HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, February 3, 2014 — 5:30 PM
(informal Meeting)
Iowa City City Hai;
Helling Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
Thursday, February 6, 2014 - 7:00 PM
(Formal Meeting)
Iowa City City Hall
Emma �. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Comprehensive Plan Item
A public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Southwest District Plan to change the
land use designation of property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive (Waiden
Square) from Neighborhood Commercial to Genera! Commercial. (CPA12-00006)
E. Rezoning Items
1 . Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning of 8.7 acres
of property from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone located at
west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive. (REZ12-00001)
2 Discussion of an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning of approximately 1.45-
acres of property from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to Institutional Public (P-2) zone located at
301 and 325 S. Clinton Street. (REZ13-00026)
3. Discussion of an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a rezoning of approximately .54-
acres of property from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to Institutional Public (P-
2) zone located at 109 River Street. (REZ1 3-00027)
4. Discussion of an application subirnitted by NCS Pearson, Inc. for a rezoning of approximately 49.5-acres
of property from Office Research Park (CRP) zone to Research Development Park (RDP) zone located
at 2510 N. Dodge Street, (REZ14-00OG1)
F. Code Items
Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Zoning Cod and related zoning code
amendments. (The form -based code is available for review at http://www.icgov.org/riverfontcrossings)
2. Discussion of proposed changes to parkirg requirements and alternatives to parking minimums in the
Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and 'he RlverFront Crossings District and elimination of the
Near Southside Parking Fa--.I:Fty District and associated paik�ng impact fee.
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 13 & 16, 2014
H. Other
Discussion of revaluating the South District Plan, especially that area along Sycamore Street near the
proposed school site.
1. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: February 20 1 March 6 / March 20
C TY OF 110WA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 2014
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: CPA12-00006/REZ12-00001 Walden Square
The Commission deferred consideration of these
,,two items from the January 16 meeting. There
was a concern about the potential for new drinking establishments within Walden Square if the
property is rezoned *0 Community Commercial (CC-2). Drinking establishments are a;lowed in
bottk the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) and CC-2 zone. Drinking establishments are
unrestricted in size in the CC-2 zone, but limited to an occupancy of 100 with the possibility of a
special exception to increase that to 1,25 in the CN-1 zone. To address this concern, the
applicant would agree to a condition restricting the size of any new drinking establishment to the
same as allowed in the CN-1 zone.
Staff recommends that CPA12-00006/REZ12-00001 an application submitted by Southgate
Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use map
designation of Walden Square from Neighborhood to General Commercial and a rezoning from
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for
approximately 8.70-acres of property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of
Westwinds Drive, be approved subject to the following conditions:
a Future development or redevelopment must adhere to the CN-1 standards for
Outdoor Storage and Display and Building Design (14-2C-7K through 0);
No additional freestanding signs;
A 1,000 square foot limit on outdoor storage and display;
The occupancy load for any new drinking establishment will not exceed one hundred
(100) unless a special exception is approved allowing an increase to a maximum of
one hundred twenty five (125).
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern
Item: REZ13-00026 Date: February 6, 2014
GENERAL!NFORMATION
Applicant: The University of Iowa
2660 UCC
Iowa City, IA 52242
Contact Person: David Kieft
2560 UCC
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-5052
david-kieft@uiowa.edu
Requested Action: Rezoning from Central Business Support
(CB5) to Institutional Public (P2)
Purpose: To reflect public ownership of the
property and bring it into compliance
with Section 14-2F of the Zoning
Ordinance
Location: southwest corner of Clinton Street and
Burlington Street
Size: 1.45 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Central Business Support (CB5J
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Parking garage (PI)
South: Mixed use building (CB-5)
East: Vacant lot (CB-1 0)
West: Residential (RM44)
Comprehensive Plan: Riverfront Crossings District — University
File Date: December 12, 2013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, the University of Iowa, requests that the subject property located at the
southwest corner of Clinton Street and Burlington Street (formerly 301 and 325 S. Clinton
Street) be rezoned from! Central Business Support (CB-5) to Institutional Public Zone (P-2)
in order to bring the property into compliance with Section 14-21F of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Univers�ty of Iowa acquired the property to relocate the University of lowa School of
S:PCD/Staff Reportsl REZ10-00009 J1 Helipad
Music. The former School of Music was located on the University of Iowa Arts Campus
and was damaged by the flood of 2008.
Section 14-2F-B-2 states that public uses of land owned or otherwise controlled by the
State or Federal government, such as university campuses, regional medical facilities,
post offices and other state and federally owned facilities should be zoned Institutional
Public Zone (P-2).
ANALYSIS:
The property is currently zoned as CB-5. The proposed rezoning to P-2 has been initiated
to reflect that the property has been acquired by 'the University. The P-2 zoning designation
serves a notice function 10 those owning or buying land in proximity to subject property that it
is not ordinarily subject to City development regulations. This zone change wH bring 'he
University owned parcel into comPliance with Section 14-2r— of the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed University use of the property for the new Music School complies with the
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ13-00026, an application to rezone 1.45 acres of land located at
301 and 325 S. Clinton Street from Central Business Support (CB-5) to Institutional Public
(P-2) be approved.
Attachments:
Location map
Approved by:
Robert Milk!o, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S PCD/Staff Reports/ REZ10-00009 U1 He5pad
MY OF IMA CITY ON
7-r—T
p -7,j
2
El
Lz�, INGTON S1
Wo won
ork
P2/,
Won
I P2/
B I P, L I I L
_J COLLEGE ST
CAB
V)
0
cn
pi LP-1— 0
-C B I
BUR INGToK1
P2 RM4' L
COURT s"r COUR
o 7�, r P*p
un Pos t F
Court Xfice m
0
r
HOLLsej
p
-HARRISON S —
-61 �-J
P R-IR
I I \�--! I
srTE LOCATION' S. Clinton Street REZ13-00026
STAFF REPORT
I o: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern
Item: REZ13-00027 Date: February 6, 2014
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: The University of iowa
2660 UCC
Iowa City, IA 52242
Contact Person: David Kieft
2660 UCC
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-5052
david-kieft@uiowa.edu
Requested Action. Rezoning from Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) to
Institutional Public (P-2)
Purpose: To reflect public ownership of the
property and bring it into compliance
with Section 14-2F of the Zoning
Ordinance
Location: 109 River Street
Size: 0.54 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(RNS20)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential - RNS-20
South: University - P-2
East: University and residential P-
2 and RNS-20
Wes': Residential - RS-5
Comprehensive Plan: This property is on. the edge of and area
designated for public use and 2-8
dwelling units par acre.
File Date: December 12, 2013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, the University of Iowa, requests that the subject property located at 109
SPCD/Staff Reports/ REZ10-00009 J1 Helipad
River Street be rezoned from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) to
Institutional Public Zone (P-2) in order to bring te Property into compliance with Section
14-2F of the Zoning Ordinance. The University of Iowa acquired the property to relocate
the University of Iowa Visual Arts Building. The former art building was iocated on the
University of Iowa Arts Campus and was damaged by the flood of2008.
Section 14-2F-B-2 states that public uses of land owned or otherwise co,.-itro!led by the
State or Federal government, such as university campuses, regional medical facilfties,
post offices and other state and federally owned facilities should be zoned Institutional
Public Zore (P-2).
ANALYSIS:
The property is currently zoned as RNS-20. The proposed rezoning to P-2 has been
'nitiated to reflect 'hall the property has been acquired for the relocation of the Visual Arts
Building. The P-2 zon;Lng designation serves a notice functior to those owning or buying
land in proximity to subject property that it is not ordinarily subject to City development
regulations. This zone change will bring the University owned parcel into compliance with
Section 14-2F of the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ13-00027, an application to rezone 0.54 acres of land located at
109 River Street from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS20) to Institutional Public
(P2) be approved.
ATTACHMENT:
Location map
Approved by:
Robert Mikic, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
STCD/Staiff Reports/ REZ10-00009 U1 Helipad
0.
I SITE LOCATION: 109 River Street
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ14-00001 NCS Pearson
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: r7ebruary 6, 2014
Applicant, NCS Pearson, Inc. Jeffrey Stabenow
2510 N. Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA 15-2245
M effrey.stabenowPpearson.com
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plain:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Ken DeKeyser
Hall and Hall Engineers, Inc.
1860 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, 1A 52233
ken(&halleng.com
Rezoning from ORP to RDP
To avoid the creation of a non -conforming setback
due to proposed Moss Road construction
2510 N. Dodge Street
49.5 acres
Office — ORP
North: Undeveloped - IDORP
South: Interstate 80 — ORP
East: Commercial — CH-11
West: Agricultural — RDP and OPD-CH-1
Office Research Development Center
January 13, 2014
February 27, 2014
This property was annexed into the city in apprcximately 1970 and zoned Office Research Park
(ORP) at that time, It was initially developed for Westinghouse Education Services and was later
transferred to NCS. The building currently conforms to the requirements of the Office Research
Park (ORP) zone, which requires a 150 foot front setback from streets. With the proposed
construction of Moss Road, the setback on the north side of the building will be approximately 70
ieet from the new street. The applicant is proposirg to rezone the property to Research
Development Park, which requires a front setback of 20 feet, to avoid the creation of a non-
conforming building setback. The applicant has submitted the attached rezoning exhibit showing
2
the proposed location of Moss Road in relation to the existing development.
The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the "Good Neighbor Policy"
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The purpose of the ORP zone is to provide areas for the development of large
office and research firms and other complementary uses. The requirements of this zone protect
uses In the zone from adverse impact of uses on adjacent land and protect adjacent more
restrictive uses. Hotels, motels and similar uses should be located along the periphery of the
Zone or in such other locations that do not adversely affect the setting and quality of
development for the permitted uses of this Zone.
Proposed Zoning: The uses allowed in the RDP zone are the same as 'he ORP zone. The
difference between the two zones is essentally the scale of developments and buildings. The
ORP zone requires a minimum lot area of 7 acres, front setbacks of 150 feet and side -ear
setbacks of 100 �eet. The RDP zone has a minimum lot area of 1 acre, 1.ront setback of 20 feet
and no setback for side or rear lot lines unless adjacent to a residential zone. Approving the
proposed rezoning will allow the property to remain conforming to the zoning code after Moss
Road is built as the existing building will be more than 20 feet from the property line.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates a large area north
of Interstate 80 and west of Dodge Street as an Office Research Development Center. Both
the existing ORP and proposed RDP zones are appropriate zoning designations for this land
use designation. The proposed zoning will also be compatible with the existing, but
undeveloped, RDP zone to the west, the ID-RDP zone to the north and the nearby Highway
Commercial (CI-1) zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00001, an application submitted by NCS Pearson to rezone
a 49.5-acre property located at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Office Research Park (ORP) to
Research Development Park (RDP).
ATT ACHMENTS:
11.1-ocation Map
2. Rezoning Exhibit
Approved by: �z
Jeff Davidson, Director (
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCMSt.ff
CITY OF JOXA CITY ON
L------
IDRP
IDRP
*milt
40.
%,PTO'% CITY OF IOWA CITY CORPORATE LIMVTS
-CH
IDRP
RDP co
IDRP
CH1 co
OPD-%,n I
80
C01 &Hl
RR1
16RP
SrTE LOCAMN: 2510 N. Dodge Street pli
R.EZONING EXHIBIT
25 10 NORTH DODGE STREET
IOWA CITY, JOH14SO14 COUNTY, IOWA
—7-
Im
It"
KIM&
oil
Ar
4:'Al �r-
Is
%
OR,
A
A
-t 'TeN
I TING
p CAN, f
d'
i tk
Lii
4r"r
INTERSTATE 80
INTERSTATE 80
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OWNER. T
W 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 38-80-6, EXCEPT THAT COWEETM �
NCS PEARSON. INC 'Ell
5601 GREEN VALLEY DRIVE HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
PART THEREOF CONDEMNED BY IOWA STATE HIGHWAY BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 1860 BOYSON ROADD 3*0
COMMISSION AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE HIAWATHA A 52233
PARCELS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. IOWA APPLICANT-- (319) 362-9548 1.4,
PURSUANT TO DEEDS RECORDED IN BOOK 1075, PAGES 406 NCS PEARSON,INC KENWALLENG.COM
AND 408 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE. 2510 N DODGE STREET
IOWA CITY IA 52245 1 zz m
HAU. & HALL EhISMEERWNC.
