HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 12.07.2022PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 7, 2022
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments
(continued from 11/16/2022)
4. Case No. CPA22-0002
A public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest
District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret
South Subarea.
(continued from 11/2/2022)
5. Case No. REZ22-0011
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related
to solar energy systems and further climate action goals.
6. Consideration of meeting minutes: November 2, 2022
7. Consideration of meeting minutes: November 16, 2022
8. Planning and Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 21 / January 4 / January 18
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
November 16, 2022 [includes updates to Attachments 1 & 2 for December 7 meeting]
Planning & Zoning Commission
Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA22-0002) to update the Southwest
District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for
the Rohret South Subarea
Introduction
First adopted in 2002, the Southwest District Plan guides future development for land south of
Melrose Avenue, west of the Iowa River, and north of Highway 1, to the western edge of the City’s
growth area. The Southwest District is divided into 4 subareas as shown in Figure 1. Of these,
the Rohret South subarea has experienced the least development due to a lack of urban
infrastructure. In 2023, the City will extend wastewater infrastructure west of U.S. Highway 218
which will allow development at urban densities in the Rohret South subarea. For a full version of
the current plan, visit www.icgov.org/districtplans.
Figure 1. Southwest Planning District Subarea Map
Staff developed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA22-0002), shown in
Attachment 1, to incorporate form-based land use patterns into the Rohret South subarea future
land use map as well as to update background information. The purpose is to help ensure the
plan continues to align with the policies, preferences, and circumstances in Iowa City today prior
to development. In addition, the amendment will help encourage a diversity of housing types at a
compatible scale and the development of compact and connected neighborhoods. It also supports
other goals of City Council, including those related to equity and climate action.
Background
The Southwest District Plan is one of 10 district plans incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, Iowa City 2030, which serves as the roadmap for directing growth and development in Iowa
November 16, 2022
Page 2
City. Adopted in 2013, IC2030 describes a broad vision for the future of the City and provides
guidance on planning issues to achieve that vision over time. District plans provide more detailed
direction to address the unique issues and opportunities in each of the City’s planning districts.
One of the City’s primary tools in implementing its Comprehensive and District Plans is the Zoning
Code, which provides rules for how land can be used and developed, including what structures
can be built where, and how they will be used. Conventional zoning codes focus first on regulating
land use (e.g. residential, commercial, or industrial), and secondly on related standards such as
density of dwelling units, maximum heights, lot coverage, and minimum on-site parking. Form-
based codes differ by focusing less on land use and more on the scale of development (e.g. bulk
and height) and its relationship to the public realm. The intent is to produce neighborhoods that:
•Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking;
•Will preserve important environmental resources;
•Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and
•Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points.
The City adopted a form-based code for use in undeveloped areas in 2021 after multiple years
partnering with Opticos Design. However, the City must amend its district plans to implement
form-based future land use categories in its growth areas. The South District Plan was the first to
incorporate form-based land use categories, and staff identified the Southwest District as an
appropriate next step because growth is anticipated once infrastructure is extended in 2023. Due
to this and the current plan’s age, an update utilizing a form-based future land use map is prudent
prior to annexation and development.
Process
The City’s targeted update of the Southwest District Plan focuses on background information and
the concept for the Rohret South Subarea. Figure 2 summarizes outreach conducted as part of
this process. Full summaries of the survey, focus group, and public open house responses are
included in Attachment 3. Regular correspondence and additional interviews and group
conversations were also conducted throughout the planning period. Over the course of the
project, staff has maintained a contact list which currently exceeds 225 email addresses.
Figure 2: Public Outreach Summary
Public Events Date Approx. #
Participants
Focus Group Meetings (Property owners, city-wide
stakeholders, government & neighborhood
organizations, Iowa City Community School
District, and Development Community)
Dec. 2020 & Jan. 2021 31
Public Survey Dec. 2020 – Jul. 2022 168
Parks & Recreation Commission Jan. 2021 7
Additional Meetings with Landowners/Stakeholders Apr. 2021 - Present 11
Party in the Park Aug. 2022 41
Public Open House Sep. 2022 117
City Staff Technical Committee Throughout 8
Note: Many individuals likely participated in multiple public outreach events.
Initial outreach was conducted through winter 2020 and spring 2021. The City began the process
by engaging the public through a mix of surveys, individual interviews, and focus group meetings.
The survey was publicized by mailings to nearly 800 owners and occupants near the subarea and
word-of-mouth. Focus group participants were selected to include representatives from the local
November 16, 2022
Page 3
development community, local governmental entities, property owners, neighborhood
organizations, and other area and city-wide stakeholders. Staff also met several times with the
Iowa City Community School District to understand future facility needs in the area, as well as
with property owners and others that indicated an interest in the process.
Following initial outreach efforts, staff reviewed the plan’s original concept map and identified a
need to incorporate form-based future land use categories and the new fringe area adopted in
2021. However, planning efforts paused following the unsuccessful Carson Farms annexation
until more direction was available regarding the area’s future. Upon resuming work in 2022, staff
again collaborated with Opticos Design to develop a land use and street framework. After drafting
a future land use map, staff attended the Party in the Park event at Hunter’s Run and held a public
open house on September 1, 2022 which was attended by approximately 117 participants.
Following the open house, staff made several revisions in response to public input, including:
-Removing some through-streets;
-Adding alleys along certain primary streets;
-Redesignating the 100-year floodplain to the west as private open space;
-Reducing the size of the northeast neighborhood center’s Transect 4 Main Street area;
-Shifting the locations of neighborhood centers in the southeast and northwest;
-Expanding Transect 3 Neighborhood Edge areas near Weber Elementary and Kitty Lee
Road and adjusting some other boundaries; and
-Reconfiguring road networks for efficiency and in response to other changes.
Following the meeting, staff published the public adoption draft plan on October 19, 2022. Written
comments received throughout the process are discussed later in the correspondence section of
this memo. Some subsequent changes to the draft plan after the public hearing was set include:
-Specifying “Historic” Poor Farm;
-Specifying which curvilinear streets have had recent complaints;
-Discussing the lack of pedestrian facilities around intersection of Riverside and Highways
1 and 6, along with the Highway 6 Bridge over the Iowa River; and
-Adding street labels to the future land use and thoroughfare maps.
Written comments will continue to be accepted until a decision by City Council.
Proposed Amendment:
The proposed amendment includes changes to the Southwest District Plan that help ensure the
document contains up-to-date information and a refreshed vision for the Rohret South subarea
that is consistent with current City policy and preferences prior to development.
First, background information was updated throughout the plan. Changes in the introduction are
limited to a description of the update process and references to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan.
Updates to the Past and Present section include new maps that reflect the 2021 Fringe Area
Agreement, and revisions to subsections on Housing, Public Institutions, Transportation,
Commercial Development, and Parks and Open Space reflecting changes in circumstance over
the past two decades. Updates to background information in the Planning for the Future section
are similar to those made to the Past and Present Section, including revised descriptions in the
Transportation and Public Services and Facilities subsections, in addition to updated subarea
maps. There are some minor modifications in the Planning Principles subsection, but they are
limited to a reference to IC2030 and to removing a reference to the Carson Lake concept plan.
The more substantive changes to the plan are to the subsection on the Rohret South subarea.
Goals for the subarea were not changed, but the future land use map was revised to utilize
November 16, 2022
Page 4
categories based on form rather than land use and the area was expanded to reflect the 2021
Fringe Area Agreement. A subsection was also added to explain the land use philosophy and its
implementation in the Southwest District. The new future land use map, which includes a
thoroughfare map, continues to meet the goals of the original plan but will guide development in
a way that better reflects current land use policy. The text in this section was also modified to
better achieve intended outcomes in the subarea, including changes to the subsections on
public services and facilities, new neighborhoods, housing, transportation, and neighborhood
centers (formerly commercial development). While form-based standards generally align with
the existing policies in the Southwest District Plan, these changes address any discrepancies in
between conventional and form-based development and better align with more recent policy
decisions regarding future development in Iowa City.
Analysis
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of land uses envisioned throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. The City Council may consider amendments to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to be approved, evidence must be provided that the request meets the following
two approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D of the City Code.
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to
light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
Since the Southwest District Plan’s adoption two decades ago, there have been numerous
changes within Iowa City. In addition to the City’s continued growth and development, City
regulation and policy has also evolved significantly.
From 2000 to 2020, Iowa City added more than 12,600 new residents of which more than 2,700
occurred west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. This growth included subdivisions such as Galway
Hills, County Club Estates, Wild Prairie Estates, and West Side Estates. Consequently, almost all
land in the Southwest District east of Highway 218 is now fully developed, and some areas near
Riverfront Crossings West are even experiencing redevelopment. Additionally, new major street
connections have been built since the plan was adopted, including Camp Cardinal Boulevard to
the north and McCollister Boulevard to the south, and other changes have also occurred such as
the closure of Roosevelt Elementary School. At the same time, annexations with a residential
component decreased from 825 new acres in the 1990s to 115 new acres in the 2010s with most
recent development occurring on previously annexed land. Growth is expected to continue in the
future with an estimated 19,265 new residents moving to Iowa City between 2020 and 2040.1 As
residential land that was previously annexed is now largely developed, and as sewer service
expands under Highway 218, it becomes prudent to review future development patterns in the
Rohret South subarea, which remains largely agricultural with some rural residential and
institutional uses. These factors constitute major changes since the plan was adopted in 2002.
In addition, the City has adopted several major regulatory changes. The City overhauled its
Zoning Code in 2005 and updated its Subdivision Code in 2008. In 2021, the City also expanded
its growth area through the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson County and adopted a form-
based code with the intent of applying it in greenfield growth areas. Changes to land use
regulations have a direct impact on what can be built where, and how it can be built, so these
changes alone make it worthwhile to review and revise the plan to ensure its consistency with the
current regulatory framework.
1 Future Forward 2050: Long Range Transportation Plan, Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson
County, adopted May 25, 2022.
November 16, 2022
Page 5
Furthermore, other policy changes since 2002, including a new Comprehensive Plan update
and an increased focus on climate action and equity, constitute additional circumstances that
have occurred and that demonstrate the proposed amendment is in the public interest. The City
adopted the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2013. While it maintains the planning framework of
the previous Comprehensive Plan, it incorporates sustainability as foundational to the plan’s
structure and includes revised goals and strategies related to growth, land use, housing,
economic development, and transportation, among others.
In 2018, the City adopted a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan with goals to reduce carbon
emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Form-based land use can
help address issues associated with conventional land use planning that have historically led to
separated land uses and low density spawl. The development patterns associated with
conventional land use planning encourages auto-oriented development and increases traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, form-based land use planning can
improve the building and transportation systems through compact neighborhoods with
destinations that are easily accessible by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars.
In 2020, the City adopted actions in Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity
in the community. Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to enforce racial
and class segregation through exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning and large
minimum lot sizes, along with other policies such as redlining, restrictive covenants, and the
demolition of “slums” where persons of color lived. Form-based land use helps address these
past wrongs by permitting a diversity of housing types and price points. While it does not solve
this complex issue, it mitigates one barrier to providing housing options that are more affordable
and allows for a broader range of housing choices for all residents, including those still recovering
from generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The proposed amendment aligns well with the existing goals and objectives in the Southwest
District and Comprehensive Plans. The adopted future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan
shows the area as containing residential land uses, primarily at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per
acre, but with some areas shown as rural residential. It also includes a small area with
neighborhood commercial and mixed use development, along with some public/semi-public uses
and open space, though this is limited to only a small portion of the Rohret South subarea.
Similarly, the current Southwest District Future Land Use map shows a mix of land use categories
in the subarea, including Large Lot/Rural Residential, Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Narrow
Lot/Townhouse Residential, Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, Open Space, and Public
Services/Institutional Uses, among others. The proposed future land use map maintains many of
the same land use and building types but allows a mix of them throughout the area instead of
segregating different housing types by area. It also looks at the full subarea rather than only those
areas expected to develop first. However, the new map does not include rural residential uses as
it is now expected that these land uses will be annexed into the City over time.
The proposed amendment also supports several goals from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan:
•Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households
of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.
•Encourage pedestrian-oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that
make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk.
•Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale
neighborhood commercial centers.
•Support preservation of valuable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas.
•Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street.
November 16, 2022
Page 6
•Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks
with single-loaded street access.
Similarly, the plan continues to use the same goals of the Southwest District Plan for the Rohret
South subarea, which align with proposed changes to the text and future land use map:
•Encourage housing diversity in new neighborhoods.
•Preserve natural features and topography.
•Build streets that enhance neighborhood quality.
•Encourage commercial development that serves local residents.
•Reserve space for neighborhood parks and trails that connect to other areas of the City.
•Provide adequate street and pedestrian access to recreational facilities and other public
amenities.
•Establish a public focal point for new neighborhoods, such as a lake or park.
On the other hand, amendments related to the background section are relatively minor or simply
provide more accurate context due to the significant changes since 2002.
In addition to being compatible with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and existing goals of the
Southwest District Plan, the proposed amendment aligns well with other more recent policy
efforts of the City, including the City Council’s Strategic Plan, the Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan, and the City’s Black Lives Matter & Systemic Racism Resolution. As other District Plans
are updated in the future, incorporating these elements is essential to ensuring consistency in
all City documents.
Public Comment
Staff received several comments regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, a few
of which were received after the hearing was set. All comments are included in Attachment 2.
Next Steps
At an upcoming meeting of City Council, a public hearing must be held on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA22-0002) to update background information and the
section on the Rohret South Subarea. Following the hearing, Council will determine whether to
adopt the proposed amendment.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of CPA22-
0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to update background information
and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1.
Attachments
1.Proposed Changes to the South District Plan [includes minor correction on p. 12]
2.Correspondence [includes 3 messages not in November 16, 2022 packet]
3.Open House Comments & Survey Results
4.Public Input Summary
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
ADOPTED OCTOBER 8, 2002
AMENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2021
AMENDED XXXXXXXX XX, 2022
Department of Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Attachment 1
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
ADOPTED OCTOBER 8, 2002
AMENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2021
AMENDED XXXXXXXX XX, 2022
Department of Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
www.icgov.org
City Council of Iowa City
Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor
Dee Vanderhoef, Mayor Pro Tem
Connie Champion
Steven Kanner
Mike O'Donnell
Irvin Pfab
Ross Wilburn
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Ann Bovbjerg, Chair
Dean Shannon, Vice Chair
Jerry Hansen, Secretary
Donald J. Anciaux, Jr.
Benjamin Chait
Ann Freerks
Elizabeth Koppes
Department of Planning and Community Development
Karin Franklin, Director
Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner
John Yapp, Associate Planner
John Adam, Associate Planner
Kay Irelan, Graphics Tech
Erin Welsch, Intern
Southwest District Plan
1
INTRODUCTION
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan presents a vision for Iowa City, provides a
strategy for realizing the vision, and sets policies for the growth and development of
specific geographic areas of the city. Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
in 1997, and its update in 2013, the City has embarked on a series of District
Planning efforts in order to provide vision and guidance for development that is more
closely tailored to specific areas of the City. District plans are intended to promote
patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure, and services that encourage and
contribute to the livability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods. District plans are
advisory documents for directing and managing change over time. They serve as
guides to decision-making, public deliberation, and investments.
The Southwest District Plan establishes planning principles, goals and objectives that
relate specifically to the history and existing conditions of specific areas within
Southwest Iowa City. The plan addresses issues of housing, transportation,
commercial development, public and neighborhood services, and parks, trails and
open space. Since the Southwest Planning District includes older neighborhoods,
new subdivisions, and also areas that have yet to be developed, it is difficult to
establish specific goals and objectives that would apply to all areas of the district.
Therefore, the plan divides the district into four subareas: the Roosevelt Subarea, the
Willow Creek Subarea, the Weber Subarea, and the Rohret South Subarea. While
there are basic planning principles that apply to the entire Southwest District, the plan
highlights specific issues and corresponding goals and objectives for each of the four
subareas and illustrates a vision for future land use on plan maps for each subarea.
The planning principles, goals, and objectives within this plan are intended to be
consistent with community-wide goals and policies that are embodied in the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan. Establishing sound planning principles and a vision for the
future will benefit citizens living or working in the Southwest District as well as
citizens in Iowa City as a whole.
The Plan is divided into two sections:
I.The Southwest District: Past and Present, which describes the location,
history and existing conditions in the Southwest District;
II.The Southwest District: Planning for the Future, which sets forth the
planning principles, goals and objectives that will act as a framework on which
to base future development decisions. This section includes a discussion of
district-wide issues such as transportation and public infrastructure as well as
more detailed guidelines for each of the four subareas in the district. Plan
maps and concept plans in this section help to illustrate plan goals and
objectives.
10/08/0211/07/22
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 2
Planning Process
The Southwest District Plan is
based on the input of many
individuals, neighborhood groups,
and other interested organizations.
During the summer and fall of 2001,
staff from the City's Department of
Planning and Community
Development collected background
information about the area through
historical research, interviews, and
site visits. To kick off the public
process, the City sent over 5,000
individual notices to invite area
residents to a planning workshop on
November 8, 2001. The workshop was also promoted through area schools, on the
City's website and in the local newspaper. Over 200 citizens responded to this
outreach effort and requested to be kept informed of the planning process as it
unfolded.
At the first workshop, participants used the background informat ion gathered by city
staff to inform their own knowledge and experience as they worked to formulate a
vision for the district. Approximately 100 citizens spent the evening examining issues
relating to housing, commercial development, transportation, parks and open space,
and discussed ways to make the district more livable over time. On February 5, 2002,
citizens met at a second workshop to build on the work accomplished in November.
Participants worked in small groups to develop more specific goals and objectives for
the plan.
It became apparent during the workshop
process that more specific direction was
needed for different geographical areas in
the district. A plan for the development of
new neighborhoods was needed for the
outlying areas of the district, while existing
zoning, traffic, and redevelopment issues are
a priority for inner neighborhoods and
commercial areas. In addition, specific
recommendations were requested by the
City Council for the area bounded by Miller
Avenue, Benton Street, Harlocke Street, and
Highway 1. This area was placed under a
development moratorium to allow time to complete a planning study to determine the
most appropriate zoning and land uses for the remaining undeveloped land. A
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 3
smaller working group of citizens and planning staff was formed to help identify
specific concerns and discuss possible scenarios for future development.
The planning principles, plan maps, and
concept plans contained in this document
were developed from the public input
gathered throughout the planning process.
Citizens generated many of the specific
policies and design concepts in the plan.
A draft plan was presented to the public in
July of 2002. The Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed and discussed the
plan with citizens at several public hearings
in August and September and forwarded
their recommended draft to the City Council
for review and adoption. The City Council discussed the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommended draft at a public hearing in September. After
consideration of public comments, the City Council adopted the Southwest District
Plan on October 8, 2002, making it an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
In winter 2020, the City began a targeted update of the plan focused on background
information and the Rohret South Subarea. The goal was to vision what future
development may look utilizing form-based zones for greenfield sites in light of the
planned wastewater service extension under Highway 218 in 2023. Public input was
gained throughout the project timeline, including a public open house on September
1, 2022. The draft plan was posted in October 2022, after which the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended XXXXX of the draft update at a
public hearing in November. After considering public comments at a public hearing,
City Council XXXXXX the Plan Update on XXXXX XXX, 2022.
How Will the Southwest District Plan Be Used?
The Southwest District Plan is intended to be a guide to development within the
district for the next twenty to twenty-five years. As the City reviews subdivision and
rezoning requests, the plan will be consulted to help ensure that new development
fits into the surrounding neighborhoods. The City will refer to the Plan when setting
funding priorities for public projects and services. Property owners, developers and
others may also use the plan when making decisions regarding investment in the
Southwest District. Continued citizen input will be important during the
implementation of the plan. Private investment and neighborhood initiatives to
enhance or improve housing and commercial areas and to protect valuable
environmental and historic resources will be essential to the implementation of the
Southwest District Plan.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 4
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 5
The Southwest District
Past and Present
Location
History & Existing Conditions
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 6
LOCATION
The Southwest Planning District extends from the Iowa River west to the City’s
western growth area limit. It is bounded on the north by Melrose Avenue and Grand
Avenue and on the south by Iowa Highway 1. In the mid-1990's the City’s growth
area limit was expanded westward to the future alignment of Highway 965, which will
eventually skirt the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 6
LOCATION
The Southwest Planning District extends from the Iowa River west to the City’s
western growth area limit. It is bounded on the north by Melrose Avenue and Grand
Avenue and on the south by Iowa Highway 1. In the mid-1990's the City’s growth
area limit was expanded westward to the future alignment of Highway 965, which will
eventually skirt the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill. The growth area limit was
further expanded in 2021 to account for new anticipated growth, which added just
over 712 acres of land in the western and southern portions of the Southwest
Planning District.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 7
(insert Current Land Use Map Here)
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 7
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 8
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 9
HISTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Southwest District consists primarily of residential development, although it also
contains important commercial areas along Riverside Drive, Highway 1 and Mormon
Trek Boulevard. The residential neighborhoods and commercial areas are linked to
the rest of Iowa City by a network of arterial streets and regional trails, including
Melrose Avenue, Benton Street, Rohret Road, Mormon Trek Boulevard, Riverside
Drive, the Willow Creek Trail, and the Iowa River Corridor Trail. Along Melrose
Avenue the District abuts University Heights, which is incorporated as a separate city.
The land use map on the previous page is provided as a reference. It indicates the
various land uses in existence at the time this plan was updated in August 2022.
Land uses remain similar to when the plan was originally drafted in June
2002developed.
Housing
The map on the following page illustrates
the existing development pattern in the
Southwest District. As one can see from
this map, the residential uses in the District
range from low-density single-family homes
to high-density apartments in areas along
the north side of Benton Street and along
Mormon Trek Boulevard. While the area
located east of Highway 218 is nearly
completely developed, the area west of the
highway contains low-density single-family
subdivisions bordering large areas of
agricultural land.
While much of the land south of Rohret Road and west of Highway 218 is still used
as farmland, vestiges of early country living still remain in the eastern part of the
district along Melrose Avenue and Benton
Street. The earliest-known house of record is
at 817 Melrose Avenue. Two blocks east is the
Billingsley-Hills-Widness house at 629 Melrose
Avenue, which was originally a 34-acre country
estate. Constructed in 1870, this Italianate
structure is one of three former estates on
Melrose Avenue listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. The other two houses are
the Cannon-Gay and Pratt-Soper houses at
320 and 503 Melrose Avenue, respectively.
Pratt –Soper House
A Mix of Housing
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 10
There are also a number of historic houses on Benton Street, including the Williams-
Unash house located just east of Roosevelt School at 602 W. Benton Street, and the
Cyrus S. Ranck house at 747 W. Benton Street, which was recently designated an
Iowa City Landmark. Built at the turn of the century, the house was originally
surrounded by a 22-acre orchard. The current owners continue to maintain a large
part of this property as natural woodland.
The vacant property across from the school was once occupied by another historic
brick structure, the William Butterbaugh house, which was built in 1884 on a 160 -acre
farm. Behind the house were several barns and other farm structures. In 1925
Charles W. Ruppert, Sr. purchased the property and rented it to William Sanger who
operated a dairy farm at this location. The Rupperts still own portions of the original
farm, however the house was abandoned and eventually demolished. It is now
developed and includes the Prairie Hill Co-Housing project and a new public parkThe
Ruppert property is one of the few large, undeveloped tracts remaining in the eastern
part of the District.
The earliest subdivisions within the Southwest District were developed between 1921
and 1924 in the area south of Melrose Avenue and north of the former Rock Island
Railroad and Myrtle Avenue. These included Melrose Place, Circle and Court, as well
as Brookland Place, Brookland Park, and Triangle Place. This neighborhood has
narrow streets, and a wooded, rugged character that makes it intimate and distinct.
Another early subdivision occurred along Miller and Hudson Avenues south of
Benton Street. Many of the homes along these streets were built as a part of the
Baily and Beck Addition, which was platted in 1927.
Much of the area along Benton and Orchard Streets was platted in the late 1940s. A
World War II aviation manufacturer constructed the small ran ch-style homes along
Douglas Street and Douglas Court, which was platted in 1954. Further development
in the 1950s took place between Myrtle Avenue and the Iowa Interstate Railway
(formerly the Rock Island Railway). Others areas south of Melrose Avenue and north
of Highway 1 continued to develop through the 1970s in a rather ad hoc manner.
Another factor in the development of
Southwest Iowa City was an increasing need
to house university students. The University
expanded its west side dormitory space with
the construction of Rienow Hall and Slater
Hall in the late 1960s. In addition, a number
of apartment blocks were developed among
the small subdivisions. The Seville, Carriage
Hill and Benton Manor apartment complexes
were constructed at the top of the Benton
Street Hill. Apartment complexes were
constructed around “University Lake”
between University Heights to the north and
Douglas Court
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 11
1960s-era single-family neighborhoods to the south. Additional apartment blocks
were built along Oakcrest Street.
Larger subdivisions in the Southwest District were not platted until after the 1960s.
From the late 60s through the 70s, most of the area south of Benton Street and east
of Willow Creek Park was platted and built. The subdivisions west of Willow Creek
Park were all platted in the last two decades of the twentieth century.
In the western portion of the Southwest District, development is occurring primarily in
the area north of Rohret Road. The Galway Hills subdivision continues to was
developed north of near the intersection of Highway 218 and Melrose Avenue. A new
retirement community was recently constructed in this vicinity, directly adjacent to
West High School. West of Highway 218, Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club
Estates continue their build-out near Weber Elementary School.
Urban development is not likeslowly to expanded very quickly south of Rohret Road
due to the difficulty in providing sanitary sewer service. Many of theSome homes in
this area are located outside the city limits in Johnson County. These residences
have private wells and their own septic systems.
Since this plan was original adopted in 2002, the Southwest District experienced
additional development. Almost all land east of Highway 218 is now built out, and
areas near the Iowa River and University have seen significant redevelopment
following adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code in 2013. West of
Highway 218 and north of Rohret Road, Country Club Estates and Wild Prairie
Estates continued to grow, and additional development is expected in the Rohret
South Subarea following the planned extension of sewer service under Highway 218
in 2023.
Public Institutions
The Southwest District is home to a number of public institutions that serve the
community. These institutions are markers of the district’s individuality. Not only do
they serve the citizens of the Southwest District, but they also bring people from other
areas of the city to the district.
The University of Iowa has a significant presence in the northeast part of the district,
including the Boyd Law Building overlooking the Iowa River, several parking lots, and
scattered properties along Melrose Avenue used as rental property and child
daycare. In addition, the University influences development in the Southwest District
because it owns much of the property directly north of the District, including the
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Colleges of Medicine, Pharmacy,
Dentistry, and Nursing, the university's athletic facilities, and several dormitories.
The Iowa City Community School District has a number of schools in southwest Iowa
City. Both Roosevelt and Horn elementary school is are located along Benton Street.
Southwest District Plan
11/ /2210/08/02 12
Roosevelt elementary school was
also on Benton Street until 2012,
after which it was converted into an
education center and was
subsequently decommissioned in
2019. West High School has a
large campus along Melrose
Avenue and Weber Elementary
School is located in the western
part of the district along Rohret
Road. These schools serve both
educational and community
purposes and are often a gathering
place for people in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
One of the Southwest District’s
largest undeveloped properties is
owned by Johnson County and was
formerly the site of an important
public institution. Located on Melrose
Avenue near Slothower Road, the
Johnson County Historic Poor Farm
provided care to those who were
unable to care for themselves,
including both the indigent and the
mentally disabled, from the 1850s
until the 1960s. The intent was for
the farm to be partially self-
Weber Elementary
Johnson County Historic Poor Farm
supporting. From its earliest days,
farming was an important part of its
operations. Residents of the historic poor farm were expected to do what farm chores
they could manage in order to compensate the county for their care. In 1964, a newer
facility was built on the site. Chatham Oaks, a privately run institution for persons with
mental illness, is currently housed in this building. Johnson County continues to own
and maintain the property and leases the remaining farmland to a local farmer. In
1977, the remaining wing of the original 1859 asylum building was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. This structure was restored by the County and
opened to the public in 1990. In addition to the historic asylum building, a number of
early farm buildings and the Historic Poor Farm cemetery are notable features of the
site. Since a master planning effort in 2016, the County has hosted the Land Access
Program which leases plots for small farming operations and has also leased space
to various nonprofits including GROW: Johnson County, which grows and donates
foods to local pantries, and the Iowa Global Food Project, which provides garden
spaces for immigrant communities to grow their native foods.
22
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 13
Transportation
Melrose Avenue, Benton Street, Highway 1, Riverside Drive, Mormon Trek Boulevard
and Rohret Road form the backbone of the transportation network in the Southwest
District. These arterial streets serve two important functions, to provide travel routes
for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians through and to different parts of the
community, and to provide access to adjacent properties via collector and local
streets. Highway 218, which cuts diagonally through the district, also provides access
to the southwest portion of Iowa City, although its primary function is to serve
motorists travelling through the metropolitan area.
Many of these streets were also important in the early development of the district.
Melrose Avenue was once called Snooks Grove Road and known popularly as the
Poor Farm Road. Snooks Grove was a settlement located on Bear Creek in
Poweshiek County. The residents of Snooks Grove Road eventually rebelled and it
was renamed Melrose Avenue. This name became the basis for the naming of
Melrose Place, Melrose Circle and Melrose Court. However, the origin of “Melrose” is
not known.
The topography in certain areas along Benton
Street is quite steep. For years, what is now
referred to as the Benton Street Hill was called
Ranck Hill. The steep hill has always been
difficult in the winter months. Irving Weber notes
accounts of Roosevelt schoolteachers having to
“gun” their engines and push their vehicles to
reach the school. To the children living in the
area, however, the hill was a popular location
for sledding until 1952, when the City paved it.
Rohret Road was named for Bavarian immigrant Wolfgang Rohret. He, his wife
Katrina, and four sons had staked out a claim along Old Man’s Creek in 1840.
Wolfgang and his sons traveled the early road daily to and from Iowa City and their
employment as construction workers on the new state capitol building. The Rohret
sons were later hired by Lyman Dillon to plow the 100-mile-long Dillon’s Furrow
between Iowa City and Dubuque.
In 1856, Iowa City was the westernmost stop for the railroad. During that year, five
parties of Mormon converts from England, Scotland, Wales, Norway, and Denmark
passed through Iowa City on their trek to Salt Lake City, Utah, which they believed to
be the promised land. The first party arrived in May and they spent four weeks at a
camp along Clear Creek. While encamped, they built handcarts for hauling their
belongings on the continuation of their journey. By the end of July, the last party left
The sledding hill on Benton Street
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 14
Iowa City for Utah with their handcarts in tow.
Because of the late start, however, they
encountered severe winter weather, and
between 135 and 150 died en route. Legend
has it that five Mormon graves are located
near their Iowa City camp, but none have yet
been discovered. The Mormon Handcart Park
and Trail commemorate this camp and
Mormon Trek Boulevard was named in honor
of their journey.
The decision in the late 1970s to construct Highway 218 as a diagonally-routed,
limited-access highway through southwestern Iowa City has had, and will continue to
have, a major influence on development in this part of the city. Highway 218 forms
part of what will eventually be the “Avenue of the Saints,” an expressway between
Saint Paul, Minnesota and Saint Louis, Missouri. While providing an important
transportation route, Highway 218 is a substantial barrier separating the
neighborhoods southwest of it from the rest of Iowa City. Melrose Avenue, Rohret
Road, and Highway 1 are the only streets that bridge across the highway. Integrating
and connecting the neighborhoods west of Highway 218 to the rest of the community
will remain a challenge as the City develops westward. Trail connections under the
roadbed may help to integrate new neighborhoods into the community and provide
connections to important destinations, such as West High School, on the east side of
the highway. Additional north-south street connections between Melrose Avenue,
Rohret Road and Highway 1 will improve traffic circulation within the area and will
help to connect these westernmost neighborhoods with neighborhoods east of the
highway.
Improvements to Melrose Avenue, Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Rohret Road in the
past decade have improved the capacity of the arterial street system in western Io wa
City. While there is some congestion on portions of Benton Street and Mormon Trek
Boulevard near the University of Iowa campus during peak hours, level of service is
generally adequate. However, there are still opportunities to better control access to
improve safetyinsufficient capacity and poor access control along streets such as
Benton east of Sunset Street and along portions of Riverside Drive contribute to
congestion, delay, and accidents. As development continues west of Mormon Trek
Boulevard and along Highway 1, the demands on the arterial street system will
increase.
High vehicle speeds have been reported along long curvilinear streets near West High
and in Southwest Estates, especially on streets like Lakeshore Drive and Duck Creek
Drive. As a result, plans to connect Edingale Drive to Highway 1 have been met with
some concern. As the property at 1160 Highway 1 West redevelops, attention must be
Mormon Trek Boulevard
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 15
given to traffic calming and connectivity to Horn Elementary, West High, and the
University.
Commercial Development
The Southwest District contains extensive commercial development along Highway 1
and on Riverside Drive. Much of this development is in the form of commercial strips.
Larger businesses line the Highway 1 corridor and provide goods and services to the
greater Iowa City area.
