HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, February 7,2008 - 5:15 PM
Work Session
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
220 S. Gilbert Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Discussion of draft Subdivision Regulations
C. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 17, 2008
D. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1,2008
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Draft subdivision code
Attached are staff recommended revisions to thc City's subdivision code. The attached draft
is a redlined version of the subdivision code with suggestions for deletions shown with
strikethrough notation and newly proposed language shown with underlining.
The proposed changes to the subdivision code are intended to:
. Update subdivision standards to reflect comprehensive plan goals by including street
connecti vity standards, a wider variety of street types, reductions in street pavement
width requirements, updates to right-of-way widths to accommodate street trees and
utilities, and improvements to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists;
. Clarify definitions, purpose statements, and standards within the code;
. Clarify submittal requirements and approval procedures to streamline the approval
proccss for both developers and the City;
. Codify current practice with regard to secondary access standards, street naming
standards, private street policies, clustered mailbox provisions, and cost sharing
procedures with regard to public improvements.
We've attached several short articles that give an overview of subdivision regulations - what
they are, why they are necessary, and how they are typically administered. Since the
proposed street connectivity standards in the draft are ]ikely to be a topic of debate at
upcoming public hearings, you'll also find in your packet severa] articles regarding the pros
and cons of connecti vity standards, with examples of standards adopted in other
communities.
The revisions to the subdivision code were drafted and reviewed by various City
departments, including the Planning, Public Works, Housing and Inspection Services, Parks,
and Fire Departments. It was sent out for public review last spring. We received comments
from the Greater Iowa City Home Builders Association, 1000 Friends of Iowa, and Ii-om
Larry Schnittjer, recently retired from MMS Consultants (see attached). Some ot"the
suggestions from these public reviewers have been incorporated into the draft. There remain
areas of disagreement that we expect to be topics of debate during the upcoming public
hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. These include:
. Procedural issues;
· Street connectivity standards;
. Highway buffer requirements;
· Changes to street right-of-way width requirements; and
. Details regarding how to incorporate existing policies and practices into thc code.
February 1, 2008
Page 2
Staff suggests the following review and adoption schedule for the proposed draft:
. Commission reviews the draft regulations and background materials at several
informal work sessions;
. Commission holds several public meetings to solicit public comment on the draft;
. At the public hearing, staffwill keep track of any suggested amendments to the draft
in a decision matrix, similar to how it was handled for the zoning code. The matrix
will provide a structure for Commission decisions regarding changes to the draft.
. Staff will make changes to the draft per the Commission's direction.
. Once changes have been made, a "Recommended Draft" will be forwarded to the City
Council.
At your informal meeting on Thursday, we would like to provide a general overview of the
proposed draft, answer any initial questions you have about the draft or the review process,
and determine a time table for public review.
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
Article A. General Subdivision Provisions
15-1-1 Short Title
This Title shall be known as and may be referred to and cited as the Subdivision Code.
15-1-2 Pur ose
This Title is intended to encourage orderly community development and provide for the
regulation and control of the extension of public improvements, public services and utilities, the
improvement of land and the design of subdivisions consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
15-1-3 Definitions
ALLEY: An open public way intended eAly for use as a secondary means of vehicular
access to abutting property.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: The reconfiguration of the boundary line between
abutting tracts, lots or parcels that results in conveyance of less than one thousand
(1,000) square feet of land.
COMMISSION: The Planninq and ZonilliLCommission of the city.
DIVISION: Dividing a tract, lot or parcel of land into two (2) portions by conveyance or
for tax purposes. A boundary line adjustment or the conveyance of an easement,
other than a public highway easement, shall not be considered a division for the
purposes of this Title.
LOT: A tract of land represented and identified by number or letter designation on an
official plat.
OFF-SITE COSTS: The reasonable costs incurred by a developer in constructing,
imorovinq, or otherwise extending public improvements from existing public
improvements through or along property owned by thiFd parties not owned bv said
develooer to the boundaries of property under development and which improvement
are capable of serving the thiFd party's preperty other orooerties.
OUT OF SEQUENCE DE'JELOPMENT: Subdivision or development of land bef-ore it is
included in the short range development sequence in the City's Comprehensive rlan,
as amended.
OUTLOT: a oortion of a platted subdivision or other parcel of land not intended by its
owner for immediate develooment. An outlot may also be a tract or Darcel of land
within the subdivision intended for shared use by the residents of the subdivision or
bv the oublic. e.O. oublic or orivate open spaces and/or walkways.
PARCEL: A part of a tract of land.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The principal structures, works, component parts and
accessories of any of the following of oublic infrastructure that become Dart of, are
placed uoon, or affixed to real estate, includino, but not limited to:
Staff Recommended Draji
February 1,2008
. Sanitary sewers;
. Storm sewers, tile lines or pipes and drainage swales;
. Bridges and culverts;
. Streets, trails. and sidewalks;
. Water mains;
. Storm water management facilities;
. Public open space improvements.
STREET, ARTERIAL: A street, the principal function of which is to provide for through
traffic and which is designed to carry large volumes of traffic. "Arterial streets." as
referenced in this Title. are those streets shown on the Johnson Countv Council of
Governments OCCOG) Arterial Street Plan. as amended.
STREET, COLLECTOR: A street, the principal function of which, is carrying traffic from
local streets to arterial streets.
STREET, CUL-DE-SAC: A local street terminating in a turnaround.
STREET, LOCAL: A street used primarily for access to abutting property and for moving
local traffic.
STREET, LOOP: A local street with two (2) intersections with another street in an
alignment roughly in the shape of a "U." Lots. may abut either side of the street.
STREET: A public or private street as defined in this Title.
STREET. PRIVATE: A privatelv-owned wav that is intended to afford a means of access
to abuttinq propertv and for moving local traffic.
STREET, PUBLIC: A right-of-way, dedicated to and accepted for public use, which
affords tRC principal a means of access to abutting property and a means of vehicular
travel. A public street is owned or controlled by a government entitv.
SUBDIVISION: Division of a tract. lot or parcel of land into three or more lots.
SUBDIVISION PLAT: the graphical representation of a subdivision of land. prepared bv
a reqistered land surveyor. havinq a number or letter desiqnation for each lot within
the plat and a succinct name or title that is unique for the countv where the land is
located.
SUBDIVISION PLAT, MAJOR: A subdivision plat that includes involves the construction
of one or more new streets, selective access drives or street extensions.
SUBDIVISION PLAT, MINOR: A subdivision plat that does not involve the construction
or extension of streets. involving no streets.
15-1-4 Establishment of Control
A. AIri plat or replat of a subdivision of land located within the City under the Code of Iowa,
as amended, shall be certified as approved by the Mayor and City Clerk and the
certification affixed to the plat or replat only after approval by a resolution of the City
Council as set forth in this Title.
2
Staff Recommended Draft
February /, 200B
B. Pursuant to section 354.9, Code of Iowa, as amended, all subdivisions located within two
(2) miles of the City's corporate boundaries shall be subject to City review and approval,
except for those areas exempt from such review pursuant to the Johnson County/ Iowa
City Fringe Area Agreement.
C. Any division of a tract, lot or parcel shall be administratively reviewed and approved by the
City Manager or designee for compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Prior to
recording, a division shall be certified as approved by the City Manager or designee.
15-1-5 Issuance Of Buildin Permits Restricted
A. Where a subdivision is required, the City shall not issue a building permit for construction
on any lot, parcel or tract unless and until:
1. A final subdivision plat has been approved and recorded; and
2. The City approves subdivision erosion control measures in accordance with this Title;
and;
3. The City accepts the public improvements as speCified herein, with the exception of
sidewalks and stormwater manaoement facilities. said exceptions beino allowed after
building construction has commenced as set forth herein.
B. If the subdivider desires a building permit prior to installing the improvements, the owner
must deposit with the City Finance Department an escrow equal to the cost of
improvements plus 10 percent thereof as specified in paraoraph 15-2-3C-7.
C. No building permit and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any division unless
such division has been approved as set forth in this Title.
15-1-6 Develo ment Activi Restricted
A. No person. owner or responsible party shall do any oradino in any areas as described in
Chapter 17-8. Gradino Ordinance. without first obtainino a oradino permit from the
Buildino Official.
B. No person. owner or responsible party shall do any oradino in any areas as described in
section 17-8-15. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control. without first obtaining a
Construction Site Runoff (CSR) Permit from the City.
C. Unless specifically exempted. an application for Sensitive Areas Review must be submitted
to and approved by the City prior to woodland clearing. oradino or any development
activity on tracts of land or portions of tracts of land where any reoulated sensitive
features exist. as specified in Article 14-51. Sensitive Lands and Features. A Sensitive Areas
Review may occur concurrentlv with Subdivision Review as set forth in this Title.
D. No public improvements shall be installed without approval of construction plans by the
City Enoineer or desionee.
15-1-7 Cit '5 Ri ht To Install 1m rovements
A. If the subdivider, its assigns or successors in interest, sell or convey lots in a subdivision
without constructing or installing the public improvements, the City shall have the right to
3
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
install and construct such improvements. The costs of such improvements shall be a lien
and charge against all the lots in the subdivision under the provisions of the Code of Iowa,
as amended, except the cost of installing sidewalks, which shall be a lien only against the
lot or lots abutting or in front of which sidewalks are installed. The cost of such
improvements need not meet the requirements of notice, benefit or value as provided by
State law for assessing such improvements. The requirement to construct such
improvements is and shall remain a lien from the date of final plat approval until properly
released by the City.
B. When required improvements have been installed to the satisfaction of the City, the City
will, upon request, promptly issue to the subdivider, for recording in the County Recorder's
office, a good and sufficient release to various lots in such subdivisions so that this Section
will not constitute a cloud upon the title of the lots in the subdivision. However. with
reaard to the subdivider's obliaation to construct stormwater manaaement facilities. the
provisions of paragraphs. 1 and 2. below. aooly.
1. With resoect to a subdivider's obliaation to construct stormwater manaaement
facilities. the City shall provide a oartial release for the develooment from any liens or
clouds on title to the develooment by reason of such stormwater manaaement
obliaations. orovided the City Engineer certifies that the followina conditions and/or
events have occurred:
a. The facilities have been substantiallv completed:
b. An escrow amount has been established with the City in an amount aooroved by
the City Engineer. to which the City's lien should attach immediately uoon
execution or recordina of the oartial release;
2. The City aarees to issue a total release for the facilities uoon certification by the City
Enaineer. in writina. that all of the followina events and/or conditions have been
substantiallv completed:
a. Permanent around cover is established and mowable:
b. Erosion and sedimentation are controlled in conformance with the aooroved
plans and soecifications:
c. The facilities are comolete:
d. All land within the tributary area in the develooment. or a lesser amount of land
as aooroved by the City Enaineer. has been develooed.
15-1-8 Exce tions
A. Modifications of Requirements
I. Upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission or on its own motion,
the City Council may vary, modify or waive the requirements of Article C of the
Chapcr Chapter 3 of this Title. Subdivision Desian and Required Improvements.
orovided one of the followina aualifvina circumstances are met: under tl'ie following
circumstances:
a. If the subdivider can demonstrate that strict compliance with the requirements
of Article C of this Chapter Chaoter 3 of this Title would result in extraordinary
4
Staff Recommended Draft
February J, 2008
hardship because of unusual topography, excessive costs due to or othcr SLJCA
non-self-inflicted conditions; er-and if the subdivider can demonstrate that strict
comoliance with the requirements of Chaoter 3 of this Title would conflict with
the objectives of these subdivision regulations; or
b. If a subdivider can demonstrate that strict compliance with the requirements of
Article C of tAis Chapter Chapter 3 of this Title would result in ~ subdivision
design that would compromise public health or safety, or could result in the
substantial degradation of natural features even after application of appropriate
provisions of Article 14-51. Sensitive Lands and Features.
2. City Council may act to vary, modify or waive a requirement only if it finds that the
public safety and interest is protected and that such variance. modification. or waiver
will not hinder development of neiqhboring properties and that the variance,
modification or waiver will not nullify the intent or purposes of this Title or of other
Titles of the City Code.
8. Unusual Plats
This Title shall not preclude tAe approval of "duster" type subdi'Jisions or unusual
subdivision designs if, in the opinion of the PlanAing aAd Zoning Commission, the gencral
and aestActic lT1erit, the pr-cservation of natural or topogrilphie features and tRC
prospectivc enAancement of the cOlT1munity ......arfilnts waiving the technical requirclT1ents
as set forth iA CAapter 3 of this Title.
C. City Council Action
The City Council must approve any variance, modification, or waiver of the general
requirements set forth in this CAapter Title and must note this approval in the resolution
approving the final subdivision plat.
15-1-9 Selling Before Approval" Penalties
A. Except pursuant to an agreement expressly conditioned on final subdivision approval, it
shall be unlawful for any person or persons to agree to transfer or sell or to transfer or sell
any land which forms a part of a subdivision requiring City Council approval under this
Title before City Council grants final subdivision approval. Each such agreement, transfer
or sale shall be deemed a separate violation.
8. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to agree to or attempt to transfer or sell, or
to transfer or sell any division which requires approval under this Title without first having
obtained certification of cOlT1plianEe approval bv the City. Each such attempt, agreement
transfer or sale shall be deemed a separate violation.
C. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute injunctive, mandamus or other
appropriate action or proceedings to prevent any pending sale or transfer or to prevent
any further sale or transfer in violation of this Title.
15-1-10 Penalties General!
Any violation of this Title shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or Municipal infraction or
environmental infraction as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code and shall be
subiect to the penalties specified in 1-4-2D. except for environmental infractions, which shall be
5
SlaffRecommended Draft
February I, 2008
subject to the penalty for same as specified in 1-4-26-2, as amended. Each dav that a violation
occurs and/or is permitted to exist constitutes a separate offense, and civil and/or criminal
penalties shall be computed accordinglv.
6
Staff Recommended Draft
February I. 20U8
CHAPTER 2. PLATS AND PLATTING PROCEDURES
15-2-1 Conce t Plan
A. Applicability
Whenever the owner of any tract or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the City or
within 2 miles thereof wishes to make a subdivision of the same, the owner or the owner's
representative shall submit a concept plan to the Department of Planning and Community
Development for review prior to submission of a preliminary plat. The concept plan shall
consist of a sk-<::tci'l of ti'le proposed subdivision on uppr-oximated contours.
B. Submission Reauirements
The conceot olan must include the followinq information:
I. The orooosed lavout of streets, lots, location of stormwater facilities. and ooen space.
2. General topograohv. based on existinq toooqraphic maos or other resources. The
prooertv is not required to be surveved at the conceot plan staqe.
3. Aporoximate footorints of anv existinq above-qround man-made features located on
the subject prooertv, includinq buildinqs and other structures, streets. sidewalks, etc.:
4. Surrounding land uses and aooroximate location of buildinq footprints on abuttinq
orooerties;
5. Sensitive features, includinq streams, wooded areas. known wetlands or potential
wetlands. known archeoloqical sites. etc.
6. Other necessary information pertaininq to the existinq conditions of the property, as
requested bv the City.
C. Review of concept plan
I. Uoon receiot of a conceot olan the Deoartment of Planninq and Community
Develooment shall review the concept olan in the context of the standards of this
Title. other City Code requirements, and Comorehensive Plan policies, and will have
the discretion to solicit comments from other city deoartments.
2. The Department of Planning and Community Develooment will orovide qeneral
written comments to the aoolicant within 20 business davs of receiot of the conceot
plan based on the information submitted bv the aoolicant. These comments are
intended to orovide guidance to the aoplicant in oreoarinq the preliminarv olat and
are not to be construed as comorehensive with reqard to comoliance with the Citv
Code.
3. The Preliminary Plat shall not be filed until said written comments regarding the
concept plan are provided to the applicant.
15-2-2 Prelimina Plat
A. Submission Required; Waiver
I. After conferring with the Department of Planning and Community Development on
the concept plan, the owner or owner's representative shall submit to the City Clerk
7
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1. 2008
twelve (12) copies of a preliminary plat for consideration. This submission must
include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsection 15-2-2B. below.
2. The City Manaaer or desianee(s) will check the application for accuracy and
completeness. A "complete application" shall mean the following:
a. A plat with accurate measurements and dimensions and easements identified:
and
b. All information as specified in 15-2-2B. below. has been submitted:
3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application
is incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete. the City will inform the
applicant and reserves the riaht to discontinue staff review until a complete and
accurate application is filed. The start date for anv applicable time limitations for the
application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted.
4. After the Department of Planning and Community Development has revieweG the
SUBmitted plat as set forth Below, ten (10) r-cvised copies of the plat si'lalll3e
SUBmitted f{)r distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. The City Council may waive submission of the preliminary plat if the final plat includes
all the requirements of the preliminary plat. as the City Council deems appropriate.
B. Accompanying Information
The preliminary plats shall be accompanied by the following information:
1. A location map showing an outline of the area to be subdivided.
ft. The subdivision name.
h. An outline of the area to be subdivided.
e. Norti'l point, scale and date.
2. The preliminary plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to 50 feet (1" = 50');
pro'/ided, however, if the resultant drawing would be larger than 24 inches by 36
inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to 100 feet (I" =
100'). In addition, a diaital version of the plat must be submitted as per City
specifications. Each plat must include the following information:
a. Legal description, acreage and name of proposed subdivision;
b. NameW and address@ of ownerW and subdivider;
c. Names of the persons who prepared the plat, owner's attorney, representative
or agent, if any, and date of preparation;
d. North point and graphic scale;
e. Contours at 5-foot intervals or less;
f. Locations of existing lot lines, streets, public utilities, water mains, sanitary
sewers, storm sewers, drainpipes, culverts, watercourses, bridges, railroads,
buildings, storm water detention facilities and any other public improvements in
the proposed subdivision.
g. The existing streets and City utilities on adjoining properties.
8
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
h. Layout of proposed blocks (if used) and lots, including the dimensions of each, .
and the lot and block number in numerical order. For lots where the lot width is
different from the lot frontage, the lot width must be indicated on the olat.
i. Location of any proposed outlot(s), identified with progressive letter
designations, and the purpose of said outlot(s) clearly specified on the plat.
j. Proposed location of clustered mailboxes.
k. Location and widths, other dimensions and names of the proposed streets,
alleys, roads, utility and other easements, parks and other open spaces or
reserved areas.
I. Grades of proposed streets and alleys.
m. A cross-section of the proposed streets showing the roadway locations, the type
of curb and gutter, the paving and sidewalks to be installed.
n. The proposed layout and size of water mains and sanitary sewers.
o. Proposal for drainage of the land, including proposed storm sewers, ditches,
swales, bioswales, rain oardens, culverts, bridges, storm water management
facilities and other structures.
p. A signature block for endorsement by the City Clerk certifying the City Council's
approval of the plat.
3. A grading plan, including orooosed methods for the prevention and control of soil
erosion, pursuant to the Grading Ordinance, Chapter 17-8 of the City Code.
4. If access to State routes is orooosed, the olat must be submitted to the Iowa
Department of Transoortation for review. Comments from the Iowa Department of
Transportation must be submitted with the orooosed olat.
s.--Plans <lAd proJ3osed methods for the prc.'cntion ana control of soil erosion f-or the
entire development.
6. For orooerties containino reoulated sensitive features as soecified in Article 14-51 of
the City Code. a Sensitive Areas Develooment Plan must be submitted as set forth in
Article 14- 51.
C. Fees
A fee shall be paid at the time the preliminary plat or any combination of preliminary plats
and/or plans is submitted to the City Clerk, in the amount established by resolution of the
City Council.
D. Review of Plat; Approval or Disapproval
1. Upon filing the preliminary plats as required by this Section, the City Clerk shall
forward 11 copies of the preliminary plat to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
2. The Deoartment of Planning and Community Develooment shall distribute said cooies
to the aoorooriate City Deoartments for review as designated by the City Manaoer.
3. The City ~1anager or Said designee(s) shall examine the plat and application to insure
compliance with the requirements of this Title, other relevant orovisions of the City
9
Staff Recommended Draft
Febnwry I, 2008
Code, Comorehensive Plan oolicies tAis Chapter and with State law. Upon completion
of examination, the City ~1anager or designee Deoartment of Plan nino and
Community Develooment shall forward a written report, including recommendations,
to the Planning and Zoning Commission. No plat shall be forwarded to the Plannino
and Zoning Commission with more than six (6) deficiencies.
4. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative must submit ten (10)
revised copies of the plat for distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. The Commission shall study the revised preliminary plat, review the application of the
owner and review the report from the Deoartment of Planning and Community
Develooment the City ~1anager or designee.
6. The Commission shall approve or disapprove the plat within 45 calendar days afteF
SUBmission to the City Clerk of the date the City receives a comolete aoolication. or
the preliminary plat shall be deemed to be approved by the Commission. The owner
or owner's representative may, however. aoree to an extension of time.
7. After receipt of the recommendation of the Commission or after the time of any
extension has passed, the City Council shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the
preliminary plat.
E. Effect of Approval
Approval of a preliminary plat by the City Council does not constitute approval of the
subdivision but merely authorizes the subdivider to proceed with the preparation of the
final plat. In the event the City Council approves the preliminary plat and the final plat
submitted does not materially and substantially deviate from the preliminary plat and if
inspection by the City reyeals that all plans and specifications for construction of
improvements, as required by the City, have been met, the final plat shall be approved by
the City Council unless both the City Council and the owner or subdivider waive this
requirement in writing. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of 24
months unless, upon written request of the owner or subdivider, the City Council, by
resolution, grants an extension of time. If the final plat is not filed with the City Clerk
within 24 months, all previous actions of the City Council with respect to the plat shall be
deemed null and void.
15-2-3 Final Plat
A. Submission Reauired
1. After aooroval of a oreliminary plat or if the requirement for preliminary plat has been
waived by the City Council, the owner or owner's reoresentative shall submit to the
City Clerk twelve (2) cooies of a final plat for review. Said final olat must be
submitted to the City Clerk within 24 months of aooroyal of the oreliminary plat
unless an extension has been aooroved by the City Council. This submission must
include accurate and comolete information as set forth in 15-2-3B and 15-2-3(,
below.
2. The Department of Plannino and Community Develooment will check the aoolication
for accuracy and comoleteness. A "comolete aoolication" shall mean the following:
10
Staff Recommended Draft
February !, 2008
a. A final plat with accurate measurements and dimensions. and with easements
correctly identified:
b. An accurate legal description:
c. All required legal documents and accompanyinq instruments as specified in 15-
2-36 and 15-2-3C. below:
d. Construction plans accordinq to the specifications of the Citv Enqineer:
3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application
is incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete. the City will inform the
applicant and reserves the riqht to discontinue staff review until a complete and
accurate application is filed. The start date for anv applicable time limitations for the
application under review will be the date when a complete application is submitted.
4. Upon Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and City Council approvul,
Upon approval by the Citv. a final plat may include only a portion of the development
illustrated on the preliminary plat if that portion can function as a separate
development, including access and utilities, and if no essential public infrastructure
extensions are delayed. Whether or not said infrastructure is essential in nature shall
be determined by the City.
5. If the preparation of the Final Plat results in variations from the approved preliminarv
plat. the applicant shall submit a description of anv requested variations from the
approved preliminarv plat. Substantial variations may result in the necessity to file an
amended preliminarv plat.
B. Specifications
The final plat shall meet the following specifications:
1. The plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to 50 feet (1" = 50'); provided,
however, if the resultant drawing would be of larger dimension than 24 inches by 36
inches (24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to 100 feet (1" =
100').
2. Twelve (12) prints of the final plat shall be submitted showing the following
information:
a. Accurate property boundary lines, with dimensions and bearings or angular
dimensions, which provide a land survey of the tract, closing with an error of
not more than one foot in 10,000 feet.
b. Accurate references to known permanent monuments, giving the bearing and
distance from some corner of a lot or block in the City to some corner of the
congressional division of which the City or the addition thereto is a part.
c. Accurate locations of all existing and recorded streets intersecting the property
boundaries of the tract.
d. Accurate legal description of the property boundaries.
c. Street names and street riqht-of-way widths.
f. Complete curve notes for all curves included in the plat.
