Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2025 Planning & Zoning Commissiona wim L, i L, i i L, Eeirm L, i arkei L, i i o 111iiiii, 9 • Wednesday, March 5,2025 Formal Meeting — 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Rezoning Items 4. Case No. REZ25-0003 Location: Portion of 691 E. Foster Rd. An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.06 acres of land from High Density Single - Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-1 2) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) Zone. Zoning Code Text Amendments 5. Case No. REZ25-0002 Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to amend 14-2H Form -Based Zones and Standards to clarify standards and address potential barriers to development. 6. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Update and Steering Committee 7. Consideration of meeting minutes: February 19, 2025 8. Planning and Zoning Information 9. Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact I Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or aRISSettb)iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: April 2 / April 16 / May 7 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ25-0003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Contact Person: Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner Date: March 5, 2025 Foster Road Development, LLC 340 Herky St North Liberty, Iowa 52317 (319) 351-2028 gstiltner(-a).stillnerelectric.com Ron Amelon MMS Consultants, Inc 1917 South Gilbert St Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 (319) 631-2703 r.amelon(@mmsconsultants. net Requested Action: Rezoning of 0.06 acres from High Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS-5) zone. Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use; Zoning: Surrounding Land Use; Zoning: To rezone to a zone that provides consistency with Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision and to make it more appealing to a potential buyer. Portion of 691 E Foster Rd 0.06 Acres High Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) North: Multi -Family Residential, OPD/RS-12 South: Vacant, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) K East: Single -Family, LOvv Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) West: Vacant and Multi -Family R8Sid8Dd8|' OPO/RS12 Comprehensive Plan: Public/Private Open Space Neighborhood Open Space District: Foster Road North OiSt[iC[ Plan: Sing le-Family/Duplex R8SideOUG| Public Meeting Notification: PPUp8dx OVVO8[S and DCCUp@OtS within 500' of the property received DDUfC@1iOD Of the P|8OniDQ and Zoning CODl[niSSiOD public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted @|ODg St. Anne's Ohme in front Of the property that iSfor sale. File Date: January 27, 2025 45 Day Limitation Period: March 13, 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The owner, Foster Road Development, LLC.kSrequesting approval for the rezoning Ofapproximately 0.00acres Ofland from High Density Single -Family Residential with @ Planned Development Overlay ((]p[VR@-12) 2DOe to Low Density 8iOQ|8-F@0Oi|y Residential (RG-5) zDO8 for @ portion Of the property located 8t681 E Foster Rd. Concurrently with the R3zODiOQ' the owner has applied for boundary |iD8 2diUSt08Dt to iDC[8@S8 the Size Of Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. The p[OpOS8d bOUOd@[y line adjustment and [8zOOiDg will have impacts DO Lot Forest Hill Estates and LOt25 Conway's Subdivision. The subject property is part OfLot 5 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision. The boundary line ediuStnlerk request is to take 0.08 acres from Lot 5 FOneSi Hill Estates and [DOVe it to Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. These two |0tS have two dUf8n8Dt zoning designations. TO approve the boundary |iD8 8diUStrUBDt, the zoning O0USt be consistent. Hence the request for the rezoning. The [D8p bek3VV Sh0VVS Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. GUbdiViSk}D boundaries are show iDpurple. The area proposed k}b8rezoned iSgenerally shown iDthe red dashed line. This area is also the area proposed to be part OfLot 25with the bDUDd@[y line 8diUSt0eDt 3 The applicant has indicated that the purpose Ofthe proposed rezoning isLOhave consistent zoning on Lot 25and tOincrease the size DfLot 25 to make itmore appealing k]potential buyers. That said, the subject pn3p8dx is |OC@k3d within 8 COOSenv@1ioO easement and will DOL provide any additional development potential tO@future buyer. |Oterms Dfcase history, the subject property was rezoned and subdivided iD2017and 2018.ASOf 1Od8y. some Dfthe land has been developed. Here's @summary: |n2O17.8rezoning was approved for land located south Of|-OObetween Dubuque Street and Prairie DU Chien Road (including the subject pFOpedv). That rezoning rezoned 50.11 acres tOC>P0/RS-12 zone and 3.18 acres to CO[D[OerCi8| (]OiQe (C[>-1)zone hD allow for DlU|tifG[Oi|y residential and office development (F|EZ17-00O17). |O2018.the City adopted 8resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Forest Hill Estates (SUB18- 000048'R8G.NO18-90)@ndthHFin8|Pk3 for Forest Hill Estates was adopted inMay 2O18(]UB18- 00008). The Final Plat includes cODSen/8U0D easement that applies tOthe subject property. S88 Attachment 2. In 2024. 8 Major Site Plan for Lot 5 FV[8St Hill Estates was approved for Gtotal of buildings and 19 dwelling units. These units are currently under construction. Additionally, Lot 25Conway's Subdivision was created with the final plat, which was recorded iO1953. Since the |8Dd was subdivided in 1953. Lot 25 has F8[D@iDed undeveloped and is @ total Of8,755 square feet. Agood neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning. Attachment 3includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the r@LiOOG|e behind the request. Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned OPD/RS-12. The purpose of the RS-12 91 zone is to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units at higher density than in other single- family zones. Properties zoned RG-12allow LOVVOhOrO8style multi -family with Up to six UDiLS attached. The rD@xiOlUDl height in this zone is 35' An [)p[} was required due to impacts to sensitive areas and the mix of housing types proposed which includes a large-scale 0U|b-f@0i|y building that provides housing to S8ni0nG' as well as tOwnhO0B style 0U|h- f8FDi|y residential UOiLS. Proposed Zoning: The applicant isproposing to rezone the subject property to the RS-5 zone. The iDL8Ot Of the RS-5 zOO8 is to provide housing OppOrtUDUU8S for individual households. The regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. This zOO8 also allows for some OOn[8Sid8DU8| USeS that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare Table includes the minimum lot size required for detached single-family, duplexes, and attached single-family housing types in the RS-5 zone. Table 1. RS-5 Zoning Summary Minimum Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Detached single- family, including zero lot line 6,000 Duplexes 10,000 Attached single-family 5,000 Regardless of the zoning for the subject pnOp8dw OD development will be @UDVVed b8C@US8 it is located within an existing COOSenvBtiOO easement. That said, the rezoning combined with the boundary line adjustment do change the land uses that are allowed on Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. The proposed bOUOd8[y line 8diUSt[DeOL and rezoning Of 0.06 @C[eS (2,814 square feet) of the 8UbieCL property would iDCFe@Se the square footage Of LOt25 to 11,380 square feet. With this iOcFB8S8, 8 duplex would be allowed. Attached SiOg|8-t8nli|y uses would also be possible; h0vvev8[' it would require 8 subdivision. Lastly, 'since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff iSrecommending @ condition that D0 building permit shall be issued for LDt25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is reviewed tothe North District Plan and the |C2030Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the North District Plan identifies the subject property appropriate for Sing |e-F@[Dily/Dup|GX R8SideDU8i This land Use d88igDaUOD is intended primarily for single f@[Dik/ and duplex residential development. The development density }Dthis zone iS2-8dwelling uDitS/@C[8. Lower density zoning designations are SUit8b|0 for areas with sensitive 8nViFOD0eDt8| features, topographical COOSt[@iDts. or limited street access. The |C2030 Comprehensive P|8D'S FUtU[8 Land Use Map identifies the subject property as 5 Additionally, the Housing element Ofthe |C2O3OPlan includes 8goal aimed towards encouraging @ diversity Ofhousing ODUOnS in all neighborhoods. The p|@O notes that one strategyk}achieve this goal is by concentrating new development in 8ne8S contiguous to existing neighborhoods vvhenS it is most cost effective and tDextend infrastructure and services. The Land Use element 0fthe plan also encourages compact, efficient development that iGcontinuous and connected tO existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning LO R8-5 is C0DSisteDL with the land Use DD|iCy direction Of the Cih/'s adopted p|8DS. The p|GDS envisions both Dp8D space and housing in this area. The existing C0OG8Fv8hOD easement will eOSV[8 the subject property will not be develop vvhi|8 also @||0vviDg more housing options OOLot 25Conway's Subdivision. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property iSbordered byRS- 12iOthe southwest, C)P[)/RS-12tOthe west, C}P[/RS-12tOthe north and RS-5tOthe east. The St[88t to the S0Vth88St of the SUbi8(t pnDp8hv. St. AOD8'S Drive, is mostly CO0p[iG8d of single- family housing. HDvvev8[' there are dVp|8x8S at the corner OfSt. ADD8'B and Prairie Du Chien Road. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning would allow for the development of @ detached single-family home or duplex, which VVOU|d be consistent with the development patterns and mix Dfhousing types iDthe neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the North District Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Transportation & Public Infrastructure: Figure 1 is an aerial image that shows LVt25 Conway's Subdivision outlined in blue. Although St. Anne's Drive is adjacent to this lot it does not provide access to LOt25. In this |OC@UOD St. /\DDe'G Drive essentially dead gDdS and connects to Buresh Ave. