HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, November 3,2008 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, November 6,2008 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Annexation I Rezoning Item
ANN08-00001/REl08-00009/ANN07-00001/REl07-00006: Discussion of applications from the
Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County
Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (10-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located
adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way
between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue.
D. Site Plan Review
Review of a major site plan for Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 13 & October 16, 2008
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006 Date: November 6,2008
& ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009
Iowa Interstate Railway between Industrial
Park Rd and Taft Avenue &
4748 420th S1. SE, Iowa City
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicants:
ANN07 -00001/REZ07 -00006
Iowa Interstate Railway
5900 6th S1. SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009
MidWestOne Bank as Trustee
Of Veronica Prybil Trusts under Will
102 S. Clinton Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Wendy Ford
(City Staff - 356-5248)
Sue Pence
MidWestOne Trust Services
PO Box 1700
Iowa City, IA 52244-1700
(319)356-5959
Requested Action:
Annexation and Rezoning
Purpose:
To allow the property to be incorporated into the City of
Iowa City for future development
Location:
The Veronica Prybil Estate located between the Scott-
Six Industrial Park and Taft Avenue & the Iowa
Interstate Railway between Industrial Park Road and
Taft Avenue
Size:
Approximately 179 acres + Railway ROW
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
farmland - County Residential (R)
North: Farmland - County R
South: Farmland - County R
East: farmland and a few small industrial properties -
County R and County Heavy Industrial (MH)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
2
West: Industrial and farmland - General Industrial (11)
and County R and County Highway Commercial
(CH)
Comprehensive Plan:
Southeast District - Industrial development
File Date:
October 14, 2008
45 Day Limitation Period:
No limitation with annexation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicants, the Iowa Interstate Railway and MidWestOne Bank as Trustee of the Veronica
Prybil Trusts, have requested annexation to Iowa City. The land for the Veronica Prybil Trust
consists of several parcels approximately 179 acres in size located in Scott Township, east of the
Scott-Six Industrial Park and west of Taft Avenue. The parcels straddle the Iowa Interstate
Railway and 420th St SE. The City of Iowa City is in the process of purchasing this land with the
intention of making it available for future industrial development. Since the railway bisects the
property and is an asset for future industrial development the Iowa Interstate Railway and the City
have agreed that annexation to the City of Iowa City is in the best interests of both parties.
ANAL YSIS:
Annexation
The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide the decisions regarding
annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary
petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be reviewed
under the following three criteria.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
The City's long range planning boundary is defined as the area for which sanitary sewer
service can be provided. This sanitary sewer service area is generally based on watershed
boundaries and the general topographical features of the land. A general growth area limit is
illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City's Zoning Map. Since the subject
property is located adjacent to the City's long-range planning boundary, the City Engineer
has examined the topography in the area in more detail and determined that sewer service
can be provided to the entirety of this property from the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without
imposing an undue burden on the City.
The City of Iowa City and identified a need for additional land for industrial uses. The land
under consideration for annexation is a logical extension of the existing industrial area in Iowa
City located between the Iowa Interstate Railway and State Highway 6. With the industrial
land in Iowa City already largely developed there is an identified need for additional land to
provide for future industrial growth. Upgrade of 420th Street is scheduled for FY09/10. Other
City services will also be extended at that time.
3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest.
The property is within the Long-Range Planning boundary and abuts the City's corporate
limits. The City of Iowa City has identified a need for additional land for future industrial
development so control of this property in the City's best interest. Access to rail service is
important to industrial development. This property has the potential for access to the Iowa
3
Interstate Railway. It is in the best interest of the City to partner with the Railroad to carefully
plan and design the rail access points to maximize the economic potential of this property.
Annexation will allow the land to be developed in a manner consistent with surrounding
development and will ensure efficient provision of public services and adequate traffic
circulation. Under County jurisdiction, development is limited by inadequate sewer and
water service and 420th Street will need to be upgraded to urban standards to serve
industrial traffic. Proposed annexation will allow for more consistent development with
access to streets, public water and sewer treatment facilities appropriate to industrial
development.
The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively
when the above conditions exist. In staff's view, these conditions have been met for this voluntary
annexation request.
Rezoning
Comoliance with the Comorehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan states that "the provision of space for industrial development is a
community-wide goal. The Southeast Planning District contains property which is appropriate for
meeting this goal. For years, long-range plans of Iowa City have shown expansion of the BDI
Industrial park, east of Scott Boulevard between the Iowa Interstate Railway line and 420th Street."
Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997, land for the Scott-Six Industrial Park was
annexed and has been largely built out. Annexation of the railway and the land from the Veronica
Prybil Trust is a logical extension of this industrial area. It is contiguous with existing industrial land,
located next to a rail line and major truck routes to Interstate 80 and Highway 6, which makes it
ideally suited for future industrial development. Since the City is purchasing the land, it will have
control of future development and can ensure that the land is developed in a manner that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
General Industrial (11) Zoning would allow a wide variety of industrial uses to locate on this property
and is consistent with the zoning on adjacent property to the west. However, until water and sewer is
extended to the Veronica Prybil Trust property, a designation of Interim Development - Industrial (10-
I) is appropriate. Water service will be extended when the City improves 420th Street to city
standards. Sewer service can be provided by extending a branch from the Scott Boulevard Trunk
Sewer to this area. Improvement of the road and extension of water and sewer service is scheduled
for FY10. At such time as these improvements are in place a rezoning to 11 would be appropriate.
Since these services are not required for the Iowa Interstate Railway property, General Industrial (11)
is the most appropriate zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding zoning.
Streets and traffic circulation:
Improvement of 420th Street between Highway 6 and Taft Avenue is scheduled for FY09/10.
Upgrade of this roadway is necessary to provide appropriate access for future industrial users. It is
also in the City's long range plans to improve Taft Avenue to meet future access and traffic
circulation needs for areas east of Scott Boulevard.
Infrastructure
The City is intending to extend water mains along 420th Street as part of the street reconstruction
project so water service will be available for future development. Sanitary sewer service will be
available to this property with extension of a branch from the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer.
Environmentallv Sensitive Areas:
The sensitive areas map indicates that a stream corridor/drainageway exists on this property and it
may also contain areas with hydric soils. Prior to any development activity occurring on the site
4
any regulated sensitive areas and associated buffers on the property are required to be delineated
and appropriate protections established according to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that ANN08-00001 and REl08-00009, an annexation to the City of Iowa City and
rezoning of approximately 179 acres of land from County Residential - R to Interim Development
(ID-I) located east of the Scott-Six Industrial Park and west of Taft Avenue, and ANN07-00001,
REl07-00006, an annexation and rezoning of the ROW of the Iowa Interstate Railway between
Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue from County Residential (R) to General Industrial (11), be
approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
:PP~:::ob~Map ~~~!UJ~/2
Jeff Davidson, Director,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
0'\
o
o
o
o
I
00
o
N
~
............
~
o
o
o
o
I
00
o
Z
~
CJ
~
~
~
00
~
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 31, 2008
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: Site Plan Review - Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue
BACKGROUND
Shelter House Community, owners of property at 429 Southgate Avenue, submitted a site plan and
applied for a building permit on August 27,2008 to develop a Community Service Shelter Use
(transient housing) on the subject property.
Under normal circumstances, review and approval of site plans is handled administratively by staff.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that proposed developments are in compliance with all City
Code requirements, conditional zoning agreements (CZAs), subdivision agreements, and any
conditions or requirements associated with special exceptions for a specific property or use. Site
plans are submitted to the Department of Housing and Inspection (HIS) for initial review and then
routed to Fire, Public Works, and Planning Departments for additional review and comment. Any
items needing correction or modification are identified and referred back to the applicant to be
addressed before a permit can be issued. Upon final approval of the site plan, a building permit may
be issued.
For major site plans, HIS or owners of 20 percent or more of the property location within 200 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in lieu of staff review. When such a request is received, the Commission may
review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or deny the plan within 20 working days of
receipt of the written request. The Commission's scope of review is the same as that of the Building
Official and the Department of Housing and Inspection Services.
PETITION
On October 16, 2008, owners of more than 20 percent of the property located within 200 feet of the
property owned by Shelter House at 429 Southgate Avenue submitted a request for review by the
Commission. The petition raises the following three issues in objection to the proposed site plan:
1. The petitioner asserts that the site plan does not show compliance with parking requirements;
2. The petitioner asserts that the time limitation associated with the special exception for the
property has expired.
3. There is an apparent dispute regarding the boundary line between the Shelter House
property and the adjacent mobile home park.
PARKING STANDARDS
The minimum off-street parking is calculated according to the formula provided in Table 5A-2 located
in Section 14-5A-4 of the Zoning Code. The shelter is classified as a Community Service-Shelter.
The parking requirement for this use is listed in Table 5A-2 (see page 5A-8) as:
0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum number of residents staying
at the shelter at anyone time plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum
number of employees at the site at anyone time.
The minimum parking requirement for Shelter House is 7 spaces required for residents (0.1 x 70) plus
one additional space for each employee based on the maximum number of employees who will be at
October 31, 2008
Page 2
the site at any given time. Shelter House indicated that a maximum of 14 employees would be at the
site at one time, and thus a total of 21 spaces are required. The proposed parking area provides 18
spaces total (note space #16 is located to the west of the building and spaces #17 and #18 will be
located within the building). At this time the site plan is deficient and the applicant is working to
provide the additional 3 spaces.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
The Board of Adjustment granted Shelter House a special exception to establish transient housing in
the CI-1 zone after a public hearing on July 14, 2004. This decision was timely challenged by
persons in the neighborhood and, after trial, the district court overturned the Board of Adjustment's
decision by a ruling filed in June 2005. The Board of Adjustment and Shelter House appealed this
ruling and on March 7, 2008 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and
affirmed the Board of Adjustment decision granting the special exception. The plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing, which was denied, and the Supreme Court entered its final order on April 9,
2008.
By operation of local ordinance, Board of Adjustment decisions expire six (6) months from the date
the written decision is filed unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period
to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the board's decision, such as obtaining
a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Shelter
House was informed of the terms of limitation in a letter dated August 4, 2004 (see attached). Upon
written request and for good cause shown, the board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. During the pending
litigation, and within the six month time frame, the Board received a request for the extension of the
expiration of the six (6) month period. In February, 2005 the board granted an extension from the date
of the written decision to a period six (6) months after the final conclusion of litigation and associated
appeals.
In this instance, Shelter House submitted a site plan for review on August 27, 2008. Staff performed
a review of the plans and conveyed comments on September 9, 2008, noting that revised plans
incorporating the comments should not be submitted until public works and the water division
conveyed their comments so they could be incorporated into the revised plans. Public Works and the
Water Division submitted their comments and revised plans were received from Shelter House on
September 17, 2008. Shelter House submitted an application for a building permit and detailed
building plans on September 26. In reviewing the building plans and the revised site plan it was
noted that a major site plan was necessary because the floor area in the proposed building would
exceed 10,000 square feet. On October 1, 2008, a revised site plan was submitted based on
submittal requirements for a major site plan and on October 2 the site was posted to notify the public
of a pending major site plan review. Between September 29 and October 3, there was significant
correspondence and communication between City staff and Shelter House regarding the site plan.
On October 10, staff received a revised major site plan with corrections made based on staff
comments. Review of the site plan has been ongoing, and staff anticipates a new site plan to be
submitted prior to the Commission's next meeting on November 6. Since Shelter House made its
application for a building permit and site plan review within the six month time frame from the date of
the conclusion of the subject litigation and responded to numerous comments and made multiple plan
revisions within that time period, the applicant has clearly taken substantial material action toward
establishing the use prior to the expiration of the six-month period. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that
the special exception has not expired.
BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Another contention of the petition is that, due to a boundary dispute between the mobile home park
and the Shelter House site, a new site plan that does not contemplate construction on the disputed
property must be submitted. This contention is incorrect, as the issue of property ownership is not
reviewed or determined by the City when approving a site plan. When reviewing a proposed site
October 31, 2008
Page 3
plan the City simply reviews the plan for compliance with the applicable site plan development
standards given the surveyed property lines as depicted and described on the site plan. If there is a
dispute regarding property ownership, it is a private matter to be resolved between the parties,
without involvement by the City. A site plan can be approved and a building permit issued on a given
site plan notwithstanding potential property line disputes. In fact, the issue may not be recognized
until construction begins under the approved site plan and building permit, which will then require the
parties to resolve the matter.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Shelter House submitted a site plan for review August 27,2008 and has responded to all staff
requests for revisions.
To secure its building permit, Shelter House must show that the submitted site plan meets the specific
standards for the special exception that were in place at the time that the application was approved.
The requirements of the special exception granted in July 2004 are:
1. A minimum of 200 square feet of lot area is required per temporary resident and a minimum
of 300 square feet of lot area is required per permanent resident;
· Maximum of 70 temporary residents are proposed; there will be no permanent
residents
2. General compliance with the site plan submitted with the special exception, including
· an evergreen landscape buffer along the east property line;
· An approximate 30-foot rear building setback;
· An 8-foot high privacy fence installed along the south property line;
· Compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines.
All other aspects of the site plan must meet site development standards of the current code, including
parking standards, landscape screening, street trees, outdoor lighting, etc.
Staff was in the process of reviewing the Shelter House site plan when the request for Planning and
Zoning Commission review was submitted. Notes compiled by HIS from the staff review process are
attached. These notes include various requests for clarification and correction on the site plan during
various stages of review. Note that when issues were resolved, an "OK" notation was marked next to
the comment.
The most recent site plan submitted by the applicant is attached for your review. Staff finds that this
submittal dated October 29, 2008 meets all the requirements and conditions of the special exception
(granted on July 14, 2004) and all standards in the current zoning code, with the exception of the
minimum parking requirement of 21 spaces. The applicant has indicated that a new site plan showing
the 21 required space~ will be submitted p( to the November 6 Commission meeting.
Karen Howard, Actin Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Approved by:
Attachments/enclosures
1. Petition requesting Planning and Zoning Commission Review and subsequent additional
letter from petitioner
2. Board of Adjustment decision and preliminary site plan submitted with the special exception
3. Title 18: Site Plan Review Standards
4. Commercial Site Development standards
5. Off-street Parking Standards
6. Staff site plan review comments
7. Most recent Major Site Plan dated October 29,2008 and proposed building elevation
GREGG GEERDES
Attorney at Law
Dey Building
105 Iowa Avenue, Suite 234
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 341-3304 Telephone
(319) 341-3306 Fax
October 16, 2008
OCT 1 6 2008
City of Iowa City
Building Department
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Shelter House Major Site Plan Review
HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES ~
IOWA CITY, IOWA 1
Dear Sir/Madam:
Attached is a request by property owners requesting a review of the major site plan which
has been submitted by Shelter House. I represent these neighboring property owners. We are
requesting, pursuant to Section 18-2-3 of the City Code that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review the site plan.
We note from our initial review that the proposed project (1) does not provide for the
amount of parking required by City Code; and (2) that the project requires a special exception,
that Shelter House's special exception has expired and that a new special exception therefore
needs to be applied for and granted before the site plan can be approved.
We request an opportunity to be heard at the meeting of the commission when this plan is
reviewed so that we can provide additional grounds for the commission to consider. Please notify
me when this review will occur. Please also call with questions.
Sincerely,
;;~ff L.
Gregg Geerdes
CC: Lori Dahlen
GG/se
Ene.
...:...
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Re: Shelter House Proposed Facility
Planning. and Zoning Commission
The .undersign~~ owners of property located withi~ 200 feet of thE/site propo~ed by Shelter
House for Its new facility hereby request that the Iowa City, . .'l:" . review the site
plan which has been submitted by Shelter House to the City of Iowa City.
Signature of Property Owner ~_ '8..tcik ~ l:lr ~
Print Name of Property OwnesM. Ic.k~e( D..c. Ltle "t/ ~ () h Q,- cD .q I) eV\.
Mailing Address of Property Owner 4-!? I ~- :s <! ::5..a 1'\cR. R..octcf
~9.Uj<i J!.Jg i ~~ S < ~ 'lo
Address of Property Owned I_/- '1\_
Adjacent to Shelter House 2/)/8 wJawrfV7f"'f( f.7 tVC .
~.U7 I rrlw11. - S-Z2.VO
Signature of Property Owner ~ A- /~
Print Name of Property own: 41 r ~@/ IS. A1 C III e1
Mailing Address of Property Owner - 114'1 t!.A.Jd..erl'rt!dH- D!:
_.::r~c?d:- &:I-'7/-LA.. 6'2246
Address of Property Owned /0' A 1 ~ -L ~ ~ r-l
Adjacent to Shelter House l ,.,.~ - 11.../1';"'
.fbAU~ c:,1f- ~ SZZ4--V
Signature of Property Owner J.v..~./ $ t
Print Name of Property Owner /s=~ '6
Mailing Address of Property Owner ~. '. ()cL dOli" !J~/4. tFez
~~~/ ~ 7~,S;l;2t.ju
Address of Property Owned . - I ...I- ( ..flY.
Adjacent to Shelter House r2()/? tdat?w B1! .J;It . :2--
.1flt/4 ;J~ I ]k.; i)::J:1.l-/()
"w. "\..
.