South Riverside Drive is composed of
smaller commercial lots with many
individual access drives off of the roadway,
making it seem busier and more
congested. The Riverside Drive
commercial area has a long history and is
in many ways the very model of post-
World War II commercial strip
development. The area was annexed in
the 1920s and remained mostly residential
for the next couple of decades. Following
the war, households began moving out
and businesses began moving in, finally
outnumbering homes by 1959 and
reaching saturation around 1970. Contributing to this was Riverside’s changing
transportation role over the years. It served as the converged route of State Highway
1 and U.S. Highways 6 and 218 and as the southern entryway into Iowa City. This
made it an attractive place to locate filling stations and other auto-service uses and
auto-oriented uses, such as fast-food restaurants. The growth of residential
neighborhoods in areas to the west, the expansion of commercial uses along
Highway 1 West and Highway 6 East, and the reorientation of Highway 218 far to the
west in the 1980s effectively displaced Riverside Drive from its former entryway role.
Since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2013, several
redevelopment projects have occurred on Riverside Drive which have improved the
appearance and functionality of the street, provided additional commercial amenities,
and new added residents along the corridor.
Riverside Drive
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 16
The Southwest District also contains a smaller
neighborhood commercial area called Walden
Square. This compact shopping center is
located on Mormon Trek Boulevard near its
intersection with Benton Street. Walden
Square includes a neighborhood grocery
store, several retail shops and restaurants,
and a credit union. Unlike commercial
development along Highway 1 and Riverside
Drive, which relies primarily on attracting
drive-by customers from the entire Iowa City
area, the primary focus at Walden Square is to
provide for the everyday shopping needs of
the surrounding neighborhoods. While parking spaces are prevalent at Walden
Square, neighborhood residents can also ride their bikes or walk to these shops via
the Willow Creek Trail, which runs adjacent to this development.
In addition, the Southwest District has seen significant commercial development at
the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 218. These developments, which are
primarily large commercial uses including car lots and home and garden stores, were
driven by the extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard from Highway 1 to South
Riverside Drive.
Parks and Open Space
The Southwest District contains a number
of regional and neighborhood parks. Willow
Creek Park and Kiwanis Park together
provide a large regional park facility that not
only serves the surrounding neighborhoods
on the west side of the City, but also
attracts users from other parts of town. The
Iowa River Corridor Trail skirts the eastern
boundary of the district. The newly
developed Ned Ashton Park, located at the
corner of Benton Street and Riverside
Drive, provides a neighborhood access
point and resting area for the Iowa River Corridor Trail. Brookland Park, at the
intersection of Greenwood Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railway, provides both
active and passive recreational opportunities for the surrounding Melrose and Miller -
Orchard neighborhoods. The City has recently acquired property along Benton Street
Hill Park across from the former Roosevelt Elementary to was developed into a small
park with play equipment and a shelter. Discussions continue as to how this park
might best be developed to serve the surrounding residents. Tower Court Park is a
small pocket park that is enjoyed by residents living along Tower Court and Oakcrest
Street. Similarly, Harlocke Hill Park, acquired in 2004, is a small park serving its
Iowa River Corridor Trail
Walden Square
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 17
neighborhood at the junction of Harlocke Place and Harlocke Street.
Villa Park, located west of University Heights, contains both active and passive areas
and also doubles as a stormwater detention facility. Hunters Run Park serves the
westernmost neighborhoods of the district. It is located west of Highway 218 along
Duck Creek Drive. While this park consists largely of natural areas with trails,
improvements have recently been made to provide more active park space.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 18
The Southwest District
Planning for the Future
Planning Principles
Transportation
Public Services and Facilities
Southwest District Subareas
• Roosevelt Subarea
• Willow Creek Subarea
• Weber Subarea
• Rohret South Subarea
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 19
PLANNING PRINCIPLES
During the planning process, citizens discussed what was most valued in the Southwest
District and those aspects that could use improvement. They also discussed principles that
should be followed as new neighborhoods are developed in the future. Many of the specific
ideas, concepts, and goals generated at the citizen planning workshops are included in the
remaining sections of the plan. These principles also mirror those in the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan. The following citizen-generated principles provide the underlying
framework for the plan:
• Citizens stressed the importance of providing a diversity of housing in the District,
including homes for first time buyers, mid-sized homes, estate-style homes, townhouses,
condominiums and apartments. The appropriate design and mix of housing types is
important to the creation of livable neighborhoods.
• Citizens emphasized the importance of preserving and stabilizing close-in, diverse
neighborhoods. Citizens expressed a desire for better enforcement of existing zoning
and nuisance laws and a re-examination of existing zoning patterns in the older parts of
the District. There is also concern about the encroachment of university uses into the
neighborhoods south of Melrose Avenue.
• Design issues are important to citizens. There was a desire expressed to establish
design standards for higher density uses so that these uses would be well integrated into
existing and future neighborhoods. Variety in building design is a desirable goal.
Monotonous repetition of the same building along a street frontage or in a neighborhood
should be discouraged. Citizens emphasized that buildings should be designed to be
sensitive to the environment, the topography, and the surrounding development.
• Citizens feel it is important to design new neighborhoods around a focal point such
as a neighborhood commercial district, community center or park. The Carson Lake
concept planFuture Land Use Map was developed with this principle in mind.
• Citizens want to prevent sprawl and preserve the rural character of the far western
and southern portions of the district. Although these areas are not likely to remain
permanently in farm use, the plan encourages orderly growth. Urban densities should
not occur until public facilities are in place and until areas adjacent to existing urban
development are built out.
• A safe, efficient network of streets is important to neighborhood residents. Emphasis
should be placed on designing street networks that prevent cut-through traffic on local
streets and provide safe travel routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Citizens emphasized the importance of providing good access to public transit.
Expansion of transit service should be considered in areas where higher densities
develop.
• Trails, wide sidewalks, and bicycle lanes are viewed as important transportation links
to neighborhood destinations.
• With regard to parks, open space and trails, there is overwhelming support for creating
an interconnected system of neighborhood and regional parks throughout the
district.
• Citizens expressed support for attractive, well-designed commercial areas that serve
the daily needs of the surrounding residents. Design, accessibility, and types of
commercial uses were important topics discussed at the workshops.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 20
TRANSPORTATION
The transportation system in the Southwest District includes arterial streets, trails and
wide sidewalks, and public transit. More detailed information about neighborhood
transportation issues is included in the subarea sections below.
Arterial Streets
The only new arterial street corridor planned for within the Southwest District is the
future extension of Highway 965 from Highway 6 to Melrose Avenue, and eventually
to Highway 1. North of Melrose Avenue, the Highway 965 corridor will be located
along the Hurt Road alignment and along the east side of the Iowa City Landfill south
of Melrose Avenue. Highway 965 will not only provide an additional north -south link
between Iowa City and Coralville, it will create an additional link in the regional
arterial street system by connecting Highway 1 in Iowa City to Highway 6 in Coralville
and beyond to North Liberty. While it’s identified as a project in the most recent Long
Range Transportation Plan, tThe extension of Highway 965 through the district is not
expected to receive funding through at least 2045identified as a long-range project,
20 to 25 years in the future.
Other planned arterial street extensions that
will affected traffic patterns in the Southwest
District included the extension of Mormon
Trek Boulevard from Highway 1 through the
South Central Planning District to Riverside
Drive, and Camp Cardinal Road Boulevard
from Melrose Avenue north to Highway 6 in
Coralville. The extension of Mormon Trek
Boulevard to Riverside Drive in 2008 will
created an additional east-west arterial street
link, and traffic forecasts have shown it will
likely result in a reduction in traffic on Benton
Street. The extension of Camp Cardinal Road
Boulevard between Melrose Avenue and
Highway 6 in 2007 will created an additional
north-south link between Iowa City and
Coralville and will help reduce dependence on
Mormon Trek Boulevard and Highway 218 for
north-south traffic. The construction and improvements to these roads facilitated
additional growth in the area. The City has also recently converted some 4 -lane
roads into 3-lane roads, including much of Mormon Trek Boulevard. New traffic
counts are not yet available to show the impact of these changes due to the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic which substantially reduced traffic from 2020 to 2021.
For existing arterial streets, segments of Benton Street, Highways 1 and 6, and
Riverside Drive have been identified as needing improvement. Sidewalk gaps and
Sidewalk gaps along Riverside Drive
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 21
inadequate bicycle facilities make the area less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. In
addition, poor access control can be improved,contributes to the higher-than-average
collision rates especially along these streetsBenton Street and Riverside Drive. As
opportunities arise through redevelopment projects, a concerted effort should be
made to fill in the sidewalk gaps, consolidate driveways and/or shift the location of
driveways to safer locations. In the case of Highways 1 West/6 East, significant
pedestrian improvements are needed near the intersection of Riverside Drive and on
the bridge over the Iowa River. While the addition of vehicle travel lanes is not
currently being contemplated, both Benton Street and Riverside
Drive will periodically be evaluated for improved turning lanes, bicycle facilities, and
traffic control. Traffic control devices, such as traffic signals or signs, may be
warranted if they improve safety and/or traffic flow without having a negative impact
on other neighborhood streets. Because traffic control devices have the potential to
increase the collision rate and/or increase traffic on surrounding streets, a traffic
engineering study needs to be completed before additional traffic control is added to
an intersection.
Public Transit
As a result of the City’s major transit study and overhaul of the bus lines in 2021,
tThe Southwest District is now served by a number of Iowa City transit routes,
including the 8 – Oakcrest, Westwinds, Plaen View, Westport, and 10 – West Side
Loop Iowa City, and 12 – Highway 1 routes. The University of Iowa’s CAMBUS
provides service to the Hawkeye Park commuter lot and the University of Iowa
Campus. The 8 – Oakcrest route serves Melrose Avenue, Sunset Street, and the
residential areas along Oakcrest and Benton Streets with headways of 15 minutes
during peak hours, 30 minutes during off-peak hours, and 60 minutes on Saturday.
The 10 – West Iowa Cityport Route focuses directly serves residential, commercial,
and institutional areas along Melrose Avenue, Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Rohret
Road with headways of 30 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on Saturday. The
12 – Highway 1 serves Riverside Drive/Highway 6, the Highway 1 commercial area,
Sunset Boulevard, Benton Street, and on the commercial/employment corridors
along Riverside Drive and Highway 1 Westareas . The other routes provide general
coverage to the predominately residential areas of the Southwest District, including
the commercial nodes along on Mormon Trek Boulevard north of Benton Street with
headways of 30 minutes during peak hours and Saturdays, and 60 minutes during
off-peak hoursand the University of Iowa’s Health Sciences Campus. Each of these
routes terminates at the Downtown Transit Interchange in Iowa City., and tTransfers
between routes can be made wherever routes overlap. As growth occurs in the
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 22
Southwest District west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road, additional
changes to transit service may occur.
Most of the transit routes operate on a standard schedule, with buses every half hour
during the three-hour morning and afternoon peak periods, and every hour the
remainder of the day. The Westside Loop route is unique in that it operates only
when public schools are open, and provides service to West High School and
downtown Iowa City with one route in the morning and one route in the a fternoon to
serve high school students. Currently there are no plans to alter any of these routes,
as they are designed to give general coverage to the area where there is sufficient
existing demand for transit service. The extension of transit service will be evaluated
as the population increases west of Highway 218.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian trails within the city are used both for
recreation and as transportation routes. Three
two regional major trails in serve the Southwest
District: include the Iowa River Corridor (IRC)
Trail, the Highway 1 Trail, and the Willow Creek
Trail. The IRC Trail, Iowa City’s longest at six is
part of a regional trail system that extends more
than 12 miles, currently extends from Terry
Trueblood Recreation Area to Benton Street on
the west side of the Iowa River, where it crosses
to the east side and continues south to Napoleon
Parkthe Macbride Nature Area. Future plans include will extending the IRC Trail
along the west side of the river from Benton Street south to Sturgis Ferry
ParkMcCollister Boulevard.
The Highway 1 Trail runs from Orchard Street to Mormon Trek Boulevard, where it
connects with a side path that extends north to Coralville. A short on-street
connection from the Highway 1 Trail links to tThe Willow Creek Trail, continues on
through Kiwanis Park, Willow Creek Park, Walden Square shopping area, and on
currently provides access to West High School, Walden Square commercial area,
Willow Creek Park and Kiwanis Park, and the neighborhoods west of Sunset Street .
Future plans include extending the Willow Creek Trail under Highway 218 to Hunters
Run Park and the County Historic Poor Farm property, and eventually to Melrose
Avenue. A side path is also provided along Rohret Road. To the south, the Willow
Creek Trail is planned to pedestrians can cross under Highway 1 or at a signalized
intersection to which connects to the commercial properties on the south side of
Highway 1. Ultimately, the Willow Creek Trail is planned to generally follow Willow
Creek to the Iowa River where it will connect to the IRC Trail in the vicinity of
Napoleon Park.
Iowa River Corridor Trail
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 23
Bike lanes are provided on Mormon Trek Boulevard and Rohret Road. Iowa City’s
Bicycle Master Plan calls for bike lanes and/or sidepaths on the following Streets:
Benton and Sunset Streets; west of University Heights on Melrose Avenue; and
south of Highway 1 on Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Wide sidewalks within arterial street
corridors enhance the pedestrian/bicycle
network and are used to help connect
neighborhoods to the trail system. An
important objective of the plan is to
continue filling in the existing gaps in the
sidewalk network in the district, as well as
expanding connectivity throughout the
pedestrian and bicycle network. As arterial
streets in southwest Iowa City are
reconstructed, it will be important to
continue adding features such as wide
sidewalks, bike lanes or wide travel lanes
for bicyclists, and pedestrian-friendly
bridges and underpasses. While many gains have been made since 2002 including
trails and crossings along Highway 1, the City should continue to Pprioritizes should
be given to the following pedestrian facility improvements:
• Fill in the gaps and improve the sidewalks along Riverside Drive;
• Fill in the gaps and improve in the sidewalk network along Benton Street;
• Widen the sidewalks on one side of Benton Street where possible;
• As the district continues to develop, evaluate the need fo r new or improved
pedestrian crossings;
• Construct wide sidewalks or trails along Highway 1 in order to create
pedestrian/bicycle access to the Highway 1 commercial properties.
• As Provide pedestrian and bicycle routes that improve connectivity, especially in
well-travelled areas such as near the University of Iowa campusfacilities are
added to the Highway 1 corridor, pedestrian crossings will need to be established.
Opportunities for pedestrian crossings exist at the signalized intersections. A
pedestrian underpass of Highway 1 can potentially be constructed using a culvert
originally built for overflow from Willow Creek.
• Provide pedestrian facilities on the Highway 6 bridge across the Iowa River and at
the intersection of Highway 1/Highway 6 and Riverside Drive.
Rohret Road Pedestrian Overpass
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 24
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 25
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Fire Protection
The Iowa City Fire Department provides fire
protection to the Southwest District. Fire
Station No. 2, located at 301 Emerald Street,
provides primary response to the District.
Secondary response is provided by Fire
Station No. 1, located downtown at the Iowa
City Civic Center. First response times for
the developed properties in the District
average between four and eight minutes.
However, response times for properties
located on the periphery of the Southwest
District can exceed eight minutes. As the Southwest District continues to develop
westward, it is likely that response times will increase. To help keep response times
low, it may will be necessary to secure land to relocate develop a new Fire Station
No. 2 farther southwest so that it is nearer to the geographic center of on the far west
side of the city. Arterial street continuity and secondary access are important to
ensure adequate fire and emergency protection. A location on Rohret Roada primary
street with good access to the area would be appropriate.
Sanitary Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer is essential for development within Iowa City. Without public sewer
service, development is limited to one house per acre. In such situations a private
septic system is required and is controlled by the Johnson County Health
Department. Because it greatly increases the allowable intensity of development, the
construction of a sewer line can have as much influence on development as zoning
laws.
Sanitary sewer service in the Southwest District is provided by a series of major
interceptor/trunk sewer lines and the lateral sewer lines which feed into them.
Interceptor and trunk sewers are large pipes that provide service to an entire
drainage basin and are usually constructed by the City. The City has a standing
policy of recouping the cost of trunkline construction by collecting “tap-on” fees from
developments that later hook into the sewer. In the Southwest District, the primary
sewers are the Westside Trunk, Willow Creek Interceptor, and Southwest Trunk.
Lateral sewer lines are smaller sewers that feed into trunk and interceptor sewers.
Individual houses and buildings have service lines that hook into the lateral sewer
lines.
All of the city’s sewer lines flow to one of the City’s two wastewater treatment plants.
The North Wastewater Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the Iowa River north of
Highway 6. The South Wastewater Treatment Plant is located to the north of
Fire Station No. 2
Fire Station #2
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 26
Napoleon Street on the far south side of the city. Thiese two plants treats raw
sewage according to Federal and State requirements so that the treated wastewater
can be released into the Iowa River.
All of the existing developments in the Southwest District are adequately served by
the existing sanitary sewer system. There are properties in the southern portion of
the Country Club Estates area Rohret Road and west of Highway 218 that cannot be
further developed until the Abbey Lane Trunk Sewer is extended to the west side of
Highway 218or a lift station is built to pump sewage to the Westside Trunk. Until
theise improvements are is made, there will be no further expansion in this part of the
subdivisioncity. Development in the area west of Slothower Road can utilize the
landfill lift station to pump sewage to the Westside Trunk as a temporary measure
until additional trunk lines, a lift station, and the Abbey Lane Trunk sewer are
constructed to serve the larger growth area south of Rohret Road.
The provision of sewer service to the area south of Rohret Road and west of
Highway 218 will require the Abbey Lane Trunk Sewer to be extended under
Highway 218 and, for the far westerly portions of the growth area, the construction of
a lift station. The Abbey Lane Trunk Sewer is scheduled to be extended in 2023.Due
to the high cost of this project, it is not likely to occur in the near future. As the other
areas of the Southwest District become more fully developed, the cost of this sewer
project may be justified to open additional land for urban growth. Until that time,
agricultural uses will continue to predominate in this area.
Water Service
As development occurs, water lines are extended from adjacent subdivisions to serve
areas of new growth. Individual developers are responsible for installing water mains
within their subdivisions. Developers are also charged a water main extension fee
that is applied to their share of the cost of building the city-wide distribution system.
The City installed water main along Slothower Road from Melrose Avenue to the
water main in the Country Club Estates Additions. The water main in the Country
Club Estates Additions extends to the water main in Rohret Road and creates a
looped system that recently constructed a water storage tank in the Slothower Road
vicinity to improves the resilience of the water supply system pressure on the far west
side of the city. For the same reason, it will be necessary in the near future to loop
the existing dead-end mains along Highway 1 and located along Rohret Road and
Melrose Avenue.
Solid Waste
The Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center abuts the western boundary of the
Southwest District and is directly west of the proposed future alignment of Highway
965. The landfill has been in use since 1972, serving all of Johnson County and the
communities of Riverside and Kalona in Washington County. The landfill has an
estimated site life of 25 to 30 to 35 years. The current cell 200-acre site has about
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 27
1300 out of 411 acres buried in refuse mainly on the eastern portion of the property.
These 100 acres have Much of this area has been capped and grass has been
planted to stabilize the banks. The landfill owns two additional 40-acre properties to
on the west of the site and plans are to continue purchasing land surrounding the
landfill to the west, north and south in order to add capacity and to created a buffer
between the landfill and any future developmentsurrounding properties. Portions of
the buffer area could be used for recreation and the landfill itself could be used for
recreational purposes in the distant future. Besides landfilling operations, the City
manages multiple recycling programs and a commercial compost facility at this site.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 28
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT SUBAREAS
The following sections of the plan refer to the four subareas illustrated on the map
above. The goals and objectives for each of these areas are highlighted in the text
and illustrated on a conceptual plan maps. These plan maps are color-coded to
indicate the types of land use or types of development intended for specific areas. In
addition, future road extensions and possible new street configurations are illustrated
using dashed lines. The red lines on the plan maps indicate existing and future trails
and wide sidewalks.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 24
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT SUBAREAS
The following sections of the plan refer to the four subareas illustrated on the map
above. The goals and objectives for each of these areas are highlighted in the text
and illustrated on a conceptual plan maps. These plan maps are color-coded to
indicate the types of land use or types of development intended for specific areas. In
addition, future road extensions and possible new street configurations are illus trated
using dashed lines. The red lines on the plan maps indicate existing and future trails
and wide sidewalks.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 51
ROHRET SOUTH SUBAREA
The Rohret South Subarea extends west from Highway 218 and south from Rohret
Road to the City's growth area limit. The vast majority Most of the land in this
subarea is currently outside Iowa City's corporate limits and is used primarily for
agriculture. The non-farm uses in the area can be characterized as large -lot semi-
rural homes. These homes are located primarily along the south side of Rohret Road,
along Kitty Lee Road, and in the Rohret Court and Kessler Road area, and in
scattered locations.
Topographically, the eastern portion much of the subarea consists of rolling hills with
some flatter areas along the hills’ crests. The lLand in the northeast portion of the
subarea generally drains into the east and there are Middle Branch Willow Creek
which flows east through two primary, semi-wooded drainageways leading to a low
area directly west of Highway 218. As In the southeast portion of the subarea, the
watershed drains south. West of Maier Avenue, water sheds west and then south to
Old Man’s Creek. The topography provides scenic vistas for the area but also creates
infrastructure challengesland stretches to the western limits of City's growth area, the
hills and drainageways are less pronounced.
Public Services and Facilities
In order tTo develop at urban densities, city services such as sewer and water will
have to be extended to the Rohret South Subarea. Once Tthe Abbey Lane trunk
sewer project in 2023 will is extend sewer servicesed west of Highway 218, which will
make the northeast portion of this subarea will become suitable for urban
development. It is, therefore, important to plan now for the future orderly growth of
this part of the Southwest District. Once the northeast portion of the subarea
develops, sewer will need to be extended west to the Old Man’s Creek watershed via
The Rohret South Subarea
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 52
a pressurized sewer main and lift station, according to the 2011 Sewer System
Master Plan. To the southeast, sewer can be provided by a pressurized sewer main
and lift station south of Highway 1. Both proposed lift stations to the west and south
are planned, but not expected to be constructed in the near future.
Several of the most significant topographical characteristics of this area are the
distinct drainageways and the low-lying area near Highway 218 on land that is
currently owned by the Carson family. In 1996, the City conducted a study of this
property to determine its suitability for a future regional stormwater management
facility.1 Storm water management is also required in Iowa City to offset the
detrimental effects of urbanization on downstream land use. The report states that it
is feasible to construct a In this subarea, stormwater should be managed at the
regional storm water control facility upstream of Highway 218 on the Carson property.
Such a regional facility would provide safe and efficient control of drainage from the
undeveloped watershed and reduction of flood risk and damage in the downstream,
developed areas. Developing a regional stormwater plan for the subarea would
allowlevel with fewer, larger detention basins, which would reduce the number of
smaller basins needed. This creates several benefits, including provide more efficient
use of land resources, lower total maintenance costs, and allow for additional
multipurpose uses. For example, the future land use map shows a regional
stormwater detention lake in the northeast portion of the subarea which could
accommodate recreational uses such as water activities, Amenities such as trails,
and other recreation facilities could be developed around the new lake amenities
thato serve surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is based on a study In 1996,
the City conducted a study of this property to determine which identified this area
may be its suitableility for a future regional stormwater management facility.2 In
addition to recreational uses, Ssuch a regional facility would provide safe and
efficient control of drainage from the undeveloped watershed and would reducetion of
flood risk and damage in the downstream, developed areas. Additional study is
required for the southeast and west portions of the subarea to evaluate future
regional stormwater management options.
Form-Based Land Use
The future land use map on p. 59 illustrates the potential future uses of property within
the Rohret South subarea. It utilizes form-based land use categories to demonstrate
characteristics desired in this subarea, including neighborhood centers, a mix of
housing types, public parks, pedestrian routes between amenities, an interconnected
street network, and adequate public services. There is some flexibility in interpreting
and applying the future land use vision to this subarea depending on engineering
constraints, environmental factors, and the preferences of individual property owners.
However, any development must be consistent with this vision and City regulations.
1 Preliminary Design Report for Carson's Lake, Regional Storm Water Management Plan for Iowa City,
Iowa. City of Iowa City, Iowa Public Works Department, October, 1996.
2 Preliminary Design Report for Carson's Lake, Regional Storm Water Management Plan for Iowa City,
Iowa. City of Iowa City, Iowa Public Works Department, October, 1996.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 53
Form-based land use represents a paradigm shift from more conventional use -based
maps. Traditional land use maps are organized into four major categories: residential,
commercial, industrial, and institutional. In other words, they identify areas for houses,
for stores and offices, for factories, and for schools and civic buildings respectiv ely.
However, this future land use map utilizes form-based categories to determine what
may be built where. This means that it focuses on how the built environmental may
look and function first, and then the land use secondly. As a result, it reflects the
intended physical character of places, such as describing a "main street" area rather
than a "commercial" or "mixed use" area. In addition, form-based land uses incorporate
other elements of the built environment to create vibrant walkable urbanism, includ ing
the interaction of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types.
Iowa City’s form-based land use categories are organized by the Natural -to-Urban
Transect framework. ‘Transects’ are a hierarchy of physical environments ranging fro m
the natural environment (Transect 1 or T1) to the urban core (Transect 6 or T6). The
designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the type of place
and intensity of development, and secondly by the mix of uses. This hierarchy replaces
traditional use categories as the organizing principle for most of this subarea. Because
the subarea is on the edge of Iowa City, it includes only designations from the T3
Suburban and T4 General Urban transects.
Any future annexations, rezonings, and subdivisions must be consistent with the
vision in this Plan. In 2021, the City developed form-based zones for greenfield sites
at Article 14-2H Form-Based Zones and Standards. The Article has zoning districts
and regulations that are generally consistent with this Plan and may be used to help
in the implementation of its vision.
New Neighborhoods
Given the current pattern of existing development and infrastructure constraints in the
Southwest District, it is likely that new neighborhoods development in the Rohret
South Subarea will begin developing first in the vicinity ofnear the intersection of
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 54
Rohret Road and Highway 218. This area is in closer proximity to existing services
than areas further west or south and development is expected to continue following
the Abbey Lane trunk sewer as it extends west. As noted above, this area has may
been identified as suitable for a regional stormwater detention facility. This facility and
along with its associated amenities which would further encourage new development
in the northeast portion remainder of the Rohret South Subarea.
The attached Carson Lake Concept Plan future land use map illustrates how a
regional stormwater facility can be integrated into the design of a new neighborhood.
The following elements should be included to maximize the benefit of this public
facility to all area residents and visitors to this part of the City:
• A park should be created around the entire lake with appropriate recreational
facilities to allow for easy public access, views, and recreational enjoyment.
Amenities may include areas for a playground, picnic tables, and restrooms.
• A public street and bicycle/pedestrian trail ring the entire lake. The street wshould
define the edge of the park, around at least the northern half of the lake.
• Appropriate recreational facilities should be located within the park.
• Public street and pedestrian while the trail access to the park should also be
located on the south side of the lake.
• A bicycle/pedestrian trail should ring the entire lake run through the park and tie
into the broader trail system that extends which connects to other city
neighborhoods.
• If a regional stormwater facility is constructed, it may be possible to use the
existing culvert that runs under Highway 218 as a tunnel for a pedestrian trail
connection to the neighborhoods on the east side of the highway.
• Areas for a playground, picnic table and restrooms should be provided within the
park. Parking for these recreational facilities should be located on the public street
or in smaller parking lots for 10-15 carsOther civic uses such as an indoor
recreation center and/or elementary school should be located near the future park
to provide mutual benefit to all uses involved.
A regional stormwater facility could provide a focal point for new neighborhoods
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 55
Given the drainage issues in this area, if a stormwater lake is not constructed, a
public park with a smaller water feature and public amenities, including trails, picnic
tables, playground and restrooms, should may be considered in lieu of the lake. The
recommended concepts for development around the lake design considerations
above shwould also apply to the park if it does not include a lake. Regardless, a
regional park of some sort is needed in the Southwest Planning District.
This Plan also shows neighborhood centers spread throughout the subarea, along
with an interconnected street and pedestrian network. Neighborhood centers serve
as a focal point for nearby residents and can include a mix of commercial, residential,
and institutional uses, such as schools, parks, fire stations, or other civic buildings.
Interconnected streets and pedestrian routes diffuse traffic and make it easier to get
around the area using multiple modes of transportation. These centers help to
promote walkability and address the needs of those living nearby.
Care must be given to the design of new neighborhoods to preserve the natural
features of the area, including woodland areas, streams, potential wetlands, and
steep slopes, and minimize the need for extensive grading. The City's Sensitive
Areas Map shows a significant woodland zone in the subarea. The impact of
development on these and other wooded areas features should be minimized in
compliance with the City’s Sensitive Area’s Ordinance and significant trees
preserved. It would may be appropriate to use the semi-wooded ravines for trail
corridors and open space which . These trails could also provide connections
between future neighborhood parks in the Rohret South Subarea and to other
neighborhoods in the Southwest District. In addition, other public parks and private
open space areas may be appropriate for recreational use of nearby residents and
for stormwater management as the area continues to develop.
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 55
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 55
Housing
It is likely that a majority much of the housing developed in the Rohret South Subarea
will be low-density, single-family homes due to market forces. However, a variety of
housing types and styles should be provided for persons of various incomes and
family types, including singles, couples, families and retired persons. In addition,
development should be compact and orderly to help preserve agricultural uses until
such property is developed and to help ensure the efficient provision of public
services.
As illustrated in the concept plan on the following pagefuture land use map, much of
the subarea is proposed to be Transect 3: Suburban (T3). Neighborhood Edge areas
- which allow single-family, duplex, and cottage court building types - are located
near existing, large lot development. Much of the remainder of the subarea is
designated Neighborhood General, which also allows townhouse and small-scale
multi-family uses. All T3 development requires a mix of building types, though it must
be at a scale that is consistent with typical single-family homes.
Other areas are designated Transect 4: General Urban (T4), which allows denser
building adjacent to neighborhood centers and major thoroughfares. Neighborhood
Small areas provide a transition from T3 areas by allowing house-scale multi-family
and cottage court building types. Neighborhood Medium and Main Street areas
comprise the core of neighborhood centers and located are along major
thoroughfares, especially where a street only has buildings on one side and open
space on the other (called “single-loaded” streets). These areas allow block-scale
multi-family buildings up to 3.5 stories, which the area north of the proposed lake and
south of Rohret Road is most appropriate for a mix of medium- to high-density single-
family housing, including condominiums and townhouses, and for low-density
multifamily housing. Allowing greater housing densities in specific areas around the
lake will provide a greater number of residents easy increases access to this
significant public amenities and supports y. In addition, the higher density housing
should be located near arterial streets, such as Rohret Road, and with good access
to a neighborhood commercial areauses. Main Street areas are also identified near
Highway 218 as a noise buffer for residential areas.Given the character of the
topography, lower density single-family homes may be more appropriate on the south
side of the lake.
When sewer service is extended under Highway 218 it will be possible for some of
the existing large lot residential properties to connect into the City sewer system upon
annexation. When these properties have better access to City services, the existing
large lots could be further subdivided in accordance with T3 Neighborhood Edge
standards if property owners decide to do so.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 56
Neighborhood CentersCommercial
Development
A new commercial Neighborhood
centers with a mix of commercial,
residential, and institutional uses are
ideally located throughout the subarea
to provide a focal point for nearby
residents. Areas designated as “open”
would allow but not require a wider
variety of uses, including small-scale
commercial uses that are compatible
with adjacent properties.
Areas shown as T4 Main Street are
intended for commercial uses on the
ground floor. These should be
constructed as a more traditional to
serve the surrounding neighborhoods
would be appropriately located along the
entry corridor to the neighborhood,
located on the south side of Rohret Road
(as illustrated on the concept plan). This
new commercial area should be
developed using a “main street” model
area with in which buildings are
constructed at the front lot line and
parking is provided on the street or.
Additional parking could be located in areas behind the buildings. Ideally, The
commercial buildings should be at least two stories high in order to give definition to
the street with residential or office uses located above where appropriate space.
Attention should be given to pPublic amenities such as benches, garbage
receptacles, a bus stop, and bicycle parking should be provided. In all cases,
neighborhood centers are shown on the future land use map surrounded by T4 areas
to help support Because the viability of commercial development which depends in
part on the residential density of the immediate area, apartments or offices should be
encouraged in the upper levels of the commercial buildings. Furthermore, low-
density, multifamily housing would be appropriate in areas adjacent to the “main
street” commercial area. The City's Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zoning
designation would facilitate the type of commercial development described and
illustrated in the plan.
Civic and institutional uses can also be an important component of neighborhood
centers, which may include places of worship, facilities such as a church, a fire
station, or a recreational center would also be appropriate adjacent to or integrated
into the commercial area and could be used to provide a buffer between Highway
218 and the new neighborhood. Additional civic facilities could also be located across
Mainstreet Commercial Design
Storefronts close to the sidewalk invite
pedestrians
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 57
from Weber Elementary on Rohret Road. If a fire station is sited at a prominent
location adjacent to a neighborhood commercial area, the City has the opportunity to
establish a positive and influential civic presence through quality design and the
inclusion of such simple public amenities as a clock tower. The future land use map
shows a recreation center and elementary school near the proposed regional
stormwater lake and park. Another civic center is located on the future alignment of
Slothower Street/Landon Avenue which proposes space for a park, fire station, an
elementary school, and possibly a junior high school. While a fire station is needed in
this subarea, it may also be developed sooner in another neighborhood centers if the
neighborhood grows quickly. Similarly, an emergency siren will be needed for this
area as it continues to develop west and south.