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the Owner shall install additional pavement 8tthe intersection OfSt. Anne's Drive and BUFeShAvenue, similar iD design towhat exists at the other end ofthe block adjacent tud4O-852St. Anne's Drive to allow City vehicles tOprovide services tOthe lot without having t0back Upand the Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements to be approved by the City Engineer. FT Sensitive Areas: The nuh|SCi property is in an existing conservation easement that was established @Spart Ofthe Final Plat and does not allow for development. The Final Sensitive Areas Development P|@D for Lot 5 FD[8St Hill Estates identifies regulated sensitive features iOC|UdiOQ critical and protected slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas. NEXT STEPS: Upon P8COrODl8Dd@UOO from the P|@DDiDg and Zoning CODlnlisGiOD, @ public hearing will be scheduled for consideration bythe City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff [8CDOl0OHDdS @ppFOV@| Of REZ25-0003, @ pFODOS8d [8zOOiDg to rezone 0.08 8C[eS of the property located 3tM91 EFoster Rdfrom OPCVRS-12 zone [0RS-5zone subject k}the following COndibODS: @. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves 8 boundary line adjustment for the subject property that COOf000S to the zoning bOUOd8[ieS established by the rezoning OPdiO8DCe to which this AgFe8nOeO[ is attached. b. Prior t0the issuance Of3certificate Ofoccupancy for Lot 25Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall iD5t8|| 8ddiUDO@| pavement at the iOte[S8C[iOD of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. ADD8`S Drive, SD8GtOallow City vehicles t0 provide services t0the |0t without having to back Up. Prior to iSSu8DCe of building permit for said lot, {]vvO8[ Sh8|| submit COOStrUC1iOD d[8VViOgS for the proposed iOlpnDVeOleOtS and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to O0Gk8 said i[DpP0v8[OeDtS Sh8|| be acquired by the Owner prior tOthe i9SU8DCe of building permit for said lot. 1. Location & Zoning Maps 2. Forest Hill Estates Final Plat 3. Applicant Submittal Materials Approved by: O@Okel|e Sitz0@D.A|Cp'Development Services Coordinator ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps ATTACHMENT 2 Forest Hill Estates Final Plat i 11 I J 3: } H U w �r — z I z O CL vJ IW 0 LU Q u_ p o uj w d ui C�-d��-� Z p= ram' Z p W O d p d F- w d ".z � t) t- Z r- U © Z� T F- d Q2 O w u_ f 'r w w 0 Ln , w 00 LU � d F- ��' LU O u_ < Ln I- Z uu k U�- d .�.a d o �c � h Z�o. s0 M 0 F- LL "`) Z o Z (A w<_ M w h p �` V p 4 O U � w _`� Cfl H Z Z� C) w Z'Z Fw- 0- © W t 0 U � >- H X �' Z Ct Lu 0 h d p = p d w w < p` c.7 t� w 00. F- © m c7 u md`�wwCL z w LLd }-- o r� ocacC —�� o 0 ZpV)CFwC� Z �' w p—U-cr t� ua F- dC) F- U F-� cx uw w cr7 u..) p mLij ° cr o a� cr H w= ham: , Z c� p 1 -cn==Ci o w U.1 - d 1�- wF- "� ¢o= dQ�dd Qa°dQZoa- �� L ° D w6 0 o< �tD C)uC dLuc Si-I=ZCf�uL -df-0Zn LIJQ ws✓ HDwu�0�wOd"',�'<- p � W p (n V) �' < cn = op d a i.0 =wcrytiucfZ cnLc}p©5¢FZy pt- rnF- Z Lu C) uj LL d B-0-_ww o' a OC) �w�w�C) pc n= 0��CL U� uj ' U z�� <W c� < V) C o . oLLo �00 QQ .Zc d wU.J w L/ ;z4CfzzLLo� ��°CE) Z c d�� -< F-- �o�mCf 00 "-ppp=xwF�-VZwp0E-Z F-wL zzZza0000=uw�oou - p (O w Z � d LIJ :c v) ,mo Cf ©MF�-,"�°-o"��pC7p���pC LL Cep° co -, ni Z tC :F u== -7 HQw�F- umppp Z. 0 rd°p w � 1- u_ F-' > z F2 (D 1-- w C. dome=Z © f< a � UF- U) w z I F- z w 7-> w U) w z 0 w (j) z 0 (Y) 0) "qt (D LO LLJ oo 0 0 (0 I0T ZY) C'4 0 Cf) 0 0 a (14 0 (Y0) Lu > U) I Zr �o CY) �f C,4 Z7) cc) LI) (D Lq T ccr 00 6 (0 C:) cli Z uj Zo P- (N (N Lo c� C) 0 LLJ 0 ry Cis) (Y) 12 c) 0:) Lo (0 co 0 L6 c) CL Li (> y C) C) ,�r cv -q (y) -,;r �T w uj S') m (Y) 0 0) t- S q 0 it 0 o CV) q) Y) (D CN 0 LO iN , 0 U) N Na �r Clq ' �- a 0 Cl) < 10 W > 0, < T-: (Y) (Yi (Y) T C() cri M in C6 ce) U-) f,- (D "'t C6 CO (Y) 0) T7 LO 0� N(0 U') CO LU C) Z w CO Il- C6 CO Nr 1 CY) 6 C-4 It 6 N IT 04 %T ui > ' T- CN (Y) lrlr U*) (0 r- = U U U0 0 0 0 D C) U) w z z w :E w U) w lq- Iq (Y)T- z r c U) 0) 00 (Y) tt LLJ CC) 0 tl- V 0 QO t 0 CY) 4r 00 (Y) 0 0 0 OD 0 07 co 0 a Lo Lo 127 Lo to Lo US ko c w T-: -: 06 od C6 06 cy CC) co co co (Y) CY) (Y) CV) Cf > tr w :E F- z Zo COcy) L4) P*� b) C14 'IT OC uj N LO CN 04 'q tr w N ce) *14" V) co r— oc D 0 J ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials —Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant Statement I@ I I u u Ul) (Y) LU rq LL, Ln rn = U, rq a- Ln 0 < z 3: 0 < w > ❑ w 0 0 w > 0 > >: , I Of 0> r,: > < C, U=, o < C) uj < 00 = �4 w C) ca U) LL 0 L) = cr I uj R Lu uj =m 0 r� 0 V) I w 0 T ❑ 0 0 f1 0 Zt 0 < rq < wmZ d wmZ < ILIff cc , < 0 F m 0 - z V) F- LU V) V, 000, 0 o 7, z m uj vj 0 L w J W0 z 0 U, �f u , 7-, Ln Z Z, V,, Lr) zx 0 0 < U0 0 30: z< g �M) C, z F-z a w2 w 0 z 0 w 0 z - " 3: z — > F-- z w > C, W < todi Z 0 u 0 �, W w D 0 0 0 - z >= cz < z , < o 3: z 0 cL z 0 < F- < L) 0 Z 0 ju > 0 0 IT 4- -2 Z 'o 41 = 41 W V) 0 Ln N 'o Lu co E .2 cm LL Z: (D Z 'o loll S 4-; z -0 c LU z 0 U 0 �s 0 ML, Ln LU LU -C Lri w Lri cr =F CO 4� r4 0 Ln 0 0- =Ji CVO �\rn Co ,>> C(=:DD -0 Ln WEST LINE LOT 25 �W3� S01*57'28"E �3213'(j�-) —132,26'(R) EAST LINE LOT 5 Ln o z Z LL z 0 F- w uj 0( 0 z z LU o Co u LU u u (D O V) 0z0 00 0 N LU $d Id < Q, Az 9 w C c ru 9 J 4 v c 'no c w IN 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 MA MMs Consultants Inc. 319.351,8282 mmsconsultants.net Experts In Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net February 6, 2025 City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of Auditor's Parcel 2025003. The auditor's parcel is a small portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates, located on E. Foster Road. The request is to change the zoning from OPD12 to RS5. The applicant wishes to add this parcel to Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision to make it more appealing to a potential buyer. The property being added is in a conservation easement and will not be buildable but will be under the control of the purchaser of Lot 25 Conways Subdivision. The purpose of the rezoning is so property will not have two different zonings. The RS5 zoning is consistent with Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision and the other lots along St. Annes Drive. Respectfully submitted, Ronald L. Amelon, PE T.\11619\11619-003\11619-003Lo1-Rezone.docx Date: March 5, 2025 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Fn]OO: R8Ch88|SCh8efe[ Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ25-0O03)related k}the Form -Based Zones and Standards Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) and Subdivision Code (Title 15)are subject b]alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the city. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects of the form -based code language and how the form -based code is applied. These code amendments adjust standards, increase flexibility, and clarify language within the form -based code. The form -based code ig8key tool for guiding the physical development OfIowa City, specifically the South and SUUthVV8St Districts. Unlike traditional znDiOQ. which focuses OD land Use, the form -based code emphasizes the design, form, and character of the built environment to foster cohesive, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods. |OVV8 City adopted US current form -based code in 2021 to eDCOU[8g8 high -quality d8V8|OpDleDt and align g[OvvUl with the CODlDlUDit»s |OOg-Ue[Dl vision for the South and Southwest Districts. However, no significant development has occurred within the form -based code districts since its 8dDpUOD. Feedback from 8 recent developer working to rezone and develop in the form -based zones has highlighted areas Ofthe code that could b8clearer, more streamlined, and better aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code's effectiveness and support its intended outcomes. The proposed updates aim to address these issues by making development under the form - based code more feasible. By adjusting regulations, clarifying standards, and removing unnecessary complexities, the revisions detailed in this memo are intended to encourage investment, reduce delays, and ensure the form -based code better serves Iowa Citv`s goals for SUSt8iD8b|e. fUDC[iOn8|. and inclusive growth. While considering potential updates Staff also created and published a user-friendly guide that highlights key standards and walks users through the requirements for development iOareas planned for form -based zones (see Attachment 1). If approved, this guide will be updated with the pn]pOS8d code changes. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2)indUdes changes toArticle H.Form-Based Zones and Standards, of the Zoning Code (Title 14). Staff also pn]pOS8S @Ol8DdiDg TldH 15 (Land Subdivisions) to 8||OVV flexibility for unique SitU8tiOOS ne|8h8d to block sizes and COOhgU[8tiODS. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14,they are summarized iOthis memo So the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work together towards implementing the proposed standards. Proposed Amendments The existing code, proposed code amendments, 8Dd'UsUfC8tioDfor88Ch proposed change are detailed below. Building placement standards regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create cohesive streetscapes, support walkability, and protect privacy between neighboring properties. 1. NHimimnmmx Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2H-2C-5 and Table 14- Summary of Existing Code: The minimum side yard setback for primary buildings is1O'iO the T3NEzone, 7'inthe T3NG zone, 5'inthe T4NSand T4NyNzones, and D'inthe T4yNS zone. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce 10' and 7' 0iOi0U0 side setback requirements tO5` minimum in the T3NE and T3NG zones. � CTnr":U== EXISTING PROPOSED T3 Neighborhood General Zone T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone Reducing the side setback allows for slightly iDC[RGGedbUi|dDbh8@[88SOOkotS. This change aligns with the City's goal of effective land utilization and increasing housing availability. The decrease U35' mirrors the DliOiO0UOl side setbacks standards iOthe other form -based zone districts and many Dfthe Citv'Straditional residential zones, which also require 8 5' DliOiDlUDl side setback. The consistent setback standard S[r82rO|iDes iOOp|HOleDL@LioO. 2. Placement of Garages Associated with a Duplex Side -by -Side or Towmnhorme Building Type (Table 14-2H-2C-5,TabDe 14-2H-2D-5, Table 14-2H-2E-5, Table 14-2H-2F-5` and Table 14-2H-2G-5) Summary of Existing Code: Depending DDwhich zone the building iSin, accessory structures must be setback 10', T, or 5'from side property lines. Summary of Proposed Change: When used for parking, the accessory structure side setbacks and side parking setbacks would bereduced tDD'fOrDuplex Side -by -Side and Townhome building types. This change would only be applied to interior side setbacks, not to street -side setbacks. This change would also F8dUQ8 the wing offset to 0'for attached Townhomes where the wing is being used as an attached garage at the rear of the building. The duplex side -by -side does not allow wings so an update to the duplex standards is not Both the [}UDleX( Side -by -Side and TOYYOhOnle building types allow for residential units tOb8attached. Byallowing 0'setbacks and wing offsets these building types would b8allowed k}have the garages Dfeach unit also beattached. This change 8||Ovvs for @ more efficient UGG of the buildable area. Due to other site standards, this change will most frequently be utilized for rear access garages, decreasing any potential visual impacts Dfthe change. Building type guidelines set clear rules for each kind ofbuilding so that each zone achieves the intended physical character. They also support a mix of housing options and small businesses as amenities in VV@|k8b|e neighborhoods. Each block n0USi have at least two different building types (e.g. townhouse, cottage court, house, small). 1. Maximum Wing Dimensions for House Large and House Small Building Types (Table 14-2H-6D-3 and Table 14-2H-6E-3) Summary of Existing Code: Awing iS@structure physically attached to, and smaller in footprint and height to, the main body of a building. Another way to think of it is an addition to @ home. For the House Large and House Small building b/peS. the Ol8Xi[DU[D width of the vviOgS is 20'' and the OOGxiDnUDl depth is 20' Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum width and depth Ofwing for the Max. Wing Width 20' 24' House Large Max. Wing Depth 20' 24' House Small Max. Wing Width 20' 24' Max. Wing Depth 20' 24' Increasing the allowed wing size accommodates modern housing needs bv allowing functional attached garages with space for two vehicles, stairs, and storage. This change improves usability, supports market demand for attached garages, and enhances Site planning flexibility without significantly iOOp@CtiOQ neighborhood character. By updating the wing size, the code better supports practical home designs. 2. Wings Off -set from Main Body (Table 14-2H-6D-3. Table 14-2H-6E-3, and Table 14-2H~ Summary of Existing Code: Wings must b8offset 8minimum Of5'frOm the main body 0fthe Summary of Proposed Change:. Create Gnexception for the House Large, House Small, and Duplex Stacked building types when wings are adjacent to the corner of a building that COODeC[S LO two building f8D8S that do not front @ public right-of-way. When this p|@C8DleDL is met, then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0'. AJ|OwiOQ 8 O' offset for wings DD House b][ge. House S08U' and []UDleX Stacked building types provides enhanced design flexibility and a more efficient use of space. This exception recognizes that the typical concerns addressed by a 5' offset, such as Cn88hOg ViSU8| breaks in the building [D8SS, are |eSS C[iUCa| DD interior or less visible building f8C8S. The Upd8[H [D8iDt@iOS the St8Dd@[d OO the most visible sides 0fbuildings while offering developers flexibility in optimizing their building |GyDUtS 0 eX|mnwG r-----------7--------------- T-------------- | | | | Key: 0 -mg must be offset from this corner 0 -ing does not need to be offset from this corner 3. Duplex Side -by -Side Building Type Standards (Table 14-2H-6F-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Duplex Side -By -Side building tvoe, the maximum width of the main body of the building is 48', and the maximum depth is 40'. Summary of Proposed Change: When units are rear -loaded and only one story inheight, th8 maximum width of the main body of the building can be increased to 60', and the maximum depth can bHincreased tO70' Max. Main Body 48 ' 00' Duplex Side -By -Side Width (Single Story & Max.Rear- Loaded) Main Body 4U, 7U , Depth The larger main body sizes allow for the development Ofsingle-story duplexes, which VVDUN otherwise be infeasible using the current standards. This building type adds to the mix of housing types that form -based districts can provide and cater b]families, SeDiO[S, and those with accessibility needs. The increased main body width of 60' is only 5' and 10' wider than the House Large and Multiplex Small building types, respectively. These two building types are the bulkiest buildings that COU|d be built DOthe same block 8S@single- story duplex. While the Ch@Og8 vvOU|d @||Dvv single -story dUp|eu8S to be vvid8F. the other two building types can be 2.5stories tall, making them larger iDcomparison. The increased main body depth Df7O' 8||OVVS for more space within the single -story duplexes by adding bulk lengthwise, 3||OVViOg the scale at the street to Fe08iO in harmony with Other building types. The additional requirement ofhaving these buildings berear loaded iSalso aligned with the gO8| of maintaining @ VV8|kaNe neighborhood eOVi[000eOL 4. Cottage Court Building Type Standards (Table 14-211-11-611-11-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth Ofthe main body of the building is 24'. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum depth Dfthe main body Ofthe building to 30'. Cottage Court Max. Main Body 32 . no change Width 32' Max. Main Body 24 . 30. Depth The Cottage Court building type is 8 unique "missing middle" housing type that the City would like to see developed to increase housing variation and affordability. Increasing the maximum main body dimensions from 32'hv24'tU32'by3U'3||OVVSfor more flexibility for interior layouts. This @dUUStDleOt 8CCDDlmOd8teS slightly |8[ge[ layouts while OO@iDt8iOiDg the CODlp8Ct O8tU[8 of this building type. This change can make this building type 8Oattractive and viable option for developers and residents alike. 5. Cottage Court Lot Depth (Table 14-2H-2C-3Table 14-2H-2D-3, and Table 14-2H-2E-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth of the lot is 180'. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase maximum lot depth tO20O' Cottage Court ` no change Max.Lot 12� ' � 1�D Max. Lot Depth 180' 200' The maximum design site depth was increased from 18D'tO2UU'tD accommodate the increased building depths described in the section above. This change @|h}vv3 adequate space for buildings, required S8tb@CkS' Sh8F8d COUdvord' Sid8vv@|kS' parking spaces, landscaping, etc. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Architectural element standards establish requirements that supplement the zones standards tO further refine the intended building form and physical character of the zone. 1. Residential Building Glazing (14-21-1-713-2b) Summary of Existing Code: The g[OUDd floor Ofall residential buildings is required to be 30Y6 glazing. Glazing is defined as, "openings in @ building in which g|GSS is installed". The current standard does not mention if attached garages are exempt or not. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the glazing requirement tO15Y60fthe ground floor with a minimum of one window per building side and exempt attached garages from this S1@Od8nj. Reducing the ground -floor glazing requirement to15% while exempting attached garages provides @DlD[8 practicaland achievable standard for residential buildings. This new percentage is similar to the glazing StGOd8nJs required for City -funded affordable housing projects. Th8Upd8t88OSU[8Gth8thOOO8Sr0@iOt8in@n@Ctiv88OdviSU8Uy appealing st[88tsC@pG vvhi|8 @||OvviDg for functional design flexibility; such as, FDDOl for upper C@biDe[S G|DDQ exterior walls in kitchens, p|8C0S to attach televisions to living FDD0 VV@||S. showers in bathrooms, and headboards of beds in bedrooms. Requiring a minimum of one window per building side preserves D8LU[8| light and 2[Chit8{tU[@| interest. Exempting attached garages allows for enhanced privacy for items stored inside, aligning the standard with typical residential construction while maintaining overall design quality. Frontages are the components Of8building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private [88|rO (yard or building). Frontage type standards establish base standards for each allowed frontage type. Frontage type examples include porch projected (open OO three sides), porch engaged (open OD 1 or two sides, other sides are the building itS8|f). SfOOpS, and dDOry8[dS. Each block DlVSt have at least two different frontage types. 1. Minimum Depth and Width of Porch Projected and Porch Engaged Frontage Types (Table 14-2H-8C-2 and Table 14-2H-8D-2) Summary of Existing Code: For both the Porch Projected and Porch Engaged types, the width and depth measurements are taken from the inside Ofthe porch posts, "width, C|83r^ and "depth, Ov8n3||"The DliOiDlUDl width, C|8@r is 15' 8Dd the DliDiOnUDl depth, overall iS8'fD[porches elevated less than twelve inches and 6'for porches elevated twelve D[more inches. Summary of Proposed Change: Remove "Cl8@r"and "UV8[@U"from the width and depth St@Dd8[dS. [8SpeCbV8|y, to simplify iDlp|8r0eOt@UOn and review. Reduce the width from to 12' Width, Clear 15'min Width 12'min Depth, Overall Depth 6'min average finish grade Elevated 12" from Umin average finish grade ryebai* pro S,MNP* POW The proposed change simplifies the implementation and review process bv standardizing [OiDiDlU[O porch diOl8OSiODS. E|iOliOEtiOQ "clear" and "OVe[@U"from width and depth measurements reduces confusion, ensuring consistent application of the standards. In addition, using 8 "clear" dimension isdifficult 8Lplan review since certain details like S0|UDOO are uDhOOvvO. Adjusting the minimum width tO 12' and depth tO0' regardless Ofelevation creates 8more flexible and practical requirement that accommodates awider range Of housing designs while maintaining functional and visually appealing porches. This update streamlines code review and supports efficient development. 