HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2005 Planning and Zoning CommissionAgenda
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Formal Meeting
Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:00 PM
**City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall **
A. Call to Order.
B. Development Code Item:
• Public hearing on the proposed new Zoning Code (City Code: Title 14).
Amendments to the proposed draft requested at the first public hearing will
be considered.
C. Adjournment
Written correspondence received since the
April 28 public hearing
Zoning Code
Public Review Draft Comment Sheet
The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the
Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission.
Name Iq Ir �(A
email: eo
Mailing address: 41 ZIP code:
Phone number:
THIS IS A: Oquestion Osuggestion Acomment REGARDING Section/Page #
I am writing in strong support of the proposed Zoning Code, which is much
needed and long overdue. Not only does it respond directly to the demands
posed by the city's Comprehensive Plan, but it does so in a user-friendly and fair
way that stands to benefit residents while not impeding development. The
proposed Zoning Code offers in reality rather modest changes in what is already
required. In many cases, the new Code does not call for new requirements, but
just more logically regroups existing specifications. Where new regulations are
proposed, they are carefully designed to balance the desires of developers
against the good of the community. I hope that City Council will endorse the hard
work of its Planning and Community Development department and will vote to
adopt this intelligent and reasonable Zoning Code.
' t MAY 1 9 2005
Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
OR email: karen-howard@iowo-city.org
ppdadm2oning Code Comments.Indd
Zoning Code
Public Review Draft Comment Sheet
The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions
Zoning Code. Please use his// form to relay comments to the Commission.
Name J T
email:
Mailing address: —C�(� /Y� ���(it-, ZIP code: S'ZZ
Phone number: -3 3 � -q I. -A
THIS ISA: Oquestion Osuggestion mment REGARDING Section/Page #
regarding the
I enthusiastically support the revised Zoning Code, which does an
excellent job of helping to implement tk.ideas envisioned in the city's
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The simplified, streamlined, and
sensibly updated provisions in the proposed Zoning Code go a long
way towards ensuring that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan —
which include diverse and affordable neighborhoods accessible to
shopping, jobs and recreation; pedestrian -friendly transportation
networks; and protection of the city's natural and historic resources.
The revised Zoning Code will make that Plan a reality and in so doing
will benefit all residents of Iowa City.
L) rf
MAY 2 5 2005
Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
OR email: karen-howard@iowo-city.org
ppdadm/Zonina Code Comments.indd
Karen Howard
From: Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 8:28 AM
To: Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org
Subject: LNA Supports the Proposed Development Code
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission (c/o Karen Franklin)
From: Tim Weitzel, Longfellow Neighborhood Association President
Re: Support for Proposed Development Code
May 20, 2005
This memo is to convey the results of a voice consensus vote regarding support for
proposed development code at the spring general meeting of the Longfellow Neighborhood
Association. The results of that vote were unanimous consent to support that code. if
anything, surprise was expressed that the LNA may not, indeed, have already voiced this
opinion, however the question was raised prior to the first hearing of this code before
the commission whether the letter sent represented only the undersigned or, in fact the
entire neighborhood association. We can now tell you that the entire association has
consented to support that code. Objects regarding the accessory apartments for the new
zoning code would be considered a separate issue. A copy of the minutes of the meeting are
available at your request.
1
Proposed Zoning Code
City of Iowa City
1. Residential Zones
RS-5 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 60' to 70'. A density bonus of 60'
lots is allowed if certain design standards are met. We do not feel this is a "bonus" as 60' foot
lots are currently allowed in the RS-5 zone. The design standards are listed on page 18, #6, and
require an alley unless the garage is set back equal or behind the front facade of the house and
the garage can be no more than 50% of the length of the front facade of the house. This may not
seem like a big deal, but drive around some day and look at all of the homes people have chosen
to build and you will realize how many attractive, comfortable housing designs will no longer be
allowed. The 50% requirement is especially burdensome as it will require a house with a 2 car
garage to be 20 plus feet wide on the non -garage front facade, again eliminating many popular
house plans and potentially forcing houses to be larger and more expensive.
We would recommend a minimum lot of 60', as per the current code, and the garage standards
removed.
A second density bonus of 50' lots is allowed if garages and driveways are accessed from an
alley or private rear lane. We would propose the bonus be lowered to 45' lots if alleys or private
rear lanes are used.
■ RS-8 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 45' to 55'. A density bonus of 40'
lots is allowed if garages and driveways are accessed from an alley or private rear lane. We
would propose that the minimum lot size remain at 45', as per the current code, and the density
bonus be changed to 35' lots.
■ RS-12 Zone. The minimum lot size has been increased from 45' to 55'. The density bonus allows
30' lots if the garage and driveway is accessed from an alley or a private rear lane. We would
propose that the minimum lot size remain at 45', as per the current code.
■ On page 18, #6 is the garage design standard as mentioned earlier. It requires the garage design
standards on any lot less than 60' in width. We would propose that this section be removed.
■ On page 18, #3, for a single family dwelling, only 1 car is allowed to park in the front setback.
Thus a person with a 2-car garage can have only 1 car parked in their driveway. We feel this is
unenforceable and should be removed from the code.
■ The minimum front yard setback has been reduced to 15' in all residential zones. We feel this
presents a problem in that the utility easements are usually in the first 15' of the front yard. This
would mean all front landscaping and tress would be in the easement and not likely to be
repaired in the event the easement is needed for repair. We feel the current 20' setback is more
desirable and would even propose an increase to a minimum of a 25' setback which would allow
for larger front yards and the ability for enhanced landscaping. In addition, with the proposed
setback at 15' but garages required to be set back 25', not everyone will want a home design
with the garage 10' behind the front facade of the house and you will thus get a streetscape with
some houses set back 15' and some set back 25' or further. We do not believe this would make
an attractive streetscape.
Duplexes and attached single family, commonly called 0-lot lines. In the RS-8 zone, the
proposed code only allows duplexes and 0-lot line dwellings on corner lots. In addition they must
meet the design standards listed on page 169 and 175-176, including: the main entrance of each
unit must face a different street, the main entry must be demarcated by a covered porch or
canopy or a transom and sidelight windows, the same garage standards as previously discussed,
all windows, doors and roof eaves must be demarcated with 3" trim, all roof eaves must project
at least 12" from the building wall and no unpainted or unstained lumber may be used along any
facade visible from a public or private street.
We feel these design standards are unreasonable and will drive the cost of construction, and
ultimately the price to the consumer, up. We would propose the design standards be removed and
we also propose that duplexes and 0-lot line dwellings be allowed by right within the zone, as per
the current code, not just on corner lots. These types of units have become a staple for quality,
market rate affordable housing in Iowa City and surrounding communities.
The same design standards and placement restrictions apply to duplexes and 0-lot line dwellings
within the RS-5 zone. We feel restricting these units to corner lots and having each unit face a
different street is acceptable in this zone, however all of the other design requirements should be
removed.
In the RS-12 zone, duplexes and attached single family units are allowed by right anywhere
within the zone, which is great. However the same design criteria apply and we feel should be
eliminated for the above mentioned reasons. In addition, on page 171 additional design elements
are required if you have 4 or more attached units, including where and how much brick you need
on your building and standards for the front fagade and the roofline. We feel these requirements
should be removed as they further drive up the cost of housing.
In several areas of the proposed code, an example being on page 172 under maintenance, it is
required to secure an access and maintenance easement from all lots that abut the 0-lot line side
of a dwelling. This is required to be recorded on the deed before the issuance of a building
permit or occupancy permit. It is not possible to deed over the property to the consumer before
you build it and thus this requirement can not be met. We propose the access and maintenance
rights be secured in the covenants of the subdivision, as is the current common practice, and this
requirement be removed.
2. Multi -Family Zones
■ Under the proposed code, parking is allowed only behind principal buildings and concealed from
view of fronting streets. The current code does not allow parking in the front yard setback area
but allows flexibility to deal with lot topography and corner lots. We would propose parking be
prohibited in front yard setbacks but not required to be behind buildings, as per the current code.
Page 28, Oc requires that more than 1 building on a lot must be designed to preserve privacy. It
says this can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of
adjacent buildings and units. There are no criteria as to exactly what this means. Windows are
dictated by safety standards and livability issues. If 2 multi -family buildings are parallel to each
other does this mean one of the building walls can contain no windows? This would not be
possible. This section needs to at a minimum be better defined and we recommend it be
removed.
This same section prohibits balconies and air conditioning units from being located along a
building wall that is within 20' of a building wall of an adjacent building on the same lot if that
wall contains window or door openings. Balconies and air conditioning units are by design
within 20' of walls with window or door openings on the building they serve, so why is privacy
important for the adjacent building but not for the adjacent units in the subject building? We feel
this is an unreasonable requirement and we would recommend that this requirement be removed.
Page 40, #3b requires an S2 landscape screening standard between any parking spaces where
headlights will shine on a wall containing ground level windows. Even the examples used for
acceptable parking configurations on page 39 have entire building facades that would require the
S2 screening. The S2 screening requires a landscape screen ranging from 24' in height and at
least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to a height of no less than 4'. Having entire facades of
buildings where tenants park and enter the building shrouded by 4' tall shrubs in our opinion
poses a serious safety concern. We would recommend this requirement be removed.
■ Page 41, #6 requires entrance doors to individual units located above ground level must be
accessed from an enclosed lobby or corridor. There are many fine apartment buildings designs
that utilize covered stairways and landings to access upper level units. In our opinion this
requirement seems too restrictive and should be removed.
Design standards are again found on page 41, section E. These type of design standards lead to
increased construction costs and ultimately higher costs for the residents.
Starting on page 42, the design standards in the Central Planning District are very restrictive.
They take up 5 pages and cover items including width of buildings, depth and width of building
modules, window patterns, window sizes, architectural details, such as window and door trim,
decorative banding, stone and tile accents, balcony and stairwell design and location, exterior
building materials, what you will use, how much and where you will put it and the architectural
style of the building. While the Central Planning District is meant to preserve the historic
character of the district, it is a wide reaching district which includes many acres of undeveloped
land in the Northern part of the city. We feel the established historic districts can accomplish the
preservation and historic feel their specific neighborhoods. To have such restrictive, detailed
design standards over such a large area, including large areas of undeveloped land, is
unwarranted.
3. Commercial Zones
The CN-1 zone, starting on page 68 has some requirements which in our opinion may not be
feasible and are not conducive to commercial uses. The build -to line is set at 5' back from the
front property line and at least 65% of this build -to line must contain a building. This means on a
100' wide lot, at least 65' feet of that lot will contain a building that is no more than 5' back from
the property line. As mentioned before, the first 15' of the front lot is usually reserved for utility
easements. To meet this requirement, in areas already developed utilities would have to be
moved, and in undeveloped areas utilities would need to be placed in a location different from
current practices: We would question if the City Engineering Department and the local utility
companies have been consulted regarding this issue.
This requirement will also force parking to the rear of the lot, or behind the commercial uses.
This is clearly not conducive to a successful small business trying to provide convenience to its
customers. In most successful CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City the building is on the side
or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have easy, convenient access to the
businesses.
By definition, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The proposed code is thus
putting buildings 5' back from the ROW line on the cities busiest streets. We are of the opinion
that this would jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians and would not be
aesthetically pleasing.
Starting on page 71, section L-O we again see building architectural standards. We would
propose that these be removed or modified to be less restrictive.
The CB-5 and CB-10 zones also have the same design standards found in the CN-1 zone. While
certain design standards seem appropriate in these zones because of the unique nature of our
downtown and the desire to preserve that nature, we need to be certain that the requirements
encourage and promote the revitalization and business health of these areas and are not a
deterrent.
4. Planned Development Overlay Zone
As stated in the description and OPD zone should permit flexibility in the use and design of
structures and land. However, as with the residential zones, we believe that certain design
standards are mandated and that takes away from the flexibility and creativity that should be
allowed. An OPD zoning process should be a tool where the city and developers have an
opportunity to be creative and find new and innovative ways to develop property.
■ Attached single family uses must comply with the design standards mentioned earlier for an RS-
12 zone.
■ Multi -family and duplex uses must comply with the design standards of multi -family zones as
mentioned earlier.
■ All commercial development must comply with the CN-1 standards, which as discussed
previously may not even be feasible.
■ There is an undue emphasis on pedestrian -oriented street frontages with limited interruptions
from driveways. This is a design feature found in a particular design philosophy, but not
necessarily a desired feature in all development design in all situations.
■ Alleys or rear lane access are required on all lots, if the lot dimensions are reduced, unless the
garage standards are met.
■ On page 113, section 2c1, it states that private streets are discouraged, however throughout the
entire proposed code the use of alleys and private rear lanes is encouraged and sometimes
required. It is our assumption that both alleys and private rear lanes are considered private streets
as there is no provision in the code for these to be dedicated to the city. Section 2c3 states that
the developer must submit legally binding papers setting forth the procedures for maintaining
private streets and providing garbage removal and snow removal and how these services will be
paid for. Thus the proposed code encourages and sometimes requires alleys or rear entrance
private streets, but makes the upkeep and routine maintenance the responsibility of the residents,
thus further affecting the affordability of housing. We believe at a minimum, that if the city is
going to require alleys, that they should also take responsibility for the routine maintenance and
the long term care of those alleys.
If we are going to keep the "Sensitive Areas Ordinance" in the h
zoning ordinance the following should be considered:
Remove any requirements for a Level II review if the applicant
does not wish to utilize cluster design or otherwise modify the
underlying zone requirements.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS:
C. Wetland Mitigation Plan Required ... this section needs
to be re -captioned. There is nothing in the section that is
relative to "mitigation" as the terminology is used by the COE
and/or other wetland specialists. Possibly the section would be
more appropriately captioned WETLAND PROTECTION PLAN.
As such this paragraph should be located after the Wetland
Delineation paragraph, so the process is sequential with the
procedures required to determine whether a wetland exists.