REZONING manarr
10 25 10 NORTH DODGE STREET
'o IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
10.ww� bw W I b% W jCho� DA 90
74
� Z_: - �Fl � _R, 561-
CiTY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 2014
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Decision matrix for Riverfront Crossings Code and other related zoning code
amendments
Attached is an updated decision matrix regarding all the proposed amendments related to the
Riverfrorit Crossings form -based code, At your meetings next week we would like 10 get final
direction from the Commission regarding which of the amendments you would like staff to
incorporate into your recommended draft to City Council, Once you have made your decisions,
staff will work with the consultant to incorporate them into a revised draft that will be sent to City
Council for their consider tion. Regarding the issue of accessibility, we asked the consultant to
m L i
revise a couple of the drawings to illustrate how accessible ramps can be incorporated
successfully into the design (see attached).
In addition to the matrix, we have attached a number of proposed amendments to 'the zoning
code that are necessary for the new form -based chapter to work seamlessly with the remainder
of the zoning code. While we are considering changes to these sections of the code there are
several additional changes that staff is recommending to improve clarity and to correct problems
that have been identified, These changes include:
Amendments to the 14-3C, Design Review. to establish Riverfront Crossings as a
design review district as specified in the form -based code on p.2.
Amendments to the Group Living use category description and standards to include
11 student dormitories" as an example of independent group living and establish special
exception approval criteria. Both independent group living and fraternal group living are
listed as uses allowed by special exception in tl�e South Downtown and University
subdistricts of Riverfronf Crossings. When the City Council adopted the changes to the
multi-famity density formulas to help stabilize older residential neighborhoods, the
Council direc�ed staff to explore the option of allowing student dormitories and other
high density student living o,pportuniVes in Riverfront Crossings in areas clOse to
campus but away from lower density neighborhoods.
When the Council recently made the amendments to density standards for fraternal
group living, 'they instructed staff to re -visit the density standard in the RM-44 and PRIVI
Zones, the highest density zones generaNy located closest to campus. Staff
recommends that applications for new fraternal group living uses continue ILO be
reviewed and approved by the Board of Ad:lustment, but that we return to the density
allowed previously (I roomer per 300 square feet).
Revisions to language in the maximum parking section to cross reference Riverfront
Crossings and changes to the minimum parking requirements and alternatives to
rninimurn parking opticns. We have made further revisions based on discussions at
your last meeting and have also included clarifying language in the standards for
structured parking.
An amendment to the language regarding the ceiling height of underground parking for
multi-lamily uses to clarify 'the distinction between what constitutes "underground
parking" versus "ground -level" parking. The current ianguage does not address
properties that are naturally sloping, which is causing an increase in the number of
requests for minor modifications. This change will correct the problem.
4,� r4
-Ti "o
all,
ig
4r
-lk
ALI
Amend 14-3C-2A by adding a new paragraph 10, as follows:
10.
structures, or alterations or additions to site development, including but not 11mited to
Riverfront Crossincs District Regulating Plan (Figure 2G-.'L), shall be subject to Design
Review. Desian Review shall be conducted by the Form -Based Code Committee
(FBC Committee), as designated by the City Manager. For properties that have been
rezoned to one cf the Rivemfrortt Crossings zoning desianations as indicated in
Subsection B, above, the FBC Committee shall review the proposed deve;opment fG
compliance wiLh the appkable provisions c4' this Afticle and the goals and objectives
of the adopted RiverF-iont Crossings Master Plan. For properties within th-- boundaries
of the Riverfront Crossinos District, but which have not been rezoned to one of the
Riverfront Cross�nqs zoning designations, the FBC Committee shall review the
proposed development for compatlbft with the goals and objectives of the
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the general Design Review Guidelines as set
lorth in subsection 14-3k--3C.
Amend 14-3C-3A, Levels of Design Review as follows:
A. Levels of Design Review
1. Level I Review
a. A Level I Review will be conducted for the following designated areas,
properl:les, and structures:
(1)
City Plaza
(2)
Sidewalk Cafes
(3)
Central Planning District
(4)
PRM Zone
(5) Projecting Signs in the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones
(6) Certain Public -Private Partnership Agreements - level ol review is pursuant
to the specific development agreement.
(7) Minor exterior alterations, such as s;gnage, winclow, placement, and color
that do not substantially change the building -concept of a Council -
approved plan under Urban Renewal Project, Iowa R-14.
(8) Requests for an alternative design for an entranceway sign as provided for
in Article 14-513, Sign Regulations.
(9) Towncrest Design Review District
(10) Rive. -Front Crossings Design Review District
(11) Certain building height bonus provisions as specified in 14-2G-7G.
b. Applications for Level I Review will be reviewed and approved, modified, or
disapproved by the staff Design Review Committee or in the case of the
Riverfront Crossings Design Review District by the Form -based Code Committee,
according to the procedures for Design Review contained in Article 14-813,
Acim inistrative Approval Procedures.
2. Level 11 Review
A Level I! Review will be conducted for the following designated a, eas,
properties, and structures:
(i) Urban Renewal Project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations,
such as signage, window placement, and color that do not substantially
change the building concept of t1he Ccuncil-approved plan. Such minor
aite.rations will be subject to Leve T Review.
(2) Certain Public -Private Partnership Agreements - levei of review is pursuant
to the specific development agreement.
(3) Certain building height banus provisions as specified in 14-2G-7G.
b. A ' DpHcations for Level 11 Review will be reviewed by the staff Design Review
Comm'!ttee Wth their recommendation forwarded to the City Council for
a ' oproval, medification ', or disapproval according to the procedures for Design
Review contained in Article ±4-6% Administrative Approval Procedures.
Approval Criteria
Applications for Design Review will be reviewed for compliance with the guidelines and
standards as referenced below.
1. Urban Renewal Project, Iowa R-14
Design Review subject to the design guidelines listed in Subsection C, below.
2. City PEaza
Design Review subject to design guidelines listed in Subsection C, below.
3. Other Pu!)lic-private Partnership Av
greernents
Design review guAelines for eadh such project that is specifically designated as
requiring design review will be pursuant to the clevelooment agreement between the
private property owner and the City. In the absence o� such guidelines, the design
gu2cle-lines listed in Subsection C, below, will be used.
4. Sidewalk Cafes
Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in Subsection C, below, and any
addit7ional r1equirements and guidelines listed in Title 10, Chapter 3 of the City Code.
5. Central Planning District
Design Review according to the applicable muiti-family site development standards
set forth in Article 14-2B, Multi-FarnHy Residentiai Zones.
6. PRM Zone
Design Review according to the applicable multi -family site development standards
set forth in Article 14-2B, Multi -Family Residential Zones.
7. Projecting Signs in the C3-2, CB-S and CB-10 Zones
Design Review according to the applicable standards listed in Subsection C, below.
8. Towncrest Design Review District
Design Review according to the applicable design provisions within the Towncrest
Urban Renewal Area Design Piar Manual and according to the applicable standards
iisted in Subsection C, below. For ' purposes of Design Review, Towncrest Drive shall
be considered a street, with bu;ldings, parking areas, pedestrian amenities, landscape
screening, and other streetscape elements designed and located to appropriately
address Towncrest Drive as a street frontage as illustrated in the Towncrest Urban
Renewal Area Design Plan Manual.
9. Riverfront Crossincis Design Review District
Desicin Review according to 14-2G-ID, Design Peview.
Amend 14-4A-3B, to add "student dormitories" as an example of a type of independent group
living use.
B. Group Living Uses
1. Characteristics
Group Living uses are characterized by the residential occupancy of a dwelling by a
group of people that do not meet the cle-flnition al a household or group household.
The size of the group is typically larger in size than the average size of a family or
household. Tenancy is arranged on a month -to -month basis, or for a longer period.
Group Living structures contain individual rooming units with orivate or shared
bathroom facilities and may also contain shared kitchen facNties, and/or common
dining and living areas for residents. The res'dents may or may not receive any
combination of care, training, or treatment, but those receiving such services must
reside at the site.
2. Examples
Examples include uses from the three subgroups listed below.
a. Assisted Group Living
Group care facilities, including nursing and convalescent homes; assisted living
facilities.
b. Independent Group Living
Rooming houses; student dormitories.
C. Fraternal Group Living
Fraternities; sororities; monasteries; convents; rooming house cooperatives.
Accessory Uses
Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; food preparation and dining
facilities; off-street parking for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities;
off-street loading areas.
4. Exceptions
2. Uses such as hotels, motels, and guest houses, which by definition may arrange
tenancy for periods shorter than one month, are not considered residential.
They are considered a form of temporary lodging and are classified as
Hospitality-Orlented Retail.
b. Family care homes, elder gr up homes, and elder family homes are considered
Group Househods and are classified as Household Living Uses.
C. Transiert housing, which by definition arranges tenancy for periods shorter than
one month, is not considered residential. It is considered a form of temporary
lodging or shelter and is classified as Community Service - Shelter.
d. Alternatives to incarceration, such as halfway houses, where residents are
Placed in the facility by court order and are under supervision of empioyees or
cont.'actees of the Department of Corrections, are classified as Detention
Facilities.
Amend 14-4B-4A-9 and 14-4B-4A-10, as follows:
9. Independent Group Living
The maximum density and maximum occupanc�stanclards for an Independent Group
Living Use are as follows. Both density and occupancy limitations apply in all cases.
a. Maximum Density
(1) In the RM-20 Zone: I roomer. per 900 square feet of lot area.
(2) In the RM-44 and PRM Zones: I roomer per 500 square feet of lot area.
b. Maximum Occupancy
I roomer per 300 square feet of floor area within the Independent Group Living
Use.
C. Facilities
The Group Living Use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by
roomers in such numbers as specified in Title 17, Building and Housing T n
I
addition, the occupants shall have access to kitchen facilities, a dining room,
and other shared living spaces and ccmmo. i facilities related to the use.
d. Additional Approval Criteria for Special Exceptions:
The Proposed use must be designed to be compatlb�e with adjacent uses. The
Board ol Adiustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the
location, site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale,
setbacks, landscaping and amount of paved areas to ensure that the pr000sed
use is compatible with other resiclentia� uses in the neighborhood. The Board
buiiijings, estabi!shment of a facilities management plan, and similar.
10. Fraternal Group Living
The maximurn density and maximum occupancy standards for a Fraternal Grour)
Living Use are as foilows. Both density and occupancy limitations apply in all cases.
a. Maximum Density:
(1) In the RM-20 and RNS-20 Zones: 1 roomer per 900 square feet of lot area.
(2) In the RM-44 and PRM Zones: I roomer per SGG 300 square feet of lot
area.
b. Maximum Occupancy
1 roomer per 300 square feet of floor area within the Fraternal Group Living
Use.
C. Facilities
The Group Living Use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by
rocimers in such numbers as specified in Title 17, Building and Housing. In
addition, the occupants shall have access to kitchen facilities, a dining room,
and other shared living spaces and common facilities related to the use.
Additionag ApprovaE Criteria for Special Exceptions:
The proposed use must be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The
Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed -use, such as the
location, site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale,
setbacks, landscaping and amount of oaved areas to ensure that the proposed
use is compatible with other residential usees in the neighborhood. The Board
may prohibit certain aspects of a use or impose conditons or restrictions to
mitigate any lncom ' E)atNRdes. These conditions or mstrictions may include, bulk
are notHmited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities,
setbacks, locatbn and design or park'ng facilities, location and design of
buildings, establishment of a facilities management plan, and similar.
Section 14-5A-4, Minimum parking Requirements as follows:
Amend
ensure that enough off-street parking
A. PurPose equirements are intended t generated by the range of
minim demand for parking
The um parking r where sufficient on-stree'
accommodate most of the in area,
is provided to J - particutarty to ensure
uses. might locate at a site over tirntet Irking requirements are also intended, uses from
-Kesidentla
that The minimum P' for non
parking in not avallable� . � -�o prevent parking
is provided on a site
that, enough parking
encroaching Into adjacent residential ne
B. Minimum Requirements nd minimum bicycle parking
,e minimum parking -requirements a' he CB-5, and
ies in ail zones except t+ parking
1. Tab;e 5A-2, tists tl d use or uses on propert uses, tie minimum
requirements for the an -or some land is located.
