, north of Court Street from
Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single
Family Residential (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Stone
Bridge Estates Parts 5-9 and Resubdivision of Outlot C of Part Four, a 139-lot, approximately 49.05-acre
residential subdivision.
Miklo said this property had some terraces on it which had been created when the property was still being
farmed. Some of the terraces resulted in slopes of greater than 25%. As part of the platting process those
slopes would be graded and eliminated, therefore the Sensitive Areas Ordinance required a overlay rezoning.
The intent of the SAO was to control grading of naturally occurring slopes and wooden ravines, because these
terraces had been created for terrace farming Staff did not see this as an issue of concern.
The plat subdivided the property into individual lots which included Parts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; the development could
be built in individual phases. Eventually there would be access to Court Street, Lower West Branch Road, the
existing Stonebridge Estates subdivision and Taft Avenue. All lots would be zoned RS-5.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August17,2006
Page 3 of 10
Open space would be provided in the northeast portion of the property adjacent to the historic stone bridge
which would become a public park to be maintained by the City. The City's goal was to obtain property on the
other side as well so the bridge could be used as a trail. The series of outlots adjacent to the creek would be
privately owned and maintained by the homeowner's association; there would be a public trail access
easement over the outlots which would allow them to be part of the larger trail network in that neighborhood.
A number of lots would be double-fronting which was discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan and the
subdivision regulations. To address that concern, the lots would be buffered with evergreen plantings and
either open space or a greater lot depth.
Two items still needed to be resolved:
. Whether all of the lots met the required 60-foot frontage at the building line.
This issue related to the lots which had a curve at the front. At the street they could be narrower than 60-
feet which was permitted by the Code because the side lot lines were on a radius. By the time the side lot
lines met the building setback the lots were supposed to be 60-feet wide to meet the minimum frontage
requirement. In a few locations it was not clear that that was the case, discrepancies needed to be resolved.
. Drainage of some of the hydric soils.
The hydric soils were located near the creek. The Public Works Office had requested some standard
language be included regarding drainage of streets and basements in that area; that notation was missing
from the plat.
Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the resolution of those two issues prior to
consideration by City Council. If the lot width issue required a re-design, the item would need to be reviewed
by the Commission again.
Freerks asked who would be responsible for the management of the trees on the double-fronting lots. Miklo
said for trees located on privately owned lots they would be the responsibility of the individual lot owner and for
trees located on an outlot they would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. That would be
noted on the legal papers at the time of the final plat.
Public discussion was opened.
John Moreland, Arlington Development, said they did not have any issues with the hydric soils issue.
They did disagree with Staffs interpretation of the 60-foot frontage issue at the building line. The new Code
allowed a 15-foot setback. When they had first started this project they had had a 20-foot setback. Because
some of the garages were in front of the houses, the Zoning Code had been changed to require a 25-foot
setback when the garage was in front of a unit. Arlington Development had changed their plans from 20-foot to
25-foot now to 15-feet with the newest Code. Moreland said as owners, they preferred to keep the entire
development in a similar order to keep it looking right and keep values up. As the developer, he proposed that
they would not do anything unless it would be 25-feet back, to have structures at 15-feet and at 25-feet made
people angry and hurt property values. Moreland said he'd met with Staff 4 or 5 times during the past 6 or 7
months to get to this point; they'd not just begun to talk. The proposal had been changed 4 or 5 times to try to
meet Staffs requirements. They were at the point of moving dirt and wished to have a vote yet that evening.
Moreland requested Staffs approval that in the subdivider's agreement it would require all houses to be set
back 25-feet eliminating the problem and they would all be 60-feet at the building line.
Miklo said the Zoning Code required a minimum 15-feet back from the street property line and the minimum lot
width had to be 60-feet wide at the minimum setback line regardless of where the garage was placed. The lot
width is measured at 15-feet back from the street. That was not something that the Staff or the Commission
could waive.