Transportation
The thoroughfare map is a component of the future land use map included on p. 60.
It shows a potential hierarchy of streets that support the goals of this Plan, including a
well-connected street network with multiple routes to destinations, pedestrian
connections between neighborhood centers and parks, and smaller block sizes and
thoroughfare types that support the form-based land use categories. It also includes
streets that directly abut major parks and the lakefront to help ensure a highly visible
and substantive means of public access and high -quality of public spaces and view
corridors.
The majority Most of the arterial major street framework in this subarea is established
between Rohret Road, Highway 1, and Highway 218. The only new major arterial
street planned for is the extension of Highway 965 on through the west side of the
subarea, which will provide an additional north-south link for arterial high volumes of
traffic. As land is annexed to the City and is developed in the Rohret South Subarea,
improvements to the existing arterial major street system will likely be needed. For
example, as residential development continues west along Rohret Road must
continue to be improved to City standards, the urban cross-section of Rohret Road,
including pavement, storm sewers, and sidewalks, will be continued to the west. As
traffic patterns develop, turning lanes may be needed at key intersections such as
Rohret Road / Mormon Trek Boulevard and Rohret Road / Maier Avenue. A collector
street should provide a connection between the proposed stormwater lake and
Highway 1. A diagonal orientation that follows the topography of the area would be
appropriate.
Other important through-Major collector streets in the Rohret South Subarea will must
include a new north-south collector street west of Highway 218 and east-west
connections to serve the future neighborhood centers and planned commercial, /
institutional, uses and recreational areasuses around the proposed stormwater lake.
Maier Avenue is an existing north-south link between Rohret Road and Highway 1
that, and will continue to be an important link to allow residents of this area in
facilitating access to both between Highway 1 and Rohret Road. As land eventually
develops to urban densities in this area and Maier Avenue is paved, it will be subject
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 58
to additional traffic pressure. To keep traffic moving at appropriate speeds for a
residential area while allowing for traffic circulation between Rohret Road and
Highway 1, the future land use map proposes realigning Maier with Wild Prairie Drive
to the north and incorporating a neighborhood square, off-set intersection, or and
median improvements should be designed into Maier Avenue. These physical
changes to the roadway should emphasize help controlling the speed of traffic, while
still allowing for circulation between Rohret Road and Highway 1. Additional north-
south collector streets along the Slothower Street / Landon Av enue alignment to the
west and parallel to Highway 218 to the east will further help distribute traffic which
will reduce impacts on all through-streets. East-west connections are shown
throughout the subarea for the same reason. In all cases, attention mu st be paid to
street design to ensure appropriate speeds.
For local streets, traditional neighborhood design with an integrated system of narrow
streets and alleys, sidewalks, trails, and street trees should be the model for many of
the new Rohret South neighborhoods. The traditional grid street pattern will
discourage high traffic speeds and disperse traffic. Whe ren urban residential
densities are proposed, alleys in the rear may be used to relocate will allow utilities to
be located in the rear, thereby allowing more space for the planting of right-of-way
trees along residential streets. Alleys also and reduce the impact of driveways and
garages on the streetscape, which de-emphasizes the automobile and creates a
more people-friendly neighborhood. However, direct property access from Rohret
Road, Highway 1, and the future Highway 965 should not be allowed, so alleys or an
alternative point of access will likely be necessary. The use of architectural features
such as front porches and other frontage types further contributes to this goal. In
addition, pedestrian connections should be provided to promote walkability and
linkages between neighborhood centers, school sites, parks, and within longer
blocks.
Because of the rolling hills and drainageways in throughout the vicinity of the
stormwater lakesubarea, an integrated street grid may need to be somewhat
modified to respond to the topography, though connectivity must continue to be
prioritized in this area. Where Aalleys should be encouraged, but where they are not
feasible, the impact of driveways and garages should be minimized to the extent
possible, such as by locating garages behind or to the side of the front façade of the
house or by utilizing shared driveways. Where the topography is flatter, the
curvilinear streets around the lake should transition to possible, a more traditional
grid system should be utilized to maximize connectivity, which makes an area easier
to navigate, disperses traffic, reduces traffic spaces, and encourages walkability.
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 59
The southbound street from Rohret Road to the lake park will be the entry corridor to
the lake neighborhood, therefore buildings along this street should be well-designed
and built using high-quality materials. These structures should be architecturally
designed to reflect a distinctive character for this new neighborhood. Because the
topography is flatter directly south of Rohret Road, additional streets in t his vicinity
could be designed using a grid system.
Care should be given to ensure the accessibility to and quality of public spaces and
view corridors. With any new subdivision request, iIt will be important to ensure that a
highly visible and substantive means of public access to the lake is provided such as
using. Ssingle-loaded streets along the lakefront are strongly encouraged. Because
of the rolling hills in this area, care should also be given to the design of the buildings
that can be seen from across the lake or other public spaces.
Commercial Development
A new commercial center to serve the
surrounding neighborhoods would be
appropriately located along the entry
corridor to the neighborhood, located on
the south side of Rohret Road (as
illustrated on the concept plan). This
new commercial area should be
developed using a “main street” model
in which buildings are constructed at
the front lot line and parking is provided
on the street. Additional parking could
be located in areas behind the buildings. The commercial buildings should be at
least two stories high in order to give definition to the street space. Public amenities
such as benches, garbage receptacles, a bus stop, and bicycle parking should be
provided. Because the viability of
commercial development depends in part
on the residential density of the
immediate area, apartments or offices
should be encouraged in the upper levels
of the commercial buildings.
Furthermore, low-density, multifamily
housing would be appropriate in areas
adjacent to the “main street” commercial
area. The City's Neighborhood
Commercial (CN-1) zoning designation
would facilitate the type of commercial
development described and illustrated in
the plan.
Mainstreet Commercial Design
Storefronts close to the sidewalk invite
pedestrians
Southwest District Plan
11/07/2210/08/02 60
Civic facilities such as a church, fire station, or recreational center would also be
appropriate adjacent to or integrated into the commercial area and could be used to
provide a buffer between Highway 218 and the new neighborhood. Additional civic
facilities could also be located across from Weber Elementary on Rohret Road. If a
fire station is sited at a prominent location adjacent to a neighborhood commercial
area, the City has the opportunity to establish a positive and influential civic presence
through quality design and the inclusion of such simple public amenities as a clock
tower.
Future Timing of Development West of Maier Avenue
The far western portion of Development in the Rohret South Subarea is not likely to
develop in the short term due to the lack of will largely depend on the provision of
public services and facilitiesthe demand for new housing. This area is designated
"future urban development" on the plan map on the following page. While a small
area near the intersection of Highway 218 and Highway 1 could develop currently,
much of the rest is dependent on the expansion of the sanitary sewer s ystem,
watersheds boundaries, and development interest. Prior to development, land must
be serviceable by City infrastructure and must be annexed, zoned, and subdivided. In
general, dDevelopment should not proceed into this area until occur in a compact
manner with properties adjacent to existing urban development are built out first.
When development at urban densities becomes possible and appropriate more
detailed plans should be developed for this area.
Goals for the Rohret South Subarea
• Encourage housing diversity in new neighborhoods.
• Preserve natural features and topography.
• Build streets that enhance neighborhood quality.
• Encourage commercial development that serves local residents.
• Reserve space for neighborhood parks and trails that connect to other areas of
the City.
• Provide adequate street and pedestrian access to recreational facilities and other
public amenities.
• Establish a public focal point for new neighborhoods, such as a lake or park.
•
Southwest District Plan
10/08/0211/07/22 51
(insert Rohret South Subarea Plan Map here)
SOUTHWEST PLANNING DISTRICT
Rohret South Subarea
Future Land Use Map
October 2022 Kitty Lee Road Maier Avenue SW Landon Avenue SW Slothower Road
SOUTHWEST PLANNING DISTRICT
Rohret South Subarea
Thoroughfare Map
October 2022
(20’ ROW)
(20’ ROW)
(100’ ROW; 0’ Utility Easement Area)
(70’ ROW; 10’ Utility Easement Area)
(80’ ROW; 0’ Utility Easement Area)
(100’ ROW; 15’ Utility Easement Area)
(100’ ROW; 15’ Utility Easement Area)
(Undetermined ROW; 15’ Utility Easement Area) Kitty Lee Road Maier Avenue SW Landon Avenue SW Slothower Road
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Large Lot/Rural Residential
Suitable for large lot single family development in areas
not suited for more intensive development due to natural
limitations, i.e. soil, slope, unavailability of sewer and
water utilities.
Development Density: approximately 1 dwelling
unit/acre
Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development. Lower density zoning
designations are suitable for areas with sensitive
environmental features, topographical constraints, or
limited street access. Higher densities are more
appropriate for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities.
Development Density: 2-12 dwelling units/acre
Narrow Lot/Townhouse Residential
Suitable for medium to high density single family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow lot
detached single family housing.
Development Density: 6-12 dwelling units/acre
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for low -density multi-family housing. Suitable
for areas with good access to all city services and
facilities. Higher density zoning designations may not be
suitable for areas with topographical constraints or
limited street access.
Development Density: 8 -15 dwelling units/acre
Medium- to High-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for medium- to high-density multi-family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
Development Density: 16-44 dwelling units/acre
Future Urban Development
Areas within the growth limit that are not yet served by
City services and may not experience substantial
development within the lifetime of this district plan. As
development becomes imminent in these areas, the
City will develop more detailed land use and street
layout concepts to supplement the current plan.
Public/Private Open Space
Indicates existing open space that is important for the
protection of sensitive natural features and/or to provide
for recreational opportunities and protect the aesthetic
values of the community. An open space designation on
private land may indicate that an area is largely
unsuitable for development due to environmental or
topographical constraints. While these areas are best
reserved or acquired for private or public open space,
development may occur on privately held land if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and
the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
Useful public facilities, such as limited-access highways
or landfills, can produce undesirable side-effects. In
these areas a substantial vegetative buffer should be
maintained or established to separate residential
development from these uses. Alternatively, where
appropriate, nonresidential uses can be used to buffer
residential areas from highways, landfills, and other
such uses.
Public Services/Institutional
Areas intended for civic, cultural, or historical
institutions; public schools; and places of assembly or
worship. Iowa City does not have a zone that designates
institutional uses as the primary, preferred land use.
However, there are a number of zones where these
uses are permitted or provisional uses.
Development proposals are subject to the requirements
of the underlying zoning designation. Land that is owned
by a public entity is typically zoned Public (P).
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas intended for retail sales and personal service
uses that meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. A grocery store or
grocery store/drug store combination is preferred as the
primary tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
zone. Specific site development standards will apply in
these areas to ensure that commercial development is
pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding
residential development.
Office Commercial
Areas intended for office uses and compatible
businesses. In some cases these areas may serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more intensive
commercial or industrial uses.
General Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large
variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment
of the community.
Mixed Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. An area may be
primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily
residential depending on the location and the
surrounding neighborhood. Commercial uses will
typically be located on the ground floor with housing
above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the
sidewalk.
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Intensive Commercial
Areas intended for those sales and service functions and
businesses whose operations are typically characterized
by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by
repair businesses, quasi-industrial uses, and for sales of
large equipment or motor vehicles, or by activities or
operations conducted in buildings or structure not
completely enclosed. Retail uses are restricted in order
to provide opportunities for more land-intensive or quasi-
industrial commercial operations and also to prevent
conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic.
Special attention must be directed toward buffering the
negative aspects of allowed uses from any adjacent
lower intensity commercial areas or residential areas.
FORM-BASED LAND USE CATEGORIES
TRANSECT 3: SUBURBAN
Neighborhood Edge
A walkable neighborhood environment of detached, low-
intensity housing choices, supporting and within short
walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail, food
and service uses. Building types are house-scale with a
small-to-large building footprint, which may include
single-family homes, duplexes, and cottage courts.
Building height should typically be up to 2.5 stories.
Neighborhood General
A walkable neighborhood environment of detached, low-
intensity housing choices, supporting and within short
walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail and
services. Building types are house-scale with a small
building footprint, which may include single-family
homes, duplexes, cottage courts, townhouses, and
small multiplexes. Building height should typically be up
to 2.5 stories.
TRANSECT 4: GENERAL URBAN
Neighborhood Small:
A walkable neighborhood environment of attached and
detached, moderate-intensity housing choices, supporting
and within short walking distance of neighborhood-serving
retail and services. Building types are primarily house-scale
with a small-to-medium-footprint, which may include
cottage courts, townhouses, small multiplexes, and larger
multi-family buildings with courtyards. Building height
should typically be up to 2.5 stories.
Neighborhood Medium
A walkable neighborhood environment of attached and
detached, moderate-intensity housing choices, supporting
and within short walking distance of neighborhood-serving
retail and services. Building types are primarily house-scale
with a small-to-medium-footprint, which may include
townhouses and larger multi-family buildings. Building
height should typically be up to 3.5 stories.
Main Street
A walkable, vibrant district of attached, moderate-intensity,
mixed-use buildings, supporting neighborhood-serving
ground floor retail, food and services, including indoor and
outdoor artisanal industrial businesses. Building types are
block-scale with a medium-to-large-footprint, which may
include townhouses (and stacked townhouses), large multi-
family buildings, and main street buildings. Building height
should typically be up to 3.5 stories.
OTHER DESIGNATIONS
Open Subareas:
Open subarea designations may be applied to T3
Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, or T4
Neighborhood Medium land use designations. The subarea
indicates that a wider range of uses should be allowed.
However, buildings must maintain the same form and
character of the base land use category. As such, open
subareas provide additional flexibility that can allow them to
function as a neighborhood center of non-residential uses.
Public or Private Civic/Park/Open Space
Indicates existing or potential civic or open spaces on
public or private land that is important for a variety of
reasons, which may include the protection of sensitive
natural features, the management of stormwater, the
provision of private, shared passive or recreational
opportunities for adjacent properties, or the protection of
the aesthetic values of the community. This designation
may indicate that an area is unsuitable for development
due to environmental or topographical constraints.
Development may occur if a proposal meets the under-
lying zoning and subdivision standards..
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Jill Tentinger <jill.tentinger@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 28, 2022 10:29 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:More Thoughts on SW Development
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hello Kirk,
We, as a neighborhood, plan to attend the new hearing on December 7th.
Here are my revised thoughts on the SW Development Plan.
Development is inevitable and it will be a years-long process. We, the residents of Kitty Lee Road,
ask that our road not be used for temporary access to any construction or new developments. And
we ask that we are not connected to any new developments or streets.
We bought our homes in this neighborhood because of the quiet street and small neighborhood. And
we would appreciate it staying that way.
PLEASE do not add a connection to the north. And PLEASE do not add five feeder streets to Kitty
Lee Road.
Attachment 2NEW
2
Jill Tentinger
To help protect yourprivacy, Microsoft Officeprevented automaticdownload of this picturefrom the Internet.319.631.5152
To help protect yourprivacy, Microsoft Officeprevented automaticdownload of this picturefrom the Internet.jill.tentinger@gmail.com
4047 Kitty Lee Road SW
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:mary ott <mary_ott@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 17, 2022 8:11 PM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Southwest District Plan
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
My name is Mary Ott. I live on Kitty Lee Rd. My husband and I moved into our home in 1970. We therefore
have some experience in living on the road.
Kitty Lee Road is a typical, rural county road. It is narrow, there are no shoulders, no curbs, no gutters, no
storm water drainage system other than gravity. The first few years that we lived here, the road was gravel. It
is now chip-sealed surfaced. It is not a hard surfaced road. I do not know when the road was first constructed
but it was back when the road crews did not cut down hills during construction like they do now.
Consequently, there are 2 hills on Kitty Lee which are steep enough to be called blind hills, meaning drivers
cannot see what's ahead of them on the road until they crest the top of the hill. Unfortunately, many of us
living on Kitty Lee have hidden driveways on the sides of the hills. We cannot see what's coming at us as we
pull out onto the road. For the first 15 or so years that we lived in our home, the road was a through road
commonly called The Coralville Cutoff Road. The combination of blind hills, hidden driveways and lots of
through traffic made Kitty Lee a very dangerous road. In the early 80's, a neighbor's child was hit and killed on
the road immediately in front of our house as he rode his bike. The driver who hit him could not see him until
it was too late to avoid hitting him. The little boy never saw the car coming. When you see something like this
happen in your front yard, you never forget it.
There were many, many accidents on the road, mostly because drivers cannot see what's ahead of them
until they've crested the hill. More than once, the road resembled a demolition derby field. All it took was one
car getting sideways on the road, then the chain reaction chaos would begin with cars cresting the hill, seeing
the sideways car, hitting the brakes, losing control and sliding into the car, the ditch or someone's mailbox. I
would be safe in saying that the majority of home football game Saturday nights ended up with someone
wiping out a mailbox [usually ours] as they headed for the ditch.
When Kitty Lee Road [AKA The Coralville Cutoff Road] was a through road, it was very dangerous.
In the mid 80's, the Coralville Cutoff Road was dead ended at the top of the north hill due to the
construction of the new HWY 218. This was a major inconvenience for me because I always went north on my
way to work or to the grocery store but I was very thankful that now I could safely pull out onto the road
without getting hit. There has not been an accident on Kitty Lee Road for the past 35 years!
Now the plan is to open the road to through traffic again. I truly dread that happening. The hills and hidden
driveways are still here! I get the feeling that the planners do not realize just how dangerous the road is with
through traffic.
Is it really necessary to open Kitty Lee to through traffic? I think not! I see a lot of new roads on the plans so
I assume the developers will have lots of road building equipment out here. Let them go over to the west a bit
and build a nice, new, flat, hard surfaced road over there. Let the developers pay for the new, safe road. They
are the ones who will be benefitting from it. The only way to make Kitty Lee safe is to do a massive regrading,
cutting down the hills. This would require redoing the driveway entrances also. Who is going to pay for all of
this? I don't think it's right to make the residents pay for something they don't want. Is Iowa City able to pay
NEW
2
for making Kitty Lee safe? I don't know. I think the sensible thing to do is make the developers pay for a new,
safe road to the west and let Kitty Lee Road alone.
If the planners are set on opening Kitty Lee to through traffic, I would like to request that a highway safety
expert come out and evaluate the suitability of opening Kitty Lee to through traffic. I would love to know what
an expert thinks is necessary to do to make living on Kitty Lee safe!
I would also like to know if Iowa City would be liable for damages, injuries or even deaths if they insist on
opening Kitty Lee to through traffic after being informed of the dangers of the road?
Mary Ott
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 2:04 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:RE: Draft Southwest District Plan Update Available Online
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hi, Kirk -
I'd meant to do a more comprehensive review, but this will have to do for now. I sent this to John Thomas a week or
so ago:
I live on Shannon Drive, cattycorner to where the new Southwest District plan will guide development. I've been
looking at the plans that've been sent out, and I was taken aback by how SFH/car-centric it is. It looks very 1990s to
me, with the addition of some islands of higher-density housing with strips of storefront, long stretches with no clear
destinations to walk to, kids reliant on parents to drive them around, and a layout that doesn't even encourage
bicycling to the school the plan calls for in the district -- we're just setting up for another twice-daily idling minivan
brigade. I can also see things turning extremely busy -- and fast -- along Shannon unless West and the City
encourage other means of getting the kids back and forth to school that's actually palatable to the kids, or West and
the City restrict parking.
I think we have opportunity to do better with the planning for non-private-car-centric neighborhoods here, and
wonder if you'd have time to talk sometime next week.
Incidentally, I was looking at old plans for my neighborhood, and the emphasis on Walden Square as a walkable
destination so that people would use cars less. It worked. The parking lot is a nightmare of blind spots and not good
to walk across, but as a destination for surrounding neighborhoods, it succeeds. People use those paths all day long
to go to the shops, the bank, Java House. At half a mile away, I'm at about the outer limit for what most people will
do. About four-five blocks is as much as most people are interested in. But I don't see that sort of thinking worked
into this new plan.
-----
I'd encourage the Commission to take a look at what's been designed so far from the perspective of a one-car or no-
car family, and consider how far this family's going to have to walk to get to a store, the new elementary school, or
an ingress/egress point on Rohret. I'm wondering why there is no off-street bike path network funneling to the
elementary school so that the kids can get themselves back and forth safely, and can grow up with a modicum of
independence and an idea that bikes are means of transportation. I'm wondering where the corner restaurants are
that aren't inconveniently far away for walking to. It seems to me someone's designed a place that assumes that
every human over the age of 15 has at least one car/van/truck, and has designed the place to be, first and foremost,
convenient for vehicles, which is surely an idea we're trying to move away from. Even EVs are tremendously
resource-intensive: yes, they're better than combustion cars, but not nearly as good as transit, walking, and biking.
In fact I would just say, start there: imagine you have no car. Don't freak out, just imagine it. What is this district like
to live in for you? If you push away that idea, then you are designing with your car at the center of your life. And
that's a thing we need to stop doing. (I drive my car about once a week, sometimes less. I work at home, the 10 bus
goes right past my house, I can walk to a grocery store, bank, etc. in under ten minutes, my kid walked scootered
and biked to elementary school with a ton of other kids going her way and later walked to high school, and I have a
great running/walking path a few hundred feet away.)
NEW
2
I'm also looking at this pond/park arrangement and thinking, well, that's a lot of pond, but (as far as I can tell) not
really very much park: why not?
I'm also looking at the housing mix you're arranging here, and it seems to me that by islanding higher-density
housing, you're zoning for student rental (see Cascade Ln, Rushmore, etc.), rather than creating an integrated
housing mix that encourages individuals and small families to live in apartments and townhouses rather than buying
2600+ sqft houses to rattle around in on their own, or simply being priced out. Dense=green, dense=prudent,
dense=equitable.
I just think we can do a lot better than this, and I'd like to see some comparison neighborhoods from places where
they've been taking more socially and environmentally responsible design seriously, which are places where the
developers have also been persuaded that those are smart ways to build. There isn't really any reason why we have
to design areas to look and behave pretty much as they've done around here for decades, with a tweak or two. We
can build sustainability and sociability into this in a more intentional and muscular way.
best,
amy charles
iowa city
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Bowen, Jay <jay-bowen@uiowa.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, November 8, 2022 9:23 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Southwest District Plan Comments
Attachments:image-1.png; image-2.png
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Good morning, Kirk.
I am writing to submit some comments on the Southwest District Plan in advance of the public hearing on
November 16, 2022. One thing I notice from the survey results is the overwhelming support for park and
recreational space in the new development. 87.7% of people surveyed responded that they would like to see
parks and outdoor recreation areas in the new development, and this was by far the most popular item. I see
from the new plans for the district that there is a nice affordance for pedestrian paths, but I wondered why
the current park planning does not include an extension of green space and paths from Slothtower Street
south through the new development area. It was my understanding that the city intended to maintain a ring
of green space beginning from Hunter’s Run Park, continuing through the Johnson County Poor Farm and
adjacent lands, and extending along the current city boundary along Slothtower Street where there is already
some prairie being preserved. I think it would be beneficial to both the attractiveness of the new
development, the livability of the city, the health and happiness of our citizenry, and in benchmarking with
other Midwestern cities to continue this greenbelt across Rohret Road and connect it to the planned park and
lake, as shown in the attached diagrams. This would be a perfect place to extend Iowa City’s current network
of walking trails and bike paths, and new and current residents would benefit immensely from these
amenities.
Sincerely,
Jay Bowen
1260 Deerfield Drive
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Nick W <nick.wehrle@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:05 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: Nov. 16 Public Hearing Set for SW District Plan (CPA22-0002)
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hi Kent. Part of the plan to develop the Rohret South Subarea should include extending and
improving Slothtower Rd to connect Rohret Rd to Melrose Ave. It would greatly improve access to
the Interstate, reduce emergency response times, and significantly reduce traffic volume on Shannon
Dr and Mormon Trek. The construction on the bridge on Rohret Rd during September / October was
a huge problem for our community.
Thanks,
Nick Wehrle
1680 Lake Shore Dr
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:25 AM Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Dear Stakeholder,
As you’re aware, the City has been updating its Southwest District Plan, including background information and the
future vision for the Rohret South Subarea, which is south of Rohret Road and west of Highway 218 (CPA22-0002).
Additional information, including redlined and simple copies of proposed changes to the plan, are available on the
project website at www.icgov.org/sw-plan-update.
The Southwest District Plan is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which serves as the guiding policy
document for growth and development in the city. The Comprehensive Plan identifies proposed areas and policies for
housing, commercial uses, public services, streets and trails, and parks and open space. It may be amended by the City
Council, following a consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has set a public hearing to review the Southwest District Plan Amendment on
November 16, 2022 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City. You are welcome
to attend the public hearing to present your views concerning this proposed plan amendment. You may also submit
written information to me for consideration in advance, and I will include your comments in the information to be
2
considered by the Commission. Following a recommendation by the Commission, City Council will also set and hold a
hearing where additional comments will be accepted.
Note that the hearing is subject to change, so you may wish to call 319-356-5247 or check the Planning and Zoning
Commission’s website, www.icgov.org/p&z, the week of the hearing to confirm the agenda and location. If the hearing
is cancelled or postponed, it will be considered at the next meeting of the Commission. The Commission’s website will
also contain a staff report on the proposed plan amendment the Monday before the hearing.
If you know of any interested party who has not received a copy of this message, we would appreciate you informing
them. If you have any questions regarding this case or the amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan, please
contact me at 319-356-5247 or email klehmann@iowa-city.org.
Sincerely,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Main: 319-356-5230
Direct: 319-356-5247
www.icgov.org
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:V Fixmer-Oraiz <vfixmeroraiz@astigplanning.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:14 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: Draft Southwest District Plan Update Available Online
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hi Kirk,
Thanks for this update, it was great seeing you in Ottumwa! I was wondering if it's possible to change the name of the
farm on the maps and throughout the document to read :" Johnson County Historic Poor Farm". Without the 'historic'
qualifier, it makes it sound like the county is still utilizing this practice and we've gotten push back from vocal county
residents :) For example, on page 12, it would be great to change it on the map there and also in the text. I would add
that not only are there local non profit organizations, but the county hosts the Land Access Program, which leases
smaller land plots (1/8 acre- 2 acres) for small farming operations.
Thanks!
V
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:02 AM Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Dear Stakeholders,
Thank you for your interest in the Southwest District Plan update. The draft plan is now available on the project
website at www.icgov.org/sw-plan-update under “Schedule & Input”. You can find two versions of the draft update:
1.Tracked Changes (redlined): This version shows proposed changes to the Southwest District Plan, including
additions (which are underlined) and deletions (which are notated by strike-throughs).
2.Simple Changes (not redlined): This version shows what the text of the Southwest District Plan would look like
with if all proposed changes are accepted. This version is easier to read, but may make it difficult to determine
which changes were made.
The project timeline has also been updated. Staff currently anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission will
hold a public hearing on November 16, 2022 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street,
Iowa City. This update has been assigned case number CPA22-0002. Because the meeting is subject to change, you may
wish to call 319-356-5247 or check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/p&z, the week of the meeting to
confirm the meeting agenda. City Council will hold another public hearing after a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
2
You are welcome to attend all public meetings to present your views concerning this update. You may also submit
written information to me in advance of the meetings, and I will include your comments in the information to be
considered by the Commission. If you know of any interested party who is not on the Southwest District Plan contact
list, we would appreciate it if you would inform them of these updates.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or
comments about this plan update or if you would like more information on the plan update process.
Regards,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Main: 319-356-5230
Direct: 319-356-5247
www.icgov.org
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
--
V Fixmer-Oraiz, AICP
3
(they, them)
CEO & Founder
319.243.3426
astigplanning.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:richard schmidt <ontheroad56@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:10 PM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: Draft Southwest District Plan Update Available Online
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Thank you , Kirt
A lot of thought went into this proposal
From: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:01 AM
To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Draft Southwest District Plan Update Available Online
Dear Stakeholders,
Thank you for your interest in the Southwest District Plan update. The draft plan is now available on the project website
at www.icgov.org/sw-plan-update under “Schedule & Input”. You can find two versions of the draft update:
1.Tracked Changes (redlined): This version shows proposed changes to the Southwest District Plan, including
additions (which are underlined) and deletions (which are notated by strike-throughs).
2.Simple Changes (not redlined): This version shows what the text of the Southwest District Plan would look like
with if all proposed changes are accepted. This version is easier to read, but may make it difficult to determine
which changes were made.
The project timeline has also been updated. Staff currently anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission will
hold a public hearing on November 16, 2022 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street,
Iowa City. This update has been assigned case number CPA22-0002. Because the meeting is subject to change, you may
wish to call 319-356-5247 or check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/p&z, the week of the meeting to
confirm the meeting agenda. City Council will hold another public hearing after a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
You are welcome to attend all public meetings to present your views concerning this update. You may also submit
written information to me in advance of the meetings, and I will include your comments in the information to be
considered by the Commission. If you know of any interested party who is not on the Southwest District Plan contact list,
we would appreciate it if you would inform them of these updates.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or
comments about this plan update or if you would like more information on the plan update process.
Regards,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
2
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Main: 319-356-5230
Direct: 319-356-5247
www.icgov.org
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
To Whom it May Concern,
With the new 20-year plan being developed for the southwest planning district, we wanted to
provide written concerns and opinions as a neighborhood about the plan specifically as it relates to
Kitty Lee Road (KLR). The drafts of the plan available to us so far have shown that KLR is planned
to be made into a through road, with the current cul-de-sac being removed and turned into a
continued roadway. As Kirk Lehman has further explained, in this scenario, it is likely that KLR would
be the only road connecting to new development for an undetermined amount of time, making KLR
into what is realistically an arterial road. While we realize that KLR is likely to have new roads
connected to it closer to Highway 1, we are strongly against the plan to turn the cul-de-sac into a
through street because; the road is not set up well to have increased traffic, KLR could be the only
connection point to development in the area for an unforeseen amount of time, and because cul-de-
sacs offer their residents relative quiet and privacy that we'd wish to maintain.
KLR is not set up well for increased traffic because of the design of the road. In other words,
KLR is not a good candidate for an arterial road. The road itself has two steep hills that it is possible
to get air on going only around 50mph on. Lexington Ave was another road that people could get air
on, and the ultimate solution for that road was to turn it back into a dead end. We are concerned that
people would travel over whatever the posted speed limit would be, especially at the crest of the hill.
Additionally, KLR has many driveways connecting directly to it which is a feature that the city has
elsewhere tried to avoid on newly developed arterial roads. Not only are there many driveways that
connect directly to KLR, several of them are quite close to the steep hill and are blind to traffic on the
other side of the hill (this problem exists traveling in both directions). These homeowners would
experience a dramatic increase in risk of accident pulling out of their own driveways. Slowing traffic
down with speed bumps is a likely solution to speeding that we also do not favor. Speed bumps are
a band-aid to the problem of drivers not being able drive the speed they want, where they want.
Conversely, city planning is the solution to drivers being able to drive the speed they want, where
they want. Speed bumps are never an ideal solution and are not desirable in any situation. Our
request is that the city doesn't impose a traffic load that merits speed bumps or opens the door for
dangerous traffic patterns. An arterial road that is independent of KLR is a solution that solves both
of these potential problems.
The development of land west and north of KLR depends on landowners annexing and/or
selling to developers. As of right now, there are two landowners who seem to be eager to annex in
this area, but neither of them connects to Highway 1. And with the city seeming unwilling to connect
more development to Rohret Road until more through roads connecting to Highway 1 are
constructed, KLR is the only existing road to connect new development to. It is not right for the
residents of KLR (a dead-end road) to get stuck with the increased traffic that Rohret can't handle.
(As explained above, KLR can't handle the increased traffic either.) Until other landowners who do
border Highway 1 sell/annex, KLR could be the only connection to new development near it for an
indeterminate amount of time. It's not an exaggeration to say that it could be a decade or more until
another arterial road is able to be put in between Highway 1 and Rohret, relieving traffic from KLR.
Even if a new arterial road is constructed, KLR is likely to have sustained increased traffic because
people will get used to using it, and if KLR in some way connects to Rohret, even indirectly, KLR will
be the most tempting route to take because it would be the first connecting road leaving town on
Highway 1 or the last connecting road before Mormon Trek on Rohret. The appropriate way for the
city to develop, therefore, is to wait until a new, separate arterial road is able to be put in before
developing. KLR residents shouldn't have to bear the burden of development that has gotten ahead
of its own connecting infrastructure. Langenberg Ave is an example of development getting ahead of
itself. Before McCollister Blvd connected, Langenberg was used as the arterial road, even though it
was an indirect path between South Gilbert and Sycamore Street. I was one of the people who used
Langenberg as an arterial road before McCollister connected—showing that people will use the
routes available to them even if that route is not the intended traffic pattern. The residents of
Langenberg had to put up with traffic for years that their road was not intended to handle, and still
have to put up with the speed bumps to this day. It is much better to wait until a true arterial road can
be constructed rather than hoping that KLR can be used as a stop-gap to access new development.