E. Wetland Buffer Requirements ... the opening
paragraph needs to be modified to take in to account the
considerations relative to constructed and/or altered wetlands
where "natural" landscape(s) adjacent to the wetland
probably will not exist.
G. Compensatory Mitigation ... the references to specific
replacement ratio(s) should be eliminated and replaced with
as required by the COE" to avoid conflicts and confusion.
GA.e. The COE has specific monitoring requirements that
must be met. This section does not add anything other than
another level of unnecessary review and should be replaces
with a requirement to provide duplicate copies of the COE
required reports only if there is some reason that the City thinks
there is a need for duplicate jurisdiction.
REGULATED SLOPES:
My personal opinion is that the normal lay person relates
percent slope to degrees of an arc or possibly a percentage of
90 degrees, and has little or no perception of slope.
THERE IS NO CORRELATION.
To illustrate this I have prepared a handout for your
visualization. The handout illustrates lines at various angular
degrees in the top half and the same lines labeled with percent
slope in the bottom half.
Demonstration: Top of pole is set at 10 feet and the
ground distance to the ends of the ribbons is 25 feet
Pink ribbon is 40% slope = current protected
slope
Yellow green ribbon is 3 1/2 : 1 or 29% = current
allowed grading
Light blue ribbon is 25% slope = current critical
slope
Dark Blue ribbon is 18% slope = current steep
slope
I would like to see the slope section completely re -written to
correlate slopes with degrees of protection. I.E. The greater the
percentage of slope, the greater the degree of constructed
slope protection to be provided. Current "protected slopes"
could be modified as long as the resultant slope is less than
40%. Created slopes in excess of 33% should have specific
engineering to assure stability and erosion control.
If the current format is retained, all references to "Steep Slopes"
should be eliminated. There are no special requirements or
design considerations within the ordinance for steep slopes,
other than a requirement to delineate them on plats/plans.
Raise the thresholds for critical and protected slopes and allow
for:
Critical slopes requirements should coincide with the maximum
allowable grading, without special engineering, in the grading
ordinance. IE 3.5 : 1 or 29%.
Protected slopes should be modified to allow those slopes,
completely contained within the property limits, to be graded
to eliminate the hazards associated with protected slopes. The
buffer requirements, if retained, should only be applied to
slopes in excess of 1 1/2 to 1 (65%) slopes, or 2:1 (50%) slopes
located within 50 feet of an adjacent property.
Wooded Areas:
What is the justification for applying differing levels of protection
for different zones? A tree is a tree whether it is in a
commercial zone or an ID/RR1 zone. In my view there is more
justification for providing protection of "Land Mark Trees" than
there is for all of the rest of the information in the woodland
section.
Karen Howard
From: Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:42 AM
To: Bob Miklo; 'Sunil Terdalkar'; Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org
Subject: Draft minutes for the P&Z hearing
I just want to make a formal statement that there was no delegate, official
or otherwise, directed to attend the P&Z hearing on April 28.
Had the HPC not been in its own meeting at the time, I would have attended
the hearing and made a note of this fact at the time. It would probably be
useful to make this corretion before the minutes are approved.
Additionally, in reviewing the public draft of code revisions and in
discussion with staff, it is apparent there are sufficient means to
accomodate Mr. McCallum's request that he made in the name of the
commission.
Tim Weitzel, Chair ICHPC
I
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE ZONING CODE
14-2A - Single Family Residential Zones (and associated provisions in 14-413)
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
1
Draft language to keep existing
In the current RNC-12 Zone, there is a provision that grants
Staff is in support of this amendment.
Commission directed
conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone
conforming rights to existing multi -family uses, such that they can
staff to draft an
to this effect
conforming.
be expanded or torn down and rebuilt provided they do not exceed
amendment
the legal density in effect at the time the area was rezoned to RNC-
for their consideration.
Requestor: Gary Klinefelter
12.
We could draft language similar to what we have in the RNC-12
Zone and apply it to existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone.
This would grant legal conforming rights to existing conforming
duplexes, but would not allow development of new duplexes on
interior lots in the RS-8 Zone.
It is not the intent of the new regulations to create numerous
nonconforming uses. The proposed amendment would produce a
solution for existing owners of duplexes and also allow future
development of the RS-8 Zone as a small lot single family zone,
rather than as a duplex zone. In addition, RS-8 zoned areas that
contain a number of existing duplexes will be considered for
rezoning to RS-12.
2
In the RS-8 Zone allow duplexes on
The intent of rewriting the RS-8 Zone regulations was to create a
Staff does not support this making this
Commission indicated
both interior and corner lots. Remove
zone that would encourage the development of more affordable,
change.
little interest in making
provision that specifies that duplexes
small lot single family homes. The current regulations encourage
this change to the draft.
are only allowed on corner lots in the
whole areas to be developed as duplexes, thus reducing the
RS-8 Zone.
attractiveness of the RS-8 Zone for small, detached single family
homes.
Requestor: Gary Klinefelter; Steve
Gordon/ Land Development Council
In the draft, new opportunities for duplexes are provided in the RS-5
Zone on corner lots. Duplexes are also allowed in the RS-12 Zone
and in all the Multi -family Zones. Keeping existing duplexes in the
RS-8 zone conforming and allowing new duplexes on corner lots
will create allow a greater mix of affordable housing types within a
neighborhood.
3
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements
In the current Code the minimum lot width in the RS-5 Zone is 60
Staff recommends establishing the
Commission indicated
in the Single Family Residential Zones
feet. However, in Iowa City the average lot width in RS-5
minimum lot width at 70 feet in the RS-
little interest in making
(p.16) - In the RS-5 Zone, change the
subdivisions over the last 10 years is 83 feet. In fact, only 5
5 Zone and allowing it to be reduced
this change to the draft.
minimum lot width for detached single
subdivisions out of 42 have an average lot width less than 70 feet.
through the bonus density provisions
family dwellings from 70 feet to 60 feet.
provided in the new Code. The bonus
For comparison, in Coralville the minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone
density provisions would allow a
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
(their equivalent zone to RS-5) is 80 feet. With the increasing
subdivision with a mixture of lot widths
Development Council
demand for 3-car garages, a lot width of 70 feet is the minimum
from 50 feet on up, provided that
necessary to provide room for a house with a three car garage that
garages were located on the lot so that
doesn't completely dominate the front facade of the home. Even on
they do not dominate the street. Front -
a 70 foot wide lot, subtracting 10 feet for the required side yards,
loaded garages are allowed provided
leaves only 60 feet of lot width for the home and the garage. Three-
they take up no more than 50% of the
car garages are 30+ feet wide with driveways and front yard paving
front facade of the home and are not
to match. With only a 60-foot lot width very little space remains for
located forward of the front facade of
the front facade of the home, for front yard landscaping and trees,
the home.
sidewalks, and on -street parking.
4
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements
In today's new home market it is rare that a detached single family
Staff recommends establishing the
Commission indicated
in the Single Family Residential Zones
home is built without at least a 2-car garage. The width of a 2-car
minimum lot width for detached single
little interest in changing
(p.16) - In the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones,
garage is 20-24 feet wide. Subtracting 10 feet from the lot width for
family homes in the RS-8 and RS-12
the minimum lot width for
change the minimum lot width for
the required side yards would leave only 35 feet for the building. A
Zones at 55 feet and allowing it to be
detached single family
detached single family dwellings to from
front -loaded 2-car garage would take up about 2/3 of the front
reduced through the bonus density
dwellings in the RS-8
55 feet to 45 feet.
facade of the home. If all the lots along a street frontage were 45
provisions provided in the new Code.
and RS-12 Zones to 45
feet wide, there would be very little space for front entries,
The bonus density provisions would
feet.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
landscaping, street trees, sidewalks, and on -street parking. If a
allow a subdivision with a mixture of lot
Development Council
whole neighborhood is built in such a manner, it would not be very
widths from 30 feet on up, provided
pleasant or safe for pedestrians nor would it have the residential
that garages were located on the lot so
character enjoyed by the majority of the existing neighborhoods in
that they do not dominate the street.
Iowa City.
Staff recommends adding a provision
For comparison purposes, in Coralville the minimum lot width for
to the density bonus provisions for the
detached single family homes in the R1(B) and R-2 Zones, which
RS-8 and RS-12 Zones that would
are equivalent to our RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, is 50 feet.
allow front -loaded garages on lots less
Commission directed
than 55 feet wide, provided they take
staff to draft an
55 feet is the minimum necessary to allow a 2-car front -loaded
up no more than 50% of the front
amendment for their
garage that doesn't dominate the front facade of the home.
facade of the home and are not located
consideration to add a
forward of the front facade of the
density bonus provision
home.
that would allow flexibility
for front -loaded garages
This provides far greater flexibility to
on lots less than 55 feet
build small lot single family
if they can meet the
neighborhoods by right than is allowed
garage placement
in any community surrounding Iowa
standards.
City.
5
14-4B-4A-2 and 14-4134A-3 and 14-413-
It is not unusual for cities to require certain design provisions for
Staff does not recommend making any
Commission indicated
4A-5 (pp. 168-176) In all the single
attached dwellings. With dwellings located so close together,
changes to these standards. Changes
little interest in making
family residential zones, remove the
differences in quality or design of the units is more pronounced and
to the dimensional standards in the
this change to the draft.
"design provisions" for duplexes and
can detract from the property values in the entire neighborhood.
new code will allow the development of
attached single family (townhouses).
Iowa City has a much more liberal allowance for duplexes and
more attached units by right.
They do not specify which "design
attached single family dwellings than surrounding communities.
Standards should be established to
standards" they want removed.
The standards proposed are not expensive or difficult to meet. A
ensure that the residential character of
certain "style" of home is not required. Expensive building materials
the resulting neighborhoods meet the
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
are also not required. It should also be noted that currently
expectations and vision expressed in
Development Council
townhouses are effectively excluded from single family zones due
Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan.
to the current lot requirements. Since the lot requirements are
being modified to make it easier to build duplexes, attached single
family houses, and townhouses, it is necessary to address issues of
design, street access, setbacks, and building entrances; all of which
are currently addressed through the planned development rezoning
process.
For comparison purposes, Coralville does not allow duplexes or
townhouses in its single family residential zones. In its Two -Family
Residential Zone, attached single family dwellings and detached
single family dwellings must meet certain design standards that
specify color, roof pitch, and exterior building materials. In
Coralville's Mixed Housing Residential Zone townhouses must meet
these same design standards.
6
14-2A-7A-1. (p.20) Single Family
Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more
Staff is in support of making this
Commission indicated
Bonus Options in the RS-5 Zone -
affordable, small -lot single family homes in Iowa City.
change.
little interest in making
Change bonus density provision in the
this change to the draft.
RS-5 Zone to allow lot widths to be
reduced to 45 feet (instead of 50 feet) if
alleys or rear lanes are utilized for
vehicular access.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
7
14-2A-7A-2. (p.20) Single Family
Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more
Staff is in support of making this
Commission indicated
Bonus Options in the RS-8 Zone -
affordable, small -lot single family homes in Iowa City. However, 35
change, but believes that other
little interest in making
Change bonus density provision in the
feet is very narrow for detached single family homes. Other design
provisions may be needed to prevent
this change to the draft.
RS-8 Zone to allow lot widths to be
considerations may be necessary to ensure that homes located so
monotony along street frontages.
reduced to 35 feet (rather than 40 feet)
close together are placed on the lot in a manner that will maximum
if alley or rear lanes are utilized for
privacy and allow for some private open space on the lot. In
vehicular access.
addition, given that there will be more dwelling units along a single
street frontage, measures to prevent monotony should be
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
considered.
Development Council
8
Remove provision 14-2A-6 (p.18),
On lots less than 60 feet in width, if front -loaded garages are not
Staff is not in support of making this
Commission indicated
which states that "on lots less than 60
carefully located on the lot, they can dominate the front fagade of
change.
little interest in making
feet in width, garages and off-street
the home, cause excessive front yard paving, leave little space for
this change to the draft.
parking areas must be located so that
street trees and front yard landscaping and on -street parking.
they do not dominate the streetscape..."
Some have suggested that increasing the front yard setback will
solve this problem. However, homes with 2 and 3-car garages that
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
face the street require wide driveways. Pushing the homes back
Development Council
from the street only makes it necessary to build longer driveways
and use more paving in the front yard. While there may be a few
more feet in which to plant a tree, the front yard will still be
dominated by paving and blank garage doors.
On larger lots, this is not as much of a concern because there is
more open space to work with. Since most single family
neighborhoods built in the last 10 years in Iowa City were built with
lots greater than 70 feet in width, it has not been much of a
concern. However, in the last several years the City has received a
number of requests to reduce lot sizes and lot widths through the
planned development process. If smaller lots are going to be
allowed by right in Iowa City without having to go through a planned
development process, garage placement should be addressed.
9
14-4134A-2 (p.168) and 14-4134A-5
(p.175) - In the RS-5 Zone, keep the
provision that duplexes and attached
SF dwellings are allowed on corner lots
with each unit facing a different street,
but remove other standards. Requestor
did not specify which standards should
be removed.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
Duplexes are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. There has
been concern expressed by neighborhood groups that such an
allowance will detract from existing and new single family
neighborhoods. However, allowing duplexes on large corner lots
with certain design provisions in place will ensure that such
dwellings fit into the character of single family neighborhoods and
will also provide needed affordable housing options throughout
Iowa City neighborhoods.