CB-10 and Riv oss" s Zones, r
._�e&ftont Cl��ssllfs , Ich the property
, one in NO
rements er based on the z , except for
requi diff is not required for any land use,
i CB-10 Zones, parking
2.. In the C13-5 anc specified in Table 5A-Ir below. k'
Household Living uses, as I ___A.;�n rpriulrernents- and minimum bIU-Cle-P-ar �in
u 11 ....... �
SA311s�Lsthe inimuol�� in-gs-
3,. TLa-ble _JW_1
ies zoned Piverfr_O_n_t_C-rO--ssg cified in 14-5A-3D.
rnnert—
le uirement for ropgmg�i-�
ggwiRiill� of ng must meet the standards spe
4. In the CB-10 zone, , f-streat parkil the number
C. parking for PerSons with Disabilities sons with disabilities,
use is required to provide accessibility for per, e with State of Iowa
Where a king spaces must be 'in accordanc mended.
and design of such par ng for Persons With Disabilities, as a
Administrative Coder 661 IAC 18, Parkl
arld
ng Minimum p Ing Requirements spaces required
D. Rules for COMPuti . the number of parking and stacl<Jng
.tional space results, rounded down.
1. Where a frac ill be
is the closest whole number, A half space w number of required parking spaces
2. Any use that is nOncOnforming with regard to the p4E Nonconformina Situations.
. . ris of Article 11 f
is subject to the appi1cable PrOvlvO ces required is
le number of parking and stacking spa'
3. in the case of mixed uses, tl irious uses computed separately,
rie requirements for the W , 5A-2 and for reductions allowed
equal to the sum of tl Is specified jr� Table,mum, Parking Requirements,"
shopping centers, a,
except for ed Alternatives to Min
under the subsection entib S_Or occupants t
resident
below. t..Cari on th-e' Nmt9L �,__ f��,O maxim —Um
4. \NneJ I U I
A���nts or occu
&�mber of �re�s�t�eo,=,,.Y - -
of the use as _d;ete-rm lned bY_!��e �Q' -
occ * an
Wicycle parking RequIremen"' reqi irements are expressed
E. Rules fO'r COMPutlng ie minimum blvcle parking' age of the required
es 5A-1 and 5A-2, ti nit or as a perceriti jtgjc�teaNN
In Tabl f spaces per dwelling L -num b.
as a certain number 0 1� ' e0r( sider
i a �Ie-3
-paces. In-7- -t`eminir'_�-'N' dr_OQm-0r-r95—ut
number of vehicle parking 5 c_es ger b
as a certain iLumber of sp g
or in the case of non-residenbal uses as a ratio based on the floor area of the
proposed use. When expressed as a number of spaces per resident, the number of
residents shall be determined based on the maximum occupang/ o� the use as
determined by the City.
2. In all cases where bicycle parking is required, a minimum of 4 spaces shall be
provided.
3. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, additional spaces are required
at 50 percent of the number required by this Section.
4. Where the -expected need for bicycle parking fo, a particular use is uncertain due to
unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use or due to a location fl-iat is
difficult to access by bicycle, the Building Official may authorize that the construction
of up to 50 percent or the required bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The land area
required for the deferred bicycle parking spaces must be maintained in reserve. If an
enforcement official or the City determines at some point in the future that .,he
additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to install
the parking in the reserved area. The owner of the property on which the bicycle
parking area is reserved must properly execute, sign, and record a written agreement
that is binding upon their successors and assigns as a covenant running with the land
that assures the installation of bicycle parking within the reserved area by the owner
if so ordered by an enforcement official of the City.
; �i �;;�i ' aCB-IoZones
Table KA-1: -Minimum �Parking Requirennunit. 11, le -- 3 ail
Bicycle
USE
�CA=Tr;GORIES
SUBGROUPS
SU
Parking Requirement
Parking
kesidential Uses
Ff0-U,,hddLjN(jng
Multi -family
CB-5
Efficiency,l-bodroo 4 units 0 6 space per dw
Uses
Dwellings
2-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
1.0 per
3-bedroorn units: 3 2 5 spaces per dwelling unit
d.u.
Units with more than 3 bedroom& 3 spaces per dwelling unit
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units,
CB-1 0
For buildipgs built on or betcre uccembLr 31, 2008:
1.0 per
Zone
Bedrooms 1 to: no parldrig required
d.0
All additional bedrooms: 0.5 spaces per bedroom
(For purposes of this standard an efficiency apar.mem will be
counted as one bedroom)
For buildings built on or after January 1. 2009:
Efficleicy and 1-bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit
2-bedrocrin, unift: 1 space per dwelling unit
it _� spaces per dwelling unit
3-bedroom ur,' � a 2 1
Elde, Apartments� I space foi evev 2 dwelling uni
Table SA-2: Minimum Parldrig Requirements for all zones, except the B-S and CB-10 Zones
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS
�ParWdogRe�quirem�t
R�identiial Uses
Household Living
Single Family Uses
1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that
contains a househod with more than 2 unrelated
None
persons, 1 additional parking space is required for eacn
additional unrelated person in. excess of two. For
required
example. if a Single Family Use contains 4 unrelated
oersons, than 3 parking spaces must be provided.
iwo Family Uses
1 space per dwelling unit, For a Two Family dwelling
unit that contains a household with more than 2
None
unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is
required
lor - ch additi nal unrelated person in excess
, -a .0
of two,
Group Households
3 spaces
None
reouired
Multi-
family
except PRM
-xi —zoges
& CB-2
Efficiency & 1-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit
2-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
0.5 per d u.
1,0 per d.u.
Dwellings
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
15 per d.0
4-bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit
15 per d.0
5-bedroorn units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit
1.5 Per d.u.
In the University Impact Area: I space per bedroom
(see Map 213.1 in Article 14-213). _1_0
—perd
PRM —Zone
Efficiency & I -bedroom units: * 0 75 space pe
u
dwelling u
2- bedroom units: 4 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
3-bedroom units: 2 2,5 spaces per dwelling unit
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit
In the University ImpactArea: i space Der bedroom
(see Map 213.1 in Article 14-213)
C13-2 Zone
Efficiency & 1 -bedroom units 0.75 space per un
10 per J.0
2-bedroom unit 1.5 spaces per unit.
3-bedroom unit- 2,5 si �er unit.
B—der —Apaaments
I space per dwelling unit for independent living units
and I space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living
5%
units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones.
In the PRM and C13-2 Zones, 1. space for every 2
dwelling units.
c�roup —Living
Assisted Group Uiving
1 soace for every 3 beds plus 1 space for eact. staff
member determined by the maximum number of staff
None
required
present at any one time.
;ndependent Group Living
I space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per
resident, whichever is less.
25%
Fraternal Group Living
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per
I resident. whichever is less.
25%
(Keep the remaining portions of Table 5A-2 the same.)
0 Insert a new Table 5A-3 to address parking requirements in the Riverfront Crossings District:
Table SA-T: Mi !nnum Parking Recui ments in the Riverfront �� �tvi
UM
CATEGOWES
SUBDISTRICTS
MINIMUM PARK114G REQUIREMENT
BICYCL
PARKDNG
Household Living
South Downtown, University
Efficiency,' -bedroom: 0,5 space per dwelJing unit.
2-bedroom: 1 spaces rer dwelling unit
3-bedroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Elder Apartments: I space for every 2 dwelling units
MuIC-Farnily Dwellings granted bonus height for student hGusinq
1 per c.u.
Units withiq the
foliowing Building
Types
Apartment
a0ft
Mulfi-DweRhq
Building
0 Mixed -Use
located within !he University Subdistinct or on Prooerty directly abutting
or across the street f,-o.-n tne Lit cunrus as Mustrated on the
Regulating Pian, Fig.2G-1, the parlkir4 may be reduced to 0 25 pe
bedroom.
BuUM
Park, South Gilbert, Central
Efriciency. !-bedroom: 0,75 space per dwellinci unit.
2-becroorn: 1,5 spaces per dwelling unit
3-bedroom: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
1 per d,u,
Crossings, Gilbert, Wes
Riverhont
Household Living
All subdistricts where said
I space per dwelling unit. However for a dwelling unit that cogtains
1 per d.u,
Units within the
following Building
Building Types are allowed,
household with more than 2 unrelated persons, I additional Parking
space is required for each additional unrelated person in excess of
imn
Colage Home
Rowhouse
• Townhouse
• Live -Work
Townhouse
two.
Household Living
All subdistnicts
Parking shall be provided within the associated parking structure using
I per c.u.
Units within Liner
the following ratios:
EffiGienCY.1-becroorn: 0,5 si)ace oer dwellinq unit
2-bodroom: 1 spaces i)er dwelling unit
3-becroorn: 2 spaces Per dweding unit
Elder Apartments: I spaoe for every 2 dwelling units.
Buildincis granted bonus height for student housing located within. the
Buildings
University Subdistrict or on property directly abutting or across the
stmet from the U1 campus as illustrated on the Regulating Plan,
HQ.2G-1, the parking may bereduced to 0.25 per bedroom.
Specific parking spaces within the associated )arkjnQ structure may o
may not be reserved 'or use by residents wit1hin theIngLbuildina.
Assistedj:=
LivIng
All subdistricts where said
1 simcelor every 3 roominci units
None
uses are allowed.
Fraterna! Group
All subdistnots where said
0.50 so ceuer resident.
11 the use is Irocated within the University Subdistrict or on oroverty
0.25
spaces
%e:
resident
uses are allowed.
dire&,:v abuttm or across the street from the main Ul campus as
iilustreedd or. the Requiat;iq Plan, Fiq.2G-1, the pakna nav be
reduced W0.25 perresident.
AH subdistricts where sal
0.50 SD80e per resident.
If the use is loca'ed within the University Subdistr.ct or on Property
0.25
s a
er
res:identl
uses are allowed.
&-edly abutting or across the street from the main J1 campus as
illustrated on the Reoulating Plan, Fig.2G-1 the parking may b
reduced t22.25 per resident
Non-Residentia!
Uses
South Downtow, University
None ReQuired
111500
squar
%et of
floor area
Park, South Gilbert, Central
I space per 50� square feet of floor area. Oi-street Parking provicied
1/1500
squa
feet of
floor area
Crossincts, Gilbert, Wes
a!ong the frontage of a Voperty may oount toward this oarking
Riverfront
requirement. Buildnigs with less than 1200 square feet of ron-
residential floor area are exempt from this parkincl requirement
F. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements
1. Cff�SF' te ParkErg
Offstreet parking may be located on a separate lot from the use served according to
the foi!owing rules. When the proposed off -site park!ng is located in a Residential
Zone or in the CB-10 Zone or intended for a use located in the CB-10 Zone, the Board
of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the proposed pal king, provided the
conditions contained in sub.paragraphs a. through g. are met. When the proposed off -
site parking is located in an Industrial Zone, Research Zone, or Commercial Zone,
except the CB-10 Zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development may
approve the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a.
through g. are met.
a. Special Location Nan
A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off -site
parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed location
of the off -site parking, the location of the use or uses served by the parking,
and the distance and proposed walking route between the parking and the
use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property
boundaries, including boundaries of any intervening properties. In addition,
documen*a�ion must be submitted providing evidence deemed necessary to
comply with the requirements herein.
b. Location of Off -site Parking
(1) In Residential, end -Commercial Zones, and Riverfront Crossincis Zones ' no
off -site parking space may be located more than 300 feet from an entrance
of the use served 1 in subparagFiaph e, belew, feF PaFki9@
FFiunie;pa!ly e�wned-P�W
(2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off -site parking space may be located
more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served.
C. Zoning I
Off -site parking Spares must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s)
served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot
within the parameters of the following pairings:
(1) Pal king in a Multi -Family Zone serving a use located in a different Multi -
Family Zone or in the MU Zone or vice versa.
(2) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in a different
Commercial zone.
(3) Parking in an Industrial Zone serving a use located in a different Industrial
Zone.
(4) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in an Industrial Zone
or vice versa.