Moreland said the engineers he was working with felt the Code could be interpreted in a number of ways, not
just as Staff interpreted it. They had changed their proposal a number of times to comply with Staff's subjective
interpretations of the Zoning Code. The Code had many items which were entirely up to Staffs subjective
interpretation. They'd started out with 157-lots and now they were down to 139-lots, they were willing to put
their name on the line in a subdivider's agreement that no building would occur at 15-feet.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August17,2006
Page 4 of 10
Sarah said a subdivider's agreement handled infrastructure issues which were usually outside of the Zoning
Code. If there was a Zoning Code requirement, it could not be waived or otherwise modified through a
subdivision agreement.
Miklo said there were two different issues being discussed: 1) lot width and 2) front setback. The front setback
was not an issue and was not in question. The minimum lot width of 60-feet, at the building line which was
measured at 15-feet back from the street, was at issue.
Estham asked if the minimum lot width was an issue, could the developer request to have the zoning request
be changed to a planned development zone? Miklo said the OPD process would allow waiver of certain
zoning requirements but would require some rational for doing it.
Florence Stockman, 132 Ebersol Lane, said she' spoken before the Commission before in support of the
proposed park. They were very pleased that Moreland had given another lot t~ the park so it would be.a good
sized park, about the trail and the negotiations that would hopefully bring additional land to the park. She'd
spoken with the Parks and Recreation Department to make sure they were aware of the neighbor's interest
and appreciation as well.
Stockman said there currently was no homeowner's association in Stonebridge Parts 1-4; was a homeowners
association being created for lots 5-9? Miklo said that was correct.
David Noise, 4440 E. Court Street, said the front of his house looked out on two of the lots. He asked why the
outlot for open space didn't continue on over to the existing townhouses on Court Street. He'd prefer to have
the open space continue through; there was only a 7-foot setback from the edge of his house to the back of
the new lots which didn't seem like very much
Miklo said the open space/setback was required because some lots were double fronting lots which was
discouraged by the subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The parts of the lots which would be
the backs of people's houses would have evergreen screening for privacy and a buffer from the arterial street.
The townhouse units were not double fronting units. The corner lot would have a landscape buffer on it.
Public discussion was closed.
Miklo read from two sections of the Code regarding lot width, "The length of the front setback line" and "The
front setback line is defined as a line drawn parallel to the street as far back from the street as specified for the
principle building front setback." Miklo said in this case in an RS-5 zone, at 15-feet back, the minimum lot
width of 60-feet needed to be met. The definition of and how the setback line was measured did not change
with the newest revisions to the Zoning Code; what had changed was the dimension of 15-feet versus 20-feet.
Freerks asked if the item was deferred, did Staff feel that the issue could be resolved by the next meeting?
Miklo said he believed so, although staff had twice asked the consulting engineer for this application to clarify
the lot width on the plat and they had not done so to date.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ06-00022/SUB06-00013. Koppes seconded the motion.
The motion failed on a vote of 2 (Freerks, Koppes) to 4( Eastham, Brooks, Plahutnik, Smith)
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to approve REZ06-00022/SUB06-00013, a rezoning of approximately
49.05-acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay
_ Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development
plan for Stone Bridge Estates Parts 5-9 and Re-subdivision of Outlot C of Part Four, a 139-lot, approximately
49.05-acre residential subdivision subject to the resolution of the 60-foot lot width issue and drainage of hydric
soils issue prior to consideration by City Council Smith seconded.
Freerks said she would not vote against the item but at this point they were still within the 45-day limitation
period. It would be her preference to take a good look at the items and send a clear issue to the City Council.
Koppes said historically the Commission had always been comfortable with their vote when they'd voted and if
they needed to defer a vote they deferred it. She didn't see why they were rushing through this item when they
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17,2006
Page 5 of 10
were within the 45-day limitation period. She did not wish to rush this item through either but it seemed like a
good development so she would support it.
Brooks said he felt it was a good development. It was frustrating to him that something that seemed perfectly
clear to him was a problem for the consultants to interpret properly and when asked to rectify it, they did not
seem to be forthcoming.
Eastham said he appreciated Koppes and Freerks alternative way of proceeding; he was comfortable with
doing it this way also.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Southside Design Plan to
consider Central Business (CB-10) zoning south of Burlington Street.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan included the Near Southside Design Plan which provided guidance for the
development of the area south of Burlington Street, generally west of Gilbert to the railroad tracks and over to
the Iowa River. The Plan divided the area into sub-districts including the downtown extension. Specific
language in the Plan said appropriate zoning for the extension area was CB-5, Central Business Support
Zone. Staff were currently reviewing several request for rezoning to CB-10 in this area, if those were to be
approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required.