11
Staff Recommended Draft
February I, 2008
g. Street center lines with accurate dimensions in feet and one-hundredths of feet
with bearinqs or angular dimensions anglcs to street, alley and lot lines.
h. Lot numbers and lot line dimensions. For lots where the lot width is different
from the lot frontaqe. the lot width must be indicated on the plat.
i. Block numbers, if used.
j. Accurate dimensions for any property to be dedicated or reserved for public,
semi-public or community use.
k. Location, type, material and size of all markers.
I. Name and street address of the owner and subdivider.
m. Name and street address of owner's or subdivider's attorney, name of persons
who prepared the plat and the date of preparation.
n. North point, scale and date.
o. Certification of the accuracy of the plat by a registered land surveyor of the
State.
p. Location and width of easements for public and City utilities.
q. Certification by the pttbIie utility companies that the location of pttbIie utility
easements are properly placed for the installation of pttbIie utilities.
r. A signature block for endorsement by the City Clerk certifying the City Council's
approval of the plat.
3. The applicant shall submit a diqital version of the final subdivision plat as part of the
application process. Once the plat has been approved bv the Citv Council. a final
copv of the digital version of the plat shall be submitted to the City Enqineerinq
Department. The diqital submittal shall be compatible with the Johnson County
Geoqraphic Information Svstem and City of Iowa City mappinq svstem. Specific
formats. procedures. and methods needed to meet this requirement will be updated
as chanqes in technology occur.
C. Accompanying Instruments Documents
The final plat shall also be accompanied by the following instruments:
1. Owner's Statement
An acknowledged statement from the owner and the owner's spouse, if any, that the
subdivision as it appears on the plat is with their free consent and is in accordance
with the desires of the proprietor and the proprietor's spouse. This statement may
include the dedication to the public.
2. Dedications
Dedication of streets and other public property, including perpetual easements for the
installation, operation and maintenance of City utilities.
3. Mortgage Holder's or lienholder's Statement
An acknowledged statement from mortgage holders or lienholders that the plat is
prepared with their free consent and in accordance with their desire, as well as a
release of mortgage for any areas dedicated to the public.
12
Staff Recommended Draft
February I, 2008
4. Encumbrance Certificates
If there is no consent from the mortgage holders or lienholders as sDecified in 3,
above, and if the land being platted is encumbered in the manner set out in the Code
of Iowa, as amended, a certificate shall be filed with the County Recorder showing an
encumbrance bond in an amount double the amount of the encumbrance and
approved by the Recorder and Clerk of the District Court. The bond shall run to the
County for the benefit of the purchasers of the land subdivided.
s. Attorney's Opinion
An opinion from an attorney at law showing that the fee title is in the owner and that
the land platted is free from encumbrance or if encumbered, listing the
encumbrances and the bonds securing the encumbrances.
6. Construction Plans
A comDlete set of construction Dlans for all Dublic imDrovements, meetinq City
sDecifications, must be submitted to the City Enqineer's Office.
7. County Treasurer's Certificate
A certified statement from the County Treasurer that the land being platted is free
from taxes.
8. County Auditor's Certificate
A certified statement from the County Auditor aDDrOvinq of the name or title of the
subdivision as succinct and unique to Johnson County.
9. Cit\' Engineer's Certificate; Letter af Credit Subdivider's Aareement
a. A certificate fr-om the City EngiRecr that all public improvements, with the
exccption of side......~ll<s, h~vc becR instulled in accordance with the City
specificatioRs; or
b. An agreement executed by the subdivider which agrees, as a covenant running
with the land, that the City shall not issue a building permit for any lot in the
subdivision until the subdivider installs the public improvements, except
sidewalks, according to plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer
and until the City Engineer approves subdivision erosion control measures. If the
subdivider desires a building permit prior to installing the improvements, the
owner must deposit with the City Finance Department an escrow equal to the
cost of improvements plus 10 percent thereof in cash or an irrevocable letter of
credit Davable to the Citv in a form approved by the City Attornev. At the City's
discretion, this escrow may be divided by the number of lots in the subdivision
and collected on a per lot basis prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Subdivider must further agree, as a covenant running with the land, that
subdivider will install sidewalks abutting each lot in the subdivision as set forth
in this Title, that the obligation to install the sidewalks remains a lien on the lots
abutting the sidewalk until released by the City and that, in the event subdivider
fails to install the sidewalks, the City may install the sidewalks and assess the
total cost against the property without meeting the requirements of notice,
benefit or value required by State law for assessing improvements.t-6f
e. An irrevocable letter of credit payable to ttle City as a FRethod of aSSLJraRCe to
the City that the public impr-o'v'eFRcnts will be cOFRpleted by tile subdividcr or
. property owncr within 2 years aftcr official ucccptance of the plat. The form and
type of letter of credit shull be upproved by tile City Att-orney, and the aFROuRt
13
SlajJ Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
of the letter of credit shall not be less ti'lan ti'lc aA'lount of the estiA'lat-cEl cost of
the iA'lpro....eA'lents plus 10 percent. The Llmount of the estimate must be
;)pproved by the City ~1L1nLlger or designee. If the public improveA'lents Llr-c not
eOA'lpleted within the specified time, the City Council may use the irrevocable
letter of credit or any necessary portion thereof to complete the improvement.
eft
d. If option B7b above or this option B7c is chosen, The final plat subdivider's
agreement shall state that the subdivider, including its grantees, assignees and
successors in interest, agrees that public services, including but not limited to
street maintenance, snow and ice removal and solid waste collection, will not be
extended to such subdivision until the pavement is completed and accepted by
the City Council by resolution.
e. The subdivider's aqreement mav include other conditions oeeuliar to the
subdivision as allowed by law.
10. Iowa DeDartment of TransDortation Permits
Aooroved mOT oermits must be submitted. if required.
D. Review; Approval or Disapproval
1. Upon the filing of the final plat as set forth above, the City Clerk shall submit 11
copies of the final plat and the application to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
2. The Department of Planning and Community Develooment shall distribute said copies
to the aoorooriate City Deoartments for review as desiqnated bv the City Manaqer;
3. The City ~1anager or Said designee{0 shall examine the applicationL frfffi the plat, the
construction olans. and the leqal documents to insure compliance with the
requirements of the City Code. this Chapter LInd of State law, and the oreliminarv
olat. Upon completion, the City ~1anagcr or designee shall forward a written report,
including r-ccommendation, to the Planning LInd Zoning Commission.
4. The costs of engineering examination of final plat and construction plans shall be
paid by the subdivider and shall be the actual costs of the engineering examination
and review as incurred by the City.
s. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative must submit 10
revised copies of the plat for distribution to ti'le Planning ;)nd Zoning Commission.
6. The PILlnning LInd Zoning COA'lA'lission shall stud',. the finLlI plLlt, review the application
of the mvner and review the reports of the City ~1anager or designee.
7. Upon completion of said review Commission staff shall recommend approval or
disapproval of the plat within 45 calendar days after submission to the City CierI<. of
the date the City received a eomolete aoolication. or the final plat shall be deemed to
be approved by the staff COA'lmission. The owner or subdivider may, however,
agree, in writing, to an extension of time.
8. Following staff evaluation, e)(aA'lination BY ti'le Planning and Zoning COA'lA'lission, the
owner or owner's representative shall submit a diqital version. a transparent
reproducible copy and 8 prints of the revised final plat with the siqnatures of the
surveyor and the resoective utility comoanies to the City Clerk.
14
Staff Recommended Draft
February J, 2008
9. After receipt of the recommendation of the Commission staff or after the time of any
extension, the City Council shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the final plat.
The City Council must take action on the final plat within 60 calendar days of ERe
submission of a comolete aoolication for a final olat to the City Clerk. If the City
Council does not approve or disapprove the plat within 60 calendar days, the final
plat shall be deemed approved. The owner or subdivider may, however, agree, in
writing, to an extension of time.
15
Slaff Recommended Draft
February I, 2008
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS
15-3-1 General Re uirements
A. Desian of the subdivision shall complv with the standards of this Chapter, provide for the
orderlv arowth and development of the City, demonstrate consistencv with the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan and anv specific adopted district plans. and take into consideration
the natural features of the site and patterns of adiacent development.
B. The subdivider of property shall be responsible for constructina all public improvements
associated with the proposed subdivision accordina to City Code, unless exempted from
such reauirements accordina to the provisions herein.
C. Public improvements, as defined in this Title. shall be constructed and installed according
to the standards established bv the City. Copies of said standards are on file in the office
of the City Enaineer.
15-3-2 Streets and Circulation
A. Connectivity of Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails
Subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local
streets, sidewalks and trails in accordance with the followina standards.
1. Arterial streets must be located and extended in aeneral accordance with the JCCOG
Arterial Street Plan and Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
2. All streets. sidewalks. and trails should connect to other streets, sidewalks. and trails
within the development. and to the propertv line to provide for their extension to
adjacent orooerties. Each subdivision must contribute to the laraer interconnected
street pattern of the City to ensure street connectivity between neiahborhoods.
multiple travel routes resultina in the diffusion and distribution of traffic. efficient
routes for public and emeraencv services. and to provide direct and continuous
vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood destinations.
3. The road svstem shall be designed to oermit the safe. efficient and orderlv
movement of vehicular and oedestrian traffic: to meet the needs of the present and
future population served: to have a simple and logical pattern and allow that pattern
to continue through adiacent properties: and to respect natural features and
toooaraphv.
4. Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadwavs with a sinale point of access should be
avoided. Cui de sacs will be considered where it can be c1earlv demonstrated that
environmental constraints. existina develooment access limitations along arterial
streets. or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the propertv
line or to interconnect with other streets within or abuttina the subdivision.
16
Staff Recommended Draji
February I, 2008
B. Minimum Access Standards
Adequate street access to an area or neighborhood is required as part of subdivision
approval or prior to the approval of additional subdivision lots. The standards in this
subsection are intended as minimum standards in areas where connectivity is limited bv
topoaraphv. previous development patterns. or other unusual features and shall not be
used as a means of circumventing the street connectivity standards set forth in subsection
A. above. The following guidelines will be used by the City in determinina whether
additional street access is a prereauisite to additional lots or developable parcels being
approved bv the City.
1. Additional access may be required if a proposed development will result in any
portion of a street that provides a sinale means of access to an area being
overburdened with traffic. 'Overburdened' shall be defined as a proiected volume
which exceeds the midpoint desian volume as follows:
a. Local street: 500 vehicles per day
b. Collector street: 2.500 vehicles per day
2. Proiected traffic volumes shall be determined bv using the most recent Averaae Dailv
Traffic count when available, and addina it to proiected traffic aeneration as
determined bv the Citv. In the absence of a recent traffic count. proiected traffic
volumes shall be calculated bv usina proiected traffic aeneration for both existina and
proposed development.
3. Additional means of access may also be required if anv of the followina conditions
exist or will exist if additional lots or developable parcels are approved:
a. There are phvsical features that may increase the probability of blockaaes alona
the sinale means of access to the development. These phvsical features include
but are not limited to: slopes 8% or areater: floodplains as designated by the
Federal Emeraency Manaaement Aaencv; a bridaed or culverted roadway; trees
adiacent to the roadway with trunk diameter areater than four inches: a arade
separated highway: or a railroad.
b. The existing access is insufficient to provide efficient. safe. and/or cost-effective
routes for the provision of public and emergency services for the proposed
development.
c. The street. which provides a single means of access to the area. is a local or
collector street alona which there are existing or proposed facilities that may
increase the probabilitv of pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities
include but are not limited to schools. davcare centers and parks.
d. There are land uses located alona the subiect street that serve special
populations. which may increase the volume of emergency vehicle trips. These
uses include but are not limited to adult daycares. facilities servina elderlv
persons. or persons with disabilities.
4. For a situation reauirina additional means of access based on the above criteria. a
single means of access may be permitted as a temporarY condition. A temporarY
condition is one in which there is secured. written assurance from the private
subdivider that the road, which will provide the necessarY access. will be constructed
within three years of development or, alternativelv, said access is scheduled for
17
Staff Recommended Draft
February I, 200S
construction no later than the third vear of the then current Capital Improvements
Prooram of the City.
C. Street TVDes
Table 15-1. Standards for Street Riohts-of-Wav, provides a summarv of various street
types. The information in this table is intended to provide ouidance for the desion of the
street network within a subdivision. When desionino a subdivision, street types should be
chosen based on the intended function of the street and anticipated level of traffic. The
City will review the proposed streets and determine the appropriate street type based on
the factors set forth in this section.
D. Dedication of Riaht-of-Wav
Land shall be dedicated to the City for all public street rights-of-wav within the
development and for anv public street rioht-of-wav that is needed for streets that abut or
will abut the development.
E. Alternative Street Designs/Modifications
11 7A 7B. Reduction of Pavement Width Requirements: In the case of subdivision, which
include cui de Si:lCS or "loop" street less thi:ln 900 feet in length, the required pa'.'eFRent
width for such streets may be reduced from 28 feet bacl( to bi:lck of curb to 22 f-cet Bi:lck
to bad( of curb if profvisioFl is FRaec for storage of at least 5 augomobiles on each lot as
provided in the Zoning Ordinance. These additional parking spaces FRay be loei:lted in the
front 'lard. A drivewi:l'{ may be used to f-ulfill the additional parking requireFRents only if it
is double ',vidth and served by i:l double width curb entrance. These parking spaces shall
be shown on the building pli:lns for each lot in the subdivision ;md shi:lll be necessary for .
the i:lpproval of a building permit. Such parking spi:lces shi:lll be constructed i:lt the time of
the house censtruction.
In lieu of the provision of the 5 purking spaces on each individual lot, a "community" or
neighborl1ooEl parking lot FRay be proviElce to serve a gmup of r-csidences. The same
number of parldng space sRall be provided in sucl1 lots as would l1ave Been required of tile
residences served. SUCR parking shall be located no FRore than 200 feet from ;my
residence served. Wher-c such parking lots ar-c used, adequate proviSions for their
muinten;mcc and preservution as pi:lrking lots must be provided.
IS
Staff Recommended Draft
February J, 2008
Table 15-1: Standards for Street Ri~hts-of-Way
~1inimum Pavement width # Travel Parking Maximum Sidewalk
I~ight-of-way Lanes Grade Width
width
Residential AllevlRear Lane .u; 20 ft. 16 ft. 2 No 12% NIA
Commercial AlleylRear Lane 20 ft. minimum 20 ft., varies ~ No 10% NIA
/ varies
Loop Street' 100 ft. n ft. 1 shared Yes. on one 10% ilL
minimum I side residential
varies: side of
street onlv
Low volume Cui de Sac' 50 ft. n ft. I sharcd Yes. on one 10% 4 ft. both
side sides
Cui de sac 60 ft. M.or 28 ft ~ Yes' 10% 5 ft. both
sides
Local Residential Street W 60n. 26 or 28 ft. ~ Yes' 12% 5 ft. both
sides
Local Commercialllndustrial W60ft. 28 ft. ~ Yes 8% 5 ft. both
Street sides
Collector Street (all land uses) 60 66 ft. 311\. ~ Yes 100/0 fbr 5 n. both
residential; sides
8 % for
commercial
or industrial
Collector Street wi bike lanes 66 ft. 34 ft. ~ No 8% 5 ft. both
sides
2-lane Arterial Street &ll-ih 100 ft. 44 ;un. ~ No 8% 8 ft. Due
minimum side 15 ft.
one side
Arterial Street wi bike lanes 100 ft. 34 ft. ~ No 8% 8 ft. one
minimum side! i.1!.
one side
4-lane Arterial Street 100 ft. 54 ft.l varies 1 No 8% 8 ft. one
minimum deoending if side! i.1!.
median is included one side
Arterial Street wi parking 100ft. varies. based on ~ Yes 8% 8 ft. one
minimum: more number of lanes side I i.1!.
ma\' be reuuired and whether one side
uenendim! on narking is narallel
parking or angled.
confi"uration
3-lane Arterial Street 100 ft. 46 ft.. I varies J. No 8% 8 ft. one
minimum deoending if side I i.1!.
median is included one side
, Looo streets orovide access for 12 or fewer dwellings.
2 Low volume cul-de-sacs orovide access to 10 or fewer single familv dwellings
] For residential streets with less than 28 feet ofDavement width. narking is restricted to one side.
1, Right of way shall be provided as follows:
ft. Arterial Streets
80 feet.
b. CelleE.ter Streets
60 feet.
e. leeal Streets
50 feet.
19
Staff Recommended Draft
February /, 2008
d. Cui De Saes
100 feet in diameter.
e. Residential Alleys
16 feet.
f. Commereial or Industrial Distriet Alle'is
20 feet.
2. Pavements shall be pf9..~iEled as Jellav.-s:
It. Arterial Streets
11 feet.
Il. Colleeter Streets
31 f-ect.
e. leeal Streets
28 ket.
d. Cui De Sacs
Sholl be paved with 0 28 foot wide paving, the outer edge of which sholl be 15
feet inside the circumference of the right of way, and the inner edge of .....hich
sholl be 13 feet from the circumfer-cnce of the right of way. The paving width
may be reduced to 25 ket, provided the outer edge sholl be 0 minimum of 11
feet inside the circumference of tl9c right of way, ami tlge inner edge shall be a
minimum of 36 feet From the circumf-crence of the right of way. Cui de sacs
shall not exceed 900 feet in length. A cui de sac shall be measured from the
center line of the street from which it commences to the center of the
turnaround. In the case of a subdivision which includes cui de sacs or loop
streets less than 900 feet in length, the required pavement 'Nidth for such
stFeets may Be Feeucee ffom 28 f.cet to 22 feet if provision is maee fur storage
of at least five automobiles on each lot.
e. Alleys
16 feet.
F. Measurements and Construction Standards
1. All riqht-of-way improvements must be desiqned and constructed according to the
desiqn and construction standards established by the City. Said standards are on file
in the office of the City Enqineer. Public improvements, ;)s defined in this Title, shall
be aecor<ling to tlge st;)ndards est;Jblished by the City Engineer.
2. All street widths shall be measured back-of-curb to back-of-curb.
3. The minimum outside radius of the pavement of cul-de-sac bulbs and loop streets is
39 feet. A center median is required at the center of the cul-de-sac bulb with a
minimum radius of 11 feet. For loop streets a median is also required with a
minimum width of 30 feet. In residential areas, center medians for cul-de-sacs and
loop streets are required to be landscaped to at least the 51 standard as described in
Article 14-SF, Screeninq and Bufferinq Standards. The subdivider's aqreement shall
set forth procedures for adiacent property owners to maintain the landscaped area
within the center median of loop streets and cul-de-sacs. Said instrument shall
provide that if said services are not provided as required therein. the City shall have
20
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1. 2008
the right to perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charge
aaainst all of the subiect lots.
G. Street Intersections
1. A maximum of four leas are allowed at any one intersection. Intersections of more
than two streets ;Jt a point shall not be permitted.
2. Jogs of less than 125 feet shall be avoided. The distance between street intersections
must be at least 125 feet centerline to centerline.
.3. Intersections of street c.enter lines shall be between 800 and 1000. .
4. Corner lots abutting on an arterial or collector street shall have a minimum radius of
fifteen feet (15') at the intersection.
5. Dead end streets and alleys are not permitted except at subdivision boundaries
abuttina 00 undeveloped areas. In such cases a temporary fire-apparatus
accommodatina turn-around mav be reauired and, if reauired, must be constructed
to City specifications.
H. Traffic Calmina Features
1. The street network, block length. and layout of lots should be desianed in a manner
that discouraaes speedina traffic and unsafe drivina behavior.
2. In order to minimize the potential for speedina traffic and create a safer environment
for pedestrians and bicvcles, the City mav also, in cases where it is warranted.
reauire traffic calmina features to be desianed into the subdivision. These features
may include but are not limited to discontinuous streets, curb extensions, raised
crosswalks, medians, or traffic circles.
I. Street Names
The City reserves the right to deny the use of street names that are not in the public
interest. Street names must be consistent with the following standards, unless an
exception is approved bv the City:
1. In order to ensure safe an efficient provision of public and emeraencv services, each
proposed street name shall be distinct from other street names within the laraer
metropolitan area:
2. Street names that are overlv lenathv, difficult to pronounce, or that may be
considered inappropriate or unappealina shall be avoided:
3. For new streets, the followina rules applv:
a. The term "street." should be used for a non-dead-end roadway aligned in a
north-south direction.
b. The term "avenue" should be used for a non-dead-end roadwav alianed in an
east-west direction:
c. The term "boulevard," "road," or "drive" may be used for a roadway that is
alianed neither in a north-south nor east-west direction. but which changes
direction or meanders:
d. The terms "lane," "court," or "circle." or "place" should be used for cui de sacs
or low volume loop streets.
21
Staff Recommended Draft
February J, 2008
4. Cui de sacs or low volume loop streets may use the same name as the roadway with
which it intersects. For example, a cui de sac that intersects with Rose Avenue may
be named "Rose Court." However, if more than one cul-de-sac or loop street
intersects with Rose Avenue, an additional "Rose" name may not be used.
5. Similar names may not be used for streets that are in different locations within the
city. For example, the name, "Rose Drive." may not be used in one neiqhborhood. if
there is alreadv a "Rose Avenue" in a different neighborhood.
J. Private Streets
1. Private streets in sinqle family residential areas are not allowed.
2. Requests for private streets in multi-familv, commercial. and industrial areas will be
considered. provided that connectivity to adjacent properties is not needed and the
responsibilities for maintenance. snow removal. qarbage service. and street sweepinq
is clearly established accordin9 to the provisions of paraqraph 3.. below.
3. If private streets are approved. the subdivider must submit a le9allv bindin9
instrument settinq forth the procedures to be followed for maintaininq private streets
and providinq qarbaqe service, snow removal. street sweepinq, and for financinq
these services. Such costs shall be shared bv all owners of propertY located within
the subdivision. or desiqnated portion thereof. through the use of an owners
association or other entity satisfactorv to the City. Said instrument shall provide that
if said services are not provided as required therein, the City shall have the riqht to
perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charqe aqainst all of
the owners of lots so desi9nated in the subdivision.
K. Cost sharing for pavement overwidth
In the event arterial or collector streets are required in a subdivision, the City shall pay for
the excess pavement required over that required for a 28-foot wide local street. The City
Engineer shall calculate the excess cost. Such cost-sharing shall be according to the
procedure set forth by the City Manager. Anv payment for pavement overwidth bv the City
shall be pursuant to State law.
