HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07.15.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 15, 2021
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment Items
4. Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to
facilitate the adoption of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
5. Commission input on the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
6. Discussion on returning to in-person meetings
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUlduGgqT0qEtOHt0CwdM5IvVVpXq4jZ_
O2 to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the required
information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to
join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID
number found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a
computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312)
626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 918 1887 6087 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 15, 2021
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2021
8. Planning & Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: August 5 / August 19 / September 2
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: July 15, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Follow-up to comments on the draft form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Introduction
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s July 1, 2021 meeting the Commission had several
questions and comments regarding the draft form-based zones and standards. This memo
provides a summary of those comments and staff’s response.
Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
Comment #1: Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle
(EV) charging stations
Staff Response:
The City recently participated in a regional EV readiness study with representatives from multiple
cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations. In June 2021, the Eastern Iowa Electric
Vehicle Readiness Plan was finalized which identifies a number of key readiness strategies and
actions. One action is to expand access to EV charging infrastructure by amending local zoning
codes to allow EV charging as a permitted accessory use and to include requirements or
incentives for the installation of charging infrastructure in new construction and major renovation
projects.
The City’s zoning code currently allows EV charging stations within parking areas, but it does not
require or incentivize EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends that changes to the regulation
of EV charging stations be a city-wide endeavor and not be limited to the draft code.
Comment #2: Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced
Staff Response:
Minimum parking standards are intended to provide off-street parking which accommodates most
of the demand for parking generated by the use, particularly where sufficient on-street parking is
not available. It also seeks to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
In form-based zones, minimum parking standards were reduced in line with important City goals,
especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing
affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate-income
households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street
parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to
destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle.
In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on-street
parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on-street parking is almost
always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas
with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in
the minimum off-street parking required.
July 1, 2021
Page 2
That being said, builders can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where desired by
the market. The reduced parking minimum just places a floor on the amount of parking required.
Table 1 provides a comparison of current parking minimums and proposed parking minimums in
the draft form-based code.
Table 1. Examples of Minimum Parking Calculations
Current Standards Proposed Standards
Greenfield Dev't T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4-Unit Apartment Building (with differing # bedrooms)
1 BDR 4 4 4 4 4 4 Max
2 BDR 8 4 4 4 4 4 Max
3 BDR 8 8 8 6 6 6 Max
Single-Family House (with differing # bedrooms)
2 BDR 1 1 1 NA NA NA
3 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA
4 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA
Non-Residential
1,500 sf Restaurant 10 0 0 0 0 0
2,000 sf Salon 7 2 2 2 0 0
5,000 sf Office 17 9 9 9 7 2 Max
7,500 sf Retail 25 15 15 15 14 6 Max
Note: Current standards are based on use and can vary greatly depending on zone, intended
occupants, location, and number of occupants
Comment #3: Concern that the fee in-lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable
housing
Staff Response:
There are two situations where a fee in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option:
1) Upon annexation of residential land; and
2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone.
A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon
annexation, this land would be subject to the City’s affordable housing annexation policy, which
allows a fee to be paid in-lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to
re-examine the option to provide an in-lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing
annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will
need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an
affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing.
These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income-restricted units provided on-site.
Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi-modal transportation
system
Staff Response:
The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land
Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block
length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting.
Transit service is not currently provided to the form-based code planning area. This is not
surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that
development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths
July 1, 2021
Page 3
and more street connections. The draft code also requires a diversity of housing types. Both of
these requirements will result in a more compact development pattern than is not currently seen
at the fringes of Iowa City. This compact development pattern is better able to support future
transit service than typical suburban development.
Additionally, the City recently completed a transit study. Attachment A provides a summary of the
proposed changes, which include faster service, improved weekday evening service, and
improved on-time performance. The proposed changes also result in more coordination with other
transit agencies. Specifically, starting July 6, all passes and single-ride tickets can be used on
both Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit. There are also free transfers between these two
transit agencies. The attachment also includes a map showing the Iowa City Transit Preferred
Alternative, which includes an extended South Gilbert route that provides service to Terry
Trueblood Recreational Area, which is located just to the west of the form-based code planning
area.
Comment #5: Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations
from the map will have on how the area develops
Staff Response:
During the development of the land use map we met with stakeholders, and the development
community felt it was important to have a more detailed map. They had concerns with the
unpredictability of the development process, including neighborhood opposition to higher density
housing, and felt a more detailed map would provide some certainty to conforming projects.
Staff originally examined rezoning this entire area to form-based zones and establishing a detailed
regulating plan map (i.e. zoning map) identifying both zones and a street network. Unfortunately,
this was not feasible because a City-initiated rezoning would have required an extensive survey
of land and the creation of multiple legal descriptions. Additionally, any changes to a zoning map
would require another rezoning, which defeats the purpose of a master rezoning aimed at
streamlining the development process. Therefore, staff developed a workable solution to create
a detailed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) where consistency with the map will be evaluated at the
time of rezoning. To aid in this process, staff drafted specific rezoning criteria, which are outlined
in 14-2H-1 Introduction. The approval criteria do the following:
• Create a unifying set of standards that staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
the City Council must use.
• Identify when variations from the FLUM can be made (e.g. sensitive areas).
• Provide a system by which the zones must be organized. For example, including
neighborhood centers and transitioning between zones within the block or across alleys.
Additionally, new subdivision standards ensure that the required block lengths are met. If the
street alignment shifts, which is likely, the block standards must still be met. Modifications to the
location of streets and blocks can occur through the rezoning and subdivision process, but newly
aligned blocks, zones, and streets must still meet similar standards to those which were used to
develop the FLUM.
Comment #6: How does this code work with the Housing Code and the City’s regulation of rental
housing?
Staff Response:
The zoning code does not regulate if a dwelling unit is owner-occupied or a rental unit. However,
all rental units within the City need to comply with the Title 17, Chapter 5 Housing Code. There
are portions of the housing code that reference the zoning code and staff will review the code to
identify any necessary amendments to ensure compatibility between the two codes.
July 1, 2021
Page 4
Comment #7: Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be
incorporated into open space areas
Staff Response:
Planning staff relies on the expertise of Parks and Recreation and Forestry staff when it comes
to landscaping requirements. The City aims for a higher diversity of species, both native and well-
behaved non-natives, in order to create a more resilient urban forest. The code requires diversity,
specifically it states:
Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one species and
maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the Director.
Some natives also do not work well as street trees, which this code requires. Instead of
requiring native plantings, staff recommends requiring a diversity of species and ongoing
coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department in the review of landscaping plans to
ensure that the species are diverse and work well in the Iowa City environment.
As for stormwater, Planning staff relies on the expertise of Public W orks staff, who ensure
compliance with the City’s stormwater management regulations. Staff wanted to provide the
option to incorporate stormwater management facilities into civic spaces. However, there may
be situations where stormwater management cannot be accommodated through civic spaces.
Therefore, staff included this in the draft code as an option, but not a requirement.
Comment #8: Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials
Staff Response:
The draft code helps achieve sustainability goals through standards which provide compact,
pedestrian- and bike-friendly development. For example, reduced block lengths make it easier for
pedestrians to navigate the area and as it develops, transit will also become a viable mode of
transportation. In addition, ensuring a diversity of housing types and missing middle housing
allows more development on a smaller land area, reducing the amount of land consumed for
development. Since the draft code addresses sustainability through other methods, and requiring
the use of local materials could impact other important City goals such as affordability, staff does
not recommend requiring development to incorporate local materials.
Comment #9: Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarity on how the provision
of green space would be ensured
Staff Response:
There are three different ways that the draft code regulates open space:
1. 14-2H-6 Building Type Standards outlines requirements for private, on-site open space to
be used by the residents. Staff will discuss Building Type Standards at the July 15 meeting.
2. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the comprehensive plan identifies several areas
where additional civic space/open space needs to be provided as the area develops.
Some areas will be privately owned and maintained, but must be accessible to the public.
Other areas are identified as land the City would like to acquire for additional park space.
These civic space areas will need to be developed consistent with the FLUM and 14-2H-
5 Civic Spaces through the rezoning and subdivision process.
3. The City’s Neighborhood Open Space provisions require that developers of residential
subdivisions either dedicate land to the City for public park purposes or pay a fee in-lieu
of land dedication. This is a current regulation that applies city-wide.
Figure 1 shows the amount of open space that exists within the South District. Currently, the
planning area includes Wetherby Park, Sand Prairie Park, and Sycamore Greenway. This is
approximately 20% of the land within the planning area. Additional parks adjacent to the planning
July 1, 2021
Page 5
area include Kickers Soccer Park, Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, and Napoleon Park. In
short, this area is relatively parks-rich and currently contains notably more acres of open space
per resident than any other area of the City. Figure 2 is the draft FLUM. It identifies existing open
space, areas where existing open may be expanded, new City open space, and new privately
maintained/publicly accessible open space.
Based on conversations with Parks and Recreation staff, they have identified areas where they
would like to acquire additional parkland. Specifically, they identified a need for a park and
playground area to the east of Sycamore Greenway, which is also articulated in the Parks Master
Plan (pgs 46-47). The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed multi-use trail running diagonally
to the west of Alexander Elementary School, which would ultimately connect with the Sycamore
Greenway trail. Parks and Recreation staff also identified the area along this future trail as a linear
City park space. For the rest of the area, Parks and Recreation staff expressed an interest in
collecting in-lieu fee payments due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists and needs
to be maintained by the City.
Due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists in this area and the recommendations
from Parks and Recreation staff, staff does not recommend additional civic space areas.
Figure 1. Open Space Area within the South District
Source: South District Plan, page 33
July 1, 2021
Page 6
Figure 2. Draft Future Land Use Map
Comment #10: Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes
Figure 2 identifies the neighborhood nodes with a red circle. The planning area includes seven
nodes. Two of these nodes are open space areas. Four are areas proposed to be an open sub-
zone, which allows a greater variety of non-residential uses. One is the main street district, which
includes a commercial area and civic space. Each of these nodes are located within a pedestrian
shed, which is approximately a 5-minute walk to the node. Based on how the nodes have been
placed, all residents will be within a 5-minute walk to either a civic space or a commercial node.
In addition, the code allows for live-work uses in T4 zones, which also allow for a greater variety
of non-residential uses than are typically allowed in those areas.
Attachments:
A. Iowa City Area Transit Study, Overview of Proposed Changes
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Neighborhood Node
Iowa City Area Transit Study (ICATS)
Overview of Proposed Changes
Study Goals
Faster, more frequent, and more reliable service
Make transit more dependable for those who rely
on it, and an easier choice for others
Better access to areas of high need
Simplify the system to make it easier to understand
Improve communications so riders have up-to-date
information on bus location, arrival times, routes,
fares, service alerts, and access to trip planning tools
Make transit stops more comfortable and accessible
Improve coordination across transit agencies
More consistent fare and transfer policies between
Iowa City and Coralville
Route Highlights Service Highlights
Same routes days, nights, and
weekends
More direct routes, using main
roads and fewer side streets
More Saturday routes
Improved access to key retail
destinations/job centers
Reduced duplication between
Iowa City Transit, Coralville,
and CAMBUS
Faster, more direct service
Improved on-time
performance
Improved weekday evening
service
More service during mid-day
“Transit” app available to plan
trips and find your bus
Notice Some areas have longer
walks to service
Fewer one-seat rides to
UIHC on Iowa City TransitSummer 2021 Changes
Coming Soon / Next Steps
Fares &
Passes
Effective July 6, 2021
• All passes and single-ride tickets can be used
on Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit
• Transfers allowed at all bus stops in Iowa City,
not just the interchange
• Free transfers between Iowa City Transit and
Coralville Transit
• Seniors (65+), disabled passengers, Medicare
card holders, and SEATS card holders ride for
free, any time of day
• Youth fare (5-18 yrs) reduced from $0.75
to $0.50
• 31-Day Youth Pass reduced from $27 to $16
• ICCSD students to use discounted 31-Day
Youth Pass
• Saturday Family Fare no longer offered due to
low demand
Transit
System
Effective August 2, 2021
• 11 new or modified bus routes with new
names, new schedules
• Saturday service on all routes except
Downtown Shuttle and Eastside Loop
• Consolidated routes with overlapping service
• Some bus stops consolidated to help improve
reliability and on-time performance
Evaluate on-demand
options for late evening/
overnight transportation
Improve bus stop amenities
(ie: lighted bus shelters,
benches, and trash cans)
Improve accessibility and
access to bus stops
Late 2021: First electric
buses hit the streets
Late 2021/early 2022:
Launch Sunday Service
two-year pilot
For more information visit www.icgov.org/transit, call Iowa City Transit at 319-356-5151, or email ICTransit@iowa-city.org.
Date: July 15, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Commission input on the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
Please review the attached letter from Rachel Kilburg, Assistant City Manager, and the summary
from the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding American Rescue Plan Act Funds. The City
is currently soliciting input on how to spend these funds and the Commission will have an
opportunity to provide feedback at its July 15, 2021 meeting.
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a
substantial infusion of resources to help turn the tide on the
pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for
a strong and equitable recovery.
The American Rescue Plan will deliver $350 billion for state, local, territorial, and
Tribal governments to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and bring back jobs.
Eligible Jurisdictions & Allocations
Direct Recipients
•States and District of Columbia
($195.3 billion)
•Counties ($65.1 billion)
•Metropolitan cities ($45.6 billion)
•Tribal governments ($20.0 billion)
•Territories ($4.5 billion)
Indirect Recipients
•Non-entitlement units ($19.5 billion)
Funding Objectives
•Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to
decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control
•Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital
public services and help retain jobs
•Support immediate economic stabilization for households and
businesses
•Address systemic public health and economic challenges that
have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic
Address Negative Economic Impacts
Respond to economic harms to workers, families,
small businesses, impacted industries, and the
public sector
Premium Pay for Essential Workers
Offer additional support to those who have and
will bear the greatest health risks because of their
service in critical infrastructure sectors
Replace Public Sector Revenue Loss
Use funds to provide government services to
the extent of the reduction in revenue
experienced due to the pandemic
Support Public Health Response
Fund COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical
expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain
public health and safety staff
Broadband Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to provide unserved
or underserved locations with new or expanded
broadband access
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to improve access
to clean drinking water and invest in
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
Example Uses of Funds
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 1, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Maria
Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Martin Galindez
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block
18, County Seat Addition public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a
utility easement, access easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff report
and in forms approved by the City Attorney's office.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and welcomed new member Padron.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Signs nominated Hensch as Chair, Martin seconded, a vote was taken and approved 7-0.
Craig nominated Signs as Vice Chair, Hensch seconded, a vote was taken and approved 7-0.
Signs nominated Martin as Secretary, Nolte seconded, a vote was taken and approved 7-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. VAC20-0003:
Applicant: Gilbane Development Company
Location: Right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 2 of 20
An application submitted for a vacation of approximately 0.14 acres of public right-of- way.
Heitner reiterated the proposed item tonight is a vacation of approximately 0.14 acres of public
right-of- way between the 700 block of South Dubuque Street and 220 Lafayette Street. He
showed an aerial view of the subject area and the zoning applied, both sides of the subject right-
of- way are Riverfront Crossings Central Crossing Zone.