KLR residents chose the street for the low traffic and relative quiet that it has offered
residents for nearly 40 years, and we would like it to stay that way. As Kirk has explained, the city
has a general preference to avoid cul-de-sacs in new development because while the people at the
back end of the cul-de-sacs have low traffic and quiet, the people at the front end take on all the
traffic and noise. But this reasoning doesn’t hold up for existing cul-de-sacs like KLR because
they’ve been that way for years, and it especially doesn’t hold up because KLR connects directly to a
state highway. The entity suffering from the increased traffic and noise from the cul-de-sac that is
KLR is Highway 1, which can handle all the traffic and noise that KLR can give it. Therefore, the
main reasons for the city to avoid cul-de-sacs don’t really apply in KLR’s case. Additionally, the noise
from 218 makes KLR not as quiet as a typical cul-de-sac to begin with. The last thing the
neighborhood wants is more traffic noise. Finally, as an anecdote, my fiancé and I were house
shopping this time last year, and settled on a house on KLR. While we liked houses and could afford
them on streets like Kirkwood, Rochester, Court, and Sunset, we specifically avoided streets like
those because of the amount of traffic on them. While development is likely to raise property values
on KLR in a monetary sense, that same development devalues homes in a personal sense to people
like me and other KLR residents. People choose the type of street they live on for good reason and it
is unfair for homeowners to have the type of street they chose dramatically changed. It is therefore
inappropriate to take away the cul-de-sac at the end of KLR.
As the city has presented and talked about future development between Highway 1 and
Rohret near 218, it seems clear that KLR is currently intended to be used as the first arterial road to
this intended development, even if only for a period of time. The residents of KLR would not be in
favor of the road connecting or being extended up at the cul-de-sac for any amount of time. We are
not asking or saying that there should be no other roads connecting to KLR, but that the appropriate
place to make such connections is south of the existing neighborhood. As a neighborhood we feel
strongly about not removing the existing cul-de-sac and creating a through street using KLR.
Signed,
Mark Alatalo, 4053 KLR
Co-signed,
Karalee Smith, 4053 KLR
Matt and Jill Tentinger, 4047 KLR
Vicki and Del Concha, 4086 KLR
Dave and Regina Alatalo, 3671 Olde Oak Ln
Patti Davis, 4059 KLR
Mary and Gary Ott, 4056 KLR
John and Regina Arthur, 4104 KLR
Barb Hulme, 4090 KLR
Justen Concha, former resident
Jarod Concha, former resident
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Jill Tentinger <jill.tentinger@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 16, 2022 1:09 PM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Questions/Comments for SW Development Plan
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Questions -
· Will Kitty Lee Road be annexed into the city limits? Will curb, gutter and utilities be added? At
whose expense? The city's? Or the individual homeowner's?
· If Kitty Lee is connected to the new neighborhood, will the concrete bus turn-around be torn
out?
· Are there contracts in place for the city to purchase all the farm ground in the development
areas? Or will private developers be purchasing the land and doing all the infrastructure for
development?
· What does Phase 0 mean? I would not assume that this area is ready to be
developed. Oaknoll owns some of that land and was possibly going to put a retirement
community on that site. Is Oaknoll selling this tract (or part of it) to the city? Or another
developer? Is Oaknoll still possibly planning on a retirement community in this area?
· What is the duration of this plan? Starting date, if approved? How many years till the entire
area is completely developed? "Timeline based on demand", so this would all be dependent
on if farmers will sell? If developers will develop?
· Was Jesse Allen's development idea not approved by the county? Is his plan going back to
Iowa City P&Z?
· Does Iowa City have a new rule against cul-de-sac streets in residential
neighborhoods? When Teg was connected to Aber, it became a very busy cut-through, but
the streets off Teg were cul-de-sacs therefore maintaining a quiet, safe, neighborhood
feel. Your new plan with hundreds of city blocks looks like downtown Chicago. I feel like traffic
will be heavy even on your "neighborhood" streets.
Comments -
· We do not want Kitty Lee Road to connect to any new or existing streets/roads.
· We do not want to be annexed into the city limits.
· We do appreciate the city considering the survey feedback and scaling back the density of
development between our house and Rohret. But we don't want park traffic or cut-through traffic
coming down Kitty Lee Rd.
Have you considered, or are you willing, to meet with us from Kitty Lee Road? Quite a few of the homeowners
are original owners and can let you know firsthand how busy and dangerous our road was back when it was a
thoroughfare. The hills are very dangerous at any speed above 30 mph and with driveways on both sides, we
all usually drive about 20 mph on our road just to be safe.
2
Thanks,
Jill Tentinger
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
319.631.5152
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
jill.tentinger@gmail.com
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Tack, Richard A <rich-tack@uiowa.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:48 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Please add me to the contact list for SW subarea updates
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments.
**
Hi Kirk,
Thank you so much for your response. I really do appreciate it. I was able to find the PDF document of the posters.
If you are still accepting comments from the public I’d like to add one if I may.
I do think you’ve done a great job with the initial plan. I know it must be difficult to weigh all the competing
considerations. But I was wondering, regarding the North end of Maier Ave., if you could offset it off the centerline more
to the East (just the part from just south of Kessler Dr. to Rohret Rd.)? Our house is at the intersection of Maier Ave. and
Kessler Dr. and it is very close to Maier Ave. already. A wider Maier Ave., plus a sidewalk would put it very close to our
walkout basement door. Since you have to jog Maier over to the East to line up with Wild Prairie anyway, and
completely rebuild Maier Ave. I don’t think it would add anything to the cost of the project. Thank you so much for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Rich Tack
From: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 7:57 AM
To: Tack, Richard A <rich-tack@uiowa.edu>
Subject: [External] RE: Please add me to the contact list for SW subarea updates
Hello Richard,
Thank you for your interest in the Southwest District Plan update. You have been added to the contact list.
You can find the posters on the project website at www.icgov.org/sw-plan-update under “Schedule & Input”.
Let me know if you have any issues or questions in the meantime.
Regards,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
319-356-5247
2
From: Tack, Richard A <rich-tack@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Please add me to the contact list for SW subarea updates
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments.
**
Could you please add my email address to your contact list for updates to the IC SW subarea plan update.
Also, they said at the meeting at Webber last night that all of the materials presented were available on your website. I
can’t seem to find anything. Can you send me a link to the visuals, maps, and information presented on the posters that
were on display? Thank you so much.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Memo
To: Kirk Lehmann, City of Iowa City
From: Dan Black Managing Partner, Black Hills Farms LLC
Date: January 6, 2021
Subject: South Rohret Subarea- Land Use Planning District
General Commints:
• Inclusion of portions of the area south of Highway #1 would make
for a more comprehensive and accurate vision for growth
planning in this Southwest District.
• A comprehensive look, in conjunction with IDOT and other
transportation planners, for widening (four lanes and a frontage
road system) for Highway #1. Extend the widened Highway #1
west to Sharon Center Road or Slothower Road. It is critical that
Highway #1 be included in this district plan, both north and south
sides. Highway #1 serves as a major East/West route accessing
Highway # 218 as well as Iowa City proper, it needs improvement
and needs to be a major element for consideration for this
planning process and future growth. The future development of
the Oak Knoll parcel further suggests need for Highway #1/ Kitty
Lee improvement.
• Recommend consideration be given to designation of the Burns
parcel located west of the intersection of Kitty Lee and Highway
#1 for public use, schools, fire stations, park, etc.
• Referencing the “Future Land Use Map” and the accessing of the
Carson Lake Project via Kitty Lee road; going straight North on
Kitty Lee and angling northwest across Burns and Black Hills is the
best alternative. The North West angle road is the safest due to
topography and accessing Carson Lake at a more central location.
Discussion/Questions Per Power point
a.Like/Dislike about Area? Like the rolling hills, sunsets, and vista
views, yet close proximity to Iowa City. Designs to maximize these
features are a positive. Dislike the heavy traffic and the speed it
travels on Highway #1.
b.Opportunities and Challenges? Both an opportunity and a
challenge is the topography. We have B slope ranging to F slope.
One opportunity is to use good old fashioned contour lines to
guide road and street locations.
c.See in the next 20 years? –An adequate and safe road system,
both in developments as well as major access roads. A logical and
comprehensive reworking of Highway #1.
d.What Distinguishes this Area? The vistas and rolling hills. Its
westside location, near U of IA and U of IA Hospital’s, as well as
ICSD schools including Weber and West High.
e.Pervious Concept? I like the Lake; water features are positives.
Lot density seems high.
f.Other considerations? Look for opportunities to include parks
and trails. Look for opportunities to include prairies, wetlands
particularly as it relates to water management. There are at least
three existing farm type ponds in this district include them in
design.
Other Thoughts: The whole S.W. District Plan, the Carson Lake P roject
and Iowa City’s progressive nature, begs for “out of box” thinking. I
read with great interest the community of Cumming,
Iowa approving, the Middlebrook Development, an "agrihood"
concept that may include community gardens or perhaps even a
small working farm. A concept worth exploring.
"Things You Like"
"Things You Dislike"
Attachment 3
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
What do you like about the draft plan
for the Rohret South Subarea?
What would you change about the draft
pan for the Rohret South Subarea?
Anything else that should be considered
when planning for the Subarea?Additional Comments
Focus on natural features, walkability,
alternative transportation options, and
new schools. Possibility of light
commercial uses is good too.
More emphasis on multi-
family/affordable housing types. Tie in
parks areas to existing areas to existing
ponds and other natural features. Add
additionally ped/bike crossings across
US218.More affordable housing please!
I think it's well thought out for the long
term. The idea of using "nodes" is
interesting. Very important to have
affordable housing.
I don’t like the proposed commercial
area on the south side of Rohret Rd.
There is a lot of traffic already and
adding a commercial area would make it
worse. I'm okay with a commercial area,
just not directly off of Rohret.
Trails, parks, wetlands, woodlands, and
conservation areas very important.
Plants should be specifically selected to
support pollinators, birds, insects, and
other native species.
New Schools. New Rec Center-Possibly
with a pool?. Extension of connector
roads to highways. New sewer and
water infrastructure.
Add a dedicated middle school jr. high.
Expand bus routes. Elementary school
and a preschool and child care
POOL POOL POOL - Put a pool in the rec
center. Tanks in the area are closing and
competitive swim teams need the lane
space, especially in this SW corner of
town. School district should buy into this
to provide for teams.
Carson lake plan -> No
1
Attachment 3
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
I like that a mixture of housing types and
footprints are baked into the plan. The
neighborhood north of Rohret is nice,
but monolithic in lot size and ultimately
exclusionary based on income and home
ownership.
More information about linked or
delinked transporting plans to open up
north/south routes to Melrose and
Highway 1.
Having and maintaining a core value of
broadening opportunity for people of
varied socioeconomic backgrounds to
choose to live in the neighborhood
Here in Iowa City we like to think of
ourselves as progressive minded. This is
an opportunity to manifest that
perspective. I can not think of a single
topic that is more important to inclusion
access and opportunity than residential
development. The choices here will
affect the degree of socioeconomic and
racial integration in this neighborhood
for generations to come. Tethered to
that is the diversity of schools, food
accessibility, climate, action, and
policing across the city. I urge you to
provide the needs of the entire city and
not just rely on the potentially vocal
opinions of those currently in the
neighborhood (like me) who I fear will
emphasize self interest in property
values and traffic over what's good for
Iowa City
I like the pond and the path around it. I
like the neighborhood feel. I like the
addition of more neighborhood
commercial.
The plan needs to be contingent on
connecting Rohret road to Melrose via
the Slothower right-of-way. Without
that, the plan will only create more
congestion.
Connectivity of area. Development of
more housing and mixed use
commercial development
Prioritize road connectivity. Slothower
Ave to Rohret (connect to Melrose)Prioritize Melrose to Rohret Connection
Would have been helpful to have
presentation every 15 minutes or so to
give information to all in organized form
2
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
Neighborhood Nodes. Parks
I would like to see more nature outdoor
play space for the parks. Also would
enjoy seeing trails for walking and riding
bikes. I would not be in favor of low
income coming to this area.
Regional stormwater basin/lake.
Commercial areas for surrounding
neighborhoods. Single family housing
transition near existing neighborhoods.
Additional parks/open space. Push more
density toward HWY 1 and less near
Rohret Rd.
Concerned about additional traffic on
Rohret Rd.
Absolutely nothing Throw it out and forget it
If I wanted to live in Iowa City, I would
have bought a house in town, not in the
country.Strongly Oppose
Additional schools. Regional park. 965 to
Highway 1 roundabouts
Alternative to get to the East of 218. The
lake area. The commercial areas. The
new school.
Prioritize north/south connection to
HWY 1 and Melrose/IWV increase in
neighborhood commercial nodes.Trail connectivity
Large development to activate growth
Offset traffic on Rohret/. Address
Mormon Trek traffic.
Regional public park/lake. Rec Center.
Neighborhood commercial nodes.
Connections are key. With limited HWY
218 crossings the north/south
connections to HWY 1 and Melrose are
vital.
nothing
I (prefer) not to have a huge
development right across the street
from where I live.Leaving the area as is
Park area around lake
NO COMMERCIAL! DISLIKE PLACEMENT
OF FIRE HOUSE
Better Road success to Melrose and
HWY 1. Less concrete for less runoff.
More green areas.
3
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
Another exit route from Rohret Rd -
Connect through Slothower to Melrose
The eight FT sidewalk is listed as a trail.
It goes to Weber School. The City could
take care of snow removal on the trail. A
road connecting Rohret Rd with Melrose
Ave via Connection through Slothower
Rd. would improve traffic flow on
Rohret.
Parks, Fire Department. South access to
road.
Less access to Rohret road. City's far too
busy and unsafe. No apartments. Less
population density. Not have Watts
develop.
Paving/ creating safe access to south
access points. Watts built our home, do
not consider (them). WE NEED MORE
SCHOOLS! Need more fire and police
The nightmare scenario created by the
development built by the Watts group
presently West of Weber cannot be
understated (we live there). Impossible
to reach for grievances, contractors
unsafe and environmentally a
nightmare. Rohret has children walking
on it by the hundreds every day. Heavy
vehicles and contractors both create
MASSIVE safety issues.
All development must involve school
development and expansion, and there
needs more commitment to diversity.
Too much is driven by affluence and
isolation. This is not healthy for our
community.
Pond/walking trails. Park.
no multifamily units. Pave Slothower Rd.
to move traffic away from Rohret.
Rohret is too busy too much heavy
traffic. Cement dump trucks.
4
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
Parks. Schools. Walk paths. Nodes
The acreage off of Kitty Lee Rd that
Oaknoll owns is essentially already park
space. It has a pond, pine tree plantings,
walnut tree plantings, and mowed trails.
If possible, that land should be
preserved as the natural area that it is. It
could easily connect to proposed Carson
pond/par.
Kitty Lee Rd should be preserved and a
road further south could connect to
future proposed development.
I like the amount of parks. I like the
amount of trails
I would add more trails for biking and
running. Separate bike paths from roads
compared to dangerous bike lanes. I
wish for more diversity in housing.
Traffic on Rohret Road, Meier Ave, and
HWY 1 are already busy. {See Questions Tab}
small footprint, low-intensity housing
Need road connecting Rohret to Melrose
sone today to eliminate traffic on
Morgan Trek and road connecting to
West High.
Large lots are a must for this area to
reduce traffic flow.
Low income housing mixed with
expensive housing would cause housing
for expensive homes to be reduced.
Mixing apples with oranges! i.e.
Maintaining low income homes would
be less and caused area to deteriorate.
not much
Concentrate on the area of Iowa City
already developed and built up and
improve those areas. Leave the farmland
alone,
Farmland and open areas are important.
Leave them alone. Improve the areas of
Iowa City that are already developed.
Mix of commercial, single family, and
multi-family. Also like plans for parks
and schools.
Convert the whole area into a large
recreation area with miles and miles of
mountain bike trails.
Please don't over weight the opinions of
all the old people who don't want multi-
family dwellings anywhere near them.
5
Open House Comment Cards
September 1, 2022
Introduction of some commercial space -
ability to have place to walk to for
coffee, a meal at a restaurant.
Increase in public parks (size and
number). I see the importance of higher
density housing but like the idea of
offsetting it with more open space.
Perhaps open space to create symmetry
(like 2 bookends) with the Poor Farm to
the north of the neighborhood and easy
places to get to and from the
neighborhood and feel like you are still
out in the country.
I like the idea of "commercial nodes"
useful!
Green space, low intensity use
Traffic over 218 and on Rohret is big
concern A dog park!
Leave Kitty Lee Road alone
Keep Kitty Lee from becoming a
thorough fare from HWY1 to Rohret. Do
not annex Kitty Lee Road Neighborhood
I do not like the current plan for my
ground at 3257 Rohret Road. Need more
density per the old zone overlay
On the original concept we had
commercial now we have low density.
Need to buffer but need more density to
help the area.
Park/ Nature space
Less general urban land use category.
Prioritize roads, fire station and native
space earlier in the plan. Safety risk to
further develop with a fire station or
additional roads (beside Rohret) for fire
department to access.
Traffic on Rohret if moving forward with
Phase 1 without connections to
Melrose/HWY1. Risk safety of
developing in phase 1 without a fire
station which is in phase 2b.
Diversity, parks
No commercial area near bridge over
218
Please decrease the speed limit in
Rohret Rd. It's Residential!
North/South road connection.
Schools/park. Overall plan very nice.Junior High built ASAP.
Developers should be force to agree to
plan.
6
July 13, 2022
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT ROHRET SOUTH SURVEY RESULTS
Q1: What is your interest in the Southwest District Plan update? (select all that apply)
Answered: 168 | Skipped: 0
0.0%
1.8%
4.2%
5.4%
7.1%
7.7%
20.8%
29.8%
87.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
I am a public official in Iowa City
I participated in a focus group for the Southwest District
Plan update
I am a business owner in Iowa City
Other (please specify)
I work in or next to the subarea
I am an interested employee in Iowa City
I own land in or next to the subarea
I am an interested resident of Iowa City
I live in or next to the subarea
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
2
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q2: What kinds of development would you like to see as this area grows? (select all that apply)
Answered: 162 | Skipped: 6
11.7%
15.4%
17.9%
22.2%
26.5%
30.3%
33.3%
33.3%
38.3%
41.4%
41.4%
53.7%
87.7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Other (please specify)
Facilities for public assembly (such as community centers,
churches, mosques, etc.)
Housing for young adults
Housing for individual persons
Small-scale health services (such as clinics, dentists, etc.)
Public facilities (such as facilities providing fire or police
protection, etc.)
Housing for seniors
Indoor recreational facilities
Educational facilities (such as childcare services, schools,
etc.)
Housing for large families
Small-scale commercial services (such as stores,
restaurants, offices, etc.)
Housing for small families
Parks and outdoor recreational areas
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
3
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q3: What opportunities do you see for future development in this area? (select all that apply)
Answered: 156 | Skipped: 12
10.3%
25.6%
26.3%
26.3%
28.2%
32.1%
34.6%
35.3%
40.4%
50.0%
57.7%
69.2%
70.5%
71.2%
72.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Other (please specify)
Housing that is affordable for first-time homebuyers
Housing that is accessible for seniors or persons with
disabilities
A neighborhood that celebrates and protects culturally
significant people, places, and events
A neighborhood that provides a variety of transportation
choices
A neighborhood that welcomes people at all stages of life
with a mix of housing types (single-family homes,…
A neighborhood that is well-connected with transit to
other areas of town
An equitable neighborhood that welcomes people from all
backgrounds and incomes
A neighborhood that has well-connected streets with
multiple route options to other areas of town
Housing that is energy efficient and environmentally
friendly
A neighborhood that promotes a healthy and sustainable
lifestyle
A neighborhood that preserves and celebrates the natural
environment and features like woods, streams, wetlands,…
A neighborhood that is safe and easy to bike in with trails
and other amenities
A neighborhood that is safe for children to walk, such as to
school or a friend’s house
A neighborhood that provides amenities such as parks and
open space
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
4
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q4: What concerns do you have for future development in this area? (select all that apply)
Answered: 161 | Skipped: 7
7.5%
8.1%
9.9%
10.6%
20.5%
20.5%
23.0%
36.7%
37.9%
59.0%
62.7%
63.4%
63.4%
66.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Distance from commercial uses
Distance from jobs
Development that is not dense enough (i.e. buildings are
too spread apart)
Other (please specify)
Lack of adequate public services
Lack of access to transit
Lack of road capacity on Highway 1
Loss of agricultural land
High traffic speeds
Loss of open space
Increased traffic on neighborhood streets
Lack of green space in new development
Lack of road capacity on Rohret Road
Development that is too dense (i.e. buildings are too close
together)
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
5
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q5: If you selected more than one kind of development on the previous page that you think is
important for the area as it grows, please rank them by priority with 1 being most important.
Answered: 132 | Skipped: 36
0 50 100 150
Other
Facilities for public assembly (such as community centers,
churches, mosques, etc.)
Housing for young adults
Housing for individual persons
Small-scale health services (such as clinics, dentists, etc.)
Public facilities (such as facilities providing fire or police
protection, etc.)
Indoor recreational facilities
Housing for seniors
Educational facilities (such as childcare services, schools,
etc.)
Small-scale commercial services (such as stores,
restaurants, offices, etc.)
Housing for large families
Housing for small families
Parks and outdoor recreational areas
Number of Responses
Top 3 Middle Bottom 3
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
6
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q6: If you selected more than one opportunity for future development on the previous page that you
think is important in this area, please rank them by priority with 1 being the greatest opportunity.
Answered: 125 | Skipped: 43
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Housing that is affordable for first-time homebuyers
Housing that is accessible for seniors or persons with
disabilities
A neighborhood that celebrates and protects culturally
significant people, places, and events
A neighborhood that provides a variety of transportation
choices
A neighborhood that welcomes people at all stages of life
with a mix of housing types (single-family homes,…
An equitable neighborhood that welcomes people from all
backgrounds and incomes
A neighborhood that is well-connected with transit to
other areas of town
A neighborhood that has well-connected streets with
multiple route options to other areas of town
Housing that is energy efficient and environmentally
friendly
A neighborhood that promotes a healthy and sustainable
lifestyle
A neighborhood that is safe and easy to bike in with trails
and other amenities
A neighborhood that is safe for children to walk, such as
to school or a friend’s house
A neighborhood that preserves and celebrates the natural
environment and features like woods, streams,…
A neighborhood that provides amenities such as parks and
open space
Number of Responses
Top 3 Middle Bottom 3
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
7
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q7: If you selected more than one concern regarding future development in the area on the previous
page, please rank them by priority with 1 being your largest concern.
Answered: 138 | Skipped: 30
Q8: If you have other thoughts, ideas, or additional information to share that the City should consider
during this plan update, please let us know below:
Answered: 62 | Skipped: 106
Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from jobs
Distance from commercial uses
Other
Development that is not dense enough (i.e. buildings are
too spread apart)
Lack of access to transit
Lack of adequate public services
Lack of road capacity on Highway 1
Loss of agricultural land
High traffic speeds
Loss of open space
Lack of green space in new development
Increased traffic on neighborhood streets
Lack of road capacity on Rohret Road
Development that is too dense (i.e. buildings are too close
together)
Number of Responses
Top 3 Middle Bottom 3
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
8
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q9: If you would like to receive future updates on this project, sign up for the contact list below (your
information will remain confidential and will only be used for this project):
Answered: 100 | Skipped: 68
Q10: Where do you live?
Answered: 146 | Skipped: 22
Q11: What is the zip code of your home address?
Answered: 142 | Skipped: 26
Q12: How would you describe your living situation?
Answered: 145 | Skipped: 23
84.3%
4.1%10.3%
1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
In Iowa City In another city in Johnson
County
Outside city limits in Johnson
County
Outside Johnson County
9.2%
2.1%2.1%
85.2%
0.7%0.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
52240 52241 52245 52246 52333 55317
93.8%
4.8%1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Live in a home owned by you or
someone in your household
Live in a home rented by you or
someone in your household
Other (please specify)
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
9
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q13: How many people currently live in your household? (include all persons living in your dwelling)?
Answered: 144 | Skipped: 24
Q14: How many children (under 18 years) currently live in your household?
Answered: 142 | Skipped: 26
Q15: Where do you work or go to school?
Answered: 146 | Skipped: 22
5.6%
31.9%
12.5%
29.9%
11.8%
5.6%
2.1%0.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
42.3%
11.3%
28.2%
9.9%
5.6%
2.1%0.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
71.2%
9.6%
0.0%
6.2%
13.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
In Iowa City In another city in
Johnson County
Outside city limits in
Johnson County
Outside Johnson
County
Not currently working
or going to school
(retired, between jobs,
etc.)
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
10
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q16: What is the zip code of your current work or school address?
Answered: 121 | Skipped: 47
Q17: What is your age?
Answered: 135 | Skipped/Preferred not to answer: 33
Q18: With which gender do you most identify?
Answered: 129 | Skipped/Preferred not to answer: 39
33.9%
28.1%
14.9%
8.3%
3.3%1.7%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
52242 52246 52240 52241 52245 52402 52228 52235 52243 52319 52340 52404 52405 52498 52556 55317 55905 60603
0.0%0.7%
12.6%
32.6%
23.0%
19.3%
8.9%
3.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
<18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+
48.1%51.9%
0.0%0.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Male Female Non-Binary/Non-Conforming Not Listed (please specify)
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
11
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q19: Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin?
Answered: 117 | Skipped/Preferred not to answer: 51
Q20: What is your race? (select all that apply)
Answered: 112 | Skipped/Preferred not to answer: 56
Q21: What was the total combined income for all persons living in your dwelling in the past 12
months?
Answered: 104 | Skipped/Preferred not to answer: 64
Q22: Are you currently enrolled at an institution of higher education? (for example, University of
Iowa, Kirkwood Community College, etc.)
Answered: 132 | Skipped: 36
2.6%
97.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No
87.5%
2.7%1.8%10.7%1.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
White Black or African
American
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific
Islander
Some other race
(please specify)
0.0%0.0%
5.8%
14.4%12.5%
27.9%
20.2%19.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less than
$15,000
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
6.8%
93.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
12
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
APPENDIX: FULL QUALITATIVE ANSWERS
Q1: “Other” Responses
Children attend nearby school
I live on Hunters Run, close to the area
In the neighborhood.
I live in Coralville and my husband and I are looking to move to Iowa City.
I live by it.
mms
Ty'n Cae Nieghborhood President
Curently live out of state but family owns land impacted by the plan.
I am an employee of Johnson County Planning
Q2: “Other” Responses
additional connecting streets/roads to Melrose Avenue
Low income housing for poorer residents and university students.
very low density residential development
I prefer it as it is. Traffic is already heavy on Rohret and the quality of the road is exceptionally poor.
None-no development needed
DO NOTHING
Public Hunting Area
This is a valuable area with abundant water and other natural resources. It should be left as a nature
reserve.
Single family homes only!
public pool and tennis courts, maybe even a par 3 golf course with kids activities
None
Large scale commercial such as IKEA, Hy Vee, Whole Foods.
Not interested in seeing this area developed.
Single family homes
Very dependent on specific areas within plan update
No development
No more development that requires the loss of farmland and cutting down of trees
do nothing with it
the Rohret road would need some serious repairs
Q3: “Other” Responses
this is a weird list - who's going to say no to any of these?
additional streets to Melrose
Dedicated bike paths that are safe and segregated from car lanes.
A quiet neighborhood where people's right to peace in their own homes, on their own schedules, is
respected as much as people's right to recreate.
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
13
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Leave it as is
Wild-life Game Area with wetlands and public use
Same building requirements, costs, min building sq ft, No low cost housing to bring property values
down!
Connect Rohret to Melrose directly on the West side
NO bike lanes. Please.
a focus on neighborhood schools for building community and coordinating recreation and activities
None
mixed-use & sustainable, walkable, transit-served, pls
Bringing more traffic to our peaceful neighborhood is not desired.
No development
An area that maintains it's rural heritage
More stressed resources our water presser is next to nothing now and Rohret road is like a
washboard fix the streets we have now.
Q4: “Other” Responses
Terrible planning with plastic barracks subdivision houses like we have everywhere else on this side of
town
Commercial buildings( ie gas stations) that hinders the beauty of area. Also the speed limit is too high
and traffic drives 50 mph on Rohret in the evening. Traffic is very heavy during in morning and
evening due to limited streets and only one street to get over across I-218. We can barely get out
onto Rohret in the morning. It is unacceptable to put more housing in until this is remedied.
Increasing urban sprawl which makes public transportation more costly. Further development of
suburbs which encroach on agricultural land and dig the city into greater debt in the near future.
Ugliness, kit buildings that don't account for continental-climate temperature swings and insulation
needs, giant houses, deathtrap parking lots where sight lines are bad (like Walden Square), absence of
bike lanes separated physically from car paths, minivan caravans waiting to make a left onto Rohret
twice a day (build the road-separated bike paths in now)
Loss of animal habitat
The small crime area near Heartig drug creating a dangerous atmosphere that could turn the area
bad.
The lack of space at the elementary school for such expansion
Lack of access on Morman Trek with Road Diet!
Adding bike lanes that would further congest traffic
lack of public community amenities
lack of accessible housing for lower income or diverse family groups
no more mcmansions
Low affordability and use of exclusionary restrictive covenants (e.g., lot size, # of garages)
Overcrowding in schools- having to redistrict the boundaries again
Commercial uses of land
The potential cost of the homes when all is said and done...
Loss of natural land and native Iowa species in the area
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
14
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Q8: If you have other thoughts, ideas, or additional information to share that the City should consider
during this plan update, please let us know below:
The guy applying for subdivision approval is the same guy who destroyed the area across from the Co-
op and City Hall, and has had similar problems elsewhere. Steer him very hard on design if you're
approving his plans, because otherwise it'll be soulless and horrible and we'll have to live with it
forever while he waltzes off with a lot of money in his pocket.
I think the existing area of north of Rohret Road has been ignored. The city refuses to acknowledge
and address the high traffic to and from Weber Elementary School and the high number of cars that
travel on Rohret Road as it is the ONLY access people have to Mormon Trek and crossing the
interstate. You CAN NOT add additional housing without fixing this. Also, older property owners on
the south side of Rohret do not maintain their property and make the area look trashy. There should
also be a fire station on Mormon Trek to have faster access to these neighborhoods across the
interstate. In addition, the speed limit of 35 mph is too high in the areas of Rohret before and
especially further west of the school. There are many that use Rohret from the countryside west of
the city limits that travel at very high speeds with no regard for present neighborhoods. Also, Rohret
Road has been ruined by cement trucks, semi truck, dump trucks and other large construction
equipment that travel and speeds greater than 35 mph to their construction sites. This occurs all day
long many days of the week.
I ask for diversity of housing and transportation options, and for a housing policy that encourages an
abundance of housing.
Developing out instead of in leads to real estate bubbles. Because the DOT pays for paving new roads
the city thinks that they'll make nothing but profit when building new homes on these streets through
taxes. However once these streets become the responsibility of the city to maintain these profits
quickly become a net loss and in order to keep an influx of revenue, the city must keep expanding.
But this will always lead to an inevitable crash. The only thing that prevents this from happening is a
federal bailout. This is a forseeable and avoidable problem that will not only prevent the city from
crumbling but change it into a beacon for the future of our changing climate in the U.S.
Access this area should not be off Rohret Rd but from Mormon Trek and Melrose
Try to find some middle ground between current SW district and pennisula neighborhood
Slothhower Road improvement?
Poor Farm development
Hwy 1 improvement or parallel auxilary road
Rohret road needs to be connected to Melrose Ave. where the current Slothower Rd. is. This would
shave several minutes off people’s drive from the existing and proposed new developments to points
north. Currently, people have to weave through neighborhoods east of the highway, which is not safe.
This area also needs more neighborhood retail (restaurants, supermarkets).
My opinion is that this area should not be developed for city use and should remain agricultural.
There are other areas around the city that will be much easier less costly to develop
The destruction of green space in Iowa City and Coralville is troubling to me, as is the thought of
massive development near my home. I doubt my thoughts will do anything to halt what is probably
already a fait accompli. I'm sure you've already got developers salivating at the opportunity.
Myself and many neighbors enjoy seeing the wildlife nearby & do not want to have any more
development in this area.
The infrastructure is not there to support an new neighborhood/development in this area.
911 response would be stressed and/or decreased
There is only one way in and out of any neighborhood west of Shannon Drive
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
15
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
Iowa City has incentivized the overbuilding of apartments. Iowa City does not need more apartments
or condominiums for young people. There are already too many empty apartments.
The city already destroyed a lake to build a Menards a mile from an old Menards. Further destruction
of the natural beauty of this area would disgust me; use land that is already in the sphere of influence
of Iowa City and stop expanding urban areas. If Iowa City claims to be a progressive and green city, it
will reconsider the annexation of this land.
Weber Elementary has become one of the highest capacity schools in the district. The school district
would have to do new boundaries for the west side of Iowa city if this turns into a housing
development.
I would like to acknowledge that Weber Elementary is already crowded with very large class sizes and
not enough resources to meet the needs of our diverse population. I would like any increase in
student enrollment to be addressed. I want to maintain the diversity at Weber Elementary while
bringing class sizes down and having appropriate staffing to meet student needs.
I would also love to see easier access to Coralville from the neighborhood but with much though and
consideration to the effects on current residents and traffic patterns/flow.
stop sprawl
I cannot stress how worried I am as a prospect buyer to the area and a worker about the crime area
near Heartig.