(5) Parking in a Riverfront Crossings Zone serving a use located in a different
Riverfront Crossings Zone or Commercial Zone or vice versa.
d. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking
Where two or more uses will jointly use the proposed off -site parking, the
number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street parking spaces
required, as indicated in Tables 5�-1 and 5A-2, except for reductions approved
under the provisions of paragraph 2, below, Allowed Reductions for Shared
Parking.
e. Off Site Parking Leeated in F 1 1 itJ F
ae, -1
in instances where a use is with�n 6G_'_ "--e-' aeff aa ned PaFkiRg 2Fea, H94e
50 pefeent ef the of paFlking Oded in the
paFlEing -Hit,. . �U�s a Gti, ewne-1 p (ing area, up ta 199 peFeeg
ef the re arl(ing sl�ces may 13- 1. the parking
facility. in the GB 19 Zone, up te 100 equired nuFnbeF of paFking
spaees may be provided in a Gity owned paFl(ing facility FegaFdless ef the
distance betweeg the bse and the parking faEiiity. When an applicant requests
te pFevide off stFeet parking in a Gi*y evoned pa-H-(ing
Planning and Commun;4, Develeprnent r.9 cons ........ ...... .1,_ Direeter o
01 1
1 mmw
N Q WIN i " �_l I 11. 0111111-1,111 Rill"
41-M ;;-IMP
NO
Approval Criteria
In assessing a special location plan for off -site parking, the Board of Adjustment
or Director of Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider
the desirability of the location. of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot
separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety;
any detrimental effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape
as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non -required
parking, the need for additional off-street parking.
g. Covenant for Off -Site Parking
A written agreement between the owners of the parking and the owners of the
property for which the parking wM serve must be submitted with the appHication
for off -site parking. The agreement must assure the reterrton of the parking and
stacking s ' Daces, aisles and drives and be properly executed, binding upon their
successcrs and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant running with, the
[and. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and
conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written
consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
2. Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking
The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community
Development may approve a minor modification as specified in Section 14-413-1 to
reduce the total number of parking s ' paces required by up to 50 perccent,. ;f the uses
sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours.
However, this reduction is not allowed for ResidentV Uses. To qualify for a
reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that
.provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area
wi!l be sufficient to meet the p2rking demand.
3. Landbarked Parking in the CN-1 Zone
The Director of Planning and Community Development may ecluce the minimum
parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone as follows, if it is determined that the
proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN-1 zone. To accommodate future
changes in land use, changes in. ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, up
to 30 percent of the land area that would othe. wise be needed to provide the
required amount of parking may be landbanked or set aside on the site tO provide for
the future construction of a parking area. If an enforcement official of the City
determines at some point in the future that additional parking spaces are needed, the
property owner will be required to construct parking on the landbanked area. A
written agreement between the pro ' perty owner and the City must be pi operly
executed and recorded as a covenant running with the land and binding upon all
successors and assigns, assuring the installation of parking within the landbanked
area by the owner if so ordered by the enforcement official.
4. Parking Exemption in the -5 Zone and-GO—IG-Zene-the Central Business
Zones and the Riverfront Crossings District
In the CB-5 Zone, ef CB-10 Zone, or property zoned Riverfront Crossings, a minor
modification may be granted as specified in Section 14-413-1 exempting up to 30
percent of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the
minimum parking requirements, provided that those dwelling units are committed to
the City's assisted housing program or any other affordaNe housing program
approved by the City.
5. Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District
In order to lacilitate the efficient use of land in the centrai city by increasing the
avallabilily of and maintainlincl centralized public parking facilities that Mi in turn
City, a residential clens�ty bonus is avaiiabie for eligible properties through, a reduction
of the minimum Parking recluirement as set forth in this subsection.
a. Eligibili
A residential density bonus !s available fo, properties located in the following
areas, which For the purposes of this subsection shab be considered the
Downtown and Riverfrort Crossincs Parking District
(1) P. operties located within the area bounded by Burlington Street on the
south, Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, and
Capitol Street on the west; and
(2) Properties zoned South Downtown Subdistrict CRFC-SD), University
b. Reduction of the on -site Parking requirement
(1) The densijy bonus will take the form of a reduction in the off-street
parkina requirements for residential uses. In the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Parkinci Ustrict, the off�street parking requirement for residential
uses may be reduced by up to 50%, provided a fee is paid in lieu based on
the number of parking snaces that would otherWse have to be provided as
specified below and provided the proposed project will not result in the
demolition of a i3roperty that is desionated as an Iowa Cq Landmark,
registered on the National Register of Historic Places, individually eligible
for the NaUonal Reqister of Historic Places, or designated a Key Histori
.Building in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
(2) For a mixed -use building located within the Downtown and Riverfronl-
Crossings Parking District that includes a grocery store and/or a Dublic use
for which all or a significant portion of the feasible off-street parking is
being utilized, the off-street parking reQuirement for residential uses may
be reduc-ed by up to 100%, provided a fee is qaid based on the number of
Parking saaces that would otherwise have to be prov�ded, as specified
below.
(3) For sites within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Pa. king Ustrict
where it is infeasible to r)rovide 50% of the required residential parking
due to specific qualifying site,constraints as noted below, the applicant may
request a special exception to reduce the parking reguirem-ent by up to
100%, provided a fee is paid in lieu of each parking space not orovided on -
site as sr)ecified below and the following rev!ew and ar)proval criteria are
met. The Board of Adiustment will review such a request according to the
following approval criteria:
(a) Convincing evidence has been presented that it is not feasible to
provide 5GO/b of the required parking on -site due to a lack of alley
access. a lot width narrower than 60 feet, a lot orientation that makes
it infeasible to provide on -site oark!nq and meet storefront deDth
reclOmments of the zone, or other unigue circumstance; and
(b) The Drc!)osed projed for which �he parkinq reduction is reauested will
City Landmark, registered on the Nat�anal Register of Kstoric Places,
inaMdually elicible for the Nationai Req�ster of Historic Places, or
designated a "e Historic Building in the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan; and
(c) The proposed project wiii be designed in a manner that is sensitive
and comp!ementa[y to nearby Properties designated as lowa City
Landma, ks, registered on the NaHonal Register of Historic Places,
Crcssi7,rqs Master Plan; an
(d) The proposed project will be designed in a manner that will contribute
to the l2edestrian-criented, urban character of central Iowa City as
envisioned in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
C. Payment of fee in lieu of required parking
(1) Since the denfty bonus is achieved thiough a reduction in the parking
requirement, the apolicart shall pay a Lee for each parking space no
provided. The fee for up to a 50% reduction shall be equal to 75% of the
cost of constructing a structured parkJng space based on best estimates o
the capital improverneirlt costs flor the construction of a parking facillity. Fo
forecoing, the estimated cost of a structured parking space is $24,000 in
reduced beyond 50%.
(2) This fee shall be adjusted annually based on the national historical cos
indexes contained in the most recent edition of Enqil7eering News Record
paragraph.
(3) The City shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a
building permit. The fee gavor may pay the entire fee at the issuance o
the building permit, or may elect to pay the fee in 3 equal annual
installments, the first of which shall be due and collected at the issuance of
the building permit. If the fee payor elects to gay the fee in 3 annual
installments, the fee payor shall execute an agreement with the City before
the City issues a building permit, which agreement sets forth the timing
and amounts of the remaining ins�a!lments to be paid and a!so sets forth
that, upon conflrmation by the Iowa C UL Finance Dei)artment that the fee
payor has defaulted on an instaRment Payment, the City Clerk shall certi
the outstanding fee ba!ar.ce to the Johnson County as a lien upon the
premises for which the bu-Ming permit was issued, Said lien. will no
preclude the My from pumuing, recove[y of the fee by cther legal c
equitable remedies.
(4) AH fees paid shiall be cleposite in the Downtown and RiverfrontOossinas
in the Resstricted Fund, including any accrued interest, shall be used for the
purpose of acguiring land for and constructing and maintaining pubPc
parking facilities located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parkiag
District;
(5) In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the
acouisitior, or ccnsl�rucUon of the aforementioned proRe!U, infrastructure
or faciRtes within the parking district, monies held in the Restricted Fund
may be used to Day debt service on such bonds or similar clebt
instruments.
(6) Fee collected are intended to ensu, e that the increased residential
cleve!opment that results from this oarking reduction bears a proportionate
share of the capital impiovement costs recessaU to meet the additional
park!-ing needs and demands caused by such development.
6. Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances
Where it can be demonstrated that a sPecific use has unique characteristics such that
the number oi parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the
ability to use or occupy a historfc prope[t�Z in a manner that helps to preserve or
protect the historic, aesthetic, or culture! attdbutes of the property, the Board of
Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of rea ' u7red parking
or stack;'ng spaces by up to 50 percent (ulp to 100 percent for p operties designated
as a ;ocal historic landmark, listed on the NeLional Register of Historic Places, or listed
as key or contributincl structures in a historic district or conservation district overlav
zone).
7. Parking Reduction for Liner Buildings
For Liner BuMings constructed to mask a municioal parking facilily, the private o
street parking requirement may be reduced by up to 100% if parking for uses located
within the liner building is rNrovided within the associated public parking facility.
the discretion of the Cily, specific parking spaces within the associated parking
structure may or may not be reserved for use by residents within the liner building.
Compensation for said oarkina shall be made to the City with the amount and terms
of said compensation determined through an agreement with the Ci)t, which shall be
executed prior to issuance of an occupabcy permit for the subject liner building.
Change the label of Table 5A-3 within Section 14-5A-6, Off-street Loading Requirements, to
Table 5A-4 and change any cross references withip Title 14 to the Off-street Loading
Requirements Table to ensure the proper citation.
Delete all portions of Article 14-7S, Development Fees, except those portions legally
necessary to ensure that monies currently within the Parking Facility Impact Fee Restricted
Fund for the Near Southside Parking FacHity District are properly accounted for and used for
'he purp
I , oses enumerated within this Article.
Amend 14-5A-5F, as follows:
F. Standards for Structured Parking in Multi -Family, and Commercial Zones, and
the Riverfront Crossings District
The following standards app!y to structured parking in all Multi -Family Zones, zTnel-ail
Commercial Zones, except the CB-10 Zone, a, id on property zoned Rivefront Crossings.
On properties zoned Riverfiront Crossings, these standards apply to mid -block st, uctures,
lined structures, integrated structures, and underground structures, as described in Article
14-2G. Standards for structured parking in the CB-10 Zone are specified in Subsection 14-
5A-3D, above.
1. In Muti-Family Zones and in the CN-1, CB-2, CB-5, and the MU Zones the ground -
level floor of a building is reserved primarily for principal uses allowed in the zone.
Therefore, any parking located with the exterior walls of the building must meet the
following standards:
a. In the CN-1, CB-2, CB-5, and MU Zones, structured parking is not permitted on
the ground -level floor of the building for the first 30 fee oi lot depth as
measured from the minimum setback line. In the CN-1 Zone it is measured from
the "build -to" line.
b. In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground -level
floor of the building for the first 15 feet of building dept� as measured from the
street -facing buiding wall. On lots with more than one street frontage this
parking setback must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or
waived by minor modification. When considering a minor modification request,
the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation,
location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such
as locations where the residential building space must be elevated above the
floodplain.
C. In the CN-1, CB-2, CB-5, and MU Zones, the ceiling height of any underground
parking may extend no more than I foot above the level of: the adjacent
sidewalk. On sloping building sites and for existing buildings, the City may
adjust this requirement by minor modificadon. However, on sloping sites at least
a portion of the ground -level floor height of any new building must be located
no more than one foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian
plaza; and the floor height of the ground-ieve! floor of the building must be no
more than 4 feet above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian
Zr
plaza at any point along a sts e-et-facing building fagade.
d. In Multi -Family Zones, the ceiling height of any underground parking may
extend no more than 3 feet above orade. For Durposes of this subparagraph,
grade shall be defined as the average Roint cf elevation of the fl.nished surface
of the ground, paying, or sidewalk within the area between the building and the
mix',�ai MAN N-- N-61 1
FIN ! @_ 10
i WON , iii _111N ANNOW6, I ....
Ow
---------------
W! W_
_pW
w;
. . .......
2. On property zoned Riverfront Oossings structured parking shall be placed on a lot in
accordance with the provisions set forth in Article 14-2G, Riverfront Crossings Form -
Based Develocment Standards.
3. Exc-ept for garage openings, the parking area must be enclosed within the exterior
walls of the building. In no case shall a building have the appearance from the street
or from abutting properties of being elevated above a parking level or "on stilts."
(See Figure 5A.1)
Figure 5A. 1 — Structured Parking
UW
QU
Una�ptable
AcceptaNe Unameptable
Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street
or from an abutting property 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 and must comply with
the other standards of this Section. (See Figure 5A.1)
5. Parking spaces within the structure must be perpendicular to parking aisles. However,
angled parking or parallel parking configurations may be allowed if parking aisles are
one-way.