Regarding background on this proposed vacation, Heitner stated some members might
remember that in December of 2020 there was a rezoning for the adjacent properties that came
before this Commission to rezone to Riverfront Crossings Central Crossing Zone that was
recommended for approval by this Commission and, ultimately, approved by City Council in
February 2021. At the time of the rezoning, it was understood that the next step in this
development process would be to vacate the alley in between the two blocks that currently exist
in this area and so that's the application before the Commission tonight.
Heitner next discussed some of the review criteria that staff looks at for vacations, the impact on
pedestrian and vehicular access, impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation,
impact that adjacent private properties, the desirability of the right-of- way for access and
circulation needs, locations of utilities and other reasons and any other relevant factors. Starting
with impact on pedestrian and vehicular access, Heitner noted the alley does not contain any
formal pedestrian means of access, there is an interior sidewalk to the 220 Lafayette building but
that is not something staff would consider a formal means of pedestrian access. Regarding if the
alley is needed for vehicular circulation, the alley provides vehicular access to parking areas
along the west and north sides of the apartment building at 220 Lafayette Street and the east
(rear) side of the businesses fronting 700-730 South Dubuque Street, so it is an important alley
for those properties in terms of getting that rear parking access.
In terms of impact on emergency and utility vehicle access, the existing alley is necessary in
terms of meeting Fire Code as there's a section in the International Fire Code that requires a
certain distance between a street and an exterior of a building to be within 150 feet of what's
termed as a fire apparatus access road so right now there is an implication for fire access for
having access to that alley in place. Heitner noted there's also some gas and electric service
lines on the east side of the alley so if vacated a utility easement will be needed for retention of
those utilities until the adjacent properties are vacated and the utility is no longer needed.
In terms of access impact on access of adjacent private properties, as just mentioned the alley is
sort of paramount to regular access for the existing block makeup. That said the south block of
700 Dubuque Street and 220 Lafayette do have frontage on to those streets and from a
pedestrian standpoint there is access from those streets right now. Heitner explained the
proposed right-of- way vacation won't impact access to any other properties outside of the subject
assemblage.
In terms of desirability of the right-of- way for access or circulation needs, that was discussed
during the rezoning stage several months back, but the applicant proposes to redevelop the
entire block and in doing so the alley won't really be necessary anymore.
With respect to location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property, Heitner
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 3 of 20
stated there's gas and electric utilities along the east side of the alley, there's also a City sanitary
sewer main that runs beneath the alley. One of the conditions of the rezoning of the property
was that the sewer main would have to be relocated to a location approved by the City Engineer.
Ultimately easements for all of the utilities will need to be retained and the applicant will also
have to establish new easement areas upon redevelopment of the property.
Heitner next discussed a couple other relevant factors. There are three different owners of the
properties east and west of the subject right-of- way and so in staff’s view it is easier to wait to
convey the alley to the applicant until they’re the title holder of all the adjacent properties.
Heitner stated while the alley currently serves as an important corridor for traffic circulation and
utilities, it won't be necessary for traffic or utilities in the applicants upcoming redevelopment
plans. In summary, staff is recommending approval of the vacation of the alley contingent upon
retention of access easement for general access, as well as fire access, private utility easement
for the gas and electric utilities and then also sanitary sewer easement for as long as the
adjacent properties are occupied.
In terms of next steps, pending the Commission's recommendation, the proposed vacation will
be reviewed by City Council, where they will discuss not only the vacation at hand, but also the
conveyance of the land with respect to the applicant’s proposal for fair market value.
Staff recommends approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County Seat Addition
public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility easement, access
easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff report and in forms approved
by the City Attorney's office.
Craig asked why the staff recommendation doesn't make mention of the stipulation that the land
won't be conveyed until all the property is owned by one entity. Heitner responded that is
something that they can put in as a Commission recommendation to City Council. Staff doesn’t
typically include those details on conveyance in the staff recommendation, but if that's something
that the Commission wants to include as a recommendation to Council, they can certainly do so.
Craig doesn’t want to break with tradition but noted it just seems like if the City Council approves
it who are they going to sell it to if there's three different people that own the property. Hektoen
explained that is the conveyance aspect of it which is a separate process and they do have a
purchase agreement that they have executed so that part is being addressed in a different
context.
Hensch is curious of how the fair market value is determined, do they just hire an appraiser.
Hektoen stated they typically go off of the assessed value of the adjacent land or if there's a
recent purchase agreement that would indicate the property better than the fair market value,
assuming it's an arm's length transaction, they often consider that in determining what they think
is acceptable.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing Gibane Development and stated Heitner
covered the highlights and the important parts of that alley vacation. Welch wanted to give a little
update on the project status. They've been working with staff on a level one design review for
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 4 of 20
the height bonus to have up to six floors and are nearing completion. Welch noted he has a
couple loose ends to tie up as far as a maintenance agreement and working through a couple
minor items related to that height bonus. The site plan has been submitted and they received
their first round of review comments from City staff they have responded to and resubmitted that
plan so they are feeling they're on track there as far as having a project that staff can approve
with both the height bonus and site plan. The goal for starting construction is yet this year on
that new building and their easements are in place to cover the gap between when it's conveyed
and when those other buildings are taken down.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County
Seat Addition public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility
easement, access easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff
report and in forms approved by the City Attorney's office.
Martin seconded the motion.
Nolte noted he was glad to hear the project is moving forward.
Signs agreed and stated it seems like this is a logical step in order to get that block redeveloped
and is sure the applicant will have come before the Commission with something amazing to look
at.
Hensch stated he is really looking forward to this redevelopment because it looks like a difficult
lot with the railroad tracks to the north and Ralston Creek to the east and he is very curious to
see what comes next.
Townsend asked what happens if they can't purchase all that other property. Hensch replied
then the title won't be conveyed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the
adoption of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Russett along with Lehmann will jointly be presenting this item and noted this is going to be the
first of many presentations on the proposed South District Form-Based Code. Tonight Russett
will provide an overview of the work that they've done so far, how they got to this point, discuss
the planning process, and give a very high level summary of the proposed amendments. She
will also share some examples of the types of neighborhoods that this Code could produce and
then provide some justifications for the amendments. Lehmann will then provide a more detailed
summary of the draft Code, tonight they’re going to go through about half of it, and then will
discuss next steps.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 5 of 20
In terms of project background, Russett explained they initiated this project back in January 2019
when the City executed a contract with Opticos Design, an urban design firm out of Berkeley
California, to really start developing this Form-Based Code. They have been working very
closely since January of 2019 with Tony Perez and Martin Galindez of Opticos on this code.
They have all put a lot of work into this Code and the goals of the project are to implement the
vision of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the South District Plan. They want to create
neighborhoods that are safe for pedestrians, encourage walking, preserve environmental
resources, create communities that have a highly interconnected street network and allow for a
variety of housing types for residents to have more choices and a variety of price points. The
ultimate goal is then to apply this Code to other greenfield and other undeveloped areas of the
City, this is the starting point and they expect that it will expand to other areas over time.
Russett showed a map of the area that they're looking to start this is within the South District.
Wetherby Park is the northern boundary, Alexander Elementary School in the middle, Gilbert
Street is on the West and the Sycamore Greenway is on the east side of the planning area.
In terms of the planning process, Russett explained this started back in 2015 with the adoption of
the South District Plan. After that Plan was adopted City staff worked toward different ways of
implementing that vision. The first project that they worked on was a project direction report,
which was phase one of this project, where the City worked with Opticos to assess the feasibility
of implementing a Form-Based Code and as part of that process there was a lot of stakeholder
meetings, community workshops, and a visual preference survey. Some of the input that they
got from that planning process back in 2017 is that the community saw a need for small
neighborhood centers in the South District, they wanted to see a strong network of trails and
parks, they saw that the community needed different housing options, including missing middle
housing, better street connectivity, traffic calming, and the opportunity for people to age in place.