2. Depth of Recessed Entries (Table 14-2H-8E-2 and Table 14-2H-8F-2) Summary of Existing Code: For both the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types, there iS8 depth Ofrecessed entry maximum 0f12" This iSmeasured from the front f@V8d8iOthe front dUO[ SummarV of Proposed Change: Increase the depth of recessed entry maximum to3`for AN 671 d I Z 4 RX03 0 F-11 ki Eel �� Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key: (E) - Depth of Recess Entries Justification: Increasing the maximum recessed entry depth from 12" to 3' for Dooryard and Stoop frontage types provides greater flexibility for architectural design while maintaining an inviting and pedestrian -friendly streetscape. A slightly deeper recess allows for better weather protection, improved privacy, and a more functional transition space between public and private areas. This change enhances building usability and aligns with common architectural practices without negatively impacting the overall frontage character. 3. Dooryard Frontage Type Glazing Spacing (Table 14-2H-8E-2) Summary of Existing Code: For the Dooryard frontage type, there is a distance between glazing (i.e. window) standard that limits the distance between glazing to 4' maximum. Summary of Proposed Change: Remove distance between glazing requirements. Justification: Removing the 4' maximum distance between glazing for the Dooryard frontage type provides greater design flexibility while still encouraging an active and visually engaging streetscape. By eliminating this requirement, the update allows for more adaptable designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure high -quality, pedestrian - friendly development. 4. Stoop Frontage Type (14-2H-8F-1 and 114-2H-9113-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Stoop frontage type, the landing of the stoop is required to be elevated a minimum of 12" above the sidewalk. The description and miscellaneous sections state that stairs and ramps can be used to access the elevated landing. Summary of Proposed Change: Add language to allow a sloped walkway to access the landing. The sloped walkway shall connect the stoop landing to the public sidewalk or driveway. EXAMPLE opSLOPED WALKWAYS (for illustration purposes) Adding |@DgU8Qe to @|k}N/ @ Sk]Ded VV@|kvvev provides more @CCeSSib|e and flexible entry options for the Stoop frontage type. This change improves accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges and Dfhe[S an alternative tOstairs Orramps. BY permitting a sloped walkway to connect the stoop landing to the sidewalk or driveway, the update eOh8OCeS usability while Dl@iOL8iDiOg the intended elevated entry design. F9_,TZVXTHL� Each zone has its own set Ofparking St8Od8njS. Parking St8Dd@njS regulate how many private parking spaces are required, where parking spaces and driveways can b8located, and their allowed size. 1. Minimum Distance Between D(Table 14-2H-2C-7.Table 14-2H-20-7,Table 142H-2E-7, and Table 14-2H-2F-7) - Summary of Existing Code: Th8 rnininourn dkSb]n0e between driveways iS4O' in all form - based Summary of Proposed Change: Decrease the 00iDi[DU[D diSt@RCG between driveways k}2O` Distance between driveways inmeasured 2t the property line. Reducing the [OiOiDlU[D distance between driveways allows for more efficient use of smaller lots, particularly in areas with higher -density housing or compact development patterns. The change supports the City's goals of maximizing land use. This change also allows for flexibility Ofdriveway placement, which iSneeded iOinstances where the site's topography restricts driveway p|@CeDl8OL One of the OO8iD intents of this standard is to mitigate concerns about the visual dominance of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that iOCreGSeVVG|k@bi|ity. While the r8dUCLiOO from 40' tO 20' VVi|| allow for more driveways per block, it is SU|| DlUCh less than what would be 8||Dvv8d in the [|ity'StFadiUOO8| single-family residential zones, which only require O'between driveways. The form -based zones also require front -loaded garages to be setback 15'from the fagade of the main body of the building tOfurther reduce the visual dominance Ofthe garage. FLEXIBILITY FOR UNIQUE SITUATIONS These changes are proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site conditions while maintaining the intent of the Form -Based Code. 1. Maximum Lot Depth and Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E-1) Summary of Existing Code: Each building type has a maximum lot depth and width. Summary of Proposed Change: This change allows applicants tOapply for GOadministrative adjustment to the maximum design site depth and width standards if specific approval Chteh8 are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment tQthe lot standards is needed tOavoid 8regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configuration Df 8XiStiO0 streets, or block size of abutting neighborhood. Like the block size adjustment described above, this adjustment recognizes that certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting design site standards iOOp[8CtiC@|. The proposed adjustment protects sensitive 8[8@S by allowing site design to adapt tOnatural conditions. Sites with steep grades, irregular shapes, 0[existing iDf[8St[UCtUF8 CODGLn8iDtS may find strict adherence to depth and width St8Od8PdS irOpn@CtiC@|. Allowing @Oadministrative adjustment ensures that projects C8DFeSpOOdiOih8se Ch8||8Og8S without compromising fUOCdOO@|ity or quality. In areas where existing conventionally zoned blocks have unique site and street configurations, allowing adjustments ensures that new developments integrate seamlessly with existing d8Ve|Op0OeOtS. Byallowing flexibility in lot depth and width standards, this change supports creative site designs that work with the Site's Ch@[8{te[iSUCs and CODSt[8iDtS. By establishing clear approval criteria, the adjustment process ensures that changes are thoughtfully considered and aligned with the Citv'Sgoals. 2. Traffic Driveway Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E- ) Summary of Existing Code: The On8XnOUmD driveway width for all zones is 12'. Parking 8[e@S must be behind the residential buildings or setback from the public right-of-way. Summary of Proposed Change: Ualley access iSnot feasible, @ longer drive aisle iSneeded tOaccess the parking area. These drive aisles will b8used for traffic and warrant 3 larger driveway width. This Ch@Dg8 8||OvvS applicants to apply for 8D administrative adjustment to increase the [D@XiOOUOO driveway width tO 18' ifspecific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a parking area for 8 building with 3 Or more units and alley access is not feasible. AJ|OYVDQ an administrative adjustment for increased driveway width provides necessary flexibility for developments with three or more units where alley access is not feasible. This change ensures that Cottage COUrt8DdDLherD1U|ti-UOitbUi|diDgtvpeShaV8 adequate access to off-street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design. LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION & CODE CLEAN UP These changes are proposed Nimprove clarity, remove inconsistencies, and streamline the code to ensure easier interpretation and application. Encroachments Into Setbacks (Table 14-2H-2C-6'Table 14-2H-2D-6,Table 14-2H-2E-6' Table 14-2H-2F-6, and Table 14-2H-2G-6) Summary of Existing Code: Architectural features (i.e.eaves, bay windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies) and stairs can encroach into building setbacks 8certain amount depending OOthe zone. Architectural features and stairs can encroach @ maximum Of3'tO5'into side setbacks depending OOthe zone. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the maximum side setback encroachment for architectural features and stairs to align with the reduced side setbacks for all zones. See page This change is required because of the proposed change to the side setbacks /s88 "Minimum Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2||-2[-5 and Table 14- 2H-2[J-5)~above. The proposed change ensures that the maximum allowable encroachment of architectural features and SL@i[S PeRl8iDS proportional to the reduced Side Seth8Ckg aCrOSS all zones. Aligning encroachment limits with the updated setbacks enhances consistency in site planning, simplifies code application, and reduces potential conflicts between neighboring properties. 2. Driveway Curb Width and Curb Cuts (Table14-2H-2C-7, Table 14-2H-2D-7, Table 14- Summary of Existing Code: The current code language only refers 1D"curb cut width". The measurement "curb cut width" is referring to is the width of the driveway. The maximum curb cut width is 12' Summary of Proposed Change: We have found that most code users define "curb cut width" as the width of driveway where it meets the street pavement. For clarity VVe are proposing k}change "curb cut width" k}"driveway width". This standard will b8measured atthe �-----------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | �mW4m ���— — — — — — — —^ ,------------------| | Dw | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----^--- | | ___________] Clarifying the distinction between curb cut width and driveway width ensures consistency in interpretation and application of zoning regulations. This change helps prevent confusion among developers, homeowners, and staff by clearly defining each nle@SUnRDlent's mDl8 in site design. 