Coffee shop in a park
Making Slothower Road a through street would go a long way to helping reduce traffic congestion on
Mormon Trek, Highway 1, and Shannon Drive. It would also significantly reduce travel times to 218, I-
80, and Coralville. I think this is the single most important improvement for this area and should be
considered essential prior to any additional development.
If we allow more construction in South Rohret, the traffic in the Rohret-Mormon Trek crossing would
be terrible.
With the substantial size and land available, an additional school(s) should be included as part of the
development. Weber is already very large and will likely reach capacity in near future. Have another
elementary school would be ideal.
Thank you for letting us be involved.
This area very susceptible to soil erosion with light soils and steep slopes making it undesirable for
extensive development. A high priority should be given to maintaining these areas as natural as
possible, such as wetlands, prairie and woodlands
Make Morman Trek 4 lanes! NO Low income housing!
Would rather not see high density housing. Loss of open area is concerning as there are no parks west
of the highway. Increased traffic is worrisome.
Please connect Rohret road to Highway 1 and to Melrose Avenue with roads that do not have speed
bumps or stop lights.
More development out Rohret road needs more access from roads other than Rohret rd. If Rohret
were widened it would further divide the neighborhood from the neighborhood and Weber
Elementary, on the north side of Rohret Rd.
Dog park and a pool. This part of town is under-served with parks and trails. Not a good space for
commercial development given the limited vehicle access and low capacity level for Rohert.
This area with more growth NEEDS a better connection to main roads. There is so much traffic from
Rohret up through Shannon Drive and on to Melrose. Need a better connection to Melrose from the
west side.
We recently moved to this area after living 48 years in SE Iowa City. The reason we moved was
because of increased crime, and decreasing property values due to rental property and lack of police
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
16
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
presence. We do not want to see that happen in this area so proper planning and development is
extremely important.
It would be nice to focus on community activities public and commercial. For example Colonial Lanes
is in that area, but it really needs a boost - I wouldn't want to see it go out of business with a new
bowling alley, but we need it to improve for families and communities. How can the development in
this area improve and build upon some of what's already there/nearby
Avoiding “streets of nothing to nowhere” is good for getting people to use feet, breaks up monitony.
Owen has it right in Green Metropolis. Also pls require thicker walls, 2x4 studs not adequate for
insulation.
The rolling hills of the farm directly south of Rohret and directly west of the 218 would be the
greatest loss for the area if developed into condos, apartments, or even houses. I would prioritize
this as green space or parkland (or retaining it as farmland).
Having lived in this area for 26 years, I am concerned about the environmental impact developmental
will have on the spring-fed lake and all the deer, pheasants, birds and other animals that live here. I
am concerned about the increased traffic on our road given the hills and history of speeding that
makes for a dangerous combination.
Need to diversify housing options and price in the expansion. Don't want this to increase or maintain
existing levels of housing segregation (by income, race, age, etc.) on the west side.
As the area grows, an elementary school adjacent (perhaps accross Rohret Rd) to Weber would allow
more flexibility and efficiency for the district and should be considered. One building could be PK-3 for
instance and one building 4-6. This could change year to year as class sizes fluctuate.
It would be really nice to have at least a small commercial area for coffee shop/restaurant/pharmacy
etc. that blends in well with the neighborhood. The Fareway complex is a little to far to be easily
walkable for most of the Weber neighborhood.
Tremendous potential! Would be wonderful to expand on this direction as opposed to continue
toward the landfill. One concern would be roads, traffic, accessibility. Would help to add connecting
road from the west end of Rohret. Alleviate the one way in/out traffic. BIGGEST CONCERN IS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Weber is already over capacity and suffering from being under resourced with
the level of student need. School expansion at this point would be impractical and unsafe, especially
with exposure concerns that are likely to continue. Another west end elementary would allow for
continued residential development while alleviating some of Weber's overcrowding. Plus increase
walk-ability for many of the students.
This area needs greater access adjacent main roads such as Highway 1 and Melrose Ave.
Emergency services for the proposed add on area.
Please add commercial businesses zoning to area, such as convenient/gas store, grocery, office
building, mini mall, and so on. We could also use road access to Slothower Road.
Would like to see Slothower Rd paved, and extended to connect Melrose Ave. to Hwy 1.
Need street connection with Melrose Ave. for area north of Rohret and west of 218 -- via expanded
Slothower St. or northbound extension of Wild Prairie Dr.
Additional access road from Mormon Trek to the area to be developed other than Hwy 1 and Rohret
Rd. Proposed path of connection between Hwy 965 at the Lowe's intersection in Coralville on to
Melrose, and then again to Hwy 1. Where that road goes will set the stage for completing a "square"
around the whole area from an access standpoint. Depending on square mileage, might be room for
an elementary school in addition to Weber. Also, would like to know what the future of Meyer Rd at
the border of Rohret Rd and current city limits.
Focus on prairie and wetland restoration; traffic speed control (speed bumps) on neighborhood
roads; dog park
Southwest District, Rohret South Survey July 13, 2022
17
Note: Qualitative answers are available in the Appendix
I would just love to see a large outdoor park, with hiking and biking trails. No homes or stores.
Please don't add any commercial properties.
Please don't include ramps on or off of Rohret to hwy 218.
Would like a nice park with open space to play and take walks.
You should send a survey asking about improving and extending Slothtower Rd from Rohret Rd to
Melrose Ave. I think most people would be in favor of this development.
The families on Kitty Lee road are concerned that their neighborhood will be connected to a larger
neighborhood or businesses, therefore causing there to be more traffic in this currently quiet and
private neighborhood. Please consider that they value their home and neighborhood for this reason,
it’s why they chose to live their. The same goes for the other “country” homes and subdivisions in
this area.
Please don’t develop this.
For those of us that live west of 218, it would be great if there was an easier way to access 218 going
North. If Slothower went through from Rohret to Melrose it would help out a lot.
Iowa City
Please make sure to include the park, lake, and walking trails from the original plan.
Rohret Rd is already quite congested at certain times of the day. Most people turn right off of Rohret
when heading west, which helps, but I'm concerned about traffic back-ups if a lot more people are
turning left into the area south of Rohret. The Rohret area already has tons of housing. Would be
good to break it up a bit with some parks, clinics or stores. Not sure how much space there is to have
more kids attend Weber, so maybe senior housing is best option.
The development should be similar to what is already in this area.
Please don’t connect this development, if approved, to Kitty Lee Road.
Connecting all west side to melrose with a main road that doesn’t go through neighborhoods
I have concerns about the safety in the neighborhood when the future development is too dense.
A new elementary school is a must if any land is going to be developed for residential purposes.
I would love to see small, local businesses join the neighborhood! An ice cream shop tops my list.
consider the interface with Highway 1 as another opportunity to provide commercial development
utilizing existing infrastructure, and also to allow transition off the highway into more residential uses
to the north. This will also be important as the plan considers developing up to - and possibly
incorporating - the existing intensive commercial uses on the south side of the Highway just west of
Sharon Center Rd.
Q12: “Other” Responses
Rent a home.
Apartment
Q20: “Other” Responses
Mexican
Multiple
Southwest District Plan Update
Stakeholder Meeting Summary
1
This document summarizes public input heard throughout focus group and technical committee
meetings held in December 2020 through January 2021 for the South Rohret Subarea update to the
Southwest District Plan. In total, 46 stakeholders were engaged, as shown below in Table 1. The
document includes overarching themes heard throughout focus group meetings, and a summary of
comments which provides additional details and specific thoughts and concerns.
A questionnaire is available online as a forum for broader public input. As of January 14, 2021, 130
responses have been received. A summary of those results will be provided when the survey closes.
The questionnaire is currently available on the project website at www.icgov.org/sw-plan-update.
Questions can be directed to Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org.
Table 1: Focus Group Meetings and Attendance
Group Date Time Attending
City-Wide Stakeholders December 15, 2020 10:30 am 5
Area Organization Stakeholders December 15, 2020 1:30 pm 4
Owners December 15, 2020 3:00 pm 3
Owners December 15, 2020 4:00 pm 1
Owners December 16, 2020 1:30 pm 2
Iowa City Community School District December 17, 2020 3:00 pm 3
Development Community December 22, 2020 10:30 am 9
Development Community January 6, 2021 9:30 am 4
Parks & Recreation Commission January 13, 2021 5:00 pm 7
Technical Committee Ongoing 8
Total 46
Meetings included representatives from: Neighborhood Associations (Tyne Cae & Country Club Estates),
Johnson County (Planning/Development/Sustainability & Poor Farm), ICCSD, ICAAR, HBA, Owners
(including Oaknoll), Affordable Housing Coalition, City of Iowa City (Climate Action Commission, Parks and
Rec Commission, NDS, PW, MPO, ICFD)
OVERARCHING THEMES:
Several recurring themes were heard throughout the focus group meetings. They included:
Access and Connectivity. The westernmost portion of the Southwest District has limited access
to the City across Highway 218, specifically at Rohret Road, Highway 1, and Melrose Avenue.
North/south connectivity between these roads is essential to future development in this area.
Traffic Concerns. Rohret Road is the current primary street to access existing development west
of US-218. It experiences some congestion during peak traffic hours. Future development may
require improvements to Rohret Road, Highway 1, and/or routes between them to address
congestion, especially at choke points like Weber Elementary. Adequate transit access, and
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, can also help reduce congestion.
Building a New Neighborhood. The area is desirable for a mix of housing types and price points
due to potential access to amenities like parks, new schools, and trails, and due to proximity to
the University as a large employment center. This provides unique future opportunities for
development, such as clustered residences or “agri-hoods”.
Attachment 4
2
Regional Amenities and Trails. Stakeholders are supportive of a regional stormwater
management system surrounded by park space. It would function as a neighborhood and city-
wide amenity, provide a new attraction to this part of town, and preserve existing habitat. Trails
should surround the park and connect to other areas of the City.
Importance of Public Services. With the potential for new development, fire protection and
additional schools must be planned. As development progresses west, sewers may become a
limiting factor for development, largely due to topographic constraints.
Neighborhood Commercial. Commercial development on Rohret Road and Highway 1 could
serve the neighborhood, though commercial areas would likely need to be small in size and
targeted in scope, with appropriate transitions to residential neighborhoods.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Comments from all meetings are organized and consolidated by topic below. As a summary, it does not
include every comment made during these meetings.
Road Access
The Southwest District has limited access from the west due to Highway 218, with Rohret Road
being the primary connection for most existing development. Highway 1 provides access for some
limited existing development as well.
While physically close, it takes a while to travel to destinations, which can make the area harder to
market and/or develop.
North/south road connections between Rohret Rd, Melrose Ave, and Highway 1 are essential,
and making those connections are as important as the trunk sewer being extended under
Highway 218. Slothower Road is a good candidate to connect Rohret to Melrose.
A direct route to Coralville along the planned 965 extension will encourage development, though
the plan should not be contingent on it because it will not occur for a long time.
Kennedy Parkway crossing 218 would also provide an additional route for traffic.
Traffic Concerns
Traffic for development on Rohret Rd is manageable, but it takes time to cross US-218.
o Traffic can bottleneck at Weber Elementary during school drop off and especially pick up
when everyone arrives at the same time; the school district is trying to mitigate this by utilizing
side streets and encouraging walking.
o Turn lanes on Rohret by Weber may increase safety and reduce traffic congestion
There are concerns about development affecting traffic on Benton Street.
It can be challenging to get on Highway 1 at uncontrolled access points from 7 am – 9 am and
3:30 pm – 5 pm due to traffic; in the future, it will likely need stoplights and possibly turning lanes.
Active Transportation
Access to sidewalks, trails, and parks have become increasingly important with COVID.
Trails and bicycle infrastructure could be an asset for the area to attract residents and promote
walking. Trails should connect to adjacent parks and other areas of the City.
As development occurs south of Rohret Rd, safe crossings to Weber Elementary should be
considered, such as an underground pathway. The need may decrease depending on the location
of future schools, the growth of the area, and catchment areas.
3
Transit
Transit is an important source of transportation and should be extended as this area grows.
Changes to transit service has resulted in some areas in the Southwest District experiencing
reduced access. Further possible service reductions are a concern, including the Melrose Express
that runs to the Poor Farm.
Transit should be considered an essential service for this area as it will help reduce reliance on
personal automobiles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Public Services
The sewer extension under Highway 218, currently planned for 2023, is needed for urban-scale
development; as such, development will likely follow the sewer line.
Fire protection primarily depends on access and ability to respond. It will become more important
as the area grows, so a future fire station should be considered west of US-218, either on
Highway 1 or Rohret.
Enrollment at Weber may reach capacity in 1-2 years. Given the amount of potential growth west
of Highway 218, 2 additional elementary schools and possibly a junior high should be considered
(15-18 acres for the elementary site and 50-60 acres for the elementary/junior high site).
The City should consider Green infrastructure, like the Sycamore Greenway in the South District.
Housing and Neighborhoods
People want to live in this area (and send kids to West High), but housing is not always available;
this indicates a large demand for housing.
o A neighborhood close to outdoor recreation is great, which along with new schools, scenic
rolling hills, and proximity to the University will drive demand in this area.
o COVID has increased the desire for housing with good access to trails, nature, and other
recreational opportunities (such as fishing, birding, hiking, and biking).
There are currently only single-family homes west of Highway 218
o A diversity of housing types and price points with more density should be considered.
o The City should strive to maintain Weber at its current free and reduced lunch rates.
There may be an opportunity for alternative developments which can promote affordability.
o May be able to develop micro or pocket neighborhoods it is difficult to place streets.
o May be able to develop agri-hoods with small lots around a common ag-related space.
Affordability is important because nothing will be built if people can’t afford it, even with low
interest rates; if it costs more to develop (such as through required alleys or longer, more
complicated review processes), homes become less affordable.
The affordable housing requirement should be clarified and implemented at the time of annexation
rather than later in the development process; staff should take a more active role in deciding if
housing should be onsite or paid as a fee in lieu of units.
Equity is one of the most important considerations for sustainable development, and there are
also opportunities to use green construction technique on larger buildings.
Commercial Development
Commercial developments would be nice for residents in this area to avoid crossing US-218.
o Businesses searching for space typically ask for high traffic counts and turning movements;
Rohret Rd and Highway 1 are the two most likely locations.
o Businesses often need more than the local neighborhood for support, though there is some
opportunity for targeted commercial with limited square footage.
4
o Lower demand means lower prices, so buildings must be thoughtful of the end user.
For commercial development on Rohret Rd, there is good visibility but limited access.
o Could support local services/offices but may be difficult to attract big businesses.
o Commercial will be more attractive with north/south routes to Melrose and Highway 1.
Commercial uses may be more successful on Highway 1 near other existing commercial.
o There is existing intensive commercial development in unincorporated Johnson County on
Highway 1, near Sharon Center Rd; if that use expands, it will likely be for flex space or other
intensive commercial uses rather than neighborhood commercial uses.
o Will need to carefully transition between commercial areas and residential areas.
In denser markets, COVID is increasing commercial vacancies due to new online demand and
telecommuting options.
o It may affect office space, but attendees don’t believe it will impact Iowa City as much.
o There may be some demand to convert vacant commercial space into residential units outside
of the South Rohret Subarea, but many realtors are currently experiencing high demand.
Parks, Open Space, and Stormwater Management
There is a need for a recreation center on this side of town, with space for indoor sports and
aquatics, and possibly outdoor recreational uses.
Flash flooding affects neighbors east of 218 after the stream crosses under Mormon Trek;
improvements upstream can affect that negatively (through construction of impervious surfaces)
and positively (through thoughtful stormwater management)
Green infrastructure like the regional stormwater lake in the 2002 plan would be great.
o Something like Terry Trueblood is more advantageous as a selling point compared to multiple
“puddles” in subdivision-level stormwater systems.
o It could provide biking, hiking, and birding opportunities and preserve the natural landscape,
including any native prairies and bird habitats
A regional lake concept depends on the City to take ownership, in addition to landowners.
o Impact or development fees should offset losses for landowners that cannot develop, but the
City should meet with stakeholders to determine the best approach.
o City should own the stormwater basin and promote it as a recreational area.
The Johnson County Poor Farm is another nearby unique amenity that plans on becoming more
integrated with neighborhoods to the south.
o They have plans for trail connections to the south and some affordable housing.
o They would like to host more activities and events (festivals, bike rides, summer series,
movies, etc.) and provide a different venue than downtown.
The University has lots of nearby outdoor recreational space; the City should enhance
connections for residents and strive to avoid duplication of services where possible.
Other Development Considerations
There are lots of steep hills, so creative roadway design is needed, though not a concern.
Topography could be a challenge for sewer lines because the cost of lift stations may limit some
developments due to their expense (such as in the southwest part of the subarea).
Where constructed, lift stations will require a certain level of density to support the cost.
Form-based development standards are being considered for the area to promote affordability,
density, and livability regardless of age or ability.
Date: December 7, 2022
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments (REZ22-0011) to enhance land use
regulations related to solar energy systems and to further climate action goals
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s meeting on November 2, 2022, staff proposed
amendments to Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Subdivisions. During the discussion, the Commission
requested staff provide recommendations to require Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers in addition to
EV readiness, and to develop policies about how these requirements should apply to handicap
parking spaces. Staff is currently researching best practices and revising its amendment to
address these requests.
However, staff would like to continue moving forward with the remainder of the recommended
code changes while it conducts further research on EV best practices. As such, staff proposes
that the Commission consider the other proposed code amendments at this time and return to
EV-readiness/charging after additional research is conducted and staff formulates a
recommendation.
Staff modified the proposed text amendment to exclude EV related provisions. Staff also revised
the language for density bonuses and parking reductions to reflect the fact that bonuses will be
administered through multiple different processes. The revised amendment is included in
Attachment 1 for the Commission’s consideration. Detailed background on the proposed
amendments and staff analysis is available in the staff report dated November 2, 2022
(Attachment 2).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated
in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further
implement the City’s goals related to climate action.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments (Without EV-Readiness Requirements)
2. November 2, 2022 Staff Report
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
REVISED December 7, 2022
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted. Changes related to Electric Vehicle (EV) readiness was removed in this revised draft.
Amend 14-2A-4C-1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in single-family residential
zones, as follows:
(9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2A-7, Special provisions for single-family residential zones, as follows:
E. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit
may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the
following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). This bonus
may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction).
1. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent
(40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
2. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
3. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Amend 14-2B-4C-1d, Exemptions from maximum height standards in multi-family residential
zones, as follows:
(9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2B-8, Special provisions for multi-family residential zones, as follows:
D. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit
may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the
following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). This bonus
may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent
(40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Amend 14-2C-4C-1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in commercial zones, as
follows:
(10) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Attachment 1
Page 2
Amend 14-2C-11, Special provisions for commercial zones, as follows:
E. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may
be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following
provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). This bonus may be
used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction).
1. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent
(40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
2. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
3. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Amend 14-2D-4C-3, Exemptions from maximum height standards in industrial and research
zones, as follows:
j. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2F-4B-2, Exemptions from maximum height standards in public zones, as follows:
i. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2H-2C-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See Building Height in
Article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2D-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2E-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2F-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2G-4a, Height, Footnote 2, as follows:
Attachment 1
Page 3
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-3A-4D, Maximum Residential Density for Planned Development Overlay Zones, as
follows:
1.The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the
base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding
development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value
specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection
14-3A-4D-3. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum
expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project
relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements
of this title.
2.For purposes of this article, "net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and
private street rights of way. When calculating net land area, the land area devoted to alley and
private rear lane rights of way need not be subtracted from the total land area. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-
15-2005)
3.Sustainability Density Bonus. The maximum residential density that is required by
Table 3A-1 may be increased by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each
of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). This
bonus may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking
Reduction).
a.A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to at least forty
percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b.All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c.All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Table 3A-1: Maximum Residential Density
Underlying Base Zone Dwelling Units Per Acre Of Net Land Area
RR-1 1
RS-5 5
RS-8 8
RNS-12 8
RS-12 13
MU 24
CO-1 15
CN-1 24
CC-2 15
RM-12 15
RNS-20 24
RM-20 24
RM-44 43
PRM 49*
Attachment 1
Page 4
*Density bonuses are available in the PRM zone that would increase the allowed density beyond
the figure in this table.
Amend 14-4A-3A-3, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, as follows:
Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles.
Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as
solar energy systems, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are subject
to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this
chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the
property for residential living.
Amend 14-4A-3B-3, Residential Use Categories, Group Living Uses, as follows:
Accessory Uses: Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; shared amenity
areas, shared kitchens and dining rooms, food preparation and dining facilities; off-street parking
for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities; mechanical structures including solar
energy systems; off-street loading areas.
Amend 14-4B-1A, Minor Modifications, Applicability, as follows:
24.For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure
standards contained in Section 14-4C-2N and other accessory development standards
contained in Section 14-4C-3.
Amend 14-4C-2N-2, Specific Approval Criteria for Accessory Uses and Buildings, Mechanical
Structures, as follows:
a.All ground level mechanical and utility equipment, such as heat pumps, air
conditioners, emergency generators, electrical vehicle charging stations, and water pumps,
must be screened from public view to at least the S2 standard. (See chapter 5, article F,
"Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) If it is not feasible to use landscape
screening, the mechanical equipment must be screened using wall or fencing materials
complementary to the principal structure. Mechanical structures accessory to sSingle-family
uses and solar energy systems accessory to any uses are exempt from this standard.
b.In all zones except I-1 and I-2, rooftop mechanical equipment must be concealed from
public view by integrating equipment into the design of the building, screening equipment behind
building features, such as parapets, or by setting the equipment back from the edge of the roof
so that it is not visible from ground level. Solar energy systems are exempt from this
standard.
2.Setbacks:
a.Single-Family Residential Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two
feet (2') from the side and rear lot lines. However, mechanical structures may not be located
between the principal dwelling and the street.
b.All Other Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from any
lot line. Additional location standards may apply in certain zones or for certain uses.
3.Minor Modifications for Solar Energy Systems: A minor modification for solar
energy systems may be requested according to chapter 4, article B of this title.
Amend 14-5A-4F, Off Street Parking and Loading Site Development Standards, Alternatives to
Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows:
10.Sustainability Parking Reduction. The minimum parking requirement may be
reduced by ten percent (10%) where each of the following provisions is met, up to a
maximum reduction of twenty-five percent (25%). This reduction may be used in
Attachment 1
Page 5
conjunction with Sections 14-2A-7E, 14-2B-8D, 14-2C-11E, and 14-3A-4D-3 (Sustainability
Density Bonus).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to at least forty
percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows:
BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or
protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings.
MECHANICAL STRUCTURES. A mechanical structure is an accessory use which includes
any equipment that is powered by electricity, gas, or other similar method. This may
include plumbing, electrical, or other similar utility equipment that serves a property.
Mechanical structures may be located on the ground level, attached to a structure, or on
the rooftop level. Examples include, heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators,
water pumps, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, and solar energy systems.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose
of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar
energy. Rooftop solar energy systems are considered accessory mechanical structures.
Utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems are considered a principal institutional
use. See the definition for utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy system for additional
information.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, UTILITY-SCALE GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY
SYSTEM: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof
mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground-mounted solar
energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Ground-
mounted energy systems with a footprint of less than 1 acre in size must be accessory to
another principal use as an accessory mechanical structure.
Amend 15-3-6, Land Subdivisions, Energy and Communications Distribution Systems Design
Standards and Required Improvements, as follows:
D. In subdivisions approved after [effective date of this ordinance], no restrictive
covenant shall be adopted or enforced against properties within said subdivision that
attempt to impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors, as defined by
Iowa Code Chapter 564A.
Date: November 2, 2022
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Parker Walsh, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments (REZ22-0011) to enhance land use
regulations related to solar energy systems and to further climate action goals
Introduction
Upon completion of the community-sourced solar feasibility study by the Johnson Clean Energy
District in January 2022, staff convened a working group of Climate Action Commissioners to
identify high-priority solar activities that align with the City’s climate adaptation and mitigation
goals. As part of this process, the working group recommended that staff assess the current
zoning code for solar readiness and friendliness, review best practices, and develop code updates
to address any gaps that are found.
Historically, the City managed solar energy systems as accessory mechanical structures and/or
basic utility uses rather than by creating separate use categories. This meant rooftop and ground-
mounted solar energy systems that were accessory to another use were allowed administratively.
Meanwhile, larger solar arrays were reviewed as a principal basic utility use, which in some cases
required additional processes such as a special exception.
The zoning code was updated in 2019 to define solar energy systems and to distinguish utility-
scale ground-mounted solar energy systems from basic utility uses. The goal was to expand solar
projects into public zones without more broadly allowing basic utility uses, but it did not change
how smaller scale, accessory solar facilities were allowed. While this approach was generally
successful, staff has since identified additional code changes to further encourage the use of
renewable energy after reviewing best practices and policies of other cities. In addition, staff
identified other code changes to help further the City’s climate adaptation and mitigation goals.
As a result, the proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Subdivisions (Attachment
1) were developed to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and actions
to further climate action goals. Specifically, this includes clarifications to the code, voluntary
regulatory incentives which provide increased density and reduced parking in exchange for
implementing climate action goals (e.g. solar), and Electric Vehicle Readiness parking
requirements. Staff also consulted with the Climate Action Commission’s working group to
ensure the amendment aligns with their initial recommendations.
Current Regulations
The Zoning Code (Title 14) defines a solar energy system as a device, array of devices, or
structural design feature which provides for the generation of electricity and the collection,
storage, and distribution of solar energy. The code distinguishes between accessory solar
energy systems, which are allowed with few restrictions in conjunction with all uses, and utility-
scale solar energy systems, which are allowed in most commercial and all industrial, research,
and public zones. The City also uses streamlined review processes in local historic and
conservation districts for low-impact solar installations. Specific requirements are detailed below.
November 2, 2022
Page 2
Accessory Solar Energy Systems
The City classifies accessory solar energy systems as mechanical structures, which are allowed
in every zone with another principal use where the criteria in Table 1 are met. Rooftop solar energy
systems are always considered to be accessory. This process is administrative (i.e. staff-level
review and approval), which is considered a best practice.
Table 1: Requirements for Accessory Solar Energy Systems
Zones Roof-Mounted Requirements Ground-Mounted Requirements
Single-
Family
Residential
•Integrated into building design;
•Screened behind building
features; or
•Set back from the edge of the
roof so it is not visible.
•Rooftop panels on homes are
considered integrated into the
building design.
•Located at least 2 feet from side/rear lot lines
•Not located between the principal dwelling
and the street
•Screened from public view by landscaping to
the S2 (Variable Height) standard or by wall
or fencing materials complementary to the
principal structure unless accessory to a
single-family use
Industrial •May be visible from the ground.•Located at least 2 feet from any lot line in
compliance with any additional standards
that apply in certain zones or for certain uses
•Screened from public view by landscaping to
the S2 (Variable Height Screen) standard or
by wall or fencing materials complementary
to the principal structure unless accessory to
a single-family use
All Other * •Integrated into building design;
•Screened behind building
features; or
•Set back from the edge of the
roof so it is not visible.
•Rooftop panels on homes are
considered integrated into the
building design.
•Located at least 2 feet from any lot line in
compliance with any additional standards
that apply in certain zones or for certain uses
•Screened from public view by landscaping to
the S2 (Variable Height) standard or by wall
or fencing materials complementary to the
principal structure unless accessory to a
single-family use
* Solar energy systems in Form-Based zones are exempt from screening requirements.
Code Citations: 14-4C-2N
Utility-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Energy Systems
Ground-mounted systems over an acre in size are classified as a utility-scale ground-mounted
solar energy system, which is a principal use. Such systems may be for on-site and/or off-site
energy consumption. The requirements for this use in each zone are shown in Table 2. Similar to
other basic utility uses, larger solar energy systems are allowed provisionally in industrial and
public zones and by special exception in commercial, research, and Riverfront Crossings zones
(except for Mixed Use). However, utility-scale solar systems are not allowed as a principal use in
residential, Mixed Use, or Form-Based zones.
Table 2: Requirements for Ground-Mounted Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems
Zones Ground-Mounted Utility-Scale Solar Requirements
Industrial
and Public
•Allowed provisionally
•Located 200 feet from any residential zone and set back the greater of its
minimum setback or 20 feet from property lines
•Enclosed by security fencing 6 to 8 feet in height and typically screened from
public view/view of adjacent residential zones to the S3 (High Screen) standard;
•No taller than 15 feet in height
•On-site lighting must be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from
adjacent properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage; and
November 2, 2022
Page 3
•Exterior surfaces of solar panels must have nonreflective finish and be designed
and installed to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic and adjacent buildings
Commercial
(except
Mixed Use),
Riverfront
Crossings,
and
Research
•Allowed by special exception (approved by the Board of Adjustment)
•Meet all provisional requirements for public and industrial zones
•Must be screened from public view/view of adjacent residential zones to the S3
(High Screen) standard and compatible with surrounding structures/uses based
on safety, size, height, scale, location, and design
•Must not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or welfare
•Must not injure the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
•Must not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood
•Must not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which it is located
•Must have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
•Must have adequate measures to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets
•Must conform to applicable regulations of the zone in which it is to be located
•Must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended
Residential,
Mixed Use,
and Form-
Based
•Not Allowed
Interim Dev’t •Allowed provisionally in interim development – industrial (ID-I) zones
•Allowed by special exception in interim development – commercial (ID-C) and
interim development – research park (ID-RP) zones
•Not allowed in interim development – single-family or multi-family residential
(ID-RS or ID-RM) zones
Code Citations: 14-2A-2, 14-2B-2, 14-2C-2, 14-2D-2, 14-2E-2, 14-2F-2, 14-2G-3, 14-2H-3, 14-4B-4D-18
Local Historic & Conservation Districts and Landmarks
Solar energy systems in Historic District Overlay (OHD) or Conservation District Overlay (OCD)
zones must apply for historic review. This is typically conducted by the Historic Preservation
Commission, but a streamlined process is approved where the following criteria are met:
•Installed on an outbuilding roof or the rear facing roof of a primary building (if other locations
are not possible, it may also be on a non-street facing elevation not impacting the street
view of the house).
•Installed close to the roof surface and at an angle that is like the roof surface.
•The frame and brackets are a color that blends with the building roof materials.
•Any equipment is away from a street-facing elevation, preferably on the structure’s back.
If a project meets these standards, staff can administratively review and approve the solar energy
system. For projects that do not meet these standards, applicants in an OHD/OCD zone must still
present their project to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) helps to enhance land use regulations related to solar
energy systems and to implement strategies aligned with the City’s climate action goals.
Specifically, the proposed amendment:
1.Adds and clarifies definitions;
2.Limits regulatory barriers to solar energy systems;
3.Provides regulatory incentives (i.e. density bonuses and parking reductions) for projects
that incorporate certain practices aligned with the City’s climate action goals; and
4.Requires that some spaces in parking areas be Electric Vehicle-Ready.
November 2, 2022
Page 4
Definitions
The Zoning Code does not specify that solar energy systems (including related battery storage)
accessory to a principal use are considered mechanical structures. The proposed amendment
adds clarity by discussing solar energy systems in the definition for mechanical structures, by
noting in the definition for solar energy systems that they are accessory mechanical structures,
by amending the accessory standards for mechanical structures to reference solar energy
systems, and by discussing mechanical structures and solar energy systems in the use category
descriptions for household and group living uses. This will improve understanding of the code.
Removal of Potential Regulatory Barriers
The proposed amendment seeks to address several potential barriers to solar projects. In the
dimensional standards, it specifies that roof-mounted solar energy systems are included among
other roof structures that are exempt from maximum height limits. With regards to
ground-mounted solar energy systems, it clarifies that they are not buildings, and therefore do
not count towards the maximum lot coverage requirements. In addition, the amendment
removes the requirement that ground-mounted solar energy systems be screened to the S2
(Variable Height Screen) standard to help improve solar access and align standards regarding
solar energy systems for other uses with those for single-family uses. Similarly, it removes the
requirement that roof-mounted solar energy systems be concealed from public view which
brings the code into line with current practice where solar panels are typically found to be
integrated into the design of the building.
It also includes a new minor modification process for solar energy systems which
provides flexibility for unusual situations where strict application of the regulations is impractical.
To attain a minor modification, staff must find that the following criteria are met:
1.Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location,
surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it impractical
to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of the
subject regulation.
2.The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
property is located.
3.The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or
activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject
property.
4.The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the
regulation modified.
5.The requested minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws
and regulations.
This change helps address unforeseen barriers where special characteristics apply to a site. For
example, it may be possible to allow a solar energy system in the front setback if the lot is heavily
forested and other locations are not feasible for such a system.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment addresses private deed restrictions, often in the form of
homeowner association covenants, which can be a potential barrier to solar energy systems. It
includes a new clause prohibiting property deeds in new subdivisions from containing restrictive
covenants that unreasonably restrict the use of solar collectors, in accordance with Iowa Code
Section 564A.8.