5. In addition to windew epenings the fagade detailing noted above, the City may
require landscaping as a means to soften the visual effect of any garage walls located
at the street level. Shrubs, small berms, and planters may be used to form a
landscaped screen generally ranging between 7 and 4 feet in height. Trees may also
be incorporated into the landscaped area ff sufficient area is available for tree
growth.
7. Garage Entrances/Exits.
a. Vehicular access to parking Mthin build'ngs should be located and designed tO
minimize traffic congestion and hazards to pedestrians and to preserve street
frontages for active building uses.
b. Garage entrances/exits should be located along a building wall that does not
face a public street and accessed from a private drive, private rear lane or public
alley. In CB-2, CB-5, and MU zones, and Riverfront Crossings Zones, alley or
rear lane access is preferred. if the Building Offidal in consultation with the
Director of Planning and Community Development and the Form -Based Code
Committee, determines that such access is rot leasible due to lack of alley
access, opographical limitations or other unique circumstances, or if aPowir.g
direct access from a street will better meet the objectives as stated in
subparagraph a., above, garage openings may lace a street, but must be
designed in a manner that wPl best meet the objectives listed in subparagraph
a, above, and must meet the standards listed in sub -subparagraphs (1), (2),
and (3), below.
(1) If the structured parking is intended for residents or tenants of a building
and not the ceneral public, there may be no more than one double -wide or
two sing!e-wide garage openings per building. Double -wide openings may
not exceed 48 20 feet in width; single -wide openings may not exceed 9 10
feet in width. For existing buildings where it is not possible to meet this
standard due to structural constraints of the building, the Building Official
rnay adjust this provision to allow cne additional garage entTance/exit that
faces a street, provided that the minor mcdif,.ca*;on approval criteria are
met and the garage opening is designed to minimize its effect, on the
streetscape and minimize hazards to pedestrians.
(2) For structured parking intended for use by the genera� public, garage
openings should be limited in width and number to only what is necessary
to provide adequate access for the types and numbers of vehicles using
the parking facility.
(3) Except in the CN-1, CB-2, MU and CB-5 Zones, the opening(s) must occupy
no more than 50% of the length of the street -facing building wa!l. On
corner lots, only one street -facing garage wall must meet this standard. In
Riverfront Crossings Zones and in the CN-1, CB-2, MU and CB-5 Zones,
garage opening(s) along the primary street frontage are not permitted if
access is feasible from another local -or collector street or from a rear alley,
private street or private rear lane. If there is no feasible alternative,
garage opening(s) may be allowed along the primary street frontage,
provided that they occupy no more than 35 percent of the !ength of the
primary street frontage of the lot and provided that all provisions of Article
14-5C, Access Management are met.
Delete paragraph 14-2B-6D-7.-
9 Delete subsection 14-5A-3C:
2-4
i NOWN-1
011, NO I ! N! 1 11-10
0 Amend 14-5A-3D-4 as follows:
4. Household Living Uses must provide Parking according to the specified requirement ir
Table 5A-1. The parking must meet the standards specified in subparagraDhs 5b.
through e., below, If it ean be demonstrated tha there is practical difficulty providing
the required parking for Household Living Uses on site, off -site parking for Household
'living Uses may be approved by speeial exeeptief:v according to the provisions of 14-
5A-4F, Alternatives tO Minimum Parking Requirements.
a Delete subsection 14-5A-3E, Near Southside Parking Facilgy District
I U111-61*81.1 a 007
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Development Standards
Proposed AmendmentfQuestions, I Explanatory Notes
(14-2G-7-G-1 0,11) The Cluy Council recently adopted a policy for projects
Provide that all affordable units and receiving financial assistance for workforce housing.
15% of elder unit rents cannot exceed Workforce housing is defined as housing that is affordable
Iowa City Housing Authority Payment to households between 60% and 120% of AMI . For rental
Standards for rents for 1, 2, and 3 units it was determined that using 120% of the HUD
bedroom units, determined Fair Market Rent monthly rent limits for Iowa
City is appropriate as a maximum ir. Riverfront Crossings
Requestor: Charlie Eastham and Downtown Iowa City.
2 1 (14-2G-7-G-10,11)
Promote access to affordable units and
affordable elder units for very low
income residents by including a
provision similar to — "the owner cannot
refuse to lease affordable units to a
Section 8 rental assistance voucher
holder or holder of other forms of rental
assistance because of the status of the
prospective tenant as a holder of such
assistance"
Requestor: Charlie Eastham
City Council also recently discussed the definition of
'.affordable housing" and agreed that this term means
housing that is affordable for households under 80% of
area median income (AMI). To meet affordable housing
definition, the maximum rents should be at or below the
HUD Fair Market Rent levels
It is written in the federal regulations that a landlord may
choose not to accept Section 8 — it is their choice. There
are increased inspections and additional lease
requirements. It is not illegal to refuse to provide a lease to
a Section 8 tenant by federal, state and local laws. It is
also not a protected status. That being said, it HOME
funds are used to assist the unit, then the landlord must
accept the voucher if that was the only issue for denying
the tenant. That is a HOME requirement. CDBG does not
have such a requirement.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the bonus
provisions be flexible enough to be
used to incentiv;ze both "affordable"
and "workforce" housing as the City
Council has defined those terms.
For the elder housing bonus provision,
an additional requirement could be
added stating that a certain percentage
of the units be reserved for elders or
elder households with incomes at or
below 120% of AMI.
We do not recommend putting a
provision in the zoning code that would
not be consistent with federal rules.
Informal
Meeting -
Public
Hearingi
Dec�slon
3
(14-2G-7-G-10,1 1)
Placing this restriction in the zoning code would exclude
Staff does not recommend limiting this
Provide that individuals and families
projects that provide housing that is affordable to those with
bonus provision to only those projects
occupying all affordable units and 15%
incomes above this level. For example, the UniverCity
targeting those with incomes less than
of elder units have incomes less than
Housing Partnership program, which has been quite
80% of area median income, since this
the 80% Area Median Income adjusted
successful in bringing more families back to the central city
would prevent use of this provision for
for household size as published by the
and leveling the playing field between student rentals and
housing for those that cannot afford
Iowa City Housing Authority.
other housing for other populations, sets the target those
market rents in Riverfront Crossings,
with incomes between 80% and approx. 140% of area
but have incomes above 80% ol
Requestor: Charlie Eastham
median income.
median area income.
4
(1 4-2G-7-G-1 0, 11)
Unless you heavily subsidize the project at the beginning,
For all reasons stated, staff does not
Provide that affordability of all
putting this restriction in the zoning code may limit the
recommend a provision requiring that a
affordable units, including affordable
success of the project or the more likely scenario is that 'the
landlord restrict rents for 50 years.
elder units, must be maintained for 50
bonus provision will go un-used. If you restrictt the property
The term of affordability should be
years.
owners cash flow, they most likely will not have enough for
determined on a case -by -case basis. If
adequate reserves and maintenance. The building will need
such a restriction were added to these
Requestor: Charlie Eastham
significant rehab over 50 years, so such a restriction if used
bonus provisions, staff does not
at all may result in poorly maintained buildings. In addition,
believe they would ever be used.
lending institutions may be reluctant to provide financing for
a Droiect with such conditions.
5
(14-2G-7-G-1 0, 11)
It is desirable to have a mix of both rental and owner
Staff does not recommend limiting the
(At the 1/13114
informal
Provide 'that all affordable units and
occupied affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings.
height bonus 'to rental -only projects.
meeting there
15% of affordable elder units must be
was not a
maintained for rental occupancy.
majority of the
Commission in
Requestor: Charlie Eastham
favor of this
amendr-nent.)
6
(1 4-2G-7-G- 10, 11)
Both affordable and workforce housing are important to the
The bonus height provision is intended
(At the 1113/14
Remove potentially conflusing
development goals of Riverfront Crossings. The City
as just one too! to make it possible for
informal
references to "affordable or workforce"
Council has adopted a guideline for what qualifies as
a project to provide more affordable
meeting there
housing by using only "affordable"
workforce housing, which includes housing that is
options for those that might riot
was not a
housing.
affordable to those earning up to 120% of area median
otherwise be able pay market rents in
majority of the
income. Limiting the height bonus to only those projects
the Riverfront Crossings District. The
Commission in
Requestor: Charlie Eastham
that meet the definition of affordable would prevent use of
City Council has established a
favor of this
the height bonus to achieve housing in the workforce
definition of what qualifies for
amendment.)
housing price range, which is below market rents for the
workforce housing for Riverfront
downtown area, but above the level that would meet the
Crossings based on available market
definition of affordable, which is targeted to those below
factors. As these factors may change
80% of median area income.
over lime, putting a definition into the
zoning code may be counter-
productive to achieving housing goals.
7
Assure adequate river views from west
Views of the river would be blocked even by 1 -story
Staff recommends:
to east on the eastern border of the
buildings, so the height limit may be less of an issue than
West Riverfront Subdistrict.
how much of the frontage along the river is taken up by
Underflai;acle continuity D-3f (p.28)
buildings (regardless of how tall they are). Ensuring access
add a new paragraph (2), as follows:
Requestor Charlie Eastham, Paula
and view corridors between buildings along the riverfront
(2) To ensure public access and view
Swygard, Ann Freerks
will create a more public riverfront.
corridors to the Iowa River, buildings
shall occupy no more than 75% of the
Also note that under the subdistrict standards every
width of the lot as measured along the
building has to be placed to the front of the lot (min.
riverside lot line.
setback 10', max. 20') along a street frontage. Therefore
Under D-3b.(p.26) add a new sentence
any building that is located along the Iowa River must also
as follows:
have a "street frontage." Since the primary streets are
"Pedestrian streets that provide
Riverside Drive and Benton Sti eet, the only way that one
frontage for buildings located along the
can build a building on a lot that does no+ have frontage on
riveifront shall provide a connection
one of those streets is by creating a new street or a
through the block between the
pedestrian street' that would extend perpendicular to one
riverfront trail and the intersecting
of the vehicular streets. This will ensure that buildings
public street."
located along the riverfront will have good pedestrian
access and will be spaced a minimum clistance apart as
required for a pedestrian street right-of-way.
Avoid abrupt transitions in height limits,
for instance between the GD-18 (2.5
stories) and GD-19 (4 stories) areas in
the Gilbert subdistrict, by lowering
height limits, stepping back the building
height, or increasing the setbacks.
Requestor: John Thomas
Adjust regulations for West Riverfront to
ensure the height step-downs and
setbacks along Riverside Drive and
Orchard Street are implemented as
shown in the Master Plan-
Requestor: John Thomas
See the proposed zoning code p.21. The height limit in the A possible solution is simply to state
Gilbert District is 3 stories- If any bonus height is granted in that bonus height will not be granted
this area, a fagade stepback cf 10 feet is required above on lots that abut a single family
the 3"' story. However, this only applies along street -facing residential zone.
facades.
Maximum building height in the'Olest Riverfront area is 4
stories with a stepback of 10 feet required after the 3'
story- The reason that the plan shows 1 and 2-story
buildings on the south end of this subdistrict is that there is
not enough room for the surface parking necessary to
serve taller buildings. In other words, it wasn't that 3 and 4-
story mixed -use buildings would be undesirable, but rather
they would be unlikely to occur until the market reached the
point where structured parking was financially feasible.
We need to be careful not to confuse the plan goals for the
West Riverside area with the yield analysis that is
illustrated in the plan, which is based on a rough
determination of how much building is possible based on
what can be parked. In the West Riverfront subdistrict the
consultants chose to show what was possible if it was all
surface parked except for a few taller buildings along the
river. If we truly want to change the market dynamic from
low intensity auto -oriented businesses to a mixed -use,
more pedestrian -friendly environment we are going to need
some more people living in this area. So, the question
is --- is a 4-story maximum height with a step -back of 10 feet
after lhe 3rd floor the wrong standard? Are you proposing
that we limit it to one story or Iwo story maximums? Right
now with the CC-2 zoning the height limit is 35 feet
(basiC211y 3 stories).
To address the concern of transition
between the Riverfront Crossings
District and the single family residential
neighborhood located to the west, we
could add a provision similar to the one
suggested in the Gilbert District that
bonus height will not be granted for lots
that abut single family residential
zones and require that facades that
face single family residential zones
must step back 10 feet above the 3d
story.