L. Cost sharing for street upgrades
1. At the discretion of the City. subdivisions mav be approved that access existinq public
streets that do not meet City standards. provided the subdivider contributes toward
the future reconstruction cost of brinqinq the seqment of the subiect street that
abuts the subiect propertY to City standards. When determininq whether such an
approval will be qranted, the City will evaluate the street based on factors such as
roadway surface. siqht distance, anticipated traffic levels, and pedestrian/bicvcle
facilities. If the City permits a development to access a street that does not meet
City standards. the subdivider shall contribute to the cost as follows:
a. Local Streets
Local streets are streets that serve as access to propertY and carrv insiqnificant
amounts of through traffic. Therefore. the subdivider shall pay 100% of the
cost of upqradinq a local street to City standards for that seqment of the street
that abuts the subiect propertY. If the subdivider controls land on on Iv one side
of a local street they will be required to contribute 50% of the cost of
upqradinq the subiect street seqment to City standards. The City will expect the
22
Staff Recommended Draft
February I, 2008
subdivider of orooerty on the other side of the street to contribute the other
50% of the costs at such time as that land is subdivided/develooed. Costs to
reconstruct the street will be determined bv the City Engineer.
b. Collector Streets
Collector streets are streets that collect traffic from a subdivision or
neiqhborhood. and direct it to and from the arterial street. The function of a
collector street is 50% access to prooerty. and 50% throuqh traffic. Therefore.
the subdivider will be required to contribute 50% of the cost to uoqrade a
collector street to City standards for that seqment of the street that abuts the
subject orooerty. with the City contributinq the other 50%. If a subdivider
controls land on only one side of the collector street. thev will be required to
contribute 25% of the total cost for the subject street seqment. The City will
exoect the subdivider on the other side of the collector street to contribute the
other 25% of the cost at such time as that land is subdivided/develooed. Costs
to reconstruct the street to City standards will be determined bv the City
Enqineer.
c. Arterial Streets
Arterial streets have the orimary function of carrying traffic throuqh and
between neiqhborhoods. The function of an arterial street is 25% access to
orooerty. and 75% throuqh traffic. Therefore. the subdivider will be required to
contribute 25% of the cost to uoqrade an arterial street to City standards for
that segment of the street that abuts the subiect orooerty. with the Citv
contributinq the other 75%. If a subdivider controls land on onlv one side of
the arterial street. thev will be required to contribute 12.5% of the total cost of
the subiect street seqment. The City will exoect the subdivider on the other
side of the arterial street to contribute the other 12.5% of the cost at such time
as that land is subdivided/developed. Costs to reconstruct the street to City
standards will be determined bv the City Enqineer.
15-3-3 Sidewalks Trails, and Pedestrian Connections
Public sidewalks. trails. and oedestrian connections shall be constructed in the oublic riqht-of-
wav accordinq to the followinq standards:
A. Sidewalks. trails. and oedestrian connections shall be constructed accordinq to Citv
standards. Said standards are on file in the Office of the City Enqineer.
B. A four feet wide concrct-c sidewalk shallhc provided and shall bc located pursuant to
Chaptcr 1 of this Title. Five-foot-wide concrete sidewalks must be constructed alonq both
sides of all local and collector streets. exceot for connections to existing sidewalks as
orovided in subsection D. below. For low volume cui de sacs and 1000 streets. as
described in Table 15-1. the required sidewalk width mav be reduced to four feet.
C. Along arterial streets. a five-foot sidewalk is required on one side of the street and an 8-
foot sidewalk on the other side. exceot as allowed in subsection D. below. The Citv will
determine on which side of the street the B-foot sidewalk will be olaced. When an 8-foot
sidewalk is required. the City. at its discretion. will either oav for the excess oavement
required for the developer to install an 8-foot sidewalk rather than 5-foot sidewalk. or
collect the estimated cost of the 5-foot sidewalk from the develooer and apolv said cost to
23
Staff Recommended Draft
February /, 2008
construction of an 8-foot sidewalk by the Citv. Any oayment of excess oayement costs by
the Citv shall be oursuant to State law.
D. In cases where the orooosed sidewalk orovides a connection between existing sidewalks
that are less than the required width. the orooosed sidewalk may be constructed to match
the width of the adiacent sidewalks. Howeyer. this modification is not allowed in cases
where one end of the orooosed sidewalk will orovide a connection to future sidewalks for
new develooment. In such a case. the sidewalk should be taoered to orovide a transition
between differinq sidewalk widths. The City will determine where along the street the
transition should occur.
E. All sidewalks and trails must connect to other sidewalks and trails within the deyelooment
and to the orooertv line to orovide for their extension to adiacent orooerties.
F. The subdivider will be responsible for the construction of a oublic sidewalk along the
frontaqe of orivate ooen soace. oublic ooen soace required to be dedicated to the Citv
accordinq to the Article 14-SK. Neiqhborhood Qoen Soace Requirements. and along the
frontaqe of other outlots as necessarY for a continuous sidewalk system to be created.
G. Cr-osswalks may be re(;juired iA blocks over 800 feet IOAg or in areas .....here curved streets
required excessive out distaAce travel. If crosswall6 arc required, the developer sRal1
construct the cross .,..,a1l6 and dedicate them to tRC city. In residential subdivisions. blocks
longer than 600 feet must have mid-block oedestrian connections between adjacent
streets. unless said connection is deemed to be unnecessarY and is waived by the Citv. At
the time of subdivision. these connections must be olatted as minimum is-foot-wide
easements: if the connectinq sidewalk is qreater than S feet in width. the easement must
be at least 20-feet wide. Within this easement a sidewalk must be constructed to Citv
standards that is equal in width to the sidewalks to which it provides a connection. If the
mid-block sidewalk connects to sidewalks of two different widths. the mid-block sidewalk
must be equal in width to the wider sidewalk. The area and sidewalk within the oedestrian
easement must be maintained by adiacent orooertv owners accordinq to the subdivider's
aqreement in a manner similar to maintenance requirements for oublic sidewalks.
H. Where a trail extension. as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or an adooted trails olan.
is located on the subiect orooertv. the City may require an easement or alternatively. may
require dedication of an outlot for the trail. Construction of the trail or oortion of a trail
may also be required in instances where said trail or oortion of a trail orimarily serves the
needs of the orooosed subdiYision/develooment. In this situation. the trail will be treated
as a oublic imorovement. Dedication of land for a trail extension shall count toward the
open soace requirement for the develooment. oroYided said land is consistent with the
standards for ooen space as set forth in Article i4-5K of the Citv Code and orovided said
land dedication is acceotable to the Citv.
15-3-4 La out of Blocks and Lots
A. Blocks
1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a oattern that ensures the
connectivitv of streets. orovides for efficient orovision of oublic and safetv services.
and establishes efficient and loqical routes between residences and non-residential
destinations and oublic gatherinq olaces.
24
SlalIRecommended Draft
February 1, 2008
2. The length of blocks shall be net less than 100 f-cet aRa not more than t\...o thousand
feet. TAe width of the blocl< sAull be sufficient te permit two tiers of lots, but in no
case shull thewidth be less than 220 feet. To provide multiple travel routes within
and between neighborhoods, block faces alona local and collector streets should
ranae between 300 and 600 feet in lenath and for residential subdivisions have a
width sufficient to accommodate two tiers of lots. Longer block faces may be allowed
in cases of larae lot commercial. industrial. or rural residential development or where
topographv, water features, or existing develooment orevents shorter block lenaths,
althouah mid-block oedestrian connections may be reauired (See Section 15-3-3,
above). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline.
3. Block faces alona arterial streets should be at least 600 feet in lenath. Intersecting
collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adeauate connectivity
between neiahborhoods, but also maintains the capacity of the street for the safe
and efficient movement of traffic. Lonaer block faces may be reauired along hiah
capacity or hiaher speed arterial streets where the interests in movina traffic
outweiah the connectivity between areas of develooment. The City may aoorove
shorter block faces in hiah density commercial areas or other areas with hiah
oedestrian counts.
4. Cui de sacs may not exceed 900 feet in length. The length of a cul-de-sac is
measured from the center line of the street from which it commences to the center of
the turn arel:lRd bulb.
B. Lots
1. Lots must be olatted in a manner that will allow development that meets all
reauirements of Title 14: Zoning. Lots must be of sufficient size to accommodate an
adeauate buildable area and area for required setbacks. off-street parkina. and
service facilities reauired by the type of use and development anticioated.
2. Lots with multiple frontaaes must be platted larae enouah to accommodate front
setback requirements alona street-side lot lines.
3. If a propertY with frontaae alona an arterial street is proposed to be subdivided.
developed or redevelooed for any Multi-Family, Group Livina, Commercial,
Institutional or Industrial Use. a cross-access easement must be orovided by the
oropertv owner to all adioinina properties that front on the same arterial street that
are or may be developed as Multi-Familv. Group Living. Commercial. Institutional
Use. or Industrial Uses according to the cross access standards set forth in section
14-5C-7 of the City Code.
4. In residential areas, double- and triple-frontage lots shall be avoided, except in
specific locations ',,'here good platting indicates their use. Where such lots are
necessarv to overcome specific disadvantaaes of topoaraphy. land features. or access
restrictions. the followina standards apolv:
a. Lots with multiple frontaaes shall be 125% of the reauired lot area for the zone
in which the lot is located. The additional reauired lot area shall be used to
increase the depth of the lot between street frontaaes.
b. Double and triple frontaae lots where dwellinas will have side or rear buildina
facades oriented toward an arterial street shall orovide a minimum 20-foot wide
25
Staff Recommended Draft
February !, 2008
landscaoed buffer area alonq the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall
be olanted with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous veqetation aporoved by
the City Forester. The yeqetation shall be required alonq with other oublic
imorovements for the orooertv. Lots where dwellings will have front buildinq
facades oriented toward an arterial street are exemot from this requirement. If
a buffer area was required durinq subdivision. no solid fences will be allowed
within this buffer area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's
agreement and on the olat. On corner lots. the landscaoinq within the buffer
must be olanted and maintained to comolY with intersection visibility standards.
5. Side lot lines shall approximate right angles to straight street lines and radial angles
te- or be aooroximatelv radial to curved street lines, except where a variation will
provide a better street and lot layout. For purposes of this subsection, "approximate
right angles" means angles between 800 and 1000.
6. Residential lots shall not be designed with irreqular shaDes such as a flag or
oanhandle shaDe where the structure on the lot may be hidden from the street
behind another structure.
7. In residential subdivisions. lots must be arranqed to allow easy access to oublic ooen
soace. The subdivision lavout should be desiqned so that the location and access to
oublic ooen soace is readily aooarent to the oublic. Subdivision layouts where public
ooen soace is surrounded bv orivate lots that back uo to the oublic ooen soace are
discouraqed. Techniques. such as single-loaded streets alonq Dark edqes or along
seqments of Dark edqes and well-marked trail easements are to be utilized to satisfy
this requirement.
C. Provisions to Minimize the Effect of Hiahwav Noise
Subdivisions adiacent to or within 200 feet of the Interstate 80 and/or the Hiqhway 218
rights of way shall comoly with the following orovisions. intended to reduce the effect of
hiqhway noise on residential areas.
1. Any portion of a residential lot that is within 300 feet of the Interstate 80 or Hiqhway
218 right-of-way shall be identified as a noise buffer. and no residential structure will
be oermitted within this 300-foot buffer area. The buffer area shall be olanted with a
mixture of coniferous and deciduous veqetation aooroved by the City Forester. The
veqetation shall be required along with other oublic imorovements for the orooertv.
Existinq trees and veqetation may be used to comoly with this requirement as
approved by the City Forester. Accessory structures and yards are oermitted within
the 300-foot buffer area orovided the required veqetative buffer is maintained.
2. The 300-foot buffer for residential structures may be reduced with aooroval by the
City if the subdivider constructs an earthen berm. decorative wall. or other similar
structure and demonstrates that the hiqhway noise just outside the proposed
residential structures will be no more than 60 dBA. ( 60 dBA is the noise range
identified by th,e.. AASHTO~as.the normal raf]g.e; ot.noise. in an urb..a,n j"esidential
neighborhood.)
3. The 300-foot buffer for residential structures may also be reduced with aooroval by
the City if the subdivider demonstrates that existinq toooqraphv results in highway
noise beinq no more than 60 dBA iust outside the oroposed residential structures.
26
Staff Recommended Drafi
February 1. 2008
15-3-5 Nei hborhood 0 en S ace Re uirements
A. Intent and Purpose
The Neighborhood Open Space Requirements are intended to ensure provision of
adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a manner that
is consistent with the Neighborhood Open Space Plan, as amended, by using a fair and
reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or
developing land for those purposes. Active, usable neighborhood open space includes
pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, and also
includes neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Portions of community parks
may be adapted for neighborhood use, but this Chapter is not intended to fund the
acquisition of community parks or large playing fields for organized sports. While this
CRapter is primarily intended to pr-ovide usable neighborRood open spaces, it is also
intended to em:eurage, wherever reason3oly f-casible, tRC dedication of sensitive areas in
conjunction 'Nith the usable open space.
B. Dedication of Land or Payment of Fees In Lieu of Land Required
As a condition of approval for residential subdivisions and commercial subdivisions
containing residential uses, the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or
a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as
determined by the City and in accordance with the provisions of Article 14-5K,
Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
15-3-6 EIeEtFieaI Ener and Communications Distribution S stems
A. Extension of enerGV distribution lines and communication distribution svstems necessarv to
furnish permanent electric service and communication svstem service to new development
within a new subdivision shall be made underGround from existinG svstems according to
the provisions set forth in Chapter 16-2, Public Utilities and Use of City RiGht of Wav.
B. The applicant shall provide all easements necessary for access to street lights, to allow
enerGY and communication svstem services for the subdivision. and the easements shall
be included as part of the plat of the subdivision.
c. In new subdivisions, the electric public utilitv company shall provide underGround wirinG to
the pole sites for appropriate street lights as determine by the Citv ManaGer or designee.
15-3-7 Sanita Sewers
A. The subdivider shall provide a complete sanitary sewer system, including stubs, for each
lot which shall connect with a sanitary sewer outlet approved by the City Engineer as set
forth in Sections 16-3-4, 16-3-5. and 16-3-6 of the City Code. The sanitary sewer in each
defined drainaGe area shall extend to the subdivision boundaries and beyond, as necessary
to provide for the extension of the sanitary sewer to adjacent property, as determined by
the Citv.
B. Proiect specific tap-on fees may apply as set forth in Section 16-3-2, Project Specific Tap-
On Fees.
27
Staff Recommended Draft
February I, 2008
C. If the City requires a sanitary se'....er Systcffi ~FCater than tRat needed to service the
subdivision itself, tRe developer shall install tRC additional necessary iffipro'.'ements. =FRe
City ffiay, in its discretion, enact an orainance estaBlishing the f-ces required for otRer
persons and developers to pay in order to connect to SUCR line. If established, such f.ces
ffiust be e;:lleulated on a pro rata Basis. These fees may be used to reiffiburse the
developer f-or the cost of tRe additional SystCffi. If tRe costs of the improvemeflt arc not
r<::coverable, tRe developer sRall pay the entire costs of the iffiprovement as a condition of
the subdivision appr-oval. If City requires a sanitary sewer to be oreater in size than that
needed to service the subdivision itself, the City mav share in the expense thereof on a pro
rata basis. Such cost-sharino shall be according to the procedure set forth by the City
Manaoer. Anv pavment of excess costs by the City shall be pursuant to State law.
15-3-8 Storm Water Mana ement
A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with adequate drains, ditches, culverts,
complete bridges, storm sewers, intakes and manholes to provide for the collection,
manaoement, and removal of all surface waters as set forth in Chapter 16-3-7, Storm
Water Collection, Discharoe, and Runoff. These improvements shall extend to the
boundaries of the subdivision and beyond, as necessarv se-as to provide for extension by
adjoining properties, as determined bv the City.
B. If the City reEjuires a storm drain system greater tRan tRat needed to service the
sUBai'.'ision itself, the developer shall install the additional necessary improvements. =FRe
City may, in its discretion, enact an ordinance est;:lblisRing the fees requir-cd for other
persons and developers to pay in order to connect with sueR lines. If established, such
fees must Be calculated on a pro Fata basis. The fees ffiay Be used t-o reimBurse the
developer f-or tAe cost of tAe ;:ldditional system. If tAe costs of tAe additional improvement
arc not recoverable, the develol3er sRal1 P;:lY the entire costs of the iffiprovement as ;)
condition of tRe subdivision approval.
15-3-9 Water S stems
A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with a complete water main supply system as
set forth in Section 16-3-3. Potable Water Use and Service, including hydrants, valves and
all other appurtenances, which shall be extended into and through the subdivision to the
boundary lines and beyond as may be necessary to provide for extension bv adioinino
properties, as determined bv the City. The system shall provide for a water connection for
lots and shall be connected to the City water system.
B. If City requires a water main to be greater in size than that needed to service the
subdivision itself, the City may share in the expense thereof on a pro rata basis. Such cost-
sharing shall be accordino to the procedure set forth bv the City Manaoer. Anv pavment of
excess costs bv the City shall be pursuant to State law.
15-3-10 Clustered Mailboxes
A. All new residential or commercial developments constructed after (the effective date of
these reoulations) that receive curbside deliverv of mail shall have clustered mailboxes,
28
Staff Recommended Drajl
February /, 2008
unless an exception is approved by the United States Postal Service. The location of
mailbox clusters shall be noted on the plat,
B. Mailbox clusters serving residential developments shall be convenientlv located for
residents. To that end, mailbox clusters should be located within one block or
approximatelv 600 feet walkinq distance (whichever is less) from anv residential property
served bv said mailbox cluster. Mailboxes should be located in a manner that provides
safe access for residents. e.g. does not require residents to cross heavilv trafficked streets,
etc. Drivewavs shall be allowed no closer than 12 feet from the location of a clustered
mailbox as measured alonq the curb line of the frontinq street. Mailboxes must be located
in a manner that will not violate the City's intersection visibilitv standards. Locations and
desiqn must be approved bv the City and the United States Postal Service. Dependinq on
the size and location of the clustered mailbox, the City mav require a vehicular pull-over
lane built to City specifications.
C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concrete pad built to City specifications. To provide
for pedestrian access, a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided from the mailbox
cluster to the adiacent public street and sidewalk. An accessible route shall be provided
accordinq to ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The cost of installation. includinq but
not limited to box units and concrete pad and sidewalk access shall be borne bv the
developer, and subsequent maintenance shall be carried out bv the United States Postal
Service.
15-3-11 Markers
An iron rod not less than one hulf inch in diameter and 21 incRes long meeting specifications of
State Code shall be placed as follows:
A. At the intersection of all lines forming angles in the boundary of the subdivision.
B. At block and lot corners and changes in direction of block and lot boundaries.
C. At the beginninq and ending points of curves and at lot lines intersecting the curves.
15-3-12 S ecifications
A. The type of construction, the materials, the methods and standards of subdivision
improvements shall be according to City standards. stundards approved by tt1e City
Engineer. Said standards are on file in the office of the City Enqineer.
B. Construction plans and specifications, includinq plans for subdivision erosion control
measures, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. PiafIs
for subdivision erosion control meaSl:lr-C3 must also be submitted. Construction shall not be
started commence until the City Engineer approves the plans and specifications.
C. If the infrastructure and/or gradinq cannot be desiqned to complv with City standards a
new preliminarv plat mav be required at the discretion of the City.
D. Record of Construction drawinqs must be submitted in hard coPY and in digital form before
public improvements will be accepted bv the City.
29
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
15-3-13 Ins ections
A. The City Engineer or designee shall inspect the installation of all public improvements in
new subdivisions to insure compliance with the requirements.
B. The subdivider shall bear the cost of such inspection, which shall be the actual cost of the
inspection ef Qy the City.
C. Grading shall be inspected and certified bv the developer's engineer.
15-3-14 Off-Site Costs for f!!!!lif
~
A. From time to time off-site public improvements are necessarv to enable the subdivision
and development of a property. At such times, the subdivider shall be responsible for the
extension of infrastructure. If said infrastructure or certain aspects of said infrastructure is
included in the City's Capital Improvements Program in a vear coincident with the
development proposal. the Citv may. at the Citv's discretion. assume responsibilitv for the
extension of the subiect infrastructure.
8, At the time the my Cauncil approves preliminary subdivision plat for an out of sequence
clevelopment, tAe resolutian of approval may specify that the development is Ol:Jt of
sequence and may designate which, if any, off site costs arc FCcoveruble by the developer.
C. Off-site improvements shall be designed and constructed according to plans and
specifications approved by the City Engineer and shall be of sufficient size and capacity to
serve the full area capable of being served by the type of improvement so that the City will
not be required to construct parallel or duplicate facilities. If said infrastructure is qreater
in size than that needed to service the subdivision itself, the Citv, at it's discretion. may
share in the expense thereof. Such cost-sharinq shall be accordinq to the procedure set
forth by the Citv Manager. Any pavment of excess costs bv the Citv shall be pursuant to
State law.
D. Recoverablc aft site costs ma'{ include tAe cost af engineerin!"J, prdiminary reparts,
property valuations, estimat-cs, plans, specifications, notices, legal services, acquisition of
land, consequential damages or casts, casements, right of way, construction, repair,
supervision, inspection, testing and interest during construction and for nat more than 6
months thereafter.
E. If tAe City Council determines that developer may recaver off site costs, the amount of aff
site cO::;ts to be recovered shall Be determined as f-ollows: '\5 part of the application far
final subdi'Jision plat approval, the developer shall submit a proposed estimate af aff site
costs for appro'Jal by tAe City Engineer, to!"Jether with a nonrefundable revie',v ke of 3
percent af the proposed estimate. The City Engineer shall approve the prapased estiffiate
only if the Engineer finds that, at the time af apPFOval, the estiffiate is consistent ",itA the
cost obtainable within Iowa City for iffipro'Jefficnts of tAe type proposed. Off site costs
shall be recoverable only to the extent of actual costs or estimat-cd cost:s, whiche'Jer is
less.
F. ,^!.:. the time the City accepts an off site publiC improvement, based upon information
furnished BY the developer, the City Engineer shall certify to the City Council the amount
30
StafJRecommended Draft
February I, 2008
of recoverable off site cos1:s, if any, aFle the t-otallaFlEl arca or liFleal f-ootage outside of the
develoi3er's site cXi3ected to Be served by the off site imi3rovefRent.
G. Thereafter, the City Council may, in i1:s E1iscrctioR, by ordiRanee, adoi3t a sCAedule of fees
to Be l3aid f-or connec:tion to the off site ifRpr-ovefRents.
1. Pra Rata Fee
If tAe City Council elects to estaBlisA a connection ke, tAe ke f-or cacA off site
improvefRent shall be pro rata, based Ui30n recoverable off site cos1:s, divided by the
nUfRber of Jcres or lineal footage wAicA will be served by tAe public ifRprovefRent.
2. Reimbursement af Casts
8. The ordinance may also previde for reifRbursement to developer frofR tAe City
for the extra cos1:s incurred f-or the follmving:
(1) O't.'e~vidth Pa...ing
The City's share, if any, will be the actual cost per linear f-oot of paving
.....ider than required by the City f-or 10CJI strec1:s.
(2) Oversized Water .4ains ar 5anitaf\" Sewer Lines
The City's share, if any, will be tAe difference in cost between the pipe,
ffiain or conduit I3lus valves and valve boxes required by the City Jnd pipe,
main or conduit plus valves and valve boxes needed to service only the
subdivision.
II. Reimbursement af Casts
If the City elects to reimburse subdivider for the costs of overwidth paviRg or
oversized water mains or sanitary sewer lines, rdmbursefRent will be fRade
upon the earliest to occ:ur of tAe following:
(1) The City Jmends tAe Comprehensive Plan to show tAe E1eveloper's sit-c is
iRc:h:Jded in the areas available f-or de'/e1opfRent in the short range; or
(2) DevclopfRent of tAe area or areas Betv..een tAe developer's site ~lF1e tAe
platted streets nearest to SUCA site Aas Been subst;:lAtially cOfRplet-cd.
e. Interpretation
For purposes of tAis Article, development Aas been substantially completed
when all of the land in tAe area has been platted and building permits have
been issued fer constructioR on at least 90 i3ercent of tAe lots in such area.
3. If tAe City elects to reimburse subdivider :md rcimbl:JfSement occurs witAin 21
montAs after either tAe Comprehensive Plan has been amended or intervening
development Aas been substantially completed, reimburseffient will be on a dollar
for dollar basis, '/VitA no interest or carrying costs. Any affiouRt unpaid at the end of
the 21 montA period will thereClfter bear interest until paid at a rate equal to the rClte
the City is paying OR tAe last general obligation bones it issl:led prior to the date
interest commenc:ed.
1. If tAe City Council elects to adopt aA oreinance, the ordinanc:e ffiUst contaiA a legal
description of the entire area served by the off site impr-oVefReAt. The City CierI< sAall
file a cOI3Y of the ordinance iR the office of the County Recorder.