Address of Property Owned
Adjacent to Shelter House
Signature of Property Owner
Print Name of Property Owner
Mailing Address of Property Owner
Address of Property Owned
Adjacent to Shelter House
Signature of Property Owner
Print Name of Property Owner
Mailing Address of Property Owner
Address of Property Owned
Adjacent to Shelter House
Signature of Property Owner
Print Name of Property Owner
Mailing Address of Property Owner
Address of Property Ownerd
Adjacent to Shelter House
. -,~
. '
GREGG GEERDES
Attorney at Law
Dey Building
105 Iowa Avenue, Suite 234
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 341-3304 Telephone
(319) 341-3306 Fax
OCT 2 4 2008
HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
-
October 24, 2008
City of Iowa City
Building Department
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Shelter House Major Site Plan Review
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing with a supplement to my letter of October 16, 2008. First, I am enclosing a
map prepared by the Johnson County Auditor. I believe that the signature of the Dahlens, who
are the owners of the parcel at 2018 Waterfront, and Mike McNiel, who is the owner of 1949
Waterfront, satisfy the 20% requirement.
Regarding, the parking issue, the site plan submitted does not show compliance with
parking requirements. Based upon the combined number of staff and residents, which is 85, 22
spaces are necessary. If residents only are counted, 18 spaces would be necessary. The site plan
shows 15 spaces. We contend that 22 spaces are necessary but the site plan fails to even include
15.
The applicant will also need to obtain a new special exception to build on the proposed
site. On February 9, 2005 the Board of Adjustment extended the expiration date of the Shelter
House application "to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals
are finally concluded". The Shelter House litigation concluded on April 9, 2008 when the Iowa
Supreme Court issued its Procendo Order. I am enclosing documents which show the expiration
of the current special exception. Until a new special exception is obtained Shelter House is not in
compliance with zoning requirements and the site plan cannot be approved.
Because Shelter House has obviously failed to get either a building permit on an
extension of its special exception, it will need to start the special exception process anew.
Without a valid special exception the use proposed by Shelter House violates city zoning law.
You should also be aware that there is an apparent boundary dispute between the mobile
home park and the Shelter House site, with Shelter House apparently claiming ownership of a
portion of property which for many years has been used by the mobile home park. The site plan
apparently contemplates construction on the disputed property. Also, the setbacks will need to be
~. '\.- .
calculated based upon the undisputed boundary line. A new site plan is therefore needed.
As indicated previously, please notify us so that we can participate in the planning and
zoning commission meeting which will review this matter. Please also contact me with
questions.
Sincerely,
/~/~f~
Gregg Geerdes
cc: Lori Dahlen
GG/se
John.son County GIS Online
Page 1 of 1
Johnson Count
Legend
Legend
HlghiJlgl\ted
Feature
Selected J'aatunlllS
. thElBulliili"
. thElBuflBrTarlJilt
O POlitical
Bourldai"le&
CentEli"linBlli
CantertlnB LabElls
OCT 2 4 2008
HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES
IOWA'CITY, IOWA
lttp:/ /www.johnson-county.comlservlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=jcmapOv&Client V ers... 10/20/2008
- -', -
~T':'7"-;<;,7~'
<.V~..::-~,,';
-~,,'::
- --.. ....,~,..:--~.-.ii._..
.,,~. ::O~S;d': 8l'IUJ'B8f:t T~t~ ~I~.
.. AIt: .'7.00 la. t of I
Prepared by R(lbert Mlklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. WashIngton, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191366-5230 1(",hnplon1 Count v lowI. .
.. ..II I. nt.r County R'C)ord.r
DECISION. .. 111<3855' p0519-52'
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT '
WEDNESOAY,FEBRUARY 9, 2005 - 5 P.M.
EMMAJ. HARVATHALL .
I
~--
MEM~ERSPRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned WQOd ~
. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer, Karen Leigh
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Mlklo
OTHERS PRESENT: A,lIan Berger, Tim Krumm
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
(::::.
1lw_::!.
S;"~:~'i
~~~~:J
eJ.'
-~
~7t~~;
.- '-.
.... ~
-'n
~~({~~.: ~
;..~ '2.;~
-'-:oJ. "......
:z:
)>
._----
,'..--
":,~~~)
~"O
::r:
N
.'
Ul
<.J\
~,\,
1. EXCOS.o0002 An appilcation submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the
open.tlon of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located In the Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone at 3030 Northgate Drive.
Flndlnas of Fact: The Board flndi that the proposed emall animal clinic will be located .at least
200 . feet fr9m anY. residential property. The. Board also finds that the proposed building will be
10,cated In the center of the property. This will assute that ther.are sufficient buffers between
the clinic .andsurrot,Jndlng . properties so that noise and odors should not be discernible across
any lot line. The Board finds that the clinic would be CQnducted complet~ly Indoors and atthe
time. of tt'!e building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official that the
building Is s.ound proof. The Board finds that adequate streets and utilities are In place to. serve
~~ . .....
. .
Conclusions. of Law: Based on' the. findings above, the Board conclude~ that all general and
specific itanctards have been met ,or will be met. The Board' concludes .that . the' 'special'
eXception will not be detrimental to or endanger the publiC health, safety, comfort .or general
welfare. The Board . further COi'lch,ides that the proposed exception will not be InJurious. to . the
'use and enjoyment of other property In.the Immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish
or Impair prc;JpertY values In the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment 9f.the
specific proposed exception will not Impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted In the CO-1zQne, .andthat
_ adequate &)tllltles, access roads, dralnageand/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. . The Board conclu~e,.. that adequate. measurei Win be taken to provide Ingress or
. egress designed to minimize traffic congeetlon on publtQ streets. .The Board concludes that the
special exception Is consistent wlththffComprehenslvePlan Of ,the City.
0180081tlon: By a vote of 3-0 the BOElrd approves EX90&-oOOO2an application submitted by
Alan Berger for especial e)(eeptlon to alloW the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on
property located In the Commercial OffIce (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive provided that .
prior to the IssuanCe of the building permit the applicant demonstrates to the building official that
the portion of t~ building containing the clinic will be 80undp [) E eEl lifE
. OCT H 20080
HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES
IOWA CITY IOWA
. . ...'.... >'lOi"..~"iIii," .. . . "i!Ihi' ... --" .. ~
!~-]~~ IMC'fi!j .zry;/.:.~:";~l;~:~i.;,.::t~.-::'\J''"':;;:J;;.o'''5'''c:''=~~-"~-''~~- Y .L: .,,j:1iF'1; -,.,ioi .
'! '
. '
I~
'.:' ",>.-,' ,-': ," .... ..... .' .
" ,:,..", .,,-" .
~.J:XCq'..oDOD1 An application submitted by Craig Falrllnge for a special excep~Ion to anow for
the .ep8.ratfon of two no. n conforming parcel, Into two reelde tied lots =-ope~ located~n ~
Low Density SIngle,:,Famlly Residential (RS-5) zone at 1518 re~ H-JSP CT10N SE VI S
. .. . IOWA CITY, IOWA .
Flndlnos. of Fael: The Board finds that this property consists 0 0 SO-foot wiele lots of record
. that are e$ch 10 feet deficient In required lot. width and 1750 feet deficient In lot area. The
properties surrounding this property. are currently ~eveloped with .ingle-famlly homes and most
are similar In size to the proposed house. The Board also finds that the height of the proposecl .
building will similar to the existing one-story houses In the neighborhood. The Board finds that
these lots have acceE;sto,analley, which will help minimize congestlon.on crescent Street'
.-
Concluslon~ of. Law: Based on the findings above,. the Board . concludes that. alt general and ..
speclftc staf,1dards have been. met or. will be met.. The Board conctudes that the special
exception will not be .detrlmental to or endanger the public health, .safety, comfort 0" general
welfare. The. Board further concludes that the .proposed exception will not be .Injurlous. to the
use and enjoyment of~ther property. In the Immediate vicinity and Will not substantially diminish
or Impair property. values In the. nelghborh,ood. The Board cOncludes that establlshrnentof the.
specific proposedexQeptlon. win riot Impede the normal and . order!ydevelopment arid
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted In the Rs-a zone, and that
adequ..te utilities, access roads, drainage ..rid/or necessary faclll'les have . been or are being
provided. The Board concludes th(ltadequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or .
egress designed to -mInimize trafflc congestion on publiC streets. The Board conCludes that the
special exception Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
. DlsDosltion: By a vote of 3-0 the Board aJ>ptoves ISXCOt-QOOO1. an application submitted by
Craig Falrtlnger for aspeclal exception to. alloW for the separation of two non conforming parcel.
into two reskt~ntlallots for property located In the Low Density Single-Family Residential. (RS-5)
zone at '1518 Crescent .Street,subJeOtto the following cQndltlons: 1) the single-famllydweUlng
constructed on the vacant lot Shall substantially, conform .to the plans provided by the applicant,
and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots shall be restricted to the. all~y and no d!i'leway&~om
either lot shall be permitted onto Crescent. Street. ..' 2 ':'~-;
. ~:"- C) t"~. ... 1
3. EXC!l4-C/Oll1' An extension for the expiration date 01 the prll\llOusly epptf~ .1 ~
exception to permit transient. hOl.,lslng In the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone I~~. at'-.the. '\\1.
southea$t corner of the Intersection .of Southgate Avenue and WaterfrontD~ve. ';-<h~ :'9. ~;'':''1.
. . . .' . . . _';::.' -, J ..I,.. \_J
Fl\1911l1j1 of Feet: The Boaril find. tI1aItIie declelon of the Boerd wae filed on Au~. 20e4.
The Board alea finds that. the applicant could not reasona.bly pursue the cOnstrUiUon of~e .
facility because of litigation that.ls currently pending.
Qoncluslons of Law: The Board conqludes that due to circumstances beyond the control of the.'
applicant, It was not re..sonably able to begin construction of.the . previously approved tranilent
housing. The Board concludes that the.appllQant has shown good cause to extend the special
exception expiration period to a date six (6). months after the current litigation and any
associated appeals are finally concluded.
(,lISDosiUoo: By a vote of 3-0 the aoard of Adjustment extends the special exception expiration
. per/od'or iX~D"~Op18 to permlttranslent.houslng In the Intensive Commercial (CI-1):tone
rocated at the southeast corner of 'heintersection of southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive to
a date ,Ix (6)' months after the current litigation and any asioclated appeals are finally
concluded. . . . .
_, _~.~ .__'...',...."'00'.'...'. ,..~"-.'"7::!::"':7"....:~:' ..';":;-':'L,-"" -. ..,.',- ~;::~_-~. .':" mO". t-~;;o,;;.:~ ....~,':7".;;;;-:::.'::"-:.,... :'';;:;;"
~ ',' :.' :....., .,'... \ - ;~-
Ir....... ..................................'.. .",., ,'" ''''.....-..,......".~...,....
> ":'_T'J..'..,:,:., _,"." ,'_', ,_ .,' ".' " ,
,r--,-:' ,,~ ' ;. -. - " '. ' .
,.(;' :: ". :- .' ~
".:,"..,,:
,.....:;.".,
1_
. .~"':" ..~. ............. .... w. , .~
.~_._".,...^......"~'.'."~"~ .
,,". ''''.'- .~,.".. ,r' .~, .,..'" ""'~""~
TIME Lll1ITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which dO not set a specific time "mitation on AppllC$nt actlon,shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, u",'ess the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the Improvement
authorized under the terms 01 the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa. . .
.~~.
.' '.:.L .41.0.
. ", -- .
". .... . . . ~.
Mnee,.l M."..er, Chairperson
Cp.I'~ I 1I1')'INttf,r, tfc f?1-
~
...
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY ) .
I, Marlan.Karr, City Clerk 0; the CItY, otlowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the DeCision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of. Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of February, 2005, as the
same appears of record In my Office,
Dated at Iowa City, this
02:L
day of ~~
,2005
OCT 2 4 2008
o
'~J#'--./.tr!.. ".~~.,
. Mar n K. Karr, City Clerk ".' ,
. CORPORATE SEAL
HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES !.
IOWA CITY, IOWA .. ,"~".'
.~lIll'!lE'OrI'):'I:'!'f1!K"'_>".',r'.."'.""~~~.:>:':'_"""".
,.,',
~~~;
~J""l
:1.:
.:?:",
i'''', ..-:: " _~_".f_",l.
'.,..' N
._..:..J t- '. ''''''"' :'- .-.-"
:~.:: {~r~' -i.J ,U_,l
~ I :{;;:
'..~ ..; l .,....._.J
:==.:...~ ~
j>" CJ1 ,
, YTJ~/"',,: .(";~,~" ''.','!''T' ~F
". .' . ". ~. f :'1
>. .~'/.; ",';. ')
e:5
.....~
~.'''' C"
).'i- =::::
I r,. '~r:.-.I~,.,.,.."'..G'I.,.Jt. ~~- . wY'"
..... '.- M' ' (lpeI) . o:;J .-Rl-.1It, ._.~_...._..: ~ ._ _._. '_'. '.
! ..P -fp d . .is.1 ... _~.......N (.,.; +~ .' ..~~ _ 4M, .'t"
~ -+'0;10
;r.~ F ,..0;1'1!~ p
I
I
I
. .
.
Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14-5 P.M. ~
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL 9 ~
<::: () :x>
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer and Michae{fl\~~ht ~
~I~Y-f.:' I
-"- 1\ W
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Keitel. ~ r
rn -0
- -1'1 ::;;:
O-'~
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo and Tokey Boswell 5: ,/, N
j> w
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: <::)
Il
,-
i
':-n
,.....-,
\......;
1. EXC04-00014 Public hearing on an application submitted by Englert Civic Theatre, Inc. for a
special exception to permit a historic sign that does not conform to the sign code (an
animated lighted sign that also exceeds size limits) in the Central Business (CB-10) zone
located at 221 E. Washington Street.
Findinos of Fact: The Board finds the Englert Theater is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and therefore the Englert sign is considered a historic sign. The Board finds
that the Englert sign in non-conforming: it is an animated lighted sign that also exceeds
current size limits. The Board finds that the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed
the proposed restoration of the Englert sign and the Commission has found that the sign is
in keeping with the architectural character of the structure and is appropriate to a particular
period of the Englert's history and is an integral part of its identity.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes the standards necessary for continuation of
historic signs have been met. The Englert sign is not detrimental to nor will it endanger
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The sign will not be injurious to the use or
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. The Board concludes that given its
location on a one-way street where traffic moves slowly, distraction to motorists will be
minimal. The Board concludes that restoration of the Englert sign will contribute to the
economic vitality of downtown Iowa City. Addtionally, Restoration of the sign is consistent
with the comprehensive plan goals for the preservation of the city's historic buildings.
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC04-00014, an application for a special
exception to permit a historic Englert Theater sign, which is a nonconforming sign, be
approved subject to issuance of a license agreement for temporary use of the right-of-way
by the City Engineer.
2. EXC04-00016 Public hearing on an application submitted by Shelter House for a special
exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive.
Findinos of Fact: The Board finds that the CI-1 zone requires 200 square feet of lot area per
temporary resident and that the property at 429 Southgate Avenue contains 29,000 square
feet- more than enough lot area to allow the 70 temporary residents proposed by Shelter
.
II
House. The Board finds that the site plan submitted by Shelter House provides for
evergreen landscaping on the Shelter House property to buffer the occupants of Shelter
House from potentially intensive commercial uses that may locate on the adjacent property
as permitted uses in the CI-1 zone. The Board finds that the 30-foot set back from the south
property line and an 8-foot tall privacy fence will provide a transition from the proposed two-
story Shelter House to the one-story manufactured housing units located to the south. The
Board finds that the site plan demonstrates compliance with parking requirements,
dimensional standards and other zoning codes. The Board finds that other human service
agencies are located in to the west and north of the Shelter House property and therefore
this is an appropriate, supportive location. Further, the Comprehensive Plan's social
services vision statement recognizes the community need to support human services such
as Shelter House. The Board finds that the overall public health, safety and welfare are at
greater risk when the community fails to provide necessary services when the need for such
services has been demonstrated.
Conclusions of Law: Based on the evidence presented, the Board concludes that Shelter
House meets the specific zoning requirements for transient housing in the CI-1 zone. The
Board concludes that the location is appropriate, as other human service agencies located
in the area are compatible with and complimentary to the services provided by Shelter
House. The Board concludes that the property has adequate drainage, utilities, public
transportation and streets necessary for transient housing. The Board concludes that
developing the Shelter House at this location will not be detrimental overall to the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board concludes that Shelter House will not
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties and will not interfere with normal
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property in the area.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-1 (Maurer voting no) the Board approves EXC04-00016 an
application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in
the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at 429 Southgate Avenue subject to general
compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along
the east property line, an 8-foot tall privacy fence being provided along the south property
line and compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines.
3. EXC04-00017 Public hearing on an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special
exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, and to allow a common driveway
to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single-
Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street.
-,- r-..;>
Findinas of Fact: The Board finds that the requested front setback is cons~)lt wi@the
neighborhood average, and that there is a unique situation that justifie~f1g re~ced
setback. The Board finds that the shared driveway is justified by the neighbQf~odd d~ign.11
The Board finds that the exceptions granted are minimal in proportioRjtg) thyar<F=
requirements, and that the final drawings and site plan include provisions tO~im~ th~ll
scale and coverage of the development to minimize neighborhood impact. 0 ~ ~ 0
. ;E ..
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the property at 1128 aYld 1130." East
Washington Street meets the zoning requirements for duplexes in the RS-8zone~ The
Board concludes that both a unique situation and a practical difficulty do exist for the
property in question. The Board concludes that the development will not be detrimental
overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, nor be injurious to the use
. ,
w'
and enjoyment of other properties, nor interfere with orderly development and improvement
of properties in the area.
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approves EXC04-00017 an application submitted by
Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet,
and to allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties
located in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E.