10
Limit development along Gilbert in the
Most of this portion of S. Gilbert Street has already
Given that this is already a high density
South Downtown District to 4-6 stories
redeveloped under the CB-5 zoning. The remaining site
residential corridor (zoning on the east
to smooth the transitions between the
has some significant constraints that will make it difficult to
side is RM-44) with a wide street right
South Downtown and Gilbert
develop. With such a small site the room for parking is
of -way that separates the west side O�f
Suldistricts and preserve the character
severely limited, so achieving a building that is taller than 5
Gilbert Street from the east side, staff
of the Gilbert Street corridor.
stories would be difficult if not impossible.
does not recommend adding a specific
J'
Requestor: John Thomas
Since zoning on the west side of Gilbert Street in this area
height restriction for these properties.
is currently CB-5, which has a 75 ft. height limit, restricting
height below the current limit would Provide little incentive
lor a property owner to rezone their property to a Riverfront
Crossings designation and they may protest if the City
initiates such a rezoning.
I
Question:
"Res;dential
Good catch. It was a last minute change to the regulating
Staff recommends that this oversight
Uses are not allowed within
plan to show required retail storefronts in the West
be corrected and language added that
the required retail storefronts, as
Riverfront subdistrict.
residential uses are not allowed within
specified in the Riverfront Crossings
required retail storefronts in the West
Regulating plan" is listed under Uses in
Riverfront Subdistrict -
every subdistrict except for West
Riverfront. Why is this not addressed in
the West Riverfront subdistrict?
Requestor: Paula Swvqard
12
Include a statement about Drinking
Since we anticipate that the West Riverside District will
We can add a cross-reference as a
establishments listed under Uses in the
remain largely a commercial area, we assumed that the
reminder that that 500-foot spacing
VVest Riverfront subdistrict for clarity
500-foot spacing rule would be the appropriate rule for this
rule applies.
since it is mentioned in all other
area. This is the same as would apply in the South
subdistricts.
Downtown subdistrict, which we were silent about since the
rule that applies in the CB-5 Zone applies-
Requestcr: Paula Swygard
13 1 Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram
Use different colors to help with ease of
reading the map; the current shades of
pink are not clear.
Requestor: Paula Swygard
14 Question:
How will access to services areas and
parking in the West Riverfront District
impact traffic on Orchard Street?
Requestor: Paula Swygard
15 Question:
On page 75- Pedestrian Streets,
frontages on Ralston Creek are
specified. Are frontages along the Iowa
River specified elsewhere so they do
not need to be addressed in this
document?
Requestor: Paula Swygard
16 Question:
Can student housing locations in the
West Riverfront subdistrict be more
clearly defined? Which existing
buildings lie within the 1,000 square foot
walking distance oil campus?
Requestor: Paula Svvygard
In the codified version of the zoning code, the map will be We can ask the consultant to modify
in black and white and different hatching patterns will be the color scheme to create more of a
used, since the codifier will not include any color graphics distinction.
This is the same for the regulating plan.
We do not anticipate significant changes to access, except
for the goal of consolidating driveways when possible along
Riverside Drive to improve traffic circulation and increase
the possibility for more pedestrian amenities along
Riverside Drive. There will continue to be a need to provide
access 1rom Orchard Street.
North of Benton Street the Iowa River Corridor Trail is
already in place. There are plans to build the segment
south of Benton down to Hwy 6. The City has acquired
access easements from all property owners except for the
property at 21 W. Benton Street (the project that was just
reviewed by P&Z). While there are architectural
requirements that apply and the window coverage and
fagade detailing to facades that face the I0W2 River, it may
be unrealistic to require every building to have its front door
along the river- However, a developer could request a
Dedes+rian street frontace
The edge of the campus is illustrated on the regulating plan
and the only walking route due to the RR embankment
would be along Riverside Drive.
No change recommended.
No change recommended.
On the east side of Riverside Drive it is
about 1000' to the north edge of the
fon'ne, Professional Muffier property
that is at the corner of Benton and
Riverside Dr. On the west side of
Riverside Drive it is about 1000' to the
south edge of the former Hartwig
Motors property.
17
Question:
Yes, the language could state that funds shall be used
We can include a language in the
Page 79-8-e discusses two open space
within the subdistrict where the art bonus was granted.
bonus provision for art that the funds
accounts for fees to be used in the east
must be used for public art within the
and west districts. Could two accounts
subdistrict in which the subject building
be used for funds contributed for height
is located.
bonus to public art rather than applying
these funds throughout the entire
Riverfront Crossings District?
Requestor: Paula Swygard
18
Question:
Key and contributing historic buildings are shown in the
How are historic and potentially historic
master plan. We can also show the properties that are
properties highlighted? We should not
already designated historic on the regulating plan.
promote redeveiopment of historic yet
However, the way to protect historic properties is to
unprotected areas. How will setbacks
designate them as Iowa City Landmarks or adopt a historic
work for historic properties?
preservation overlay zone or to negotiate protection as a
condition of a rezoning.
Requestor: Ann Freerks
Also note that all existing development is grandfathered
with regard to dimensional standards such as setbacks. It is
only if a property is redeveloped that the new building
would have to meet setback requirements.
19
Question:
It is open for discussion. T hese are the areas that
No change recommended.
How was Required Retail Storefront
consultants and staff felt were in important to maintain for
determined on the map? Is this area
some non-residential uses.
firm?
Requestor: Ann Freerks
20 Question: See above.
How do we best maintain public view of
space along the Riverfront, especially if
we are promoting 10 story plus
buildings? Can we have an extra bonus
for better access and viewing of the
riverfront?
Requestor: Ann Freerks
21 Question:
Can a balcony cover an entire frontage?
Would it be better to use a ratio here or
is this something we want to
encourage? (page 10) Please talk a bit
about how this compares with the
current code.
Requestor: Ann Freerks
22 Question:
Page 31, page 44. . . Are we doing our
best to promote green space in
multifamily areas? Yard vs. open
space?
Requestor: Ann Freerks
23 Page 47
Rephrase "Frontage Type standards
above" to "listed earlier."
Requestor: Ann Freerks
Yes, we can require more spacing
between buildings that front on the
river to provide access and v�ew
corridors. See discussion above.
This is the standard in the code now and has never been a No change recommended. We advise
problem. consistency between this code and our
existing code.
This is an urban district where buildings are generally
aligned close to the street, so front yard green space will
generally be limited. However, by specifying standards for
frontages, we can control how the space between the
building and the public sidewalk is configured.
Landscaping is required for areas along the frontage that
are not covered with stoops, porches, terraces or porticos.
More significantly, there is a minimum open space
requirement for residential uses. See subsection E pp. 78-
79.
Agreed.
No change recommended. Staff feels
that the standards are a significant
imr)rovement over existing standards in
ot�er zones.
We will make this change.
24
Page 75, C. (3)
The required stream corridor buffer in the sensitive areas
We could delete the specific dimension
The required 10' public trail should not
ordinance is 30 fee", so it would leave a minimum of 10 feet
from this standard and leave it up to
take away from the natural features of
of green space on either side of the trail. However, there
the City's trail planners to clete"i-mine
the creek. Perhaps it should be
may be places where the area is more constrained, so
the appropriate width. This would allow
narrower in some areas.
some flexibility may be warranted.
the possibilily for a narrower trail if
Requestor: Ann Freerks
theire is a particularly constrained area.
25
Page 79
The open space requirements in Section E are mandatory.
No change recommended. Since this is
In some areas we really need to look for
There is an option for payment of a fee in lieu if there is
a new concept in our code, staff
ways to insist on open space and
practical difficulty meeting the requirement, but at least
suggests waiting to see how
activity areas. We need to find a way to
50% of the requirement must be met either as outdoor
successful it is in creating better open
make this mandatory if apartment
space or indoor activity area. It is only on properties with
space and activity areas for residents.
buildings are of a certain size.
fewer than 20 bedrooms total that fees can be paid in lieu
Adjustments can be made if it is not
of 100% of the requirement.
working as intended.
Requestor: Ann Freerks
26
Question:
Since plantings are not really a building material, we don't
No change recommended.
Page 84: Are green or living rooftops
think mentioning green roofs in this table is necessary.
included in this chart?
However, green or living rooftops are certainly encouraged
and bonus height may be available for these types of green
Requestor: Ann Freerks
features.
27
Question:
A temporary sign is a sign intended for temporary display
Page 86, 9- (g)
such as a posters and flyers.
What makes a sign temporary?
Requestor: Ann Freerks
28
Page 89
This transfer of development rights will not be granted
No change recommended.
Look into historic designation to provide
unless the sending site is designated and protected as and
more protection.
Iowa City Landmark-
Requestor: Ann Freerks
29 100% of the housing units with the The standards in the code allow for accessible entrances
Riveff ront Crossings District should be and ADA requirements will determine which buildings are
totally accessible. required to be accessible, The City already requires that
residential units that receive City assistance must meet
Requestor: Bob Welsh certain accessibility standards and bcnus provisions for
elderly housing are predicated on meeting accessibility
.requirements. All commercial, multi -family and mixed use
buildings have accessible entrances. However, for
townhouse units and cottages accessibility should remain
optional.
To make it more clear that accessibility is allowed,
encouraged and in many cases required, we can have the
consultant illustrate how accessible ramps can be included
in a manner that is consistent with the frontage
requirements.
Keep in mind that in urban neighborhoods where buildings
are aligned close to the public sidewalk we are trying to
achieve both DrivaCV and annessibilitv
30
Modify the glazing requirement for
We have had discussions with local architects and
storefront frontages and urban flex
consulted with glass manufacturers regarding how best to
frontages to deleting the visible light
ensure that storefront windows are transparent, since
transmission standard.
heavily tinted, colored and reflective glass does not allow
views into the interior of storefronts, which defeats the
Requestor: Staff
purpose of having storefront windows. Given that there are
many different kinds of glass and a coating is usually
applied to make windows more energy efficient, there are
many variables that determine transpaency. Percent of
visible light transmission might not always be the best
gauge. There is a similar standard in the Central Business
Site Development Standards that needs to be modified.
We will have the consultant rnodify the
drawings to illustrate how accessible
Tamps can be incoi porated into the
frontage.
Staff does not recommend making
accessibility mandatory for all
residential units within the district. We
recommend continuing to rely on the
ADA requirements in the building code
to determine which buildings must
have accessible entrances and
features.
Staff recommends that the standard be
changed as follows:
"Glazing shall be clear and highly
transparent to allow views into the
storefront. Reflective (mirrored) or
colored glass is not permitted."
Staff also recommends a similar
change to the Central Business Site
Development Standards in 14-2C-
8N.
31
Modify the standards for terrace, stoop,
porch and yard, and portico frontages to
clarify first story finished floor elevation
standards.
Requestor: Staff
As written, the standards will not work for any site that has
a natural slope. For privacy purposes the minimum floor
height above the level of the sidewalk is important, but the
maximum height of the finished floor should be expressed
as a measure above the grade of the land adjacent to 'he
building. A similar standard for floor height is causing a
problem in our current code that also needs to be changed.
Staff recommends modifying the
language to clarify minimum and
maximum floor height and associate,.'
min. and max. for exterior stoops,
terraces, porticos, and porches as they
relate to the level of the abutting
sidewalk and the adjacent exterior
grade of the land next to the building.
Similarly, staff recommends modifying
the same standard in the other parts of
the zoning code to address this issue.
32
In Table 2G-8, Permitted Building
Materials, clarify the standard for
w'ndow film.
In Note G, delete the last sentence because there mav be
certain window film that does not reduce transparency'or
block views, so the standard is too strict. Also clarify that
Staff recommends making this change.
Requestor: Staff
we are only concerned about storefront frontages and
urban flex fromages when we refer to minimum fenestration
requirements with regard to the use of translucent or fritted
glass and window film.
There will be circumstances where modifications to the
parking placement standards will be warranted, e.g. for
buildings located in the floodplain and in areas in the West
Staff recommends making this change.
33
In 14-2G-7H on p. 94 amend the
language so that minor adjustments of
the parking placement standards are
also allowed.
Riverfront Subdistrict where new development will need to
be integrated with older development where the parking is
located in front of the buildings.
January 28, 2014
To the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission:
We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the following to
the Iowa City City Council: that the Iowa City Corn ' prehensive Plan be amended to specify that in
the Riverfront Crossings District, 15% of all new residential units should be affordable to people
earning less than 80% of Area Median income. By affordable we mean that a household can
pay housing costs (mortgage or rent, insurance and utflities) at 30% of their income or less. We
also request that when this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is approved, that the City
Council irnmediaiely appoint a task force composed of city officials, for -profit and nonprofit
housing developers, University of Iowa officials and community residents to determine specific
terms governing the new affordable housing: i.e., mix of rental and homeownership units,
inclusion of accessible elder housing, public/private funding mechanisms, etc.