3]
Staff Recommended Draft
February 1, 2008
5. Because public improvements have a limited usefullif.c, a developer's right to
reimbursement, if any, and the cff-cctiveness of each specific connection or-einance
shall expire 20 years from the date of its passage.
H. M such time as aAY part of the off site ar-ca served by an off site improvement is
subdivided by plattin!:), the resolution approving the preliminary plat shall set fortA the
amount of tAe connection fee or fees, if any, which shall be paid with respect to the
subdivision.
I. The City shall collect connection f-ces, if any, prior t-o the timc and as a condition to
approval of cacA final subdivision plat described in subsection C of this Section.
Not\'Iithstanding the f-oregoin!:), if a building l3ermit is sought forany property included
within tAe area served 13'( an off site improvement before a subdivision plat is reEjuired for
such arca, the appropriate ke, if ;:lAY, shall Be paid prior to issuance of the building
permit.
J. If the City Council determines tAat it will reimBurse subdivider as set forth ;JBm/e, the City
will remit, on a monthly Basis, tAe amount of connection kes collected during the prior
month.
K. The reimBursement permitted in this Section is in lieu of an'y' and all other claims for
reimbursement by developer, The developer, by makin!:) application f-or subdivision plat
approval, waives all rights or claims against the City for reimBursement of off site costs or
any costs or contributions incident to the development.
32
PLANNING LAW PRIMER
An Introduction to Subdivision Regulations
by Martin L. Leitner, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Garvin, Esq. 0
irst glance, subdivision
re ations can appear to be a
confusing collection of rules and
restrictions designed to confound the devel-
oper and planning commissioner alike. For-
tunately, the regulations are generally not as
inaccessible as they first appear, and in many
communities subdivision regulations pro-
vide the backbone of a successful planning
program. One cautionary note: subdivision
regulations do vary from community to
community; we have tried to base our com-
ments on the type of provisions we've found
to be most typical.
THE ApPLICATION
AND ApPROVAL PROCESS
Generally, subdivisions are divided into
"major" or "minor" applications. Minor sub-
divisions are those that, because of the small
number of lots created, or the lack of a need
for public streets or other public facilities,
can be approved in an expedited manner.
Major subdivisions, in contrast, require a
more extensive review.
For both .types of subdivisions, the first
step in the approval process is often the sub-
mission of a sketch plat, on which the appli-
cant presents the basic concept of the subdi-
vision. A meeting is typically held between
the applicant and the local planning official
to detennine which procedure the applicant
must follow - major or minor subdivision.
Addi tionally, the sketch plat allows the local
planning official to initially determine if the
project complies with local, state and federal
law, including the jurisdiction's zoning ordi-
nance and comprehensive plan. Projects
which comply with all applicable regulations
are allowed to proceed to preliminary plat
approval. Sketch plats are also frequently cir-
culated to other local and state agencies for
review and comment. Fundamentally, the
sketch plat serves as an early warning system
for both the applicant and the municipality.
Following sketch plat approval, the sub-
divider may be directed to apply for prelimi-
nary plat approval, or bypass that step and
apply directly for final plat approval. The pre-
liminary plat is a detailed set of documents
and maps, sho,,~ng: lot and street layout;
connections to utilities; the location of natu-
ral fealures and topography; and the location
of nearby parks and recreational facilities.
The preliminary plat is normally first re-
viewed by staff for completeness and compli-
ance \vith the design and development stan-
dards contained in the subdivision regula-
tions. Following this, it is referred to the
planning commission for evaluation. The
planning commission usually holds a public
hearing on the preliminary plat before tak-
ing action.
Planning commissions often approve
preliminary plats, but impose various condi-
tions. For example, a commission may con-
dition approval on dedication of land for
public parks; hook-ups to public sewer and
water; construction of interior and perim-
eter streets; or payment of impact fees.
Preliminary plat approval is a signifi-
cant milestone for the applicant, who can
then proceed v,ith some confidence thaI Ihe
commission will approve a consistent final
plat. The final plat provides more detailed
engineering and design drawings - it
should not, however, contain significant
changes in the development's overall layout
and design. If required by law, the planning
commission holds a second public hearing
before taking action on the final plat. After
the final plat is approved, the subdivider for-
mally records it.
COMPLETION &: MAINTENANCE
OF IMPROVEMENTS
The cost of needed improvements to
serve the subdivision - roads, drainage fa-
cilities, water and sewer systems, landscap-
ing, utilities, fire protection equipment, and
street signs - is typically borne by the de-
veloper. While municipalities could require
the actual completion and dedication of all
public improvements before final plat ap-
proval, this is not often done. Instead, ap-
proval is typically conditioned on the devel-
oper pro\~ding adequate financial guaran-
tees, such as a cash escrow or letter of credit,
that the required improvements will be com-
pleted. . .
When the improvements are comp( \
the municipal engineer will usually ins'pe6
them and certify that they are consistent ....ith
the approved plat and are acceptable to the
municipality. The municipality will then re-
lease the security that was required of the
developer.
In the next issue of the Journal we will
continue our introduction to subdivision
regulations. We will also briefly discuss the
question of "antiquated subdivisions" - a
major problem in a number of states -
where many subdivisions were platted be-
fore local governments adopted subdivision
controls.
Martin L. Leitner is a partner \'V,ith Freilich,
Lei/ner, Carlisle & Short/iage in Kan.,a, City, Mi,-
souri, specializing in land use law. He is currently
working on projects in Monroe County, Florida;
Pierce County, Washington; and Hilton Head Is-
land, South Carolina.
Elizabeth A. Garvin Is an associate auomey
with the ,ame firm. She i, assi,ling several local
governments with the revision oj their land d'''\
opment ordinances. l./
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 5 JULY f AUGUST 1992
.
. / " ,,', ,::~::':;:~:.'~'~;(~:{:~',:''"' ",;','>:t:,'",' . ;,~. :::!~~:~;;:"..:,;::y:t~~~;:,~'tL~:]:t~l,"tS;~}'~" .~ ',r: ',':: ';'~~';3?':~},;;;;~~:~~-':;'~:~'~" >'-'o~
FolloWingwoHd;War'lf,:stilXliv1srai1'.':i'\>"~F611'B'~ng'~-VlSi i to the tJTijf~d'5tiites'
. ,.', ,', "~yo'.
...:,- ',' ',' . . ",' "',~;L"";'
\ The Evolution of
~'S' . 'I)d' .".......... ..........'.....
"u MSlon.""
'i' . .~ft'''''''";,,,I.,i,i..J:i](~'w,.-';... .;, ..,."
~"n '. ... a.~lgrts.' .
'-".~fit/.,S,~~.'::i.~~::.C,"5~{.;t. . i'd". . '. . '. .x
.rc;j+~i::,:~dj7~~g~!~T(.r~~j;;i\;;,1~~Ki;i~~,'$';~t;!.:t!1~,'$!l't~~~~ ~~~9Ig ,'>.,
. St~\~ left a trall of land spe~ulatlo.P) . 'sion. Local regulaupns reflected th~se ,.... YPP.! .t,~rh?seibaleful shadeJ"<;'i.",:,}i~d
whiCh distorted the growth of co~nl1lyni- .needs by impositipp ?f newrequiremenlS i w.~~dert;r~ \\,qo arc tem(Jted rlt~g!""
ties. The uncontrolled subdivision of .' for mandatory dedication of roads, park droop an4 die, a1J.dlay theirboi}es; .the:.
land resulted in inadequate streets, land, school sites and open space, alld by hateful Mississippi circling ang t;ddying
sewers and water mains, and in the th~ use of innovative requirements for ~fore. it, and off upon its so'uih~ri1 .
extension of public services far beyond payment by subdividers of money in-lieu course, a shiny monster hideous to
their usable capacity. Urban areas of land. behold; a hotbed of disease, an llgly
suffered from disorderly, chaotic growth In spite of these expanded regula- sepulchre, a grave uncheered by any
and depressed land values. tions, urban sprawl and its attendant gleam of promise; a place without one
Early subdivision regulations, problems continued. New techniques single quality: in earth or air?r wat~r, to
however, were not designed to eliminate began to emerge which more c1ose]y commend it: such is this dismal Cairo."
the problems of speculation and sprawl. linked the three principal police power From E. Rachlis &. J. Marqu~se; The
Prior to 1928, the purpose of subdivision controls of zoning; subdivision, and Landlords, pp. 37-40 (1973).
regulation was to provide a more environmehtal regulations to assure thai
efficient method for selling land by new development did not impose
permitting a seller to record a plat which unreasonable negative impacts on the
divided a large parcel ofland into community. In addition, subdivision
sequentially numbered blocks and lots. regulations were expanded to help time
Sales of the land were then recorded in and phase the development of the
the office of the county clerk or recorder community.
of deeds by reference to the blocks and Recent years have witnessed several
t( . . . . important trends i~ subdivision regu]a-
'... A second penod of subdlVlslOn tion: first, subdlVlston approvals are
regulation commenced in 1928 with the increasingly being predicated on the
publication of the Standard City Plan- availability of adequate public services
ning Enabling Act ("SPEA") by the and facilities concurrent with the impacts
United States Department of Commerce. of the development; second, impact fee
The SPEA offered a partial response to pa}~nents are being required of develop-
the problems created by land speculation ers who create a need for or benefit from
and premature subdivision. It required the provision of public facilities such as
internal improvements to be made in the roads, parks, libraries, and water and
subdivision; and addressed issues such sewer facilities; and third, land use
as: the arrangement of streets in relation decisions are being more closely exam-
to other existing or planned streets and ined in terms of their consistency with the
to the master plan; the provision of community's comprehensive plan.
adequate and convenient open spaces,
utilities, access of fire fighting apparatus,
recreation, light and air; and the avoid-
ance of population congestion, including
minimum width and lot areas. Many
states soon adopted subdivision enabling
legislation patterned after the SPEA and
subdivision regulations gained accep-
tance as an imponantlocalland use
(
C\,_ wi measure.
Land Speculation:
One of the more famous \~ctims of
land speculation was Charles Dickens. In
the ]840's, Dickens invested - more
than he could afford - in prime land
located in Cairo City, Illinois. Unfortu-
nately for Dickens, this "prime land" was
submerged for the greater part of the
year.
Glossary:
~MOney-;n-lieu-~fland: a
requirement imposed by local
government on new development for the
payffient of money into a municipally
earmarked fund instead of dedicating
land. The advantage of money in lieu-of-
land for the community is that the funds
can be used to acquire the most desirable
land, rather than that which may be
offered by the developer. For developers,
in-lieu payments allow for a clearer
identification of development costs.
Impacl Fees: charges levied by local
governing bodies against new develop-
ment for its pro-rata share of the capital
costs of facilities necessitated by the
development. Impact fees further expand
local government's flexibility to provide
these needed capital facilities.
Concurrency: the requirement that
the public facilities needed to serve a new
development be available at the time the
development is built.
Consistency: the requirement that
subdivision regulations, zoning regula-
tions and capital improvements programs
be consistent with the comprehensive
plan and each of its elements; and that
individual land use decisions also be
consistent with the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 5 JULY / AUGUST t992
II
PLANNING LAW PRIMER
An Introduction to SubdMsion Regulations
6he first part of our article Part II 0
(~~ Journals July/August by Martin L Leitner, Esq.,
and Elizabeth A. Garvin, Esq
issue) we discussed the applica-
tion and approval process, as well as how
most communities deal with the comple-
tion and maintenance of improvements in
approved subdivisions. In this second part,
we will focus first on design requirements
in subdivision regulations, and then pro-
vide you with an introduction to public
facility fees and "antiquated" subdivisions
- topics that may come up in your area.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Design and development standards
are incorporated into subdivision regula-
tions to assure that developers comply with
a wide assortment of local requirements,
including items such as: lot arrangement
and dimensions, landscaping, soil preser-
vation, road design, road dedication and
reservation, drainage and storm sewers,
water facilities, sewerage facilities, side-
walks, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and
preservation of natural features .
The criteria utilized in design stan-
dards are intended to rellect community
values, goals and objectives; to harmonize
the development with surrounding areas;
and to implement the local plan.
Design and improvement standards
vary considerably in their level of specific-
ity to rellect the divergent needs of com-
munities. For example, one local
government's subdivision regulations may
establish specific criteria for roads, cover-
ing grading, topography and arrangement,
block size, access between and among road
types, road names, design standards, lay-
out of intersections, and dedications and
reservations. Another community, how-
ever, may choose to set road requirements
through a subdivision improvement agree-
ment reached with the developer.
Landscaping requirements are an-
other area of subdivision regulation which
frequently expose an entire spectrum of
views. Some communities, not leaving
anything to chance, specify the exact type
of tree or shrub which will be required on
a given site or project, often providing lists
of native plants and acceptable vegetation.
Other communities take more of a wait-
and-see approach; they require some type
oflandscaping or buffer, but wait until the
developer presents a site plan to deal with
the specifics.
".. .11\IPACT FEES
SIIOULD RElY LIf'ON A
C\PIT\L 1i\Il'RO\'E1\IENTS
PLAN \\IIICII DETAILS
TIlE NECESSARY PUBLIC
1\Il'ROVDlENTS... "
Differences in subdivision design re-
quirements do not always rellect just the
needs of the community; on occasion, they
mirror the response of an entire region to
a problem. Example of this are energy con-
servation standards (which are most com-
mon in the Northeast), water supply and
drainage requirements (common in the
West and Southwest), and the timing of
construction of public facilities (often
found in states having experienced rapid
growth, such as Florida and Califor-
nia).)). Timing..., p. 11
PuBLIC FACIUlY OR "IMPACT" FEES
In addition to necessary "on-site" fa-
cilities, a proposed subdivision may trig-
ger a need for "off-site" facilities, such as
an arterial road to accommodate traffic
anticipated to be generated by the devel-
opment, or the extension of a sewer inter-
ceptor line to the property proposed for
subdivision. Many municipalities now re-
quire as a condition of subdivision ap-
proval that new development pay its pro
rata share of the cost of the new off-site
capital improvements necessitated by the
development. Public facility - or impact
- fees should rely upon a capital improve-
ments plan which details the necessary
public improvements; the drawing of ap-
propriate service areas; and the calculation
of fees based on the number of dwelling
units or square feet in the proposed
development.~lmpac! fees, p.JJ
Impact fee revenues collected from de-
velopers must be "earmarked" or placed in
segregated fund accounts and expended
only in the benefit area from which they
were collected. The fees may then be used
to fund the construction, engineering and
land acquisition costs of public facilO.
needed to serve the new development
they cannot be used to correct existing defi-
ciencies in facilities or to pay for operating
costs. Finally, impacl fees are refundable if
not spent within a reasonable period of time.
ANTIQUATED SUBDIVISIONS
In many communities throughout the
United States, land was platted before local
governments adopted subdivision con-
trols. While this practice benefited devel-
opers - who were able to divide their
property and sell lots without incurring
any capital improvement costs - the re-
sult has often been disastrous for local gov-
ernments, which later found themselves
with thousands of developed, partially de-
veloped, or undeveloped lots in separate
o....'Ilership in subdivisions that did not
meet even minimal regulatory standards.
Local governments then have the
unenviable choice of either limiting devel-
opment rights in the subdivision - CCT-
tain to be anathema to individQ'
landowners who intended to retire "I
homes on these lots - or allowing devel-
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER I OCTOBER t992
.
(0
opment pursuant to the subdivision plan
and providing all of the necessary internal
subdivision facilities and services at public
expense.
Some modern subdivision regulations
employ techniques to minimize this prob-
lem in the future. One method used is to
require that developers reapply fDr subdi-
vision approval whenever they request any
material changes to their approved plats.
This helps ensure that the subdivisions
comply with current regulations. A second
technique available to local governments
is "plat vacation." This is a process by
which the governing body approves the
elimination of a plat, in whDle Dr in part.
When the entire subdivisiDn is still in
single ownership, plat vacatiDn may be
initiated by either the property Dwner Dr
the gDverning body; hDwever, when the
lDts are Dwned by individual property Dwn-
'Q the vacatiDn must be initiated pri-
. ely, and must have the consent Df all Df
the Dwners - a sDlution that, in practice,
is quite difficult tD achieve.
SUMMING Up:
MDdern subdivisiDn regulatiDns can
deal with a wide range Df land develDp-
ment issues tailored tD specific local poli-
cies, gDals and needs. CDmbined with a
comprehensive plan and zDning regula-
tiDns, subdivision regulatiDns are an ex-
tremely useful planning tDol to guide
growth and develDpment)). Relationship...
Martin L. Leitner is a partner with Freilich,
leitner, Carlisle & Shortlidge in Kansas City, Mis-
souri, specializing in land use law. He is currently
worhing on projects in Monroe County, Florida;
Pierce County, Washington; and Hillon Head Is-
land. South Carolina.
Elizabeth A. Garvin is an associate attorney
with the same finn. She is assIsting several local
governments with the revision of their land devel-
j"''Jp1t ordinances. Elizabeth is also completing
Vmaster's degree in urban planning al the Uni-
versity of Kansas.
PLANNING COMMISSIO
:.: ~$i~"3~~t~:;~
,,~;,.~;~
.. . ;Impaci'/e,.,.,.
elude. ~, '''''-''''''':'',~: "":'~'":""'.~.__:
...,,"I.'tn.'.Ii.g....te.ma:.t.I... a.'.psri......cl,~_......:............f......1'~5. ~.n~l'prol'ri~t
". . ...6ili:1S lp ihe de:velopfu~l\r
#giJJ~tib115,;'Y.1W:)t:~.,'.i.~l~~~~e,4.Fa~ii~~~s..~m-
ereni pur- ;m(lI~IYI~I)$~ ~Yln,'plict fee.flncJ}lcj~J i: ,.
. .' . . , " - -. ,~,.. . .ro~ds,ti1iti$p6riatlon faciliti~; seh6'b1S;:',
",.pose, bill the two w ich are'most fre- .. '.,' "d", ..,., '.' .',
~:."~ij~HtIi:~9nfti,~~~r~ !h~~i@~ion ahd ~:r::&t~a~;ti:~?';:r~:rd~a'l~~:~e
"..:~~f),\ii~ r.~gul~t,iR~.~_lfh,~{igfp~rls of these . stations/equipment. .' '.'
~i1.~~8~e?!, II)j'>:,o,~~~sj'?ga,u)\.8y'SJlap, and , ,. . " '. '. .
,> In ni.ariy,instancet;croSSnreference each, Editor'~}f()te: ImpactJees are a complex
:Z'C;ih~r'-Ih~~ha~~ diife~~tfuri~liri~,and tOl'i~,Only briefly touched on in this iirtide.
',. $~fv~(lifrer.;ni' ,. 's~: '"," , There i~ ~lsQan ongoing debate over' the I .
;j;:;'r.if'.~iiXh~,~~ll . ,,' ?~ .~~_4~igt)e.d"1~'its~:;i'14f~fT?Jes,~. . Of~ir~.i~~!;)'.". .
;!<:p.~~tily.l'?: iJie-dlvision of laQd fees. Imp.iic(fee~starsc/lllalSoinvolve::;""
". into'Pllrcels an to e~';i{ili;j:tth~'layoilt o~ .:t,?n~,~rcib~~~~~!i.idp~o!,"r'rY~.,~i;;p;~.~{?:' .'
" '. ',. - :",." ".,..-,.,,<:..", .;<- "",".. . - d'. --if .. I ... .. II- v'.
th S t;~~;. tl c" c," I '11 '. a...rillnJ.ster.>'.OjspeCl.a. concern'to sma ,er ,',
;'. :~:.u~'le,iy-creat;;..l'arc=o~o~~ " ", .' ",., " '.
~:_: ~'appn;~~;t~iyc~hfigo.i~'~.n.'~'prop~flY , v ;CO~rtllj~lii~:'.WehoPe to have aftiture'"
" "~.rvM liy,'l)1ibli~f;,dlitleilncoiitrast,the JO':'rnalariicle providing a morcin-depth
P#.~R6tii,~i~g'i~g;;iKti~~j;:~#~le_'oOlialimJilUt.f"eS: ..\<..
men,t the cmnpreheJlSive pian bY specifying
~~tteduSe;; andde~ties of develop-
ment, height, setback; oPeD spQceand
~elaiedrequir~m'enlS. On<~hoi11d note,
however~ that there Ms been a recent trend
tOWlircIsthe adoption of "unified" dev~lop-
merit codes,whichconsolidaie zoning and
subdiVIsion n;gu13tions iit a single docu-
ment.
-Resources
~ _ ..~ ~e\'~ral good ~urces are
available for those interested
in acquiring a more detailed understand-
ing of various aspects of subdivision
regulation. ThC!;e include David L1stoken
and Carole Walker's The Subdivision and
Site plan Handbook (Rutgers Center for
Urban Policy Research 1989), available
from the APA Planners Press, 312-955-
9100, and James Kushner's Subdivision
Law and Grow/h Management (Clark
Boardman Callaghan 1991,800-221-
9428) (dealing primarily with legal is-
sues). Also scheduled to be published by
the American Planning Association later
this year is the second edition of Model
Subdivision Regulations: Text and Commen-
tary, by Robert Freilich and Michael
Shultz (a complete revision of the popu-
lar 1975 publicatiDn).
t ~m~'4n~g
f:
r:
,
i
~'.
~,
~l
~
~,
~<
(,
~
1:1.
~,
Modem growth management and coor-
dination techniques originated In the subdi-
vision process, and were upheld in the
landmark New York court decision of
Golden v. Planning Board of Town of
Ramapo. In Ramapo, the CDurt allowed
timing and sequential control of residential
subdivision activity for periods of up to
eighteen years. Growth management, as it
has evolved in the Iwenty years since the
Ramapo decision, emphasizes the Impor.
tance of timing and phasing new develop-
ment. This enables communities to ensure
t~t their public facilltiet; and services are
capabie~f adequately serving the increased
p~p~lation resulting from the new develop-
ment.",.
~RS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER I OCTOBER 1992
~... II
.'
FEATURE
Improving the Subdivision Review Process
.r wonder why the vast
'-ity of subdivisions look so
much alike, despite the fact that
they are built in such varied landscapes
(forest, meadow, field) and on different
terrain (flat, rolling, steep)? The simple
answer is that most of them are designed
generically, in "cookie-cutter" style, with
very little regard to the special natural or
cultural features that give many proper-
ties their distinctive character.
In most municipalities, subdivision
design regulations have never evolved
beyond the basic stage where code
requirements focus on a few mundane
but important points: soil suitability, wet-
lands, floodplains, street paving,
stormwater management; and on a few
mundane but rather unimportant points:
street frontage, lot-line setbacks, lot area.
The sad reality is that most localities
do not require subdivisions to consist of
anything more than house lots" streets,
and drains. As a result, subdivisions are
approved as long as plans show house
lots with the minimum required size and
frontage, and avoid areas that are inher-
ently unfit for huilding, such as wetlands
and floodplains. When community stan-
dards are set so very low, developers
often respond with the least imaginative
subdivision designs.
As I will argue shortly, it does not
have to be this way. In fact, with only a
by Randall Arendt
modest amount of additional effort, even
smaller communities can implement a
much more effective subdivision review
process - a process which will result in
better designed and sited residential
developments. But first, let me briefly
identify four common flaws in the typical
subdivision review process.
FOUR COMMON FLAWS IN
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
The first flaw is that most local ordi-
nances fail to require that applicants sub-
mit detailed surveys or inventories of
their sites features, beyond those few fea-
tures which would render property
unbuildable (i.e., wetlands, floodplains,
steep slopes). Similarly, most ordinances
do not require maps depicting the sub-
ject parcel's surrounding COlllexL
Second, most municipalities do not
require planning board members to walk
the land. Yet a group site visit, which also
invites abuttors and others interested in
the development, is essential to an
lOne of the my~teries many planning commissioners
encounter is the 50-called "Preliminary Plan." 1n
many communities. commis...ioners are surprised to
discover that the preliminary subdivh:;ion plan is actu-
ally closer to a final document in its level of detail, and
the time and cost thai the applicant has expended on
preparing it .As I have nOled, lhi.':; makes appHcanls
more resistant to changes suggesled by commission-
ers or other$. A much greater emphasis needs to be
placed on the preparation of an existing resources/site
analysis map. site walks, and sketch plans. These
should be required by local ordinance before the pre-
liminary plan submission.
understanding of any property.