Russett showed a graphic created by Opticos to help visualize missing middle housing and
explained that missing middle housing is basically everything between detached single-family
housing to midrise or larger scale apartments so everything in between those two scales is
missing middle (such as duplexes, three- and four-unit buildings, courtyard apartments, and
townhomes). The goal of this Code is to allow more of those housing types.
Russett stated after that was completed, they started with phase two, which is the development
of the draft Code. As part of that they worked with another consulting group that prepared a
residential market study to examine whether or not there was a market for missing middle
housing in the South District, and the short answer is yes, this study did conclude there is a
market. Therefore, since that time they've been doing stakeholder meetings and outreach to
develop the initial draft of the Code they released in 2019. After staff released that draft, they did
more stakeholder meetings and outreach to get feedback on that draft, and then for the past year
staff has been working on revising that draft based on comments received and making sure that
it can work within the existing City processes related to land development. The revised draft was
released just a couple weeks ago. Russett showed a chart that summarized the stakeholder
outreach that they did since the beginning of the project. They've met with community members,
affordable housing advocates, property owners, developers, the homebuilder’s association and a
variety of different groups throughout the process. What they heard from developers and
landowners was that the development process is often lengthy and uncertain and if the new
process is more predictable even with more regulation, that would be acceptable. There was also
some concern that the market wouldn't support missing middle housing but there was also a
need for more choices and more affordable housing. There was also some concerns with the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 6 of 20
Plan’s goal of creating single loaded streets along open spaces and green areas from the
community, they heard that they see the open space in this area as an amenity and there was
some concern about development near existing neighborhoods. There was an expectation that
any development would be high quality development, and they also recognize the need for
housing that is both affordable and accessible.
Russett next discussed the summary of the proposed amendments, explaining there are two
parts to these amendments, the first is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically
the South District Plan. Staff feels that the Form-Based Code that they are discussing tonight
does align with the existing South District Plan. What they are proposing are some amendments
to more explicitly link the Comprehensive Plan to the proposed Code, some new goals and some
new objectives. Russett noted one of the more major changes that they're proposing is the new
Future Land Use Map for this area, they're proposing new land use designations and the map
itself to directly align with the new zones. Russett explained the reason that they're doing this is
because it is really necessary to allow the missing middle housing and a diversity of housing
types and it's important to have land use designations that are clear to show there's a diversity of
housing types that are allowed. Russett noted it also creates options for neighborhood
commercial centers or just neighborhood centers in general which could be commercial or could
be an open space area.
In terms of the Zoning Code amendments, Russett gave a high-level summary. Some of the big
changes that staff is proposing with the Zoning Code amendments is that a mix of building types
will be required, so every block must have a mix of building types. For example, if a block has
eight lots, not all eight lots can be single family, there could be seven lots that are single family,
but one would need to be something different, like a duplex. Staff is also requiring a mix of
frontage types, so that could be a porch or stoop and there's a variety of different frontage types
that could be selected by the developer. She explained this is to ensure that there's a diversity
and there's visual interest within the streetscape and there's not monotony in the building design.
In terms of parking, alleys are only required in the main street area, parking must be set back
from the front facade of the building. In terms of the amount of parking that the Code requires, it
is slightly lower than the current Zoning Code. Carriage houses in the proposed Code are
allowed with most building types, carriage houses are also referred to as granny flats or
accessory dwelling units or accessory apartments, they are typically in the City now seen
associated with a single-family home, but this Code would allow them with a townhome or with
the duplexes, so there's going to be more allowances to incorporate this housing type. Street
trees will be required to be planted within the public right-of-way, also block lengths will be
reduced to ensure a highly interconnected street network. The Draft Code also includes several
civic spaces which are defined, and the locations are identified on the Future Land Use Map.
Russett noted they have incorporated regulatory incentives for developers, who are providing
affordable housing. So if a developer is voluntarily providing affordable housing through low
income housing tax credits, or some other funding source, they can seek out height bonus or
different flexibility or waivers from development standards.
Staff has created a new term which is called design sites. A design site is an area of land that
can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may
have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since
they can be administratively adjusted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 7 of 20
The draft code also includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for these design
sites currently our code just has minimums.
Lastly Russett discussed the minimum dimensional standards, minimum lot sizes and proposed
maximums to help ensure more compact development. She shared some examples of what this
type of Code could produce, they're looking to produce pedestrian friendly areas that are easy to
walk in and are safe to walk in. There's lots of porches and frontage is facing the street and not
seeing a lot of garages. These are going to be typically house scale buildings so, even though
some of these housing types and building types will allow multiple units they're still in scale with
the existing single-family buildings.
In terms of justifications for the proposed amendments, the current Zoning Code provides limited
flexibility, it tends to lead development to separating land uses and limiting the mix of land uses.
There is some flexibility allowed through the plan development overlay rezoning process and the
Code does allow accessory dwelling units with single family homes and also allows duplexes on
corner lots. However just allowing those uses within these zones hasn't resulted in mixing those
types or seeing a lot of duplexes or accessory dwelling units being built. Also zoning regulations
have historically been used to segregate communities through single family zoning, through
creating minimum lot sizes, through only allowing single family. Currently, in the residentially
zoned areas of the City 81% is zone single family. Russett also noted conventional zoning
results in auto oriented development, residents need to rely on cars as more land is consumed.
The City has goals to address climate change and to address equity issues, so the goal of this
Code is to create a more sustainable community and more equitable community, and it does that
by providing a wider variety of housing types and a variety of price points. It requires a mix of
building types and includes incentives for developing affordable housing, it ensures that streets
are connected, and neighborhoods are connected. It creates neighborhood nodes either by
identifying centers of communities which could be a small commercial area or open space and it
ensures more compact development.
Lehmann next went into the nuts and bolts of the Code. He noted it can be complicated so the
Commission should feel free to ask questions along the way. He started with the Form-Based
Zones and Standards and the first section which is the introduction. The introduction talks about
the intent briefly discuss the Zoning Districts and how this Code applies with other sections of the
Code. It also talks about the process, about how reasonings are slightly different, how
subdivisions would be slightly different, and the neighborhood plan which is a new component of
this as well. In terms of intent Lehmann wanted to reiterate a couple things. The point is to
improve the environment by supporting multimodal transportation options and reducing vehicle
traffic, they want a variety of housing types, levels of affordability and accessibility, health and
sustainability to focus on pedestrian scale neighborhoods that reinforced the unique
characteristics of Iowa City and all of this is done to also promote walkable neighborhoods.
Lehmann stated the way the Code is organized is a little different than conventional zoning code.
The conventional one is based on use, residential single-family zones, residential multifamily
zones, and commercial zones. This Form-Based Code is organized more around a transact
concept which looks at the spectrum, from urban to rural, and it gives them a number for each of
those. Tier one is the natural area and tier six are areas like downtown. The South District is
generally suburban in nature, so would really be tier two, three and four areas which are lower in
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 8 of 20
scale and buildings don't really get over two to three stories, maybe up to four stories in the main
street area.
Moving on to process and the way that this Code works, staff wants to make sure that it fits into
existing processes and they’re not creating new ways of doing things, but rather enhance the
ways that they do things currently to try and improve them to reach these goals. Lehmann stated
the first step would be rezoning to a Form-Based Zone which is a standard Zoning Code Map
Amendment. Staff does recommend that it is done concurrently with a preliminary plan, because
the zoning standards are tied into lot sizes and all those sorts of things, and also with the Future
Land Use Map because it is a lot more detailed and it's hard to just blanket zone a whole area
like they often see as RS-5, low density residential single family zone, because that can't be
done in this case unless they already have some engineering done in advance, which is why
they recommend that it goes with a preliminary plat.