We request this amendment because the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
adopted in January 2013 makes no mention of affordable housing outside of arts -related units in
the Gilbert Sub -District, which has the lowest number of total projected units of any sub-clistriCt
in the plan (92 out of a projected 2400 units). Since the adoption of the Master Plan, the
shortage of afforclable housing in the Iowa City area has become increasingly
apparent. Currently, the average vacancy rate for apartments is below 1% and housing costs are
rising much faster than incomes. Over 63% of renters are paying more than 30% of their income
on housing costs, which means they are "cost burdened". As a result, people are moving farther
from their places of work, which negatively impacts families, communities, and the
environment.
We encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to refer to the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update (adopted by City Council on May 14, 2013), which lists as a Housing Goal to "ensure a
mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types
(singles, families, retirees) and people of all incomes." (p.27). in addition, City Steps (2011-2015
Consolidated Plan) approved by City Council on December 14, 2009, makes a number of
recommendations (pp.58-61) to increase the supply of affordable housing in Iowa City, including
specifically recommending an ordinance that "could provide financial and other incentives to
developers in exchange for the provision of a percentage of housing units set aside for
households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income." (p.58).
We appreciate your consideration of this request.
Since. ely,
SaRyJ. swm
Sally J. Scott, Facilitator
Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition
205 Black Springs Circle
Iowa City, IA 52246
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JANUARY 16,— 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie
Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Eric Goers
OTHERS PRESENT: Sally Scott, Glenn Siders, John McKinstry, Maryann Dennis, Al
Zimmerman, Mark Boding
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of SUB13-00024, a request for
preliminary plat approval of Lindemann Subdivision Part 4B, 6 & 7, an 83-lot, 25.04-acre
residential subdivision located on Kenneth Drive north of Camden Road with approval
subject to an acceptable plan for the location design of a mailbox cluster, and prior to the
City acceptance of the open space there will be landscaping established.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Comprehensive Plan Item
CPA12-00006
A public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Southwest District
Plan to change the land use designation of property located west of Mormon Trek
Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive (Walden Square) from Neighborhood Commercial to
Generai Commercial.
Freerks explained that this item goes together with Item E the rezoning item below REZI 2-00001.
Rezoning item
REZ12-00001
Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning
of 8.7 acres of property from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone located at west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
Miklo showed the Commission images and a zoning map of the area; he then explained the
differences between the CN-1 and CC-2 zones in terms of uses allowed and additional site
development requirements that go along with each of the zones. CN-1 puts limitations on the size
of some uses allowed in the zone, including restaurants, offices, etc.
Miklo explained the history of the development and how over time, because of its locational
advantages and growth on the west side of Iowa City, the shopping center has come to serve a
much wider area than was originally anticipated when the property was zoned CN-1. He stated that
while staff was recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning,
their recommendation included three conditions dealing with signage, building design, and outdoor
display in order to help ensure that the shopping center remained compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
In response to questions from the Commission, Miklo responded that lighting is the same in both
zones. He also stated that while the immediate neighborhood has not changed since the District
Plan was adopted, the entire west side has grown considerably and commercial areas, other than
those on Highway I and Highway 6 have not developed. Miklo explained that the grocery store is,
other than Walmart, the only grocery store west of the river in Iowa City. The same it is true of the
drugstore and bank, which are the only uses of their kind other than what is found on Highway 1.
Miklo explained that in the CN-1 a gas station would require a special exception. In the CC-2 they
are allowed by right. He noted that the 1,000 square foot limit on outdoor display would effectively
preclude a car dealership of sales lot while still allowing retailers to provide seasonal outdoor
displays. He explained that a conditional zoning agreement may put limits on uses allowed in the
zone (such as size restrictions) but cannot prohibit those uses that would otherwise be allowed.
Glenn Siders for Southgate Development indicated that they had no objection to the conditions
staff was recommending. Some of the size limitations on the existing uses in the commercial zone,
such as a physical therapy clinic, were limiting the opportunity for those uses to grow. All the
existing uses comply with the CN-1 standards. He stated that if Hartig Drugstore were to leave and
they were unable to attract a new drugstore, they would probably have to divide the building into 3
new spaces in order to comply with the space limitations and that would be difficult with that
particular building.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Thomas moved to approve CPA112-00006, an application submitted by Southgate
Development Services to amend the Southwest District Plan to change the land use map
designation of Walden Square, from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial.
Second by Eastham.
Theobald stated that she lives in the neighborhood and that many people in the neighborhood use
the commercial center, especially those living in the nearby apartments who walk to the shopping
center. Also many walk across Mormon Trek to shop. The uses do serve the neighborhood. The
Southwest District Plan had recommendations for improvements to serve pedestrians and it
expressly recommended that it remain a neighborhood commercial area. Therefore, she would
vote against the change.
Freerks stated that she did not see that this would cause a change to what was there but might
allow an opportunity for existing uses to expand. She stated that this would not create a situation in
which traffic would change. While it is good that there is considerable neighborhood foot traffic that
there is also a lot of traffic/customers coming from outside the area. She thinks it is one of those
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
tricky areas that needs to be designed to serve both pedestrians and those coming by car. Freerks
asked how new users or property owners would be aware of the special conditions,
Goers indicated that new property owners would become aware through a title opinion.
Martin stated that she believes Mr. Siders addressed the issue of market demand for the changes.
Eastham stated that he would like to see the parking area re -designed and more paved trails to the
north and south and somewhat to the west, however those trails are on someone else's property
and so cannot be a condition or rezoning. Otherwise he cannot see what the change would
portend for the future, especially with the conditions which seem to eliminate things that would not
complement the neighborhood. He is concerned about the proliferation of convenience stores.
Thomas stated that he too was torn. He supports having more neighborhood commercial but
believes it requires the right context. This seems to be a hybrid. He wondered how the parking
area could be reconfigured to allow more commercial uses.
Freerks stated that the goal of the applicant seemed to be to maintain stability and not have
vacancies, such that as certain brick and mortar uses go away, such as video stores, other uses
need to occupy those spaces and that's where growing the existing uses makes sense. Her
concern was not to allow something that truly would not be in the interest of the neighborhood, like
a car dealership.
Theobald stated that the existing small businesses are supported by the neighborhood and that the
.'good neighbor policy" had not been used. She is concerned about crime and the addition of
alcohol outlets. Miklo stated that the regulations for alcohol uses are the same.
Miklo stated that the existing development was probably more characteristic of the CC-2 zone in
terms of the placement of buildings and parking. This was built before the current CN-1 site
development standards were in place. The difference in this situation is that the size of uses is
limited in the CN-1 so that they are not reliant on a larger market. The idea with those limitations is
that the zone not be drawing traffic into a neighborhood from the entire community. However, in
this case, because Mormon Trek Boulevard is such a major traffic carrier, the shopping center
already functions as a shopping center for the west side. The only way to go beyond the size
limitations is through a change in the zone.
Howard noted that there is a lot of overlap between all of the commercial zones. The staff report
points out the differences that are distinct that may not be compatible with the neighboring
residential uses or with pedestrian traffic. She pointed out that many other Community Commercial
areas in the city also are surrounded by neighborhoods and people walk to those shopping areas
and they also draw from a larger area. She cited the Towncrest area as one that is similar in that
respect.
Theobald expressed concern about alcohol outlets and businesses open after 9 o'clock at night.
Miklo indicated that the Planning and Zoning commission could put limitations on hours of
operation, He recommended that if the Commission was considering additional conditions, they
should defer to provide time to determine what conditions to apply.
Howard advised the board to keep in mind that the area is built out and is not expanding. A market
is there and the uses and buildings have been established. Theobald noted that the convenience
store in the area has become principally a liquor store, which was not always the case.
Swygard expressed the concern that if commercial uses were allowed to expand that this might
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
bring more traffic in from a broader area into a confined space. Miklo pointed out the zoning
boundary —the area is limited size. Also the topography, storm water basin, and the residential
units above the storefronts provide some buffer between the shopping center and the adjacent
residential area. The parking area is also well used such that there is not a lot of opportunity to new
retail space beyond the buildings that are there currently.
Eastharn noted that the present uses there are what make this a focal point for the neighborhood
and questioned whether those uses might not change if there is higher demand for larger spaces.
Swygard asked whether a transition to larger uses would impact the parking. Howard responded
that they can only have as much square footage as they can park, and that the parking
requirements are the same in both zones.
Thomas said his concern was that this could lead to there being fewer small establishments in the
zone. He asked whether there are conditions that could help to preserve a mix.
Howard stated that the CN-1 zone limited eating and drinking establishments to an occupant load
of 100 though it could go up to 125 with a special exception. She said that is a fairly large size. She
noted that a restaurant is not open after midnight; if it is open after midnight and serves alcohol it is
considered a drinking establishment,
Goers noted that the alcohol sales rule —the 1,000 foot separation rule —does not apply in the CN-
1 or CC-2 zone.
The applicant indicated that they would not entertain'limitations on size or hours of operation. He
indicated he would agree to a 2-week deferral.
Thomas withdrew his motion to approve.
Eastham moved for deferral of the Comprehensive Plan item to the following meeting.
Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Eastham moved to defer item REZ12-00001 for the rezoning of the property to the following
meeting. Second by Martin. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Development Item
SUB13-00024
Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of
Lindemann Subdivision Part 413, 6, & 7, an 83-lot, 25.04-acre residential subdivision located
on Kenneth and Charles Drive, north of Gustav Street.
Miklo said this item had been deferred from December and they have now received a revised plat
that extends Kenneth Drive and Daniel Drive to the north as called for in the Comprehensive Plan
and the Conditional Zoning Agreement. He said that staff believes in this case that eighty-three
mailboxes in the same cluster would be considered a large cluster and therefore should have some
consideration to how it's located in the subdivision and how it's designed. He said the applicant has
worked with the Post Office to identify an outlot for the cluster to be permanently located, and there
may be some need for the clusters to be temporarily located, as it's possible that not all the streets
will be built at once and there may not be access to the clusters.
Miklo said staff will ask the applicant to make a proposal for landscaping around the cluster. He
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
said the reasons for the requests for landscaping are that some landscaping will help buffer the
activity associated with eighty-three residents picking up mail, primarily around the same time of
day, and that the appearance of a large cluster will have an impact on the adjacent area. He said
staff recommends approval for this item subject to a plan for the cluster and landscaping. Miklo
said the applicant is concerned that the homeowners' association may not like the landscaping
chosen, and he said that one solution would be to require installation after the homeowners'
association is established so the developer could work with the association to come up with a
satisfactory plan.
Freerks asked how the parking works for these clusters.
Miklo said that so far the clusters have been fairly small so there hasn't been a pull -over. Martin
said at the larger clusters in Idlewyld and Spring Valley there are pull-overs. Miklo said they didn't
specify that as a requirement, and the thought is that it would be done on a case by case basis. He
said there is some open space in this instance so people could park on the street.
Eastham asked about the vehicles turning around after people have gotten their mail. Miklo said it
depends on how people get to the cluster, and hopefully many of them would walk.
Martin asked for and got clarification that this is a requirement of the Post Office yet it will not help
financially in anyway.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Glenn Siders of Southgate Development said they don't want to show a specific landscape plan
until the homeowners' association is established, and they are willing to stipulate to that in legal
documents. He said they did create a concrete pad for the actual mailbox units and green space
around that in an outlot to provide for landscaping. He said an outlot that gets dedicated to the City
will be independent of the landscaped area and will also be stipulated to in the legal papers. Miklo
suggested using the phrase "prior to the City acceptance of the open space there will be
landscaping established." The applicant and the City Attorney concurred with that.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of SUB13-00024, a request for preliminary plat
approval of Lindemann Subdivision Part 413, 6 & 7, an 83-lot, 25.04-acre residential
subdivision located on Kenneth Drive north of Camden Road with approval subject to an
acceptable plan for the location design of a mailbox cluster, and prior to the City
acceptance of the open space there will be landscaping established.
Martin seconded.
Freerks said she's happy to see the street connection. She said the mailbox clusters are
something new, and it remains to see how they look as they get bigger. She said it's something the
City is stuck with. She said she thinks this development will be a good addition to the community.