Voluntary Regulatory Incentives
The proposed amendment includes residential density bonus and parking reduction options
for projects that further certain climate action goals to indirectly incentivize such practices. The
November 2, 2022
Page 5
practices selected were identified by sustainability staff as important priorities. The purpose of
the regulatory incentives is to off-set the financial costs of incorporating solar panels or
other sustainability measures into projects by reducing the number of parking spaces and/or
increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. Both regulatory incentives would be
administered by staff through the site plan or building permit process, or by City Council through
the Planned Overlay Development (OPD) rezoning process if it is used instead.
A residential density bonus would allow a reduction of the minimum lot size or minimum lot area
per unit by 10% for each of the provisions below that are met. The bonuses can be used for all
residential uses in all zones, except for Central Business Support (CB-5), Central Business
(CB-10), Riverfront Crossings, and Form-Based zones which do not regulate density.
Bonuses can also be stacked up to a total of 25% (i.e. meeting two provisions would allow a
20% bonus and meeting three would allow a 25% bonus). The bonus provisions include:
•Installation of a solar energy system equal to 40% of the roofs’ surface area of all buildings;
•All uses within the development utilize electricity for 100% of their regular energy
consumption after construction; and/or
•All buildings are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy
Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council.
The amendment also allows a reduction in the minimum parking requirement that equals the
equivalent density bonus provided, up to a total parking reduction of 25%. Unlike the density
bonus, this would be available in all zones for all use types. Because parking areas cost money
to build and displace more valuable land uses, this provides an additional indirect incentive that
can be utilized by both residential and non-residential uses to offset the costs of improvements.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness
Another climate action goal supported in the proposed amendment is the expansion of electric
vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the City. It does this by requiring that parking areas
with at least 5 spaces have 20% of those spaces ready to accommodate Electric Vehicle charging
stations (i.e. be EV-ready). EV-ready spaces need not include actual charging stations, but they
allow for the future inclusion of standard charging stations and avoid costly retrofits to install
chargers in the future while having minimal impacts on the cost of the parking area. While this will
primarily effect new development, it will also be required with substantial expansion and
redevelopment projects. Requiring that a percentage of parking spaces be EV-ready helps the
City proactively plan for future growth in the demand for electric vehicles.
Analysis
Current City policy is in line with many best practices encouraging the creation of solar energy
systems but can be improved. The intent of the proposed amendment is to address gaps in the
code. For a more detailed review of best practices and research, see Attachments 2 and 3.
Best Practices and Local Jurisdiction Research
One of the most effective practices to encourage solar energy systems is streamlining the review
and permit processes and limiting barriers to implementation. For example, SolSmart’s Model
Solar Ordinance (Attachment 2) advises allowing solar by-right and using administrative review
for solar projects. This helps reduce the time and effort to approve solar projects. Iowa City already
administratively allows accessory solar uses in all zones and utility-scale solar in industrial and
public zones. However, the City does require a special exception for larger, stand-alone systems
in commercial and research zones and prohibits such uses in residential zones. Staff does not
recommend modifying standards for utility-scale solar at this time due to it being recently adopted.
Other best practices revolve around reducing potential zoning barriers, such as ensuring that
setbacks, height limits, and coverage requirements do not act as barriers to solar energy systems.
November 2, 2022
Page 6
Staff’s proposed changes clarify requirements from which solar energy systems are already
exempt and provides a minor modification to address atypical situations.
Additional best practices include promoting solar-ready development. Solar readiness does not
require that solar energy systems be installed on buildings, but rather that structures can easily
integrate renewable energy sources later. This includes aligning structures for maximum sun
exposure and minimum shading and providing the electrical capability and space for future
installation, among other roof design considerations. Building solar ready development is cost
effective and reduces the need for infrastructure upgrades should solar or other renewable energy
sources be installed after development. At this time, staff proposes to incentivize the installation of
solar energy systems rather than solar readiness because it produces a greater benefit in return for
zoning bonuses and non-solar ready buildings can still have solar energy systems regardless.
Another way jurisdictions promote solar and renewable energy involves incentives for
development (Attachment 3), though these appear less common. Cities with incentives tend to
have solar friendly codes that allow solar by-right and provide additional flexibility from zoning
standards for solar energy systems. Incentives are often tied to climate action goals, such as
encouraging development of a range of renewable energy sources. Examples include:
•Density and height bonuses;
•Lot coverage bonuses; and/or
•Parking reductions.
Incentives are typically granted where a defined level of renewable energy is provided within a
development. For example, bonuses may be granted where on-site renewable energy will
accommodate at least 15% of a development’s total anticipated energy consumption, with larger
bonuses granted for a higher percentage of energy provided renewably. Finding a balance
between the incentive and requirements to achieve the incentive is an important factor in whether
developers utilize them. Many communities only recently implemented these policies, so their
effectiveness is still unknown. However, the proposed amendment includes development
incentives for renewable energy, electrification, and using a higher energy conservation code.
Staff reviewed Electric Vehicle (EV) ordinances, as well as resources from the Great Plains
Institute. The goal of EV ordinances is to begin the support and transition to electric vehicles and
to reduce carbon pollution produced by transportation. Some cities require that a specified
percentage of parking spaces either be EV-Ready and/or contain Type II charging stations, which
provide 10 to 60 miles of range per hour of charging and are preferred for daily charging. Other
best practices include allowing charging stations in most zones, which Iowa City does. As electric
vehicles become more popular, it will remain important to provide access to charging stations.
Anticipated Impact
Some anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments will be educational, while others remove
potential barriers to the installation of solar energy systems. Changes that help increase clarity
for those interested in solar on their property including enhanced definitions that make it easier to
search the zoning code and understand how solar energy systems fit into the broader code
framework. In addition, the amendment will increase flexibility by reducing barriers to where solar
energy systems may be located and by allowing waivers where they would otherwise not have
been feasible before. Similarly, it would codify State law that prevents homeowner’s
associations from imposing unreasonable restrictions on solar collectors.
A larger change is the new zoning bonus for projects incorporating renewable energy,
electrification, and/or higher energy conservation standards. Density bonuses and parking
reductions provide a financial incentive for sustainable practices in new development and
redevelopment. While the density bonuses apply primarily to residential projects, the parking
reduction can be utilized by non-residential uses as well, which should improve design flexibility
where parking has been a barrier. However, the parking reduction may also be used in the
November 2, 2022
Page 7
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District, which may negatively impact fee-in-lieu
payments for downtown parking improvements. This is a trade-off where less parking is provided
downtown in exchange for forward movement on climate action goals.
New EV-ready parking requirements are also a significant change. Requiring EV-ready spaces
will help support the adoption of EV transportation options by proactively planning for the needs
of the future. Altogether, the proposed amendment should increase renewable energy sources,
including solar, and further several of the City’s climate action goals, while improved clarity and
flexibility improve understanding of the code and allow modifications where they are warranted.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports protecting and enhancing the environment and
encouraging the responsible use of our natural energy resources. To that end, the plan includes
a goal to “[c]ontinue to track, measure, and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions”. Strategies that support this goal include the following:
• Monitor community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.
• Provide public education to residents, businesses, and industry to promote water and energy
efficiency, recycling, and other resource conservation efforts.
• Identify and seek opportunities to create incentives for the private sector (including residential
and commercial sectors) to increase energy efficiency and emission reductions through
funding and building code mechanisms.
Since the plan was adopted in 2013, the City has increasingly focused on climate action. The City
adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in 2018, declared a Climate Crisis in 2019 and
adopted the Accelerating Iowa City’s Action Plan in 2020. The goal set by these plans is to reduce
carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, which the City reached in 2020, and to
achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The proposed amendments would help further these
goals by encouraging on-site renewable energy systems, electrification, and higher energy
conservation standards as discussed in the community-sourced solar feasibility study. It will also
facilitate adoption of electric vehicles throughout the community as encouraged in the City’s
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
Taken together, these planning efforts continue to demonstrate the City’s strong desire to
encourage the development of new sources of renewable energy and to create compatible
development through increased energy efficiency and electrification with the goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed amendment does this by helping to clarify code
language for solar energy systems, to reduce potential barriers to solar development, and to
incentivize sustainable practices for new development.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated
in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further
implement the City’s goals related to climate action.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
2. Iowa Solar Model Ordinance (by the Great Plains Institute)
3. Solar and Electric Vehicle Readiness Best Practice Research Tables
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted
Amend 14-2A-4C-1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in single-family residential
zones, as follows:
(9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2A-7, Special provisions for single-family residential zones, as follows:
E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the
process set forth in Title 18, “Site Plan Review”, or the building permit process where a
site plan is not required.
1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area
per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the
following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the
surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional
standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in
section 14-5A-4F-10.
Amend 14-2B-4C-1d, Exemptions from maximum height standards in multi-family residential
zones, as follows:
(9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2B-8, Special provisions for multi-family residential zones, as follows:
E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the
process set forth in Title 18, “Site Plan Review”, or the building permit process where a
site plan is not required.
1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area
per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the
following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the
surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Attachment 1
Page 2
2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional
standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in
section 14-5A-4F-10.
Amend 14-2C-4C-1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in commercial zones, as
follows:
(10)Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2C-11, Special provisions for commercial zones, as follows:
E.Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the
process set forth in Title 18, “Site Plan Review”, or the building permit process where a
site plan is not required.
1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area
per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the
following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the
surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional
standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in
section 14-5A-4F-10.
Amend 14-2D-4C-3, Exemptions from maximum height standards in industrial and research
zones, as follows:
j.Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2F-4B-2, Exemptions from maximum height standards in public zones, as follows:
i.Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways,
ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
required to operate and maintain the building.
Amend 14-2H-2C-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See Building Height in
Article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2D-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Attachment 1
Page 3
Amend 14-2H-2E-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2F-4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-2H-2G-4a, Height, Footnote 2, as follows:
Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems
shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in
article 14-9A (General Definitions).
Amend 14-3A-4D, Maximum Residential Density for Planned Development Overlay Zones, as
follows:
1.The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the
base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding
development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value
specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection
14-3A-4D-3. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum
expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project
relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements
of this title.
2.For purposes of this article, "net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and
private street rights of way. When calculating net land area, the land area devoted to alley and
private rear lane rights of way need not be subtracted from the total land area. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-
15-2005)
3.Sustainability Density Bonus: The maximum residential density that is required by
Table 3A-1 may be increased by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each
of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%).
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the
surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Table 3A-1: Maximum Residential Density
Underlying Base Zone Dwelling Units Per Acre Of Net Land Area
RR-1 1
RS-5 5
RS-8 8
RNS-12 8
RS-12 13
Attachment 1
Page 4
MU 24
CO-1 15
CN-1 24
CC-2 15
RM-12 15
RNS-20 24
RM-20 24
RM-44 43
PRM 49*
*Density bonuses are available in the PRM zone that would increase the allowed density beyond
the figure in this table.
Amend 14-4A-3A-3, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, as follows:
Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles.
Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as
rooftop solar energy systems, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are
subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this
chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the
property for residential living.
Amend 14-4A-3B-3, Residential Use Categories, Group Living Uses, as follows:
Accessory Uses: Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; shared amenity
areas, shared kitchens and dining rooms, food preparation and dining facilities; off-street parking
for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities; mechanical structures including solar
energy systems; off-street loading areas.
Amend 14-4B-1A, Minor Modifications, Applicability, as follows:
24.For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure
standards contained in section 14-4C-2N and other accessory development standards
contained in section 14-4C-3.
Amend 14-4C-2N-2, Specific Approval Criteria for Accessory Uses and Buildings, Mechanical
Structures, as follows:
a. All ground level mechanical and utility equipment, such as heat pumps, air
conditioners, emergency generators, electrical vehicle charging stations, and water pumps,
must be screened from public view to at least the S2 standard. (See chapter 5, article F,
"Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) If it is not feasible to use landscape
screening, the mechanical equipment must be screened using wall or fencing materials
complementary to the principal structure. Mechanical structures accessory to sSingle-family
uses and solar energy systems accessory to any uses are exempt from this standard.
b. In all zones except I-1 and I-2, rooftop mechanical equipment must be concealed from
public view by integrating equipment into the design of the building, screening equipment behind
building features, such as parapets, or by setting the equipment back from the edge of the roof
so that it is not visible from ground level. Solar energy systems are exempt from this
standard.
2.Setbacks:
Attachment 1
Page 5
a. Single-Family Residential Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two
feet (2') from the side and rear lot lines. However, mechanical structures may not be located
between the principal dwelling and the street.
b. All Other Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from any
lot line. Additional location standards may apply in certain zones or for certain uses.
3. Minor Modifications for Solar Energy Systems: A minor modification for solar
energy systems may be requested according to chapter 4, article B of this title.
Amend 14-5A-4F, Off Street Parking and Loading Site Development Standards, Alternatives to
Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows:
10. Sustainability Parking Reduction: The minimum parking requirement may be
reduced by ten percent (10%) where each of the following provisions promoting
sustainable development is met, up to a maximum reduction of twenty-five percent (25%).
This parking reduction will be administered through the process set forth in Title 18, “Site
Plan Review”, or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. This
reduction may be used in conjunction with the Sustainability Bonus Options specified in
sections 14-2A-7E, 14-2B-8D, 14-2C-11E, and 14-3A-4K-1d.
a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the
surface area of the roofs of all buildings.
b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%)
of their regular energy consumption after construction.
c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition
of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International
Code Council.
Amend 14-5A-5F, Standards for Structured Parking In Multi-Family and Commercial Zones, The
Eastside Mixed Use District, And The Riverfront Crossings Zones, as follows:
8. Electric Vehicle-Ready (EV-Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the
number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV-ready. An EV-ready space
must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40-ampere and
208/240-volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a
receptacle or junction box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking
space. For two adjacent EV-Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted.
Amend 14-5A-5G, Standards For Structured Parking In Industrial And Research Zones, as
follows:
3. Electric Vehicle-Ready (EV-Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the
number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV-ready. An EV-ready space
must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40-ampere and
208/240-volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a
receptacle or junction box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking
space. For two adjacent EV-Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted.
Amend 14-5A-5H, Design And Layout Of Surface Parking Areas. as follows:
5. Electric Vehicle-Ready (EV-Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the
number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV-ready. An EV-ready space
must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40-ampere and
208/240-volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a
receptacle or junction box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking
space. For two adjacent EV-Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted.
Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows:
Attachment 1
Page 6
BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or
protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings.
MECHANICAL STRUCTURES. A mechanical structure is an accessory use which includes
any equipment that is powered by electricity, gas, or other similar method. This may
include plumbing, electrical, or other similar utility equipment that serves a property.
Mechanical structures may be located on the ground level, attached to a structure, or on
the rooftop level. Examples include, heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators,
water pumps, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, and solar energy systems.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose
of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar
energy. Rooftop solar energy systems are considered accessory mechanical structures.
Utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems are considered a principal institutional
use. See the definition for utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy system for additional
information.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, UTILITY-SCALE GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY
SYSTEM: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof
mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility-scale ground-mounted solar
energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Ground-
mounted energy systems with a footprint of less than 1 acre in size must be accessory to
another principal use as an accessory mechanical structure.
Amend 15-3-6, Land Subdivisions, Energy and Communications Distribution Systems Design
Standards and Required Improvements, as follows:
D. In subdivisions approved after [effective date of this ordinance], no restrictive
covenant shall be adopted or enforced against properties within said subdivision that
attempt to impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors, as defined by
Iowa Code Chapter 564A.
Last Updated August 2020
Iowa Solar Model
Ordinance
Prepared by Great Plains Institute with support from Sunshot and the Energy Foundation
Photo by Katharine Chute
Attachment 2
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 2
Model Solar Ordinance – Iowa
Introduction
Iowa’s solar energy resources are high quality and cost effective – as
good as many states to the south and consistently available across the
entire state. As solar energy system components have become more
efficient and less costly, an increasing number of solar energy systems
have been installed in Iowa. Market opportunities for solar development
have dramatically increased in Iowa over the last five years, such that
communities must now address solar installations as land use and
development issues. Solar energy components continue to improve in
efficiency and decline in price; large-scale solar energy is expected to
become the least expensive form of electric energy generation within a few
years, surpassing wind energy and natural gas in levelized cost of energy.
But solar energy is much more than just low-cost energy generation.
Households and businesses seeking to reduce their carbon footprint see
solar energy as a strong complement to energy efficiency. Agricultural producers see solar energy as an economic
hedge against price volatility in commodity crops. Utilities see solar’s declining cost, high reliability, and free
fuel as a means to put downward pressure on electric rates. Corporate, institutional, and municipal buyers are
actively acquiring carbon-free solar generation to meet climate and clean energy goals. And innovative solar site
designs are capturing habitat and water quality co-benefits by using solar with habitat-friendly ground cover to
restore eco-system functions.
Solar Energy Issues
Local governments in Iowa are seeing increasing interest by property owners in solar energy installations and
are having to address a variety of solar land uses in their development regulation. Given the continuing cost
reductions and growing value of clean energy, solar development will increasingly be a local development
opportunity, from the rooftop to the large-scale solar farm. Three primary issues tie solar energy to development
regulations:
1. Land use conflicts and synergies. Solar energy systems have few nuisances. But solar development
can compete for land with other development options, and visual impacts and perceived safety
concerns sometimes create opposition to solar installations. Good design and attention to aesthetics
can address most concerns for rooftop or accessory use systems. Good siting and site design
standards for large- and community-scale solar can similarly resolve conflicts and create co-benefits
from solar development, such as restoring habitat, diversifying agricultural businesses, and improving
surface and ground waters.
2. Protecting access to solar resources. Solar resources are a valuable component of property
ownership. Development regulations can inadvertently limit a property owner’s ability to access their
solar resource. Communities should consider how to protect and develop solar resources in zoning,
subdivision, and other development regulations or standards.
3. Encouraging appropriate solar development. Local government can go beyond simply removing
regulatory barriers and encourage solar development that provides economic development, climate
protection, and natural resources co-benefits. Local governments have a variety of tools to encourage
appropriately sited and designed solar development to meet local goals.
Model Solar Energy Standards
This ordinance is based on the model
solar energy ordinance originally
created for Solar Minnesota, under a
Million Solar Roofs grant from the U. S.
Department of Energy and updated for
the three-state Grow Solar initiative,
funded by Rooftop Solar Challenge Phase
2. It has been substantially updated
several times to address additional issues
and opportunities for Iowa communities
and the evolving solar industry, last
updated May 2020
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 3
Components of a Solar Standards Ordinance
Solar energy standards should:
1. Create an as-of-right solar installation path for property-owners. Create a clear regulatory path (an
as-of-right installation) to solar development for accessory uses and - if appropriate - for principal
uses such as large-scale solar and ground-mounted community shared solar installations.
2. Enable principal solar uses. Define where community- and large-solar energy land uses are
appropriate as a principal or primary use, set development standards and procedures to guide
development, and capture co-benefit opportunities for water quality, habitat, agriculture.
3. Limit regulatory barriers to developing solar resources. Ensure that access to solar resources is
not unduly limited by height, setback, or coverage standards, recognizing the distinct design and
function of solar technologies and land uses for both accessory and principal uses.
4. Define appropriate aesthetic standards. Retain an as-of-right installation pathway for accessory
uses while balancing design concerns in urban neighborhoods and historic districts. Set reasonable
aesthetic standards for solar principal uses that are consistent with other principal uses that have
visual impacts.
5. Address cross-property solar access issues. Consider options for protecting access across property
lines in the subdivision process and in zoning districts that allow taller buildings on smaller (urban
density) lots.
6. Promote “solar-ready” design. Every building that has a solar resource should be built to seamlessly
use it. Encourage builders to use solar-ready subdivision and building design.
7. Include solar in regulatory incentives. Encourage desired solar development by including it in
regulatory incentives; density bonuses, parking standards, flexible zoning standards, financing/
grant programs, promotional efforts.
Different Community Types and Settings
The model ordinance language addresses land use concerns for both
urban and rural areas, and thus not all the provisions may be appropriate
for every community. Issues of solar access and nuisances associated
with small or accessory use solar energy systems are of less consequence
in rural areas, where lot sizes are almost always greater than one acre.
Large-scale and community- scale solar (principal solar land uses) are
much more likely to be proposed in rural areas rather than developed
cities. However, urban areas should consider where community- or
large-scale solar can add value to the community and enable economic
development of a valuable local resource. Rural communities should
address rooftop and accessory ground-mounted development, although
the standards used in this model are designed more for the urban circumstances.
This ordinance includes language addressing solar energy as an accessory use to the principal residential or
commercial use in an urban area and language for principal solar uses more typically seen in rural communities.
Communities should address both types of solar development.
Solar development is not one thing
Communities would not apply the same
development and land use standards
to an industrial facility and a single
family home, merely because both are
buildings. Community and large-scale
solar development is a completely
different land use than rooftop or
backyard solar. Standards that are
appropriate for large-scale solar may
well be wholly inappropriate for rooftop
solar and may unnecessarily restrict or
stymie solar development opportunities
of homes and business owners.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 4
Model Ordinance
I. Scope — This article applies to all solar energy installations in Model Community.
II. Purpose — Model Community has adopted this regulation for the following purposes:
A. Comprehensive Plan Goals — To meet the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health, safety and
welfare of the community by promoting the safe, effective
and efficient use of solar energy systems. The solar energy
standards specifically implement the following goals from the
Comprehensive Plan:
1. Goal – Encourage the use of local renewable energy
resources, including appropriate applications for wind,
solar, and biomass energy.
2. Goal – Promote sustainable building design and
management practices to serve current and future
generations.
3. Goal – Assist local businesses to lower financial and
regulatory risks and improve their economic, community,
and environmental sustainability.
4. Goal – Efficiently invest in and manage public infrastructure
systems to support development and growth.
B. Climate Change Goals — As a signatory of the Cool Cities
program, Model Community has committed to reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Solar energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and its conversion to
electricity or heat reduces dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decreases the air and
water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources.
C. Iowa Smart Planning – Iowa Smart Planning principles must be considered when local governments
make planning, zoning, development, and resource management decisions. Model Community has
adopted Principle 3 – Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy – to encourage the promotion of clean
energy use through increased access to renewable energy resources.
D. Infrastructure — Distributed solar photovoltaic systems will enhance the reliability and power quality of
the power grid and make more efficient use of Model Community’s electric distribution infrastructure.
E. Local Resource — Solar energy is an underused local energy resource and encouraging the use of
solar energy will diversify the community’s energy supply portfolio and reduce exposure to fiscal risks
associated with fossil fuels.
F. Improve Competitive Markets — Solar energy systems offer additional energy choice to consumers and
will improve competition in the electricity and natural gas supply market.
Comprehensive Plan Goals
Tying the solar energy ordinance to
Comprehensive Plan goals is particularly
important for helping users (both Planning
Commission and community members)
understand why the community is developing
and administering regulation.
The language here provides examples of
different types of Comprehensive Plan goals,
and other policy goals that the community
may have that are served by enabling
and encouraging solar development. The
community should substitute its policy goals
for these examples.
The Comprehensive Plan may not
include goals that are enhanced by solar
development, (such as climate protection
or local resource economic goals). The
community should consider creating a local
energy plan or similar policy document
to provide a policy foundation for solar
development regulation.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 5
III. Definitions
Agrivoltaics – A solar energy system co-located on the same
parcel of land as agricultural production, including crop
production, grazing, apiaries, or other agricultural products or
services.
Building-integrated Solar Energy Systems – A solar energy
system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory
building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing
or substituting for an architectural or structural component of
the building. Building-integrated systems include but are not
limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that
are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and
awnings.
Community-Scale Solar Energy System – A commercial solar energy system that converts sunlight into
electricity for the primary purpose of serving electric demands off-site from the facility, either retail or
wholesale. Community-scale systems are principal uses and projects typically cover less than 20 acres.
Community Solar Garden – A solar energy system that provides retail electric power (or a financial
proxy for retail power) to multiple community members or
businesses residing or located off-site from the location of the
solar energy system. Also referred to as shared solar.
Grid-intertie Solar Energy System — A photovoltaic solar
energy system that is connected to an electric circuit served by
an electric utility company.
Ground-mounted – a solar energy system mounted on a rack or
pole that rests or is attached to the ground. Ground-mounted
systems can be either accessory or principal uses.
Large-Scale Solar Energy System – A commercial solar energy
system that converts sunlight into electricity for the primary
purpose of wholesale sales of generated electricity. A large-
scale solar energy system will have a project size greater than 20 acres and is the principal land use for
the parcel(s) on which it is located.
Off-grid Solar Energy System — A photovoltaic solar energy system in which the circuits energized by the
solar energy system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served by an
electric utility company.
Passive Solar Energy System — A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without
transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger.
Photovoltaic System – A solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity.
Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement — An easement that limits the height or location,
or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or vegetation, or both,
for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight passing over the burdened
land.
Differentiating Solar Uses by Size
Community-scale and Large-scale systems
are defined here as occupying less than 20
acres and greater than 20 acres respectively.
Some communities will use a lower number
(ten acres) and some a higher number (up
to 50 acres). An ex-urban city would use a
lower number and a rural county could use a
higher number. Community-scale is generally
a size that can fit into the land use fabric of
the community without assembly of separate
parcels. Some communities have chosen not
to distinguish between community- and large-
scale, but use a single large-scale designation.
Solar Definitions
Not all these terms are used in this model
ordinance, nor is this a complete list of solar
definitions. As a community develops its own
development standards for solar technology,
many of the concepts defined here may be
helpful in meeting local goals. For instance,
solar daylighting devices may change the
exterior appearance of the building, and
the community may choose to distinguish
between these devices and other architectural
changes.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 6
Roof-mount – a solar energy system mounted on a rack that is fastened to or ballasted on a structure
roof. Roof-mount systems are accessory to the principal use.
Roof Pitch — The final exterior slope of a roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically but not
exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12.
Solar Access —Unobstructed access to direct sunlight on a lot or building through the entire year,
including access across adjacent parcel air rights, for the purpose of capturing direct sunlight to operate a
solar energy system.
Solar Carport – A solar energy system of any size that is installed on a carport structure that is accessory
to a parking area, and which may include electric vehicle supply equipment or energy storage facilities.
Solar Collector — A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose is to
transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy. The collector does
not include frames, supports, or mounting hardware.
Solar Daylighting – Capturing and directing the visible light spectrum for use in illuminating interior
building spaces in lieu of artificial lighting, usually by adding a device or design element to the building
envelope.
Solar Energy — Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by
a solar collector.
Solar Energy System — A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to
provide for generation or storage of electricity from sunlight, or the collection, storage and distribution of
solar energy for space heating or cooling, daylight for interior lighting, or water heating.
Solar Hot Air System — (also referred to as Solar Air Heat or Solar Furnace) – A solar energy system that
includes a solar collector to provide direct supplemental space heating by heating and re-circulating
conditioned building air. The most efficient performance includes a solar collector to preheat air or
supplement building space heating, typically using a vertically
mounted collector on a south-facing wall.
Solar Hot Water System — A system that includes a solar
collector and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for
building heating systems or other hot water needs, including
residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial
processes.
Solar Mounting Devices — Racking, frames, or other devices
that allow the mounting of a solar collector onto a roof surface
or the ground.
Solar Resource — The design and construction of a building that
facilitates and makes feasible the installation of rooftop solar.
Solar Resource — A view of the sun from a specific point on a
lot or building that is not obscured by any vegetation, building,
or object for a minimum of four hours between the hours of
9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Standard time on all days of the year, and
can be measured in annual watts per square meter.
Solar Resource
Understanding what defines a “solar
resource” is foundational to how land use
regulation affects solar development. Solar
energy resources are not simply where
sunlight falls. A solar resource has minimum
spatial and temporal characteristics, and
needs to be considered not only today but
also into the future. Solar energy systems are
economic only if the annual solar resource
(measured in annual watts per square meter)
are sufficiently high to justify the cost of
installation. The resource is affected by the
amount of annual shading, orientation of the
panel, and typical atmospheric conditions.
Solar resources on a particular site can be
mapped and quantified, similar to quantifying
other site resources that enhance property
value; mineral resources, prime soils for
agriculture, water, timber, habitat.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 7
IV. Permitted Accessory Use — Solar energy systems are a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts
where structures of any sort are allowed, subject to certain requirements as set forth below. Solar carports
and associated electric vehicle charging equipment are a permitted accessory use on surface parking lots
in all districts regardless of the existence of another building. Solar energy systems that do not meet the
following design standards will require a conditional use permit.
A. Height – Solar energy systems must meet the following height requirements:
1. Building- or roof- mounted solar energy systems shall
not exceed the maximum allowed height in any zoning
district. For purposes for height measurement, solar energy
systems other than building-integrated systems shall
be given an equivalent exception to height standards as
building-mounted mechanical devices or equipment.
2. Ground- or pole-mounted solar energy systems shall not
exceed 15 feet in height when oriented at maximum tilt.
3. Solar carports in non-residential districts shall not exceed
20 feet in height.
B. Setback — Solar energy systems must meet the accessory
structure setback for the zoning district and principal land use
associated with the lot on which the system is located, except
as allowed below.
1. Roof- or Building-mounted Solar Energy Systems - The
collector surface and mounting devices for roof-mounted
solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the exterior
perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted
or built, unless the collector and mounting system has been
explicitly engineered to safely extend beyond the edge, and
setback standards are not violated. Exterior piping for solar
hot water systems shall be allowed to extend beyond the
perimeter of the building on a side-yard exposure. Solar
collectors mounted on the sides of buildings and serving as
awnings are considered to be building-integrated systems
and are regulated as awnings.
2. Ground-mounted Solar Energy Systems — Ground-
mounted solar energy systems may not extend into the
side-yard or rear setback when oriented at minimum
design tilt, except as otherwise allowed for building
mechanical systems.
C. Visibility – Solar energy systems in residential districts shall be
designed to minimize visual impacts from the public right-of-
way, as described in C.1-3, to the extent that doing so does not
affect the cost or efficacy of the system. Visibility standards do not apply to systems in non-residential
districts, except for historic building or district review as described in E. below.
1. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems — Building integrated photovoltaic solar energy systems
shall be allowed regardless of whether the system is visible from the public right-of-way, provided
the building component in which the system is integrated meets all required setback, land use or
performance standards for the district in which the building is located.
Height - Rooftop System
This ordinance notes exceptions to the height
standard when other exceptions for rooftop
equipment are granted in the ordinance.
Communities should directly reference the
exception language rather than use the
placeholder language here.
Height - Ground or Pole Mounted System
This ordinance sets a 15-foot height limit,
which is typical for residential accessory uses.
Some communities allow solar to be higher
than other accessory uses in order to enable
capture of the lot’s solar resource when
lots and buildings are closer together. An
alternative is to balance height with setback,
allowing taller systems if set back farther– for
instance, an extra foot of height for every
extra two feet of setback. In rural (or large
lot) areas, solar resources are unlikely to be
constrained by trees or buildings on adjacent
lots and the lot is likely to have adequate solar
resource for a lower (10-15 foot) ground-
mount application.
Visibility and Aesthetics
Aesthetic regulation should be tied to design
principles rather than targeted at a specific
land use. If the community already regulates
aesthetics in residential districts, this model
language provides guidance for balancing
between interests of property owners who
want to use their on-site solar resources and
neighbors concerned with neighborhood
character. Substantial evidence demonstrates
that solar installations have no effect on
property values of adjacent properties. But
where aesthetic regulation is used to protect
community character, these standards provide
balance between competing goals.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 8
2. Aesthetic restrictions — Roof- or ground-mounted solar
energy systems shall not be restricted for aesthetic reasons
if the system is not visible from the closest edge of any
public right-of-way other than an alley, or if the system
meets the following standards.
a. Roof-mounted systems on pitched roofs that are visible
from the nearest edge of the front right-of-way shall have
the same finished pitch as the roof and be no more than
ten inches above the roof.
b. Roof-mount systems on flat roofs that are visible from
the nearest edge of the front right-of-way shall not be more
than five feet above the finished roof and are exempt from
any rooftop equipment or mechanical system screening.
3. Reflectors — All solar energy systems using a reflector to
enhance solar production shall minimize glare from the
reflector affecting adjacent or nearby properties.
D. Lot Coverage –Ground-mounted systems total collector area
shall not exceed half the building footprint of the principal
structure.
1. Ground-mounted systems shall be exempt from lot
coverage or impervious surface standards if the soil
under the collector is maintained in vegetation and not
compacted.
2. Ground-mounted systems shall not count toward accessory
structure limitations.
3. Solar carports in non-residential districts are exempt from
lot coverage limitations.
E. Historic Buildings — Solar energy systems on buildings within
designated historic districts or on locally designated historic
buildings (exclusive of State or Federal historic designation)
must receive approval of the community Heritage Preservation
Commission, consistent with the standards for solar energy
systems on historically designated buildings published by the
U.S. Department of Interior.
F. Plan Approval Required — All solar energy systems requiring a
building permit or other permit from Model Community shall
provide a site plan for review.
1. Plan Applications — Plan applications for solar energy
systems shall be accompanied by to-scale horizontal and
vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the
location of the system on the building or on the property
for a ground-mounted system, including the property lines.
Roof-Mounted Solar Energy Systems
This ordinance sets a threshold for pitched
roof installations that they not be steeper
than the finished roof pitch. Mounted
systems steeper than the finished roof pitch
change the appearance of the roof, and
create additional considerations in regard
to the wind and drift load on structural roof
components. If the aesthetic impacts are not
a concern to the community, the structural
issues can be addressed in the building permit,
as described in this Toolkit.