Staff does not recommend changing
the standards.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
10
Remove 14-2A-6C-3 (p. 18) - Parking is
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff is in support of amending the
Commission directed
not permitted in the front building
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
language to allow non -required parking
staff to draft an
setback, with a few listed exceptions.
to be allowed on a regularly
amendment for their
The intent of requiring a front building setback is to maintain some
constructed driveway.
consideration, to allow
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
open space along the front of residential lots. Previous to 1980, no
"non -required" parking in
Development Council
parking was allowed in the front setback. Around 1978, the current
a driveway, but
exceptions were added to the Code allowing some area of the front
requested that the
setback to count toward a property's required parking.
language be drafted such
that it wouldn't
The provision in the current ordinance and has never been a
encourage more paving
problem. The City does not send enforcement officials out to tell
in the front setback.
people they cannot park in their driveway. However, if this provision
is eliminated entirely, entire front setbacks will be allowed to be
paved as parking lots for both required and non -required parking.
This would have a deleterious effect particularly in residential
neighborhoods close to the University, where there are many
properties rented to groups of students. Occupancy for single
family rentals and duplexes is directly related to the amount of
parking provided on the lot, so there is an incentive for landlords to
pave over large parts of existing lots so that they can rent to more
students.
While deleting this provision entirely would be a problem, it may be
possible to draft language to clarify that non -required parking may
be located on a driveway that provides access to a required parking
space. That way, residents could park in their driveway, but would
not be allowed to establish a parking lot in the front setback.
11
Table 2A-2 (p.16) Increase the
The Code establishes a minimum setback, but does not prevent
Staff does not recommend increasing
Commission indicated
minimum setback in residential zones to
developers from establishing a greater setback along a given street
the minimum setback.
little interest in making
25 feet. (In the proposed Code, the
or within a particular subdivision. If a developer desires a greater
this change to the draft
minimum setback for the principal use is
setback, a covenant can be established with the subdivision.
due to the fact that a
15 feet. In the current code, the
However, establishing a greater minimum setback in the Zoning
developer can always
minimum setback is 20 feet.)
Code prevents anyone from establishing a neighborhood with
establish a setback line
homes located closer to the street. In other words, the lower the
further from the street if
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
minimum setback the more flexibility there is to establish whatever
he/she so chooses.
Development Council
setback is desired by the developer based on the proposed
subdivision design and the topography and physical features of the
land.
For instance, if a subdivision is proposed with small lots with
vehicular access from an alley and utilities also located in the alley,
allowing homes to be located closer to the street will allow more
space in the rear for yard space, utilities, and the garage. Without
utilities and a driveway in the front, 15 feet is enough room for front
yard landscaping and street trees.
12
14-2A-7B (p.21) Historic Preservation
The intent of this special exception option is to make it possible for
Staff is in support of making this
Commission directed
Exceptions - Request to change the
historic properties to be adapted to new uses and preserved over
change.
staff to draft an
word "necessary" within the Board of
time. The language can be changed to address this issue.
amendment for their
Adjustment approval criteria. The
consideration.
requestor feels that this word may be
interpreted so strictly that it would make
it difficult for most properties to meet the
standard.
Requestor: Mark McCalhon
13
14-4B-4A-2i (p.170) 14-4B-4A-3g
The language can be clarified to address this issue.
Staff is in support of this change.
Commission directed
(p.172); 14-4B-4A-4a & e. (p.174) -
staff to draft an
With regard to maintenance easements
amendment for their
required for zero lot line dwellings, it
consideration that would
was suggested that such easements be
clarify this issue.
recorded with the subdivision rather
than with the deed to the property.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
14-213 - Multi -Family Residential Zones
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
14
14-2B-6C: Location and Design
Eliminating this standard would be a change to the current
Staff does not recommend making this
Commission indicated
Standards for Surface Parking and
ordinance in many multi -family areas.
change.
little interest in making
Detached Garages: Remove provision
this change to the draft.
that parking has to be located behind
In the Central Planning District, the PRM, and the R/O Zones
buildings, but keep the provision that
parking is currently not allowed between the building and the street.
parking may not be located within the
This location standard is intended to prevent parking lots between
front -yard setbacks.
buildings and the public sidewalk. Since most of the City's multi-
family zones allow a mix of housing types, this standard helps to
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
prevent large parking lots located along the street and immediately
Development Council
adjacent to smaller scale homes and duplexes.
15
14-2B-4B-3c. Lots with Multiple
The standard in the current code is that if more than one principal
Keep new standard to provide
Commission indicated
Buildings: Remove provisions regarding
building is located on a single lot, the buildings must be separated
maximum flexibility in locating buildings
little interest in making
designing buildings to maintain privacy
by a horizontal distance equal to the height of the tallest building.
on a lot, without compromising privacy
this change to the draft.
between dwelling units.
This means that in most cases buildings have to be at least 25 to 35
and fire safety. Specific suggestions
feet apart. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that
from the LDC on how to make the
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
this was excessive and if efforts were made to locate windows, air
language more clear and objective are
Development Council
conditioning units and balconies in such a way as to preserve
welcome.
privacy between dwelling units, then buildings could be located
closer together. This new provision adds flexibility to the Code.
Alternatively, leave the standard the
same as in the current code: 14-6Q-2E-
2: Where more than one principal
building is permitted on a lot the
buildings must be separated by a
horizontal distance that is equal to the
hei ht of the highest building.
16
14-2B-6C-3c. (p.40) Remove
This standard is currently in place in the PRM and R/O Zones.
Staff does not recommend making this
Commission indicated
requirement for S2 screening between
It is intended to keep bright headlines from shining into windows of
change.
little interest in making
parking areas and building walls that
a ground level apartment. The S2 screening is a low level screening
this change to the draft.
contain ground level windows into
of shrubs between 2 and 4 feet in height, which is typical of the size
dwelling units.
of shrubs planted outside many homes, multi -family buildings, and
commercial businesses. It is not an onerous standard to meet.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
17
14-2B-6D-6 (p.41) Remove the
requirement that access to entrance
doors of any individual dwellings units
located above the ground level must be
provided from an enclosed lobby or
corridor and stairwell.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are
currently prohibited in the PRM and R/O Zones. They are
strictly regulated in other MF zones.
This provision does not preclude exterior stairwells, but states such
stairwells must not be used as the primary means of access to an
upper floor dwelling unit.
Staff does not recommend making any
changes to this section.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
18
14-4B-6E (p.41-42): Building Scale.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making any
Commission indicated
Suggests that these standards are not
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING
changes to this section.
little interest in making
necessary and lead to increased costs.
DISTRICT, THE R/O ZONE, AND THE PRM ZONE.
this change to the draft.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
The intent of these building scale standards is to break up the
Development Council.
fagade of multi -family buildings that tend to be larger than
surrounding residential dwellings, such as single family homes,
duplexes, and townhouses. These regulations help buildings to fit
into neighborhoods where there is a mix of housing types.
19
14-213-61 (p.45-46) Additional Standards
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making any
Commission indicated
in the Central Planning District. LDC
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
changes to this section.
little interest in making
feels that these standards are too
this change to the draft.
restrictive. Made no specific suggestion
These regulations were adopted about 5 years ago. They have
for changes.
been quite effective and resulted in more functional and attractive
multi -family buildings in areas that have a mix of housing types.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
20
14-213-6 Multi -Family Site Development
Currently, the Multi -Family Design Standards only apply in the
Staff feels the new standards will work
Commission indicated
Standards. Questioned whether it was a
Central Planning District. Certain standards are mandatory and
better than the existing point system
little interest in making
good idea to substitute the proposed
some are administered through a point system. The point system
and will be applied more consistently
this change to the draft.
objective standards for the previous
has proved cumbersome and difficult to administer. It was also
over time. Duncan and Associates, the
point system that was administered by
difficult for developers to know what was expected, because there
consultant that analyzed the City's
the Design Review Committee. Also
was no guidance on how the various architectural elements should
zoning code, also recommended
stated the opinion that there was an
fit together. Picking and choosing from the point menu would
making the standards more objective
over -emphasis on historic features on a
sometimes result in a building with a hodge-podge of architectural
and easier to administer fairly and
building. No specific changes were
elements that did not work well together. It also requires that each
consistently. Staff does not recommend
requested.
building be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
going back to a point system.
Requestor: Larry Svoboda
In the proposed draft of the Code the mandatory standards from the
current code have been applied citywide. These will be
administered through the site plan review process and will not
require approval by the Design Review Committee. In the Central
Planning District, the PRM Zone, and the R/O Zone, all areas that
currently have design standards that are administered through the
Design Review Committee, Design Review will continue to be
required. Except for 14-213-61 (p.45-46), there are no standards that
refer to historical architectural styles. The standards in 14-213-61 are
only applied in the Central Planning District and will replace the
previous point system.
The vast majority of the Multi -Family Site Development Standards
have nothing to do with history or architectural styles. They
address location and screening of parking areas, location and
design of building entrances, building bulk and scale, and height,
location of balconies and exterior stairways, building materials,
location and screening of mechanical equipment, and design of
storefront commercial space in mixed -use buildings in the R/O
Zone.
It should also be noted that exceptions to these standards are
allowed through the minor modification process both for sites that
are difficult to develop due to the topography and for building
designs that are unique or innovative.
21
Change the name of the Residential-
In the proposed code the R/O Zone has been amended to allow a
The staff supports making this change.
Commission directed
Office Zone (R/O) to Mixed Use Zone
wider variety of commercial uses, not just office uses, as well as a
staff to draft an
(MU).
whole variety of residential uses. Changing the name of the zone to
amendment for their
Mixed Use may more accurately describe the nature of the zone.
consideration that would
Requestor: Nila Haug
change the name of the
R/O Zone to Mixed Use
MU
22
Eliminate the provision in the Code that
Since the R/O Zone allows both single family residential uses and
Staff supports making this change,
Commission directed
restricts buildings to 2-1/2 stories in the
commercial uses to locate side -by -side, this height limitation is
provided buildings are required to step-
staff to draft an
Residential/Office Zone.
intended to prevent large commercial building overshadowing next
down to 2-1/2 stories within 15 feet of a
amendment for their
door residential dwellings.
property that contains an existing Single
consideration, but to
Requestor: Nila Haug
Family Use or a property that is zoned
ensure that there is a
However, in the proposed code there is a height step-down
Single Family Residential.
step-down provision for
requirement in all the multi -family zones when buildings are located
properties located
adjacent to single family dwellings or single family zones. With
adjacent to a SF Zone
these provisions in place, the R/O restriction to 2-1/2 stories may
or an existing single
not be as necessary.
family use.
14-2C - Commercial Zones
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
7
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Discussion - 5-23-05
23
14-2C - Table 2C-1 (p.55) Change
Transient housing is currently only allowed by special exception in
Staff supports making the proposed
Commission directed staff
"Community Service - Shelter" back to a
the CI-1 Zone. In the proposed Code there are a number of zones
change in the CI-1 Zone and also
to draft an amendment for
Special Exception in the CI-1 Zone.
where transient housing was changed from a use that is allowed by
supports re-examining how shelters
their consideration, that
Make changes accordingly in Article 14-
special exception to a provisional use. If the Commission is going
are approved in other zones as well.
would make "Community
4B.
to re-examine the decision in the CIA Zone, it might be a good idea
Service - Shelter Uses"
to re-examine all the zoning districts where a similar change to
special exceptions in all
Requestor: Many requested this
provisional approval is proposed.
zones, exception the CB -
change.
5 Zone. They also
requested that staff look
into what kinds of zoning
standards other
communities have in
lace for shelter uses.
24
14-2C-7E (p.69) CNA Zone Build -To
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making
Commission indicated
Line: Question the need for the build -to
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
this change.
little interest in making
line standard and whether it creates a
this change to the current
problem for CNA zones that are
There is an exemption provision for CNA areas built prior to the
ordinance.
already developed. They also question
adoption of these standards.
whether establishing a built -to line five
feet from the ROW line is a good idea if
The current standard for an arterial street ROW is 100 feet. A two -
the frontage is along an arterial street.
lane arterial would typically have a 34-foot pavement width. A four -
lane arterial with a center turn lane would typically have 60 feet of
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
pavement. So even with a multiple -lane arterial and a 5-foot build -
Development Council.
to line, the buildings would still be a minimum of 25 feet from the
street pavement, leaving ample space for street trees and safe
pedestrian amenities. Since the sidewalk is located in the public
ROW, the separation between vehicles in the street and
pedestrians along the sidewalk is not affected by the fact that the
buildings are located closer to the ROW. The LDC seems to be
advocating for parking lots located close to the ROW instead of
buildings, which would leave pedestrians to negotiate between
street traffic on one side and parking lot traffic on the other. Since
neighborhood commercial areas are intended to serve residents of
adjacent neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is likely to be
more significant. The build -to line and other building bulk standards
are intended to foster more pedestrian -friendly commercial areas.
25
14-2C-7F (p.69) CN-1 Zone location of
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making
Commission indicated
parking and loading areas. Questioned
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
this change.
little interest in making
provision that states that no more than
this change to the current
35 percent of the street frontage of a lot
The intent of these parking location standards is to encourage
ordinance.
may be comprised of off-street parking
neighborhood commercial areas that are conducive to walking and
spaces that are located between the
biking as well as vehicular traffic.
building and the street.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council
26
14-2C-7L - 70 (p.71-72) - CN-1 Zone
building standards for street -level
windows, building bulk, building
entrances, and balconies. LDC
requests that these be removed.
Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land
Development Council.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
These are standards to promote pedestrian -friendly retail
commercial areas. Many communities across the country have
adopted similar standards to promote attractive, pedestrian -friendly
neighborhood commercial areas.
Staff does not recommend making
this change.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the current
ordinance.
27
14-2C: Commercial Zones - Request to
A number of new standards were added to the Code for commercial
Staff is not opposed to exploring
Commission directed staff
establish standards for large
areas: new screening standards for parking lots; new design
options for regulating big box retailers,
to draft amendments for
commercial retailers ("big box" retailers)
standards for large parking lots; standards for outdoor storage and
but will take direction from the
their consideration. They
to keep such developments compatible
display; new standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
Commission about whether to draft
indicated interest in
with the character of the community, to
circulation. However, other than in the CN-1 Zone, there are no
amendments for the new zoning code
adopting standards for big
reduce large parking lots, and to
standards that regulate the size, bulk, and facade articulation of
or undertake it as a separate work
box stores, similar to what
provide better pedestrian amenities.
commercial buildings. Standards are currently in place in the CB-5
project in the future.
is proposed for the
Zone and proposed in the CB-10 Zone to prevent development that
proposed Walmart.