Washington Street, subject to 1) submission to and approval by the City Attorney, of a
covenant providing for the perpetual maintenance of the shared driveway; and 2)
submission of and approval by the Director of Planning, an elevation drawing and site plan
which indicate the nature of exterior elements of the proposed buildings and the design of
the parking areas, and general adherence to these documents during construction. The
Board conditionally approves this item for one year.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized der the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 2004, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this
,-3
,2004
day of .~J-.
II
t._J
ill
-1
CL
C")
N
:c
a...
C")
I
(,!)
::;:J
..q;
...::r
c:;;;>
c:;;::.
('J
~. -1/, ~)
Maria . Karr, City Clerk
~
~~
0:_
w
-1.' ;,-:
i:,.) 1--
'v
...>-
f-
-<(
Os
o
HAWKEYE COUNTRY
AlITO SALES
AUTO REPAIR SHOP
MICHAEL MCNIEL
OFFICE
MID-EASTERN COUNCIL
ON CHEMICAl.. A9USE
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
MIP-EASTERN COUNCIL
ON CHEMICAL ABUSE
HACAP FAMILY SERVICES
ANN MURRAY
N
( r ~.:_"
'''''-"..!,.-
y
Shelter House
Site Plan
NEUMANN MONSON
ARCHITEer
l G,. <:-'-\> -\, 1> L"" <; v-\; ",.\W-. \J),J; 1.. ~ ~eL.J. {.,'=1 \\In J
/
ytV
//11111111111111/1111//11111111111/111111111111//11/111/111/1/1111111/11111//11/
Doc 10: 019568180003 Type' GEN
Recorded: 03/23/2005 at 01'49'01 PM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Paae 1 of 3 '
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK3855 PG519.521
Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2005 - 5 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer, Karen Leigh
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo
f"',,)
OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Berger, Tim Krumm
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
r:-?
...."-:"".1
-,,....-,.;
'" r"':
~........' .
(.,,;1
1. EXC05-00002 An application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the
operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone at 3030 Northgate Drive.
FindinQs of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed small animal clinic will be located at least
200 feet from any residential property. The Board also finds that the proposed building will be
located in the center of the property. This will assure that there are sufficient buffers between
the clinic and surrounding properties so that noise and odors should not be discernible across
any lot line. The Board finds that the clinic would be conducted completely indoors and at the
time of the building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official that the
building is sound proof. The Board finds that adequate streets and utilities are in place to serve
this lot.
Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and
specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that the special
exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare. The Board further concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish
or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the
specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the CO-1 zone, and that
adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that the
special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC05-00002 an application submitted by
Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on
property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive provided that
prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant demonstrates to the building official that
the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundproofed.
2. EXC05-00001 An application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for
the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the
Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street.
Findinos of Fact: The Board finds that this property consists of two 50-foot wide lots of record
that are each 10 feet deficient in required lot width and 1750 feet deficient in lot area. The
properties surrounding this property are currently developed with single-family homes and most
are similar in size to the proposed house. The Board also finds that the height of the proposed
building will similar to the existing one-story houses in the neighborhood. The Board finds that
these lots have access to an alley, which will help minimize congestion on Crescent Street.
Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and
specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that the special
exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare. The Board further concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish
or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the
specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the RS-5 zone, and that
adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that the
special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC05-00001 an application submitted by
Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels
into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
zone at 1518 Crescent Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) the single-family dwelling
constructed on the vacant lot shall substantially conform to the plans provided by the applicant,
and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots shall be restricted to the alley and no d!ivewaySJrom
either lot shall be permitted onto Crescent Street. ;;~ , =: ~
'.'-':;':,,, ,"'--.[ .-.
~--- '.^ ...-
3. EXC04-00016 An extension for the expiration date of the previously app(Qvect s~~ial
exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone IOJ~~~ed at-the
southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive.
---j~'--\
,.---\ .-. -.-.
Findinos of Fact: The Board finds that the decision of the Board was filed on AUQ.t:($f'3, 2004.
The Board also finds that the applicant could not reasonably pursue the constnidion of~e
facility because of litigation that is currently pending.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that due to circumstances beyond the control of the
applicant, it was not reasonably able to begin construction of the previously approved transient
housing. The Board concludes that the applicant has shown good cause to extend the special
exception expiration period to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any
associated appeals are finally concluded.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board of Adjustment extends the special exception expiration
period for EXC04-00016 to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive to
a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally
concluded.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
~
-V1llcl:llll MoUl el, Chairperson
CP-I'I) I tl/e~VttJer, t1c h~
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of February, 2005, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this
:2~
day of
fh~
'-
,2005
~~. 'II. '~4AA/
Mar n K. Karr, City Clerk
CORPOAA1E SEAL
c....)
\....,.-,
,..-'--'-
~)
,
........
.'......
"yol.i
"~'1.!T]R
. !
TITLE 18
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Subject
Chapter
Intent And Applicability .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Procedures And Submittal Requirements. . . . . . . . . 2
Site Plan Design Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Enforcement And Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Iowa City
18-1-1
18-1-1
CHAPTER 1
INTENT AND APPLICABILITY
SECTION:
18-1-1 :
18-1-2:
Purpose
Applicability
18-1-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this title to establish a
procedure which will enable the city to review certain
proposed improvements of property within the city in order to ensure the
orderly and harmonious development of property in a manner that will:
A. Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed
uses of land.
B. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and
foreseeable availability and capacity of city facilities and services.
The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion
concerning proposed development of property:
1. The projected population of the proposed development or the
proposed intensity of use and the effect the proposal will have on the
capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer lines to avoid
overloading existing systems;
2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal;
3. The city's comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific
community plans;
4. The city's plans for future construction and provision for public
facilities and services; and
5. The existing and planned city facilities and services for the area
which will be affected by the proposed site use.
Iowa City
18-1-1 18-1-2
C. Ensure compliance with this code, as amended, including applicable
zoning regulations, approved subdivision plats, public works
standards, and public safety standards.
D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm
water drainage in order to assure that future development and other
properties in the city will not be adversely affected.
E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and
outdoor storage areas from adjacent properties.
F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the
development and throughout the city.
G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing property.
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
18-1-2: APPLICABILITY:
A. Site Plan Review Required:
1. The standards in this title are in addition to those required by the
building code, as amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and
multi-unit residential development.
2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city
according to the provisions of this title prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any development on any "lot", "tract" or "parcel of
land" as those terms are defined in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this
code, except as exempted in subsection B of this section.
B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of
one single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related
accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and
structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this
code, including requirements of the building code, as amended.
C. Major Site Plans: Major site plans are required for all of the following
types of development:
1. Construction of over twelve (12) units residential development and
any additions or alterations to existing development containing over
twelve (12) units residential; or
Iowa City
18-1-2
18-1-2
2. Over ten thousand (10,000) square feet of nonresidential floor
area.
D. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans are required for all development
that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in
subsection S, "Exemptions", of this section.
E. Sensitive Areas Development Plan: A sensitive areas development
plan may be required for properties containing environmentally
sensitive features as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I,
"Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. The requirements and
exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in title 14,
chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code.
Level I sensitive areas review shall be in accordance with the all
procedures and approval processes set forth in chapter 2 of this title,
except for section 18-2-2, "Submittal Requirements". Submittal
requirements for level I sensitive areas review are set forth in title
14, chapter 5, article I of this code, ba~ed on the type of regulated
feature(s) that exist on the subject property. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
Iowa City
18-2-1
18-2-2
CHAPTER 2
PROCEDURES AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
SECTION:
18-2-1 :
18-2-2:
18-2-3:
18-2-4:
18-2-5:
General Procedures
Submittal Requirements
Approval/Denial Process
Effective Period Of Plan Approval
Amendments To Approved Site Plans
18-2-1: GENERAL PROCEDURES: An application for site plan
approval for all development shall be submitted to the city and
shall meet the following requirements:
A. A minimum of two (2) copies of minor site plans and four (4) copies
of major site plans containing all required information.
B. The required review fee, as established by resolution of the city
council, shall accompany the application for site plan approval.
C. Within twenty four (24) hours of submitting an application for major
site plan approval, the applicant shall post notice of intent to develop
on the site. The notice to be posted will be provided by the city and
shall be posted as directed by the city. (Ord. 05-4186,12-15-2005)
18-2-2: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans submitted for approval must
include the following information:
1. Date of preparation and north arrow.
2. A scale no smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet
(1" = 100').
Iowa City
18-2-2
18-2-2
3. Legal description or street address of the property.
4. Name and address of the owner of record of the property, the
applicant and the person(s) preparing the site plan, and the name
and address of the applicant's attorney, if any.
5. Property lines with dimensions to the nearest one-tenth of a foot
CI1O') and total square footage or acreage of the site.
6. Total number and types of dwelling units proposed, proposed uses
for all building, total floor area of each building and any other
information which may be necessary to determine the number of off
street parking and loading spaces required by title 14, "Zoning
Code", of this code. .
7. Location and exterior dimensions of all existing and proposed
structures or additions, including setback distance from property
boundary lines and distance between structures.
8. Location, grade and dimension of all existing and proposed paved
surfaces, including parking and loading areas, entrance and exit
drives, pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage areas, dividers, curbs,
islands and other similar permanent improvements.
9. Location of all existing and proposed outdoor recycling, trash,
solid waste, and dumpster areas and methods of screening such
areas.
1 O. Location and type of all existing and proposed signs. Proposed
signs may require a separate sign permit. (See title 14, chapter 5,
article S, "Sign Regulations", of this code.)
11. Plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of
soil erosion for the development.
12. A landscaping plot plan is required indicating all existing trees
eight inches (8") or larger in diameter measured at a point six inches
(6") above the ground level. In addition, the plot plan must
distinguish the existing or proposed trees or landscaping intended to
satisfy tree requirements or screening requirements of this code.
(See subsection 14-5A-51, "Landscaping And Tree Requirements
Within Parking Areas", and title 14, chapter 5, article E,
"Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this code, and any other
applicable screening required according to title 14, "Zoning Code", of
this code.)
Iowa City
18-2-2
18-2-2
13. Location of the following features of the site:
a. Streams and other water bodies, including wetlands.
b. Areas subject to flooding from a 1 DO-year event.
14. Location, amount and type of proposed lighting, fences, walls or
other screening.
15. A detailed lighting plan and photometries layout which shows the
location, type, height, and intensity of all existing and proposed
exterior lighting on the property. The photometries layout must show
the foot-candles generated by all lights on the property and provide
the total outdoor light output as measured in initial lumens from all
bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. The lighting plan and
photometries layout must comply with the standards specified in title
14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code.
16. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed
aboveground or belowground storage facilities for any chemical,
salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials.
17. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by
the building official.
B. Major Site Plans: Submittal information for major site plans must
include all the information contained in subsection A of this section,
plus the following additional information:
1. Existing and proposed contours at intervals not to exceed five feet
(5'), provided at least two (2) contours are shown. Contours of
neighboring properties must be provided when deemed necessary by
the city.
2. When deemed necessary by the city, a complete storm water
runoff plan, including grades and/or elevations of storm sewer
systems, direction of surface flow, detention areas, outlet control
structures and devices and storm water calculations. (See title 16,
chapter 3, article G, "Storm Water Collection, Discharge, And
Runoff", of this code.)
3. Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including
water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas, electrical telephone, cable
TV, plus all existing or proposed fire hydrants.
Iowa City
18-2-2
18-2-3
4. A typical cross section of all proposed streets, alleys and parking
areas showing roadway location, type of curb and gutter, paving and
sidewalks to be installed.
5. A complete traffic circulation and parking plan. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-2-3: APPROV AL/DENIAL PROCESS:
A. The city shall review and approve, review and approve with
conditions, or review and deny all site plans submitted under this title
within twenty one (21) working days after application, without
requiring submission of the plan to the planning and zoning
commission.
B. Upon submission of a major site plan, the building official shall
promptly convey a copy of the major site plan to the department of
public works and the department of planning and community
development for their review and comments. The departments of
planning and community development, public works, and housing
and inspection services shall review the site plan to determine if the
design conforms to the standards set forth in this title. The
departments of planning and community development and public
works shall forward their recommendations to the department of
housing and inspection services within ten (10) working days after
date of submission of a major site plan to the city.
C. For major site plans, the department of housing and inspection
services or those owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the
property located within two hundred feet (200') of the exterior
boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review
by the planning and zoning commission. The request must be in
writing and must be filed with the building official within twenty (20)
days of submission of the original application or within twenty (20)
days of the posting requirements set forth in section 18-2-1 of this
chapter, whichever is later. When such a request is received, the
planning and zoning commission may review and approve, review
and approve with conditions, or review and deny said. plan within
twenty (20) working days of receipt of the written request for
planning and zoning commission review. The commission's scope of
review shall be the same as that of the building official and the
department of housing and inspection services.
Iowa City
18-2-3 18-2-5
D. Upon site plan approval by the building official or the planning and
zoning commission, a building permit may be issued. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-2-4: EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PLAN APPROVAL: The approval
of any site plan shall remain valid for one year after the date
of approval. The approved site plan shall be null and void if a building
permit has not been issued within one year of the site pan approval or if
actual construction has not commenced within eighteen (18) months of the
site plan approval. "Actual construction" shall mean that the permanent
placement of construction materials has started and is proceeding without
undue delay. (Ord. 05-4186,12-15-2005)
18-2-5: AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS: Any approved
site plan may be amended in accordance with the standards
and procedures established herein. However, the building official may waive
such procedures and fees in the event the building official determines that
the proposed amendment involves only a minor change in the approved site
plan and is in compliance with the site plan review standards. For the
purposes of this section, minor changes may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
A. A change to move building walls within the confines of the smallest
rectangle that would have enclosed each originally approved
building, to relocate building entrances or exits or to shorten building
canopies.
B. A change to a more restrictive use, provided there is no change in
the amount of off street parking as originally approved.
C. A change in angle of parking or a parking aisle width, provided there
is no reduction in the amount of off street parking as originally
approved.
D. A change in location of the ingress and egress drives of not more
than one hundred feet (100'), provided such change is approved by
the city and is in compliance with the provisions of title 14, chapter
5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this code.
E. A substitution of plant species, provided the substituted species is
similar in nature and in screening effects and is otherwise in
compliance with requirements of this code.
Iowa City
18-2-5 18-2-5
F. A change in type and design of lighting fixture, provided there will be
no change in the intensity of light at the property boundary and the
proposed fixture is in compliance with the applicable provisions of
title 14, chapter 6, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this
code.
G. A change to increase peripheral yards.
H. The replacement of paved areas with landscaping, provided
adequate parking facilities are retained. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Iowa City
18-3-1
18-3-2
CHAPTER 3
SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS
SECTION:
18-3-1 :
18-3-2:
Compliance Required
Design Standards
18-3-1: COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: All site plans submitted for city
approval must comply with the following design standards.
These standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the
public health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare of the city and are
necessary to fulfill the intent of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive
plan, as amended, and other specific community plans. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-3-2: DESIGN STANDARDS:
A. Drainage: The design of the proposed development shall make
adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the
rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream
property so that the proposed development will not substantially and
materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream
property.
B. Utility Connections: The design of the proposed development shall
make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the
capacity limits of those utility lines.
C. Fire Safety: The design of the proposed development shall make
adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement,
acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to
ensure fire safety.
Iowa City
18-3-2 18-3-2
D. Erosion And Sedimentation Control: The design of the proposed
development shall comply with the standards for erosion and
sedimentation control established in the city design standards in
order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The development
plan shall consider the topography and soils of the site to achieve
the lowest potential for erosion.
E. Landscape Preservation: So far as practical, the landscape shall be
preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and
by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with
adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be
located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are
preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing
trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify
measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. To the
extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their
natural state or consistent with their functions and values or be
replaced with a wetland of equal or greater value.
F. Vehicle And Pedestrian Circulation: The design of vehicle and
pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow
of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest
extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or
property. The city may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent
streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding
streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle
movement. The city may limit street access according to the
provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article C, "Access Management
Standards", of this code.
G. Outdoor Dumpster Areas: Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and
dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the city's solid waste
regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained
in title 14, "Zoning CodeD, of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2Q,
"Outdoor Dumpster Areas", of this code.)
H. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and
location of the development in order to maintain adequate security
while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or
streets. All exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of title
14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting StandardsD, of this code.
I. Screening Of Equipment: All ground level mechanical and utility
equipment shall be screened from public view according to the
Iowa City
18-3-2
18-3-2
provisions of title 14, .Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection
14-4C-2N, "Mechanical Structures", of this code.)
J. Screening Of Storage And Loading Areas: If allowed, all outdoor
storage areas must be located and screened according to the
applicable base zone provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this
code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service areas
with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or
are visible from residential district ,and the Iowa River shall be
screened to a height of no less than six feet (6') and must meet all
screening standards specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code,
for outdoor storage and loading areas.
K. Parking Areas: Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed
or intended for use by more than four (4) vehicles located adjacent
to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a
curbed, planted area as specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this
code.
L. Sensitive Areas: All sensitive areas development plans must comply
with the applicable provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article I,
"Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code.
M. Compliance With City, State, And Federal Regulations: Site plans
shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal regulations.
(Ord. 05-4186,12-15-2005)
Iowa City
PAGE 2C-5
14-2C
Commercial Zones
3. Temporary Uses
See Article 14-40.
4. Nonconforming Situations
See Article 14-4E.
C. Site Development Standards
1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
See Article 14-5A.
2. Sign Regulations
See Article 14-56.
3. Access Management Standards
See Article 14-5C.
4. Intersection Visibility Standards
See Article 14-50.
5. Landscaping and Tree Standards
See Article 14-5E.