3. Townhorne Building Type (Table 14-2H-2G-3,14-2H-6K-1, and Table 14-2H-6K-2) Summary of Existing Code: The Townhouse building type ksdescribed @S@"sm8|l-tO-la[g8 sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of three to eight townhouses placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units as allowed bythe zone. ASallowed bythe zone, this type may also be detached with minimal S8p8[8tiODG between buildings. This type is typically |0C8tGd within moderate -to -high intensity neighborhoods O[near @ neighborhood main S{n98t" Summary of Proposed Change: The change simplifies the description h}8Srn8|l-t0-|8rg8 sized, tvniC8|k/ attached, building with @ [ear yard that COOSiStS of two to eight tOvvOhDUs8S placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units as allowed bythe zone. ASallowed bythe zone, the house -scale townhouse type may b8 detached. The simplified description provides a clearer, more concise explanation of the TOvvOhOUse building type, making it easier for stakeholders, including d8v8|Ope[S' St@ff. and residents, to understand the intended use and design characteristics. The update removes the confusion of what minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying that the house -scale Townhouse building type may b8detached and setback from adjacent properties at the minimum setback distance. Adjusting the description to include two townhouses GSthe minimum (rather than three) accommodates smaller -scale developments, which CGO help diversify housing options. The revised description eliminates potential ambiguities about the number Dftownhouses, their configuration, and their placement, ensuring consistency in how the type is interpreted and applied across zones. 4. Neighborhood Plan (14-21-11-11E) Summary of Existing Code: The current code requires an updated Neighborhood Plan to be submitted and approved prior to site plan or building permit approval when any changes to the Neighborhood Plan are requested. Summary of Proposed Change: The proposed change streamlines the process by requiring that all requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan be clearly identified on site plans and building plans instead of requiring the applicant to prepare and submit an updated Neighborhood Plan. City staff will internally update and track changes to the Neighborhood Plan to maintain consistency and accuracy. Justification: The proposed change aims to streamline the development review process while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed. This adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan. Instead, they can focus on the specific modifications relevant to their project, making the process less burdensome and more tailored to individual development needs. This approach supports ongoing development while ensuring that significant changes are still considered, approved, and documented. 5. Architectural Features Definition (14-9A-1) Summary of Existing Code: The current definition for Architectural Features is, "Exterior building elements intended to provide ornamentation to the building massing, including, but not limited to: eaves, cornices, bay windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies". Summary of Proposed Change: Add awnings, belt courses, and chimneys to provide more examples within the definition. Justification: Expanding the definition of Architectural Features to include awnings, belt courses, and chimneys provides greater clarity and consistency in code interpretation. By explicitly listing these common design elements, the update helps ensure predictable application of encroachment standards while reducing ambiguity for developers and staff. 6. Code Cleanup (Table 14-2H-2E-5, Table 14-2H-4E-1, Table 14-21-11-61K-2,14-21HI-8GA, 14- 21-1-913-2, and Table 14-2H-9L-2) Summary of Proposed Change: Several formatting errors were noted as Staff utilized the form -based code. These edits remedy those errors. Justification: The proposed code cleanups, such as removing duplicate words and correcting formatting with superscripts, aim to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and professionalism of the City's Zoning Ordinance. These edits help users interpret requirements without confusion. 19 19 IN ME 114-0111 W-Al 0 1 DIVill -.1 I_JWRR$Q_,T1P 1. Block Size Adjustment (15-3-4A) Summary of Existing Code: Maximum block lengths range from 360' to 500' depending on the zone. With a Pedestrian Passage, the maximum block lengths range from 500' to 800'. The maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,440'to 1,600'. With a pedestrian passage added, the maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,750'to 2,200'. A Pedestrian Passage (see graphic below) allows for greater block lengths and perimeters because they help to maintain VV@|k8bi|it«and connectivity without requiring @ddiUOO@| street infrastructure. Longer blocks can sometimes CFe8tH barriers for pedestrians, Dl8kiDQ it harder to navigate 8 neighborhood efficiently. By inCO[p0[@UDg DOid-b|OSh Pedestrian PG6G@g8. n8Gid8DtG and ViGitO[8 00@iDt@iD direct and convenient walking nDUt8S without the addition of cross streets. Block Perimeter Passige Summary of Proposed Chancle: Allow applicants hJ apply for @n administrative adjustment to the block size standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the block standards is due to at least one of the following special Ci[CUDlSt@nC8S: 1} The adjustment iSneeded tOavoid 8regulated sensitive area. 2) The adjustment isneeded LOreduce the amount Ofgrading needed due k}the property's existing topography. 3\ The adjustment iSneeded because the alignment Vfon0xiSUngStreet0letmuStbe extended creates @ configuration that makes compliance impractical. 4\ The adjustment is needed because the abutting neighborhood is designed with longer blocks that impact the proposed development. The new blocks abutting the existing longer blocks cannot accommodate new streets and pedestrian passages are infeasible. 5) The adjustment isneeded because @ single -loaded street Orpassage has been determined to be UDd88i[@b|8 for the block to protect the sensitive D8tU[8 Of public p8FN@Dd. 8\ The adjustment is needed because visibility and access to public parks, civic uses, and natural open spaces are provided through other means besides Gsingle- loaded street. The areas being developed using the Form -based Code may be directly adjacent to sensitive areas and conventionally zoned development Orhave topographical features that create unique site design constraints. The situations noted in criteria 1-3 are related tOthe need to slightly increase a blocks length to incorporate a sensitive area, topographical feature, 0[tOextend @Dexisting street. There are unique situations where simply expanding ablock past the allowed length isthe most efficient use Ofthe property being developed. The situations noted in criteria 4 -6 relate to when adding a pedestrian passage is not feasible, which iSthe only way block size can be iDC[88S8d using the current code. This is because, tOadd Gpedestrian passage there must be two parallel streets tOconnect to. When a block abuts an existing neighborhood, sensitive park land, or a single -loaded street is not needed only one street will abut the block making pedestrian passageways infeasible as they vvOu|d not lead to @ p@[@||e| street On the other Side of the block. The proposed change tOallow applicants tOrequest 8Dadministrative adjustment to block size standards provides flexibility for addressing unique site -specific constraints while [O@iOt8iOiOg OV8[8|| development quality and compatibility. |0tFOdUCinQ an adjustment process acknowledges that not all development sites are uniform. Factors such 88regulated sensitive areas, existing topography, existing street configurations, and the block size of abutting neighborhoods can present challenges in meeting standard block size requirements. Bvpermitting adjustments incases where block standards would negativelyiOlDGC wetlands, steep slopes, or other sensitive areas, this change supports the City's commitment to eOViPDOUleOt@| stewardship and sustainable development practices. Sites with significant grade Ch8Dg8S or existing infrastructure constraints can also C[88te p[@C1iC@| challenges for meeting block size requirements. A||OVViDg 8diUSiOleOLS provides 8 pathway for developers to design fUDCtiOD8| and efficient projects that work with, rather than 8Q8iDSt' these CODdiUODS. For sites adjacent to sensitive GP8@S' strict adherence tO public access and block size standards can limit development potential or create inefficient layouts. The adjustment process ensures that public access, visibility, and block size standards are not compromised but instead adapted to site -specific needs in a way that aligns with the City's |ODg-tH[0 goals for accessibility, connectivity, and eDvi[OD[D8Dta| preservation. Requiring applicants to demonstrate 8Ke[O8tiVe methods for achieving public access and visibility ensures that adjustments are thoughtfully considered and still fulfill the intended goals Ofthe St8Dd@[dS. For sites abutting neighborhoods VVUheSt8b|ishSdbk}CkSizeSO[StreC|| that differ from the form -based zone standards, this adjustment process ensures new developments integrate seamlessly with existing patterns, preserving neighborhood character and CDDO0CtiVitv. A||OVViOg 8dOliOiSiradiV8 8diUStDl8OiS provides more efficient and predictable review process for developers compared to seeking formal approval via a public process. This pPDnlO[8S hnl8k/ project Gpp[Ov8|3 while maintaining 8 high |8v8| of scrutiny and accountability through clear approval criteria. Asingle-loaded street orpedestrian passage may not always be8desirable way tOachieve DUh|iC @CC86G and visibility to G[8GG as it COU|d invite UOVV3Dted diGtU[h@Oc8 of sensitive parkland. Allowing adjustments ensures that public access and visibility can be achieved while protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Certain developments may require innovative design approaches to achieve access and visibility goals. Administrative 8djUSt[DeOis allow for flexibility in how these OhieCtiV8S are OleL particularly in constrained sites oFsites with unique topography. This change ensures that even if@single-loaded street or passage is not feasible, public access to parks, civic uses, and open spaces can still be maintained through other design solutions, such as easements or view corridors. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendments support several goals from the |C2O3OComprehensive Plan: ° Ensure Gmix Ofhousing types within each neighborhood, iDprovide options for households of all types (singles,families, retirees, etc.) and people of all iDCOFD8S. * Encourage pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, COOv8DieOL and comfortable tDwalk. ° P|GO for CD00e[Ci@| deV8|DpOOeOt in defined CU0DlH[Ci@| OOdeS. including S0@||-SC8|8 neighborhood CO008[CiG| centers. • Support preservation Dfvaluable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street. • Discourage parks that are surrounded byprivate property; encourage development Ofparks with single -loaded street access. |Daddition, the proposed amendments also help tOfurther the form -based land use p8|iCi8S recently incorporated into the South District P|8O (CF^A21-0001)8Od GOUthVV8St District P|GO /CPA22-0002\. Next Steps Pending recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council 0OUSt hold 8public hearing tOconsider the proposed text amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14ZOOiDg be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 1' to 8Dh8OCe land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Attachments 1. Form -Based Code User Guide 2. Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments Approved by: Danielle Sitzm8O,AICP,Development Services Coordinator ATTACHMENT 1 Form -Based Code User Guide I lab a) 0 C: 84� 0 _0 4� 0- 0 E 4� E 0 c: N _0 0 -E 0 a, 0 4H 0 4J 4- 5- a) -0 w -C -mo w -C Ln 0 0 4� 0 a) 0)c vCL m 0 c 0 0 —M a) U c 0 0 5 o 41 c .2 -C > 0 E ED: 0L> H w m CL =3 u E -0 c+� Ln E Ln w 0 ao 0 " -C 4-1 u 0 . aj M O u 0 C , t�o — W 4� 0 Ln :3 0 4-1 0 w m > 0 u C: 'E -C aj -0 m O 4-1 3-C U 0 4� c V) a) 0 Q) 0 0 Ln 4� 1 V� 4" (31 4- 0 0 0 E4� u 4� 0 4� 4� -C ' ao co (A ai >- a) -"e v (U V) c 0 -C 4� 4� N 4- bA -0 0 (U ai 75 tio 4 0) -0 > Q) uo 0 (% 4-1 -C on 0- a) C: " 4� -S•Ea,E 0 Q) E 0 C: 0 0 (U o E -0 u 0 to -0 cu _0 V) m v a41 W -E -0 w E E " I 0 4-1 " w -0 > 0 0 > 0 C) -D 0 U- L.L 0- m OF'/ "/"r ma Allik"O", d" a- C: rH a) Ln Ln Cj U') 6 Ln V) rn tw 0 r6 0 ai CL W co V) V, -0 -0 0 c: a) o V) 0 LO u E 0 4• 0 io 0 0 0 0 E Ln 0 C: E V) to a) c O -0 C) V) V� -0 ac: US E -0 0 0 u ao > r— —0 0 :3 0 -Fu E 0 0 0 .7 CL rL (1) u c 0 aS a) 0 (1) -0 m E -0 0 RIA unI 0 c, "'u, ,U) tl Cqu 1.dNA COMB 0. C, `I* bjlY iry) C? czr q) C _j I'll P is 1 U 5 -In.0 --, o) LF/P Iwo M ONJ) A riiii 6, -li cl u di LU ttd 0 u iiiia It Illlla In, Y! i IWMWOOM77777, f 'to W ... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . IIl is Or 011 01 011 ............ UI Bill/ VIIII MIER, c� M1' rx � t s7 " wpm qq WHOh 4 + s h .fia ue .lrI r NI IUD 11 All M r � Irt 0 4 r W4u A In III A 6 m dfli m dfli fps . . . . . . . . Am 10 ........ .. f, ... . ... . ......... ... ........ . ... .......... . . .. .... .. ......... . .... .. .. . .......... .... . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... . . . ...... . ........... . ---, f lammalyA MIMOSA v al. Iwo jima . ..... ... 10, 6 00 dp is I 11 . .. ......... .......... .......... . OL PeO'H AIlDM04101S % low am Y011 FIN I .......... / . . . . .. .... . .. ......... 0, 0ca w 0 . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..... .. . . . ... . . . .......... 2 t 0 0 XY - o 2 to : � . -. A "D o o - -.p I - - - - - - - - - Qi w r-j w m m amp! o oA m 1EP 7�E E v) 4f M 0 Ln 0 aj E E ou 0 Ll! A 0 u -E cb al u m - =a) u 0 Ln 2 c m t Cr A m =- < aj w m -2 -mL� a) aj 0 w 2 :2 du mr- u < 2 = = z Lm to to x um v 'i 4 - V611fill, , E t -2bD m a E-- 6 Z E w o 4,o N o Ix w m x E m x o 'o o E m E w m O m E cc E 0 0 N rn N of ro m -o E ao a lo E M E x t to 0 o - o co o E o o c ova ai ' cu -6 c o ? u -a o w u ca) =0 0 o> .1 o =o (mu -o o , o �u c o E o a) o t = o .2 t t - - o �f ww "i -w 1 73 - s w� 2 m E o 0 luu m u , c �j 5 m - w a C) C �5 �:: 3 . E w = '- a 1� -f u u 0 0 0 m in c �a a) CL LL v) -- �4 o . ry a m o x -6 0 0 oo 0 0 Qj a o'er Qj N 10, Z%n �n Qj ao (u bn bA . - x a) c aj 2 z w r- 72 v) o 6 o as m E N E m o ro bD u 0 3 E 3:= 46 t al u IM U ate.. 7s o vSF 2 Q, "a _c to bA u Qj r 43 2 to aj 11 0 (A cc il� (A L� Ln m 3 -lu, -- a� Qj ry m So. > in 0 0 L7 0 Am c� E c 0 m 0 m 0 - 0 E E a' u E w -r- 'r- 0 a 0 o 0 c: 0 ' -D -E 0 u r- u 0- < u a- < u CL < w 2! 0 o' - m E ut 0 m m. 'm Vo -o v a 09 won m m LL m -U -7 m - xw 0 0 -2 m o u IM 6 r m w m &� � bLo blD 0 -�5 Imlo m M :� -z 4 :2 S w -f-a m "o I. m o w '0 '0 :2 m 'S C; m lw m < (A " 'n IN V� cc w) a E 0 0 0 0 x m Ln Ln Z,) 60 �rzlj Ln 'r rn x m 2 x m Ln � "n r4 (,4 x m o 7,n '2 'o O DO oo oo z w w Qj b -6 o (D cD Qj tt-- �t Ln r1l ti T Cc, mo w ma', Q E E m MMP 15 E 7 ZD w ZD W 0 a) gm 0 iz t to z w :3 0 0 m m Ln U w aj a) 2 x tw on co . = rx m rl 0 x 3 a 0 u m V V-1 0 0 0 (A ui UO z 00 0 LLJ C: cc LL LU 0 3a. 0 u 0 u 0 a- 0 u a) do u CL 0 0 41 Ln o0 3 m O )^ N u c O o o° - o {ml 4a1 N v m N — L u .,G m io G.- c G. _ y p E N -G ?. c of m o o ;o LL n tLLn o ^ v v L S n E rTo E vs �91 n d o o yN� N L N Gl '4 u oCA N u a N o u m .. n O O in fs0 u m N m O rl n = Q j m C a o °- O O N CJ d -OO -OO 66 .m of m a n. Y u Q 1' G' Z Ln LL to to d` U u 10 v _ � a R, b 5 C C L � O Q tlq 16 E m 4 E p Ew G yv � N ^ lf) rn N c-I pl "I i�),Y( w � ao ✓f � /�/ ,r a / v u a -O ~ oq Zw m - E o qw to o N CO Q. E m O O O C rN = u o O j N O O v y C 1 O w C C m - trvj O m N 00 m LL C _C' "O .Oc O� rC� c c Or. c m O v�i �� r c`n FO- v O O o v W o@ v v E x a a C7 W of ti uI wn - ry c m a x o 0 O m b b S` m M n N loo Ln v u Ou u +� c II O v a o c v N Q n, _ m !p 'O m _ d O �.r't ut h` d - � Y9 � O � Op Ou C G N O G Ch aL- L O LL v) O m U O! O - L O a b0 u v -��" in bA u bA u C cu N o. � c � E i E to in Ln3 Ica -G > a o m -O O ON O N m O m = 0 v v `w E m E u m E u m E u C 7 w w w. m O u u o- u o- W O "CS o Y io a V n`. d Q d o ar 3 v b O v r, o 9 N u ate" vOi N O m , LL m w X �t ,� G o 0 E E O v E 3 0 O ,n 0 X a m = S N C N 'f3 q of ;;T,� w.l, N m N v m u v v O ti ` bLo rOu v v d .O u .t C T y m m e u 0 -0O V .m m O N E 0 C m aj m m =" v u c yj u` N N Vf OG to 1- w Vi ti vv a E x C m Q X M 2 (U (U V) 'E V) 0 0 Ln V) u -0 Ln N Ln r14 N N In ay zn in in bo b b in rlj rn Ln Ln .............. c 'x Ln co lo E rn tfi . .....ti rn x m N N o 2 ri m x Ln � Lq u7 Ln r4 rIj r4 rq rn oo oo oo oo Ln oo ............... Z O 0 0 (D rN Ln ........... ............... LQ cm (D 7. o u') LD Lr) a) o m Q El (A w 0 m S Qj J4 r 0 Z E -m Uo x 3 0 �A tn LA w Qj "a 0 (u m x x ba m = w co M m V 75 3: 0 = 0 u 0 u 0 o 0 E 0 u 0 0 0 0 o o 0 w u E u an -0 W 0 -.ti -0 2 a E E V-1 cv 0 0 0 x a) CL :3 n E Ln cu 0 CL 0 0 wo, M 0 u a) b.0 0 u Zu 2 S -2 ar mc 0 Qj S 0O w C-i 0) m E E Lo Ln 0 (U 80 S -a ,13 0 E CD Qj m 8 L'! u OF Ln m Q, M r- -0 Ql < 0 z rl -0 2 0 0 A 0 Q) V m I u Lon, Lt Z;5 — CC 4 u u 6 Ln "i 0 W 0 7C 0 E 43 x m x E E 2 E m x — 0 = E o mo O m E o E 0 0 E N rn N 0) ro ca I m > M t to 0 0 = co o E o o C cu -0 > a, =0 0 0 :E 0u -0 � 0 (u to 0 jz 0 o E 0 0 0 m E 0 o 4� lu u a) r u u 2 0 0 -0 '-u N E x a 4 (D U. Vf ti u ry c m Ln Ln Lo Ln :3 0 -0 Qj E ai N Qj —0 zn Zn Ln in �n Ln in :"3 cu 2 7agj -0 V) 2 0 -�5 Ecc N X C v E 0 m E a m u 6 � 3: =3 OD 471 -Fo EO poi LM 0 E 'C E E 16 0 IM u LE Vi (U (U Q, "a W 3: 'u IW 'u u Qj E :3 :2 -r,3 E WE C 0 u m cu L, 4t �lz Ln -C 2 E to C r- 0 CC co CO 'm Qj 0 , E E Q' uu E uu 'r 2 0 u ct 0 0 rz u a- < 8 a- < 'r- CL 0 -jz, Q, LL bn -E -c 0 u V m a -0 w m m LL m u 3 :E 0 m x z of = : 0 �: m 0 Qz, E t um 0 o -r- 2 0 -Eo (u w Z - N -r- w o M 0 4 E IM IM u o m > < •i 'n 0 IN V� V CC to m — IIA 0 m E a (ap's) wms o 5 0 0 ar E M Z m y C G C c 4 � m c, a (A m m� G 17/ v _0 vo O V N A c uLn _ O 0v N N O c 3 v) a v o N c O L N N G � a In N N d L � �o L O a v o w iv ti o0 v ° a Q o o i o C O u a 'a - o zn o E E u n O o > 0 u L o in v v cL 2 2i b N o o a ' Ln to a a O c � m a m O c �x O v m I E E E "ono u a L 0 0 a c _= a u�. a N c 0 X m Lf� yr Un o O C lJ� N E o o m o u a`G ram- m m '4 m a o - a -d E a 'I u O O O CDa =O c -o c,� L •• a s o 3 ,? O � O O s ry ry ry ry ,rL„ a w O O O O h S .N-i .~-i A p C 'ON 'c c c O ON o v Om a a�i 'moo 'o a ncn 'o iOp o o � .a 0 b ot� v v 0 01 to ci c-i 4 C C to x N O to � 0 W u Q to v1 W a V UD C _ m a m N 2 C (AN m c X 3 _ 0 0 T 0 m m t ° 3 3 ° u g h ° u u 11 V1 a F W O Q aA h @ Z 00 a w c LL U V w a 3. O Q N v N 4 i d S U O d (U O O u v T O u CL O O ci Zu w OS N > 0 c o v m u c o a— .o uo Qi w N w m M E - m `o ,a 0 .-Eci rvE NLg o aE o v O Qu CF o N m N h Q6 O OO O- N m u Z VN rci cua u O V APR G b � E a E ra l v 16 N y E O O O o N . O v rvX E ,3 E v E E X O. 0 N v E O L bD ° v x �. �� 9 ` O N F a 0 v O O f v o E Lr, o 'I4 m Ir N c-I 4n m 1] 'a C s GIf N t0 CO C � 'a b S u m a '�C, T7 I�, E c 09 to O a tlq !y > E ' .E C m E �o to O O p ON5 v O a O 0 ° c � uwi -6 N O '!:?. O N aL.+ Ol C o o rr� p a �.i�, m c aci m .3 w O uA °: o 0 ,.. O ql W �+ c E q (uO m iz N C s c .oc p -3 E u u O O 4 w T c 97 L FO- u s., p m a+ f6 m CL Q C7 LL M C x m f n o 0 N N N 10 LnnQj wN +, II O 0 a O O c O' — O w _ v -6 E o %n in r r v c a s Y °c° O E 1 s w c u L c -6 C LL In H Q u O p O N .a a g 0 C o a - v 00 u c N E E on OD w Ou C can rLo av+ O _� E w .0 to Y m �'ol' = u d U a " w -o N N EI u 2_ v v a x a � u o a v a v v c Q O a '�" - 09 O O C h i to,_ o E s v 'v a n ._ a n ,_ a n 3 u c c c v m> O a v N -6 -6 v O v ` w E m E u m O E u m O E u C C w v "'.c. �`n `E, '> w '" ,v, 3 a v `° > o O u bGq .� c V a. Q d Q d Q W O Y io o =- �'o 0 U w {.h m ug 3� O b o vcr, o M OL '6 m IJ m +y., N u o a w x a, 6 m 'm m '0 w o a w m = ai v a o e'I� Y O Y m �.,,.' C C CI 'Q v .t GJ m N N m m c O C C u m m w E - V; ? Q `^ %> u`. N N N Vf CC to I Vi ri vvi ": � a E 0 0 rn Ln lo Ln x m O E .............. . 0 m un u7 2 m m m x 5 Q, '123 ,2� ............... ............. 0 Ln 0 DO oo Qj Qj o m 0 cD Ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O rr) mm, Qj O u E L? -% Ln ho [L (u v 0 >- co co 0 x (u bD co 0 0 u u 0 O 0 5 to O CC 2 E Ti Ew "P w lw 0 zn 0 0 E E 0 u lw OQ m 0 u x 0 m V-1 0 0 0 (A ui tio z t10 C: 0 LIJ cc LL LU 0 3. a. 0 C) 0 O : 0 E O-P t 0 0 W 2 S -0 - 0- C. 'o M. w N0) m — --F� , yr In0 o l) W rWU CL M r- V) - 0) .4 -= 0 (i M Ln 0 — - C ,a = 0 E (U E E r o 0 CD QJ i5 0 .0 CFW C, g I u 0 'm m 1M1 Ln A M C W r, A 0 -0 u 0O (u z Lwn L Z;5 6n cc u u Ln a E ' Ei w E x x m E CJ m E x m E cu E cu E c O O o Vo o zn o ro cu on M 0 Sao to cu -6 0 0= =3 >0 2 (U to 0 OS 0 m E luu u u CL LL r, 000 0 Qj C: =3 c N Qj t -0 2 !