Request r: Garry Klein
would damage thepedestrian-friendly character of the downtown.
28
14-2C-8H. (p. 75) Drive -Through
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making
Commission indicated
Facilities (in the C13-5 and CB-10
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
this change.
little interest in making
Zones). Allow drive -through facilities by
this change to the current
special exception in the C13-10 Zone,
Drive -through facilities are not currently allowed in the CB-5 and
ordinance.
particularly for banks.
CB-10 Zones, since they are auto -oriented uses that require curb
cuts onto busy downtown streets and would require significant
Requestor: Marc Moen
areas of a site to be devoted to vehicle maneuvering. Such
facilities may erode the pedestrian -oriented character of the
downtown by creating incentives to replace active building uses
with driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas.
The downtown currently contains numerous banking establishments
that exist without drive -through facilities. Most of these banks have
branches in other areas of town that contain drive -through facilities
to serve their customers needs.
29
14-2C: Commercial Zones - Allow
In the new code, a number of changes were made to clarify the
Staff is in support of making this
Commission directed staff
stealth cell tower facilities (towers that
regulations for communication towers based on recommendations
change, provided there are limitations
to draft an amendment for
look like flag poles, light poles, etc.) in
from a joint committee of staff and communication providers from
on the height and specific
their consideration making
Neighborhood Commercial Zones.
Iowa City and surrounding communities.
requirements for camouflaging the
some allowance for such
facilities. Alternatively, the Code could
facilities in the CN-1
Requestor: Tim Lynch, U.S. Cellular
be amended in the future after some
Zone.
additional research and discussion.
14-3A - Planned Development Overlay
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff
Informal Meeting
Recommendation
Discussion - 5-23-05
30
14-3A-4K-2. (p.112) Modifications to
There is no provision in the code that requires alleys to be private rather than public.
Staff does not
Commission indicated
Street Standards. Mr. Gordon stated
The City Code, through the planned development process and through subdivision
recommend making
little interest in making
that he and the Land Development
regulations provides a means by which land for public improvements is dedicated to the
any changes to this
this change to the draft.
Council assume that alleys and rear
City (See 14-3A-4F & G. Dedication of Public Right of Way and Streets. See also the
section.
lanes are considered private streets as
subdivision regulations, which are in a separate part of the City Code.)
there is no provision in the Code for
these to be dedicated to the City. They
Subsection K, referenced by the LDC, applies when a developer is specifically
object to this because when streets or
requesting private streets, including private rear lanes or alleys. In the event private
alleys are private, maintenance,
streets are requested, certain standards must be met in order to provide for
garbage and snow removal is the
maintenance and services. The reason that the ordinance states that private streets are
responsibility of the private owners
discouraged is because once they are built, residents, not aware that they are private
through a homeowner's association or
streets, assume that the City is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the streets
similar entity and they feel this
and will often call to complain when services and maintenance are not properly
increases costs to the consumer.
provided.
31
14-3A-4 (starting on p. 104) Approval
In the current planned development regulations, any variations from the requirements
Staff does not
Commission
Criteria
and standards of the underlying zoning designation must be specified on the plan and
recommend making
indicated little
The LDC feels that certain design
approved. However, in the current code it is unclear what the underlying zoning
these changes.
interest in making
standards are mandated which takes
requirements are. In the proposed code, the provisions make clear what those
this change to the
away from the flexibility and creativity
underlying standards are. Standards that might otherwise be difficult to find in other
draft.
that should be allowed in a planned
places in the code are listed in this section for clarity and ease of use. If, for example,
development. They refer to the
the underlying zoning is RS-5, the planned development ordinance allows you to build
following:
a whole variety of housing types and commercial uses as well. Since townhouses,
• Attached SF uses must comply with
duplexes, multi -family buildings, and commercial uses are not generally allowed in the
the standards for the RS-12 zone,
RS-5 Zone, it is difficult to determine what zoning standards would apply. The
• MF uses and duplexes must comply
proposed code contains basic standards for duplexes, townhouses, and multi -family
with MF site development standards
buildings that are fairly standard across all the zones. For clarity and ease of use, the
• Commercial development must
applicable standards are referenced here. Since any commercial development
comply with the CN-1 Zone site
proposed for property zoned residential must be small-scale in order to fit into a
development standards.
residential planned development, applying the CN-1 zone standards seems the most
appropriate.
No specific changes to the proposed
draft were proposed.
Note that for planned developments where the underlying zoning is commercial, the
general commercial site development standards apply, not the CN-1 Zone standards.
Requestor: Steve Gordon/ Land
In the current code, planned developments are not allowed on land zoned commercial,
Development Council.
so this is a new allowance that creates more opportunities for creative commercial
development in the community.
Keep in mind that through the planned development process, developers have great
latitude to request land uses and modifications to the underlying zoning requirements
that are not allowed in the standard zones, but city officials and decision -makers and
developers need to know what the underlying standards are before they can be
modified or varied. Subsection 14-3A-4K (p.109) contains the procedures and
standards for requesting modifications to the underlying zoning requirements. In
addition, there is also an overarching "exceptions" section that allows modifications to
the approval criteria (See 14-3A-7 on p. 115).
Unlike the current ordinance, the provisions of Article 14-3A state clearly what
standards are applicable to the property, making it much easier to submit a complete
application with fewer deficiencies. This should help to streamline the process for all
involved. In addition, the Article 14-3A provides maximum flexibility to request
modifications to those standards for creative and innovative subdivision designs.
14-4A: Land Use Classification
7
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
32
14-4A-4B (p.147) Animal -Related
The requestor is veterinarian. In discussions at one of the Commission's open
Staff recommends making
Commission directed staff
Commercial Uses - Request to add
house sessions, he mentioned that there is a need for overnight
this change.
to draft an amendment for
language to this use category definition
accommodations within some veterinary facilities in cases where animals
their consideration.
to make it clear that overnight sleeping
need around -the -clock monitoring and care.
facilities for staff would be allowed as
an accessory use in veterinary
Since the list of accessory uses for each land use category is not intended to
establishments.
be exhaustive of all of the types of accessory uses that might exist, sleeping
accommodations for vet clinics would not necessarily be excluded. However,
Requestor: Allan Berger
adding the language requested will provide additional information and
clarification.
14-4C: Accessory Uses
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff
Informal Meeting
Recommendation
Discussion - 5-23-05
33
14-4C-2A. (p.198) Accessory
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Staff does not
Commission indicated
Apartments. Disallow
recommend
little interest in
accessory apartments in the
Sometimes called "granny flats," accessory apartments provide the opportunity for a homeowner
eliminating the
disallowing accessory
RS-5 and RS-8 Zones.
to provide semi -private living quarters for an elderly or disabled relative, a nanny, or other
opportunity for
apartments or creating
Alternatively, change the
person seeking affordable housing. Currently, the Zoning Code allows accessory apartments on
accessory
new location standards.
provisions to restrict accessory
any single family owner -occupied property, either within the principal structure or in an
apartments or
apartments to large lots or lots
accessory structure (such as a garage), provided certain conditions are met. While accessory
creating additional
The Commission
that back up to public open
apartments have been allowed for a number of years, there are only a handful of property
location standards
indicated that they
space.
owners that have taken advantage of these provisions.
for such uses.
would like to see how
the new stricter
Requestors: Longfellow
Following is a list of the changes proposed to the accessory apartment regulations:
enforcement standards
Neighborhood Association
• Accessory apartments would not be allowed in the RNC-12 Zone. (They are currently
proposed in the draft
allowed in any single family home in any zone.)
work, before any
• Currently, at least one person residing on the property must be disabled or elderly. In the
additional restrictions
proposed code this restriction has been removed, but maximum occupancy on the
are considered.
property is still limited to what would be allowed for the property without the accessory
unit (see next bullet) and the property must be owner -occupied.
• Occupancy on the property is limited to what is currently allowed for the principal dwelling
(one "household," as defined in the Code). In other words, no additional unrelated
persons (roomers) would be allowed beyond what is currently allowed in the particular
zone in which the property is located. So, the maximum occupancy of the property with
or without the accessory apartment is exactly the same. The language in the current
Code is vague, so it is necessary to clarify this point. The intent is not to double the
allowed occupancy, but rather to allow a semi -private living arrangement for a member of
the "household."
• Accessory apartment rental permits must be renewed every 2 years (instead of 3), after
completion of a housing inspection.
• Size of the accessory unit is limited to 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, 50%
of the floor area of the accessory dwelling, or 650 square feet, whichever is least. (In the
current and the proposed code accessory apartments are limited to one bedroom).
• There are a number of safeguards already built into the regulations to ensure that these
units are only allowed on owner -occupied properties. For example, the property has to
record on the covenants of the property that their right to an accessory apartment ceases
upon transfer of Title.
34
14-4C-2M (p. 206) Home
In order to prevent nuisance issues, new definitions and restrictions were added the home
Occupations - Requests that
occupation regulations requiring that home occupations where customers frequent the site on a
Type B home occupations be
regular basis (Type B Home Occupations) must obtain a home occupation permit from the city,
limited so that clients or
so that they are aware of the regulations and can be monitored by the city more easily. A new
customers were not allowed to
restriction was also added limiting customer or client visits to 10 per day.
frequent the site on weekends.
As with many regulations that are intended to prevent nuisance issues, these regulations will be
Requestor: Diana Baculis
enforced on a complaint basis.
35
144C - Accessory Uses -
Some initial research on windmill generators was conducted several years ago. A general
requested that windmill power
finding of this research was that such facilities often generate a level of noise that may be a
generators intended for on -site
nuisance to surrounding properties.
power generation be allowed
as an accessory use. The
requestor did not specify which
zones he thinks they should be
allowed in.
uestor: Allan
Since there are a
number of new
limitations and
regulations
proposed in the new
code for home
occupations, staff
does not
recommend making
this change at this
time. Instead staff
recommends waiting
to see how well the
new restrictions are
working and making
any necessary
adjustments in the
future if needed.
Without further
research on this
issue, staff does not
recommend making
a change at this
time.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
The Commission
indicated that they
would like to see how
the new standards
proposed in the Code
work, before any
additional restrictions
are considered.
Commission indicated
little interest in making
this change to the draft.
More research is
needed before such a
change would be
considered.
14-5A - Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards
7
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
36
14-5A-3D (p.228) Maximum Parking in
Private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone is currently only
Staff recommends easing the proposed
Commission directed
the CB-10 Zone - Concern expressed
allowed by special exception. However, the current ordinance does
standards to allow some ground level
staff to draft an
about the new approval criteria for
not give the Board of Adjustment much guidance regarding what
structured parking, provided the first 30
amendment for their
private, off-street parking in the CB-10
factors should be considered when reviewing these requests. The
feet of the lot depth is reserved for
consideration that would
Zone. Would like to see some
standards in the proposed code would prohibit off-street surface
active building uses, i.e. no structured
allow some structured
allowance made for parking at grade,
parking and ground level structured parking.
parking along the street front (this is
parking at the ground
either within a parking structure or in
similar to the current standard in the
level, but not along
surface parking lots.
CB-5 Zone). Staff feels that private, off-
street fronts.
street surface parking should not be
Requestor: Marc Moen
allowed in the CB-10 Zone. If it is, it
Commission asked staff
should only be allowed from an alley
to investigate the typical
behind buildings, not along the street
depth of a commercial
front.
storefront, e.g. 30 feet?
50 feet? other?
Commission indicated
little interest in allowing
surface parking in the
CB-10 Zone.
14-51 - Sensitive Lands and Features
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
37
14-51-6C. (p. 311) Wetland Mitigation
This would not be a substantive change to the regulations.
Making the suggested changes might
Commission directed
Plan Required. Rename this section
clarify the regulations for a layperson.
staff to draft an
"Wetland Protection Plan" and reorder
However, use of the term "mitigation" is
amendment for their
provisions sequentially.
well established and understood by
consideration, but
wetland professionals, who are the
indicated no interest in
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
persons most likely to use the
changing the substance
Council
ordinance. Changing the terms used
of the regulations.
will make our ordinance less consistent
with federal regulations. See attached
memo from Julie Tallman, Development
Regulations Specialist, regarding this
issue. Perhaps a better means to
clarify the regulations would be to add a
definition of "mitigation" to the Code.
38
15-51-6E-1 (p. 311). Wetland Buffer
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Some cross reference to this paragraph
Commission indicated
Requirement. Opening paragraph
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
14-51-6F-7 could be added to 15-51-6E-
little interest in making
should be modified to take into account
1 if necessary for clarification.
this change to the
the consideration relative to constructed
Mr. Schnittjer concern is addressed in Paragraph 14-51-6F-7
current ordinance.
and/or altered wetlands where "natural"
(p.313). It states, "Where it is determined that the area occupied by
landscapes(s) adjacent to the wetland
the required buffer provides little natural protection to the wetland
probably will not exist. No specific
due to previous land disturbance, enhanced vegetative cover must
language provided by requestor.
be provided within the buffer area to help filter and slow the flow of
surface water. The enhanced vegetation shall consist of species
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas."
Council
39
14-51-6G. Compensatory Mitigation.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making any
Commission indicated
The references to specific replacement
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
changes to this section.
little interest in making
ratios should be eliminated and
this change to the
replaced with "as required by the COE"
The replacement ratios were intentionally included in the ordinance
current ordinance.
to avoid conflicts and confusion.
by the original committee that crafted the sensitive areas ordinance.