6. Screening and Buffering Standards
See Article 14-5F.
7. Outdoor Lighting Standards
See Article 14-5G.
8. Performance Standards
See Article 14-5H.
9. Sensitive Lands and Features
See Article 14-51.
10. Flood Plain Management Standards
See Article 14-5J.
11. Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
See Article 14-5K.
14-2C-4 Dimensional Re uirements
The dimensional requirements for the Commerdal Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-
2(b), located at the end of this Section. The following subsections describe in more detail the
regulations for each of the dimensional requirements listed in the table. Provisional Uses and
uses allowed by Special exception may have specific dimensional requirements not specified in
Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in Article 14-46.
Dimensional requirements may be waived or modified for developments approved through the
Planned Development process (See Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay) or through the
Historic Preservation Exception as outlined in the Special Provisions Section at the end of this
Article.
A. Minimum Lot Requirements
1. Purpose
The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of
a size, width, and frontage that is appropriate for the uses permitted in the subject
zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site development standards of this
Title can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit standards control the intensity of use
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-6
14-2C
Commercial Zones
on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new dwellings with the
surrounding development.
2. Standards
Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various Commercial
Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b), located at the end of this Section.
Most commercial zones do not have minimum lot size or width requirements.
However, for mixed commercial/residential buildings, the number of dwelling units
allowed is based on the size of the lot. In the CO-1 and CC-2 zon~s, the maximum
residential density in mixed-use buildings is similar to the residential density of multi-
family buildings in the RM-12 zone. In the CN-1 and MU Zones, the maximum
residential density is similar to the residential density of multi-family buildings in the
RM-20 Zone. In the C6-2 Zone the maximum residential density is similar to the
residential density of multi-family buildings in the PRM Zone, but is also limited by the
maximum FAR. The maximum residential density in the C6-5 and C6-1O zone is
limited only by the maximum FAR.
3. Minimum Lot Sizes for Specific Land Uses.
a. Provisional Uses and uses allowed by Special Exception may have specific lot
size requirements not specified in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). Approval criteria
for these uses are addressed in Article 14-46, Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
b. If a minimum lot size is specified within a zone for a particular land use or
dwelling type, whether Permitted, Provisional or a Special Exception, that use or
dwelling type may not be established on a smaller lot, even if smaller lots are
permitted in the subject base zone, except as permitted under Article 14-4E,
Nonconforming Situations.
B. Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Buildings
1. Purpose
The minimum setback requirements are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting;
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's
neighborhoods and commercial areas;
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences; and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity .
2. General Setback Requirements
Generally, the minimum required setbacks for principal buildings in commercial zones
are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b), below. The minimum setbacks for principal
buildings create requireCl setback areas within which principal buildings are not
allowed, except for certain building features as specified in this subsection.
3. Specific Setback Requirements
The following subparagraphs contain setback requirements that apply in specific
situations.
PAGE 2C-7
14-2C
Commercial Zones
a. Side and Rear Setbacks
In all Commercial Zones, if a side or rear setback is provided where not
required, the side or rear setback must be at least 5 feet. Additional setbacks
may apply if the property is in proximity to a Residential Zone. See
subparagraph d, below.
b. Lots with Multiple Frontages
(1) On corner lots, no building, structure or planting, unless specifically
exempted, may be located within the Vision Triangle, as set forth in Article
14-5D, Intersection Visibility Standards.
(2) If a lot fronting on two or more streets is required to have a front setback,
a minimum setback equal to the required front setback must be provided
along all streets and such setback will be considered a front setback for
purposes of this TItle.
c. Lots with Multiple Buildings
The principal buildings on a lot must be separated by a horizontal distance of at
least 10 feet. Buildings containing residential uses must De designed to
preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent
direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition,
balconies and air conditioning units may not be located along a building wall
that is within 20 feet of a building wall of an adjacent principal building on the
same lot, if the wall of the adjacent bLJilding contains window or door openings
into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current
Building Code fire protection requirements.
d. Lots Adjacent to a Residential Zone
Where a side or rear lot line for a lot in a Commercial Zone abuts a Residential
Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential
Zone must be provided along the Residential Zone boundary.
e. Overlay Zones and Special Districts
If specific setbacks have been established in a Historic or Cqnservation District,
a Planned Development, or in the Central Planning District, those setbacks
supercede the setback requirements of the base zone. For properties located in
a Historic or Conservation District refer to Article 14-3B and also the applicable
setback provisions in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. For a
property located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone refer to the approved
Planned Development Overlay Plan for the subject property. For Two Family
Uses, Multi-Family Uses, Group Living Uses, and Institutional/Civic Uses located
on property in the Central Planning District, refer to the applicable setback
provisions in Section 14-2B-6, Multi-Family Site Development Standards.
f. Setback Averaging
Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal
buildings that are located at least 5 feet closer to the street than the required
front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the
respective setbacks on the abutting lots. Only the setbacks on the lots that abut
each side of the subject property along the same street may be used to
calculate the average. Setbacks across the street or along a ,different street
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-8
14-2C
Commercial Zones
frontage may not be used. When one abutting lot is vacant or if the lot is a
corner lot, then the average is based on the setback of the principal building on
the non-vacant lot and the required front setback for the zone in which the lot is
located (See Figure 2C.1).
Agure 2C 1 - Setback Averaging
'--'---,--l
I A I B I C I
I l~~ I I
I IctLdsAa-dC) I I
I I 7 112 fettsi< I I
fa" L.d B
r--'---'--l
I D I~ct I F I
I I~!#j~~ I I
I ~~: I Vcan I
I 112 wsatm< I I
fa" L.d E
10 fettsi<
15 RfQ..ire;1
FrtJt satm<
5 fettsi<
10 Sl:iI:a:J< 15 ~red
FrtJt fettsi<
,--T--i
G H
I I (Average of I
I /EXisting Setback I
of Lot G and
I required Setbac~
for Lot H) I
I /12112' Setback I
for Lot E
I-
W
W
0::
I-
en
1 0' Setback
STREET
15' Required
Front Setback
I
4. Building Features Permitted Within the Required Setback Area
The following building features may extend into the required principal building
setback area, subject to the conditions indicated and provided that location of such a
feature does not violate the provisions of Article 14-50, Intersection Visibility
Standards. The setback regulations for detached accessory structures and structures
not considered part of the principal building are addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory
Uses and Buildings.
a. Awnings, uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses, canopies,
chimneys, cornices, sills, and other similar features that extend beyond the wall
of a principal building may project up to 6 feet into the required front or rear
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-9
14-2C
Commercial Zones
setbacks. Except for balconies, bay windows, and chimneys, all such projecting
building features may extend up to 3 feet into the required side setback.
Balconies and bay windows may not extend into the required side setback.
Chimneys may extend up to 2 feet into the required side setback. Projections
from the principal building must in all cases be at least 2 feet from any side lot
line.
b. Covered porches, covered decks, and covered patios that are attached to the
principal building must comply with the principal building setbacks of the base
zone. The standards for uncovered deckS and patios are specified in Article 14-
4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. Covered porches, covered decks, and
covered patios that are attached to an accessory building must comply with the
standards for accessory buildings as specified in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses
and Buildings.
c. Fire escapes may extend into any setback, provided they do not extend more
than 3-1/2 feet into any side setback.
d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units
located above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any
required setback.
e. Stoops and wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground
or first floor of a dwelling unit may extend into the rear setback, up to 8 feet
into the required front setback, and into the side setback, provided they are
setback at least 3 feet from any side lot line. In cases where due to topography
or other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet this standard, a
Minor Modification may be requested according to the approval criteria and
procedures for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-4B.
5. Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements
a. A Minor Modification to reduce principal building setback requirements may be
requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for Minor
Modifications contained in Article 14-4B.
b. A Special Exception may be requested to reduce principal building setback
requirements beyond what is allowed by Minor Modification. The Board of
Adjustment may adjust setback requirements if the owner or lawful occupant of
a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and
the foJ/owing specific approval criteria have been satisfied:
(1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question;
(2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
(3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations; and
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are
mitigated to the extent practical.
(5) The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear
property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-
way or permanent open space.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-10
14-2C
Commercial Zones
c. Building Bulk Standards
1. Height Standards
a. Purpose
The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and
relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and
discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. In the
Central Business Zones, there is a minimum height standard that ensures that
buildings are compatible in scale and that land is used efficiently.
b. Standards
Generally, the maximum and minimum height standards for principal structures
in Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). This table is
located at the end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are
addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. .
c. Exemptions
If allowed in the subject zone, the following structures or parts thereof are
exempt from the maximum height standards, provided an increase in height
does not conflict with Chapter 14-6, Airport Zoning.
(1) Chimneys or flues.
(2) Spires on religious or other institutional buildings.
(3) Cupolas, domes, skylights and other similar roof protrUSions not used for
the purpose of obtaining habitable floor space.
(4) Farm structures, including barns, silos, storage bins and similar structures
when accessory to an allowed Agriculture Use.
(5) Flagpoles that extend not more than 10 feet above the height limit or not
more than 5 feet above the highest point of the roof, whichever is less.
(6) Grain elevators.
(7) Parapet or fire walls.
(8) Poles, towers and other structures accessory to a Basic Utility Use, such as
street lights and utility poles.
(9) If allowed in the subject zone, Basic Utilities and Communication
Transmission Facilities are exempt from the base zone height standards,
but are subject to any limitations set forth in Article 14-4B, Provisional Uses
and Special Exceptions.
(10) Roof structures, including elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans,
cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical
appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building.
(11) Stacks.
(12) Storage tanks and water towers.
(13) Television antennae and similar apparatus.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-11
14-2C
Commercial Zones
d. Adjustment of Maximum Height Standards
(1) The maximum height for a principal building may be increased, provided
that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front,
side, and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional 2 feet, and
provided that an increase in height does not conflict wi~h the provisions of
Chapter 14-6, Airport Zoning.
(2) In the CO-1 Zone, principal buildings on lots across the street from RM, C,
or I Zones may be increased in height according to (1), above, except that
an additional front setback need not be provided. The requirement for
additional side and rear setbacks apply. However, the minimum separation
between the building and the front lot line of the lot across the street must
be two feet for each foot of height.
(3) A Minor Modification may also be requested to adjust the maximum height
for a particular building or property according to the procedures and
approval criteria for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-4B.
2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio
a. Purpose
The floor area ratio or FAR regulates how intensely a site may be used. The FAR
provides a means to match the potential amount of use with the desired
character of the area and the provision of public services. The FAR, along with
the height and setback standards, control the overall bulk of development on a
site.
b. Standards
The Floor Area Ratio or FAR listed in Tables 2C-2(a) is the amount of floor area
within the building or buildings on a lot in relation to the amount of lot area,
expressed in square feet. For example, if the maximum FAR is 2, then a lot may
contain up to two square feet of building floor area for every one square foot of
lot area. Basement and cellar floor area is not included in this calculation.
D. Maximum Lot Coverage Standards
1. Total Building Coverage
a. Purpose
The total building coverage standard helps to define the character of the Mixed
Use Zone by limiting the land area that can be covered by buildings. These
standards work in conjunction with the minimum lot requirements and building
bulk standards to determine how built-up a neighborhood appears.
b. Standard
The total building coverage standard for the MU Zone is stated in Table 2C-2(b),
located at the end of this Section. The maximum building coverage standard
establishes the percentage of the total area of a lot that can be covered by
buildings. The total building area of all buildings on the property, including both
principal and accessory buildings, is used. to calculate the building coverage.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-12
14-2C
Commercial Zones
2. Front Setback Coverage
a. Purpose
The front setback coverage standard ensures that a certain portion of the front
setback remains free of impervious surface, which helps to maintain a consistent
and pleasant environment along neighborhood streets. These standards
increase public safety by preventing excessive front yard paving and vehicular
storage that may obscure the principal dwelling and the main entrance from
view of the street. In addition, this standard helps to prevent neighborhood
streets that are dominated by front yard pavement, particularly along frontages
with narrow residential lots.
b. Standard
The maximum front setback coverage standard for the Mixep Use Zone is stated
in Table 2C-2(b), located at the end of this Section. The standard applies only to
residential uses in the MU Zone. The table lists the maximum percentage of the
required front setback that may be covered by impervious surface, including
driveways, patios, decks, and other paved areas. Front setback coverage may
not exceed the percentage indicated in Table 2C-2(b).
c. Exception.
A Special Exception may be requested to increase the allowed front setback
coverage. The Board of Adjustment may adjust the front setback coverage
standard if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the
general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval
criteria have been satisfied:
(1) The lot is of an irregular shape or contains severe topography, such that
there is practical difficulty meeting the front setback coverage standard.
(2) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design
buildings, paved areas, and vehicular use areas to mee,t the front setback
coverage standard. Such efforts include reducing the width of driveways,
reducing paved areas and size of garages and providing alternative means
of vehicular access to the property. If vehicular access to an alley or
private rear lane is available, the front setback coverage standard may not
be increased.
(3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the front
setback coverage regulations.
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-13
14-2C
Commercial Zones
BUlIdlOg BpJk
Zone Max Mln
Hi. (ft.) HI. FAR
(ft)
CO-1 none 2,725 none none 10 0' 0' none 257 none 1 or 33
CN-1 none 1.800 none none 5 0' 0' See Section 22 or 352 18
14-2C-7E
CH.1 none nla 100 none 10 0' 01 none none none 1
CI.1 none nla none none 10 0' 0' none 35 none 1
CC-2 none 2,725 none none 10 01 0' none 35 none 2
CB-2 none 875 none none 0 0' 01 none 45 none 2
CB.5
none
none
none
none
o or 1Q4
0'
0'
12/
75
25
35
CB-10 none none none none 0 or 1()4 0' 01 12 none 25 106
Notes:
nla = not applicable
1 A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot
line or rear lot line abuts a Residential Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential Zone must be
provided along the Residential Zone boundary.
2 Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception. One-story buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are
clerestory windows facing the street that give the appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet.
3 Maximum FAR is 1, except for lots across the street from RM, C, or I Zones. The maximum FAR is 3 for lots across the street from RM, C,
or I Zones.
4 A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must be set back at least 10 feet from the
Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting upper stories may be located within this 10-foot settJack provided an adequate
pedestrian passageway is maintained.
5 Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to'a
maximum of 5.
6 Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a
maximum of 12.
7 Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See Section 14-2C-4C-1d(2).
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-14
14-2C
Commercial Zones
Tabl~2C~~(b):.DJm~tis'
Zonel
Use
MU Detached SF
and Detached 3,000 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50%
Zero Lot Line
Two Family 3,600 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 20 355 50% 50%
(Duplex)
Attached SF 1,800 1,800 20/284 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50%
Multi-Family 5,000 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% 50%
Group Living 5,000 See 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% 50%
Art.48
Non-residentiaP none n/a none 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% n/a
Notes:
n/a = not applicable
'Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in 14-48, Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
2 Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. For Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings, see applicable
setback regulations in 14-48.
3 See applicable setback requirements in Article 14-48, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and ~rovisional Uses.
4 Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only two units are
attached, lots must be 28 feet wide.
5 Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a Two Family Use, Multi-Family Use, Group Living Use, or a Non-residential Use is
located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single Family Use or within 15 feet of a Single Family Zone boundary, then the
portion of the building located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
6Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See 14-2C-9D, Maximum Setbacks.
14-2C-5 Maximum Occupancy for Household Livin Uses
The residential occupancy of a Household Living Use is limited to one "household" per dwelling
unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions.
14-2C-6 Commercial Site Development Standards
A. Purpose
The Commercial Site Development Standards ensure that commercial development is
compatible in scale and intensity to the surrounding development, unsightly elements are
screened from publiC view, and that safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation is
established.
B. Applicability
1. The standards of this Section apply to all development in the CO-1, CC-2, Cl-1, CH-1,
and CB-2 Zones, unless specifically exempted.
2. Development in the CN-1 Zone is subject to the CN-1 Site Development Standards
speCified in Section 14-2C-7.
Title 14: 10wa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-15
14-2C
Commercial Zones
3. Development in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones is subject to the CB-5 and CB-lO Site
Development Standards specified in Section 14-2C-8.
4. Development in the MU Zone is subject to the MU Zone Site Development Standards
specified in Section 14-2C-9.
C. Site Plan Review Procedure
Review for compliance with the standards and requirements of this Section will occur as a
part of the site plan review process (See TItle 18 of the City Code).
D. Surface Parking Lot Setback Requirements
1. Front setback requirements
Parking and loading areas must be set back at least 10 feet from .any front and
street-side lot lines. However, any loading area, parking spaces or aisles located
within 50 feet of a Residential Zone boundary must be set back at least 20 feet from
the front or street-side lot line.
2. Side and rear setback requirements
Parking and loading areas must be setback at least 5 feet from any (non-street-side)
side or rear lot line. However, parking and loading areas must be set back at least 10
feet from any side or rear lot line that abuts a property zoned Residential. The City
may exempt from these setback regulations any specific locations along a lot line
where a parking area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot.
. .
3. Drives
a. Drives that are internal to a 'parking area, including drives that provide
circulation around the perimeter of a parking area are considered part of the
parking area and must meet the setback standards as specified above. Drives
that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 3 feet from any
abutting property that is zoned non-residential, unless the drive is pitched or
curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property or
unless a drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm
water run-off. Any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a drive is
shared with an abutting lot may be exempted from these standards.
b. Drives that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 10 feet from
any abutting property that is zoned Residential.
E. Drive-Through Facilities
Drive-through facilities are regulated as an accessory use and are only' allowed in certain
zones according to the provisions specified for drive-through facilities in Article 14-4C,
Accessory Uses and Buildings.
F. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation
The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and
vehicular circulation according to the following standards:
1. Pedestrian walkways must be provided between principal buildings and abutting
rights of way. The walkways provided on-site must connect to adjacent public
sidewalks and trails.
2. On commercial sites with multiple buildings, sidewalks or other approved pedestrian
routes must be provided between the principal buildings on the site. The City may
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-16
14-2C
Commercial Zones
exempt commercial sites where pedestrian traffic between buildings is rare or
unlikely.
3. Pedestrian routes must be provided on-site that connect parking areas to building
entrances. Pedestrian routes from and through parking areas to principal building
entrances must be identified on the site plan and integrated into the parking lot
design.
4. Pedestrian routes must be continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily identifiable as
protected pedestrian routes. Landscaping, curbing, raised paving, bollards, distinctive
paving materials, and other similar means may be used to separate and protect
pedestrian routes from vehicular traffic.
5. Bicycle parking facilities must be located in areas convenient to building entrances,
but must be located so as not to impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
G. Landscaping and Screening
1. All areas of the site that are not used for buildings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian
use areas, sidewalk cafes and plazas, must be landscaped with trees and/or plant
materials. A landscaping plan must be submitted for site plan review.
2. Surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of
public rights-of-way to at least the 52 standard (See Article 14-SF, Screening and
Buffering Standards).
3. Surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of
abutting properties to at least the 52 standard. Additional screening is required for
properties that abut properties zoned Residential. Parking areas, loading areas, and
drives must be screened from view of any abutting property zoned Residential to at
least the 53 standard. The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement any
specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking or loading area, aisle or
drive is shared with an abutting lot.
4. Where a lot occupied by a Commercial or Industrial Use abuts or is across a street or
railroad right-of-way from a Residential Zone, Daycare Use, Educational Facility,
Parks and Open Space Use, or the Iowa River, any parking and loading areas and
outdoor work and storage areas must be located behind buildings or screened from
view of said uses and zones to at least the 53 standard.
5. Screening may be waived by the Building Official where the view ,is or will be blocked
by a significant change in grade or by natural or human-made features, such that the
screening is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met, as determined
by the Building Official.
H. Mechanical Structures
All mechanical structures must be set back and screened from public view according to the
applicable provisions set forth in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings.
I. Outdoor Storage and Display
1. In the CO-1, CC-2,and CB-2 Zones
Outdoor storage and display of materials is not permitted in the CO-1, CC-2, or CB-2
Zones, except for the following:
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-17
14-2C
Commercial Zones
a. Outdoor display of merchandise for immediate sale is permitted in areas
immediately adjacent to a principal building. However, the display area may not
be located along any building wall that is within 20 feet of a'public street and
may not be located in a manner that obstructs building entrances and exits,
sidewalks, bicycle parking areas, pedestrian routes, or vehicular use areas.
b. An approved Temporary Use. A temporary use permit is required (See Article
14-40).
c. In the CC-2 Zone, an approved Outdoor Storage and Display-Oriented Retail
Use.
2. In the CH-l and CI-l Zones
a. Outdoor storage of materials in the CH-1 and CI-1 Zones is permitted, provided
It is concealed from public view to the extent possible. If it is not feasible to
conceal the storage areas behind buildings, the storage areas must be setback
at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way, including public trails and open
space, and screened from view to at least the 53 standard (See Article 14-SF,
Screening and Buffering Standards). If a fence is built around the storage area,
the required screening must be located between the fence and the public right-
of-way. '
b. All outdoor storage areas that are located along a side or rear lot line that does
not abut a public right-of-way must be setback at least 10 feet from said lot line
and screened from view of the adjacent property to at least the 53 standard. If
a fence is built around the storage area, the required screening must be located
between the fence and the adjacent property.
c. The landscape screening requirement for outdoor storage areas may be waived
by the Building Official upon presentation of convincing evidence that a planting
screen cannot be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions,
or other site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall
not constitute convincing evidence. If the landscape screening requirement is
waived by the Building Official, a fence built to the 55 standard must be
substituted for the landscape screening.
d. Outdoor display of merchandise for immediate sale is permitted in the CH-1 and
CI-1 Zones, prOVided it is set back at least 10 feet from public rights-of-way and
landscaped to at least the 51 standard. .
e. Any outdoor display area located along a side or rear lot line that does not abut
a public right-of-way must be set back at least 10 feet from said lot line and
screened from view of abutting properties to at least the 52 standard. If the
display area is adjacent to a Residential Zone boundary it has to be screened to
the 53 standard.
f. The landscape screening requirement for outdoor display may be waived by the
Building Official upon presentation of convincing evidence that a planting screen
cannot be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions, or other
site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall not
constitute convincing evidence.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-18
14-2C
Commercial Zones
g. Screening for outdoor storage and display areas may be waived by the Building
Official where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or
by natural or human-made features, such that screening is effectively provided
and the intent of the standard is met, as determined by the Building Official.
3. In all Commercial Zones
The storage of combustible or flammable materials or liquids is strictly regulated
according to the provisions of Article 14-5H, Performance Standards and according to
the International Fire Code, as amended.
J. Balconies
1. Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property
that is zoned Single Family Residential.
2. The outer edge of a balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line.
3. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings
that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to
the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained
lumber is not permitted.
K. Standards for Large Retail Uses
1. Applicability
The provisions of this subsection apply to retail uses over 50,000 square feet in size.
The intent of these standards is to facilitate adaptive reuse of large retail commercial
structures, to moderate scale of large buildings, and to ensure consistent appearance
with other shopping center developments.
2. Facades and Exterior Walls
8. Facades over 100 feet in length that are visible from public streets and/or
include public entrances shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a
minimum of 3 feet in depth for a minimum of 20 contiguous feet within each
100 feet of fa<;ade length. Such recesses and/or projections shall extend over a
minimum of 20 percent of the length of the fa<;ade and no uninterrupted facade
may exceed 100 feet in length.
b. For facades that face public streets or include public entrances, features that
provide visual interest such as arcades, storefront windows that allow views into
the interior of the building, display windows that are set into the building wall,
entry areas, awnings or similar features must be incorporated along at least 60
percent of the fa<;ade.
3. Building Details
Buildings must include details and features that provide visual interest, reduce the
perception of the mass of the building, and provide a cohesive pattern to the
building. Any building fa<;ade that faces a public street or includes a public entrance
shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these
elements shall occur along the vertical plane of the building. An example of a change
that occurs on the vertical plane would be a change from stone on the lower portion
of the building to stucco on the upper portion. All elements that occur along the
horizontal plane of the building shall repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet.
These visual patterns must be cohesive with the articulation of the fa<;ade.
Title J 4: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-19
14-2C
Commercial Zones
a. Color change
b. Texture change
c. Material module change
d. Expression of an architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no
less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal or projection.
4. Roof Details
a. Flat roofs must incorporate parapets that conceal rooftop equipment such as
HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not
exceed 15 percent of the height of the supporting wall and at no point shall
exceed 1/3 of the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall feature a
three-dimensional cornice treatment.
b. Sloping roofs must not exceed the average height of the supporting walls and
must include overhanging eaves that extend no less than three feet past the
supporting walls.
c. The roof of the building must be designed with three or more roof slope planes.
It is encouraged that changes in the roof correspond with articulation of the
building fa~ade.
5. Building Materials
a. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building materials,
including brick, masonry, stone, stucco, or textured concrete masonry units.
Concrete panels with a veneer of brick or masonry may be approved provided
the material gives the appearance of one or more of the hig/1 quality building
materials listed above. Stamped concrete panels will only be considered if they
are finished with patterns and colors such that they appear to be brick or
masonry. Predominantly is defined as at least 75 percent of the exterior of the
entire building, but not necessarily of each building wall. For example, use of
such materials may be concentrated along building walls that are visible from
public streets or that contain public entrances.
b. Use of smooth-faced concrete block, unadorned tilt-up concrete panels,
prefabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets should be minimized. If used, these
materials may cover no more than 25 percent of the exterior of the entire
building and should be reserved for building walls that are less visible to the
public.
6. Entryways
Each principal building shall have a clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance
with no less than three of the features listed below. Where additional stores are
located within the principal building, each store shall have at least one exterior
customer entrance with no Jess than three of the following features:
a. Canopy or portico;
b. Overhang;
c. Recess/projection;
d. Arcade;
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 2C-20
14-2C
Commercial Zones
e. Raised cornice parapet over the door;
f. Archway;
g. Outdoor patio;
h. Display windows;
i. Storefront windows that allow views into the interior of the store;
j. TIle work and moldings that are integrated into the building structure and
design;
k. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places
for sitting.
14-2C-7 CN-1 Zone Site Develo ment Standards
A. Purpose
The CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards ensure that commercial development is
compatible in scale and intensity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These
standards also ensure that neighborhood commercial areas are carefully designed to be
inviting for pedestrians by requiring buildings to be located close to and oriented toward
streets or pedestrian plazas; ensuring that pedestrian routes are clearly separated from
driveways and parking areas; requiring that buildings be constructed with street-level
storefront windows and clearly demarcated pedestrian entrances; and by requiring that
parking be located away from the street in well-landscaped areas.
B. Applicability
1. The standards of this Section apply to all new development in a CN-! Zone.
2. Exceptions to the standards and requirements of this section may be approved during
the site plan review process in CN-1 Zones that were in existence and at least
partially developed by June 7, 2002, if the City determines that compliance with the
subject standard or requirement is not feasible. However, all proposed development
must meet the standards of this Section to the extent possible.
3. Alternative design solutions may be approved during the site plan review process if it
is demonstrated that the alternative design solution meets the intent of this Section.
C. CN-l Site Plan Review Procedure
1. Prior to submitting a request for site plan review, the developer must participate in a
pre-application conference with the Director of Planning and Community
Development or designee to discuss the application of the CN-1 Zone Site
Development Standards to the subject property.
2. Review for compliance with the standards and requirements of this Section will occur
concurrently and as a part of the site plan review process.
D. Rezoning to CN-l
1. A CN-! Zoning District may not exceed 10 acres in size.
Title I4: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-3
14-5A
Off-Street Parking-and Loading Standards
e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the following
standards apply:
(1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent ground
floor storefront uses. Structured parking may be permitted on the ground-
level floor of a building, provided that a substantial portion of the ground
level floor of the building is reserved for and built to accommodate
storefront uses. Parking is not allowed within the first 50 feet of lot depth
as measured from the front building line.
(2) Vehicular access to parking within buildings must be from a rear alley or
private rear lane, whenever feasible. Garage openings along the primary
street frontage are not permitted if access is feasible from another street
or from a rear alley, private street or private rear lane. If there is no other
feasible alternative, a garage opening may be allowed along the primary
street frontage, if the Board determines that the opening(s) will not detract
from or unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Garage openings
shall be built to the minimum width necessary for access.
(3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public or
private street must appear to be a component of the fac;ade of the building
through the use of building materials, window openings and fac;ade
detailing that is similar or complementary to the design of the building.
(4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so that
vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly vi~ible to a
pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less than 10 feet.
Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs may be required.
E. Near Southside Parking Facility District
In the Near Southside Parking Facility District, a parking facility impact fee may be
required in lieu of providing all or a portion of on-site parking (See Article 14-7B,
Development Fees).
14-SA-4 Minimum Parkin Re uirements
A. Purpose
The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-street parking
is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of
uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on-street
parking in not available. The minimum parking requirements are also intended to ensure
that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking for non-r~sidential uses from
encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods.
B. Minimum Requirements
1. Table 5A-2 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking
requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except the CB-5 and
CB-10 Zones. For some land uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based
on the zone in which the property is located.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-4
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
2. In the CB-5 Zone, parking is not required for any land use, except for Multi-Family
Uses, as specified in Table 5A-l, below.
3. In the CB-lO Zone, parking is not required for any land use.
C. Parking for Persons with Disabilities
Where a use is required to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities, the number
and design of such parking spaces must be in accordance with State of Iowa
Administrative Code, 661 IAC 18, Parking for Persons With Disabilities, as amended.
D. Rules for Computing Minimum Parking Requirements
1. Where a fractional space results, the number of parking and stacking spaces required
is the closest whole number. A half space will be rounded down.
2. Any use that is nonconforming with regard to the number of required parking spaces
is subject to the applicable provisions of Article 14-4E, Nonconfoqning Situations.
3. In the case of mixed uses, the number of parking and stacking spaces required is
equal to the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately,
except for shopping centers, as specified in Table 5A-2, and for reductions allowed
under the subsection entitled "Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements,"
below.
E. Rules for Computing Bicycle Parking Requirements
1. In Tables 5A-l and 5A-2, the minimum bicycle parking requirements are expressed
as a certain number of spaces per dwelling unit or as a percentage of the required
number of vehicle parking spaces.
2. In all cases where bicycle parking is required, a minimum of 4 spaces shall be
provided.
3. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, additional spaces are required
at 50 percent of the number required by this Section.
4. Where the expected need for bicycle parking for a particular use is uncertain due to
unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use or due to a location that is
difficult to access by bicycle, the Building Official may authorize that the construction
of up to 50 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The land area
required for the deferred bicycle parking spaces must be maintained in reserve. If an
enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that the
additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to install
the parking in the reserved area. The owner of the property on which the bicycle
parking area is reserved must properly execute, sign, and record.a written agreement
that is binding upon their successors and assigns as a covenant running with the land
that assures the installation of bicycle parking within the reserved area by the owner
if so ordered by an enforcement official of the City.
"
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-5
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
Resldcmtild Uses
Household Living
Uses
Multi-family
Dwellings
Bicycle
Parking
Efficiency,1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit d.u.
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
Two Family Uses
Group Households
1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that
contains a household with more than 2 unrelated
persons, 1 additional parking space is required for each
additional unrelated person in excess of two. For
example, if a Single Family Use contains 4 unrelated
persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided.
1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling
unit that contains a household with more than 2
unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is
required for each additional unrelated person in excess
of two.
3 spaces
Efficiency & 1-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit
2-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
4-bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit
5-bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit
Efficiency, 1- & 2- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling
unit
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit
1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units
and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living
units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones.
In the PRM and CB-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2
dwelling units.
1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for each staff
member determined by the maximum number of staff
present at anyone time.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per
resident, whichever is less.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per
resident, whichever is less.
Multi- All zones, except PRM
family
Dwellings
PRM Zone
Elder Apartments
Group Living
Assisted Group Living
Independent Group Living
Fratemal Group Living
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
None
required
None
required
None
required
0.5 per d.u.
1.0 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
1.5 per d.u.
1.0 per d.u.
5%
None
required
25%
25%
Revised 2-20-07
USE CATEGORIES
Commercial Uses
Adult Business Uses
Animal-related
Commercial
Commercial Recreational
Uses
Commercial Parking
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
Quick Vehicle Servicing
Office Uses
PAGE 5A-6
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
Retail-type
EntertainmenUnight club-type
General
Intensive
Outdoor Spectator-type
(major event facilities,
such as arenas,
stadiums, etc.)
Participatory-type (tennis
courts, swimming pools,
archery ranges, sports
fields, etc.)
Indoor
General Office
Medical/Dental Office
Title J 4: Iowa City Zoning Code
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area
Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant Joad of the
largest assembly space or seating area in the building.
1 space for each office, examining room, and
treatmenUgrooming room, but not less than 3 spaces.
3 spaces
Parking spaces equal to 1/4 the occupant load of the
seating area.
Parking spaces equal to 213 the maximum' number of
participants likely at anyone time.
Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the
area used for the participatory activity.
Not applicable
1 space per 150 sq. ft. of floor area, or parking spaces
equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the seating area,
whichever is less. Carry-ouUdelivery restaurants that do
not have a seating area must provide at least 4 spaces.
For gas stations, 1 stacking space is required for every
service stall or pump station.
For car washes, 4 stacking spaces are required for
each wash rack, bay, or tunnel.
Parking for convenience retail must be calculated
separately. Parking spaces must be provided in lieu of
stacking spaces in instances where egress from a
facility would require moving a motor vehi91e waiting for
entry.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area.
In the MU and CB-2 Zones, no additional parking is
required for that floor area exceeding 8,000 square feet.
1.5 spaces for each office, examining room and
treatment room, provided however, there shall not be.
less than 5 spaces.
10%
None
required
None
required
10%
10%
10%
None
required
10%
None
required
15%
15%
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-7
J 4-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
Retail Shopping centers, where a mix of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area. Spaces for
uses, such as retail, office, residential uses must be calculated separately and 15%
restaurants, theaters, commercial must be provided in addition to the parking spaces for
recreational uses, etc., share the the commercial uses.
same parking area. This parking
minimum may be used as an optional
altemative to calculating the parking
for each of the uses separately.
Sales-Oriented 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 15%
Personal Service-Oriented 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. 15%
Repair -Oriented 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Hospitality-Oriented For hotels and motels, 1 space per guest ~oom. None
For guest houses, as defined in this Title, 0.75 spaces required
per guest room.
For meeting facilities and similar, spaces equal to 1/4
the occupant load of the meeting area or 1/4 the
occupant load of the seating area, whichever is most
applicable to the use.