Eastham said he's happy to see the interconnected street design working out.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Freerks called for a four minute break.
Freerks called the meeting back to order.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
Code Items
Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Zoning Code. (Available for review
at hftP:1twww.Icgov.org1?ld=2094' ;
Eastharn disclosed that he had been present at a meeting of a group that has been interested in
the form based code section having to do with the affordable and elder housing. He said the gist of
what was said at that meeting is taken up in correspondence from that group and its
recommendation and request. He said the discussion was mainly on how to include anything in the
Code or the Riverfront Crossings Plan in terms of achieving affordable housing in that area. He
said at the meeting he tried to provide information about how the Commission works and when it
meets.
Eastham said he would provide an email from that group that summarized the discussion. Goers
said that it would be appropriate to include those emails in the records of this meeting.
Howard said the Commission had a work session January 13 to go through some things that the
Commission wanted staff to look at with regard to various aspects of what's proposed in this code.
Freerks said the Commission had discussion about the proposed form based code at its work
session and people submitted questions, and now it's important for the public to comment and give
feedback on it as well.
Swygard asked for clarification about distance from student housing on the west side. Howard said
to qualify for the student housing bonus provision the project would have to be within one -thousand
feet walking distance of the edge of the campus as defined on a map that she showed. Swygard
asked if it would be limited to one side of the street. Howard said it would apply to both sides of
Riverside Drive as well as to distance from the campus on the other side of the river. She noted
that the campus boundaries for purposes of the form -based code are illustrated on the regulating
plan for Riverfront Crossings.
Freerks asked what would happen if the university acquired more property. Howard said the map
would then have to be revised.
Eastham said some of the discussion at their last meetings had to do with accessibility of
structures allowed by the form based code provisions and whether the code was sufficient to
assure that no -step entrances were going to be possible. He said for at least a few of the frontage
types he didn't see that they allowed a sidewalk level building to be built.
Howard noted that the code states "steps and/or ramps" and the ADA requirements in the building
code would determine how accessibility is addressed. Eastham said he would like the staff to
clearly address what the form based code language actually requires and allows for no -step
entrance at the front of each one of the allowed building types. Howard said there was no intention
to make it different than any other part of the city.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Sally Scott said she is the volunteer facilitator for a new organization called The Johnson County
Affordable Homes Coalition but she is speaking tonight as an individual. She said the form based
code does address some of the issues she's concerned about. For example, there is a bonus
provision for affordable or workforce housing. However, she stated that it is problematic that
affordable housing is not mentioned as a goal in the Master Plan for Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
Freerks noted that the Master Plan was approved earlier in 2013 and that what was being
considered by the Commission at this time was the form -based code for Riverfront Crossings.
Scott said she is requesting that the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan be amended
to specify that 15% of all residential units, approximately 450, should be accessible to people
earning less than 80% of Area Median Income. She said that once the City government
incorporates this target into the Master Plan, a task force of city officials, for -profit and nonprofit
housing developers, University officials and city residents should determine the specific means to
achieve the goal.
Scott said significant public dollars will support the redevelopment of this area, and given the large
investments of public funds, residential development in this area should benefit the full range of
Iowa City residents, including lower -income and older people.
Scoff said the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan adopted in January 2013 makes no
mention of affordable housing outside of arts -related units in the Gilbert District. She said the
shortage of affordable housing in Iowa City has become apparent since then, as over 63% of
renters are paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs. She said other than students,
most people earning less than $35,000 can't afford to live in Iowa City, resulting in more people
moving farther from their places of work, which negatively impacts families, communities and the
environment.
Scott said the provision of incentives in the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Development
Standards does not guarantee that any affordable or elder housing will be built in that area, which
would be a huge missed opportunity. She urged the City of Iowa City to make affordable housing
an integral, not an optional, part of the Riverfront Crossings redevelopment.
John McKinstry of 308 Ronalds Street said although he can't speak officially for the Consultation of
Religious Communities, his clergy and laity colleagues share his concerns about affordable
housing. He read from a letter written by Bob Welsh of 84 Penfro Drive that stated that one of the
important features of a livable community is affordable accessible housing and that Riverfront
Crossings provides Iowa City an opportunity to declare in the Form -Based Development
Guidelines that it is the City's intent that 100% of all housing units in Riverfront Crossings are
totally accessible. Welsh went on to say that he hopes the City's will affirm in those Guidelines its
intent to ensure that all the housing units are affordable, citing the example that if 16% of families
had income under $25,000 then 16% of the housing units would be affordable for persons at that
income level. He urged the City to not miss the opportunity that Riverfront Crossinas presents.
McKinstry said he applauds the Iowa City Community School District for their diversity policy which
is intended to balance out the past failings of the entire county to have adequate amount and
scattering of affordable housing to overcome some of those geographic inequalities that exist. He
said he believes when public funds are used in redevelopment then the entire public needs to
benefit directly and that the lower income people who work in this neighborhood should have
places to live within it. He said it is increasingly difficult for working families to have affordable
housing in this county, and he thinks it's the responsibility of everyone to see that we don't
continue to go down that road that we've been on for years.
Maryann Dennis said she is speaking for The Housing Fellowship and wants to reiterate what
previous speakers have said. She said City Council recently adopted priorities for neighborhood
stabilization in their Strategic Plan, and one of the Plan's priorities is to define and address
affordable housing issues in Iowa City. She said the Riverfront Crossings regulations can help to
achieve that goal by including bonuses for development that reserve a minimum of 15% of the
dwellings as affordable to households with incomes below 80%.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
Al Zimmerman of 2422 Lakeside Drive #4 said he is a retired minister who moved back to Iowa
City to be close to his family, and he really had to struggle to find affordable housing, even with
what he considers a good income. He asked the Commission to keep the entire community in mind
as they determine this new project. He said he would hope that the housing that is provided will
reflect all socioeconomic groups in the community so that we can truly be a community.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastharn moved to defer this item to the meeting of February 6.
Thomas seconded.
Freerks said they have laid forth a number of issues for staff to address including affordable
housing, building height and entry levels.
Martin asked if a certain number of units within a building are set aside for affordable housing, are
they not rented except to someone who meets that requirement and how long do they remain
vacant if they don't get filled.
Howard said the proposal is to explore options to achieve affordable housing goals and there's no
one right answer to how it might be done. She said to research how inclusionary housing could be
incorporated into the code would take some time.
Freerks; explained to Martin that the idea is to give people incentives to want to use the form -based
code and to also do affordable housing. She said the Commission is asking staff to explore how
best to entice people to want to do that.
Miklo said that typically with inclusionary zoning certain units are set aside to be rented or sold at a
certain price and they are not allowed to go back to the market rate.
Freerks said that inclusionary zoning has been discussed often over the years and it's something
that City Council, which is more of a political body, has declined to go forward with, but that's a
broader issue that could be addressed in the plan overall.
Eastham said the specifics of the request, which are not something he would characterize as a
request to adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance, but the request is to make an amendment to
the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to achieve specific goals.
Howard explained the steps to amending the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: someone would need to submit an application to amend the
plan, notice would be published, and it would be placed on the Commission's formal agenda for
discussion. She noted that a Commission member could initiate a form discussion, but it does
need to be on the agenda and public notice given.
A vote was taken to defer discussion until the next meeting. The motion carried 6-0.
Discussion of proposed changes to parking requirements and alternatives to parking
minimums in the Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings
District and elimination of the Near Southside Parking Facility District and associated
parking impact fee.
Howard noted that staff put the draft amendments on the Commission's agenda for discussion, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
recommend deferral until the code language can be turther retined. I his is an opportunity for
questions or discussion. Howard noted that currently it is a requirement in the Near Southside
district that if you build residential units you must pay a parking impact fee rather than build
parking. The City would like to change that to have developers build parking on -site to serve the
needs of the residents according to the parking requirements. However, the code would offer an
option for payment in lieu of providing some or all of the parking on -site. These funds would then
be used to construct and maintain centrally located public parking facilities.
Howard explained other proposed changes would address a situation in which a grocery store is
included in a proposed development in a downtown location in a mixed use building where all the
feasible parking that can be built is needed for the grocery store. In such a case, the developer
could pay a fee in lieu of providing on -site parking for the upper floor residential. She also noted
that staff is recommending deletion of the maximum parking requirement in the CB-5 zone, since
developers building extra parking downtown has never been an issue.
Freerks asked whether this alternative to the minimum parking requirement (payment ot a fee in
lieu) would promote the demolition of existing buildings. Howard responded that the current
regulations adopted in 2009 were not working well to address the residential and student housing
needs for parking, One part of the current regulation allows developers to seek special exception to
provide required parking in a municipal ramp, however there was no cost to the developer other
than the cost of the parking permits, which is passed along to the tenant. There was also no way
for the Board of Adjustment to judge what amount of parking was appropriate to grant and so they
were giving away public parking basically at no cost to the developer. The proposed change would
ensure that the developer is paying a proportional share of the cost of building the public parking.
The fee is proposed to be at 75% the cost to construct a structured parking space. By internalizing
the cost, the demand for the exception is more likely to be limited to those properties that really
cannot provide all the parking. The special exception is not allowed for historic landmarks or
properties listed as "key buildings" in the master plan. There are also design requirements for new
buildings constructed next to historic buildings.
Eastharn asked whether the current revenue from ramps was insufficient to build new ramps.
Howard indicated that the fees basically cover maintenance and operation of existing parking
facilities, but what we are talking about is the cost of constructing the parking. Goers explained that
the funding for the public parking ramps comes from a number of sources, including federal.
Eastham asked about the provision that allows an exemption for affordable housing. Howard said
that provision could be extended to the Riverfront Crossings District.
Thomas asked about the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units. Howard indicated that there
were two reasons: to address neighborhood stabilization by encouraging more small (1- and 2-
bedroom units); and to acknowledge that 3-bedroorn apartments in the multi -family buildings
downtown tend to be student apartments and not for more permanent residents, who would likely
have a lower parking demand. She recognized that the proposal had not distinguished between
building types and that there were areas within the plan that may be more attractive to families and
thus the parking requirement should be different for those. She stated that that staff would address
that in a revision. Thomas said he thought families may want to live in multi -family buildings at the
south end of the district and thought the parking requirement was too high. Thomas also said that
close to campus it might make sense to have no parking requirement since in his view that group
has good access to transit and with the advancements in shared vehicles that may diminish the
need for vehicles. Howard indicated that they believe the standard reflects demand at this time, but
that they were looking at an option to convert some spaces for scooter or motorcycle parking and
bike parking facilities.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2014 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Mark Bruzan stated that the provisions seemed designed for larger developments, but that he has
been working on a number of small projects, say a 30 x 100 foot lot. Those smaller lots become
prohibitive to develop. Howard responded that the provision to reduce parking through a "fee in lieu
of is intended for that type of situation. Right now that option exists only for the South Downtown
area and the Central Business District, which are areas in which the City will provide parking
facilities in the future.
Thomas moved to defer discussion to the next meeting. Second by Martin.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 19, 2013 & JanuarV 2, 2014.
Eastharn moved to approve. Second by Swygard.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
OTHER
Miklo suggested scheduling another informal meeting for Monday, February 3, at 5:30. The
discussion would focus on Riverfront Crossings and parking changes.
Swygard stated that she has misspoken at a prior meeting saying that Orchard Street had 11,000
cars. She had meant Benton Street. Orchard Street according to the most recent study has 2,385
cars.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastharn moved to adjourn.
Theobald seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2013-2014
FORMAL MEFTING
NAME
MIERM
EXPIRES
5116
6/6
6/20
7118
8/1
8/15
9/6
10/3
10117
11/7
� 11121
12/6
12/19
112
1/16
DYER,CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS,ANN
05/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05/17
X
X
X
X
—X
-T-
—X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05115
X
X
—O/E
X
X
X
X
—X
—X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
—X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
05/13
---
---
---
---
---
---
[ ---
---
---
---
--- -t--.
---
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
1114
2/4
314
4101
4/15
1/13
-DYER,CAROLYN
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
05/16
X
R
X
X
X
X
FREERKS,ANN
05F13—
—X—X
—X
—0/E
X
X
MARTIN, P-H-0EBlE-----6-5—/17—X
—X
—X
X
X
X
—X
O/E
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05118
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
X
X
X
---XXX
X
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
05/13
X
X
X
X
X
---
---
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
= Not a Member
= Work Session