Knowing that federal regulations might change over time, the
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
committee wanted to provide some certainty and consistency with
Council
regard to wetland mitigation in Iowa City. The replacement ratios in
the current and the proposed code are based on ratios used in
model wetland ordinances from other communities around the
region.
40
14-51-7 (p. 315) Stream Corridors -
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making any
Commission indicated
This section should be moved to the
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
changes to this section of the Code.
little interest in making
storm water management section of the
this change to the
code and as such the buffers could be
It is not clear how moving the regulations to another part of the
current ordinance.
applied to a specific need of a stream
Code will result in an improvement or any greater protection for
corridor and not just based on where
regulated stream corridors. There is already differentiated buffer
that line is on the map.
requirements based on the type of stream and reductions are based
on clearly stated approval criteria.
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
Council
41
14-51-8 (p.316) Regulated Slopes -
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
The change suggested is counter to the
Commission indicated
Requestor would like this section
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
intent of the sensitive areas ordinance.
little interest in making
rewritten to correlate slopes with
Staff is opposed to making such a
this change to the
degrees of protection, i.e. the greater
Mr. Schnittjer would like this section of the code modified to allow
significant reversal in policy and
current ordinance.
the percentage of slope, the greater the
any slope to be altered or engineered so that they are no longer
regulation without a community -wide
degree of constructed slope protection
steep. This assumes that any slope no matter how steep can be
debate.
to be provided.
graded and engineered to prevent erosion and land slides on to
adjacent properties.
It is clear from his comments that Mr.
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
Schnittjer would like the City to do a
Council
One of the primary reasons the sensitive areas ordinance was
major rewrite of the Sensitive Areas
adopted was due to severe erosion problems caused by
Ordinance. Changes were made to the
inappropriate grading and cutting of slopes. Grading changes the
ordinance about two years ago that
topography, the hydrology, and the drainage patterns of a site.
allow greater use of administrative
Erosion also increases in proportion to the amount of lost
reviews as opposed to the more lengthy
vegetation. Therefore, controlling clearing and grading on steeply
overlay rezoning process. No other
sloping sites is the first step in controlling erosion.
significant changes to the sensitive
areas ordinance were contemplated
The ordinance already allows "manmade" protected slopes to be
during this rewrite.
altered, but protects naturally formed ravines where the soil is
stabilized by existing trees and understory vegetation. In addition,
the sensitive areas ordinance was amended recently to allow up to
35% of the critical slopes on a site to be disturbed without the need
for a sensitive areas rezoning.
42
14-51-9 (p.318) Wooded Areas -
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO
Staff does not recommend making
Commission indicated
Requestor questioned the justification
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
changes to the woodland regulations at
little interest in making
for applying differing levels of protection
The purpose for regulating woodlands as stated in the ordinance is
this time. However, formulating a
this change to the
for different zones. He also opined that
to reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wooded areas
strategy to protect landmark trees is a
current ordinance.
there is more justification for providing
located near wetlands, along stream corridors, and on steep slopes.
worthy goal and could be added to the
protection for "land mark trees" than
Protecting woodlands also helps reduce erosion and siltation;
Commission's future work program.
The Commission
there is for woodlands in general.
minimizes destruction of wildlife habitat, and encourages
indicated that creating
new standards for
subdivision and site plan design that incorporates groves and
Larry Schnittjer, Land Development
woodlands as amenities. There is a difference in the amount of
landmark trees is
beyond the scope of
Council
woodlands that must be retained based on the zoning of the
property. There are two reasons for this. First, undeveloped
this project, the
residential land, particularly land zoned Rural Residential or Interim
Commission indicated
Development often contains larger areas covered by woodlands
interest in pursuing
undisturbed by development activity. Secondly, it is easier to
such amendments at a
preserve woodlands and other natural features when the density of
future date.
development is lower. Therefore, the lower density zones are
required to retain more woodland area than the higher density
zones.
The Commission has had some preliminary discussion about
providing some protection for "landmark trees." Such an effort
would require defining "landmark trees" and formulating a strategy
to protect them over time.
43
14-51-12 (p.322) Archeological Sites -
The changes suggested are clarifications to existing regulations.
Staff supports making changes that help
The Commission
Request that the language be clarified
However, we should be cautious about adopting language into the
to clarify the regulations without adopting
indicated that they
to spell out the operational procedure at
code that describes in detail operational procedures at the State
language that describes in unnecessary
would like to keep the
the State, so that there is no confusion
level, because these can change over time.
detail operational procedures at the State
language fairly
or mistakes made when determining
level.
generic, so that any
operational changes at
protections for archeological sites.
the state level do not
Requestor: Tim Weitzel, Registered
affect local
ordinances. They
Professional Archeologist
directed staff to
discuss the suggested
changes further with
the requestor and draft
any minor changes for
their consideration that
might clarify the
regulations.
14-5K - Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
Proposed Amendment
44 14-5K. (p.333-337) Neighborhood
Open Space Requirements. The
Land Development Council
requests:
That parks be considered a
public improvement and be
accepted as a dedication
when all the other public
improvements are accepted
by the City.
More objective standards in
the code regarding how a site
should be prepared before
dedication, e.g. grading,
trimming of trees, seeding,
etc.
Regarding payment of fees in
lieu of dedication, they would
like the period of time for the
city to use the funds to be
reduced from 5 years to 2 or 3
years. They would also like
the funds automatically
refunded to property owners
and not require them to apply
for a refund. They also feel
that fees should be used for
the particular subdivision, not
for neighborhood parks.
Requestor: Mike Pugh, Land
Development Council
Explanatory Notes
THESE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
The City does accept dedicated parkland in the same manner as other public improvements; that is when it has
been improved as specified in the subdivision's legal papers and as per City Code.
The subdividers agreement typically specifies what improvements, if any, must be made to open space before it is
dedicated to the City. Trying to write general standards in the zoning code that would be appropriate in all cases
would be very difficult. Each piece of land has its own topography and characteristics. The subdividers agreement
is a much better vehicle for establishing specific improvements that must be taken care of before the City accepts
the land as public parkland.
Payment of fees in lieu of dedication:
Rather than require land dedication in subdivisions where there is no open space appropriate for a neighborhood
park, the City collects fees equivalent to the cost of the land that otherwise would have been dedicated. The funds
are then used to purchase more suitable parkland in close proximity to the subdivision or the funds are used to
improve an existing park in the area. For example, the fees collected in lieu of open space for the Southpointe
subdivision were used for the expansion and improvement of Wetherby Park, which is approximately 500 feet from
Southpointe.
Reducing the amount of time the City has to use any funds paid in lieu of dedication would be difficult given that
the City has a five-year capital improvements plan. Getting new parkland improvements into the queue in two or
three years may not always be possible. In addition, most subdivisions take more than 2 or 3 years to build out.
Reordering other capital improvement priorities in the community to establish parks in an area where few homes
currently exist seems unreasonable. Waiting until more homes are built out also allows the Parks Department to
solicit input from residents about how they would like the funds used and what improvements are most desired.
The City makes every effort to use open space fees within the time allotted in the current ordinance. Setting up a
system to automatically refund fees to current owners of property within a subdivision after a certain period of time
may entail considerable administrative oversight and cost.
It is unreasonable to require that open space fees be used to establish parkland within the boundaries of the
specific subdivision. If there was land suitable for a park within the subdivision, presumably fees would not have
been paid in lieu of dedication. The developers, the City, and the future residents of a subdivision all benefit from
this system of parkland creation. If fees can be pooled from several adjacent subdivisions, the resulting parkland is
likely to be more attractive and usable for all area residents. The alternative would be for the City to eliminate the
option for developers to pay fees in lieu of dedication.
Staff
Recommendation
Staff recommends
making some changes
to the language in the
zoning code to make it
clear that any
improvements
required prior to
dedication will be
specified in the
subdividers
agreement.
Staff does not
recommend making
any changes to the
current system of
administering the fees
paid in lieu of
dedication.
Informal
Meeting
Discussion -
5-23-05
Commission
directed staff
to draft
language that
would clarify
current
practices, but
are not
interested in
making
substantive
changes to the
ordinance.
14-4E - Nonconforming Situations
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Changes to the occupancy standards in the proposed code are not
intended to impact existing rental properties or properties where a
building permit was issued prior to the release of the public review
draft of the zoning code.
Staff Recommendation
Informal Meeting
Discussion - 5-23-05
Staff recommends making this change.
Commission directed
staff to draft an
amendment for their
consideration.
45
14-4E-9 (p. 226) Regulation of
Nonconforming Residential Occupancy.
Make a change so that persons that
have been issued a building permit and
made substantial progress on a project
based on the current occupancy
standards will be grandfathered in at the
current standards, even if they do not
yet have a rental permit.
Requestor: Michael McLaughlin
14-8 - Review and Approval Procedures
Proposed Amendment
Explanatory Notes
Staff Recommendation
Informal
Meeting
Discussion -
5-23-05
14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting
This requirement is intended to supplement the opportunities for
Staff does not recommend making this change.
Commission
indicated little
46
Required. Remove this requirement.
public input into a development proposal. If information is provided
interest in
early in the planning stages of a project, it can help to dispel
Requestor: Dan Smith, Land
misinformation and may help to foster better communication
making this
change to the
Development Council
throughout the development review and approval process. The
draft.
public hearing process is not the best means to foster a dialogue
between parties, but is a means to provide input to the Commission
and the City Council.
47
14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting
There is nothing in the regulations that would prevent a developer
Staff encourages full participation by all those
Commission
Required. Request to re -write this
from inviting prospective tenants or home buyers to the
who might be affected by a development,
indicated little
provision to provide a greater possibility
neighborhood meeting.
including those who may be future residents of
interest in
of participation by people interested in
the neighborhood. However, it would be difficult
making this
or who would be living in the proposed
to make this a requirement in the code, since it is
change to the
development to attend the meeting.
often unknown who will be living in a new
draft.
development. Therefore, staff does not
Requestor: Charlie Eastham, Greater
recommend making a change to the ordinance.
Iowa City Housing Fellowship.
14-813-9 (p. 359) Performance
This section was copied from its current location in the site plan
Staff recommends removing this section from the
Commission
48
Guarantees. Remove this section.
section of the City Code. It was included in the proposed zoning
Zoning Code.
requested that
staff remove
code, so that users of the Code would not have to flip to a different
Requestor: Dan Smith, Land
section of the City Code to find out the procedures for a
(Note: It will remain in its current form within the
this section
Development Council
performance guarantee if one was required. No new requirements
site plan review section of the City Code.)
from the
were added to the City Code for performance guarantees. This
proposed
section merely describes the procedure to be followed if a
zoning code.
performance guarantee is required
49
14-8D-7E (p.378) Amending Approved
The existing language in the Code is more restrictive than the
If more certainty is desired regarding requests for
Commission
OPD Plans or Sensitive Areas
proposed language regarding changes to approved OPD Plans. It
amendments to approved OPD Plans, staff
indicated little
Development Plans. Request
only allows minor changes in building arrangements. The existing
recommends amending the proposed code using
interest in
clarification of the phrase "character of
language in 14-6J-2D-10a. states:
language from the existing zoning code.
making this
development" with regard to requests
change to the
for changes to an approved planned
"Minor changes in building arrangements that do not substantially
draft.
development.
alter the character of the development are permissible without
further City Council action. Any other changes, including changes
Requestor: Dan Smith, Land
in street locations, land use and buildinga arrangements, shall be
Development Council
considered as material changes to the approved plan. Such
changes must be approved as amendments in accordance with the
procedures set forth in D2." (Preliminary PDH Plan Approval).
The proposed code, while somewhat more ambiguous, provides
more flexibility (See 14-8D-7E (p.378)
Amendment #1
Insert this subsection into 14-2A-7 Special Provisions:
A. Two Family Uses and Attached Single Family Dwellings in the RS-8 Zone
Existing Two Family Uses and Attached Single Family Dwellings located on interior
lots in the RS-8 Zone that were conforming with regard to use and minimum lot
area per unit requirements as of (day prior to adoption of new code) shall be
considered conforming with regard to use and minimum lot area per unit
requirements regardless of location. Any building containing a conforming use may
be torn down and rebuilt to its present density or to the allowed density in the RS-
8 Zone, provided that it conforms to all other provisions of this Title. This provision
does not exempt a property from compliance with other relevant dimensional
standards, site development standards, use regulations, or any subsequent
amendments to this Title that pertain to the property.
Amendment #4
Amend 14-2A-7A Single Family Density Bonus Options as follows:
14-1A-1 Special Provisions
A. Single Family Density Bonus Options
1. RS-5 Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-5 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under the
following conditions.
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 60 feet and the minimum
frontage may be reduced to 40 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph C.6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 50 feet and the
minimum lot frontage may be reduced to 30 feet;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 6,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
2. RS-8 Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-8 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under the
following conditions:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 45 feet and the minimum
frontage may be reduced to 30 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph C.6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 40 feet and the
minimum frontage to 25 feet ;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 4,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
3. RS-12 Zone
For Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
located in the RS-12 Zone, the following density bonuses are allowed under
the following conditions:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to 45 feet and the minimum
frontagemay be reduced to 30 feet if garages or off-street parking areas
are located and designed such that they meet the provisions of
paragraph C.6. of the previous Section.
b. If garages are accessed from an alley or private rear lane, then the
following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed:
(1) The minimum lot width may be reduced to 30 feet and the
minimum frontage to 20 feet ;
(2) The minimum lot size may be reduced to 3,000 square feet; and
(3) The minimum front setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities
are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first
floor elevation is at least 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent
public sidewalk.