Reflectors
Unlike a solar collector, reflector systems
do create a potential glare nuisance. While
reflector systems are unusual, communities
may want to include this reference as a
precaution.
Impervious Surface Coverage
Rather than consider the solar panel for a
ground-mount system as a roof, this provision
recognizes that the ground under the panel
can mitigate stormwater risks if it is kept in
vegetation so that rain water can infiltrate.
Any effects are deminimus for a small array if
the lot is otherwise within coverage ratios.
Roof Coverage
National Fire Code standards recommend
keeping solar arrays well away from roof
edges and peak in order to enable some fire
fighting access. Different fire departments
have addressed this in different ways.
Recommendations for solar friendly
permitting that accommodate Fire Code
recommendations can be found in the Solar
America Board of Codes and Standards.
Plan Approval
This process is generally part of the process
for obtaining a building permit. If the
community does not issue building permits,
it can be tied to a land use permit instead.
For rural areas or cities without standards for
rooftop systems, the plan approval section
may be eliminated.
Building Integrated PV
Building integrated solar energy systems can
include solar energy systems built into roofing
(existing technology includes both solar
shingles and solar roofing tiles), into awnings,
skylights, and walls.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 9
2. Plan Approvals — Applications that meet the design requirements of this ordinance shall be granted
administrative approval by the zoning official and shall not require Planning Commission review. Plan
approval does not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric Code.
G. Approved Solar Components — Electric solar energy system components must have a UL or equivalent
listing and solar hot water systems must have an SRCC rating.
H. Compliance with Building Code — All solar energy systems shall meet approval of local building code
officials, consistent with the State of Iowa Building Code, and solar thermal systems shall comply with
HVAC-related requirements of the Energy Code.
I. Compliance with State Electric Code — All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the Iowa State
Electric Code.
J. Compliance with State Plumbing Code — Solar thermal systems shall comply with applicable Iowa State
Plumbing Code requirements.
K. Utility Notification — All grid-intertie solar energy systems shall comply with the interconnection
requirements of the electric utility. Off-grid systems are exempt from this requirement.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 10
V. Principal Uses – Model Community encourages the
development of commercial or utility scale solar energy systems
where such systems present few land use conflicts with current
and future development patterns. Ground-mounted solar energy
systems that are the principal use on the development lot or lots
are conditional uses in selected districts.
A. Principal Use General Standards
1. Site Design
a. Setbacks – Community- and large-scale solar arrays must
meet the following setbacks;
1. Property line setback for buildings or structures in
the district in which the system is located, except as
other determined in 1.a.5 below.
2. Roadway setback of 150 feet from the ROW
centerline of State highways and CSAHs, 100 feet for
other roads, except as other determined in 1.a.5 below.
3. Housing unit setback of 150 feet from any existing
dwelling unit, except as other determined in 1.a.5
below.
4. Setback distance should be measured from the edge
of the solar energy system array, excluding security
fencing, screening, or berm.
5. All setbacks can be reduced by 50% if the array is
fully screened from the setback point of measurement.
b. Screening – Community- and large-scale solar shall be
screened from existing residential dwellings.
1. A screening plan shall be submitted that identifies
the type and extent of screening.
2. Screening shall be consistent with Model
Community’s screening ordinance or standards
typically applied for other land uses requiring
screening.
3. Screening shall not be required along property lines
within the same zoning district, except where the
adjoining lot has an existing residential use.
4. Model Community may require screening where it determines there is a clear community
interest in maintaining a viewshed.
Screening
The community should consider limiting
screening of community- or large-scale solar
to where there is a visual impact from an
existing use, such as adjacent residential
districts or uses. Solar energy systems may
not need to be screened from adjacent lots
if those lots are in agricultural use, are non-
residential, or have low-intensity commercial
use.
Community-Scale Solar or Solar Gardens
Community solar systems differ from rooftop
or solar farm installations primarily in
regards to system ownership and disposition
of the electricity generated, rather than
land use considerations. There is, however,
a somewhat greater community interest
in community solar, and thus communities
should consider creating a separate land use
category.
This language limits the size of the garden to
ten acres, which is an installation of no more
than one MW of solar capacity. Communities
should tailor this size limit to community
standards, which may be smaller or larger.
Appropriate Setbacks
The community should consider balancing
Setback requirements and screening
requirements for principal use solar. Since the
primary impact to neighbors of large-scale
solar is visual, screening becomes less useful,
as the setbacks get larger (and vice versa).
The setback distances provided here are
general examples that should be modified to
be consistent with other setbacks already in
the ordinance. Excessive setbacks that are
unique to solar land uses, or that are similar
to high nuisance land uses such as industrial
uses or animal agriculture, are unjustified
given the low level of risk or nuisance posed
by the system.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 11
c. Ground cover and buffer areas – the following provisions shall apply to the clearing of existing
vegetation and establishment of vegetated ground cover. Additional site-specific conditions may
apply as required by Model Community.
1. Large-scale removal of mature trees on the site is
discouraged. Model Community may set additional
restrictions on tree clearing or require mitigation for
cleared trees.
2. The applicant shall submit a vegetative management
plan prepared by a qualified professional or reviewed
and approved by a natural resource agency or
authority, such as the Natural Resources Conservation
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture,
the XXXXX County Soil and Water Conservation
District, the XXXXX County Conservation Board, Iowa
State University Extension and Outreach, the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, and the Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. The
plan shall identify:
a. The natural resource professionals consulted or
responsible for the plan
b. The conservation, habitat, eco-system, or agricultural goals, which may include: providing
habitat for pollinators such as bees and monarch butterflies, providing habitat for wildlife
such as upland nesting birds and other wildlife, establishing vegetation for livestock grazing,
reducing on-site soil erosion, and improving or protecting surface or ground water quality.
c. the intended mix of vegetation upon establishment
d. the management methods and schedules for how the vegetation will be managed on an
annual basis, with particular attention given to the establishment period of approximately
three years.
3. Soils shall be planted and maintained in perennial vegetation for the full operational life of the
project, to prevent erosion, manage run off and build soil.
4. Vegetative cover should include a mix of perennial grasses and wildflowers that will
preferably result in a short stature prairie with a diversity of forbs or flowering plants that bloom
throughout the growing season. Blooming shrubs may be used in buffer areas as appropriate
for visual screening. Perennial vegetation (grasses and forbs) are preferably native to Iowa, but
where appropriate to the vegetative management plan goals, may also include other naturalized
and non-invasive species which provide habitat for pollinators and wildlife and/or other
ecosystem services (i.e. clovers).
5. Plant material must not have been treated with systemic insecticides, particularly
neonicontinoids.
d. Foundations —A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar
panel racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate
conditions.
Stormwater and Water Quality Standards
Perennial grasses and wildflowers planted
under the panels, between arrays, and in
setback or buffer areas will substantially
mitigate the stormwater risks associated with
solar arrays and result in less runoff than
typically seen from many types of agriculture.
Establishing and maintaining perennial
ground cover can have important co-benefits
to the community or the property owner. The
ground cover standards in Section A.3. will
mitigate many stormwater risks, although
soil type and slope can still affect the need for
additional stormwater mitigation.
Solar with native or perennial ground cover
can provide multiple water quality benefits
when converting from most agricultural crop
uses. Both groundwater (limiting nitrate
contamination) and surface waters (reducing
phosphorus and sediment loading) can benefit
if the system is appropriately designed.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 12
e. Power and communication lines — Power and communication lines running between banks of
solar panels and to nearby electric substations or interconnections with buildings shall be buried
underground. Exemptions may be granted by Model Community in instances where shallow
bedrock, water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury
lines, or distance makes undergrounding infeasible, at the discretion of the zoning administrator.
f. Fencing — Perimeter fencing for the site shall not include barbed wire or woven wire designs,
and shall preferably use wildlife-friendly fencing standards that include clearance at the bottom.
Alternative fencing can be used if the site is incorporating agrivoltaics.
2. Stormwater and NPDES — Solar farms are subject to Model Community’s stormwater management
and erosion and sediment control provisions and NPDES permit requirements. Solar collectors shall
not be considered impervious surfaces if the project complies with ground cover standards, as
described in A.1.c. of this ordinance.
3. Other standards and codes — All solar farms shall be in compliance with all applicable local, state
and federal regulatory codes, including the State of Iowa Uniform Building Code, as amended; and
the National Electric Code, as amended.
4. Site Plan Required – The applicant shall submit a
detailed site plan for both existing and proposed
conditions, showing locations of all solar arrays, other
structures, property lines, rights-of-way, service roads,
floodplains, wetlands and other protected natural
resources, topography, electric equipment, and all other
characteristics requested by Model Community. The site
plan should show all zoning districts and overlay districts.
5. Aviation Protection — For solar farms located within 500
feet of an airport or within approach zones of an airport,
the applicant must complete and provide the results of a
glare analysis through a qualitative analysis of potential
impact, field test demonstration, or geometric analysis of
ocular impact in consultation with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Office of Airports, consistent with
the Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy Projects
on Federally Obligated Airports, or most recent version
adopted by the FAA.
6. Agricultural Protection — Solar farms must comply with
site assessment or soil identification standards that are
intended to identify agricultural soils. Model Community
may require mitigation for use of prime soils for solar array
placement, including the following:
a. Demonstrating co-location of agricultural uses
(agrivoltaics) on the project site.
b. Using an interim use or time-limited CUP that allows the
site to be returned to agriculture at the end of life of the solar installation.
c. Placing agricultural conservation easements on an equivalent number of prime soil acres adjacent
to or surrounding the project site.
d. Locating the project in a wellhead protection area for the purpose or removing agricultural uses
from high risk recharge areas.
Site Plan
Solar farm developers should provide a
site plan similar to that required by the
community for any other development. Refer
to your existing ordinance to guide site plan
submittal requirements.
Aviation Standards, Glare
This standard was developed for the FAA
for solar installations on airport grounds. It
can also be used for solar farm and garden
development in areas adjacent to airports.
This standard is not appropriate for areas
where reflected light is not a safety concern.
Agricultural Protection
If the community has ordinances that protect
agricultural soils, this provision applies
those same standards to solar development.
Communities should understand, however,
that solar farms do not pose the same level or
type of risk to agricultural practices as does
housing or commercial development. Solar
farms can be considered an interim use that
can be easily turned back to agriculture at the
end of the solar farm’s life (usually 25 years.)
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 13
7. Decommissioning — A decommissioning plan shall be required to ensure that facilities are properly
removed after their useful life.
a. Decommissioning of the system must occur in the event the project is not in use for 12
consecutive months.
b. The plan shall include provisions for removal of all structures and foundations, restoration of soil
and vegetation and assurances that financial resources will be available to fully decommission the
site.
c. Disposal of structures and/or foundations shall meet the provisions of the Model Community Solid
Waste Ordinance.
d. Model Community may require the posting of a bond, letter of credit or the establishment of an
escrow account to ensure proper decommissioning.
B. Community-Scale Solar – Model Community permits the
development of community-scale solar, subject to the following
standards and requirements:
1. Rooftop gardens permitted – Rooftop community systems
are permitted in all districts where buildings are permitted.
2. Community-scale uses – Ground-mounted community
solar energy systems must cover no more than ten acres
(project boundaries), and are a permitted use in industrial
and agricultural districts, and permitted with standards or
conditional in all other non-residential districts. Ground-
mounted solar developments covering more than ten acres
shall be considered large-scale solar.
3. Dimensional standards – All structures must comply with
setback and height, standards for the district in which the
system is located.
4. Other standards – Ground-mounted systems must comply
with all required standards for structures in the district in
which the system is located.
C. Large-Scale Solar – Ground-mounted solar energy arrays
that are the principal use on the lot, designed for providing
energy to off-site uses or export to the wholesale market, are
permitted under the following standards:
1. Conditional use permit – Solar farms are conditional uses
in agricultural districts, industrial districts, shoreland and
floodplain overlay districts, airport safety zones subject
to A.1.5 of this ordinance, and in the landfill/brownfield
overlay district for sites that have completed remediation.
Defining Community-Scale Solar
The acreage size for community-scale solar
garden written here (10 acres) is the high end
of project size for a one megawatt system,
but community-scale could be defined as
high as 10 megawatts (100 acre project size).
Community-scale solar is the size that can fit
in to the landscape.
Drinking Water Protection
In identifying preferred areas or districts
for solar principal uses, the community
should consider co-benefits of solar
energy development. One such potential
co-benefit is protection of drinking water
supplies. Solar energy development may be
intentionally sited within vulnerable portions
of public water supply systems as a best
management practice to restore and protect
perennial groundcover that reduces nitrate
contamination of ground water supplies.
Large-Scale Solar Conditional Uses
Large -scale solar should require a conditional
use or interim use permit in order for the
community to consider the site-specific
conditions. The districts listed here are
examples. Each community needs to consider
where large scale solar is suitable in the
context of its zoning districts and priorities.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 14
Example Use Table
Use Type Residential Mixed
Use Business Industrial Agricultural,
Rural, Landfill Shoreland Floodplain
Special
(Conserva-
tion, Histor-
ic Districts)
Large-scale
solar
C C C C C
Communi-
ty-scale solar
C C C P P PS PS PS
Accessory use
ground-mount-
ed solar
P P P P P P C C
Rooftop solar P P P P P P P PS
P = Permitted
PS = Permitted Special (additional separate permit or review)
C = Conditional
Blank Cell = Prohibited
Solar as a Land Use
The above use table shows four types of solar development that are distinct types of land uses (two kinds of accessory uses, two
principal uses), and a group of districts or overlays that are commonly used in Iowa.
• Rooftop system are permitted in all districts where buildings are permitted, with recognition that historic districts will have special
standards or permits separate from the zoning permits.
• Accessory use ground-mount are conditional where potentially in conflict with the primary district or overlay goal.
• Community-scale solar principal uses are conditional where land use conflicts or opportunity conflicts are high, permitted where a
10 acre development can be integrated into the landscape, and requiring special consideration in shoreland and floodplain overlay
districts.
• Large-scale is prohibited in higher density districts and conditional in all other districts.
Both community- and large-scale solar is allowed in shoreland and floodplain overlay districts, because the site design standards
requiring beneficial habitat ground cover not only ensure a low-impact development but in most cases result in a restoration of eco-
system services from the previous (usually agricultural) use.
VI. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems Limited – As of (adoption date for this ordinance) new
homeowners’ agreements, covenant, common interest community standards, or other contract between
multiple property owners within a subdivision of Model Community shall not restrict or limit solar energy
systems to a greater extent than Model Community’ solar energy standards.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 15
VII. Solar Access — Model Community encourages protection of
solar access in all new subdivisions and allows for solar resources
to be protected consistent with Iowa Statutes.
A. Solar Easements Allowed — Model Community allows solar
easements to be filed, consistent with Iowa State Code
564A7. Any property owner can purchase an easement across
neighboring properties to protect access to sunlight. The
easement can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures
that would diminish solar access. In situations where the
easements are not voluntarily agreed to, the solar access
regulatory board may determine whether or not granting an easement is appropriate, consistent with
Iowa Statutes 564A.3.
B. Easements within Subdivision Process — Model Community requires new subdivisions to identify
and create solar easements when solar energy systems are implemented as a condition of a PUD,
subdivision, conditional use, or other permit, as specified in Section 8 of this ordinance.
Iowa Statutes 564A.7 SOLAR ACCESS EASEMENTS.
1. Persons, including public bodies, may voluntarily agree to create a solar access easement. A solar access easement whether
obtained voluntarily or pursuant to the order of a solar access regulatory board is subject to the same recording and conveyance
requirements as other easements.
2. A solar access easement shall be created in writing and shall include the following:
a. The legal description of the dominant and servient estates.
b. A legal description of the space which must remain unobstructed expressed in terms of the degrees of the vertical and horizontal
angles through which the solar access easement extends over the burdened property and the points from which these angles are
measured.
3. In addition to the items required in subsection 2 the solar access easement may include, but the contents are not limited to, the
following:
a. Any limitations on the growth of existing and future vegetation or the height of buildings or other potential obstructions of the
solar collector.
b. Terms or conditions under which the solar access easement may be abandoned or terminated.
c. Provisions for compensating the owner of the property benefiting from the solar access easement in the event of interference with
the enjoyment of the solar access easement, or for compensating the owner of the property subject to the solar access easement for
maintaining that easement.
Homeowner Installation Rights Protected
“City councils and county boards of
supervisors may include in ordinances relating
to subdivisions a provision prohibiting deeds
for property located in new subdivisions from
containing restrictive covenants that include
unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar
collectors.”
Source: Iowa Statutes, 564A.8
Covenants and HOA Design Standards
One of the most common barriers to solar energy in developing areas are restrictive covenants in new subdivisions. The covenants are
intended to maintain the appearance of homes, property values, and saleability. If, however, the local government provides solar design
standards that protect against poor design of solar accessory uses, it is reasonable to limit the developer or homeowner’s association
from creating unwarranted restrictions on a sustainable source of energy. Iowa law (noted above) allows communities to protect
individual home owners’ solar development rights from restrictive covenants in new subdivisions. Some language is provided here,
but the language should be included in the subdivision ordinance, consistent with state law. Communities should, for clarity, ensure
that covenants requiring design review of improvements (even though the design review covenant does not mention solar) must make
reasonable provisions for allowing solar development by homeowners.
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 16
VIII. Renewable Energy Condition for Certain Permits
A. Condition for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval
— Model Community may require on-site renewable energy
systems, zero-net-energy (ZNE) or zero-net-carbon (ZNC)
building designs, solar-synchronized electric vehicle charging
or other clean energy systems as a condition for approval of a
PUD permit to mitigate for:
1. Impacts on the performance of the electric distribution
system,
2. Increased local emissions of greenhouse gases associated
with the proposal,
3. Need for electric vehicle charging infrastructure to offset
transportation-related emissions for trips generated by the
new development,
4. Other impacts of the proposed development that are
inconsistent with the Model Community Comprehensive
Plan.
B. Condition for Conditional Use Permit – Model Community may
require on-site renewable energy systems or zero net energy
construction as a condition for a rezoning or a conditional use
permit.
IX. Solar Roof Incentives — Model Community encourages
incorporating on-site renewable energy system or zero net energy
construction for new construction and redevelopment. Model
Community may require on-site renewable energy or zero-net-
energy construction when issuing a conditional use permit where
the project has access to local energy resources, in order to ensure
consistency with Model Community’s Climate Action Plan.
A. Density Bonus — Any application for subdivision of land in
the ___ Districts that will allow the development of at least
four new lots of record shall be allowed to increase the
maximum number of lots by 10% or one lot, whichever is
greater, provided all building and wastewater setbacks can
be met with the increased density, if the applicant enters
into a development agreement guaranteeing at least three
(3) kilowatts of PV for each new residence that has a solar
resource.
Renewable Energy Conditions, Incentives
The community can use traditional
development tools such as conditional use
permits, PUDs, or other discretionary permits
to encourage private investment in solar
energy systems as part of new development
or redevelopment. This model ordinance
notes these opportunities for consideration by
local governments. In most cases, additional
ordinance language would need to be tailored
to the community’s ordinances.
For instance, a provision that PUDs (or
other special district or flexible design
standard) incorporate solar energy should
be incorporated into the community’s PUD
ordinance rather than being a provision of the
solar standards.
Conditional use permits generally include
conditions, and those conditions can include
renewable energy or zero net energy
design, but only if the conditions are clearly
given preference in adopted policy or plans
providing the Board of adjustment with clear
guidance for approving the conditions. Explicit
reference to climate or energy independence
goals in the ordinance and explicit preference
for such conditions will set a foundation for
including such conditions in the permit.
Solar Roof Incentives
This section of the model ordinance includes
a series of incentives that can be incorporated
into development regulation. Most cities and
many counties use incentives to encourage
public amenities or preferred design. These
same tools and incentives can be used to
encourage private investment in solar energy.
Communities should use incentives that
are already offered, and simply extend that
incentive to appropriate solar development.
Some of the incentives noted here are not
zoning incentives, but fit more readily into
incentive programs offered by the community
(such as financing or incentive-based design
standards).
Iowa Model Solar Ordinance | Last Updated August 2020 17
B. Solar-Ready Buildings – Model Community encourages
builders to use solar-ready design in buildings. Buildings that
submit a completed U.S. EPA Renewable Energy Ready Home
Solar Photovoltaic Checklist (or other approved solar-ready
standard) and associated documentation will be certified as
a Model Community solar ready home, and are eligible for
low-cost financing through Model Community’s Economic
Development Authority. A designation that will be included in
the permit home’s permit history.
C. Solar Access Variance – When a developer requests a variance
from Model Community’s subdivision solar access standards,
the zoning administrator may grant an administrative exception
from the solar access standards provided the applicant meets
the conditions of 1. and 2. below:
1. Solar Access Lots Identified — At least __% of the lots, or
a minimum of __ lots, are identified as solar development
lots.
2. Covenant Assigned — Solar access lots are assigned a
covenant that homes built upon these lots must include a
solar energy system. Photovoltaic systems must be at least
three (3) KW in capacity.
3. Additional Fees Waived — Model Community will waive
any additional fees for filing of the covenant.
Solar Ready Buildings
New buildings can be built “solar-ready” at
very low cost (in some cases the marginal
cost is zero). Solar energy installation costs
continue to decline in both real and absolute
terms, and are already competitive with retail
electric costs in many areas. If new buildings
have a rooftop solar resource, it is likely that
someone will want to put a solar energy
system on the building in the future. A solar
ready building greatly reduces the installation
cost, both in terms of reducing labor costs of
retrofits and by “pre-approving” most of the
installation relative to building codes.
A community’s housing and building stock is a
form of infrastructure that, although built by
the private sector, remains in the community
when the homeowner or business leaves
the community. Encouraging solar-ready
construction ensures that current and future
owners can take economic advantage of their
solar resource when doing so makes the most
sense for them.
Solar Access Subdivision Design
Some communities will require solar
orientation in the subdivision ordinance, such
as requiring an east-west street orientation
within 20 degrees in order to maximize lot
exposure to solar resources. However, many
such requirements are difficult to meet due
to site constraints or inconsistency with other
requirements (such as connectivity with
surrounding street networks). Rather than
simply grant a variance, the community can
add a condition that lots with good solar
access actually be developed as solar homes.
Attachment 3
Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides
Incentive
Type Incentive Bonus
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
McCall, ID
1.Allowed through Planned Unit
Development process in all zones for
rezonings and/or subdivisions.
2.Only Council can grant a density bonus,
which is allowed through a PUD.
3.No restrictions on which developments
qualify for bonus other than the
requirement of being part of a PUD.
50% of the total energy needs of
the development are provided
by “solar, wind, geothermal, or
[an] alternative renewable
energy source
Density
Bonus
City provides a 10%
bonus to density
(based on the zone for
which development
will be in)
City Council 2006
Dietrich, ID
1.Allowed through Planned Unit
Development process in all zones for
rezonings and/or subdivisions.
2.Only Council can grant a density bonus,
which is allowed through a PUD.
3.No restrictions on which developments
qualify for bonus other than the
requirement of being part of a PUD.
1. Solar, wind, mini-hydro or
geothermal energy will provide
at least 50% of the total energy
needs of the PUD
2.wind, mini-hydro or
geothermal energy will provide
100% of the total energy needs
of the PUD
Density
Bonus
1.City provides a 10%
density bonus
2.City provides a 20%
density bonus.
Bonuses can be
granted singularly or
cumulatively with
additional density
bonuses options (i.e.,
affordable housing)
City Council 1999
Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides
Incentive
Type Incentive Bonus
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Hinesberg, VT
1.Allowed in all zones and districts
2.Bonuses can be granted based on the
amount of renewable energy provided for
a development. These bonuses can stack
up "Incentive Levels" for greater bonuses
or through a variety of other means to
gain incentives such as providing
affordable housing.
3.Bonuses apply to new development
The developer will reach an
incentive level based on the
amount of renewables provided:
EX: 25-49% of all development
units running on renewable
energy = Level 1 Incentive
50-74% = Level 2 Incentive
75%+ = Level 3 Incentive
Density
Bonus,
Lot
Coverage
Bonus,
Building
Height
Bonus,
Parking
Reduct'n
Density Bonus:
Density bonuses stack
but may not exceed
120% of base zone
density
Lot Coverage Bonus:
Level 1: +5%, Level 2:
+10%, Level 3: +15%
(Residential). Up to
20% non-residential
Building Height
Bonus: L1: +5 feet, L2:
+7 feet, L3: +10 feet
Parking Reduction:
L1: -10%, L2: -20%, L3: -
25%
Dev't Review
Board. An
appointed
board of no
less than 5
members and
no more than 9
members
2018
Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides
Incentive
Type Incentive Bonus
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Duluth,
Minnesota
1.Solar, geothermal, and wind equipment
are allowed in all zones by right as an
accessory use. 2.
Allowed through rezoning, subdivisions,
site plan 3. Required
when development includes 3+ residential
units or 10k+ non-residential square feet
4.These are requirements, not incentives
Alternative Energy:
1.00 pt - Generate or acquire
15% min. of the electricity
needed by the dev't from solar,
wind, etc
0.75 pt - Install solar panels on
15% min. of dwelling units
contained in one-family, two-
family, or townhouse units or on
the primary structure or at least
50% of multi-family buildings
0.25 pt - Pre-wire 10% min. of
dwelling units for solar panels
Passive Solar:
1.00 pt - Orient 20% min. of
dwelling units or lots within 20%
of east-west for max. solar
exposure
1.00 pt - Orient 20% min. of non-
residential buildings with one
longer axis east-west for max.
solar exposure
All new
dev't with
3+
dwelling
units or
10k sf of
non-
residential
dev't must
meet a
min.
amount of
points
Sustainability Point
System:
Projects w/ 3-29
dwelling units need 3
points and w/ 30+
units need 4 points
Non-residential
projects w/ 10-25k
need 3 points and
25k+ need 4 points
Planning &
Zoning
Commission:
Subdivisions
City Council:
Rezonings
Land Use
Supervisor and
Building
Official: Site
plans (Admin.)
2021
Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides
Incentive
Type Incentive Bonus
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Minneapolis,
MN
1. Height: May apply to increase the
height of a principal structure, except for
uses and locations that include any
property in an Interior Built Form Overlay
District or a single, two, or three family
dwelling or cluster development in any
Built Form Overlay District
Floor Area Ratio: Bonuses prevent the
underutilization of land, especially near
public transit. May apply to two and three
family dwellings in the Interior 2 and
Interior 3 Districts. FAR bonuses can apply
to all other new dev'ts in any form
district, excluding residential uses outside
of what is described above.
2.There are no requirements based on
dwelling units/square footage.
The project must meet one of
the following standards:
1.Any performance standard
(LEED, etc.) that achieves the
Minnesota Sustainable Building
2030, 2010-2014 Energy
Standard (a 60% energy/carbon
reduction from the 2003
Average Building Baseline); must
be submitted by a certified
architect. Building utility
energy/water info must be
submitted annually.
2.40% min. of electricity usage
shall come from on-site
renewable energy sources
and/or renewable energy
credits.
Height
Premium
(Bonus),
Floor Area
Ratio
Premium
Height: Bonus varies
from 1 story or 14 feet
to 3 stories or 42 feet
depending on zoning.
Floor Area Ratio:
- Single, Two, and
Three family dwellings
can receive multiplier
of 0.1 per unit up to
0.7 depending on the
denisty allowed in the
undelying zone
- All premiums
determined by
underlying zone
Zoning
administrator
(unless
appealed, then
reviewed by
City Council)
Can run
concurrently
with rezoning/
subdivision
applications or
be decided
during site plan
2020
Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides
Incentive
Type Incentive Bonus
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Tacoma, WA
1. Height bonus for solar/energy
efficiency
- Height is for new dev't.
- Must be in a mixed use district
1.Install onsite solar energy
system that provides 15% min.
of expected annual operating
energy for the building.
2.Energy Efficiency: Design the
structure to reduce energy
usage beyond the prerequisite
standards by at least 20% for
new
structures and 10% for existing
structures. Energy savings must
be shown through energy cost
budget analysis.
3.Solar energy and energy
efficency incentives may be
stacked
Height
Bonus
Height Bonus: 10 feet
for each incentive
with a max bonus of
20 feet.
Admin.2020
Puyallup, WA
1. Height bonus allowed in Community
Commercial Mixed Use zone (CCX)
2. Off street parking stall reduction
allowed in all mixed use zones
3. No minimum requirements to qualify
for incentives
Solar energy that provides 10-
15% of the expected annual
operating energy for the
building
Height
Bonus,
Off Street
Parking
Bonus
A 1 story height bonus
for 15% of expected
annual operating
energy from onsite
solar
A 10% off street
parking reduction for
10% of expected
annual operating
energy from onsite
solar
City Council 2017
Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisidction Applicability Requirement
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Des Moines, WA
Level 1, 2 and 3 vehicle chargers
allowed in all zones but not City
ROW
Compatibility: Charging should
match intensity of associated use.
EV charging station(s) with a
single-family use should serve
occupants with a Level 1 or 2
charging level. EV charging
station(s) in a parking lot with a
commercial use, public facility, or
vehicle service station near I-5
may have multiple Level 3 rapid
charging stations
State Requiremnts: (City provides location and equipment specifics)
All new buildings with onsite parking must provide EV charging capability
to 10% of parking spaces or one space, whichever is greater. Said
capability must be able to accommodate 208/240 V 40-amp or
equivalent EV charging. Electrical rooms serving buildings with onsite
parking must be able to serve a 20% min. of total parking spaces with
208/240 V 40-amp or equivalent EV charging. Load management
infrastructure may be used to adjust the size/capacity of building electric
service equipment. 10% of accessible parking spaces or one space,
whichever is greater, must also be provided EV charging infrastructure
that may also serve adjacent spaces.
For assembly, education, or mercantile occupancies, the requirements
only apply to employee parking spaces. For utility or miscellaneous
occupancies, they do not apply.
Review by
Planning,
Building and
Public
Works
Dep't as
part of
admin.
review
City in 2014
State in 2021
Madison, WI
EV charging facilities are
permitted in NMX, TSS, MXC, CC-
T, and CC zones (Select Mixed Use
and Commercial Districts). EV
charging facilities also permitted
in DC, UOR, UMX zones (Select
Downtown Districts)
EV ready spaces required in new
multi-family and commercial
development with some
exemptions
Uses when EV requirement shall
not apply:
Manufacturing, Restaurants,
Retail, Service Business,
Warehouse and Storage
EV Charing Stations are allowed
by right in all zones
Requires at least 10% of parking spaces to be EV ready in any new
residential use providing at least 6 spaces and any new parking facility,
or any expansion of a facility by 10k sf or more; 2% of spaces must have
EV charging installed, regardless of zone.
Required for certain uses where vehicles parked in excess of 6 hours.
Exemptions noted in Applicability .
Ordinance includes a schedule to increase the percentage of EV Ready
and EV Installed parking spaces every 5 years (EV Ready Spaces
increases by 10% every 5 years , EV Installed Spaces increases by 2%
every 5 years for parking facilities and 1% every 5 years for uses where
people park vehicles in excess of 6 hours)
EV Ready Space means a designated parking space which is provided
with electrical panel capacity and space to support a minimum 40-
ampere, 208/240-volt branch circuit, and the installation of raceways,
both underground and surface mounted, to support the future
installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment to serve the parking
space
Admin.2021
Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisidction Applicability Requirement
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Atlanta, GA
All new residential and
commercial construction
(including S-2 parking garages that
serve new occupancies), and
commercial expansions to existing
structures are required to provide
electric vehicle supply equipment
(EVSE)
Electric Vehicle charging stations
are permitted in all zones as an
accessory use and structure
Commercial/Residential: EV Ready infrastructure shall be installed per
National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) as adopted by the State.
Commercial: The ratio of EV parking spaces to non-EV parking spaces is
1:5. Must provide sufficient electrical capacity by using a 60-amp 240-
volt, 2 pole single phase, (208 volt if 3-phase feeder supplied) branch
circuit for future electrical load capacity needed for EVSE based on total
parking spaces.
Residential: All new Group R-3 occupancies (per IBC), and all new single-
family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and townhomes (per the IRC)
must provide EV ready infrastructure to accommodate future
installation of electric vehicle service equipment
All dwellings regulated shall provide sufficient electrical capacity for a 40-
ampere 240-volt branch circuit for the future installation of EVSE.
The dwelling unit service ampere rating along with a level 2 EVSE branch
circuit at 125% shall be calculated for determination of the service size
for the building.
An area shall be provided within the attached garages, carport,
driveways, or detached garage for placement of EVSE.
Absent an attached or detached garage, an underground electrical
conduit shall be provided between the dwelling and the designated
parking space for the dwelling.
No requirements for installed EV parking spaces, only requirement for
residential is that the EV infrastructure be in place for future
accommodations.
Admin.2017
Am. 2021
Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research
October 25, 2022
Parker Walsh
Jurisidction Applicability Requirement
Review
Process
Year
Adopted
Great Plains
Institute
Define what types of EVSE are
allowable by land use type. By
establishing compatible charging
stations according to land use
types, cities can eliminate
confusion about what is and isn't
allowable while also affirming the
desirability of EVSE within the
community.