Third, many local subdivision regula-
tions require highly detailed design
drawings at the so-called Preliminary
Plan stage. This means that developers
may have spent tens of thollsands of dol-
lars in preparing their the very first sub- '
mission. Understandably, developers are
not inclined to discard sllch plans, even
if better ways to design the developmelll
are poillted out to them by planning staff,
planning board members, or others.'
Fourth, subdivision layouts are often
prepared by people trained in recording
site data and in street and drainage issues
(surveyors and engineers), bm who have
little or no expertise in the field of land-
scape architecture or neighborhood
design.
DEVELOPING A BETTER
SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCESS
Three sequen tial steps can be taken
that will dramatically improve the subdi-
vision review process:
L Require the applicant to prepare a Con-
text Map of the immediate area and a
detailed Existing Resources and Site
Analysis Map of the property;
2. Conduct a site walk with the appli-
cant, planning staff, planning board
members, and abuttors very early in the
process; and
3. Require the applicant to submit an
inexpensive conceptual Sketch Plan as
the first layout document, before prepar-
ing detailed layout and design drawings.
These straightforward and fairly sim-
ple steps can yield major benefits by
allowing all parties to understand what is
important about the property, and to
engage in a process that is collaborative
and consensual, instead of adversarial
and combative.'
1. Mapping the Property.
Good maps are essential tools in
many aspects of planning, but perhaps
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 50 / SPRING 2003
m
nowhere more so than in the review of
residential subdivisions.
Context Map. While many subdivi-
sion regulations do call for a location
map, such maps must have the scope and
content that will enable staff, planning
board members, and others to acquaint
themselves with the resources and devel-
opment patterns near the development
site. This kind of understanding is criti-
cal to planning for improved buffers and
open space connections, and lessening
developmental impacts in the neighbor-
hood.
A good Context Map can be based on
data from already published sources such
as aerial photographs, USGS topo sheets,
FEMA floodplain maps, tax maps, and
U.S. Fish &: Wildlife Service wetlands
maps. This will also minimize the devel-
oper's cost in preparing such a map. The
Context Map should then be reproduced
by the applicant's engineer to the same
scale (l inch = 400 feet), showing
reviewing officials the location of natural
features and development patterns on
properties within one-half mile of the
development site.
Existing Resources/Site Analysis
("ERISA ") Map. Just as it is critical to see
the broader context of a proposed subdi-
vision, it is necessary to have a clear
understanding of the characteristics of
the site itself. Again, good maps - pre-
pared at the outset of the process - are
essential. \\That we term an Existing
Resources/Site Analysis Map provides a
greater amount of essential information
than is typically required in most subdi-
vision regulations, and should document
the location of a large variety of site fea-
tures. In my experience, the ERISA map
is the single most important document in
the subdivision design process, as it pro-
vides the factual foundation upon which
all design decisions are hased.
The ERISA Map tells reviewers what
2 Based on the work I have done at Ihe Natural Lands
Trust over the last decade in the Growing Greener
program (supported by Pennsylvania's Dcpl. of Con-
servation & Natural Resources and Dept. of Com-
merce & Economic Development), the reforms which
I recommend often begin \\-1th updating local subdivi-
sion regulations 10 include [he above-mentioned
items.
they need to know about the property in
tenns of its noteworthy natural and cul-
tural features. Drawn to a scale of one
inch equals 100 or 200 feet, it reflects an
in-depth understanding of the site by
mapping out a range of significant fea-
tures, such as the location of note-
worthy trees or tree groups,
and unusual geological "
formations. In this way.",..,.. '" '.,.':,
'"$}I .;.\',;.:' .~
reviewers can, for exam- ,..d ,"'-
pie, identify those parts of
woods that are most worthy of
conservation and which should be
"designed around,"
In addition, an ERISA map can iden-
tify farmland soils by productivity class;
locate vernal pools and their associated
upland habitat areas (essential in the life-
cycle of salamanders and other woodland
amphibians); map out significant view
corridors into the property from public
roads or highways; and, in the absence of
sewers, show soil suitability for septic
sewage disposal.'
The use of GPS (Global Positioning
Systems) technology has made the docu-
mentation of this type of information rel-
atively easy and inexpensive, In fact, a
gro~1ng number of communities already
routinely require that plans, for example,
show the location of every tree greater
than a given diameter, and that these
trees be identifi ed by species 011 the
drawing,' In this way, reviewers can iden-
tify those parts of woods that are more
worthy of conservation and "designing
around" (which trees to hug and which
to let go), However, I would not require
this information for trees growing in
areas that would not be disturbed
because of their location within pro-
posed conservation areas,
An ERISA Map is typically prepared
by a landscape architect for the developer,
3 Septic systems need the deepest, bcst.draincd ~oil
that can be provided, and those areas must be
"designed around" just as carefully - and from the
very beginning - as :my of the ~Primary Conserva-
tion Areas," so they may be reserved for sewage treat.
mcnr and cffiuent disposal and not be carelessly
covered by foundations, driveways, or streets. To
maximize the amount of open space, it is often best to
locate septic drainfields (either shared or individual
ones) off-lot, in easements under conservation mcad-
O\\'S, neighburhood greens, and ballfields.
and may also
reflect input
from con-
servation
biologists
and
historic preservation
specialists, Such information, provided
early in the process, enables the site
designer, the developer, and muni-
cipal officials to make better-informed
decisions.'
If officials agree that these items are
necessary and should be submitted at
some point during the subdivision appli-
cation process anyway, it doesn't increase
the applicant's costs for them to be
required up front where the important
information they provide can be of the
greatest use (helping to avoid wasting
money on plans that do not take these
features fully into account),
2. Site Walks.
Because it is impossible to completely
understand a site only by examining a
two-dimensional paper document inside
a meeting room, it is essential that - ,,;th
the ERISA Map in hand - planning board
memhers, conservation commission
members, and staff walk the property
with the applicant and any interested
Wtltilll..lfd on page 14
4 With respect to the diameter al which a tree
becomes noteworthy, I recommend girths relateJ to
specific species, such as 4 inches for holly or Om.ver-
ing dogwood, 6 inches for a sassafras or water beech,
10 inches for a wild cherry, 14 inches for a red or
white oak, 16 inches for a tulip poplar, 18 inches for a
sycamore, etc.
5 For more details about the ERISA map, as wen as
model ordinance language related to such a map, see
Randall Arendt, Growing Greener, PUlling Conserva-
tion into Local Plans and Ordinances (Island Press,
1999),
PLANNtNG COMMISSIONERS JOURNAl. j NUMRER 50 I SPRtNG 2003
In
')Q=~~:~~
I recoll!mend that local regu-
lations require Sketch Plans be prepared
by a landscape architect or physical plan-
ner working with a civil engineer. Under
this approach, surveyors and engineers
wou ld continue to perform all of the
usual surveying and engineering. Hawev-
er, the conceptual design and layoUl is
best handled by a landscape architect or
physical planner. Some municipalities
further enhance this process by increasing
the applicants fee to hire the physical
. planner or landscape architect to walk the
site, conduct the site analysis, and pro-
duce a Sketch Plan, thereby launching the
developer in the right direction. Develop-
ers "',th whom I have worked are ofteu
skeptical of the value of this approach
until they try it once.
Mapping Potential
Conservation Lands
A community-",de map of potential
conservation areas is a quite useful tool
that planning departments should consid-
er preparing. It identifies those parts of
undeveloped properties where the munic-
ipality has preliminarily detemlined the
importauce of designing new develop-
ment around certain land and water fea-
tures in such a way that an interconnect-
ed network of conservation land can be
protected. Such areas may include lands
along stream valleys, blocks of mature
woodland, as well as prime farming soil,
and historic or cultural features important
to the community.
Besides informing local officials of the
nature and extent of particular kinds of
resources on any property proposed for
subdivision development, the map also
supplies the contextual view so that all
parties will be able to see and appreciate
how designing around certain features
can preserve an interconnected network
of open space running across numerous
parcels.
For more details on conservation
mapping, see Randall Arendt, Growing
Greener: Putting Conservation illto Local
Plans and Ordinances (Island Press, 1999).
Early site walks are of critical importance and should be done
with the Existing Resources/Site Assessment map in hand.
Improving the Subdivision Review Process,..
continued from page ]3
neighbors. This will allow everyone to
take the full measure of the proposed
development site, and help determine
which site features are most worthy of
"designing around." We have found that
nearby property owners greatly appreci-
ate being included, and are much less
inclined to fight a process which has
involved them from the outset.
Without the benefit of experiencing
the property in a three-dimensional
manner at a very early stage in the
process, it is extremely difficult for staff
and officials to offer informed sugges-
tions as to the preferred locations of
conservation areas and development
areas, and to evaluate proposed layouts.
Site walks should be "standard operat-
ing procedure," and part of the job
description for all planning board mem-
bers (except those with physical disabil-
ities). Local officials who take their first
site walk with a detailed site analysis
map in hand, meeting the applicant, the
applicant's site designer, and abuttors in
a casual and informal way, tell me they
wouldn't think of missing this critical
part of the process ever again.
Regarding timing, I suggest conduct-
ing the site walk even before the appli-
cant prepares a Sketch Plan (discussed
shortly). I also usually end the site walk
with an informal design session, where
the significant natural and cultural fea-
tures (from the ERISA Map) are identi-
fied, and possible ways of designing
around them discussed.
Of course, site walks must be adver-
tised as public meetings, although they
are essentially informal meetings during
which no decisions will be reached. Edi-
tors Note: For more on the conduct of site
visits, see Greg DaleS "Site Visits: Necessary
But Tricky," in PC] #39 (Slimmer 2000).
3. The Sketch Plan.
The Sketch Plan is the next key doc-
ument in the subdivision process, and
second in importance only to the Exist-
ing Resources/Site Analysis Map. The
Sketch plan sets out the overall concept
for the subdivision, showing areas of
proposed development and areas of pro-
posed conservation.
The Sketch plan is most useful when
drawn to scale on white tracing paper as
an "overlay sheet" to be lain on top of
the ERISA Map so that everyone can
clearly see how well - or how poorly -
the proposed layout avoids areas of the
site prioritized for conservation. Ideally
the proposed development "footprint"
on the Sketch Plan should dovetail with
the protection of resources documented
on the ERISA Map.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 50 I SPRING 2003
m
Primary conservation areas
Secondary conservation areas
Potential development areas
,
PlanningJor subdivisions should start by identifying primary conservation areas (such as wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains) and secondary conservation
areas (including woodlands, meadows, and significant cultural Jeatures within the site). Once conservation areas are identified, the core areas Jar potential
development can more easily be mapped out.
Sketch Plan review is an essential step,
and should occur before the applicant
spends the large sums typically required
for the more detailed and engineer-pre-
pared "Preliminary plan" drawings. Only
after agreement is reached at the Sketch
Plan stage should the applicant move on
to prepare the Preliminary Plan. This will
give the applicant the full benefit of the
site analysis, site visit, and sketch plan
review - and a greater assurance of ulti-
mate approval - before spending money
on preparing the Preliminary Plan.
Four-Steps to Better Subdivision Design
The most effective method for pro-
ducing subdivision layouts that are
responsive to their site, and which pre-
serve value-adding features, is to first
focus on areas of the site to be conserved,
not on areas to be developed. If this is
done (and if local regulations also require
that a significant proportion of subdivi-
sions be designated as open space), it is
nearly impossible to produce an environ-
mentally unsound subdivision. This is
particularly the case if that open space
to be conserved is closely related to
a "Community-Wide Map of Potential
Conservation Lands" set out in the local
Comprehensive Plan. P- Mapping Potential
Conslrvation Lands.
After the open space areas to be pre-
served are located, the next step is to
select house locations, with homes posi-
tioned to take maximum advantage of
that protected land in neighborhood
squares, commons, greens, playing
fields, greenways, famlland, or forest pre-
serves. The third step involves "connect-
ing the dots," that is, aligning the streets
and trails to serve the new homes. The
fourth and final step, drawing in the lot
lines, is actually the least significant part
of the process.
One of the greatest weaknesses in the
subdivision process in many communi-
ties is that open space conservation areas
are identified last, not first. As a result,
the open space is often a collection of
whatever bits of land that have proven
difficult to develop. The other common
failing is the inclusion of deep perimeter
buffers around proposed developments,
as if they were gravel pits, junkyards, or
leper colonies! This practice inadvertent-
ly leads to very poor layouts in which a
substantial percentage of the total open
space is consumed by this excessive sep-
aration.
SUMMING Up:
The combined influence of the
expanded Context Map, the Existing
Resources/Site Analysis Map, the Site
Walk, the Sketch Plan overlay sheet, and
the four-step design approach described
above can make a significant difference
in the way developers, planning boards,
and abutters approach a site's develop-
ment. The end result is not only better
subdivisions, but projects developed in
a more cooperative, less contentious,
atmosphere. .
Randall Arendt is a
conservation planner, site
designer, author, and
lecturer. He is one oj the
Joremost proponents oj
compact development pat-
terns as a tool Jar protect-
ing natural and cultural
landscapes. His practice,
Greener Prospects, is located in Narragansett Pier,
Rhode Island. Arendt has written two other articles
for the Planning Commissioners Journal: "Grow-
ing Greener: Conservation Subdivision Design," in
PC] #:33 (Winter 1999), and "Open Space Zoning:
What It Is & Why It Works," in PC] #5 Gulyl
Augu.<t 1992). He may be contacted via his web-
site: < \.\!\.\!lv.greenerprospects.com >.
Readers interested in learning more about
Arendt's approach are referred to his books Con-
servation Design Jor Subdivisions: A Practical
Guide to Creating Open Space Networks (Island
Press, 1996) and its sequel Growing Greener:
PUlling Conservation into Local Plans and Ordi-
nartces (Island Press, 1999). They may also
download an 18-page booklet describing this
process, at: <www.natlands.org> (click on
"Planning" and then on "Growing Greener").
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 50 I SPRING 2003
m
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 1 of7
[p~MEMO
am ',~IJ)eI,'klln 1.lllnnlll~ ,\S,S<,ldldloll
.. 'Il"h',,~ (;"'iI"I.'l Co."""""i)':"" 1/"'1'1''1'
PAS MEMO is a bi-monthly
digital publication of the
Planning Advisory Service
~ Cu rrent Issue
This Month's Feature
~ About PAS Memo
Learn More
~ Previous Editions
Read Past Publications
~ PAS Memo Indexes
ChroDoloQ iCClLIndex
Subject Index
~ Join PAS
Become a PAS ,Subscriber
November/December 2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead
End Streets
by Carol Thomas, FAICP
"Live on a quiet street. No through traffic'" These words, commonly
associated with the Garden City movement, have been used to promote
residential areas since Radburn, New Jersey, was developed in the late
1920s. These short streets are generally between 400 to 1,000 feet long,
have a turn around at the end, and have limited access, which can provide
privacy and quietness forresidents' pleasure. On the other hand, safety
officials have long objected to them, and they have sought design and
construction standards to limit such "dead end" streets.
Public works and safety officials' efforts to prohibit or limit the creation of
dead end streets are reinforced by planners and sociologists who often
object to the isolation and lack of connectivity, as well ,as the increased
costs and difficulties of maintaining these streets, The isolation, some say,
may contribute to obesity, because the lack of connection forces people to
drive to nearby destinations.
PAS Memo covered this topic in 1985 ("Standards for Dead-End Streets")
and in 1998 ("The Loop Lane: A Cul-de-Sac Alternative"). The topic has
recently resurfaced, with surprising interest and complexity, As available
buildable land becomes rarer, the cul-de-sac has again become a popular
design element to maximize land development. Because of the many
issues surrounding them, planners and safety officials are rethinking design
and construction standards and policies, This PAS Memo examines the
advantages and disadvantages of the dead end street, looking at current
practice and, where such streets are allowed, appropriate standards to be
followed.
Two related topics are important to note, After World War II, as narrow
business and industrial strips were developed in zoned highway areas, non-
residential cul-de-sacs began to appear in industrial parks. These cul-de-
sacs are not part of this discussion. Also, this article does not include
engineering issues, and, while cul-de-sacs are gaining in popularity
elsewhere, the focus here is on the U.S. experience.
Definitions
A dead end street has access from only one end. The word "cul-de-sac"
means "the bottom of a sack." A cul-de-sac street is a dead end street with
some type of turn-around area at the closed end. In this article, I use "cul-
de-sac" interchangeably with "dead end street" to discuss policy, design,
and maintenance implications of streets with only one means of access.
Advantages of Cul-de-sacs
Developers and residents see several advantages of cul-de-sacs.
Reduced Vehicle Trips and Vehicle Speed
Typically there are fewer vehicle trips along a dead end street. Because
there are limited destination points, vehicles may travel more slowly. Using
these assumptions, there currently is a proposal in Massachusetts to create
dead ends at each side of the border of two municipalities through which a
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 2 of7
street passes, to prevent it from becoming a bypass during construction
work on an adjacent highway.
Sense of Community
Because of the perception of fewer vehicle trips than on a conventional
street, residents may use the street as a gathering place, and play space
may even be allowed in the turnaround or in the street itself. This
assumption supports the perception that these streets provide a safer
environment. (For more information on this discussion, see Lucy and
Phillips, 2006, Chapter 10.)
Increased Lot Yield and Home Values
Because one or more lots may be placed in the corner of a subdivision on
parcels that otherwise might not have adequate frontage, development
projects may get higher lot yields with cul-de-sacs. Also, real estate agents
report a premium selling price of up to five percent for a house on a cul-
de-sac.
Snow Maintenance
Snow may be stored and runoff handled in the center of the turn round.
Design
The street design may be used to encourage cluster development. Dead
end streets are also common where there are constraints to through
streets, such as significant wetlands, grade changes, or abutting limited
access highways.
m Figure 1: Acceptable.
Short, private, and neighborly.
Disadvantages of Cul-de-sacs
While they have perceived benefits, cul-de-sacs have real and perceived
disadvantages that may outweigh the advantages.
Lack of Road Network
Because they do not connect to other roadways and do not allow
connectivity of the street or neighborhood, cul-de-sacs do not support
street networks. In some parts of the country, walking paths and sidewalks
link individual neighborhoods, but the roadways in these cul-de-sac
neighborhoods still require driving out to peripheral roadways and then
beginning the trip.
Impact of Length on Traffic Speed
When cul-de-sacs are relatively long (generally between 500 to 1,000
feet), they reduce their possible advantages because they may encourage
increased traffic speeds and mid-block turning to reverse direction
(mentioned anecdotally by police officials).
Children
School buses rarely travel down dead end streets. Students often have to
wait on more heavily traveled through streets.
Safety
While cul-de-sac streets are often lauded for their safety, there can be
many safety issues.
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 3 of7
. An accident, stalled car or truck, fallen tree, snow pile, construction,
flooding, or other obstruction can block access to interior lots, either
at the open end of a dead-end street or along the cul-de-sac
"spine." Fire equipment, trucks, and public works and other
maintenance and service vehicles may have difficulty and spend
significant time maneuvering within dead end street environments,
and may have special problems at the turn around.
. Hydrants may be located too far to provide adequate water in the
event of an emergency. Distance from a hydrant may adversely
affect homeowner insurance rates.
. Because there are fewer people than on a through street to observe
activities, crime may be a problem.
. Emergency and maintenance personnel are likely to be limited in
low-density areas, where cul-de-sacs are often prevalent. Because
maintenance and delivery vehicles must double back, service costs
are higher per unit along a dead-end street. In addition to the time
loss, there is also additional fuel consumption and related air
pollution.
Affordability of Homes
The cost of homes may be increased. As mentioned earlier, comparables
show at least a five percent higher value than for the similar house type on
a through street. This may have an adverse effect on affordability.
Snow Maintenance
Although snow can be stored and runoff handled in the center of the
turnaround, snow plowing is a particular challenge on dead end streets.
Because the streets are not continuous, the plows must back up or turn
around, spending an excessive amount of time (and fuel) to clean just one
low-volume roadway. Frequently, because vehicles cannot drive through,
the street is not entirely cleared, or not cleared at all.
Ownership and Maintenance
If the street is extended and the turnaround abandoned there may be legal
problems with title to the excess land and with the legal requirement for
frontage, Responsibility for maintenance of the land in the cul-de-sac may
be undetermined.
Water Service
Historically public water systems were located on main or through streets,
and stubbed to the cul-de-sac homes. Today water delivery systems have
generally become more sophisticated. It is essential that the design and
construction of these systems provide capacity and pressure to assure
adequate delivery of water, and to prevent sedimentation and other
degradation of the infrastructure. Some municipalities require sprinkler
systems in residences if the street is longer than standard, although this is
largely ineffective where there is no on-site water supply.
Isolation
While a cul-de-sac neighborhood can provide the sense of a close-knit
community, the limited interaction may result in more than physical
isolation. The long-term impacts from this will likely continue to be studied
over the coming decades.
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 4 of7
m Figure 2: Unacceptable.
Cul-de-sac off cul-de-sac extends the
length.
Street Standards
Keeping these advantages and disadvantages in mind, planners and
engineers generally have agreed that, if allowed, cul-de-sacs should be
used with caution.
As discussed, financial, safety, and aesthetic considerations all contribute
to determining an appropriate length for dead-end streets. In urban areas
a reasonable maximum length for dead-end streets is 500 feet, unless
additional emergency access is provided. If topographic conditions are
unusual, such as in hilly terrain or along canals in water-oriented
communities, longer lengths may be considered. In these circumstances,
greater lengths or extensions should be allowed only when services can be
provided.
Over the years other standards for dead-end streets have been developed,
addressing cul-de-sac diameter, "T" or hammerhead design, maximum
grade, pavement width, right-of-way, median strips, and number of
residential units to be served, for example.
In 1939, the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee of the City
Planning Division on Land Subdivision, chaired by pioneer planning
consultant Harland Bartholomew, recommended that:
. dead-end streets not exceed 300 feet in length;
. they be at least 40 feet wide; and
. they terminate in a circular right-of-way with a minimum diameter
of 70 feet unless "the Planning Commission approves an equally
safe and convenient form of paved space instead of the required
turning circle."
These early standards have been augmented and revised over time. Below
are the standards presented in the 1985 PAS Memo together
withrecommended practice based on responses to a call for information
earlier this yea r.
1985 Standards 2007 Standards
Length (the linear 500 feet maximum2 500 feet maximum2
distance from the No minimum 250 feet minimum
entrance to furthest
point, exclusive of
interior branch
streets 1
Right-of-way width 50 feet Varies, depending
on requirements for
divided street,
center landscaped
strip, and run-off
provisions
Cul-de-sac diameter 90 feet 90 to 120 feet
Maximum grade 5% 5%
Pavement width 20 feet 24 feet
Trips per day Not addressed 250 (based on 25
dwelling units with
an average of 10
trips per day)
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 5 of7
Number of residential Varies 25 single-family
units to be served units; number of
multifamily units
varies with design
Turnaround design Circle Circle, dog leg, or
"Tn (circle
preferred)
Turnaround None required Pervious surface
landscaping required
Parking on turnaround Not addressed Prohibited
Stormwater None required Required where
management areas effective
Divided entrance Not addressed Required for safety
Signage Not addressed Required for safety
and to avoid
confusion
Maintenance Not addressed Agreement
required; includes
land in turnaround
Parking Not addressed Prohibited on the
roadway unless the
right-of-way or
paved area is
increased
Connections Not addressed Required to
bikeways and
walkways where
they exist;
breakaway gates
and other vehicles
Dead-end street off Not addressed Prohibited
dead-end street
Hyd ra nts Not addressed Located at end of
water line or at the
low point
Legal issues Not addressed Municipal
agreements and
deed restrictions
required for future
extensions and
disposition of excess
land if there is an
extension
View lines, Not addressed Subject to local
pavement types, design and
drainage construction
standards
Street lighting Not addressed Required
Sidewalks Not addressed Desirable
Conclusion
While there are pluses and minuses to dead end streets, generally they
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 6 of7
should be avoided, or at best used with caution. When they are used, there
are certain principles that must be followed:
. Limit the length of a dead-end street to no longer than 500 feet,
especially on slopes.