Amendment # 10
Insert the following underlined subparagraph into 14-2A-6C-3:
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the
following situations:
a. For Single Family Uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be
provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly
constructed aisle, provided not less than 50 percent of the front principal
dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and other
impervious surfaces.
b. For Two Family Uses and Group Households, 2 of the required parking
spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a
regularly constructed aisle, provided not less than 50 percent of the front
principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and
impervious surfaces.
c. For Single Family Uses Two Family Uses and Group Households, up to 3
non -required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal
dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly
constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located
in the front principal dwelling setback and provided that not less than 50
percent of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space
free of buildings and impervious surfaces.
Amendment #12
Amend 14-2A-78 (Special Provisions in the Single Family Zones) as follows:
B. Historic Preservation Exceptions
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional. or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would .prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver" will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2B-8A (Special Provisions in the Multi -Family Zones) as follows.
B. Historic Preservation Exceptions
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver =ate will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register
of Historic Places to be adapted and re -used as a Community Service Use,
Specialized Educational Facility, or Hospitality -Oriented Retail Use. In addition
to the general special exception approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B, the
applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Board to grant
this exception:
a. The exception will help to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or
cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2C-9A (Special Provisions in Commercial Zones) as follows;
C. Historic Preservation Exception
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any
dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5
or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or
occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the
National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception
approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be
met:
1. The modification or waiver' eEessaq, will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
2. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Amend 14-2E-68 (Special Provisions in Interim Development Zones) as follows:
D. Historic Preservation Exceptions
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify
any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in
Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that
would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City
Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In
addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article
14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver".- , will help to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register
of Historic Places to be adapted and re -used as a Community Service Use,
Specialized Educational Facility, or Hospitality -Oriented Retail Use. In addition
to the general special exception approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B, the
applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Board to grant
this exception:
a. The exception is -necessary -will help to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or
cultural attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Amendment #13
Amend 14-48-4A-2i and 14-48-4A-3g. as follows:
L Maintenance
A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from
the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The
easement must ensure access for maintenance of the exterior portion of
the building wall located on the lot line and other common elements,
such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a
covenant en the deeds on the applicable lots. Proof of such recording
must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or occupancy permit.
Amend 14-48-4a. as follows:
1. Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
a. Procedure
Any restrictions or easements required in subparagraphs b. through e.
must be recorded as a covenant on the deed;f the applicable lots.
Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building
or occupancy permit.
Amendment #22
Amend 14-28-4C-1 as follows:
1. Maximum Height
a. Purpose
The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building
scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air,
and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other
buildings in the vicinity.
b. General Standards
Generally, the maximum height standards for structures in Multi -Family
Residential Zones are stated in Table 2B-2. This table is located at the
end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are
addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings.
c. Specific Standards
(1) .
If any portion of a building is within
15 feet of a Single Family Residential Zone boundary, then the
portion of the building located within 15 feet of said zone may not
exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
(2) In the R O RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 Zones, if any portion of a
Two Family Use, Multi -Family Use, or a Non-residential Use is
located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single
,Family Use, then the portion of the building located within 15 feet
of said property may not exceed 2-1/2 stories in height.
Table 28=2 : Dimensio
al Requirements ;far Mult��amil Ft�sidertit
I Zone
. M
irimum
Lot
Requirements
` '
, Mini�i�m,
5�`cCc�
, ,�
;�uildln
sulk :
'' Max Lot Goverege
Width
Font"title
1aar
Hk.
�4�`
."Use
ea
Unit ,
,
(ft.)<�1(it,j
Frontage
O''
(a
r�y�rldi$,
Builiin
Seioaclr
Width
Covergoo
Coverage
R/0
Detached SF
and Detached
3,000
3,000
30
20
5/1510
5+22
20
359
203
50%
50%
Zero Lot Line
Duplex
6,000
3,000
45
1 20
5/1510
1 5+22
20
1 359
203
50%
50%
Attached SF
3,000
3,000
20/288
20
5/1510
0/105
20
359
183
50%
50%
Multi -Family
5,000
2,725
45
20
5/1510
5+22
5+22
359
203
50%
50%
Group Living
5,000
See
45
20
5/1510
5+22
5+22
359
203
50%
50%
Non-residential'
none
n/a
none
20
5/1510
5+22
5+22
359
n/a
50%
50%
Notes:
n/a = not applicable
'Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses,
2 Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story.
3 A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length.
See the Special Provisions of this Article.
5 See Article 144B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses.
6 The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet. However, garages must be set back at least 20 feet.
7 The principal dwelling must be set back at least 10 feet. However, garages must be set back at least 20 feet.
8 Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only two units are attached,
lots must be 28 feet wide.
9raseAdditional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to
Single Family Zones or Single Family Uses (See Subsection 14-2B-4C, Building Bulk Regulations).
10 Minimum setback is 5 feet. Maximum setback is 15 feet.
"If the Single Family Density Bonus Options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may
be reduced accordingly (See Section 14-2B-4A, Minimum Lot Requirements).
42Additional height Fe6tFIGti9R6 FRay apply 91; pF9peqi96 adjaGeAt t9 SIR@le FaMily ZOR86 ()F Single Family 9686 (968 SUIDN49A 14 2B 4G, Building
Bulk ula#GRs�
Amendment #23
Amend Table 2C-9 as follows:
Table 2C-1 - Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones
USE CATEGORIES
Residential Uses
Household Living Uses
Detached Single Family Dwellings
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
Attached Single Family Dwellings
Duplexes
Group Households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Multi -family Dwellings
PR
PR
S
PR
PR/S
Group Living Uses
Assisted Group Living
PR
S
Independent Group Living
Fraternal Group Living
,.ummerciai uses
Adult Business Uses
I
PR
Animal -related
Commercial Uses
General
S
PR
PR
PR
PR
Intensive
PR
Commercial
Recreational Uses
Outdoor
P
P
S
Indoor
PR/S
PR
P
P
P
P
P
Commercial Parking
Uses
PR
PR
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
S
PR/S
P
P
P
P
Quick Vehicle Servicing
Uses
S
PR
PR
PR
PR/S
Office Uses
General Office
P
PR
P
P
P
P
P
Medical/Dental Office
P
PR
P
P
P
P
Retail Uses
Sales -oriented
PR
PR
PR
P
P
P
Personal Service -oriented
P
PR
P
P
P
Repair -oriented
P
P
P
P
Hospital it -Oriented Retail
PR
PR
P
P
P
P
Outdoor Storage and Display-
oriented
P
PR
Surface Passenger
Service Uses
P
P
P
P
Vehicle Repair Uses
PR
PR I
S
nwuainai u
Industrial Service Uses
p
Manufacturing and
Production Uses
Technical/Light Manufacturing
PR
General Manufacturing
PR
HeavyManufacturin
S
Salvage Operations
Self -Service Storage
Uses
p
Warehouse and Freight
Movement Uses
p
Waste -Related Uses
Wholesale Sales Uses
P
Institutional And Civic
Uses
Basic Utility Uses
PR/S
I PR/S
PR/S
PR/S
PR/S
PR/S
PR/S
Community Service
Uses
General Community Service
P
S
S
P
P
P
Community Service - Shelter
S
42R
S
RR
S
PR
t
S
Daycare Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Detention Facilities
S
Educational Facilities
General
PR
P
P
Specialized
P
PR
P
P
P
Hospitals
PR
Parks and Open Space
Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Religious/Private Group
AssemblyUses
PR
L
P
P
P
Table 2C-1 - Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones Continued
USE CATEGORIES !SUBGROUPS I CO-1 I CNA I CH-1 I CIA I CC-2 I CB-5 CB-10
Other Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception
Amend Table 28-1 as follows:
Table 213-1 - Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family Residential Zones
USE GATEGORIES I SUBGROUPS I RM-12 I RM-20 I RNS-20 I RM-44 I PRM I R/O
I Uses
Household Living Uses
Detached Single Family Dwellings
P
P
P
P
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings
PR
PR
PR
PR
Attached Single Family Dwellings
PR
PR
PR
PR
Duplexes
PR
PR
PR
PR
-Group Households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Multi -family Dwellings
P
P
P
P
P
P
Group Living Uses
Assisted Group Living
S
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Independent Group.LivingPR
PR
PR
Fraternal GroupLiving
PR
PR
PR
PR
Commercial Uses
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
S
Office Uses
General Office
P
Medical/Dental Office
P
Retail Uses
Sales -oriented
PR
Personal Service -oriented
S
PR
—Repair-oriented
—Hospital it -Oriented Retail
PR
PR
PR
Outdoor Storage and Display
oriented
Institutional And civic uses
Community Service
Uses
General Community Service
S
S
S
S
S
S
Community Service - Shelter
S
S
S
RR
_S
RR
S
S
Daycare Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Educational Facilities
General
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Specialized
PR
PR
Parks and Open Space
Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Religious/Private Group
Assembly Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Other
Communication I PR I PR PR I PR PR PR
Transmission Facility
Uses
P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception
Delete 14-4B-4D-5 and amend 14-4B-4D-6 as follows:
6. Community Service - Shelter
and GO 1 Zones
a. Maximum Density
(1) In the RM-12 and R/O Zones: 750 square feet of lot area per
permanent resident and 200 square feet of lot area per temporary
resident.
(2) In the RM-20, RNS-20, and CO-1 Zones: 550 square feet of lot area
per permanent resident and 200 square feet of lot area per
temporary resident.
(3) In the RM-44, PRM Zones, CI-1, and CC-2 Zones a minimum of 300
square feet of lot area per permanent resident and 200 square feet
of lot area per temporary resident is required.
b. Nuisance Issues
The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on nearby
residential or commercial uses due to loitering, noise, glare from lights,
late -night operations, odors, outdoor storage, and litter.
The applicant must submit a site plan and a shelter management plan
that address these issues. The management plan must include a litter
control plan, a loitering control plan, a plan for on -site security, and a
conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisance issues if they occur. The
site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted along with
the application for a special exception or if allowed as a provisional use,
such plan must be included with the materials submitted for site plan
review.
c. Site Development Standards
(1) If the proposed use in located in a Residential Zone or in the
Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site
Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-26-6.
(2) In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, Community Service - Shelter uses
must be located above the street level floor of a building.
(3) The proposed facility must comply with the minimum standards as
specified in the Iowa City Housing Code, as amended.
Amendment #27
Add the following subsection to 14-2C-6 Commercial Site Development
Standards:
K. Standards for Large Retail Uses
I. Applicability
The provisions of this subsection apply to retail uses over 50.000 square feet
in size. The intent of these standards is to facilitate adaptive reuse of large
retail commercial structures, to moderate scale of large buildings, and to
ensure consistent appearance with other shopping center developments
2. Facades and Exterior Walls
a. Facades over 100 feet in length that are visible from public streets
and/or include public entrances shall incorporate wall projections or
recesses a minimum of 3 feet in depth for a minimum of 20 contiguous
feet within each 100 feet of fagade length Such recesses and/or
projections shall extend over a minimum of 20 percent of the length of
the facade and no uninterrupted facade may exceed 100 feet in length
b. For facades that face public streets or include public entrances features
that provide visual interest such as arcades storefront windows that
allow views into the interior of the building display windows that are set
into the building wall, entry areas awnings or similar features must be
incorporated along at least 60 percent of the fagade
I Building -Details
Buildings must include details and features that provide visual interest reduce
the perception of the mass of the building and provide a cohesive pattern to
the building. Any building fagade that faces a public street or includes a public
entrance shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At
least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall
repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet These visual patterns must be
cohesive with the articulation of the fagade
a. Color change
b. Texture change
c. Material module change
d. Expression of an architectural or structural bay through a change in
plane no less than 12 inches in width such as an offset reveal or
projection.
4. Roof Details
a. Flat roofs must incorporate parapets that conceal rooftop equipment
such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such
parapets shall not exceed 15 percent of the height of the supporting wall
and at no point shall exceed 1/3 of the height of the supporting wall
Such parapets shall feature a three-dimensional cornice treatment
b. Sloping roofs must not exceed the averacLe height of the supporting walls
and must include overhanging eaves that extend no less than three feet
past the supporting walls.
c. The roof of the buildina must be designed with three or more roof slope
planes. It is encouraged that changes in the roof correspond with
articulation of the building fagade
S. Building Materials
a. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building
materials, including brick masonry, stone stucco or textured concrete
masonry units. Predominantly is defined as at least 75 percent of the
exterior of the entire building, but not necessarily of each building wall
For example, use of such materials may be concentrated along building
walls that are visible from public streets or that contain public entrances
b. Use of smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels
prefabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets should be minimized If
used, these materials may cover no more than 25 percent of the exterior
of the entire building and should be reserved for building walls that are
less visible to the public.
6. Entryways
Each principal building shall have a clearly defined, highly visible customer
entrance with no less than three of the features listed below. Where
additional stores are located within the principal building each store shall
have at least one exterior customer entrance with no less than three of the
following features:
a. Canopy or portico;
b. Overhang;
c. Recess/projection;
d. Arcade;
e. Raised cornice parapet over the door;
f. Archway;
g. Outdoor patio;
h. Display windows;
L Storefront windows that allow views into the interior of the store;
j. Tile work and moldings that are integrated into the building structure
and design;
k. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or
places for sitting_
Add the following definition to Article 14-9A, General Definitions:
ARCADE: A continuous, covered passageway parallel to and open to a street,
private or public open space, or building, and typically accessible and open to
the public.
Amendment #29
Amend 14-48-4E-5 and 14-48-4E-6 as follows:
S. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the
ID-C Zone; Privately -Owned Communication Transmission Facilities
in Public Zones.
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the
ID-C Zone, and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are
met:
(1) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the
zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones.
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-5, and CB-10
Zones and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone,
antennae may not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached
or screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent
property to at least to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
and Buffering Standards). If the equipment is located on the roof it
must be set back and screened so that it is not within public view
or appears to be part of the building.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones,
the ID-C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones,
provided it complies with the following approval criteria:
(1) The If the proposed tower will net be located in an ID-C Zone that
is intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according
to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, then it must comply with
any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones.
(2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area. The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial
properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower.