As far as the staff review and the Planning and Zoning Commission review, there are specific
criteria that are included in that rezoning, and that is to try and provide some certainty to both
developers and to the community as to how things can develop in this area. First and foremost, it
has to comply with the Future Land Use Map but there are some situations where it can be
changed and those are specifically laid out in the Code or alternatively if circumstances have
changed or something comes to light, like a public interest to change how it looks, then they can
incorporate that into the rezoning and change what is on that Future Land Use Map. The other
criteria are tied to responding appropriately to site conditions, for example, making sure that
more intense zones are organized around neighborhood features. Also, making sure that
transitions between neighborhood Form-Based Zones make sense as they don't want two
different zones looking at each other across the street instead they want that to happen across a
block or cross an alley if possible. Also, they need to make sure that the design of the sites suits
the topographical environmental or other constraints that might be there.
Regarding the subdivision process, Lehmann said they basically would consider it a more
detailed preliminary plat so, for example, they would show certain things that are not on current
preliminary plants such as design sites, thoroughfare types, civic spaces and building types.
There is also some additional notation about the possible administrative changes that can be
made and then it should also abide by the new standards that are part of this Code for parcel
size, street size, layout, block size, some of those changes are incorporated into the subdivision
code, rather than in the zoning code. In addition, for the final plat when they’re actually laying
out the parcels there is an additional submittal that would come that is called the Neighborhood
Plan which is very similar to what the preliminary plat has but is updated to reflect any changes
that have happened since then and also adding in the frontage type standards as well. Lehmann
reiterated that every design site should have a building type and frontage type and then streets
would correspond with thoroughfare type and open spaces would correspond to a civic space
type, so it really is categorizing different uses and different forms of the physical environment and
applying it on individual parcels. As development happens, it would then follow that
Neighborhood Plan that would be submitted with the final plat. Again, there would be an
opportunity for administrative changes if, for example, design sites need to be modified and they
can swap out building types, frontage types, civic space types, as long as it meets the underlying
standards. For example, a duplex requires a larger lot, but if there is a single-family lot that
would fit a duplex and they think a duplex is more appropriate for that location they'd be able to
administratively change that. Lehmann did state however, for those changes to happen all other
development standards would have to be met as well.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 9 of 20
Craig asked if this new Form-Based Code is one for the new areas that are developed or will it
apply to the already developed areas such as the development across from the school where if
someone bought two houses that sit together that were in bad condition and tore them down
could they put a four plex there. Lehmann responded that all the existing properties on the map
do not have a designation, they would just stay under their current designation. Also, many of
those are in the County but if they are annexed in the future the map shows what the City
expects development to look like around the existing properties. Lehmann explained what he
was showing was the detail on the Future Land Use Map noting it doesn't have street names but
the area they are discussing has McCollister Avenue that goes right through the heart of it from
South Gilbert Street on the west, Lehman Avenue is to the south, that curves into Sycamore
Street, Wetherby Park is the north boundary and to the east is The Sand Hill Prairie that the City
maintains.
Craig asked if the red lines are alleys. Lehmann confirmed those are alleys and he really just
wanted to show this map because it's a more detailed land use map than a lot of the greenfield
sites shown on current maps to show it as low density residential but there's not a lot of
distinction of what that means. Lehmann will show a more detailed version of the Future Land
Use Map and explained he will go through every element and the individual Code sections.
To summarize the process section, Lehmann stated it is a slightly modified version of a regular
development process and again those purposes are really the balance that upfront certainty and
the developmental flexibility. On the upfront certainty side, rezonings are based on approval
criteria, so it gives more certainty that things would follow that Form-Based or the Future Land
Use Map and what that means is actually defined and there are enhanced plans that gets
submitted including the Neighborhood Plans. On the development flexibility side there's an
opportunity for administrative changes later on, so even though there is more detail upfront, they
can come back and change it if it's still meets the different provisions of the Code and this really
does offer a much broader variety of missing middle housing types that has been talked about.
Lehmann next discussed the zones, which is the second section of the Code. The first two
subsections are really tied to the purpose and it describes sub zones. The bulk is really just
going through the individuals zone standards, so mostly focusing on those individual zone
standards but he’ll talk briefly about the sub zone as well.
Martin noted they are looking at these proposed zones and talking about connectivity and
walkability, but she is not seeing any neighborhood commercial in there, is that something that's
going to be addressed later. Lehmann explained neighborhood commercial is incorporated
through the sub zone because they’re regulating by building type, not by use so it's not going to
be specifically labeled a commercial zone. The commercial zones are going to be the open sub
zone and then the Main Street Zone will also allow commercial. Martin stated then there could
be a neighborhood grocery store on the corner and Lehmann confirmed in certain locations and
with certain building types.
Lehmann started with the palette of zoning districts, or tiers, T2, T3 & T4. There is also T1 but it's
not a separate zone it's more just the open space areas. T1 zones are not reflected as separate
zones on the maps but are reflected through those natural areas that are located on the Future
Land Use Map and its basically nature or open space. T3 are the neighborhood edge zones, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 10 of 20
then they go up in in density/intensity, but it doesn't really regulate density in the same way as
other areas because they're more focused on the building types, how they lay out within the
street, and how they interact with each other. That is the form that really guides the zone, which
is why it's called a Form-Based Zone. In the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone there are house-scale
detached buildings, approximately two and a half stories, occupied attics and walk out
basements. Lehmann noted half stories are not something that are Zoning Code currently
identifies, so this is a different way of looking at height. The Form-Based Zone does include
height standards, but it also includes stories as one of its measures of height. In terms of the
housing types that they could expect to see in this zone are the building types of large houses,
duplexes, and cottage courts, so for example similar to a RS-5 zone but a little less restrictive.
Instead of regulating what a duplex might look like through provisional zoning criteria, it will be
regulated through the building type standards, and those will be in the presentation in two weeks.
The T3 Neighborhood Edge is the lowest intensity zone. T3 Neighborhood General would be a
step up from that in a higher intensity of those suburban zones. Again, it would be buildings up to
two and a half stories, occupied attics, walk out basements and low scale detached buildings.
T3 Neighborhood General allows a broader variety of building types than are allowed in T3
Neighborhood Edge. It can still be houses, duplexes, cottage courts but also adds in small scale
multifamily and townhomes. The multifamily could be up to six units and townhomes could be up
to a row of three units. This would be similar to a RS-12 or RM-12 zone, but it doesn't allow
large scale multifamily and there are limits on the size that a multiplex could be, the building type
is specifically called multiplex small. So again, the T3 Neighborhood General is a little more
intense but still relatively low density.
Lehmann next discussed the T4 zones, the urban zones, the T4 Neighborhood Small is still two
and a half stories, so it's the same height, it is house scale, detached with some attached
buildings, occupied attics, walk out basements. Lehmann explained these can be some larger
units, but they blend in with low scale buildings, and don't look out of place in a residential
neighborhood. Building types are cottage courts, small multiplexes, courtyard buildings (which
have up to 16 units), townhouses in rows of up to eight, but overall the scale of buildings
generally won't occupy an entire block in these zones. It could be compared to a RM-20 zone,
but the difference is with the way the building types are defined, there are maximum building
sizes to not end up with a block size apartment complex. T4 Neighborhood Medium is where
there starts to be larger units, heights of three and a half stories with an occupied attic, they are
still primarily house scale buildings, a larger house scale, and then there would be some block
scale attached and detached buildings as well. Lehmann noted it's a more intense zone with
larger multiplexes up to 12 units, courtyard buildings up to 16 units, and townhouses up to a row
of eight units. This would be similar to a RM-44 zone, but again these no building with more than
16 units and although they may get some block scale buildings in this, they can only be up to
three stories. Finally, there is the T4 Main Street, it is the most intense and allows the broadest
variety of uses. It allows up to four stories, there are block scale buildings, there are attached
buildings, and there can be up to 24 townhouses, a courtyard building can have up to 24 units
and Main Street buildings are unrestricted. Lehmann stated the T4 Main Street are the
neighborhood focal points, and are denser attached buildings, which is what one would expect in
a traditional Main Street in perhaps a town of 5000 people.