. If the length exceeds the recommended maximum, provide
emergency access by easements or other similar means.
. Diameter of the cul-de-sac should be 100 feet (size may vary if
drainage is good or if the turnaround is more oval in shape).
. Grade should not exceed five percent.
. Interior of the circle should be landscaped.
. Pave the street for safety and ease of snow clearance.
. Consider looping the water supply system to ensure delivery.
. Do not branch a second dead-end street off of a cul-de-sac, in effect
extending the dead"end street.
Author Information
Carol Thomas, FAICP, is a land use planner who practices in the northeast
and in China. She is a former AICP president and former chair APA 's Private
Practice Division. For many years she was an adjunct professor at the
University of Rhode Island and at Harvard University's Graduate School of
Design. She received the 1996 APA Distinguished Service Award. Megan
Diprete, AICP, assisted with the early research on current practice for this
article, and Whitman Stephens provided the illustrations.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1981.
Design Guide for Local Roads and Streets. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO.
American Health Association. 1948. Planning the Neighborhood. Chicago:
Public Administration Services.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1939. "Land Subdivision." Manual of
Engineering Practice - No. 16. New York: Committee of the City Planning
Division on Land Subdivision.
American Society of Planning Officials. 1975. Model Subdivision
Regulations, Text and Commentary. Chicago: American Society of Planning
Officials.
DiChiara, Joseph, and Lee Koppleman. 1978. Planning Design Criteria. New
York: VanNostrand.
1978. Site Planning Standards. New York: McGraw-HilI.
1984. Time-Saver Standards for Site Planning. New YOt'k:
McGraw-Hili.
Efrati, AmiI'. June 2, 2005. "Homeowners Love Cul-de-Sacs; Planners Say
They're Perils." The Wall Street Journal.
Handy, Susan. 2002. "Street Connectivity: You Can Get There from Here."
PAS Memo.Chicago: American Planning Association. November.
Handy, Susan, Robert G. Paterson, and Kent Butler. 2003. Planning for
Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. PAS Report 515. Chicago:
American Planning Association.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1964. "Recommended Practices for
Subdivision Streets." Traffic Engineering. Arlington, Va.: ITE. September.
Kostka, V. Joseph. 1957. Neighborhood Planning. Winnipeg: The Appraisal
Institute of Canada.
Listokin, David, and Carole Walker. 1989. The Subdivision and Site Plan
Handbook. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research,
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Lucy, William H., and David L. Phillips. 2006 Tomorrow's Cities, Tomorrow's
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
A Contemporary Look at Cul-de-sacs and Dead End Streets
Page 7 of7
Suburbs. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Pelletier, Mike. 1998."The Loop Lane: A Cul-de-Sac Alternative." PAS
Memo. Chicago: American Planning Association. May.
NOTES
1. Branch streets are not generally allowed.
2. Length may be up to 1,000 feet in unusual circumstances, in which case
an intermediate turnaround or a potential extension may be required.
Length is gener'ally measured from the right-of-way of the inter'secting
street to the outer edge of the turnaround. In some cases it is measured
from the center line of the intersecting street to the center of the turn
around or the property line of a "T." There are examples of measurement
from the access point to the furthest property line.
~ Printer-Friendly Format
(i')Copyright 2007 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved
http://www.planning.org/pasmemo/member/default.htm
11/5/2007
FORWARD MOTION
Making the Connection
~gend has it that a group of
\t'i:;~eenth century American
tycoons were developing a town
way out on the edge of the Wild
\Vest and decided to try something new
They'd lound that corner buildings were
worth more than those located mid-
block, so it stood to reason that a town
with more corners would do well. The
result? A downtown with a tight street
grid and intersections as little as 200 feet
apart.
I don't know if those side-burned fel-
lows actually made the fortune they
wanted, but that town did indeed grow
up to be a prosperous city that enjoys
some of the highest rates of walking, bik-
ing, and transit ridership in the nation.
The story of Portland, Oregon is essential
for planners seeking to understand the
key to developing walkable, transit-
friendly communities: a well-connected
street network featuring short blocks and
numerous intersections.
I know what you're thinking: "Yeah,
that's nice, but we're not Portland." Do
shorter blocks and more intersections -
that is, greater street connectivity - pro-
vide any benefits for communities that
don't have a dense urban core?
by Halma/! Twaddell
In a recent report "Planning for Street
Connectivity: Gelling from Here to
There," transportation planning experts
Susan Handy, Robert G. Paterson, and
Kent Butler analyzed thirteen communi-
ties (including four with populations in
the 6,000 to 32,000 range) that have con-
nectivityordinances.'
Most of the cities and towns in the
study have set block length limits for
local streets, generally falling in the range
of 500 to 600 feel. Some have also placed
maximum distance limits on spacing
between intersections along arterial
streets. Requirements vary according to
the roadway context: higher-speed, wide
streets such as commercial arterials need
1 Planningfor Street Connccfivily: Gelting from Here to
There (American Planning Association PAS Rt:purl
#515).
Portland, Oregon, circa 1923, with Mt. Hood in the distance. SharI 200-foollong downtown blochs have
been a boon 10 Port/and. development.
more space between intersections and
driveways in order for traffic to flow
properly, while more frequent cross
streets in residential areas can help to
slow traffic down.
Regardless of their size, communities
can realize three major benefits from bet-
ter connectivity: shorter trips; a wider
variety of travel choices; and more cost-
effective public services and infrastruc-
ture.
Creating more direct connections
shortens travel time, which effectively
brings people closer to their destinations.
With more available connections, com-
munity residents can get to schools,
shopping centers, and other spots that
may have simply been off their radar
before - not because these places were
too far away, but because they were too
far out of the way.
Meanwhile, firefighters, police, and
ambulance services can save precious
minutes reaching the scene of an emer-
gency, and can serve a broader area with-
out driving up their operating costs.
Similarly, greater connectivity can reduce
costs of providing other services, such as
waste collection, by decreasing travel
time and mileage. According to Jim Para-
jon, fanner planning manager for Cary,
North Carolina, the goal of achieving
cost savings in public services was the
number one priority behind the town's
adoption of a connectivity ordinance in
1999.'
Another benefit: by creating more
ways for people to get from point A to
point B, communities can diversify the
flow of traffic and, in many cases, also
enable travel choices other than driving.
This improves overall mobility and helps
reduce congestion on ovef\vorkrd arteri-
als.
!lut what ahout that popular subur-
2 Remarks during session al April 2004 American
Planning .o\ssocialion conference in \Vashington, DC.
PLA:'JNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER 58 I SPRING 2005
m
ban street type: the cul-de-sac? By defini-
tion ("bottom of the bag" in French),
these streets are closed. And people often
choose houses on them ror that very
reason.
All the communities in the connectiv-
ity study do allow cui-dc-sacs, but
restrict their lengths, from as little as 200
feet to as much as 1,000. Several also
direct developers to create multiple
entrances to their site, and/or include
stubs to indicate future connections.
That being said, it's really not neces-
sary to force open every subdivision in
order to improve community-wide con-
nectivity. It would be counter-productive
(not to say, poor planning) to insist on a
rigid connectivity principle applicable to
every block. The key is to create strategi-
cally located links that benefit broad
cross-sections of the community.
As respected transportation planner
Walter Kulash notes, "Good connectivity
does not necessarily mean eliminating
every last cui-dc-sac. The real purpose of
connectivity is to provide a variety of
routes for daily travel, such as to schools,
grocery stores, and after school activi-
ties." Kulash further observes: "Proposed
street connections that face strong oppo-
sition are orten a scapegoat for the things
people don't like about their community.
Local street connectivity patterns compared -
from diagram by City of Salem, Oregon (based on
TIi-County Metropolitan Iransportation District).
Ir you're connecting
a quiet old neigh-
borhood to an ugly
strip shopping cen-
ter, people aren't
going to like it.
Focus on the overall
question of what
you want ror your
community.'"
And there's the
heart of it. In many
communities, peo-
ple feel the only way
they can get peace
and quiet is to buy a house on a cul-de-
sac, even if it means taking on a higher
mortgage and buying a third car. It's not
that cui-de-sacs and private neighbor-
hoods are bad. It's that there are so often
no desirable alternatives. If the only good
places kids can gather to play in our
communities are asphalt turnarounds,
we have a bigger problem than a lack of
connecth~ty.
To take true advantage of the benefits
of connecti,ity, we must first establish a
vision for development patterns that
work for all of our community's residents
- those here now, and those we want to
attract. Then we can focus on invest-
ments and connections that meet the
needs and desires of not only those who
love cui-de-sacs, but also those longing
for pleasant, safe, connected communi-
ties: seniors who can't drive; young pro-
fessionals drawn to vibrant urban
centers; ami families who want their kids
to be able to walk to playgrounds,
schools, and ice cream shops.
The process of creating a community
is rather like weaving a tapestry. Upon a
framework or natural and built hound-
aries - rivers, mountains, and streets -
we weave a fabric of buildings, private
and public spaces, and natural areas.
We can change the fabric of our com-
munity as it evolves, but our options for
so doing are largely defined by its frame-
work. Connected street networks provide
a framework for cohesive communities
Do cul-de-sacs set the fromewod, for much of your community?
3 First quote by Kulash from recent email Lo authur;
second quote from remarks by Kulash during session
at April 2004 APA conference.
that can provide public services in a
highly efficient way and can adapt to
change without losing their core identity.
Whether the vision is to revitalize a
flagging rural town, maintain character
in a fast-growing village, or corral subur-
han sprawl, the quality amI characteris-
tics of the street network are, quite
literally, the roundation l'or a communi-
ty's success. It was true for the tycoons of
yesteryear, and it's true for us today: good
connections are fundamental for a com-
munity's long-term prosperity. .
Hannah Twaddell is a
Senior Transporration Plan-
ner in the ChurloHesville, .
Virginia, office of Renais-
sance Planning Gmup. Her
"Fon,vard Motion It column
appears regularly in the
Planning Commissioners
Joul11al.
Thanks!
Our thanks to ,he following individuals who
commented on articles published in this issue of
the PC]: Lois Iljorlie, Christopher V. Forinash,
D<lvid H<1I1Cock, Roberl]ones, Craig Kenworthy,
Anne Knapp, John Lc\l,.'is, Bob Mayes, Christine
Mueller, Neill F. McDonald, Tom Oteri, David
Paolella, Bob Patrino, Irv Schiffman, Allan
510v1n, Charles W. Spra~uc, Dave Stauffer, Rob
Stejskal, Jr., Mark Stiver~. Barbara Sweet, Alissa
llarber Torres, Veronica \Vej~and, Ivan \\fidom,
Kristine \Villiams. David \Vren, Sue A. \\t'uest,
and Scott Zimmerman.
You are invited to join the many citizen and
professional planners who receive and comment
on (by ('-mail) first drafts of articles planned
for publication. For more information, go to:
<ww\v.planncrsv.rcb.com/updatcs.hunl>.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 5~ I SPRJI'G 2005
m
~:#t\.t~t
IE II fA CAt'<- J..,
Planning for Street Connectivity:
Getting from Here to There
SUSAN HANDY, ROBERT G. PATERSON, AND KENT Bunm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pre fa ce . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. ii i
Chapter 1. History of Street Patterns and Standards ............................................1
The Rectilinear Grid ...........................................................................................................2
Curvilinear Streets .................... ....... ..... .............. .... ................ ........... ................ ..... ............3
The Street Hierarchy.......... ... ............................. ............................................... ................4
Stand ,1 I'd s ....... .............. ............. ............. ....... ............................ ..... ............ ........ ............ .....6
Implica tions ..... ...... ................. ......................... .................................... ......... '" ......... ...... ...10
--3> Chapter 2. The Debate ............................................................................. 13
Decrease Traffic on Arteri,ll Streets ...............................................................................14
Facilitate Nonmotorized Travel.....................................................................................16
Providing Greater Emergency Access and Improving Service Efficiency ..............17
The Role of Street Widths ...............................................................................................18
Cone! us ions ....................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3. Street Connectivity in Practice ...................................................... 21
Metro, Regional Government for the Portland, Oregon, Area .................................23
Portland, Oregon ............ ............ ........... ............... .................... ......... .............. ....... ..........25
Beaverton, Oregon ........................................................................................................... 27
Eugene, Oregon ....................... .......... ................... ....................... ...... ... ... ............... .......... 28
Fort Collins, Colorado ..................................................................................................... 32
Boulder, Colorado .. ... ....... .... ... ... ......... ...... ........ ......... ......... ......... ...... ..... ... ......... ........ .....34
Cary, North Carolina ........................................................................................................ 35
Huntersville, North Carolinil ......................................................................................... 38
Cornelius, North Carolina .............................................................................................. 40
Conover, North Carolina ............ ..................... .................. .................... ......... ........... ....... 41
Middletown, Delaware .................. ...... .................... ............. ............. '" ........ ............ .......42
Orla!ld 0, Florid a ............................................................................................................... 43
=---7 Summary ................................................................................................. ...... ... ....... ............44
Chapter 4. Context-Sensitive Street Connectivity: A Tale of Two Cities........... ......... 53
Raleigh, North Carolina .................................. ......... .................... ...................................54
Austin, Texas ...... ..................:..................... .......................... .............................................58
Comparing the Cases ................ ............................................ .............. ....................... ......64
Afterword: More to Think About................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 2
The Debate
roposed connectivity ordin,ances, designed to increase
connectivity in new residential subdivisions, have
met varied receptions, quietly accepted in some communi-
ties and vigorously opposed in others. Reaction is typically
divided between two camps: those for often include design-
ers and planners while those against often include devel-
opers, financers, and real estate professionals. Planners in
communities studied in this report offer the following mo-
tivations for increasing street connectivity, which will be ana-
lyzed at length in this chapter. They say increasing street
connectivity will:
· decrease traffic on arterial streets;
· provide for continuous and more direct routes that fa-
cilitate travel by nonmotorized modes such as walk-
ing and bicycling and that facilitate more efficient tran-
sit service;
· provide greater emergency vehicle access and reduced
response time, and, conversely, provide multiple routes
of evacuation in case of disasters such as wildfires; and
· improve the quality of utility connections, facilitate
maintenance, and enable more efficient trash and re-
cycling collection and other transport-based commu-
nity services.
13
14 Planning for Street Connectivity
The opposition to
connectivity can come from
different sources, most
obviously developers faced
with meeting the new
requirements and residents
of existing neighborhoods
faced with changes in the
distribution of traffic.
The opposition to connectivity can come from different sources, most
obviously developers faced with meeting the new requirements and resi-
dents of existing neighborhoods faced with changes in the distribution of
traffic. Those opposed to connectivity ordinances often argue that they will:
· raise levels of through traffic on existing residential streets;
· increase infrastructure costs and impervious cover;
· require more land to develop the same number of units;
· decrease the affordability of housing; and
· threaten the profitability of developments.
Unfortunately, not all potential benefits and costs have yet been ad-
equately studied, and some remain more contentious than others. This
chapter reviews the available evidence on the debates surrounding these
potential benefits; it also discusses the role of street widths in the debate
over street connectivity. The concerns over cost are examined in more de-
tail in Chapter 4.
DECREASE TRAFFIC ON ARTERIAL STREETS
The published research on street connectivity tends to support the argu-
ment that greater connectivity will reduce traffic volumes on arterials. This
reduction can be attributed to two factors: the dispersal of vehicle trips
throughout the network, and a decrease in the total amount of vehicle travel.
The latter is more difficult to test than the former, which is essentially a
function of route choice. Connectivity might reduce vehicle travel by re-
ducing trip distances, reducing the number of trips, or encouraging a shift
to transit or nonmotorized modes. Existing studies seem to agree that av-
erage trip distance and congestion (relative to the intensity of land uses)
will be lower in areas with a rectilinear grid street pattern than in areas
with conventional suburban street patterns only if the number of trips made
by car does not increase. This caveat, however, is an issue of particular
contention.
The results of several simulation efforts support the theory that greater
street connectivity will reduce traffic volumes on arterials. Michael G.
McNally and Sherry Ryan (1993) used a travel demand forecasting model
to predict traffic in two hypothetical neighborhoods, one a conventional
planned unit development with a curvilinear network and the other a tra-
ditional rectilinear grid. While limited by its hypothetical nature, the simu-
lation showed significant decreases in vehicle miles of travel, trip lengths,
and travel time in the traditional grid. Although it showed streets operat-
ing at higher ratios of volume to capacity in the traditional grid, none op-
erated at congested levels, in contrast to the conventional street pattern.
However, the model also showed a slight increase in the total number of
trips in the grid neighborhood and did not show any significant change in
level of service at major intersections. In a similar simulation study con-
ducted in Portland, Oregon, analysts found that total vehicle miles trav-
eled (VMT) were 43 percent less in a traditional neighborhood with a highly
connected street pattern than in a conventional suburban neighborhood
with a largely hierarchical street pattern (as cited in Proft and Condon 2001).
Metro, the regional government in the Portland, area, undertook a more
realistic study several years ago based on forecasted travel demand for
2015 (Kloster et a1. 2000). The study, which helped to refine connectivity
requirements, used Metro's regional travel demand forecasting model to
compare the results for varying levels of street connectivity in five neigh-
Chapter 2. The Debate 15
borhoods in the Portland area. The study defined connectivity as the num-
ber of intersections per mile of arterial streets. It did not evaluate the per-
formance of the transportation system for modes other than personal ve-
hicles. In each neighborhood, the study varied the street layout in the model
to achieve low, medium, and high numbers of connections per mile (rang-
ing from six to 20), using existing highways and natural features as con-
straints where necessary.
The study found that medium and high levels of connectivity improved
traffic flow on arterials. Overall, vehicle hours of delay, vehicle miles trav-
eled, and average trip lengths declined in each area: when connectivity
increased from low to medium levels, delay dropped by an average of 14
percent while both vehicle miles traveled and average trip length fell by an
average of 2 percent. Traffic volumes approaching key intersections also
declined by 10 percent. Results for individually selected segments of par-
ticular arterials were mixed, but, on average, traffic volumes decreased by
9 percent when connectivity increased from low to medium. The research-
ers attribute the mixed results to the fact that local trips made up a very
small percentage of total traffic on arterials at the start, on average about 4
percent for the low-connectivity scenario. The one study area that did have
a substantial amount of local traffic on its selected links (13 percent in the
low scenario) showed the largest decreases-about 50 percent-in the pro-
portion of local traffic as connectivity increased.
Portland Metro's results also suggest that greater connectivity could have
negative impacts on both residential streets and on arterials. Although the
model predicted that most longer-distance traffic would remain on the ar-
terials, it showed some use of local streets to bypass congested intersec-
tions and/ or arterial sections when doing so yielded equal or better travel
times. In addition, the researchers noted that arterials might lose some ca-
pacity due to the increased number of intersections. However, they found
evidence that might suggest decreased arterial traffic volumes could im-
prove travel times for through traffic even with more intersections. In all
cases, the model found that a moderate level of connectivity yielded greater
improvements per connection than the high level. The researchers inter-
preted this result to mean that the optimal level of connectivity falls in the
range of 10 to 16 connections per mile (one connection every 330 to 530
feet) for local and arterial streets. Additional connections beyond this range
yielded diminishing returns in traffic improvements.
These studies have not adequately addressed the possibility that an in-
crease in connectivity will increase the frequency of trips. Other research-
ers have offered theoretical and empirical support for this possibility. Us-
ing economic theory, Randall Crane (1996a) examined the likely impact of
grid networks on vehicle travel; he concluded that grids would tend to
increase car trips and that, as a result, total vehicle travel could also in-
crease, even if trip lengths decreased. Susan Handy (1996) found evidence
in a study of neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area that improved
accessibility can lead to greater trip frequencies. Her findings suggest that
if a grid network reduces travel distances to destinations like supermar-
kets and shopping malls, it will tend to increase the frequency of trips to
those destinations and may increase total travel. Reid Ewing and Robert
Cervero (2001) completed a comprehensive review of studies that tested
the link between street networks and vehicle travel and concluded that the
evidence is inconclusive. Given the ambiguities of the impact of connectiv-
ity on total vehicle travel, it is safer to assume that reductions in traffic on
arterials will result from changes in route choice.
However, changes in route choice may create additional problems. If
traffic is declining on the arterials but not declining overall, it must be in-
In all cases, the model
found that a moderate
level of connectivity
yielded greater
improvements per
connection than the
high level.
16 Planning for Street Connectivity
High connectivity may reduce
traffic on arterials but will do
so only at the cost of
increasing traffic on
residential streets. The
challenge for communities is
to find an appropriate
balance between these
potentially competing goals.
creasing on residential streets. With high levels of connectivity, the traffic
on residential streets may be sufficiently dispersed that the impact on any
one street is negligible. However, high levels of connectivity increase the
opportunities for cut-through traffic-traffic that passes through the neigh-
borhood but does not originate there or stop there. The Metro study, for
example, provides evidence of the widely observed tendency of drivers to
cut through neighborhoods to avoid congested intersections on arterials.
As the previous chapter discussed, street standards for curvilinear subdi-
visions effectively reduced connectivity for the explicit purpose of reduc-
ing through traffic on residential streets, and many cities with grids added
barriers and diverters for the same purpose.
Citizens have often expressed concern over cut-through traffic that might
result from increased connectivity. A message posted on the Transporta-
tion for Livable Communities listserve (TLC-net) in June 2002 exemplifies
the concerns of residents over attempts to increase connectivity in existing
neighborhoods:
We have approximately 40 homes for sale and/ or replacing renters on just
two streets in our historic neighborhood, many more turning over nearby,
and thousands more trips being added [due to increases in connectivity]
right away despite the obvious blighting and disinvestments. They are
killing this part of town with traffic connectivity. Do other cities have a
mechanism to limit the cut-through problems once the streets are
connected?
Residents may also express concern over crime. They may fear that in-
creased connectivity provides potential criminals with easy access to a
neighborhood, where they are unlikely to be noticed because of the con-
stant flow of nonresidents through the area. Multiple points of access also
mean multiple escape routes for criminals, residents may argue. At least a
handful of communities, including Los Angeles and Houston, have used
barriers and diverters on residential streets to decrease connectivity in the
interest of reducing crime (Handy 2003; Elizer and Lalani 1994). But others
have countered that connectivity aids police pursuit of criminal suspects
fleeing on foot who can more easily escape law enforcement in an area
with dead-ends or cul-de-sacs (e.g., Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Coun-
cil of Governments 2001). Empirical evidence on street connectivity and
property crime rates is currently lacking. However, several studies have
compared crime rates with measures of the fear of crime within gated com-
munities and within non-gated communities. Three separate studies found
no decrease in crime rates in neighborhoods with gates or street barricades
(Blakely and Snyder 1997; Fowler and Mangione 1986; Wilson-Doenges
2000), but one study found a significant reduction in the rate of property
crimes (Atlas and LeBlanc 1994). However, these studies also show that
residents of gated or barricaded neighborhoods generally feel safer whether
or not they actually are safer.
What all of these issues suggest is that high connectivity may reduce
traffic on arterials but will do so only at the cost of increasing traffic on
residential streets. The challenge for communities is to find an appropriate
balance between these potentially competing goals. Techniques to reduce
the impacts of traffic on residential streets, including narrower streets and
other traffic calming approaches, can help communities achieve this
balance.