Outdoor Storage and Display- 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area 10%
Oriented
Surface Passenger No minimum requirement None
Services required
Vehicle Repair 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. None
required
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Manufacturing and T echnicallUght Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
Production required
General Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Heavy Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Salvage Operations 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Self-Service Storage 2 spaces per leasing office plus 1 space per 100 None
leasable storage spaces. required
Warehouse and Freight For warehouses up to 25,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area up to a maximum None
Movement of 5 spaces. required
For warehouses 25,000 sq. ft. or 5 spaces plus 1 space for each 5,000 sq. ft. above None
greater 25,000 sq. ft. . required
Waste-Related Uses 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Wholesale Sales 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None
required
Title I4: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-8
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
Institutional And
Basic Utilities No minimum requirement None
required
Colleges and Universities Public Based on parking demand analysis 25%
Private Per special exception review based on parking demand 25%
analysis
Community Service General Community Service 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 10%
Community Service - Shelter 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum
number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at 25%
anyone time plus 1 space per employee based on the
maximum number of employees at the site at anyone
time.
Daycare 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of
employees at the site at anyone time plus one parking 10%
space for each 10 children or clients served, based on
the maximum number of children present on the site at
anyone time, plus one stacking space for each 20
children or clients served, based on the maximum
number of clients or children present on the site at any
one time. Additional parking spaces at a ratio of 1/20
clients or children served may be substituted for the
stacking spaces, if the City detenmines that such an
arrangement will not cause traffic to stack into adjacent
streets or public rights-{)f-way.
Detention Facilities No minimum requirement None
required
Educational Facilities Elementary, middle, junior high 2 spaces per classroom
schools, and Specialized Educational 25%
Facilities
High schools 10 spaces per classroom 25%
Hospitals 1.75 spaces per hospital bed None
required
Parks and Open Space No minimum requirement, except for recreational uses
within private open spaces areas as follows: 5%
For golf courses, 3 spaces for each green (hole).
For other recreational or public assembly-type uses,
parking is required at half the minimum amount required
for the most similar commercial recreational use.
Religious/Private Group Parking spaces equal to 1/6 the occupant load of the
Assembly main auditorium or the largest room in the building, 5%
whichever is greater.
.Other
Agriculture No minimum requirement None
required
Animal-related No minimum requirement None
required
Aviation-related Uses Airports No minimum requirement None
required
Helicopter Landing Facilities No minimum requirement None
required
Extraction No minimum requirement None
required
Communication No minimum requirement None
Transmission Facilities required
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-9
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
F. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements
1. Off-Site Parking
Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use 'served according to
the following rules. When the proposed off-site parking is located in a Residential
Zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the proposed
parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met.
When the proposed off-site parking is located in a Commercial, Industrial, or
Research Zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve
the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through
g. are met.
a. Special Location Plan
A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off-site
parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed location
of the off-site parking, the location of the use or uses served by the parking,
and the distance and proposed walking route between the parking and the
use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property
boundaries, including boundaries of any intervening properties. In addition,
documentation must be submitted providing evidence deemed necessary to '
comply with the requirements herein.
b. Location of Off-site Parking
(1) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off-site parking space may be
located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served.
(2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off-site parking space may be located
more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served.
Zoning
Off-site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s)
served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot
within the parameters of the following pairings:
(1) Parking in a Multi-Family Zone serving a use located in a different Multi-
Family Zone or in the MU Zone or vice versa.
(2) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in a different
Commercial zone.
c.
d.
.
(3) Parking in an Industrial Zone serving a use located in a different Industrial
Zone.
(4) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in an Industrial Zone
or vice versa.
Shared Use of Off-Site Parking
Where two or more uses will jointly use the proposed off-site parking, the
number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street parking spaces
required, as indicated in Tables SA-! and SA-2, except for reductions approved
under the provisions of paragraph 2, below, Allowed Reductions for Shared
Parking.
,.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
PAGE 5A-10
14-5A
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
e. Off-Site Parking Located in a Municipally-Owned Parking Facility
In instances where a use is within 600 feet of a City-owned parking area, up to
50 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the
parking facility. When a use abuts a City-owned parking area, up to 100 percent
of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking
facility. When an applicant requests to provide off-street parking in a City-owned
parking facility, the City Manager or designee must substantiate that with the
addition of the requested number of parking spaces the capacity of the parking
facility will not be exceeded.
f. Approval Criteria
In assessing a special location plan for off-site parking, the Board of Adjustment
or Director of Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider
the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot
separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety;
any detrimental effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape
as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non-required
parking, the need for additional off-street parking.
g. Covenant for Off-Site Parking
A written agreement between the owners of the parking and the owners of the
property for which the parking will serve must be submitted with the application
for off-site parking. The agreement must assure the retention of the parking and
stacking spaces, aisles and drives and be properly executed, binding upon their
successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant running with the
land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and
conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written
consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
2. Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking
The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community
Development may approve a minor modification as speCified in Section 14-4B-1 to
reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to 50 percent, if the uses
sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours.
However, this reduction is not allowed for Residential Uses. To qualify for a
reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that
provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area
will be sufficient to meet the parking demand.
3. Landbanked Parking in the CN-l Zone
The Director of Planning and Community Development may reduce the minimum
parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone as follows, if it is determined that the
proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN-1 zone. To accommodate future
changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, up
to 30 percent of the land area that would otherwise be needed to provide the
required amount of parking may be landbanked or set aside on the site to provide for
the future construction of a parking area. If an enforcement official of the City
determines at some point in the future that additional parking spaces are needed, the
property owner will be required to construct parking on the landbanked area. A
written agreement between the property owner and the City must be properly
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Revised 2-20-07
HIS review notes:
Floodplain does not encroach into this lot.
FAA Notice to Construct is required. Site is shielded by topographic features (trees along Iowa
River bank); Paul Anderson may provide an exhibit but the FAA determination of no hazard will
likely be received before a building permit is issued. ok
Site Plan Submittal Requirements 18-2-2
1. Add the street address to the plan - 429 Southgate Avenue.
2. Braverman Center preceded NPDES permit requirements, so an NPDES/CSR permit is not
required. However, plans and proposed methods for the control of erosion during construction
are still required as part of the site plan. Provide details on how erosion will be prevented and
sediment controlled during development. silt fence shown; ok
3. Need a lighting plan, and since there is an R zone to the south, a photometric will be
necessary. Photometric received 10/3; ok NEED CUT SHEETS ok
4. Will this building be required to be sprinklered? Domestic and fire services will have to be
separated outside the building, if sprinklering is required. There are no hydrants shown - are there
any hydrants in the area? Fire to review. ok
5. Provide an accessible pedestrian route from the public sidewalk. The route must be separated
from vehicular traffic areas. The bike rack appears to be in a good location, but will parking for
only four bikes be enough? another rack added 10/15 ok Accessible pedestrian route provided
from Waterfront; ok
Zoning: CI-1
Transient housing is considered "Community Service - Shelter" and requires a special exception
from the Board of Adjustment.
See EXC (below) for conditions of decision
EXC04-00016
1. BOA application was for a maximum 70 residents are proposed.
2. A minimum of 200 sq. feet of lot area per temporary resident is required. Since this is transient
housing, all residents are temporary. Lot is over 29,000 sq. feet. (29,134/200 => 145 residents,
max. OK
3. BOA decision specifies an evergreen landscaped buffer along the east property line. The
buffer is illustrated running along the entire east lot line. OK
4. BOA decision specifies an eight-foot-tall privacy fence along the south property line. OK
5. Exterior stairwells must meet guidelines. All stairwells enclosed. OK.
Commercial Site Development Standards 14-2C-6
1. Parking must be set back 10 feet from front lot lines. Add measurements from Southgate or
Waterfront ROWs. OK
2. Aisle to the rear of parking area must be 22 feet. OK
Minimum Off-street Parking 14-SA
1. Required parking is based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the
shelter at anyone time (0.1 per resident) plus one space per employee, based on the maximum
number of employees at the site at anyone time. 21 parking spaces are required for 14 staff and
70 residents. Site plan illustrates 18 parking spaces. 3 additional spaces are required.
Landscaping and Trees 14-SE
1. Corner lots require one street frontage tree for every 60 linear feet. 336/60 = 6 trees. OK
2. Parking lots with 18 or fewer trees don't require parking lot coverage trees. OK
3. Parking and loading areas must be screened to the S2 standard. OK
Public Works Comments
Called Denny Gannon to see if he wanted to review plan - there is a new sanitary sewer as well
as two curb cuts: one on Waterfront and one on Southgate.
Denny wants to review the plan - copy sent up to him 9/8.
9/9 - emailed Duane and Tom. Denny's marked-up comments are in HIS for pick up.
9/24 I reviewed the revised site plan for the Shelter House. I found no problems with it.
10/8 Marked-up plans available for pick-up.
10/14 Water main extension fee is due. $395 x 0.67 = $264.65.
Add a note regarding the water main extension fee to Sheet 1.
Submit computations for minimum low opening and note minimum low opening elevation on
Sheet 1.
Invert commas on the specification for dead-end hydrants on Sheet 1 (there are 7 high-lighted).
Other Planning Comments
The site plan shows only 4 bike spaces. This does not seem sufficient for the needs of the
Shelter's clients. I suggest an additional rack on the east side of the property or an interior
storage space for bikes. Additonal rack added. OK
How will the dumpster be screened? Enclosure shown. OK
Compliance with Board of Adjustment requirements looks OK
Fire Comments
Current location of hydrants on Waterfront and Southgate should provide sufficient water supply.
FDC location needs to move to the address side. Moved from west building face to north building
face. OK
Knox box location needs to be approved by fire department. (Usually near main entrance) OK
Fire access lane off Southgate needs to be 7"PCC. Note: parking spaces themselves can be less
than 7" but drive on Southgate, and aisle adjacent to Southgate need to be 7" PCC or the
equivalent in weight-bearing capacity. OK (see detail and legend)
z (/)
o f-
(f)
Z ()
o UJ
:E f-
Z
~ :.L
:E U
~ 0<
u.J
Z <(
ro
(/)
::::JCd
O~
I-:
.2':'
l.- --
roU
+-,Cd
-S
roo
..c:-
(/)
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13,2008 - 7:00 PM - INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Christina Kuecker,
Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
ZONING CODE ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central
Business (CB-10) zone, and Article 14-9A, Definitions, to amend the definition of household in the
Community Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5)
and Central Business (CB-10) zones to include not more than 3 unrelated persons.
Howard shared maps outlining the zoning areas discussed in the amendments. The area associated with
the change to the occupancy standards includes all the Central Business Zones - CB-10, CB-5, and CB-2
and the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2). The proposed new parking requirements would apply in
the CB-10 Zone. Howard noted that the issue of dwellings with high numbers of unrelated occupants in
the downtown has come up a number of times in recent years. The question that the community must
ask itself, Howard said, is if it is appropriate to have four and five bedroom apartments downtown.
Howard noted that while there is no need to incentivize the development of student apartments downtown
because of high demand, there may be a need or desire to incentivize development targeting non-student
populations. Howard said that part of the question is whether Iowa City wishes to have downtown Iowa
City be welcoming just for college students or attractive to a wider variety of residents. Howard suggested
that requiring a mix of housing through the use of zoning regulations was one possible way to encourage
development that appealed to a wider audience. Most non-students wishing to live downtown want
smaller units. Howard said that because the demand for student apartments is so high in areas close to
the University, there is more profit in the residential portion of a building than in the commercial
storefronts, so not much thought or money is put into making the ground floor attractive to commercial
businesses. While we have made some recent code changes that establish minimum standards for these
commercial spaces, the idea behind this proposed zoning change is to reduce the number of unrelated
persons who can live together in one apartment from its present level of five to the proposed three.
Another issue that needs to be addressed to level the playing field is to address parking for new
residential uses. The CB-10 Zone is the only zone where there is no requirement for private off-street
parking for residential uses. However, as noted with several recent rezoning requests for CB-10 Zoning,
there does not seem to be enough parking downtown for the amount of housing that is being requested.
The City facilities are largely intended to meet the short term parking needs of local businesses. To
attract long term residents to live downtown, the demand for adequate parking needs to be addressed. If
no parking is offered a building is less likely to attract long term residents. The concept behind the
proposed amendment is to have new residential buildings in the CB-10 zone have the same parking
requirements as buildings in the CB-5 zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 13, 2008 - Informal
Page 2
Howard noted that Greenwood-Hektoen had noticed a glitch in the proposed code language just prior to
the meeting. She noted that since parking would be required, that it should not have to go through a
special exception process for approval. Instead, the same standards would apply, but they would be
approved administratively. Eastham asked if alternative parking arrangements made by the owner (i.e.
leasing spaces from another property rather than building an underground facility) would still be required
to go through the special exception process if the language changes were made. She said that in the
case of a request for parking on a separate lot, the City could require them to get approval of a special
exception. She said that the idea behind the change in parking requirement is in part that shorter-term
renters are more willing to put up with a lack of off-street parking than long-term residents, and that if
parking was provided on site for residents, it may encourage long-term residents to consider downtown
as a living option.
Koppes asked what would happen if the landlord sells the parking. Payne noted that in the event that
parking is secured off-site a covenant is supposed to be entered into by the property owners. Howard
stated that parking off-site on a separate lot is not always foolproof and carries with it its own issues.
Freerks said she did not believe it would happen on a large scale. Howard noted that if buildings are
located near a City-owned parking facility, parking could be leased from the City. Eastham asked if the
current language requires the builder to purchase parking permits on an alternative site. Howard said
that if the building was within 600 feet of a City parking facility spaces could be leased to satisfy the
parking requirement. If a neighboring building had more parking than was required they could choose to
lease out or give parking to the developing property; however, a covenant would then have to be placed
on that parking.
Plahutnik asked if Staff had given thought to doing some kind of averaging as it pertains to units with
larger numbers of bedrooms. He acknowledged that there has been much concern about unsupervised,
dorm-style apartment-living downtown and its relatively transient occupants. However, he also
acknowledged that there is a market for four and five bedroom units. He wondered if an averaging
system that took into account a certain number of four and five bedroom units would have to be off-set by
a certain number of one and two bedroom units would be appropriate. Howard said that Staff had not
considered this idea as there are a lot of four and five bedroom apartments downtown already, which
would, of course, be grandfathered into the new zoning requirements. Plahutnik said that this was what
had tweaked his sense of fairness; that the Commission would be creating an instant monopoly for those
already owning four and five bedroom apartments downtown. Freerks noted that it is possible that there
will be just as great of a demand for one, two and three bedroom apartments if they were encouraged
downtown. Eastham stated that the central question is whether it is possible for builders to compete with
occupancy that is one household in a one, two or three bedroom apartment against occupancy with
multiple rent payers. Plahutnik said that he is not against the reduction in household size, but that his
sense of fairness requires him to bring the issue up. He joked that he believed the only way to get
developers on board with building smaller units was to threaten to rewrite the code to say that they cannot
build them. Howard said that the core issue is that these are commercial zones in which this residential
development is taking place. If the only thing that is lucrative in these zones are four and five bedroom
apartments, maybe it is best not to encourage rezoning to central business zoning or redevelop an
existing property until there is a real, viable market for the commercial space. This would serve to have
the commercial drive the development in true CB-1 0 types of buildings rather than the residential.
Freerks said the goal should be to consider what direction the Commission wants the community to go
over time; she said it is not necessarily about what is in a given space currently, but what the city wants
there in the future. She noted that high-occupancy apartments on the upper floors do direct what kind of
commercial is established on the lower floor. Plahutnik said his sense of fairness had been assuaged.
Eastham said he thought that the issue was less one of fairness than of having a zoning code that
presents economically viable options to developers. Miklo said that if a developer built three-bedroom
apartments this close to campus he did not think they would sit vacant. Freerks said she believed that
the issue was not just economic, but was also a question of livability, an issue frequently touched on by
the Commission over the years. Off-site dormitory style living with no supervision does not provide the
kind of quality living the community desires for the downtown area.
Payne asked if the restriction on unrelated occupants and the drive to lower the average numbers of
bedrooms per unit would tend to drive up rents. Kuecker said that she had done some general research
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 13, 2008 - Informal
Page 3
with local rental companies and had found that (with variations due to building age) the per bedroom rents
were very comparable between one-bedroom and three-bedroom units. Payne said that she wondered
because her daughter's rent is $100 less per month this year in her five-bedroom unit than it was last year
in her three-bedroom unit. Freerks said she.believed price did vary depending on the age and location of
the building. Eastham said that he had no doubt that a three-bedroom rents higher per occupant than a
five-bedroom. Plahutnik said that this seemed a reasonable assumption, but that Kuecker's research had
not borne the theory out.
Howard noted that four unrelated occupants would still be allowed in the medium density multi-family
residential zones (RM-20, RNC-20) and that five unrelated occupants would still be allowed in high-
density multi-family residential (RM-44, PRM).
Freerks asked if there were further questions for Staff.
Eastham said that he had something he did not understand about 14-4E-9, "Regulation of Nonconforming
Residential Occupancy." He said that as he understood the language, if an owner loses their rental
permit and then has it restored, their unrelated-occupancy would be limited to the current requirement of
three or less, and would not be restored to the previously grandfathered in level of 5 unrelated persons.
Eastham asked if this was a correct assessment of the language. Howard said that this was correct.
Eastham asked how often this occurred. Howard said that rental permits are transferable, so even if a
property is sold, the rental permit remains in effect. She said she did not believe it happens very often.