Staff believed that there was merit to considering CB-10 zoning and it would be appropriate in certain areas
provided issues such as parking and a linkage to the downtown area were addressed. Benefits could include
providing an alternative location to the historic core of downtown for high-rise development, encouraging a mix
of housing types that had not typically been seen in that area before and encouraging a housing type that
didn't necessarily cater to student housing. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to consider CB-10 zoning in the area between Court and Burlington Streets based on the
property providing a logical extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed.
Public discussion was opened.
Kevin Diamann, Hieronymus Square Associates, said they'd been meeting with Staff and had been before the
Commission on several occasions regarding their proposal. They were requesting the Commission's
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Southside Design Plan in order to
allow their project to proceed.
Dave Ricketts, University of Iowa, asked if this amendment would cover the entire region of Madison to Gilbert
Street or would it be limited as to how far west it went. Miklo said it would not automatically confer the status
of CB-10 zoning but would cover the area of Madison to Gilbert Street. Each rezoning would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Near Souths ide Design
Plan on page 23, striking the sentence "CB-5 would remain the preferred zoning is this district." and replacing
it with, "Either CB-5 or CB-10 zoning are appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the
property providing a logical extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed."
Smith seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Plahutnik voting no, Shannon absent).
REZONING ITEM:
REZ06-00015NAC06-00005, discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Square Associates for a
rezoning of 1. 12-acres of property located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17,2006
Page 6 of 10
(CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone and the vacation of the east/west alley in block 102 to allow its
relocation.
Miklo said this item had been discussed at length at two previous Commission meetings. Staff recommended
approval of the rezoning subject to a number of conditions which had been discussed with the applicant. The
conditions were to address the issue of why the Comprehensive Plan was being amended, which included
encouraging a mix of different housing in that area, to assure that appropriate services such as parking would
be addressed in that area, carrying on the feel and quality of the downtown in that area, and to address other
language in the Comprehensive Plan which indicated that this area was to be an extension of the downtown.
Recommended conditions included:
A requirement for a minimum of one floor in addition to the ground floor of commercial development to
encourage a mix of building uses and not just a residential building.
A minimum of 80 residential parking spaces to be provided below grade to partially address the demand for
parking created by this project.
Payment of a parking impact fee for residential units for which on-site parking is not provided based on CB-5
residential parking requirements to address the need to meet the demand for parking that the increase in
development would create above and beyond the existing CB-5 zone.
The property shall contain a maximum of 200 residential units with a mix of 1, 2 or 3-bedroom units. The
concept plan currently proposed approximately 160 units, this would allow some flexibility. The mix of bedroom
units was to encourage something that was not seen in the 4 & 5 bedroom units in the CB-5 zone and housing
types different than that geared to the student housing market.
No more than 30% of the residential units shall contain 3 bedrooms. To address the concerns listed above.
The building shall be a minimum height of 7 stories to address a structure that would not necessarily occur in
the CB-5 zone and to ensure that the proposed structure would be a high-rise building.
A 10-foot building setback from the Burlington Street right-of-way. This 10-foot in combination with the existing
10-foot right-of-way would allow for 20-feet between the curb and the building fayade. The applicant had
indicated to Staff that their balconies would be set-back so Staff felt there was not a need to address that
concern in the CZA language.
Dedication of right-of-way or easement to the City to provide alley circulation through Block 102. Once the final
design is worked out a re-dedication and final location of the alley will occur.
A plan for landscaping of the court yard open area will be prepared by the applicant and approved by the
Design Review Committee.
The Design Review Committee will have final review of the building design to assure its capability with the
downtown concepts and themes.
Miklo said Staff recommended approval of REZ06-00015NAC06-00005.
Brooks asked how studio apartments would fall into the bedroom classification. Miklo said they would be
considered one bedroom units. The language in the CZA could be clarified to include studio apartments.