(3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the
surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include towers
camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with
the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles.
(4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended. In the ID-C (except in areas intended for CN-
1), CH-1, CC-2, CI-1, 66-5, and CB-10 Zones, communications
towers are exempt from the maximum height standards of the base
zone, but under no circumstance may the tower be taller than 120
feet from grade. In the CO-1, CN-1, and any ID-C Zone intended
for CN-1, communications towers must comply with the same
height standards that would apply to the type of structure to which
they are attached. For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a
light pole, flag pole, or utilitypole it must not exceed the height
limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
standard exists in the code, it must be designed to be of similar
height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the
tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop
structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height
standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the
building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar
rooftop structures.
(5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or
commercial property.
(7) The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a
principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones. In other Commercial Zones and in Public Zones, the tower
must not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal
regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines,
strobe lights may not be used.
(9) The proposed tower may be designed and constructed to
accommodate up to two additional users, provided this additional
capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately screening
or camouflaging the use.
(10)If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower or the
owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use.
6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research
Park Zones and the ID -RP and ID -I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research
Park Zones and in the ID -I and ID -RP Zones, provided the antenna is
mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop,
light pole, or utility pole.
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID -I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and
by special exception in the ID -RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment buildings must be
screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering
Residential or Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See
Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards).
(3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least two additional users.
(4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower or the
owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use.
Amendment #32
Amend 14-4A-48 Animal -Related Commercial Uses as follows:
A. Animal -Related Commercial Uses
1. Characteristics
Commercial services related to the temporary care, medical treatment, or
cremation of domestic animals. Uses are divided into two subgroups based on
the intensity of the use, outdoor activity on the site, and the potential for
noise and odor related externalities.
2. Examples
This category includes uses from the two subgroups listed below
a. Generar Veterinary clinics; animal grooming establishments; pet
crematoriums.
b. Intensive: Kennels; stables.
3, Accessory Uses
Boarding facilities and pet crematoriums within veterinary clinics; overnight
sleeping accommodations for staff; parking; outdoor animal exercise areas
associated with kennels and stables
4. Exceptions
a. Pet and pet supply stores are classified as Sales -Oriented Retail.
b. Pet crematoriums may also be considered an accessory use to a
mortuary or funeral home.
Amendment #36
Amend 14-5A-3B Maximum Parking in the CB-10 Zone as follows:
A. CB-10 Zone
1. Off-street parking is not required for any Use.
2. Private, off-street parking is permitted only after approval of a special
exception, except for Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses.
3. Hospitality -Oriented Uses are allowed up to 1-1/4 parking spaces for each
guest room and parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of any meeting
or convention facilities without going through the special exception process.
Any parking spaces allowed under this maximum must meet the approval
criteria specified in subparagraphs b. through e., below. Any parking spaces
requested beyond this maximum must be approved by the Board of
Adjustment as a special exception and meet all of the approval criteria listed
in paragraph 4, below.
4. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria specified in
Article 14-4B, applications for a special exception for private off-street parking
in the CB-10 Zone must meet the following specific approval criteria:
a. The applicant must demonstrate through a parking demand analysis that
the number of parking spaces requested does not exceed the demand
for parking for the specific building or project proposed and that the
parking demand cannot be satisfied through the public parking system.
Only proposals for long-term parking will be considered. Short term
parking demand should be satisfied through the public parking system.
b. Surface parking is not permitted.
c. Underground parking is preferred over above -ground structured parking.
The design of any underground parking must not detract from or prevent
active building uses on the ground -level floor of the building. To that
end, the ceiling height of any underground parking level may not extend
more than 1 foot above the level of the adjacent sidewalk.
d. Above -ground structured parking may be approved only if the specific
project or building for which the parking is being requested has an FAR
of at least 7, excluding any structured parking in the FAR calculation.
e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the
following standards apply:
(1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent
ground floor storefront uses. Structured parking is -net may be
permitted on the ground -level floor of a building, provided that a
substantial portion of the around level floor of the buildina is
reserved for and built to accommodate storefront uses. Parking is
not allowed within the first 50 feet of lot depth as measured from
the front building line. The structured parking facility must
otherwise meet the standards for structured parking facilities as
specified in subsection 14-5A-5F of this Title.
(2) The proposed garage openings (entrance/exits) will not detract
from or unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Vehicular
access to parking located within or under buildings must be from a
rear alley or private rear lane, whenever possible. Garage openings
along the primary street frontage are not permitted if access is
possible from another street or from a rear alley, private street or
private rear lane. If there is no other alternative, a garage opening
may be allowed along the primary street frontage, if the Board
determines that the opening(s) will not detract from or undid
interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Garage openings shall
be built to the minimum width necessary for access.
(3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public
or private street must appear to be a component of the fagade of
the building through the use of building materials, window openings
and fagade detailing that is similar or complementary to the design
of the building.
(4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so
that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly visible
to a pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less
than 10 feet. Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs
may be required.
Amendment #37
Amend 14-51-6, Jurisdictional Wetlands, as follows:
A. Purpose
The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm
water is naturally retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving
water quality, recharging ground water resources, providing erosion control
and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or
other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and
beyond that provided by the Federal and State government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of
wetlands.
B. Wetland Regulation By Other Agencies
The approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan under the provisions of this
Article is in addition to the applicant's need to obtain permits required by other
local, State, or Federal agencies, and does not alter the applicant's obligation to
satisfy and obtain all other applicable local, State or Federal regulations and
permits.
C. Wetland Delineation
1. Prior to any development activity occurring on a site containing a potential
regulated wetland, the property owner must provide a delineation of the
wetland area. Determination of jurisdictional wetlands must be made either by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or its successor, or by a wetland specialist.
If completed by a wetland specialist, the wetland delineation must be
reviewed and accepted by the U.S. Army Corps, or its successor. Delineation
of wetland areas must be completed prior to the submittal of a Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for review.
2. If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within
150 feet of the apparent edge of a suspected or potential wetland area on the
site, the requirement for delineation by a wetland specialist or the Corps may
be waived by the City. In the case of a waiver, the property owner shall grant
an easement running in favor of the City, an approved conservation group, or
other approved organization for the purpose of retaining the wetland and the
surrounding 150-foot protection area as undeveloped natural open space.
D. Wetland Mitigation Protection Plan Required
1. A Sensitive Areas Development Plan for property containing a regulated
wetland shall include a Wetland Mitigatiee Protection Plan demonstrating that
all regulations of this Section will be met. Avoiding a delineated wetland area
and minimizing the impact of development on a wetland is strongly
encouraged, and must be investigated before compensatory mitigation will be
considered.
2. A Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan shall include the following information:
a. The boundaries of the delineated wetland and the required natural buffer
area;
b. Delineation of a construction area limit and specification of associated
restrictions thereof;
c. The type and location of erosion control measures to be placed on the
property prior to any other development activity occurring on the site;
d. Certification by a wetland specialist or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
or its successor, regarding the wetland delineation, if required;
e. Information regarding the characteristics of the wetland necessary to
determine the allowable buffer reduction as provided in subsection E of
this section, Wetland Buffer Requirements, if a reduction is requested;
f. A storm water management plan demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of the Iowa City storm water regulations and related
municipal design standards.
E. Wetland Buffer Requirements
1. An undisturbed, 100-foot natural buffer shall be maintained between any
development activity and a regulated wetland unless said development
activity is exempted pursuant to Subsection 2C of this Article, Exemptions.
The required setbacks established for the base zone shall be measured from
the buffer edge, and are in addition to the required buffer. This setback
requirement applies to parking lots as well. (For example, the RS-5 District
requires a 20-foot rear setback, which would be measured from the outside
edge of the required 100-foot buffer. As a result, no building or parking lot
could be located within 120 feet of the wetland.)
2. Buffer averaging may be permitted or required.where an increased buffer is
deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of
a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. In this situation, the width
of the required buffer around other areas of the wetland may be reduced by
up to 50 percent, but the area of the provided buffer must be equal to or
greater than the total area of the required buffer. Any request for buffer
averaging requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Buffers that have been
reduced according to the provisions of the following paragraph may not be
averaged.
3. The applicant may request a reduction of the required natural buffer in certain
instances enumerated below. Any request for a reduction in the natural
wetlands buffer requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Buffers that have
been averaged according to the provisions of the previous paragraph may not
be reduced.
a. The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 50 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
(1) Is less than 5 acres in area; and
(2) Does not contain species listed by the Federal or State government
as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural
habitat for those species; and
(3) Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent
occurrence or of regional significance; and
(4) Is not located within a regulated stream corridor.
b. The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 75 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
(1) Satisfies the criteria for Natural Buffer Reduction, in subparagraph
a, above; and
(2) Does not, in a year of average precipitation, contain standing water
at any time during the calendar year; and
(3) Is not a forested wetland; and
(4) Does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or
regional significance.
c. In addition to the qualifying criteria listed above, the City shall consider
the following factors in determining whether or not to reduce the
required buffer:
(1) The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on
the wetland; and
(2) The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to
the wetland; and
(3) The physical characteristics of the site and the wetland; and
(4) Any other factor related to the short- or long-term environmental
stability and health of the wetland.
F. Design Standards
No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining, or other development activity
is allowed within a regulated wetland or required buffer area, unless said
activity is part of an approved Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan or is a use,
activity or structure allowed according to subsection 2D of this Article, Uses,
Activities and Structures Allowed Within Protected Sensitive Areas.
2. For property not served by a City sanitary sewer system, the location of septic
tanks, soil absorption systems, holding tanks, or any other element of an on -
site sewage disposal system must meet the required setbacks specified in the
base zone, as measured from the buffer edge.
3. To mitigate negative impacts of development and limit sedimentation, the
direct discharge of untreated surface water from a development site or a
developed area into a wetland may be prohibited. The partial treatment of
storm water runoff through the use or combined use of constructed wetlands,
detention basins, vegetative filter strips, sediment traps or other means
before the storm water runoff reaches a wetland may be considered as part of
a Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan. In such case, the discharge should not
increase the rate of flow or decrease the water quality of the wetlands unless
it can be shown by a wetland specialist that an increase in the rate of flow will
enhance rather than adversely impact the wetland.
4. On any lot containing a regulated wetland, erosion control measures, whether
required under the Title 17, Chapter 8, Grading Ordinance, or as part of a
Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan approved under the provisions of this
Article, must be installed prior to any development activity occurring on the
site.
5. The planting of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native varieties,
in regulated wetland or buffer areas is prohibited. Only non -intrusive native
species shall be used to supplement existing vegetation.
6. The removal of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native varieties,
within a regulated wetland or buffer area may be permitted when approved
as part of an approved Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan.
7. Where it is determined that the area occupied by the required buffer provides
little natural protection to the wetland due to previous land disturbance,
enhanced vegetative cover must be provided within the buffer area to help
filter and slow the flow of surface water. The enhanced vegetation shall
consist of species that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas.
G. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation may be permitted only if it is clearly demonstrated that
avoiding and minimizing the impact on a wetland is unreasonable. A permit for any
development activity within a wetland area is required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or its successor. If a permit is granted for development activity within a
wetland, compensatory mitigation shall be required based on the following criteria,
unless a greater degree of compensation is required by the Corps or its successor:
1. Wetlands containing the following characteristics shall be considered
protected, "no build" wetland areas. Compensatory mitigation will be
considered only if the wetland disturbance is relatively small in relation to the
overall wetland and if it can be shown that the disturbance will not have an
adverse impact on the overall wetland. In wetlands with the following
characteristics, if compensatory mitigation is permitted, the required
replacement ratio of comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall be at
least three to one (3:1).
a. Wetlands containing species listed by the Federal or State government
as endangered or threatened, or containing critical or outstanding
natural habitat for those species; or
b. Wetlands containing the presence of diverse plant associations of
infrequent occurrence or of regional importance; or
c. Wetlands located within regulated stream corridors as defined in this
Article.
2. The replacement ratio of comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall be
at least two to one (2: 1) for wetlands not containing the characteristics listed
in paragraph 1, above, but which do contain the following characteristics:
a. Standing water throughout the calendar year under average
precipitation,
b. Forested wetlands, or
c. Wetlands providing a known habitat for migratory birds of regional or
local significance.
3. Compensatory mitigation for all other regulated wetlands shall be at a ratio of
at least one to one (1: 1). If said wetland or the replacement habitat is
enhanced to so that it contains one or more of the defining characteristics
listed in paragraphs 1 or 2, above, the required replacement ratio may be
reduced to 0.5:1.
4. When compensatory mitigation is proposed, the Wetland Mitigatien Protection
Plan described in this Section must be prepared by a wetland specialist. A
Wetland Mitigatien Protection Plan that includes compensatory mitigation
must include the following components:
a. An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine
the appropriate replacement ratio;
b. A clear statement of the goals of the compensatory mitigation, including
specific statements regarding the expected rate of establishment of a
vegetative cover over specified periods of time;
c. Analysis of the soils, substrate and hydrology of the proposed site of the
constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide a
proper growing medium for the proposed vegetation;
d. A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native,
noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as
much of the native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as
well as the upper 6 to 12 inches of the soil is encouraged; and
e. Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland
area for a period of 5 years, and identification of the party responsible
for replanting in the event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in
a failure of over 30 percent of the planted stock. Information collected
during the monitoring process must be submitted to the City annually
and include the following:
(1) Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover
established in the new or enhanced wetland;.
(2) Wildlife presence;
(3) Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions and ground
and surface water interactions; and
(4) Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies
identified in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a failure to
establish a vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign
species.
Alternatively, rather than change "Mitigation Plan" to 'Protection Plan," add a new
definition to 14-9E, Sensitive Lands Definitions, as follows (see memo and
recommendation from Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist):
MITIGATION: The process of avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or
compensating for losses or potential losses to an environmental or sensitive
feature due to development activity. For example, a wetland mitigation plan is
used to illustrate the methods that will be employed to avoid, minimize,
rectify, or reduce the impacts of development activity on a protected wetland.