FACILITATE NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL
Another potential benefit of greater connectivity is an increase in
nonmotorized travel. Proponents argue that shorter travel distances re-
Chapter 2. The Debate 17
suIting from higher connectivity will encourage walking and bicycling, and,
because of shorter walking distances to bus or rail stops, will also increase
the attractiveness of transit. If so, additional benefits will accrue to the com-
munity. For example, public health officials are increasingly concerned with
the poor physical condition of American youth and the growing rates of
obesity in the population as a whole. In order to increase physical activity,
they argue, communities must be designed to facilitate walking and bicy-
cling (e.g., Frumkin 2002). Other proponents point to the damaging envi-
ronmental consequences of automobile dependence or to the social ineq-
uity that results in communities with few transportation alternatives to the
car (e.g., Nadis and MacKenzie 1993). Finally, a growing number of propo-
nents point to the pernicious effects auto dependence has upon the social
fabric of communities as reason enough to increase connectivity and oth-
erwise redesign suburban development (e.g., Duany et a1. 2000).
Yet the available empirical evidence on the impact of street connectivity
on walking and bicycling is ambiguous. Few studies have focused on the
street network specifically; instead, most have examined the link between
travel behavior and a variety of neighborhood characteristics, including
the street network, land-use patterns, and design characteristics. In addi-
tion, these studies have focused primarily on the question of whether neigh-
borhood characteristics can reduce levels of automobile use rather than on
whether neighborhood characteristics can increase walking and bicycling.
This distinction is important: it is possible that neighborhood characteris-
tics like street connectivity increase walking and bicycling without decreas-
ing automobile use. In other words, street connectivity has the potential to
generate additional trips in all modes.
Limited research, however, has not yet shown that this potential has been
realized. Ewing and Cervero (2001, 100) conclude that flit is hard to say
which modes gain relative advantage as networks become more gridlike,
let alone to predict the impacts that this may have on travel decisions."
Other studies have found that rates of walking to retail areas are higher in
traditional neighborhoods than in newer suburban neighborhoods, but the
determining factor was distance to the store rather than the street network
per se (Handy 1996; Handy and Clifton 2001). The interconnected networks
found in traditional neighborhoods helped to reduce distances but did not
guarantee that a store would be within walking distance, these researchers
found. This finding points to the importance of land-use planning in con-
junction with connectivity requirements.
PROVIDING GREATER EMERGENCY ACCESS AND
IMPROVING SERVICE EFFICIENCY
Emergency medical service, trash collectors, police, and other municipal
service providers have been strong supporters of greater connectivity. One
issue in particular binds the group: the cul-de-sac. Dispatch practices for
emergency services typically determine the order in which the vehicles
arrive, but on cul-de-sacs, the first vehicle on the scene is blocked in by
subsequent arrivals (West and Lowe 1997, 50). Trash collectors and police
also find that the" doubling back" or "dead heading" that occurs on dead
ends adds time and cost to their service. All service providers find discon-
tinuous transportation networks difficult to navigate. Greater connectivity
can help to improve the quality and efficiency of emergency and other
municipal services.
While emergency providers like greater connectivity, they may not nec-
essarily like the narrower street standards that may accompany it. In fact,
minimum required street widths have crept up over time in part to accom-
modate larger emergency vehicles. As discussed in the next chapter, most
Greater connectivity can
help to improve the quality
and efficiency of emergency
and other municipal
services. While emergency
providers like greater
connectivity, they may not
necessarily like the narrower
street standards that may
accompany it.
18 Planning for Street Connectivity
The traditional gridiron and
the conventional curvilinear
street pattern both have
strengths and weaknesses.
The best of both may be
achievable through hybrid
street patterns that provide
greater connectivity but avoid
clear, fast routes for non-local
traffic to cut through
residential neighborhoods.
cities that have adopted connectivity ordinances have also changed their
codes to enable or require narrower streets. To address concerns over nar-
rower streets, Portland, Oregon, tested different street widths in older neigh-
borhoods to determine the minimum width necessary to provide what they
considered an acceptable level of accessibility for fire trucks, which was
found to be 18 feet (Bray and Rhodes 1997). Also, the city's requirement of
either two access points or short cul-de-sacs made the Portland Fire De-
partment comfortable with narrower street standards. The guidelines for
narrower streets published by the American Society of Civil Engineers,
National Association of Home Builders, and the Urban Land Institute
(ASCE et al. 1990) will likely encourage more cities to adopt narrower street
standards, whether or not they adopt connectivity ordinances.
THE ROLE OF STREET WIDTHS
Street widths play an important role in the debate over street connectivity.
As noted above and discussed in the following chapter, most cities that
have adopted street connectivity ordinances have also reduced minimum
required street widths and rights-of-way. The reasons for adopting these
narrower standards are twofold: to improve the quality of life in the com-
munity and to reduce the potential cost of connectivity requirements for
developers.
The community potentially benefits in several ways from narrower street
standards (Ewing 1996). Narrow streets tend to discourage through traffic
by promoting slower speeds. By reducing speeds and reducing traffic, they
may also increase the attractiveness of walking and bicycling. They like-
wise help to ensure that the connectivity standard does not increase im-
pervious cover and its negative impacts on water quality and neighbor-
hood aesthetics. As Jim West and Allen Lowe show,
[a]n interconnected street system has the potential disadvantage of increas-
ing impervious surface area. However, a trial application of the new stan-
dards to an existing subdivision showed an actual reduction in paved area.
Although the linear feet of street increased, both street paving and side-
walk paving decreased, resulting in an overall decrease in impervious sur-
face of 16 percent. (West and Lowe 1997,49)
From the developer's standpoint, narrower street standards help to mini-
mize the expense that will likely result from the increase in linear feet of
street that a connectivity ordinance may necessitate. The amount of space
devoted to streets is especially important to developers, both because street
pavement costs them money and because street space does not produce
revenues. Narrower streets may also ensure that the number of lots in a
subdivision does not declinE;' when a developer meets higher connectivity
requirements. As discussed further in Chapter 4, narrower street standards
may thus prove essential to the successful implementation of connectivity
standards.
CONCLUSIONS
The traditional gridiron and the conventional curvilinear street pattern both
have strengths and weaknesses. The best of both may be achievable through
hybrid street patterns that provide greater connectivity but avoid clear,
fast routes for non-local traffic to cut through residential neighborhoods
(Ewing 1996). While much of the discussion of street layout seems to com-
pare the extremes of strict gridirons versus pure cul-de-sac neighborhoods,
it is important to remember that these two extremes are not the only choices.
The cities and towns presented in this report emphasize connectivity with-
out requiring strict adherence to a rigid, unwavering grid. All have provi-
Gapter 2. Tile Debate 19
sions that allow cul-de-sacs where natural or built features prevent con-
nections. None prohibit streets from curving but instead, to varying de-
grees, encourage street patterns that avoid long, straight, uninterrupted
routes that might invite cut-through traffic. The goal of these jurisdictions
is to increase connectivity without significantly increasing through traffic
in residential areas, and their provisions strive to achieve an appropriate
balance between these competing objectives.
Chapter 3. Street Connectivity ill Practice 45
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERSECTION SPACING
AND CUL-DE-SACS
Are Max
Max Intersection Are Street Cul-de-Sacs Cul-de-Sac
for Arterials Stubs Required? Allowed? Length (feet)
i "'-<~f~ '''.__~'_"~M^..",_.,_^"
Block-Length (by city) i
Metro, Oregon 530 530 No No 200
(with exceptions)
Portland, Oregon 530 530 Yes No 200
(with exceptions)
Beaverton, Oregon 530 1,000 Yes No 200
(with exceptions
Eugene, Oregon 600 None Yes No 400
(with exceptions)
Fort Collins, Colorado See Note 1 660-1,3202 Yes Limited 660
Boulder, Colorado See Note 3 None Yes Yes, discouraged 600
Huntersville, North Carolina 250-500 No data Yes No 350
(with exceptions)
Cornelius, North Carolina 200-1,320 See note 4 Yes No 250
(with exceptions)
Conover, North Carolina 400-1,200 No data Yes Yes 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 1,5005 No data Yes Yes 400-8006
Connectivity Index (by city)
Cary, North Carolina Index = 1.2 1,250-1,500 Yes Yes 900
Middletown, Delaware Index = 1.4 None Yes Yes, discouraged 1,000
Orlando, Florida' Index = 1.4 None Yes Yes 700 (30 units)
Nof/.'s:
(1) Maximum block size is 7 to 12 acres, depending on zoning district.
(2) Limited movement intersections required every 660 feet; full movement intersections required every 1,320 feet.
(3) Not specified by code, but staff tries to achieve 300 to 350 foot spacing.
(4) Intersection spacings on arterials is regulated by the state Department of Transportation.
(5) Within a Mixed-Use Center, no street block face shall exceed 660 feet in length.
(6) 400 feet in residential areas, 800 feet in commercial areas; Transportation Director may approve up to 101X, longer
(7) Requirements in place for Southeast Sector and under consideration for rest of city.
lar context. However, their efforts are so new that these communities
are still working to develop an effective approach, and they have much
to learn from the experiences of other communities. As experience with
street connectivity ordinance accumulates, clear best practices will likely
emerge.
Techniques for Measuring Connectivity
The communities studied have used two primary approaches to requiring
connectivity. Ten of the 13 communities have established maximum block
lengths and significant restrictions on the use of cul-de-sacs. (In addition,
four of the communities with connectivity standards identified since the
completion of the case studies also use block length requirements.) Typical
block length requirements fall in the range of 300 to 600 feet (although a
few cities allow substantially longer blocks, at least under certain circum-
Cul-de-sacs are usually
restricted to 200 to 300 feet
and are allowed only in
places where connections
would be impractical.
46 Planning for Street Connectivity
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS RELATEO TO
STREET CONNECTIVITYI
Max Spacing
Between Bike/Ped
Connections (feet)
Are Private Are Gated
Streets Allowed? Streets Allowed?
<28 encouraged See Note 2 See Note 2
See Note 3 Limited No
20-34 Limited No
20-34 Limited Limited
24-36 Limited No
24-36 No No
18-26 No No
18-26 Yes No
22 No No
26 Li m ited Discouraged
Block-Length (by city)
Metro, Oregon
330
Portland, Oregon
330
Beaverton, Oregon
330
Eugene, Oregon
See Note 4
Fort Collins, Colorado
700
Boulder, Colorado
See Note 5
Huntersville, North Carolina
None
Cornelius, North Carolina
None
Conover, North Carolina
None
Raleigh, North Carolina
None
Connectivity Index (by city)
Cary, North Carolina
If Index waived
27
Yes
No
Midd letown, Delaware
No data
24-32
No
No
Orlando, Florida6
None
24 minimum
Yes
No
Notes:
(1) Traffic calming incorporated into connectivity requirements; city may have separate traffic calming program.
(2) Not regulated.
(3) Width must be sufficient to accommodate expected users.
(4) No maximum distance; but each development must have a plan showing pedestrian connections to cul~de-sacs.
(5) No requirements, but staff suggests spacing similar to local streets (300 to 350 feet).
(6) Requirements in place for Southeast Sector and under consideration for rest of city.
stances), and cul-de-sacs are usually restricted to 200 to 300 feet and are
allowed only in places where connections would be impractical. The block
length approach is easily visualized and understood by developers and
residents, and it produces a relatively predictable and evenly distributed
network of streets.
It is important to note that different communities have defined the block
length rule in slightly different ways, Some communities specify the re-
quirement in terms of the length of the block, while others specify the re-
quirement in terms of the spacing of intersections or connections. The ef-
fect is essentially the same, but the exact measurements may vary
depending on the width of streets and rights-of-way. The codes often do
not specify exactly how these dimensions are measured, although several
options exist (Tracy 2003). Eugene, for example, defined its requirement in
terms of block length, measured as the distance between centerlines for
intersecting streets. McKinney (an excerpt of whose code is included in
Appendix B) measures block length as the distance from curb face to curb
face of intersecting streets. The length of a given block under the Eugene
rules will be longer than under the McKinney rules because it includes the
width of the intersecting streets. A variation on the block length or inter-
section spacing requirement is block size, measured as width by length (as
in Conover), number of acres (as in Fort Collins), or block perimeter (as in
The Greater Iowa City Area
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Advocates for homeownership by promoting
standards for quality and affordability.
Proposed City of Iowa City Subdivision Ordinance Analysis
Prepared by: The Land Development Council
Date: 5/31/07
1
Subdivision Ordinance Recommendation Goals
1. Streamline the plat review and approval process and ensure government
accountability and responsiveness.
2. Eliminate unnecessary requirements and vague language that fails to provide
guidance and exposes applicants to arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement.
3. Require good governing practices by requiring the City to be financially
accountable for public improvements.
4. Ensure that the new Subdivision Code affords property owners the greatest
amount of flexibility and creativity by eliminating unnecessary or arbitrary limits.
5. Honor the community's commitment to workforce housing by eliminating
excessive and unnecessary costs increases.
2
Subdivision Analvsis
General Subdivision Provisions
Definitions
15-1-3
Alley: Delete the word "abutting".
Street, Private: Delete the last sentence. The Iowa City Community School District or
similar governmental entity may own a private street.
CHAPTER 2. Plats and Platting Procedures
Submission Requirements
15-2-1(B) (4)
Recommendations: Delete "ponds" and "rock outcroppings" from subparagraph (4) and
delete subparagraph (5) in its entirety.
Analysis: Neither ponds or rock outcroppings are covered under any City ordinance as a
protected sensitive area (unlike wetlands, streams, wooded areas, etc.). Thus, there is no
reason to require these features to be delineated on a concept plan.
Subparagraph (B)(4) can be removed for many of the reasons outlined below in the plat
review and approval analysis. In short, these types of vague, catch-all categories lead to
frustration and the potential for inconsistent and arbitrary regulations.
Review of Concept Plan
15-2-1(C)
Recommendations: Include language providing for one required staff review. Any
further review is at the discretion of the applicant who may choose to proceed directly to
the preliminary plat phase. Secondly, all departments reviewing the plan must provide
their written comments to the applicant within 20 business days.
Preliminary Plat
15-2-2 (A) (3)
Recommendations: Include language providing for one mandatory staff review. Any
further review is at the discretion of the applicant who may choose in the alternative to
petition the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Secondly, all departments
reviewing the plan must provide their written comments to the applicant within 20
business days. Lastly, any code deficiencies shall be clearly cited to the corresponding
existing City code or ordinance provision.
15-2-2 (D) (3)
Recommendations: Delete language prohibiting plats proceeding to Planning and
Zoning with more than 6 deficiencies. Add language clearly indicating the relevant City
code provisions any such code deficiencies cited in the staff report are based upon.
4
Final Plat
15-2-3(A) (3)
Recommendations: Include language providing for one mandatory staff review. Any
further review is at the discretion of the applicant who may choose in the alternative to
petition the City Council for a hearing. Secondly, all departments reviewing the plan
must provide their written comments to the applicant within 20 business days. Lastly,
any deficiencies shall be clearly cited to the corresponding existing City code or
ordinance.
Analysis: The analysis for the preceding four recommendations regarding plat review
and approvals is largely similar. The plat review and approval process has become one of
the most frustrating and expensive variables in land development. It is not unusual for
delays to run as long as 6 months to a year or more in some circumstances. This of
course can have a dramatic impact on the cost of a subdivision plan as applicants face the
devastating possibility of missing entire construction seasons.
Though subdivision code requirements are very stringent in some circumstances, the
greatest source of frustration often is not with the underlying code but rather when the
City makes demands that have no foundation in the applicable codes or possess a dubious
relation at best.
A common perception within the industry is that City officials often make exactions that
are based more in personal preference rather than legal requirements. Additionally, it is
not uncommon to receive comments from multiple City departments about a variety of
matters at different times well beyond the 20 day requirement. To further complicate
matters, applicants often are presented with new and/or additional issues from multiple
City departments after having already conducted multiple meetings. As one would
expect, this makes it very difficult and frustrating when an applicant is working to make
the necessary changes and prepare all appropriate paperwork and documentation. It is in
the best interest of both the City and the applicant to have these matters addressed and
resolved as early in the process as possible.
For these reasons, we believe it advantageous to have one required staff review for
concept plans, preliminary and final plats. After this review, all departments should be
required to have their comments, be it regarding the concept plan, preliminary plat,
construction plans and so forth, submitted to the applicant within 20 business days. This
is recommended because it will make all parties focus to address the truly outstanding
matters and require full disclosure upfront which is to everyone's benefit. After this
initial mandatory staff review, the applicant should have the right to either petition the
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council depending on the appropriate plat, or
alternatively, they can opt to continue with the staffreview. The key is that after the
initial required meeting, it is at the property owner's discretion as to the need and benefit
of continuing with the staff review.
The second matter to address is the notion of "deficiencies" or "complete"ness of
applications as set forth in the amended code. The City is right to set forth a standard of
5
completeness. This provides guidance and direction to what applicants need to do in
order to meet code requirements. However, as mentioned previously, there is a risk that
City officials may demand things that are beyond the requirements of the underlying
Code. Regardless if exactions are being made outside the scope of the Code, we believe
it advisable to require that any deficiencies in an application be directly cited to
applicable code or legal requirement. This change would draw a clear distinction
between those things an applicant is legally bound to do in order for approval and those
matters that are perhaps preferences rather than prerequisites.
In the event a matter cannot be resolved at the staff level, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council are the appropriate bodies to resolve such disputes.
This presumes of course that an applicant has made the decision to forego further staff
review in favor for a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City
Council respectively.
Ultimately, the City should embrace a review procedure that places emphasis on earlier
identification and resolution of issues. The review and approval procedure should make
it clear what is legally required of applicants and empower them with the option of taking
their unresolved disputes to the appropriate citizen's review body and their elected
officials.
Specifications
15-2-3(B) (3)
Recommendations: Either delete this provision or provide additional guidance as to the
purpose and scope.
Analysis: As drafted, the proposed language leaves it ambiguous as to what is meant by
"requested" variations. Final plats often have deviations from the preliminary plat. It is
not uncommon for roads, sidewalks, lot layouts and such to deviate from the approved
final plat. This is due to the fact that the requisite engineering necessary for final plats
has not been conducted when the preliminary plat is approved. As one can imagine, the
number of "variations" can be numerous. However, there are no substantial deviations
from what the approved preliminary plat and that is why final plat approvals are often a
matter of routine. 1
It is difficult to determine what a requested variation is as opposed to what are inevitable
adjustments as a result of the final engineering work. Our first recommendation would
be to remove this section entirely. The concern is that variations, even though
insubstantial or inconsequential, may be used as an excuse to delay or stop a proposed
project. Alternatively, we recommend amending this provision to clarify what a
requested variation means and further, make it absolutely clear that final plats will not be
denied so long as there are no substantial deviations from the preliminary plat.
1 On a related matter, section 15-2-3 (D) requires only administrative review for final plats as opposed to
the current practice of needing Planning and Zoning Commission's approval.
6
CHAPTER 3. Design Standards and Required Improvements
Connectivity of Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails
15-3-2(A)
Recommendations: Retain subparagraph (1) but delete subparagraphs (2), (3), and (4).
Analysis: The Land Development Council recommends deleting subparagraphs (2), (3)
and (4). It is not that we disagree with the intent, but rather because these sections offer
no objective guidance as to what is legally required. To illustrate, subparagraph (3) is
more of a statement of what a proper functioning road system is than a proscriptive
regulation. The danger is that satisfaction of such provisions is entirely subjective. So
while we may agree that road systems should "have a simple and logical pattern" or
"permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic",
there is no regulation that sets forth when that condition is met.
While the intent may have been to increase the inherent flexibility of the amended
Subdivision code, the language of subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) simply do not provide
adequate notice of what an applicant will be legally obligated to do.
The best way to provide flexibility in the Subdivision Code is to retain minimal
restrictions on street layouts and allow land development professionals to design
attractive street patterns in accordance with City engineering standards, the natural
topography of the area and the functionality and character of the project.
Minimum Access Standards
15-3-2(B) (2)
Recommendations: Clarify what the additional "projected traffic generation"
calculations or methodology the City will utilize and rely upon.
Analysis: Clarification of what methodology or calculations will be used in determining
the projected traffic would be beneficial to applicants. It will allow them to anticipate and
plan appropriate traffic management techniques.
Right-of-Way Standards
Table 15-1: Retain current right-of-way standards as sufficient minimums.
Analysis: The amended Subdivision code increases right-of-way requirements by 10 feet
for arterial streets, 6 feet for collector streets, and 10 feet for local streets. Without
commenting on the subjective value of increased right-of-way space, it must be noted the
the increased standards will impact the total amount of developable land. In addition, the
increased amount of right-of-way in conjunction with the increased sidewalk widths in
section 15-3-3 will add cost to projects. Unfortunately, this cost will not be offset through
the proposed reduced street widths.
To illustrate, if a local street is 1,500 feet in length with a width of 26 feet (as opposed to
the current 28 feet), the reduced amount of necessary paving would be approximately 334
7
square yards. At a cost of $25 per yard, this would result in a cost savings of roughly
$8,350. However, when the additional 1 foot of sidewalk on each side is factored in (1 x
15,00 x 2 = 3,000 sq. ft) at a cost of approximately $2.50 per foot, the added expense is
$7,500. The increased sidewalk widths by themselves almost entirely negate any cost
savings and the loss of developable land from the increased right-of-ways has not even
been factored in.
Layout of Blocks and Lots
15-3-2 (G) (3)
Measurements and Construction Standards
Recommendations: Delete language requiring adjacent property owners to maintain
landscaped areas within medians. Insert language making it the responsibility of the City.
Analysis: The Land Development Council is concerned with the City requiring a
homeowner's association to be financially responsible for the maintenance of what is in
the public right-of-way. If the City wishes to require landscaped areas within medians,
then as a matter of good governance and accountability, it should not require a private
entity to bear the cost of a public good.
Street Intersections
15-3-2(H) (5)
Recommendations: Develop specifications for the construction of emergency services
turn-arounds.
Analysis: Currently, there are no City specifications for the construction of emergency
services turn-arounds. The Fire Department simply informs the applicant what it is they
require. These requirements vary from project to project. We recommend the City
establish an objective standard for these turn-arounds.
We would also recommend that these standards be reasonable and adequate only to
accommodate emergency services. These turnarounds are temporary and it makes little
sense to impose costly design and construction standards for something that will
eventually be tom up and removed.
Cost Sharing for street upgrades
15-3-2(L)
Recommendations: Remove required percentages a subdivider must pay for local,
collector and/or arterial street upgrades. Insert language requiring a negotiated agreement.
Analysis: This amended provision provides that a subdivider will be responsible for
100% of necessary street upgrades on local affected local streets, 50% on collector and
25% on arterial; unless the subdivider only owns the property on one side of the road in
which case these amounts are reduced by half.
The LDC appreciates the intent of this amendment and the goal of adding some certainty
to the cost subdivider's will incur for street upgrades. However, what the provision is
8
lacking is any rational limits or criteria on precisely when and to what degree a
subdivider must pay. As drafted, there are no limits to the amount or length of a street a
subdivider could be required to pay to upgrade. For example, a subdivision may only
have an appreciable impact on three blocks of a collector street. However, under the
proposed code, while the applicant may know their cost will only be 50% (or 25%) of the
required upgrades, the extents of those upgrades are unknown.
To illustrate, consider a new subdivision of 50 units that accesses a collector street which
for simplicity will be called "collector street X". Posit that the projected traffic shows an
appreciable impact on primarily four blocks of collector street X and that this impact is
agreed upon by both the City and the applicant. Under the proposed language, an
applicant knows they will have to pay for up to 50% of the upgrades. However, they
have no idea how many miles or blocks of upgrades will be required. It is easy to see
how such a scenario could at best result in significant over-investment and at worst,
completely sink a proposed project.
Currently, road upgrades are a negotiated process between the applicant and City officials
with no set percentages. We recommend maintaining this practice.