Lehmann next discussed one of the other ways commercial uses are accommodated are through
sub zones in the T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood
Small and would just be designated T3NGO instead of T3NG. Also, in those zones there are
additional flexibility for uses that would be allowed, and, basically, that means that it allows more
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 11 of 20
than nonresidential uses. These areas tend to be at the neighborhood centers and to see as a
walkable area. It could be childcare, it could be commercial, etc., but it's a broader variety that is
allowed in those open sub zones.
Lehmann presented the Future Land Use Map again to show item by item, show where all these
zones and sub zones are. The T3 Neighborhood Edge areas are generally placed next to
existing development, so it is just south of the existing development that's currently along
Langenberg, it is also up north around the school and around the existing County subdivisions
that are there, it is also adjacent to the golf course. Next is the T3 Neighborhood General, which
can be considered a bulk zone where there are neighborhoods outside of busier roads or
commercial centers. Quite a bit of the map is Neighborhood General as it’s one of the more
versatile zones, it allows single family duplexes and then small scale multifamily, but there is the
height limit of two and a half stories. The T4 Neighborhood Small are generally located along
either smaller collector streets, next to some denser existing development or on single loaded
streets where there's not development on the other side, and it is also surrounding major
intersections as well. Lehmann specifically pointed out South Gilbert Street and McCollister
Avenue as an area to see this zoning. The next zone is Neighborhood Medium, this is where
buildings can be up to three and a half stories, so it is really only located along major corridors
and especially at major intersections such as at the intersection of South Gilbert and McCollister
where they expect more intense uses to be located based on the characteristics of the area.
Finally, is the Main Street and it's really only a small commercial node at the heart of this part of
the community with the idea being the focal point in the school district. Lehmann noted there are
also neighborhood nodes where there are open zones and those are located in the heart of their
respective sub districts. Between those there are quite a few different places for neighborhood
commercial uses as the zones are laid out according to what the City expecting in terms of the
road network, in terms of uses, in terms of intensities, and in terms of scale of development with
single loaded streets, for example.
Lehmann explained the way that this is different is the Future Land Use Map is more detailed
and the dimensional standards are slightly different because a lot of building bulk is primarily
regulated by building types, it's not regulated by uses as much. There are some opportunities to
modify or decrease lot size further if they provide, for example rear access, rear utility
easements, or additional civic space. However rear access is not required, so the way that the
lots were designed was to accommodate the buildings given front access and/or rear access, but
rear access with allow a smaller lot. Another change that was touched on briefly in the
introduction was that parking is regulated by zone in this case, so it is slightly different because
the amount is regulated by the zone, as is the location, so there are different setbacks for
buildings compared to parking such that the buildings are to be closer to the street than the
parking with the idea being they don't want the street front to be dominated by garage doors or
blank walls, so it does require that parking is set back a little further. Lehmann showed a
diagram on how parking is set back from the front façade, he noted there are some opportunities
to tweak that a little bit but generally it's going to be set back from whatever is occupying most of
the streetscape.
Some other changes Lehmann wanted to mention are there are frontage types and building
types and those are required for each design site, and then there's also the sub zones,
specifically the open zone which allows for greater variety of uses, especially nonresidential
uses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 12 of 20
Lehmann next moved on to discuss the use standards, noting they are pretty similar to what they
are used to seeing with a standard use table, uses that are permitted just straight up, uses that
are provisionally allowed that requires staff review.
Signs noted looking at the Future Land Use Map, there's a lot of detail put together on these
various zones and into all these potential streets, but does the plan say that this is where streets
really will be because otherwise if they start moving streets, then they lose the zones. Lehmann
stated that's where those rezoning criteria come into play acknowledging if they move streets it's
going to move zones and so that's where the specific criteria come into place so that when they
are reconstructed, zones are related upon it, it has to make sense in the same way and that
those zoning criteria are followed. Lehmann stated the Future Land Use Map isn’t an
engineered plat or anything so changes can and will happen but hopefully it would be
reconstructed in a similar manner.
Lehmann went back to the use standards and stated staff does still regulate uses in Form-Based
Zones, again permitted by right, provisionally allowed where staff reviews to make sure that it
meets some criteria, and then through special exception, where it goes through a discretionary
process by the Board of Adjustment. Lehmann noted in most cases the missing middle housing
is permitted by right and that would be all of the building types that are allowed. Detached single
family dwellings aren't permitted in those urban zones and a lot of the other standards follow the
existing zones. Lehmann did point out that in the open zones how the commercial uses are
allowed as well in the Main Street Zone how commercial uses are allowed. He stated there are
additional uses called live/work that also allows some commercial uses that would be within
certain residential zones, specifically those that are T4 zones.
Lehmann next discussed the missing middle, the definition that they use in the Zoning Code is
house scale buildings with multiple units and walkable neighborhoods. He wanted to touch on
this again because this is one of those major changes that is missing in a lot of zoning codes
because usually there's high priority for single family detached or high priority for large
multifamily and some of those missing middle housing types get lost. The way this Code looks at
it is makes them allowable uses and instead of regulating by the uses it regulates by those
building types instead.
Lehmann stated there are two new use categories, one is community gardens, land cultivated by
multiple users for plants essentially, it is also a joint civic space type and does allow some onsite
retail for produce that was grown on site, but most structures on it are pretty limited and it's
mostly going to be that green space. He noted they did want to include this as is not included in
the current Zoning Code and they don’t really have any use category that would allow for this. It
would have likely been classified as agriculture, so this is a way to make sure that there was an
opportunity for community gardens and civic space. The other new use category is live/work
space, it is similar to the home businesses that are currently allow but it's a slightly more intense
version of where someone lives in the unit that they also work in. Those nonresidential uses that
are allowed are limited, it's similar to what is allowed in the Peninsula live/work areas, but it does
limit on premises sales to goods made in the unit, for example an artist studio, and it does
prohibit certain hours for deliveries, certain hours for clients and only up to three outside
employees, and it does limit the number of clients per day. It is a more intense commercial use
that could be allowed but does have its own restrictions that come with it and it's really only
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 13 of 20
allowed in those T4 Zones and above, likely the live/work would be in the town home building
types.
Lehmann explained the differences between the use standards as they currently are and these,
these use standards incorporate the missing middle, there is an accessory use table that isn’t in
the current Zoning Code, which makes it easier to interpret some of those uses and then there
are those two new use categories. Lehmann reiterated however that uses are not the primary
way that they're regulating the form of the environment, it is really by those forms in building
types and in frontage types.
The site standards are similar to the site development standards and it works in tandem with
them. Some of these standards, like screening, supplement the existing standards and some
just add slight differences to them. Regarding screening they do regulate walls and fences, they
regulate mechanical equipment, again these sites standards supplant the existing standards that
the City has. Generally, there are height limits on walls and fences, and they're not allowed in
the T4 Main Street Zone. Mechanical equipment has to be screened either by the building, by
wall parapets or by walls if it's an existing building that's in one of these zones. For landscaping,
it is a bit unusual in that it works in tandem with the existing landscaping standards. Lehmann
noted there are some new parking landscaping requirements and there are new street tree
standards which was touched upon when talking about the thoroughfare street types. He stated
these things are all checked during the site plan or building permit review process. Plant
diversity is probably the biggest change in that for new street trees they would only allow 5% of
any species and 10% of any genus in any trees that are on the sites, they should be spatially
distributed and also should try to incorporate mature trees when possible. Those do work with
the existing standards, but it is a bit more detailed in how they want to encourage a biodiversity
within these areas to promote sustainability. Landscaping is expected to be installed with
development and should be maintained, and it should be separated from vehicular areas.