Miklo said he believed that that would be more of an issue with a converted single-family house that
changes hands or is converted back. He said he did not believe it would be an issue with an apartment
building where an owner would keep their permits up. Eastham asked if this provision would make it more
difficult to enforce the rules for rental permits, as rental inspectors may be hesitant to cite a property if the
consequences have such a long-lasting financial effect. Freerks said that this is not a new part of the
regulation, and that this is the way it is currently. Eastham asked if losing a rental permit meant losing the
occupancy. Howard said that it could. She noted, however, that what is being discussed is new, large
apartment buildings. Freerks said that she could not think of one instance in the fifteen years she had
been paying attention to such matters in which this was an issue. Eastham asked if there were a large
number of apartment buildings in the four zones being discussed in which an owner could lose their rental
permit and have their occupancy be reduced from five unrelated occupants to three. Freerks noted that
this provision currently applies across the board to the whole community and is not particular to the zones
discussed in this amendment. Howard explained that this clause was put in when occupancy was
reduced under the new zoning code, and was written as a way of grandfathering five unrelated people as
allowable in the RM-20 and the RNS-20 zones, as they had been reduced to four unrelated occupants
allowed. Payne said she believed Eastham was talking less about homes that had been converted and
more about large buildings with five-bedroom apartments in them, and a concern that if the rental permit
should be lost on one of those buildings the consequences would be dire. Koppes pointed out that rental
permits are lost one unit at a time. Eastham asked if it was true that each unit in a multi-unit building has
a separate rental permit. Koppes said that she knew that this was the case with HACAP units. Freerks
said this was something that could be checked on. Weitzel said that permanent financial consequences
serve as a good disincentive for allowing wild behavior to go on in your units. Eastham said it could be
seen both ways: 1) as a real rental regulation tool and an incentive for compliance by landlords with the
rental ordinances, or 2) as a disincentive for rental inspectors to remove a rental permit because it would
have such drastic economic effects. Freerks said that she believes the rental inspections department
always takes its job seriously. Koppes said that the rental inspectors will do the job they are paid to do
and will not worry about the "why" involved in noncompliance; she said that if one looks at the cases in
which rental permits are revoked one will find that multiple warnings have always been issued. Weitzel
said that even if the economic consequences were dire he felt that anyone who was affected negatively
by this regulation had allowed it to happen, as they had been presented with the law and had chosen their
consequences. Plahutnik said that in all of his dealings with Housing Inspection Services (HIS) it has
always been his experiences that inspectors work diligently to cure the problem and in no way go out of
their way to "punish" violators.
Eastham said that his only other question was if the reduction in occupancy was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as a whole and the affected district plans in specific. Howard said that in general,
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 13, 2008 - Informal
Page 4
Planning and Zoning has received a lot of feedback in recent months regarding concerns with dorm-style
apartments. She said University officials, students and neighbors all came to meetings regarding the CB-
10 zone and offered concerns about the safety, lack of on-site management, and quality of life offered by
dorm-style apartments. Eastham said that going from an occupancy level of five to three is a fairly sharp
jump in the CC-2 zone. Miklo said that in the CC-2 zones, which tend to be away from downtown and the
campus, it is rare to see a four or five bedroom apartment; in fact, Miklo said he did not know if there were
any at all presently. He noted that in those areas it is much more common to see one or two bedroom
units above commercial space. Miklo said he would check with the Building Department, but that he was
not aware of any buildings that would be affected by this in the CC-2 zone. Howard said that in fact,
planning often meets resistance from builders in these areas when suggesting that developers put
residential above the commercial property. The reason that CC-2 Zone was included was to make the
standard consistent for all our retail commercial zones.
Freerks asked for any information Staff had on other local areas that had recently implemented similar
occupancy restrictions. Kuecker said that many of the cities she contacted -Cedar Falls, Waterloo,
Champagne, Urbana-have a maximum unrelated occupancy level of three or four people that is applied
citywide. LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Kuecker said is similar to what Iowa City has in that it allows three
unrelated people in a residential zone, four in a medium density zone, and five in a high density zone. In
Ames, Kuecker said, the zoning code was changed in 2000 to allow a maximum of three unrelated people
in their single-family zones and their urban core. Kuecker noted that Ames also has a higher parking
requirement, mandating one and a quarter parking spaces per bedroom rather than one parking space
per bedroom as is required by Iowa City. This serves as an extra disincentive to develop larger
apartment buildings in the urban core and the university areas. Madison, Wisconsin, Kuecker said, has a
maximum occupancy of four unrelated persons that applies citywide, except for the residential zones
where a maximum of two unrelated persons are allowed. Miklo said that it tends to be college
communities that have the lower occupancy thresholds, as those communities are where the market for
five bedroom apartments exists.
Eastham asked about the effectiveness of enforcing over-occupancy through HIS. He asked how many
violations HIS cited per year for over-occupancy. Howard said that she could find this out, but that she
would guess that the apartments probably are not the primary culprits in over-occupancy. She said she
imagined that converted single-family homes were the primary problem, as they tended to have the extra
spaces that invite over-occupancy. Koppes noted that over-occupancy is very difficult to prove or
disprove. Howard said that when she had spoken with HIS regarding over-occupancy, they had told her
that however many rooms were in a house was the number of people a house tended to have in it. She
said typically people do not double-up in a bedroom in a house that is over-occupied, but will turn a living
room or pantry into a bedroom. Freerks noted that many landlords are as concerned about over-
occupancy as anyone. She said they do not want to have the additional wear and tear, utility costs and
hassles associated with over-occupancy.
Eastham said that in trying to provide an economic alternative to higher occupancy and higher rent-loads,
reducing the number of bedrooms without effective occupancy controls accomplishes nothing. Plahutnik
said that if the goal is to promote a better quality of life in these areas, reducing occupancy gives HIS an
additional tool to do so. Plahutnik said that if eight people live in a house and they are quiet and their
keep their lawn nice and cause no problems, then neighbors are very, very happy and no calls to HIS are
made. If three people live there legally but they are noisy and they throw garbage on the lawn, the
neighbors are on the phone every morning. The nuisance calls and complaints are always what drive the
process, Plahutnik said. This is always a neighborhood-enforced issue, as HIS is not out knocking on
doors counting toothbrushes. With enough complaints, the process of determining over-occupancy can
be begun. If the house is found to be over-occupied, that is one hammer HIS has in its toolbox for the
owner and the tenants. To him, Plahutnik said, this is a good tool.
Eastham said his interest was in whether or not this tool was an effective way of getting to an attractive
option for downtown living for non-students. Freerks said she felt the phrase "token commercial" was a
pretty important one in the document, and that she believed that this was what the Commission
sometimes received proposals for. Weitzel said the possibility of losing one's ability to have five-bedroom
apartments rented at full capacity is an economic disincentive. Eastham asked if Weitzel felt the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 13, 2008 - Informal
Page 5
enforcement of the measure would be effective. Weitzel said it would be as effective as it is anywhere
else; some people feel it is over-enforced and some under-enforced depending upon which side of the
issue they are on. Weitzel said it has been seen to work in neighborhoods where constant complaining
has resulted in property-owners selling out and better tenants moving in. Miklo said that in the case
where a developer is building a unit as a three bedroom unit, it will likely be self-policing as five or six
people will not wish to live in them. If five and six bedroom units are built, then at least five people will live
there. Eastham noted that the amendments as written do not prevent the building of four and five
bedroom apartments; they prevent occupancy, not unit-size. Howard said that the idea is that developers
will be discouraged from building five bedroom units because they will be more difficult to rent out with the
occupancy limits in place. Freerks said that if a building permit was requested for a five bedroom unit in a
zone where only three unrelated persons are allowed, HIS would definitely keep an eye on it. Miklo said
HIS would be unlikely to even issue the building permit in that situation. He said that Doug Boothroy, HIS
Department Head, had explained to him long ago that when buildings are built in a way that seems to be
an attempt to get around the occupancy standards (i.e. a "den" or "study room" that would likely be
converted into an illegal bedroom was present in the plans) he simply would not issue a building permit
for that project.
Koppes asked if units destroyed by fire or natural disaster could rebuild with the grandfathered occupancy
standards or of they had to be converted to the three person maximum. She was told that occupancy
would be reduced to the standards in place at that point in time if the building was destroyed to more than
75% of its assessed value.
Eastham said that he would like to know the number of dwellings these changes would affect, and how
many would be grandfathered in. Miklo said he would try to get those numbers to the Commission.
Howard noted that the effective date of 8/25/2008 was determined because it is the issuing date of the
only building permit for four and five bedroom units that has not yet been completed.
Eastham asked if Hieronymus Towers would not be applicable in this case because it is governed by a
Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). He was told this was correct.
Payne said she had a question on page three of the staff report. Payne said she was confused by the
word "developments" at the end of the sentence in the second full paragraph, as to her a "development"
signified something that was being newly built. She asked if a better word choice might not be "areas,"
"zones," "buildings," or "properties." Staff noted the potential need for a change in wording, perhaps using
the words, rental units, or something similar would make it more clear.
Payne asked for clarification on the meaning of a specific sentence on page three of the staff report found
in the section entitled "Parking Requirements in the CB-10 Zone." The specific sentence in question said:
The absence of a parking requirement for residential uses in the CB-10 zone creates
another incentive to build apartments that are designed primarily for short term renters,
for whom the lack of a designated parking space is not enough of a disincentive to
outweigh the benefits of living close to campus, short term work opportunities, and/or
entertainment venues.
Howard explained that the sentence is intended to mean that short-term renters, particularly students,
tend to live downtown regardless of the inconvenience of not having a designated parking space. Such
renters are willing to live downtown without a parking space because their primary reason for living
downtown is to be close to campus. However, for those wishing to live downtown more permanently, the
lack of a dedicated parking space would be a disincentive to purchase or rent a unit downtown. Payne
said that the first and second parts of the sentence seem to her to conflict. Freerks noted that the
wording in the staff report is not the language being adopted by the Commission, but is there for
explanatory purposes. Eastham noted that he too had to read the sentence more than once before
discerning its meaning. Freerks said that as long as the concept itself is clear in Commissioners' minds
then the wording in the staff report is not an issue. Miklo said that what Staff is trying to say is that
students may be willing to live without a dedicated parking space; however, those investing in
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 13, 2008 - Informal
Page 6
condominiums or those renting long-term will probably require dedicated parking in or near their buildings.
Plahutnik noted that the key part of the sentence concerns changing the incentive to build apartments
designed primarily for short-term renters. Payne asked if the goal then was to give people an incentive to
build residential units downtown that are not geared toward students. Freerks said she did not
necessarily agree with that assessment. She said that the goal is to build residential units downtown that
appeal to a larger audience. Freerks said what is key to remember is that when five-bedroom units are
built, those units are geared toward one audience. When a variety of unit sizes are built, Freerks said,
the audience can vary. Payne said she somewhat disagreed with that statement as it pertained to
downtown, as there was no way she would choose to live there. Eastham pointed out that there are non-
student households living in the downtown area in apartments and condominiums; the waiting list for
those wanting to live in the Plaza Towers has clearly demonstrated a desire for that kind of living.
Freerks said that having commercial that is viable to a larger audience is also crucial to this vision of
downtown, and that having buildings with five-bedroom apartments above and pizza and liquor shops
below is not the vision the community wants for downtown Iowa City. Freerks said that no one wants to
see all of what is currently there go away, but that it is crucial to support variety. Howard said that she
understood Payne's point to be, essentially, just because the zoning is changed to encourage variety,
there is no guarantee that such housing will be built. Howard said that the proposed changes will allow a
wider variety and may level the playing field, but the zoning changes alone will likely not be enough to
solve all the problems downtown. She reiterated her earlier statement that the market for student housing
in Iowa City is not going to go away, nor does it need to be incentivized. If student housing was the only
thing the city wanted, then no changes would be necessary to the zoning code for the downtown area.
However, Howard said, if something other than student housing is what the city wants, then to get that,
something will have to be done to level the playing field a little bit. Things like reducing the occupancy
and requiring on-site parking are ways to encourage the developers who are willing to build something
different. Howard said that in speaking with Mark Moen, developer of Plaza Towers, it was clear that he
believed he could not have sold those condominiums if they had not had dedicated parking. Koppes
noted that even the University expressed a concern for the current development trends downtown and the
lack of on-site management in dorm style apartments. Freerks agreed, saying that concerns had been
expressed by University officials about the development that has occurred along Gilbert Street, and the
need to curb the growth of similar developments in the future. Weitzel said that the University had cited
similar development patterns in other cities and warned about the regulatory nightmare such sections of
town had become for other university towns.
Eastham asked if a developer can currently build on-site parking in the CB-10 zone. Howard said that a
special exception must be granted to do so. She noted that the Clarks were granted a special exception
for underground parking when developing the Takanami building on Iowa Avenue. Freerks recalled that
the developer had very much wanted parking under Takanami and that it was something that the
developer had had to really work to get; she said that this is evidence that developers too understand the
value of parking. Eastham said that requiring this may actually be something of a plus for residential
developers because they will no longer have to get a special exception to provide on-site parking.
Eastham asked if the parking impact fee ordinance would be applied in the CB-1 0 Zone. Howard said
that this was a more complicated issue. Staff had wanted to bring a couple of fairly simple fixes that
could be done right away to the table. She said that Staff believes there is still some work to be done on
the CB-10 zone, but that the remaining issues are a little more complicated. Miklo said Staff will also be
looking at the FAR (Floor to Area Ratio), where balconies are located, and that sort of thing, but that they
had wanted to get the more serious issues handled before a wave of new buildings began.
Freerks asked if there was an update on Towncrest. Miklo said that he hoped to have an overview of
what was trying to be accomplished at Towncrest on Thursday night's formal meeting.
The Commission agreed to keep the Informal Meetings at 6:00 p.m. for the time-being.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
e
o
'in
.!e
E
E
o
(J'E
c)o
e t.>
,- Q)
50::
NQ)CO
....t.>g
-eN
C)CG
e-C
,- e
e Q)
e=
.!c(
Q.
~
o
CG
~
.2
GO
..... X X X X X XX
-
en
~ X X X X X XX
en
..... W ~X
N X XX 0 X
00 0
t: ~X I
XX I XX
GO 0 I
,... I
..... X X XX I XX
- I
,... I
M W I
X XX I X x
r::: 0 I
en I
..... X X XX XX
- I
co
!e I X X X I ~X
co I I 0
It) I I
..... I X X X XX
- I I
It) I
..... I I W
- I X X X 0 X
It) I I
,... I I I
..... I X X X I X
~ I I I
I I
M I X X X I X I
~ I I I
I I I
0 I I I
N X X X X
CO; I I I
I
,... I I I
..... I X X X I X I
- I I I
..... I I I
N I I I
I X X X I X I
- I I I
..... I I
en C') N 00 C')
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
Q)'~ - - - - -- -
LO LO LO LO LOLO LO
I-w 0 0 0 0 00 0
-cE III III ~
Q) '2 (j)
... CG t~ ~'$ J:l
<Il CG.c
E Ill.... 'CD
~ III e 0 CG.c
III Q.CG ~
Z m~ LL~ .c:
-;. ciw :Ii!~ ....=
(J
C)
z
i=
w
w
:Ii!
...J
c(
:Ii!
0::
o
LL
CO?
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
0
~
II)
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
en
co w
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
co
"lI' W I w
~ >< >< >< 0 - ><
- I 0
.....
0 I
CO? >< >< >< >< >< ><
- I
U)
N I I
>< >< >< I >< ><
- I I
U)
N I I
~ >< >< >< I >< ><
- I I
II) I
"lI' I I I
~ >< >< >< >< I
~ I I I
..... I I W I
N X X X I -.
N I I 0 I
~ I I W I
X X X I - I
I I 0 I
I I I
en C') N 0 0 C')
E ~ ..- ..-
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
... "R- - - - - - - -
~>< LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~
'E ~ III Q) '2 (j)
CG i ~ .... J:l
Q) CG .c ... ~
E III .... Q) .c 'CD
III e CG
co ~ CG ~ Q. CG ~
zm w LL ::E c:
..., <3 ci w ~ ....=
C)
z
i=
w
w
:Ii!
...J
c(
:Ii!
0::
o
LL
Z
"0
Q)
en
::J
o
><
W
::;::,
"E"E5j
Q) Q) en
enen.J:l
~.J:l<(
0..<(11
>'11 II W
Q) -
~><oo
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16,2008 - 7:30 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes,
Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT:
Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood-
Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 to approve amending the Zoning Code, Title 14, to establish a
minimum parking requirement for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone; to
apply the Near Southside Parking Facility District regulations to any new CB-10 developments in
the Near Southside Neighborhood; and to amend the definition of "household" in the Community
Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Central
Business (CB-10) zones to include not more than three unrelated persons.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ZONING CODE ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central
Business (CB-10) zone, and Article 14-9A, Definitions, to amend the definition of a household in
the Community Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support
(CB-5) and Central Business (CB-10) zones to include not more than three unrelated persons.
Howard stated that as was discussed at the informal meeting on Monday, October 13th, this zoning code
item is largely an effort to begin the process of looking at the standards in the Central Business District.
Howard said that during several zoning cases over the last few years, there has been a lot of discussion
about whether the standards for the Central Business District are keeping up with the goals for that area.
One of the concerns that has come up numerous times is the question of whether there is a good mix of
residential development in the downtown to support the kind of commercial area desired for the center of
the city. Howard said that in those discussions there appears to be a consensus that there is a desire to
maintain the historic pedestrian-friendly, storefront commercial character of the downtown. Howard said
that while residential uses in the downtown help to support businesses, the proximity of the University to
the area creates a high demand for housing for students and an incentive to maximize residential density
and occupancy and minimize commercial space within new buildings. There is a question whether this
tendency to create token commercial space is conducive to healthy downtown business growth over the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2008 - Formal
Page 2
long term. Howard said that while there seems to be general agreement that a good mix of residential
housing is best for the downtown, the preponderance of recent building requests have been for four and
five bedroom apartments downtown, which are the maximum size allowed in the zoning code, which are
designed primarily for student renters. To bring better balance of housing choices to the downtown and
promote healthier living environments and attractive options for those wishing to make downtown their
permanent residence, Staff recommends limiting the number of unrelated persons living in an apartment
to three (down from its current five). This, Howard said, would likely result in development of more one,
two and three bedroom apartments, which would be suitable for a wider variety of residents. An
important aspect of these discussions is that the central business zones are intended for commercial
development, and that there is a danger of having buildings with residential living as its primary function,
and merely token commercial on the first floors. Howard said that it is important to keep a balance
between commercial and residential in the city's commercial areas.