Require that [the] main electrical switchgear for EV charging stations be
installed with sufficient space and capacity to support 20% of EV spaces
at 208/240V and 40A per space, with a dedicated branch circuit and
overcurrent protection device, per space.
Require that all parking spaces in a parking structure be EV Capable i.e.
conduit installed throughout the structure and subpanels sized to
accomodate 60A or 40A breakers for each.
Design criteria such as equipment mounting, location, cord
specifications, height, setbacks. etc. should be created for EVSE
installations.
Require set numerical percentage based goal for EV infrastructure in
new construction.
Create an incentive zoning that provides a bonus such as additional floor
area in exchange for provision of a public amenity or community
improvements. In the case of EVSE, a developer incentive would be
exchanged for EVSE prewiring or charging station installation
Create enforcement policies for EV parking and charging stations that
specify towing of vehicles in violation of the restriction or impose a fine.
Consider reducing EVSE permitting costs by waiving or subsidizing the
fees to residents and/or businesses.
Simplify and streamline permit process.
Up to
jursidict'n
EV Best
Practices
pub. in 2019
Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Billie
Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett,
Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Straight
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on
a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to
enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to
give staff an opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CPA22-0002:
A request to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the
Southwest District Plan.
Townsend moved to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed
amendment to the Southwest District Plan. Padron seconded the motion.
Craig asked if staff could put some more street names on some of the maps, it would be very
helpful to get a better overall view of the area.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. CPA22-0011:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to
solar energy systems and further climate action goals.
Lehmann began the staff report with some background noting this topic started as a discussion
about solar amendments specifically, and it kind of ballooned out from there to sustainability
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 2 of 15
initiatives. Prior to 2019, the City treated solar energy uses either as basic utility uses for larger
scale solar energy systems or it's treated as an accessory mechanical structure. In 2019, staff
looked at the code, specifically to separate out utility scale ground mounted solar from those
basic utility uses. At that time, they were looking at trying to expand solar uses into some public
lands but have not moved forward with any projects in that regard. However, at that time they did
start to incorporate some definitions like solar energy systems and specified the utility scale
ground mounted solar with some standards that were different. Some of those changes were put
into the code in 2019, however, they continued to regulate accessory solar energy systems. If
they're with another principal use, they are regulated as mechanical structures. Then in early in
2022, the Johnson Clean Energy District completed a community sourced solar feasibility study,
and as part of that they provided lots of recommendations to the Climate Action Commission who
then formed a working group to look at solar readiness and solar accessibility and identified
some high priority items that they wanted to try and accomplish more quickly. One of those was
just evaluating the zoning code to see if there are gaps in the zoning code regarding solar. They
also want to see if there's other things the City can do to promote solar readiness and/or
friendliness, and just generally look at best practices and try and figure out what they can do to
improve the code. Staff is now coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission with this
amendment to address some of the items that were brought up in that study.
Lehmann stated in terms of current regulations, the City has three general areas. The first is
accessory solar energy systems. These are solar energy systems that are tied to another
principal use, they cannot be a standalone principal use, but are regulated as mechanical
structures in the code, and are allowed administratively. However, Lehmann noted there's
nothing in the code that explicitly links mechanical structures to solar energy systems, it's just
been that's how the code has been interpreted over time. He stated there are some specific use
standards that come with accessory solar energy systems which he talked about in the agenda
packet. He explained it varies between single family residential, industrial, and all other zones.
Generally, single family is a little more lenient, in some cases, especially for single family uses.
Industrial is also relatively lenient. But for other uses, there are some standards for location, such
as setbacks that are pretty friendly to solar, then there's also some screening standards that
primarily affect things that are not single family uses. Secondly, there's the utility scale ground
mounted solar, which was created in 2019. That is a standalone principal use, and it is where
there's a solar energy system that's one acre in size or larger. Those are allowed provisionally in
industrial and public zones and do require special exceptions in commercial, Riverfront
Crossings and research zones, but they are not allowed in residential and form-based zones.
Staff are not providing any recommendations regarding the utility scale ground mounted solar,
because it was relatively recently adopted, and it is still relevant today. Most of the standards that
they're looking at are tied to those accessory standard uses, as well as some other standards.
Lehmann also wanted to point out in historic overlay districts and historic conservation districts,
typically any exterior improvements do have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission for
review and approval. They did preapprove some solar energy systems as long as they meet
some criteria, such as being rear facing on buildings, or being close to roof surface and angled at
the same angle as the roof surface, making sure that it's trying to get away from the street
elevation. If those standards are met, then it can be approved administratively. That is one way
the City has tried to streamline solar in historic districts, if it doesn't meet those standards it
doesn't mean it can't be approved, it just means that it goes before the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 3 of 15
Lehmann stated staff has four proposed amendments. The first is to add and clarify definitions
within the code. The second is to limit regulatory barriers to solar energy systems. The third is to
look at regulatory incentives to try and encourage solar energy (which is where staff discussed
there are some other climate action goals they also want to incentivize). And fourth, again, as
they were discussing accessory mechanical structures, they also want to regulate EV charging
stations the same way and brought in some EV parking requirements as well as part of this
amendment.
Again, the first amendment is really regarding definitions, it's pretty much as simple as they didn't
have a definition of mechanical structure in the code and there's no linkages between
mechanical structures and solar energy system definitions within the code and with the
amendment, they are adding cross references between all these things.
The second is tied to the removal of potential regulatory barriers. Lehmann explained in some
cases, it's clarifying because some of these things are already understood to be regulated a
certain way. First, the code has exceptions for height for certain mechanical structures that are
on top of buildings, this is just specifying that solar energy systems are one of those. For
example, it's something that's been an understanding of the code, but this will explicitly bring
some of those things to the front because height limits has been linked as a barrier to solar
energy systems. The second is related to maximum lot coverage standards. Again, this is an
example of clarifying the code where maximum lot coverage means that there's a maximum
amount of the lot area that can be covered by a building however the building does not include
solar energy systems as a ground mounted use. This amendment will add to the definition to
specify solar energy systems don't count towards maximum lot use. Some other ones that were
modified are more in the lines of removal of potential barriers, one is removing the screening
requirement for ground mounted solar energy systems, that was already the case for single
family uses. The screening requirement that exists can prevent solar access for solar energy
systems and be a barrier to setting up solar energy systems. Therefore, staff is recommending
that screening requirements be removed for ground mounted solar, and that would also apply in
commercial and multifamily zones as well. Another one is to remove a requirement that solar
energy systems be either setback from the roof, designed in such a way that it phases into the
roof, and/or is screened from ground level. In many cases, it is already interpreted to be
designed as compatible to the roof, so this is taking that interpretation and applying it a little
larger. For example, on a single-family home with a solar panel that's on the roof already, that's
something seen as being compatible with the roof generally. This amendment is carrying that
into other zones as well. One of the larger changes, in terms of removal of regulatory barriers, is
adding a new minor modification. Lehmann explained minor modifications are a process that
adds flexibility within the code, it's an administrative process, and does have a public hearing
that's associated with it, but the determination is made by the building official. To be approved
for a minor modification it must meet five approval criteria. One is that special circumstances
must apply to the property which make it impractical to comply with the standard or warrant a
modification of some sort. There are some other ones about effects on neighboring properties,
complying with other applicable statutes, etc., overall is this a situation where for whatever
reason the standards aren't allowing it to work, and is it not going to have a negative impact. If
so then a minor modification can be approved. This amendment just adds in a process for solar
energy systems, when it comes to the standards that regulate mechanical structures. An
example of where such a minor modification might be warranted is for a home on a corner lot,
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 4 of 15
which means two front yards. There is a location standard that one can't have a solar energy
system within the front setback, and because there were trees in the back of the property, the
only place to actually put a solar energy system that could collect solar energy was in the side
front yard. This is where a minor modification might be warranted. Finally, the last one is
something that's actually in the subdivision code, in Title 15, so not something this Commission
would typically review, but Lehmann wanted to bring it to their attention. The State empowers
municipalities to prevent unreasonable restrictions on solar collectors. This is unreasonable
deed restrictions, which generally are seen in the form of HOA covenants, so staff did add in
what the State code empowers, which is that new deed restrictions of unreasonable restricting
solar collectors would no longer be allowed.
Lehmann noted the next one is the larger change and if they really want to encourage solar
energy systems, they can't just remove the barriers, they should also try to provide some sort of
incentive to offset the cost of putting in a solar energy system. A couple things that they want to
incentivize may be seeing electrification of properties where they get their regular energy usage
from electricity and not natural gas, where they convert as much of the energy system electricity
into solar as possible but if they’re still burning gas, it doesn't really address it. Additionally,
looking at the building code, specifically the International Energy Conservation Code, since they
can't adopt more strict energy conservation codes, they can have people voluntarily comply and
receive incentives for it. Lehmann stated those are the three items that staff looked at in terms of
regulatory incentives that might be voluntary and then came up with two possible incentives that
would help offset some of that cost. One is a residential density bonus, whereby the property
owner would be able to have a higher density and the other is a parking reduction, which costs
money to provide, up to a certain amount.
In terms of applicability, the residential bonus would basically apply in any zone, where
residential uses are allowed, and would be regulated by density. In terms of density, they're
talking about standards related to minimum lot size for single family homes and minimum lot area
per unit standards that apply to multifamily uses. Lehmann explained there are some residential
and commercial zones that don't regulate by density, for example CB-5 and CB-10, so those
zones aren't affected by this, Riverfront Crossings is the same way and the form-based code
recently adopted also doesn't really regulate by density, it regulates more by form and different
building types, but they all have different densities.
In terms of process, staff is recommending that it be an administrative process either through site
plan or building permit review. In some cases it might occur through a OPD rezoning and in
those cases it would be a legislative process because it would be part of that OPD plan and
would have to be requested as part of that. The way that the bonus was constructed are with
three general eligibility criteria. For each there would be a 10% decrease in minimum lot size per
unit, or a decrease in the minimum lot size for each of those provisions met. Lehmann explained
for the first one, it would be a 10% density bonus, for the second a 20% density bonus, but it is
capped at 25%, so it there were three it would be a maximum of a 25% density bonus. In terms
of what those criteria are specifically then, with regards to providing a solar energy system, they
would have to equal to 40% of the roof surface area. The original idea was that it is a percentage
of energy consumption, however in some cases they may have buildings with a smaller footprint
that are taller and, in those cases, it might not make sense to have it be a percentage of the total
energy consumption. So looking at roof area, they want to make sure that a roof can
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 5 of 15
accommodate those solar energy systems. Lehmann explained it's kind of similar to the way that
they look at Riverfront Crossings bonus height. Second is looking at electricity for 100% of
regular energy usage. The reason that they say regular energy usage is that in some cases there
might be emergency backup generators that they want to still be able to run on gas if something
happens with the power system. Third is constructing the building to the most current
International Energy Conservation Code.
In terms of the parking reduction, it pretty much mirrors bonus density but it would be eligible for
all uses and all zones as currently written, and it would again be an administrative process
unless it went through an OPD. It would be a parking reduction that's equal to the same amount
of density bonus and be awarded for the same criteria.
Lehmann gave an example sample project to highlight. If someone is building a mixed-use
building on a 33,750 square foot site, zoned CC-2, which is community commercial and allows a
mix of uses and are going to provide solar panels on the roof equal to 40% of the roof area, and
going to build to the Energy Conservation Code, they are meeting two of the provisions,
therefore, can get 20% bonus. That would be a 20% density bonus and a 20% parking reduction.
What that would look like without the density bonus, assuming ground floor retail of about 5100
square feet, would typically allow 12 2-bedroom units based on that lot area and with the
minimum parking between the retail and the residential spaces of 44 total parking spaces. With a
density bonus, they would still have the same amount of retail and that's not affected by the
proposed amendment, but with a 20% density bonus they would lower the minimum square foot
of lot area per unit and that would allow 15 2-bedroom units. With regards to parking, then that
would increase total parking typically so the subtotal would be 50. But with a 20% density bonus,
that would subtract out 10 spaces and only require 40 spaces. Again, without a bonus it would be
12 units with 44 parking spaces, same retail. With a bonus, it would be 15 units with 40 parking
spaces. Lehmann did note this is a voluntary incentive, some people may not want to reduce
parking, but it is an option for those if the proposed amendment is adopted as recommended.
Craig asked if would also be available to someone who built an entirely residential building.
Lehmann confirmed it would.
Hensch asked if they are just talking about new construction only or can someone just rehab
their property and take advantage of some of these incentives by adding solar. Lehmann stated
they could renovate a building and if they meet the requirements potentially add more units and
be allowed. They would have to submit the permits and show that they meet the standards.
Lehmann moved on to the final set of regulations which are related to electric vehicle (EV)
readiness and they’re trying to facilitate the expansion of electric vehicle charging stations. He
noted when they're talking about electric vehicle readiness, they're not talking about actually
installing chargers, they're talking about providing conduit and making sure that there's dedicated
circuits so it’s able in the future to provide a level two charger, which is the standard charger for a
vehicle. In terms of requirements, for parking areas which are five or more spaces, 20% of
spaces would have to be EV ready. Again, that doesn't mean that they have to have spaces put
in, but it means that they have to be ready for electric vehicle spaces in the future. Lehmann
added one of the reasons they looked at EV readiness rather than chargers is because it's pretty
cost effective to make sure that the space can have electrical vehicle charging stations in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 6 of 15
future, especially compared to retrofitting spaces to be able to have chargers, and they didn’t
want to be too burdensome. This is just gearing up towards more electric vehicles in the future
and making sure there is a balance between what they're requiring and what is actually out there
right now. Lehmann stated this would affect new construction and could also potentially affect
substantial redevelopment projects. Additionally, any existing parking structure would become a
non-conforming structure essentially and then if it had major expansions, it might trigger the need
to comply. But generally, existing parking structures could continue as is.
Craig stated applying that to the previous example, 20% of those 40 spaces, which would be 8,
in a parking lot would have to have the infrastructure to at some point make them EV ready.
Lehmann confirmed that was correct.
Lehmann explained what EV readiness exactly entails. It's looking at providing a dedicated
branch circuit, it has to have a certain ampere and voltage, and it would have to have a junction
box that is within charging distance of the future charging infrastructure that could be added. He
noted it is his understanding is that it's a relatively small increase in cost to make it ready, it's a
larger increase in cost to actually install the chargers.
Lehmann next talked about best practices and research, noting a lot of this came out of looking
at best practices of other municipalities, looking at model ordinances, etc. For example, the
biggest thing is streamlining solar review and permitting processes, which is allowing solar by
right and having administrative review, which the City already does. He noted the problem is it's
hard to tell that they do it because the code doesn't explicitly link some of those things. The next
set of best practices is related to removing potential zoning barriers, things like height setbacks
and coverage requirements. Another one is looking at EV readiness or charging stations and
requiring that as a percentage of parking. Staff is proposing the EV ready route and acknowledge
they have a relatively high percentage that they're recommending, especially compared to other
communities, but a lot of other communities require a certain percentage to be actual charging
stations.
Elliott asked how they get from the EV ready to requiring a charging station. Lehmann stated it
would be installed when someone had a demand for it, essentially. Or in the case of condos
where they own their parking spaces, it would be the residents being able to actually make those
improvements themselves, if their space is one of the EV ready spaces.
Lehmann noted in terms of incentives for renewable energy, that's something that's less
common, it tends to be those communities that are really trying to encourage some of these
climate action goals. However, they do see things like density and height bonuses, lot coverage
bonuses and parking reductions. Staff determined that density and parking reductions are
probably the two that apply the most in Iowa City, since a lot of these other standards don't seem
to be terribly large incentives for development, and one of the big things with incentives is that
they have to make sure that they're balancing the incentive with the requirements. People aren't
going to use the incentive if it doesn't give them enough money to cover the cost of whatever
additional public good we are asking them to do. Lehmann noted this is all new so they are
really trying to figure out what that right balance is and it might be something that in the future the
either dial back a bit, or maybe need to bump up, it’s somewhat of an ongoing process, but they
tried to come up with something that they thought might motivate folks to take advantage of
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 7 of 15
some of these bonuses.
In terms of anticipated impacts, there are several benefits. A lot he has discussed already related
to educational benefits, making sure that people understand the code and how solar fits into the
code, reducing barriers so folks who might not have been able to provide solar on their property
before might now be able to provide solar, providing incentives that actually result in some of
these climate action goals, and then also supporting the transition to towards electric vehicles.
In terms of potential tradeoffs, Lehmann wanted to discuss the way parking reductions work
within the current code. There are lots of different ways one can reduce parking, in some cases
they can get a minor modification as a commercial use, and that's a 10% reduction, in other
cases they can get a 50% reduction for a unique use of some sort, they can get 100% reduction
if it’s a historic property, and finally if they share uses, they can get a 25% reduction. So there
are all these different ways, kind of a menu to select from, to get parking reductions. What this
amendment does is add a new menu item, that would be a 25% reduction. Lehmann also noted
the parking reductions range from 10% to 100% and administrative reviews tend to be around
25% at the max, so above that goes before the Board of Adjustment. The City also allows a fee
in lieu of parking in the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Parking District and within this area if
someone is unable or would prefer to pay a fee in lieu of parking then they can pay that fee and
they could not provide somewhere between 50% and 100% of their parking spaces. Those fees
then go towards a collected pot of money to provide public parking downtown. Lehmann stated
adding a process that would allow a 25% reduction as currently written could reduce the amount
of money that comes into fees in lieu of parking downtown so that really is a potential tradeoff.
Townsend noted with regard to the electric vehicle setups she is concerned about having those
in the parking structures because of stories of the batteries exploding and is there any thought
given to having those stations off towards the back of a parking lot or any regulations for how
they're set up. Lehmann said they did not look at where those EV ready spaces should be, EV
readiness is more tied towards the way that the electric grid is constructed. Townsend noted
there seems to be a lot of problem with batteries catching fire, and getting those fires put out.
Surely if they're connected to a building, that could be a problem with fire. Again, Lehmann said
they only discussed the EV readiness not where the chargers would be located and stated his
understanding of the batteries is a lot of that's tied to electric bikes.
Continuing with the analysis, Lehmann noted consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the
basis of it is really sustainability and focusing on tracking, measuring and reducing energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Part of that is looking at the City’s Climate Action
Plan as well, which has some pretty aggressive climate action goals of reducing carbon
emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. This
amendment is a way to try and reach some of those goals, looking at things like renewable
energy systems, electrification, higher energy conservation standards, and also encouraging EV.
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended, as illustrated
in attachment one of the packet, to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy
systems, and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action.
Hensch noted this is an administrative review so there wouldn't be a public hearing associated
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 8 of 15
with it. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted his concern is there's been lots of
concerns from different people opposed to projects because their view shed is interrupted and
would guess this would be one of those areas to where people don't like the look of PV panels
and the accessory items. With this amendment there would be no mechanism for these for
neighbors to be able to stop a project related to just not liking the view, since it's just an
administrative process. Lehmann replied the only place would be a forum in the minor
modification process because there is an administrative hearing where the public can present
their views. It is a public hearing held in City Hall with staff. However, for the density bonus and
parking reduction there would not be a public hearing.
Russett added if the concern is viewsheds, for the most part, solar panels are already allowed
administratively so there's currently no process for a neighbor to complain about a neighbor's
solar panel.
Padron had a question with the EV spaces, there's going to be a minimum requirement of 20% of
EV ready spaces but are there any requirements for ADA EV spaces. Lehmann stated there are
not. She would like to see some percentage of that 20% dedicated to ADA EV.
Elliott noted this amendment wouldn't cover public lands like the Waterworks Park. Lehmann
confirmed the Waterworks Park would still be regulated as it currently is and within public zones
utility scale solar energy systems are allowed as a provisional use. In the case of Waterworks
Park, it's City owned so Council would have to write off on it, but accessory solar is allowed by
right. For example, if a school wanted to add a large solar array that's accessory, then they
would just have to show that they meet the standards. Elliott asked if a solar system could be
put in Waterworks Park without a public hearing or public comment? Lehmann said it would still
have to go through Council because it's public land. Hekteon noted a project like that would be
utility scale and these amendments being proposed are not about utility scale.
Elliott noted a couple of years ago there was a Waterworks Park solar plan with MidAmerican
Energy, which was quite large. Hektoen confirmed that is not what they are talking about tonight.
Lehmann added they are not adjusting those requirements, but in public zones they are allowed
provisionally. In the Waterworks Park case there was a hearing because it was City-owned land
and not because of the special exception requirements.
Hektoen noted there were code amendments that were adopted around that time, the 2019
amendments, to look at something like that because at the time basic utility uses were not
allowed in public lands, they are now. Lehmann noted again they’re not really touching the utility
scale because the 2019 code amendments were adequate, and they still stand today.
Craig noted the text in the packet says there should be screening of electrical vehicle charging
station with plantings and she wondered why they have to be screened and they aren't screening
the solar things. It's sort of hard to screen something and then park a car there. Lehmann
explained the current standard is that they have to be screened as an accessory mechanical
structure, they did not include waiving screening requirements for EV charging stations only for
solar. Craig noted an EV charging station is a lot smaller to look at than a solar panel. Lehmann
acknowledged that; however, the reason they looked at solar panels was mostly because of
solar access, where if there is a variable screen it's going to affect the amount of light that a solar
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 9 of 15
panel gets. Craig asked if they had an older duplex that was on a big lot, a ranch style duplex,
and they had single car garages and decided to put EV charging stations and there was extra
parking pads on either side of those single car garages they would have to figure out how to
screen the EV charging stations. Lehmann said currently yes, it has to be screened from the
public right-of-way. It would have to be screened in the same way the parking area is screened.
He added single family uses are exempt from that requirement but that's the only use that's
exempted from the screening requirement as the code is currently written.
Russett noted one good example is at the North Dodge HyVee. Recently, they put in some new
Tesla chargers, by the gas station, and it was required that those be screened on the Dodge
Street side, so they added additional landscaping along the eastern property boundary.
Craig noted she is very iffy about giving incentives for the charging stations and giving parking
requirement incentives to add charging stations and allowing less parking. Lehmann stated they
won’t give up parking for the charging stations, that is for adding the solar energy.
Craig asked if they give incentives for other kinds of energy conservation things. Lehmann
replied no, this is the first for Iowa City. She noted if she was going to choose some energy
saving thing, this isn’t what she would choose. For solar they are going to get an incentive but if
someone installs all electric everything in their building, or use extra insulation, and decrease
water consumption, all those things are just as important as the solar.
Lehmann stated with this amendment it brings in those three items, the Energy Conservation
Code, solar energies and options. The Energy Conservation Code is more about increasing the
R values in a home so it's more environmentally efficient or more energy efficient. As for 100%
electrification, solar energy is one of the options to get a reduction but if you did one of the other
ones, you would also get a 10% reduction. So solar energy is just one of the ways that you can
get a reduction under that provision up to 25%.
Russett noted Lehmann spoke to the goals in the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions over time and one of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to have fewer
vehicle miles traveled so one thing that they are going to have to look at, if not now in the future,
is parking ratios, and reducing parking, because there are benefits, environmental benefits, to
having less parking.
Craig noted there will have be a new generation that doesn't like their cars. Her final comment
is she would really like to see a way people could get out of it if they go through a review process
or something, that says if they get a 20% parking reduction for EV charging ready and within five
years they’re expected to have 10% of those parking spaces with charging stations, there should
be some requirement that says they can't just put in cheap conduit but within a certain amount of
time they have to put in the charging stations. Hektoen noted the challenge with that would be
enforcement, at that point they've already developed their project and got their density bonus.
Craig feels the amendment should read for a 20% reduction to be EV ready 10% have to have
charging stations. She asked if that is in line with what other areas are doing. Walsh replied that
20% is higher than most places they saw in their comparable research. He noted while 10%
would be high. If Craig is referring to a scaling percentage there was an example a city showed
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 10 of 15
starting at 2% required and every five years the ordinance requires that doubles so year one is
2%, year five is 4% and year 10 is 6% and so on. Craig liked that example. Lehmann added
however with that example, they do not go back to ones from year one and year five and make
them 6%, it just increases over time.
Sarah Gardner (Climate Action Coordinator, Iowa City) stated charging station costs vary based
on the charging level, what they typically see in commercial properties or at apartments or
condominiums would be a level two charger, the costs for that, and of course everything's been
affected by the supply chain, but tend to be around $2,000 per charging station. In her office they
had been working with apartments and condominiums in Iowa City to try to figure out how to
overcome the barriers for putting in electrical vehicle charging, because one of the things they
know is that 80% of charging happens at a person's place of residence. Next year in the state of
Iowa, a sales tax is going to be levied on all commercial charging in public spaces so renters
who have to charge at public stations will have to start paying a tax that homeowners don't to
charge at home. So this is really trying to figure out how to equitably deploy electric vehicle
charging at these residences. The reason EV readiness was chosen for this is that running that
conduit now, at the time of building a parking lot or building a parking ramp, can add cost as little
as $500 to the project costs, it's very cheap, and it allows the property owner the opportunity to
put in those charging stations as the demand for them increases over time. Gardner also noted
that in their outreach to apartments and condominiums, the City does have a rebate program in
place to help with the costs installing those charging stations so that if someone chooses then to
put in a charging station, they can get a rebate currently from MidAmerican that will help cover
the costs of that charging station. If they're retrofitting a property they can get an incentive from
the City to help with the installation costs. This amendment really addresses new construction
and the idea of putting in that wiring while building so that two years or five years down the road,
the City isn't shouldering that much heavier burden of retrofitting for the wiring. Retrofitting,
because of the trenching and boring involved in putting in that additional conduit, is an increased
cost that can run up to $10,000 to retrofit that parking space, as opposed to just putting in a few
$100 worth of wiring at the time of construction.
Craig understands however her concern is that there will never be charging stations in these
places especially since not all landlords in Iowa City have the best reputations. She would really
like to see language that says they're required to do a minimum of one or 10% of the stations
have to have charging stations in them on day one.
Townsend stated as the devil's advocate if she wants to fill up her vehicle, she has to go to the
service station so why if she buys an electric car would someone have to supply a charging
station for her at her building.
Padron noted the time difference, to go to the gas station and fill up it's like a few minutes, but
sometimes electric cars can charge for hours.
Townsend asked how they pay for that, who pays for that electricity to charge that vehicle, how is
it billed to that customer. Lehmann replied it would be the property owner would pay for it and
they could do their own meter for it.
Craig stated if a parking space is allocated to a condo or an apartment then it would be possible
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 11 of 15
that electricity charged similar to how they pay for their own air conditioning. Townsend noted
that would require each location to have their own EV station. Lehmann said it would be more
similar to renting a parking space but in this case, they're renting a parking space where they
also have an electric charger and it would go directly to their electric bill. If would depend on how
the landlord structured it.
Padron noted an example, her previous employer had charging stations and they didn't have to
pay so they could go to work and charge their car.
Townsend noted however, that's not going to happen if everybody has an electric car. So what
happens in the future when everybody has these electric cars, how does this work. Hektoen
noted the lines are metered and if an employer or property owner wants to provide it as an
incentive to their employees for free that's up to them, if they want to pass it off to their tenants
as part of rent they could, it would be subject to that kind of contractual relationship.
Padron could see a charging station in a homeowner's association for everyone's use and then
it's included in the HOA fees.
Elliott stated it seems to her it will be an incentive for people who own the buildings and are
renting them out will have an incentive just because of public pressure.
Craig noted it's probably a decade or 20 years from now before there's so many electric vehicles,
but if they don't build the infrastructure, it will be a lot harder and expensive to make it happen
then.
Padron asked if there are restrictions for the percentage of the coverage of the ground with solar
currently under the zoning code. Lehmann stated the change is more of a clarification, it is
saying that solar panels are not a building, which means that the building coverage standard
doesn't apply to them.
Hensch had a question regarding the standards from the International Energy Conservation
Code and how's that different than LEED certification. LEED certification is voluntary, but people
understand LEED certification and these standards aren’t as understood. Gardner explained
Iowa City didn't investigate adopting a higher energy code than currently exists at the state level
so what this does is allows the City to incentivize since they can't mandate that builders build to
that code. She added it's a little different from LEED in that it has prescriptive levels, for example,
in attic insulation under the current State code they have to build to a R42 or R40 installation
level, and the most recent International Building Code requires a R60 level for this area. The
difference being that with LEED, it's more of a menu of options, and one can pick and choose
from different categories to get the rating.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Patrick Straight stated he thinks the density and parking incentives are just backwards, if they
increase the amount of density, they’re increasing the amount of demand for traffic and then if
they're decreasing the amount of parking lots, it's just spreading the demand for traffic to other
places, and it's burdening those other places. If anything, the parking requirements should go up
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 12 of 15
when they increase the density.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Padron moved to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use
regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals.
Elliott seconded the motion.
Craig would like to make an amendment and proposes it says 2% or that a minimum of one
station must have a charging station hooked up to it on the 20% of the parking spaces that are
going to be EV ready.
Hensch understands but thinks since this is a brand-new ordinance or something hasn't done
before and as an amendment to the existing code they’ll be able to amend it as they go along so
it doesn't have to be perfect right now.
Craig agreed but if they don't amendment it for another three or four years, then all those things
get grandfathered in and they never have to do it.
Hensch absolutely agrees that it makes sense to put this in right up front as some minimum
standard. Perhaps one for every development might be a little onerous, because if it's a smaller
number of spaces. Perhaps to state if there's 10 or more spaces, at least one of those has to be
EV ready now when they construct it. Perhaps the Commission could ask staff to investigate
some language on that.
Russett stated staff is not opposed to adding a requirement. Currently that 20% EV ready kicks
in when it is a parking area that has five or more parking spaces so in that situation for the five-
spot parking area one would have the charger.
Hensch stated another reason he is pretty sympathetic is with the federal legislation that's come
through there's lots of money coming down the pipe in the City for doing incentives right now so
it's not like it's going to be financially onerous. There's a lot of money coming down to assist
people with EV charging stations.
Gardner agreed however the rulemaking isn't final, but they do anticipate there will be funding
coming related to EV charging under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Hensch wondered if Padron would be willing to make an amendment to the motion to have staff
develop some language that at least one of the spaces out of five must have an EV charging
station in it active at the time of construction.
Craig noted 2% seem to be a standard that other communities have adopted.
Russett suggested if they want staff to evaluate the impacts of adding that $2,000 cost they
could do that and bring it back at the next meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 13 of 15
Padron commented on the financial impact and if they're moving from building 15 units to getting
the incentive to build 20 units because of the parking reduction, there's a huge increase in their
gains so a $2,000 EV charger should not be an issue.
Lehmann noted the EV charging station is not tied to the incentive so if no one's using the
incentive, they still have to provide the EV ready charging stations. Those are two separate
things. The EV readiness is to be required in all future development.
Hensch stated if they are withdrawing the motion to have staff come back with recommendation
can they also add that one of those EV stations has to be an ADA accessible space.
Padron noted the California Code has minimum requirements for ADA EV charging stations.
Padron withdrew her motion.
The direction of the Commission is to ask staff to come back to a future meeting with this
particular agenda item with recommendations to establish a standard for EV charging stations,
and ADA assessable spaces with charging stations.
Padron moved to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations
related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to give staff an
opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation.
Elliott seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2022:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 19, 2022.
Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted the McGrath subdivision commercial subdivision on Willow Creek Drive was
approved at Council last night.
Hensch welcomed new member Chad Wade.
ADJOURNMENT:
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2022
Page 14 of 15
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Elliott seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- ---
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X
WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Chad Wade
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-0 the Commission continued the public hearing and deferred the item on a
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest District Plan, including
background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South Subarea to the
December 7, 2022 meeting.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CPA22-0002:
A public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest
District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South
Subarea.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Russett stated staff is requesting that the Commission defer this item to the next meeting as the
zoning code requires a minimum of four votes to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Russett noted since there are only four members of the Commission present tonight
and consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment is arguably one of the most important
roles of the Planning and Zoning Commission staff is requesting a deferral. If the Commission
decides to move forward with the item tonight, and ultimately ends up deferring the item to a
future meeting date, the City Attorney's Office will need to evaluate whether or not additional
Commission members would able to participate in future discussions since those Commission
members are not present tonight and wouldn't hear the staff report, testimony from the public
and any Commission discussion. So again, staff is asking that the Commission defer this item to
December 7.
Hensch noted being that they'd want other Commissioners to be here and since Commissioner
Craig will not be here in December, that would leave just three and three people cannot vote on
a Comprehensive Plan amendment so it would seem logical to defer the public hearing and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 16, 2022
Page 2 of 3
vote to a future date as recommended by staff.
Elliott moved to continue the public hearing and defer this item to the December 7, 2022
meeting. Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted one item was approved this week by City Council, it was the local landmark
rezoning for the house on East Davenport Street.
Townsend noted she heard that there was $93 million in affordable funds that's going to go back
to the government because the state of Iowa didn't spend it. Russett acknowledged she read an
article on that and it’s her understanding it is the Iowa Finance Authority, so she doesn’t really
have any information on that. Townsend noted Iowa City needs affordable housing, or at least
rent subsidies in the area so is there anything that City Council can do. Dulek noted staff can
provide the Commission with that information, and then they can take it to City councilor if they’d
like.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Craig seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- --- -- --
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E
SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X
WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X O/E
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member