Lehmann discussed parking, as already mentioned the amount and location of onsite parking is
listed by zone, there are also current parking standards, some of which apply, and then there are
new parking landscaping standards that are involved in this section as well. Some of the
differences are tied to traffic minimization, there's provisions for bicycle parking, for carpool
spaces, for office uses and then for cars to share spaces for large residential and office uses.
There are some large vehicle parking and loading standards and they're slightly different than
current Code standards. Lehmann stated the parking lot design standards and landscaping
standards are to try and avoid larger areas of pavement so there are standards about breaking
up larger parking areas, making sure there's pedestrian access to sidewalks, and landscaping
when it's a larger area. They want to make sure that parking spaces are accessed from an
internal drive and not just from the streets. He noted one difference is that tandem parking is
allowed, where there are two cars located front to back, but it's regulated by use generally and
would only be allowed within one unit, so someone is not going to get stuck behind a neighbor.
Overall, the more parking there is, the more landscaping that’s required, tree coverage is based
on the lot area, so the bigger the lot more trees required. They do encourage that the
landscaping areas incorporate stormwater management to try and filter the storm water rather
than treat it as a waste product, but that is not required.
Finally in the site standards, Lehmann noted there is a subsection on adjustments to standards
He explained these are administrative changes that again that can be made to different
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 14 of 20
provisions. They do require that there is a finding that is made with that so it's similar to the
current minor modifications accept that there wouldn't be a notification requirement, it would be
more like the adjustments in Riverfront Crossings. Those include things such as the design site
size, the amount of façade, the facade zone, the main body or wing height, which comes with
building types, the front parking setback, screen height and then there's some flexibility that's
allowed for affordable housing which he’ll discuss later in the affordable housing chapter.
Adjustments or modifications do require findings that are made by staff and most of it is to
accommodate an existing feature. Lehmann noted the Form-Based Code provides flexibility like
dimensional standards for affordable housing.
The final section to discuss tonight is on civic space types as those are really a new concept for
the City of Iowa City, it basically typifies open space and categorizes them and provides some
standards with that. The first two sub sections are the general standards and the purpose and
then the rest of them are just the different types of civic spaces that could be selected. A civic
space could be a public open space, or it could be private open space, but it has to be
accessible and dedicated to public use and it would be really delineated in that subdivision
process and finalized in that neighborhood plan. Again, there is the opportunity to change what
the civic space type is in the standards but that's where it would be codified, or at least made
public. Lehmann stated there is required open space in that City requires that land must be
provided for public open space or fee-in-lieu paid. That is an existing standard that can tie into
this, but it doesn't always tie into this. Public spaces that are dedicated to the City could qualify
as a civic space and meet that requirement, but if it's a private civic space it would not meet that
requirement and those would not be able to be used for the neighborhood open space
dedications. In terms of what public access and visibility means, Lehmann explained it really
means that they have to allow the public to access it and see it, so they want to ensure that it's
visible through single-loaded streets, bike and pedestrian paths, and making sure that it's not
tucked away behind existing development as a sort of private park, it has to be accessible. This
also does include natural features such as creeks or other natural open spaces that are there,
some of those are delineated on Future Land Use Map, some may be located later as the
sensitive areas plans are developed. Building facades must front on the civic space, they want
the civic spaces to look on complete facades that are nicely developed and not just the side of
building. As far as the use of civic spaces, there primarily intended to be gathering spaces and
they must be designed accordingly, but there might be some opportunity for commercial uses,
there are opportunities for service areas, especially if it's privately owned as they do want it to
contribute to stormwater management, and using some of that green infrastructure and since
they are looking at street trees they are looking at things that absorb water instead of piping it
into storm sewers, it'd be great if they could incorporate the stormwater management into these
green spaces that exists.
Lehmann pointed out seven options for civic spaces, the first two are the Greenway and the
Green. The Greenway is basically a long linear space that would be multiple blocks, it would be
an opportunity for strolling, there could be sidewalks along it, there could be a trail down it, it
could be flanked by streets and could be flanked on one side by buildings. It serves as a
connector between open space areas. This civic space type would be allowed in all zones,
except for the T4 Main Street Zone. The Green is similar but it's just a standard open space, a
large space available for unstructured recreation, it limits the amount of buildings that can be put
on site, and it also is allowed and all zones but the T4 Main Street Zone. The next two are the
Plaza and the Pocket Park/Plaza. The Plaza is only allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. It's
really a community focal point similar to a historic town center that is seen in some small Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 15 of 20
towns. It might have some structured space, but it would be primarily a gathering place. The
Pocket Park/Plaza is a little different, it's basically a smaller version of either the Green or of the
Plaza depending on the context, because it is allowed in all zones, so if it's in a T4 Main Street
Zone it would be expected to be a Plaza and a more formal space that serves the neighborhood.
It it's in a T3 Zone or a lower density neighborhood zone, it is expected to be some sort of small
park that serve as an immediate neighborhood. The next two are the Playground and
Community Garden. Playgrounds pretty self-explanatory and intended for children and are
allowed in all zones. They could be incorporated into any other civic space, so it could be in a
Plaza or it could be in a Green, but it is its own type as well. The Community Garden has
already been briefly touched upon, but it's intended for garden plots available to nearby
residences and is allowed in all zones. The final type of civic space is the Passage, which is a
little unique in that it is both a civic space and also a thoroughfare type. The City does have
standards right now that allow for pedestrian passageways through blocks that can allow a larger
block length. Lehmann explained this is similar to that, but it adds some more standards as to
what that has to look like and it is allowed for all zones. For a Passage, one would expect the
houses to front it, the Ped Mall would be an urban example of what a Passage might look like. It
does increase the allowable block size which Lehmann will touch upon during the next meeting
as to how those standards work together in the subdivision process. Lehmann showed on the
Future Land Use Map the variety of civic space types. Ones to the east are more neighborhood
focal points similar to some of the open zones, there are some linear spaces where there's
infrastructure, there's an existing trail on the northeast side of McCollister, east of South Gilbert.
Staff is proposing another one where there's an existing sewer line as it makes sense to put
some sort of trail where they have some infrastructure. He noted they are also proposing an
expansion of the Sand Hill Park, some buffer on the southeast side next to the sanitary sewer
plant, and finally, they are showing a Plaza in the middle of the T4 Main Street Zones. The
imagine they would see some commercial areas there with outdoor seating, etc.
Lehmann next explained how this is different from the existing Zoning Code, it can be public or
private, it is a new concept, but it builds on current open space standards, and really classifies
the open space, both natural and urban open spaces, and it creates standards. He noted it also
formalizes some of the pedestrian route criteria that they have currently with the Passage, it does
tie stormwater management into the amenity space and builds it into the Future Land Use Map
and then through that it is also incorporated in the neighborhood plans and the other new
planning processes.
Lehmann stated the next steps will be a discussion next time at the July 15 meeting on the
building type standards, architectural elements standards, the frontage types, thoroughfare
types, and then the affordable housing incentives. They will also talk about some other minor
changes that were required throughout the Code to implement this and then some changes with
the South District Plan. Then at the August 5 subsequent meeting they will have an opportunity
to discuss anything the Commission would like more clarity on and then at the August 19
meeting is when staff would expect to make a recommendation on the Form-Based Code and on
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council. Once Council receives the recommendation,
they would set a public hearing and have three hearings of the Code, and one hearing of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So theoretically the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
couldn't be approved until September 21 and theoretically if this schedule is followed the Code
would be adopted potentially on October 19.
Lehmann acknowledged they are accepting public comments throughout this entire process but
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 16 of 20
strongly encourage that public comments are provided by August 5 so that by the end of the
meeting, staff could have an opportunity prior to the Commission hearing it on August 19 to
incorporate any changes.