When impacts on a protected wetland are unavoidable, a wetland mitigation
plan will describe the methods of compensating for any losses.
CITY OFIOWA CITY
MEMO
TO: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist
DATE: 15 June 2005
RE: "Mitigation" for wetlands in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO)
Karen Howard and I have discussed Larry Schnittjer's concern that the SAO mis-uses the term
"mitigation", and his proposal that a more appropriate word might be used to describe the process
whereby wetlands are protected and preserved.
respectfully disagree with Mr. Schnittjer's argument that the SAO's use of the word "mitigation" is
in conflict with Corps of Engineers (COE) terminology and the language used by other wetland
specialists. I think that the SAO appropriately uses the term "mitigation" to describe the process
by which a development is designed to avoid impacts on a wetland; minimize unavoidable impacts
on a wetland; or in extreme cases, compensate for losses by creating a wetland area on -site or
off -site.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines "mitigation" as a progression of five steps (40
CFR 1508.20). The steps are described intentionally in this order: avoiding; minimizing; rectifying;
reducing; or compensating for losses.
A guidance letter issued by the COE (RGL 85-8 "Clarification of Mitigation Process") helps explain
how COE district engineers consider resource losses during their review of a proposed project,
based on 40 CFR 1508.20. Briefly, the first degree of mitigation assumes no impact. Progressive
degrees of mitigation assume increasing impacts, and it is during the fifth stage of mitigation that
off -site compensation would be designed.
There is recognition among professionals working in the field of resource preservation that
mitigation is a process that leads to an outcome. Mitigation — first of all — avoids impacts. The
outcome of a wetland mitigation plan will range from complete avoidance of impacts to off -site
compensation.
In the larger population, there is a troublesome assumption that "mitigation" means
"compensation". I propose that staff clarify the definition of "mitigation" in the SAO so it is more
evident as a process, and better separated conceptually from the varying degrees of habitat
restoration and compensation that occur with increasing impacts on a jurisdictional wetland.
Our ordinance relies on COE criteria for defining a "jurisdictional wetland", and our ordinance
relies on COE standards for establishing what constitutes a "wetland professional". I think it is
appropriate to use the term "mitigation" in a manner that is consistent with COE language.
Attachments: 40 CFR 1508 (from gpo.gov); Guidance Letter RGL 85-8
WAIS Document Retrieval
Page 1 of 1
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 40, Volume 291
[Revised as of July 1, 20031
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 40CFR1508.201
[Page 661-662]
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER V--COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PART 1508--TERMINOLOGY AND INDEX --Table of Contents
Sec. 1508.20 Mitigation.
Mitigation includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation.
[[Page 66211
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
http://frwebRate5.access. Qpo.2ov/c2i-bin/wais2ate.c,ai?WAISdocID=872066230716+6+0+... 6/15/2005
Record of Decision or Statement of Findings for
the decision, and a brief summary of the issues. If
within 10 working days of the date of the district
engineer's letter to OCE further guidance has not
been received, the district engineer will proceed
with his proposed action.
RGL 85-7:
Superfund Projects
Issued 7/5/85 Expires 12/31/91
I. hecently, the Chief Counsel, Mr. Lester Edel-
man, responded to a letter from Mr. William N.
Hedeman, Jr., Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Which dealt with the need for
Department of Army authorizations for the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act (CERCLA) actions. This
letter summarizes Mr. Edelman's opinion and
provides operating guidance for field interaction
with the EPA.
2. The EPA's basic position is that Congress did
not intend for CERCLA response actions to be
subject to other environmental laws. Rather, as a
matter of sound practice, CERCLA response ac-
tions generally should meet the standards estab-
lished by those laws. Consequently, it is the EPA's
position that neither it nor the states, in pursuing
response actions at the location of the release or
threatened release under the authority of
CERCLA, are required to obtain permits under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act for those actions.
3. 'Mr. Edelman stated in part that he has some
reservations about the position that the EPA has
taken.. Nevertheless, he recognizes that the -EPA
has the primary authority for the interpretation
and application of CERCLA, and therefore
would defer to the EPA's reading of its own
statutory authorities, at least for the. time being.
4. In light of this legal opinion, FOAs should not
require applications for the EPA or state
response actions at the location of the release or
threatened release pursued under the authority
of CERCLA. Any permit applications in process
should be terminated.
5. Both the EPA and OCE believe that the FOAs'
expertise in assessing the public interest factors
for dredging and filling operations .can contribute
to the overall quality of the CERCLA response
action. The Director of Civil Works will be estab-
lishing a group from his staff to work with the
EPA staff to develop a framework for integrating
the Corps Section 10, Section 404 and, if ap-
propriate, Section 103 concerns into the EPA's
substantive Superfund reviews.
6. Until specific guidance is provided from OCE,
FOAs should provide technical support to the
EPA regions and/or the states on matters within
their field of expertise.
RGL 85-8:
Implementation of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
in the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program
Issued 11/8/85 Expired 12/31/87
1. Purpose: This document clarifies existing
statutory and regulatory standards in the Corps
of Engineers (Corps) regulatory program and
clarifies the role of the Department of the inte-
rior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), in establishing fish and wildlife mitiga-
tion for projects proposed to be authorized by
permit. The document brings together existing
guidance for implementation of fish and wildlife
mitigation within the program. The objective is to
improve interagency and intra-agency under-
standing of administration of the present pro-
gram regarding mitigation.
2. Definitions:
Mitigation: Mitigation is defined in the Council
on Environmental Quality's REGULATIONS
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROCE-
DURAL PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (40 CFR
1508.20). These regulations describe five ele-
ments which may be considered to develop justifi-
able measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce,
and compensate for project -induced losses.
3. Policy:
a. The Service's comments and fish and wildlife
mitigation recommendations on projects
proposed to be authorized ` by permit are to be
given full consideration, as appropriate
throughout the permit `application process, and in
making pu lit interest review determinations (16
U.S.C. 661(b)):
b. The five elements of mitigation (see paragraph
2) are to be considered by the district engineer as
- 195 - WTI, Inc. 1990
(3) To the maximum extent practicable, the dis-
trict engineer shall use and incorporate, by refer-
ence, existing documentation prepared for
compliance with NEPA, 404(h)(1) guidelines,
and/or the public interest review.
5. Expiration: The Corps will notify in advance the
Service if there are any changes proposed to this
RGL.
RGL 86-1:
Plowing
Issued 2/11/86 Expired 12/31/88
1. The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the
applicability of Section 404 to plowing.
2. Since 1975, Corps regulations have excluded
"plowing...for production of food, fiber, and
forest products" from the definition of a dis-
charge of dredged or fill material (33 CFR
323.20) and (1)). "Plowing" is defined in 33 CFR
323.4(a)(1)(iii) (D).
3. Plowing for the purpose of producing food,
fiber, and forest products and meeting the defini-
tion in Section 323.4 will never involve a discharge
of dredged or fill material. Such plowing is not
subject to any of the provisions of Section 404
including the Section 404(f) exemption limita-
tions. Section 404(f) is applicable to those ac-
tivities that do involve a discharge but are
statutorily exempted from the need to obtain a
404 permit.
4. Not all activities involving the use of a plow,
disc, or similar equipment will satisfy the defini-
tion of plowing. For example, using a plow to dry
the surface of a peat bcg to facilitate mining is not
plowing since it is not for the purpose of produc-
ing food, fiber or forest products. Also, the use of
a plow to ,divert a braided stream feeding a wet-
land is not plowing because the purpose is to
change a water of the United States to dry land.
Thus, these activities are regulated under Section
404 if they occur in a water of the United States.
5. This guidance expires 31 December 1988 unless
sooner revised or rescinded.
RGL 86-2:
Nationwide Permit at 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23):
Categorical Exclusions
Issued 1/17/86 Expired 12/31/88
1. We have concurred with the determination
made by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) that
those categorical exclusions which they have
listed at 516 DM 6, Appendix 9 (48 FR 17151)
which may be subject to Department of the Army
permit authority as published in 49 FR 13568-9
(copy enclosed) comply with the provisions of the
subject nationwide permit.
2. We have notified the BR that we consider the
term "unique geographical features," at item 2 in
their checklist, to include "special aquatic sites;"
as defined at 40 CFR 230.40-230.45. BR also
recognizes that under the nationwide permit the
division engineer retains the authority to require
an individual permit on a case -by -case basis. In
order to accomodate this provision of our regula-
tions, BR has agreed that in those cases where the
decision on a project was close because of factors
of regulatory concern to the Corps, but the
project was categorically excluded, it will inform
the appropriate Corps district office of the full
scope of the proposed work. The district engineer
may then seek discretionary authority as he
deems necessary. These activities include those
projects involving more than a small amount of
fill; activities with the potential to cause more
than minor water quality impacts; and, activities
involving the use of explosives near waters with
significant fisheries resources. The district en-
gineer should coordinate with the Bureau of
Reclamation regional offices and other inter-
ested parties on what constitutes a "small amount
of fill."
3. This guidance is applicable only in the 17
western states where the Bureau of Reclamation
operates. This guidance expires 31 December
1988 unless sooner revised or rescinded.
RGL 86-3:
Section 404(f)(1) Exemption of Farm and Forest
Roads (33 CFR Part 323.4(a)(6))
Issued 4/4/86 Expired 12/31/88
1. EPA headquarters provided the following
guidance to its Region X about what constituted
a forest road, the construction of which is ex-
- 197 -
WTI, Inc. 1990
Amendment #43
Amend 14-51-12D, Notification, as follows:
A. Notification
When the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I indicates that an archaeological
site is located in the quarter section within which a site plan, planned development
or a subdivision is proposed, the City will forward the site plan or subdivision plan
to the State Archaeologist (state) and the State Historic Preservation Officer for an
opportunity to comment.
The State will notify the City if a recorded archaeological site
exists within the area of the site plan, planned development or subdivision. The
State will also notify the City if the site is of such archaeological importance that it
requires further study by the State or a State -approved archaeologist. If the State
identifies such site, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission or its
successor shall be notified and may proceed toward historic designation of the site
as set forth in Article 14-8E, Historic Preservation Commission Approval
Procedures.
Amendment # 44
Amend 94-5K-3C. Procedure for Dedication of Land, as follows:
6. Responsibility for Site Preparation
a. The City may require the subdivider or developer to grade and seed
those portions of the dedicated land to be improved prior to dedication
of the property and prior to City's acceptance of the dedication.
b. Where the dedicated land is located adjacent to a street, the subdivider
or developer shall remain responsible for the installation of utilities,
sidewalks and other improvements required along that street segment.
C. Prior to dedication, the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for
restoring satisfactory ground cover and controlling erosion on land to be
dedicated that has been disrupted as a result of development activities
by the subdivider or developer.
C. Procedure for Dedication of Land
1. The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision
plat or preliminary Planned Development Plan, whichever is applicable. The
subdivider or developer shall designate the area or areas of land to be
dedicated pursuant to this Article on the preliminary subdivision plat or
Planned Development Plan. Where wetlands have been delineated on the
property, the preliminary subdivision plat or Planned Development Plan shall
also identify the boundaries of such wetlands.
2. Upon receipt of the preliminary subdivision plat, the Director of Planning and
Community Development (PCD) shall submit a copy to the Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation for review by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall submit
recommendations concerning the land to be dedicated to the Planning and
Zoning Commission within 21 business days of the receipt of a complete
application for preliminary subdivision plat or preliminary planned
development.
3. Once the pFelimina final subdivision plat or pFeliminaFy final planned
development is approved and any public improvements required to be
installed by the subdivider or developer within the land to be dedicated have
been installed, approved, and accepted by the City, and the subdivider or
developer has completed site preparation pursuant to paragraph 14-5K-3B-6,
above, the subdivider or developer shall provide a properly executed warranty
deed conveying the dedicated land to the City within 2 years of meaty
final plat approval (or prelimina+ final planned development approval) or by
the time the City issues 50 percent of the certificates of occupancy for the
subdivision, whieheyer is earlier at the discretion of the City; or as otherwise
specified in the subdivider's or developer agreement.
The City shall formally accept the dedication of land for open space, parkland
or greenways/trails by resolution.
Amend 14-5K-6A, Use of Funds as follows.
A. The City's Neighborhood Open Space Plan, as amended, divides the City into
Neighborhood Open Space Districts. All payments in lieu of dedication shall be
deposited in a special neighborhood open space account designated by the name
of the contributing development. All payments will be used to acquire or develop
open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that are located
within the Neighborhood Open Space District containing the subject subdivision or
planned development and will benefit the residents of the subdivision or planned
development for which payment has been made.
Amendment #45
Amend subsection 14-4E-9C, Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy, as
follows:
C. The maximum occupancy as determined by the Building Official based on the
applicable regulations effective March 1, 2005 will be applied to any residential use
for which a valid building permit was issued on or prior to March 1 2005 and/or for
which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (insert effective date of new
ordinance). For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this
maximum occupancy.
Amendment #48
Delete 14-488-9 Performance Guarantees:
ZTZTS-ITT
�.
V TTTa7TGZ
AC7Ti1TTCGLMr-r-T21jr-10
---
all
ITWIT, MIT
01,01, ON
JIM
ON
MA' WIN
. . .
... .
. . ..
. . .
. .
.. .
Make the following change to 14-5I--5C.-
C. Performance Guarantee
A Performance Guarantee may be required to ensure completion of conservation
measures, including plantings and other mitigation or maintenance efforts, as
stipulated in this Article. Required performance guarantees must be submitted
according to the procedures for Performance Guarantees as set forth in Title 18 of
the City Code, Site Plan Review Aftiele 14 8B, AdrninistFatiye AppFeval Piceeeduices.