Brooks asked if the northlsouth alley would also have to be vacated. Miklo said no, the City would retain that
alley because it also served the Rebel Plaza property to the south and it would be necessary to provide public
circulation to the area.
Kevin Diqmann, Hieronymus Square Associates. Smith asked Digmann if the applicant supported the
conditions of the CZA. Digmann said yes, it had been a give and take process to get it this far. They wanted to
. keep the process moving and appreciated Staff's and the Commission's support. It would probably be a better
Planning and Zoning Commission
August17,2006
Page 7 of 10
building because of some of the things that had been recommended and in the long term would be a great
asset for Iowa City.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve REZ06-00015NAC06-00005, a rezoning of 1.12-acres of property
located at 314 & 328 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business
(CB-10) zone and the vacation of the east/west alley in block 102 to allow its relocation subject to a
Conditional Zoning Agreement with the conditions as listed in the 8/11/06 Staff Report with two amendments:
. the inclusion of studio apartments in the mix of bedroom units
. wording change of horizontal to vertical in the first condition of the Design Review Committee criteria
Koppes seconded the motion.
Freerks said she was excited about the project. There had been a lot of give and take on all sides.
Brooks thanked the applicants for their cooperative nature for working with Staff and the Commission. He felt
one of the biggest and more important concessions had been the additional setback on Burlington Street
which would go a long way toward improving the Burlington Street Corridor. He hoped the same type of
cooperation would be seen from other developers along the Burlington Street corridor.
Eastham said it had given him the opportunity to think about what the Burlington Street Corridor could look like
and also to look at different ways of handling residential parking in the downtown area.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
REZ06-00017. discussion of an application submitted by Pentacrest Garden Apartments for a rezoning of
3.41-acres of property located at 12 East Court Street from High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44)
zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone.
REZ06-00018, discussion of an application submitted by University View Partners for a rezoning of .08-acres
of property located at 22 East Court Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business
(CB-10) zone
REZ06-00019, discussion of an application submitted by University View Partners for a rezoning of .17-acres
of property located at 335 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central
Business (CB-10) zone.
REZ06-00020, discussion of an application submitted by Center City Partners for a rezoning of .33-acres of
property located at 336 South Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business
(CB-10) zone.
Miklo said the applicant had requested that items REZ06-00017 through REZ06-00020 be deferred until the
Commission's second meeting in September. The applicant had indicated the date of 9/19/06, Miklo would
confirm that he applicant meant 9/21/06.
Public discussion was opened.
Dave Ricketts, U of I, asked for a clarification as to what the process would be for rezoning requests.
Miklo said applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Items the City would consider would
include: how would parking be addressed, how would the building be designed to be compatible with the
theme of downtown, good pedestrian access, good geographic connections to downtown, quality of street
crossings, and to ensure that isolated pockets of high density not related to the rest of downtown would not be
created. Staff had advised the applicant that the City wished to see a concept plan, Staff would then analyze
the applications based on the concept plans and make a recommendation. Lacking a concept plan, Staff
would not make a recommendation to approve rezoning the above properties to CB-10 zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17, 2006
Page 8 of 10'
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Freerks made a motion to defer REZ06-00017 through REZ06-00020 until September 21, 2006.
Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
FRINGE AREA ITEMS:
CU06-00002, discussion of an application submitted by GT Karr for a conditional use permit to allow a home
improvement business on approximately 3.30 acres of property located at 4396 Taft Avenue Fringe Area B.
Westberg said the applicant was requesting an indefinite extension of the current conditional use permit and
expansion of the home for both personal and office use. Staff recommended that Council forward a letter to
the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending that the application by GT Karr for a conditional use
permit to allow a home improvement business, be approved subject to the term of the permit being tied to the
ownership of the property by the applicant.
Public discussion was opened.
G. T. Karr, said he was present to answer any questions.
Public discussion was closed.
Freerks asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified. Westberg said the County had posted signs
and would make the notifications.