Hensch asked if at the August 19 meeting is where the Commission considers adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Form-Based Code, is that also when the public hearing
would be held for the first time for the public to weigh in on this. Lehmann said they could submit
written comments prior to that and those could be provided to the Commission at the August 5
meeting for consideration, otherwise the formal public hearing on both of these items would be
August 19.
Craig first asked about the parking in the images that were shown, to her it appears like there
were not near enough parking spaces for some of those big buildings. Will there be parking
underground, even for a four-plex, four parking spots doesn't seem like enough. She recognizes
they said that the parking standards were diminished somewhat, but what are the parking
standards and will there be enough parking for some of those structures, particularly the bigger
ones. Also, is there any way to make it an incentive or incentivize a developer to include
electrical charging stations in the parking, she feels that would be very attractive for someone as
10 years from now they’re going to have a lot more electric vehicles around. Craig also stated
she is still a little fuzzy about the whole design sites and what that means, they showed a picture
of the big square that was divided into three squares or three rectangles and who divides those
and decides if there are single family homes on them, maybe one with the granny suite or
whatever, she needs to try to educate herself more on that. Finally, on the gathering places,
Craig thinks all those concepts are great but it just feels like maybe there's not enough of them in
there, this feels like a very dense development. Overall, she really likes it, but there are no plans
for a City park, or all the civic spaces maintained by the City or maintained privately.
Lehmann responded briefly on the parking question. For each zone, there is a subsection seven
called parking and that sets the minimum standard for that zone. For example, for the T3
Neighborhood Edge Zone, studio up to two-bedroom units would require one parking space per
unit minimum, three or more would require two parking spaces per unit, for commercial or
nonresidential uses no parking would be required up to 1500 square feet with the assumption
being it would use the on-street parking, if it's greater than that, then the parking standard starts
to come into play. Lehmann acknowledged the parking standards are less than the current
standards, but these are minimum requirements and they are trying to look at ways to encourage
walkable, denser developments, and so these are the minimums that would be required for a
unit. However, a developer could decide they want two parking spaces for every bedroom, and
they can still do that, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that, it's just that the
minimum required would be less than the current Code.
Craig said then for a four-plex with just four parking spots that is okay. Lehmann responded it
would be acceptable if those were all one-bedroom units.
Lehmann noted in terms of design sites, the design sites show flexibility and one could have an
entire large parcel fit for duplexes or fit for five single family homes. The flexibility of not platting
those individual sites can allow for a mix of homes that would fit the site and could be tweaked as
developed. He acknowledged realistically most people are probably still going to plat parcels like
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 17 of 20
they currently do. For example, if there is a plat for a multifamily building but in the future they
decide that parcel would be better for two single family homes instead they don't have to
subdivide it again, instead, they would just use design sites and deal with it that way.
Craig asked how the individual who's purchasing it know what’s their property. Lehmann said it
would be similar to the legality of a condo regime and that's why they would still expect most
people to probably development it as they buy it.
Hektoen confirmed it would be like a condo association or the owner is also the developer and
continues to own all of the units.
Lehmann said it can also be similar to a planned overlay process with sometimes all of the
buildings on a single lot, and they have to put invisible lot lines. The difference is in this those
invisible lines can be shuffled around depending on what the market forces seem to be as long
as they're meeting the frontage mixed standards, the dwelling type standards, and all of those
sorts of things.
Lehmann next answered the question on the civic space, he does believe they do make a
distinction on the Future Land Use Map about public versus private open space and what they're
thinking for those areas is one of them would be a small public park, the one that's in the central
east side. He noted there are already a lot of park amenities in the South District, that’s one of
the selling points, there is Terry Trueblood, open space from the prairie, Wetherby Park and the
Sycamore Trail and greenway. Craig recognizes that but was thinking more about playgrounds
for children, she acknowledged there is the school playground, but not much else. Lehmann
agreed and noted that a decision to put in a playground will be up to the person that is
developing the civic space, because the City does not distinguish which civic space types should
be where, that would be up to the developer.
Russett added staff did talk to the Parks and Rec Department about park needs in this area and
they felt that a playground was really needed east of the greenway so that's why they identified
that area as a public park that will become an area with a playground.
Signs is interested in discussing the affordable housing piece and the fee-in-lieu piece. He is
personally done with the fee-in-lieu concept because everybody's using it and if they really want
to get affordable housing truly scattered throughout the community and incorporate into these
areas they have to do away with that fee-in-lieu because every developer uses it, and they don't
build affordable units in their developments. He just wanted to say that is something he is going
to harp on a lot through this process.
Signs also had an interesting observation about multimodal transportation and looking at these
spaces, they talk about a lot less parking with the idea that people will use other transportation
sources and that concerns him in light of the fact that the transportation department is cutting bus
routes. So here they are creating a whole development, a whole area that's going to
theoretically rely more on buses, so he hopes they are having that conversation with the
transportation department and with City Council as far as funding the transportation department.
Signs is also concerned about the map, it shows very distinct zones in very distinct places and
from his experience with developments, especially in this larger area of land, rarely do they end
up that way. All of a sudden streets won’t be there and uses will change so he’d like to hear
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 18 of 20
much more about what happens as things change because they all know what they do today and
what's going to be done five years from now, are distinctly different.
Finally, Signs has a quick question of if this ties into the needs for adjustments in rental codes.
Will development here discourage or encourage rental units, it may not be relevant to the
conversation, but those were just some things he made note of tonight and he looks forward to
having more conversations in the in the couple of sessions to come.
Padron agrees with Craig about electric vehicle stations, that would be great. She likes that
parking requirements are being reduced, but she would like to see how they will be
complimenting or encouraging other modes of transportation. Will there be more parking for
bicycles or wider streets for bike lanes, etc. Finally, regarding the trees, will they be requiring the
use of native species to reduce the use of water, also in terms of landscape are they
encouraging the use of local materials that don't require transportation for landscape.
Padron also agrees with Craig that it seems that are not enough green spaces, and also the
greenway is allowed in some of those zones, but it's not a requirement, so what would happen if
a developer chooses not to have any of those green spaces. The area would then become very
dense and not good for stormwater management without be something like permeable
pavement. She also agrees with Signs on the concern over public transportation and would like
to hear much more about that.
Finally, Padron is also concerned about the commercial inside the neighborhoods because that's
another thing if they're hoping that people will use less cars, but if they have to drive really far
away to get groceries, how's that going to work.
Hensch looks forward to the future opportunities to hear more about this and encourages all
Commission members to continue to do some research and reading on this.
DISCUSSION OF RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS:
Russett noted a couple updates for the Commission. The Governor’s emergency declaration
allowing cities to meet virtually has been extended through July 25, but it is expected that it will
not be extended after that point. This Commission has one more chance to meet virtually, on
July 15, but Russett stated there's been some interest from the Commission to meet back in
person. Russett would like to request that they have that July 15 meeting as a virtual meeting so
the consultants can participate more easily.
Hensch agreed that seems reasonable unless somebody has an objection to that. He added
that he saw today that persons 12 years age and up in Iowa City have a 69.9% vaccination rate
so almost at that 70%. Johnson County is doing really well.
Russett also wanted to mention that at this point there's not going to be any hybrid meetings, it
will all be back to in person. Lehmann added they will all be recorded so people can watch it at
least.
Craig asked why no hybrid, with zoom people could still participate.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 19 of 20
Martin thought they confirmed one person can call into the meeting, rather than be in person.
Russett will look into that but thinks they can arrange that, but it would just be something they
would provide to Commission members, not the public.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 17, 2021:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 17, 2021.
Nolte seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Martin noted she will not be able to attend the next meeting as she will be out of town.
ADJOURNMENT:
Craig moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1
CRAIG, SUSAN X
HENSCH, MIKE X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X
NOLTE, MARK X
PADRON, MARIA X
SIGNS, MARK X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member