Howard reiterated that the proposal is to reduce unrelated occupancy from five to three in the CB-5, CB-
2, CB-10 and CC-2 zones.
A related proposal is to require parking for new apartment buildings downtown. Howard said that there
has been concern that large apartment buildings downtown with no parking are not attractive to the long-
term residents that the City is trying to attract to the area. A minimum amount of parking provided would
serve to encourage long-term residents and alleviate concerns about on-street parking congestion that
arise as more and more requests for high-density developments are made.
Howard summarized that the proposal before the Commission seeks to establish a parking requirement in
the CB-1 0 zone for residential parking at the same rate as is required in the CB-5 zone. Howard shared a
spreadsheet with the Commission that showed the apartment balance of buildings built in the downtown
area over the last ten years. Howard also noted some slight language changes that had been made to
the code for the purposes of better clarification. One change amends the purpose statement for the
Central Business zone to be more consistent with the nature of the current discussions. Howard said that
Staff also needed to make the parking requirements in the Near Souths ide Parking Facility District
consistent with the CB-5 and the CB-1 O. Staff wanted to avoid having a discrepancy between CB-5
projects and CB-10 projects for any requests received for new CB-10 rezoning in the Near Southside in
the future. With this change parking requirements for any future requests for rezoning to CB-1 0 in the
Near Souths ide will be consistent with what has been done for other recent projects. Howard noted that
this does not change or extend the parking impact fees to the whole downtown area; this is just to make it
consistent in the Near Southside. If there is a desire to extend the parking impact fee to other areas of
the downtown, there would need to be a more in depth examination of the policy implications and how
this would be implemented. That is beyond the scope of what is proposed here.
Howard asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Busard asked for more information on Hieronymus Square and its history. Miklo pointed out on the map
where Hieronymus Square is located in the CB-10 zone south of Burlington Street. Miklo said that this
was rezoned in 2007 from CB-5 to CB-10. Miklo said the project is a mixed use project with commercial
on up to the first three floors, with residential above that. The proposed building would be twelve stories
with 80 parking spaces below grade. During the rezoning process there was quite a bit of discussion
about whether it was appropriate to extend the CB-1 0 zone south of Burlington Street. One of the
concerns, Miklo said, was the types of apartments that would be built there and the number of bedrooms
they would have. A Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) was created requiring that there be no more
than three bedrooms per apartment and that there be a mix in which no more than 30% of the units could
be three-bedrooms with the rest of the units being one and two-bedrooms. Parking was also required
based on the CB-5 standards, as was payment of a parking impact fee for anything that was not provided
on-site. Busard said he was just wondering why it was repeatedly referred to. Payne asked if it was
correct that the Hieronymus Square project was the first CB-1 0 south of Burlington Street, and Miklo said
that this was correct. Howard said that two other requests for CB-10 developments were received after
that. One of the requests was for development on the next property east of Hieronymus along Burlington
Street. That request was ultimately withdrawn, although the same discussions occurred. The Big Ten
Rentals project was the other request received, and also led to extended discussions about keeping a
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2008 - Formal
Page 3
balance and a mix of residential apartments in the downtown commercial zones. Eastham asked if the
request for the other building on Burlington had actually been withdrawn or if it was on hold. Miklo said
that it was on hold. Eastham asked if it could still be acted upon without coming back to the Commission.
Miklo said that it could. Eastham asked if the changes being discussed would apply to both parcels if the
changes were adopted by Council and Miklo said that they would.
Koppes asked why there is still a parking requirement listed in the code for 4 and 5-bedroom apartments.
Howard explained that the wording in question was left in because there would continue to be a large
number of four and five bedroom apartments downtown that are grandfathered in. The wording would
address parking requirements for those non-conforming buildings.
Koppes asked what the notification procedure would be for affected properties. Miklo said that when
changes to the zoning code are made, individual property owners are not generally notified. In this case,
Miklo said, a notice has been printed in the newspaper, the agenda for the meeting has been published,
and there has been some contact with newspaper reporters, which mayor may not result in an article
about the subject before it goes to City Council. Koppes asked if the Homebuilders Association had been
contacted. Miklo said that the Homebuilders Association has requested and receives all agendas for the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Eastham asked if the Downtown Association would have received an
agenda and Miklo replied that he did not know if the Downtown Association was on Planning's list to
receive agendas or not.
Eastham asked Miklo to repeat the Staffs rationale for including the CC-2 zone in these changes.
Howard said that the thinking was that it would keep the regulations for the retail commercial zones
consistent. If one of the reasons for the changes downtown were that it would help to keep the
commercial zones more commercial, then it stands to reason that doing the same in the CC-2 zone,
which is primarily commercial, would serve the same purpose. Consistency was the primary reason.
Eastham clarified that the definition of household would remain as five unrelated persons in the RM-44
and PRM zones, and four unrelated persons in the medium density multi-family zones. Howard confirmed
that it would.
Freerks asked if there were more questions for Staff. As there were none, the public hearing was
opened.
No one wished to comment and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks asked if there was a motion.
Eastham motioned to defer the item until the next meeting.
There was no second for the motion and the motion died.
(19:24) Weitzel moved to approve amending the Zoning Code, Title 14, to establish a minimum
parking requirement for Household Living Uses in the Central Business (CB-10) zone; to apply the
Near Southside Parking Facility District regulations to any new CB-10 developments in the Near
Southside Neighborhood; and to amend the definition of "household" in the Community
Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Central
Business (CB-10) zones to include not more than three unrelated persons.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks invited discussion from the Commission.
Busard asked how the grandfather clause would be applied to those projects that had already applied for
rezoning but are on hold. Miklo said that such projects would not fall under this ordinance. He said they
become vested once they have invested in actually implementing the project. Howard noted that there is
one project located in the CB-5 Zone, which contains 4- and 5-bedroom apartments that is in the pipeline
for which there has already been a site-plan review. So as not to affect its application, for which there has
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2008 - Formal
Page 4
been considerable investment in site and building design work, the August 25,2008, date has been
selected as the effective date of the change. This effectively grandfathers in any project that is already in
the works. Freerks noted that such an accommodation is typical in these types of code changes.
Koppes asked for clarification on what a "Group Household" is. Howard said that they include various
types of group homes for which definitions are established by the State of Iowa.
Eastham said that the proposed changes to the occupancy requirements are consistent in a broad way
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. He said that in general he supports both of
the proposed changes. However, he said that he does have some reservations because the Commission
has not heard any comments at all from builders or developers. He said that he assumed that such
discussions would take place at the Council level. He said that this lack of input is why he made the
motion to defer; to provide for adequate opportunity for the Commission to hear from all sides.
Eastham stated that he thinks the change in occupancy is a good step toward trying to increase the
amount of housing downtown that is open to everyone. He said he is not quite convinced that the
changes will be sufficient in and of themselves to achieve that end, but he does believe they are good
steps to take.
Freerks said that she intended to support the changes. She said that she is surprised that no one was
present to give public comment. She said that the changes have been talked about in the community for
many years. Freerks said the measures would support the pure nature and intent of the Central Business
Zones as commercial, which would be better than the direction in which the city seemed to be going.
Freerks said the changes will offer a variety of living experiences for a greater variety of people. She said
it is definitely a step in the right direction to support a very strong commercial district. She said she
believes the parking requirements go hand in hand with the goal of attracting a more diverse population to
downtown living.
Busard said he thought the parking requirements and occupancy reduction would force developers to
actually come up with projects that will be good for business downtown. He said it would curb the drive to
have buildings where all of the money is made from the four and five bedroom units above and the
commercial on the first floor is a mere token.
Payne asked if it was possible that developers build the buildings in the way that they do because it is the
only way that it is economically feasible to do it. Freerks said she did not think that was the case, and if it
was, she would not support the measure. Payne said the Commission obviously did not want to stunt the
growth of the downtown. Freerks acknowledged that it might be the way to make the maximum amount
of money with the smallest amount of investment, but that her decision on the direction of downtown Iowa
City would not be based on that sole consideration. Payne said that the whole point is that the downtown
is supposed to be business oriented; however, residents must also live there in order to support the
businesses. She said she was concerned with the possibility that these changes could stunt growth.
Freerks said that the Commission is just giving direction to the type of housing they want attached to the
commercial buildings that are built. Payne noted that if someone wants to build five bedroom apartments
they could still do so in another zone.
Weitzel said there are already buildings built that have five bedroom apartments and his opinion is that
this is a good option for some balance. Both the reduction in occupancy and the parking requirements
will enhance the commercial opportunities as well as the variety of occupants downtown. He said he
believes this is key to retaining downtown's vibrancy. What is currently happening is a trend toward
dorm-style apartments and a campus-town sort of development. This trend has concerned members of
both the University community and the wider community who wish to see downtown continue as more of
a cultural center than just a student housing center.
Eastham said that Payne raises a point of concern for him. Eastham said the Commission is in a way
trying to surmise what the motive is for investors to build the kind of buildings they have been building in
the downtown area. It may be, Eastham said, that the current trend is simply the least risky way to
maximize profits. It also could be, Eastham said, that investors and developers see this as the only way
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2008 - Formal
Page 5
to build downtown in an economically viable way. Eastham said that this idea seems to have been
countered in recent years in that there have been successful apartment buildings downtown of much
smaller bedroom size, like Plaza Towers. However, he said that he still feels like he is proceeding on
inadequate data. He then rephrased to say that he would prefer that the data with which he proceeded
was more extensive.
Freerks invited further comments. There were none.
A vote was taken and the vote carried unanimously, 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 15. 2008 & SEPTMEBER 18. 2008:
Busard motioned to accept the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0.
OTHER:
. Update on Redevelopment and Revitalization of the Towncrest Area:
Miklo said that a workshop was held in the Towncrest commercial area a couple of weeks ago. The
Towncrest commercial area is located near the intersection of First Avenue and Muscatine Avenue. The
most notable buildings there are probably the Hy-Vee and the Walgreen's, and then there are medical
offices on the south side of Muscatine. These medical offices were the start of Towncrest and the
origination of the area's name; the original developer was named Towner, and the offices were located at
the crest of a hill. For a number of years, the area served as a center for medical offices. In the last ten
to fifteen years, there has been some decline in the area as some medical offices have sought newer
facilities in other areas of the city.
Miklo said that the City has been approached by one of the primary property owners of the remaining
offices about the possibility of a TIF/urban renewal designation for the area, which would provide some
tax abatement to help make improvements in the area. Miklo said that the City conducted this citizen
workshop as the first step in gathering input from the property owners and area residents. Miklo said that
Planning proposed the idea of a TIF designation to the City Council Economic Development Committee,
who said to go ahead and put together an urban renewal plan and bring it back for consideration. The
area is in the Southeast District, Miklo said, and Staff sees this as perhaps a way of kicking off the
Southeast District Plan process.
The whole idea behind the urban renewal is to provide some tax incentives and some public investment
in the area to encourage revitalization and some new private investment. The City has completed some
recent improvements in the area, Miklo said, including the new bike trail from Creekside Park to Court Hill
Park. Miklo stated that there are some properties in the area that need improvement. The topics that the
community was asked about at the meeting were: traffic flow, visibility, aesthetics, and business mix, and
then the meeting was opened for general discussion. Miklo shared some photographs of the area to
show how it has changed from the 1950's to present day. Miklo said that the point of the photographs is
to show that things do change, and that the City would like to plan for that change.
In terms of context of the Comprehensive Plan, the area is an important area in the Southeast District
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does have some general guidance for the area in that it encourages
further redevelopment beyond the Hy-Vee and Walgreen's redevelopments. The Plan also encourages
economic development tools be used to improve the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 16, 2008 - Formal
Page 6
Miklo said that approximately 40 people attended the meeting. He said that business owners were well
represented, with about 60% of those present being business people and the other 40% being residents
from surrounding neighborhoods. Miklo said there were some lively group discussions and that
participants worked in small groups to generate ideas and then reported back to the larger group. He
distributed a summary of the meeting to the Commission. He said there seemed to be a real desire on
the part of the people who lived and worked there to create a better sense of identity for the
neighborhood. One of the comments, Miklo said, was that the Towncrest identity for the area seems to
be slipping away. He said various ideas were offered by the public, including streetscape improvements
and some ideas about standard architectural or signage treatments to create a sense of entry into the
area. Miklo said interest was also expressed in creating mixed use buildings, with commercial on the
ground floor and residential above. Attracting housing for the elderly and those in need of assisted living
was also offered as a suggestion, given the medical offices and drug stores that are readily available in
the area. Miklo said there were some more short-term concerns about traffic and the perception of crime
in the area that people were looking to have addressed right away.
Miklo said the next step will be to hire a consultant to come in and help formulate a design plan for the
area based on the input given by the public. Miklo said that there would probably be another meeting or
two to get public input on that plan and provide more ideas before anything comes before the
Commission either as an urban renewal plan or as a component of the Southeast District Plan.
Freerks asked what the variety of underlying zones for the area were. Miklo said that most of it was
Community Commercial (CC-2) and Community Office (CO-1). Miklo said many of the offices had
transitioned away from medical services, although quite a number of medical offices and services remain.
The remainder of the area is residential. Miklo said the primary focus would be. the commercial
properties, but that residential was included because they too are affected.
Eastham asked what the rationale for drawing the Towncrest area lines so that they include multi-family
apartment buildings. Miklo said the rationale was that the buildings were on the market and the condition
of some of the units was such that it was thought that reinvestment or redevelopment might be
appropriate. Freerks asked if that would involve changing the underlying zone, and Miklo replied that it
could be considered but was not necessary. Eastham asked if the residential zoning in the area is
currently RS-8. Miklo said that he believed it was RS-5. Eastham asked if the consultant would include
some sort of market analysis. Miklo replied that it might. Miklo said that Staff had concluded that while
the plans could be developed in-house, the sense of urgency on the part of some of the property owners
and businesses to get the concept plan done in a timely manner led Staff to the conclusion that it may be
necessary to hire a consultant. Payne, who attended the workshop, said that she had the sense that
people were excited about giving input, and that people were not negative, but happy to share their
thoughts and ideas for the area. Miklo said that there were real positives for this area; this crossroads
offers good location for business investment. The area has good access to schools and good solid
neighborhoods. There is open space; there are parks and connections to the trail system. Some of the
office buildings, however, are quite deteriorated and need some action.
There were no further questions or comments on this topic.
Eastham announced that on November 13, 2008, there would be a full-day workshop held out at the
fairgrounds entitled "Managing Floods in the Future."
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote at 8:14 p.m.
e
o
'0
,~
E
E
o
(,)'E
c)o
e C,)
.- CI)
e~
o
NCI)co
~C,)g
eN
C)co
e~
.- e
e CI)
e=
.!!!<C
0..
~
(,)
co
~
.2
CD b!::!x
.... X X X XX
0 0
....
co
.... X X X X X XX
en
~ X X X X X XX
en
.... UJ b!::!x
N X XX 0 X
co 0
I:::: UJ X X X I XX
0 I
co I
l"- I
.... X X X X I X X
- I
I"-
~ UJ X X X I X ><
0 I
l"- I
en I
.... X X X X I X X
US I
10 I I UJ
I X X X
US I X I 0
I I
10 I I
.... I X X X I X X
- I I
10 I I
.... I X X I UJ X
- X 0
10 I I
I I
l"- I I I
.... I X X X X
~ I I I
I I
C") I I I
X X X I X I
~ I I I
I I
0 I I I
N X X X I X
- I I I
C") I I
l"- I I I
.... X X X I X
- I I I
.... I I
N I I I
I X X X X I
- I I I
.... I
lJ) C") N 0 0 C")
E ~ ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
.....0 - - in - - - -
Q) >< L() L() L() L() L() L()
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E II) Ul ~
'E CI) '2 Q)
co ~g ~ .... .t:I
Q) co J:: =
E Ul .... ~
= II) ~~ co J::
III co 0.. co
z r:o w :IE ii:
-; 0 <iu.i 3: ~
C)
Z
j::
W
w
:E
..J
<C
:E
~
o
LL.
CO?
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
0
.....
It)
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
en
co w
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
-
co
"'It W I w
..... >< >< >< 0 0 ><
- I
.....
0 I
CO? >< >< >< >< >< ><
- I
CD
N I I
I >< >< >< I >< ><
- I I
CD I
N I I
..... >< >< >< >< ><
- I I
It) I I
"'It I I I
..... >< >< >< >< I
~ I I I
I
.... I I UJ I
N X X X I -.
N I I 0 I
I I
~ I I UJ I
X X X -.
I I 0 I
lJ) C") N 0 0 C")
E ~ ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Qi'~ - - - - - - -
L() L() L() L() L() L() L()
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ Ul ~ Q)
'E CI) e
co g ~ ... .t:I
Q) co J:: .. =
E Ul ... CI) J:: 'G)
Ul ~ co
ro = co ~ 0.. co 3:
z r:o w LL. :IE ii:
.., 0 <i u.i ;: ~
C)
Z
j::
W
w
:E
..J
<C
:E
~
o
LL.
~
"C
Q)
lJ)
:J
~
W
:;:,
............c
C C Q)
Q) Q) lJ)
lJ)lJ).o.
~.o.<(
0..<(11
>. II II W
Q) -
~><OO