Plahutnik asked if the area became part of the city, would the County issued permit become void. Miklo said
the permit would be tied to by the applicant, should the property be sold, a new permit would be required.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve CU06-00002 subject to the term of the permit being tied to the
ownership of the property by the applicant. Eastham seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon
absent. )
CZ06-00002, discussion of an application submitted by Bob Wolf for a rezoning from County Residential (R)
zone to County Manufactured Housing Residential (RMH) zone for approximately .58-acres of property located
adjacent to the south side of Lake Manor Manufactured Home Park, west of Riverside Drive in Fringe Area C.
Westberg said the applicant intended to construct a storm shelter on the rezoned property. Lake Ridge was
currently non-conforming in that it did not provide adequate storm shelter per the County Code. Staff felt there
was a better location for a second storm shelter on the northwest portion of the park as it would serve more
park residents and would not require rezoning. However this shelter was not a requirement because the
existing development was grandfathered in prior to the County requiring a secure shelter. Staff recommended
approval of CZ06-00002 subject to the property being used only for a storm shelter, associated parking and
open space.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve CZ06-00002 subject to the property being used only for a storm
shelter, associated parking and open space. Freerks seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon
absent).
OTHER ITEMS:
Koppes asked for an update on the businesses damaged by the April tornados.
Miklo said that Dairy Queen's sign had been approved by the Board of Adjustment. Professional Muffler had
relocated to the Master Muffler Shop just up the street and were considering a retail development for their old
property.
CONSIDERATION OF 8/3/06 MEETING MINUTES:
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 17,2006
Page 9 of 10
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as typed and corrected. Eastham seconded. Motion
passed on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 pm. Eastham seconded. Motion carried on a vote
of 6-0 (Smith absent).
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s/pcd/mins/p&z10B-17 -oe.doc
c
o
';
III
's
E
o
o'E
c)o
c CJ
,- CD
glk:
NCDU)
~gg
C)nsN
c"C
.- C
C CD
C=
.!!c(
D.
~
<3
ns
~
.2
~ w
.... >< >< >< >< >< - ><
- 0
co
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
co
c W
N >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
~
~ >< >< >< w w >< w
- 0 0
~ 0
II) w w w
.... 0 >< 0 >< >< >< 0
-
U)
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
U)
co
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
II)
C I W
N >< I >< >< >< - ><
~ I 0
I
~ >< I W >< >< >< ><
I 0
I
N I
- >< I >< >< >< >< ><
M I
U) I W
.... >< I >< >< >< - ><
- I 0
N I
N I W
- >< I >< >< >< >< 0
N I
en I W
.... >< I >< >< 0 >< ><
- I
.... I
II) I W
>< I >< >< >< ><
- I 0
.... I
II) a 00 I"- a 00 co
E l!:! or-
or- 0r- a a 0r- a e
.... .- - - - - - -
Q)e.. It) It) I.C) It) It) It) It)
I-X a a a a a a a
W
E ~ C
III III III 'c 0
~ ns ~ ~ - c
.c ... :s .c
0 - CD .c c -
e III ns 's
Q) ns ! 0 ns .c
E m w LL ~ ii: U> U>
m ai 0 < u.i 3= ci ...:
z
(9
z
i=
w
w
~
..J
<(
~
0::
o
u..
"lit W W
.... >< >< >< >< - 0 ><
- 0
co
.... W
M >< >< >< >< - >< ><
- 0
~
~ w
.... >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-
~
II) w
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
in
~ I W
.... >< I >< >< >< - ><
~ I 0
I
~ I
N >< I >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
I
,M I W
.... >< >< >< >< 0 ><
N I
I
II) a 00 I"- a 00 co
E l!:! or-
or- 0r- a a 0r- a a
Q)'~ - - - - - - -
It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
I-w a a a a a a a
E ~ c
~ III III C 0
ns ~ ~ - c
0 .c ... :s c .c
- CD .c -
e III ns 's
Q) ns ! 0 ns .c
E m w LL ~ ii: U> U>
m ai 0 < u.i 3= ci ...:
z
(9
z
i=
w
w
~
..J
<(
~
0::
o
u..
Z
"0
Q)
II)
::s
o
x
w
-_::.
c c c
Q)Q)Q)
II) II) II)
l!:!.c.c
0.<(<(
.. II II II
:>. W
Q) -
~><oo