Sidewalks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connections
15-3-3 (C)
Recommendations: Delete "at its discretion, will" and insert "shall". Additionally,
delete the clause "or collect the estimated cost of the 5 foot sidewalk from the developer
and apply said cost to construction of an 8 foot sidewalk by the City."
Analysis: This provision provides for an 8 foot sidewalk on one side of an arterial street.
It goes on to provide discretion as to when the City shall pay for excess pavement costs
by either direct compensation to the subdivider or collect a fee from the developer and
apply that amount towards the construction of the sidewalk.
First, while an 8 foot sidewalk may afford easier pedestrian traffic, it cannot be said that
it is a necessity. That this is more of a luxury is recognized in the Code by the fact that
the City may pay for the increased pavement costs. We recommend that the City be
financially responsible for the excess three feet of pavement when it is required.
15-3-3(G)
Recommendations: Define what a "mid-block pedestrian connection" is.
Analysis: This section requires a "mid-block pedestrian connection" between adjacent
streets for blocks longer than 600 feet. Unfortunately, we do not know what is meant by
a mid-block pedestrian connection. We think it necessary that these be clearly defined
and a cost assessment be conducted and the public be provided an opportunity to respond
prior to this section going into effect.
9
Layout of Block and Lots
15-3-4(A) Blocks
Recommendations: Delete subparagraph (l) in its entirety. Amend subparagraph (2) to
allow for current maximum block lengths of2000 feet. Amend subparagraph (3) to allow
for current minimum block lengths along arterial streets. In subparagraph (4), delete
"900 feet" length standard and insert" 1 000 feet".
Analysis: This new section sets forth recommended block lengths for residential and
commercial construction. In general, all block lengths have been shortened. More
specifically, subparagraph (2) states that block faces along local and collector streets
should (emphasis added) range between 300 and 600 feet in length". There are a number
of concerns with how this provision is drafted.
First, as drafted this is not a requirement but a recommendation. As such, it is at the
discretion of the City of when blocks will have to adhere to this standard. Secondly, a
600 foot maximum is generally not feasible for commercial and industrial development.
Likewise, under subparagraph (4), a 900 foot maximum is insufficient for housing on a
cul-de-sac. The City may not desire cul-de-sac development but they remain a popular
and attractive option of housing choice. Further, it is out belief that a 600 foot maximum
block length will require an increased number of streets; a potentially dramatic increase
in the cost of a project.
The issue is not whether shorter block lengths are attractive or wanted, the issue is
whether such a decreased limit is appropriate or warranted. We believe the better solution
is to afford the greatest flexibility in the Code. Thus, we endorse the 300 foot block
length as a minimum but believe the current maximum of 2000 feet should be retained.
This will allow for the purpose, the character, the goals and the topography of the land
and development design to determine the most suitable block length.
We would also encourage the City to consider what impact and affect shorter block
lengths will have in conjunction with increased right-of-way standards, setback
requirements and other residential development standards of Title 14 the Zoning Code.
Lots
15-3-4 (B) (7)
Recommendations: Delete subparagraph (7) in its entirety.
Analysis: Subparagraph (7) is unnecessary. Under the Neighborhood Open Space
ordinance section 14-5K-3 (5), public access easements are already required. 2
Of additional and perhaps greater concern is that subparagraph (7) contains a vague semi-
regulation by stating that subdivision layouts where public open space is "surrounded by
private lots that back up to the public open space are discouraged." It must first be noted
that "surrounded" is not clearly defined. It is open to interpretation what surrounded
means in application. Further, this is another instance of vague language that provides no
2 Under Article 14-5K, Greenways and Trails require a 20 foot easement and a 50 foot easement for Parks.
10
notice as to what is prohibited and what is permitted; which leaves unresolved the issue
of when such layouts will be accepted and when they will not and further, what criteria
will be used when the City makes that determination.
Additionally, this language would prohibit the most attractive lots in a majority of
residential subdivisions. Lots that abut open spaces are, for obvious reasons, often the
most highly-valued. We do not believe this is a necessary or appropriate regulatory
action.
Provisions to Minimize the Effect of Highway Noise
15-3-4(C)
Recommendations: Delete subparagraphs (1) and (3) in their entirety. Retain
subparagraph (2). Alternatively, amend subparagraphs (1) and (3) from a "300 foot"
buffer to a "100 foot" buffer.
Analysis: This new section prohibits any residential structures within 300 feet of
Interstate 80 and Highway 218. This does not include accessory structures and yard
space. It further requires a mixture of vegetation be planted in the 300 foot buffer area
per the City Forester's guidelines. Subparagraph (2) allows a reduction of the 300 foot
buffer (subject to the City's approval) if a subdivider "constructs an earthen berm,
decorative wall, or other similar structure" achieves a noise reduction level of no more
than 60 dBA.
The LDC understands the need for an adequate buffer area and noise reduction measures
when building residential structures along traffic intensive roadways such as 1-80 and
Highway 218. Our concern is that the 300 foot buffer is excessive and will remove an
appreciable portion of developable land out of the City's remaining land stock and
contribute to the growing challenge of providing an adequate supply of quality workforce
housing.
Our recommendation is twofold. First, define what a 60 dBA standard is and what that
entails. Secondly, assuming the 60 dBA standard can be reasonably achieved without
imposing extraordinary costs on housing, the City should require a 100 foot buffer with
the appropriate vegetation for noise reduction.
Neighborhood Open Space
15-3-4
Recommendations: Incentivize and reward subdividers who voluntarily create open
space by providing credits towards the required fee-in-lieu.
Analysis: Under the current system, developers can voluntarily create open space for
subdivisions. However, because of maintenance and budgets concerns, the City often
does not want to accept these open spaces. This is understandable. However, this
scenario can acts as a disincentive to the voluntary creation of open space as a developer
is still required to pay the necessary fee-in-lieu under Article 14-5K.
11
We recommend that developers and subdividers that voluntarily create open space have
the value of that land credited towards satisfying their fee-in-lieu amount. This would
reward developers for creating a valuable neighborhood benefit and lead to more open
space.
Energy and Communications Distribution Systems
15-3-6
Recommendations: This entire section should be removed.
Analysis: While this section may have been included for ease of reference, it is
unnecessary and risks leading to unnecessary confusion or conflict with Chapter 16-2,
Public Utilities and Use of Right of Way. The development community takes its
direction from the utility companies as to the location and size of necessary easements.
Sanitary Sewers
15-3-7(A)
Recommendations: Delete the words "and beyond, as necessary".
Analysis: These words should be deleted for the simple reason that the applicant often
does not own the property beyond their proposed subdivision and therefore cannot grant
the necessary easement. A possible alternative to consider is the granting of the
easement(s) in combination with a reasonable escrow to complete the required
extensions.
Sanitary Sewers and Water Systems
15-3-7(C) and 15-3-9(B)
Recommendations: Delete "at its discretion" and insert "shall".
Analysis: (see analysis under "Off-site Costs for Public Improvements").
Clustered Mailboxes
15-3-10
Recommendations: Delete subparagraphs (B) and (C).
Analysis: The U.S. Postal Service has begun to require subdivisions C0nstruct a cluster
of mailboxes. Currently, developers and subdividers work with the Post Office in
locating and constructing these clusters taking into consideration the street layout, density
and other pertinent features. As such, subparagraphs (B) and (C) are unnecessary and
may in fact conflict with what the Post Office requires. This matter is best addressed
between the developer and the Postal Service.
Specifications
15-3-12(B)
Recommendations: Delete subparagraph (B).
12
Analysis: This section is unnecessary as construction plans and specifications as well as
erosion control plans are already a required component of final plat review and approvals.
Off-site Costs for Public Improvements
15-3-14(C)
Recommendations: Delete "at its discretion, may" and insert "shall".
Analysis: The issue for off-site public improvement costs is identical to sanitary sewers
and water systems; where the City requires an applicant to build a public good that is
greater than what is necessary to service what is necessary for their project, the City bears
the responsibility to pay for that good. This is a matter of good governance and
accountability.
Further, we believe requiring applicants to build public infrastructure unrelated to their
project without compensation is essentially a tax and therefore, an impermissible impact
fee under Iowa law. 3
3 In Home Builders Association of Greater Des Moines vs. City of West Des Moines, the Iowa Supreme
Court held that the City of West Des Moines could not charge builders a fee in connection with subdivision
approval and building permit issuance, when the fees were deposited into a sub-fund of the general fund
and used by the City for park site acquisition and physical improvements. Home Builders Association of
Greater Des Moines vs. City of West Des Moines, 644 N.W. 2d 339 (Iowa 2002). The Court found such a
charge was an impact fee and that Iowa law does not authorize cities to charge impact fees or excise taxes.
Moreover, the Court found that the fee could not be justified under the City's police power because it was
not a fee charged to recover the administrative expenses incurred by the City, nor was it a fee charged in
connection with a special benefit conferred by the City.
13
1000 Friends of Iowa
Karen Howard
City of Iowa City
Department of Planning and Community Development
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
May 21, 2007
Dear Ms. Howard:
My name is Stephanie Weisenbach and I am writing you on behalf of 1000 Friends of Iowa. Our mission
is to promote responsible development that conserves and protects our agricultural and natural resources;
revitalizes our neighborhoods, towns, and cities; and improves the quality of life for future generations.
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the draft subdivision ordinance for the City of
Iowa City. Thank you for soliciting our feedback during this time in your policy-making process. The
City ofIowa City is making some important steps for advancing smart growth principles through this
code revision.
1000 Friends of Iowa is in the midst of a Des Moines Metropolitan Area Smart Growth Project and
making recommendations to local governments about changes to their codes. In the near future, we will
have more model ordinances on hand to reference in our recommendations to cities. We'll keep you
informed as we expand that area of our programs.
Several changes in the draft revision you provided directly correspond to smart growth principles in the
design of subdivisions.
. Section 15-3-2, A 4: We commend the city for avoiding the use of cul-de-sacs and hope the final
code revision and implementation will reflect more restrictions for cul-de-sacs than you currently
have today. Cul-de-sacs often result in decreased street connectivity, lower density housing
developments, challenges for using walking or biking as a means of transportation, and a
detriment to an efficient grid pattern of the roadway network.
. Section 15-3-2, I: Traffic calming features should be encouraged such as the examples you listed
in the revision of this section. Additionally, public input in the zoning and platting process with
the Planning and Zoning Commission is one of the most effective means of identifying the needs
for traffic-calming features in the community.
. Section 15-3-3: Requiring sidewalks and trail infrastructure in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan will provide positive benefits to the community.
1000 Fri~ml\l ()fT()w~
iR"iO M~rI~ H~v R()~n #hO"i
l)~\l M()in~\l T()w~ "iOi 1 0 "i 1 "i-?RR-"iih4
· Section 15-3-4, B 4 b: Requiring the landscaping buffer in new developments is a positive
change. We also encourage the city to use innovative ways of using landscaping and conservation
design, including native vegetation and swales where appropriate in site plans.
· Section 15-3-5, A: The dedication and increased accessibility of open space will provide great
amenities to new neighborhoods and environmental benefits. We ask the city to keep the language
regarding sensitive areas in open spaces, as we believe that sensitive areas should be preserved
both as a neighborhood amenity and for environmental benefits. We are concerned about the
striking of this language.
We have concerns regarding public involvement and an open public process, which we see as being
negatively affected by the following proposed change in Section 15-2-3, D:
· This section would eliminate involvement, approval or disapproval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in the final plat. We feel the Planning and Zoning Commission, not staff, should be
the body to make the decision prior to the City Council. Staff recommendations and involvement
is essential, but should not replace the Commission's decision.
· Approval of preliminary and final plats can involve a process of negotiation with the public's
presence and input to the Planning and Zoning Commission. That negotiation can lead to publicly
acceptable outcomes, neighborhood designs that reflect smart growth, and benefits to the
community.
· Issues such as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly design, protections for sensitive areas, landscaping,
and buffers from conflicting neighboring uses can be addressed through the platting process in this
open format with the Planning and Zoning Commission. We encourage the city to eliminate that
revision and maintain a final plat approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you again for considering our comments to the revision of the Iowa City subdivision ordinance.
Feel free to contact us about any feedback you may have on these or clarifications you may have. We look
forward to following the process as it continues in the revision of this ordinance, and may have more
comments as the process continues. Please keep us posted, especially about any public input meetings the
city intends to hold.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Weisenbach
Program Coordinator
P.S. We encourage you to check out some important resources on codes and smart growth. The first is
the final report on the Des Moines Metropolitan Smart Growth Audit, and information contained in the
report may be useful to your city. Another resource is an ongoing update to the American Planning
Association website about model smart growth codes and can be found at
http://www . plann ing. org/ smartgrowthcodes/
1 000 Fripnn~ of Tow::!
1R'i0 Mprlp H::!v Ro::!n #(\O'i
np~ Moinp~ Tow::! 'i011 0 'i 1 'i-?RR-'i1(\4
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 17,2008-7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean
Shannon, Charles Eastham
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Robert Brooks, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Tim Weitzel, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT: Cecile Kuenzli, Eric Gidal, Judith Pascoe, Claire Sponsler,
Jeanalie Swan
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL (to become effective only after separate
Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-1 (Eastham in the negative, Brook and Smith
absent). An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the Historic Preservation
Plan, which contains policies and recommendations for the identification, preservation
and regulation of historic landmarks, properties and neighborhoods.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the 2007 Historic Preservation
Plan, which contains policies and recommendations for the identification, preservation
and regulation of historic landmarks, properties and neighborhoods.
Miklo discussed the ways in which the wording of the Historic Preservation Plan had
been changed to better represent the intent of the Neighborhood Stabilization proposal.
He advised the Commission that they were being asked if the Plan should be
incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan to guide the City Council, Planning
and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, and
the Parks and Recreation Commission in their dealing with historic properties.
Eastham questioned the Commission's role in considering amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. Greenwood said the bylaws contain information about the
Commission's role in amending the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham asked if it was
Greenwood's view if the Council could amend the Comprehensive Plan without the
recommendation of the Commission. She said modifications to the Plan begin with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Miklo added that if the Commission does not make a
recommendation, or recommends against an amendment to the Council, it takes a super
majority for the Council to amend the Plan.
Eastham asked Staff the revised language to objective ten of the Plan, specifically the
description of a home ownership incentive program. He asked if it was the Staff's opinion
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008
Page 2
that an increase in owner-occupied properties would result in a decrease in rental
properties in already established neighborhoods. Miklo said that might be the case.
Eastham also asked about the availability of the Housing and Community Development
Vision TARP housing survey, and Miklo said it was not yet publicly available, but he
would make it available once the report was finalized and reproducible.
Public discussion was opened.
Cecile Kuenzli, 705 S. Summit Street, said the evening's discussion reminded her of a
conversation she had years ago when citizens of Iowa City were just beginning to think
about historic preservation. Kuenzli said Marlys Svendsen said, "Folks, you've got to
realize historic preservation starts with the zoning. You can't save anything if the zoning
isn't correct." Kuenzli mentioned that while the bookstore recently, she was glancing
through a book, "A Thousand Places to See Before You Die," and while it cited Iowa
locales including the Villages of Van Buren and Amana, it did not include Iowa City. She
said Iowa City needs the Plan to help save some of what it has left before it is all gone.
Eric Gidal, 328 Brown Street, said he saw historic preservation and affordable housing
as going hand-in-hand because he sees the way to create affordable housing is to
maintain the vitality of a city, and to invest in ways of creating affordable housing within
neighborhoods in which people want to live. He said if the City does not create the
legislation to protect the City's historic neighborhoods, it would hasten the effects of
urban decay, and the downgrading of the downtown area and inner neighborhoods.
Judith Pascoe, 317 Fairchild Street, said she has lived in Goosetown for several years
and now lives in the Northside and is the coordinator for the Northside Neighborhood
Association. She said she agreed with the revised wording of the Plan, and thought that
it didn't alienate any members of historic neighborhoods-owners, renters, or landlords.
She acknowledged Eastham's concern over a potential decrease in lower cost
apartments, but said she felt the Plan was necessary to attempt some sort of counter
balance with the economic market forces to convert houses into rentals, or tear them
down and build apartment buildings. She also mentioned that many times landlords of
rental properties in historic neighborhoods are not locals, maybe not even be Iowans,
and as a result, there is often not a lot of incentive for them to invest time and money
into the upkeep of the property, which results in the property's decline at a faster rate
than the surrounding area.
Claire Sponsler, 413 Gilbert Street, said she saw the Plan as an opportunity for good
planning and good government to make a difference, and provide a blueprint for the
City's future.
Ginalie Swaim, 1024 Woodlawn Avenue, reminded the Commission about the positive
effect historic conservation districts could have by citing the aftermath of the tornado.
She said many of the properties towards the end of Iowa Avenue are rentals, but
because of the conservation district in that area, landlords were required to rebuild
according to certain standards, and now the area is in better shape than it was before
the storm.
Freerks closed public discussion and opened discussion to the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008
Page 3
Eastham asked if the Commission would consider postponing the vote until the next
meeting when more Commission members would be present. He said he would like to
have the Council receive the benefit of all Commission members vote before it gets sent
on. Miklo reported that Terry Smith said he will be on vacation at the time of the next
meeting. Freerks said the decision to defer would be up to the Commission. Koppes said
she felt the Commission had discussed the matter enough.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
to include the Historic Preservation Plan with the amended language pertaining to Goal
10 Neighborhood Strategies that was present in the memo from Weitzel and Miklo.
Dean seconded the motion.
Eastham offered an additional amendment to modify to Goal 10 (pages 63-66) of the
Plan. He said his concerns centered on language in the Plan that reached beyond
historic neighborhoods and into older neighborhoods in general. He said he did not think
the Plan was a good place to do general neighborhood stabilization. Freerks said she
thought the intent of the Plan was to focus on historic and conservation districts and
neighborhoods, and asked for specific areas where Eastham felt the wording was
inaccurate. He quoted areas in the plan where "older residential neighborhoods" were
referenced. Weitzel said the intent of the wording, in such instances, would be irrelevant,
because the Historic Preservation Commission can't act until an area is a historic or
conservation district.
Plahutnik said it was important to acknowledge the natural progression of a
neighborhood from simply a place with some older homes, into an area that people
recognize the value of, and want to preserve. He said he felt the language of "older
residential neighborhoods" acknowledged the value of such places and left the door
open for those places to transition into a historic or conservation district at some point in
the future. He said Eastham's focus on affordable housing was at the loss of city history.
He said there was a need to balance both.
Eastham said he shared Plahutnik's goal of having citizens look back 50 years from now
and appreciate the work the Commission did by carefully drafting a Comprehensive Plan
that includes everybody in the city. Eastham also said he wanted to correct the
perception that he was primarily interested in affordable housing, but rather that he was
interested in continuing housing opportunities for all members of the community-
including owners and renters. Eastham said, according to his calculations, there are 600
to 700 rental residents within the historic and conservation districts, and those people
makeup a significant percentage of the total residents of those areas. Freerks said she
felt the current language of the Plan was good and that it offered some relief from the
constant pressure to turn property into rentals that close-in areas experience, while at
the same time, fostering healthy neighborhoods.
Eastham said the primary amendment to the amended Plan he would like considered
related to goal ten of the Home Ownership Incentive Program (p. 65-66). He suggested
the program be expanded and redefined so that a wider range or reinvestment programs
could be utilized and directed at existing home ownership, new home ownership,
existing rental ownership, and new rental ownership. Freerks said she was not
interested in exploring the topic, and asked the Commission if there were four people
who would be interested in making such a change. No one expressed interest.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008
Page 4
Eastham questioned Greenwood about using the Home Ownership Incentive Program
as a tool to increase home ownership at the expense of rental units in certain areas in
relation to the legality of the City decreasing rental occupancy in certain neighborhoods.
Greenwood said she didn't see the program as such, and said it was not a direct Land
Use Regulation. She added that there was a large difference between the City regulating
rental occupancy and it being an indirect consequence of a program. Eastham asked if it
was the City's legal department's opinion that what the City could not do through
ordinances, it could do through offering money. Greenwood said that what the
Commission does through creating zones affects land use regulation, and incentivizing
this type of program is a policy.
Miklo gave an example of a similar program in Pennsylvania, near Penn, where the City
had identified an area in need of improvement. He said there is a low-interest loan
program that is funded by the University for owners buying in the area. He said he did
not believe that program, or any similar to it, have been legally challenged.
Koppes and Freerks asked for Eastham to offer a specific amendment. He said he would
like to change the wording of number one of the Home Ownership Incentive Program (p
65) to, "... consider the primary goal for such a program as improvements in historic and
conservation districts where housing conditions indicate a need for additional private and
public investment" (removing language about neighborhood stabilization by encouraging
an increase in owner occupied properties). Freerks asked for a second to support the
language change motion. There was none.
Eastham said he would also like to change the language in point number three to read,
" .. . target the program to renter and owner occupied residences in historic and
conservation districts where housing conditions indicate a need for reinvestment. Design
the program to avoid displacing current residents, and from having a disparate impact on
protected minority classes." Freerks asked for a second on the motion. There was none.
Freerks called for any further discussion on the topic.
Koppes thanked the Historic Preservation Board and community members for all their
hard work on the project. Freerks spoke of discussing historic preservation with
someone from Waverly, and she said urged him to use historic preservation as an
overlay to the existing zoning because he will only be a steward of his property for a little
while. She said she views zoning as all we have to keep historic areas intact and
preserve the qualities in them that separate them out as special places. Eastham said he
is in agreement with nine out of the ten goals of the Plan, but he does not agree with the
last goal and its purpose of changing the balance of owner and rental occupancy in'
historic and conservation districts, which he does not feel keeps with the purpose of the
City's overall Comprehensive Plan.
. Freerks called for a vote.
The motion carried 4: 1 (Eastham in the negative, Smith and Brooks absent).
OTHER:
Miklo said a draft of the Subdivision Regulations was complete, and it was being
distributed to some area interest groups, such as the Homebuilders Association. He said
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2008
Page 5
before a public hearing is scheduled, he would like to schedule work-sessions with the
Commission to cover the document.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES December 20,2007 and January 2,2008
Motion: Eastham made a motion for approval of both minutes. Plahutnik seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5:0 (Smith and Brooks absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn, and Shannon seconded it. The motion
carried 5:0 (Smith and Brooks absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
C
o
'iij
II)
'E
E
o
o'E
c)o
C "
,- CI)
cIX:
o
NCI)~
......"0
....CN
C)"'
c"C
,- C
C CI)
C:;:
.!!<(
Q"
~
(3
"'
~
.2
C)
Z
~
W
W
:::!!
..J
<(
:::!!
IX:
o
LL
~~xxxxx~
~xxxxx~x
I/)
EQ)O..-CONOCO..-
~-.r-~OT"""'T"""'OT""'"
QnX~ it> it> it> it> it> it> it>
I-LLJOOOOOOO
~ C
II) ~ II) II) 'C 0
~.c~!'$C.c
o_...~_C_
Oll)-~-",'-
(l)",",eo.!!.cE
EmWLL::'::Q,,(I)(I)
~aioc(u.i~o"':
I/) 0..- CO NO CO ..-
E ~ ..- ..- 0 ..- ..- 0 ..-
Q)'~ -- - -- - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-LLJ 00 0 00 0 0
E II) ~ C
II) II) 'c 0
~ "'~ g -c .c
.c... :J C
0 -CI) .c "' -
Q) e II) CI) 'E
"' ... 0 .!!.c
Em WLL ::.:: Q,,(I) (I)
co . oc( u.i~ 0"':
zm
C)
z
~
W
W
:::!!
..J
<(
:::!!
IX:
o
LL
~
"'C
Q)
I/)
::J
U
x
LLJ
....:;=.
c: c: c:
Q) Q) Q)
I/) I/) I/)
Q)..c..c
ct<(<(
.. II II II
>- LLJ
Q) -
~><oo