� b aM 0 a") - bn v 2 7agj -0 -0 C: O 0 c LL V) Qj E cu N 0 0 N-6 -C c 0 0 -E OD 12 E 2 'cu _5 ` Z7 6 on o (lu u 9 2 Q, "a u -E U U I Qj 0 0 ra G c :U3 c =) :E u W to a 0 0 to 3 Ln 3 V) Ln -r- E _0 a, cc in j-� co L� m M Qj -123 46O ta e- 0. i!- 00 i!7 0 0 s m E E u m E 0 m a' E a' u 0 u u a- < -r- a- u -r- u < CL 0 -jz, Q, u V M. ta tll m m u 3 c: 0 Vt i6 a, m LL m z -�; c w x G of :E 0 Zan m 0 c 0 a < E (.A o " kn N Vf aj cc CO F m CC C: w O E alp m 0 0 wy 0 0 0 < < < Vi IO 0 0 0 x m x m Zn c x E 00 CS N x m rn r-A 00 x Lq m M ry) m x -0 oo 0 0 r14 lik Qj 0 oo C :tt .mmmma cell o V) u) C ...... ..... 2t, zn C) 0 Ln 0 txo z co 0 0 co t S m 0 0 U E is 2 o. ra u o o o o w o o uVf ou 2 0 00 a) u m 0 0 n m u 4. :3 0 u p 0 LL VINI/I If! lul0l0l)` E 0 0 Ln Ln m 0 c 0 cu zn zn m cu CL x cli N m E -ai to 0 LI) a N Lr) Ln Ln u) u -Zt — C Lr) Ln Qj 'D *5 �o C4 (u M r4 v) In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln zn zn ro zn in in ZD ZD fli N -b Z . c - I A lu L _0 ll� 2 - - �- a 0 -m x - E v 2 2 t E .0 rn rl 0 w CC, w 0 -9 cu to cc w bo - u w u Z cr t 0 M, o 0 > W 0 0 0 0 Z, zi, u �u Z aj o z 0 -E E E o t 0 - t�' mo c —0 0 0 w 0 21 w o ' 8 O 8 E LI) Lf) 0 0 0 C 0 C) �T Lt) 1;31 Ict �T Lr) Lt) Lr) Cc) c x c x m m zn �m k zo Lt) m et ry) C) 0 C) 0 c m m x m (N rq 'D r4 -ID 12 .Y Y C 4'L 4Z rn r, CD 00 a c x m Lr) Lr) V) Ln Ln "i U� Ln 1� LnLq r-4 r�4 N N rq r-4 N M N M rn x m E E- . 2 (Y) ry) ............... 00 0 w w w w w w w 0 Lr) r4 cD 7i ZD ZD O O ZD ZD b O 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 r4 CD c m Ln W C zr) zn Zn b 0 C4 Ln 0 ZD C ZD 0 b rn 0 U) 0 Ln 'T3 r-4 4 ......... . —, IQ 1�1 u 0 U') 00 ZD Ln 0 Ln Lo Ln Lo Ln (n rl > tn Q. < < Qj al z < < < U Jc IA z < < < ol C, E < < Q < < tic 2 O m to u m E (A CL m w•co 0) m a(9 E 4A to J O co co 0 E in vi x x T x x 0) 0. 06 m m fA (U W a m t t CL :3 to 0 x 0 :c 0 In 0 u 0 0 2 2 0 u 0 u 2 u L ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments DRAFT ZONING CODE TEXT A. Amend 14-2H-1E'Neighborhood P|@D'bv8ddiDQUleUOdediDedt8xt: E. Neighborhood Plan: 1. The Neighborhood P|an,SUb[nittedaS8D8CCOr0p8 ingdOCUnn8ntvvithih8Dn@|ok3'8USU[8S compliance with the standards in this Article. It shall substantially conform LOthe Future Land Use Map included iDthe Comprehensive Plan and District Plan, @Sapplicable. 2. The Neighborhood Plan shall include the following components in plan view on application forms provided by the department, along with any additional information as requested by the City: @. Identify all applicable Form -Based Zones, lots, and design sites. b. Identify all proposed building types pursuant tOsection (Building Type Standards) and proposed frontage types pursuant iOsection (F[OOt@geS)for each lot and/or design site. C. Apply thoroughfares in an in[GrCDnDeCi8d D8bwO[k and identify proposed thO[OUghh@[e types pursuant to SeC1iODS (Thoroughfare Type Standards) and (Streets And Ci[CU|8bOD\. including all proposed passages ( and/or alleys / K\. d. Identify OaiU[8| open 8p8C8 and civic space types pursuant to section (Civic Space Type Standards) and delineate all proposed bUi|diDQS' paved GFe@S, trees, 8Od/O[ landscaping iOcivic spaces. e. Identify all CDOO8{tiODS to existing streets and Sidevv8|kS and |OtS and design sites On 8di@C8Ot properties in COnfD[[D8DCe with b|OCh St8Od@ndS pursuant to section (Layout Of 0|DCkS And Lots). 3. FO||OvviDg adoption of the final plat, the fO||OvviDg changes LO the Neighborhood P|8D may be 8dnliOiSLr8Liv8|y approved concurrently with building permit or site p|8O review. od Plan —'-,-----�,—''-r�-'— 8. Substituting one building type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the requirements of sections (Zones) and (Building Type Standards) and where the change dO8S not limit the �bi|itv Of0LhG[ |OtS and/or design sites OD the block to change or maintain their building type. b. Substituting One frontage type for another where the lot and/or design Site meets the [8qUi[808OLS OfS8CUOO (Frontage Type St8Dd8[dS\ and where the change dOBS not limit the ability of other lots and/or design Sii8S on the block to change or maintain their frontage type. C. SUbSbiUdOg one civic space type for @DOth8[, including changes to the design of said civic spaces, vvh8nS the civic space type meets the requirements of section (Civic Space Type Standards). d. Ch8OyiDQ the DUDlbe[' Size' and |@yDUt of design sites within @ single lot where all modified design sites meet the Size and shape [eqUin8Ol8DLS of section (Zones). (Ord. 21- 4800' 11-10-2021) B. ADl8Od Table 14-2||-2C-3' Building Types, bvdeleting the StrikethnDUghtext and adding the UOdBdiO8d Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (13) Standards Cottage Court 90'min.1 120'min.2 14-21-1-61-1 120' max. 200' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-21-1-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25'total. 3 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. C. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)', 2 (F) Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 25'min.; 35'max. 25'min.; 35'max. Side Street (Facade Zone)' 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 20'min.; 25'max. (G) 20' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)�$ 4-0 a' min. (1) 5'min. (J) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 25' min. (K) 5'min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 50% min. 40% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5'from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3accessory structures used for parkina. D. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-8,Encroachments Into Setbacks, hvdeleting the SthkethPOUQhtext and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. E. Amend 14-2H-2C-8, EOC[OGCh[DeOtS Into Setbacks, by [eDlOViDg the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: ['----------F�--��---']--------�—` | min Mim Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key — ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area ftlildin2_�back���� = 3 �j j�I jai j — Min, Min, Mi" -;T T Street (Front: Narrowest Side) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Key ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area Building Setback Line Frontage Type M F. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' House large All other building types 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) 50' min. (R) Side Street 20' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Gwb-Gut Driveway Width 12' max .2 (V) Distance between driveways 40 20, min. (W) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 4 (3) Porte-coch6re allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Curb -CA Q�rivewidth along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. G. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: House small 50'min.1 100'min .2 14-2H-6E 75'max. 180'max. Duplex side -by- 60'min.1 100'min .2 14-2H-6F sides 75'max. 180'max. Duplex stacked 50'min.1 100'min. 2 14-2H-6G 70'max. 180'max. Cottage court 90'min.1 120'min. 2 14-2H-6H 120' max. -1-90 200' max. Multiplex small 70'min.1 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150'max. Townhouses 25'min.3 100'min .2 14-2H-6K 125' max.4 1801 max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 3 townhouses &ide-by-sjd9--9r-a#aGhf,4-. 5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. H. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)' 2 (F) Interior Design Site 20'min.; 30'max. Corner Design Site 20'min.; 30'max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building 15' min.; 25'max. (G) Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building 7 5' min. (1) Accessory Structure(s)l 5'min. (J) Rear Primary Building 25' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5'min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 60% min. Side Street 50% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5'from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). �� For Du lex Side-B -Side and Attached Townhouses no side setback is re aired for accessory structures used for parkina. I. Amend Table 14-21-1-21D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3'max. 3'max. 5 3' max. 5'max. Stairs X Tmax. 2' max. 5'max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 114-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. J. Amend 14-2H-2D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: r--- 0--n r ----n milt Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key - . - -- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area Building Setback Line r------ 1 min. Mir 0-4.1 ..1( Mim Street (Front: Narrowest Side) ............... ............................................................................................................................................... Key ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area Building Setback Line Frontage Type z M M K. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): 7 Front' House small All other building types 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) 40' min. (R) Side Street 15' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Gu-rb--G-ut QE!yewa Width 12' max.2 (V) Distance between driveways 40 20, min. (W) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-coch6re allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) GLtrb-Cut Drivewa width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. L. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: Cottage court 90'min.1 120' max. 120'min .2 490 200' max. 14-2H-6H Multiplex small 70'min.1 100' max. 110' min .2 150'max. 14-2H-61 Courtyard building small 100' min. 1 130' max.` 150'min. 2 180'max. 14-2H-6L b. Block -Scale Townhouses 18' mina 160' max.` 100'min .2 180' max. 14-2H-6K Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (c) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (d) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses &ide4aym-skk,�ach-ed. 5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. M. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)' 2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 30'max. (F) 15' min.; 30'max. Side Street (Facade Zone)l 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25'max. LQ 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)-3 5' min. (G.) fD 3' min. (H) L11 Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (f) LKJ 5' min. O-qL) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 65% min. (K) 55% min (-L-) c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section .1..4.. ..-.. I.1..1-.7 (Architectural Element Standards). ... If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type btract ubtract 5' from required setback. 4-21-L. 9 su 19, 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section ')4—l2—H---(Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached TownhOUses, no side setback is required for accessoryjitructures used for arkin .. N. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. [). Amend 14-2H-2E-8. EOCFO8ChDlHOtS Into Setbacks, by PeDlOVOg the image with [8d border and adding the image with the no border: � F--------- ` . | . | . | . ' . ' | . . ' | | . �min, . . . || | F---�— ---------- Street (Fw^t:Narrowest Side) Key --- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line = 10 � � [---------- | | | . | . | | | . | . | . ' . . . ' � | . . ' | | . �min, . . . || . �--'----� � | . � �------� �| . � | �-----� � l . �F---�— ---------- Street (Fmnt:Narrowest Side) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key -��-ROW Design Site Line Parking Area - , Building Setback Line ° P. Amend Table 14-2||-2E-7,Parking, bvdeleting the sihke1hn]Ughtext and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Side Street 15' min. (R) c. Characteristics: d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14­2H­6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-coch6re allowed if integrated into building facade. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 11 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. Q. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: Multiplex large 75'min.1 130'min .2 14-2H-6J 100' max. 150'max. Courtyard building 100' min.' 150'min .2 14-2H-6L small 130' max. 180'max. b. Block -Scale Townhouse6 18' min. 3 100' min. 2 14-2H-6K 160' max. 4,5 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses side -by 44e-or-attaGhed. 5 In the open sub -zone, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 6 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. R. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)', 2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 25'max. (F) 15' min.; 25'max. Side Street (Facade Zone)' 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25'max.(G) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)3 5'min. (1) 3' min. (J) 12 Rear Primary Building 15' min. (K) Accessory Structure(s) 5'min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front 65% min. (K) Side Street 55% min (L) c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5'from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is re aired for accessor structures used for S. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5'max. Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' max. 5'max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 114-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. T. Amend 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 13 I r-----i 1 04. L,---- 11 I IL — — — — — IL — — — — -- i Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -, - - ROW Design Site Line Parking Area I Building Setback Line 4-n r-- —­i min, mim ' 11 IL ----- I IL ------ J Street (Front: Narrowest Side) .................................................................................... Key I- I I - ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area I Building Setback Line z 72 M Pd U. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 2,000 sf. > 2,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 2,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): 14 Side Street 15' min. (R) c. Characteristics: d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-coch6re allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) Gufla-Gut Drive idth along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2'planting strip on each side. V. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-3'Building Types, hvdeleting the strik8th[OUghtext and adding the underlined Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. Block -Scale: 1-2 large 150' max. 200'max. �4) IMin. depth may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts a new civic space 21-[-.5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.R+Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25'total. 1- 2 Represents 1 townhouse. 34 Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 4 1. For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. W. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-5' Building Placement, bwdeleting the Striheth[OUQhtext and adding the underlined text: 15 a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone) Corner Design Site O'min.; 10'max. Side Street (Facade Zone) Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) O'min.; 10'max.(G) O'min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) O'min. (1) Tmin. (J) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (K) 5'min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of Front Side Street 80% min. 70% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Utility easements requiring in alley as identified by the applicable abutting 1 For Duplex Side-Bv-Side and Attached TownhWses, no side setback is required for X. Amend Table 14-2||-2G-O.Encroachments Into Setbacks, bvdeleting the Sthkethn}uAhtext and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. 16 Y. Amend 14-2H-2G-8. EnCn]GChnnentS Into S8tb@CkS, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key .... - ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area - Building Setback Line 72 qj m M Z. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-7'Parking, hvdeleting the 8ihk8thn3Ughtext and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 max. per unit 1.5 max. per unit Non -Residential Uses 17 > 5,000 sf. 2 max./1,000 sf. after first 5,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 75' from front > 75' from front (R) 25' min. (S) 5' min. Side 0' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Q.+rb-GLA Driveway Width 12'max.2 (V) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) GL*b-Gut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (4) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. With 2' planting strip on each side. AA.Amend Table 14-2H-4E-1, Adjustments to Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Table 14-2H-4E-1: Adjustments to Standards Eligible Standards and Required Findings Adjustment/Amount Allowed Adjustments of Adjustment Design Site Design Site Dimensions (Depth/Width) Decrease in the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. required or increase the an existing feature including, but not maximum allowed. limited, to a tree or utility; and 2 An existing or new design site can still be developed in compliance with the standards of the zone. Increase the maximum 1 Demonstrates that one or more Of No Limit allowed. the following special circumstances appjylo the propertv, which make it a. The ad'ustmerk is needed to avoid a re elated sensitive area. b. The adjustmenk is needed to reduce the amount oLg[g!;iM 18 needed due to the ro ert 's existih_q tg or ra ph . C. The all nment of ail exlstVri street that must be extended creates a conflc�uh°atlon that makes com fiance impractical due to irreciularlv shaped blocks. d. Corner desi n sites within non-rectanc ular blocks see figure below . Add tMonA Width : with d dfustrxte nt � :; „ Max. Wtldtbh 2 The buildin s com lies with the setbacks of the zone. 3 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surround in ne'i hborhood. Building Setbacks F-a Build�Within Facade Zone Reduction of the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 20% of the standard. amount of faGade building an existing feature including, but not required within the facade limited, to a tree or utility. zone. 2 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. Building Footprint Size of Main Body or Wing(s) Increase in the allowed 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. length or width. an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 The wing(s) maintains the required 5' offset from the main body. 3 The building complies with the setbacks of the zone. 4 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. 19 Parking LG �--4o-p Front Setback! Reduction in the required 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. parking setback. an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 If accessed from the street, the driveway complies with the Form - Based Zone standards. 3 The ground floor space is in compliance with the Form -Based Zone standards. Characteristics Increase in drivewav width 1 The ad . Ustment is needed to Up to 18'drivewav width building with 3 or more units. 2 NLqyaccess is not feasible. Screening Maximum Screening Height Increase in the total height 1 There will be little or no impact on Up to 33% of the standard. of screens and the retaining the adjoining properties or the walls that they are mounted surrounding neighborhood. on or attached to beyond 6'. 2 The height is necessary to achieve the objectives of this sub- section or is required for health and safety. Affordable Housing Zones 1L-2) _1 ----- Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building type design site minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing depth may be adjusted by un itS.2 up to 15"; or 2 The adjustment fits the Building type design site characteristics of the site and the width may be adjusted by up surrounding neighborhood. to 15%; or 3 The adjustment is consistent with Minimum amount of faGade, the intent of the standard building required within the being adjusted and the goals of the facade zone may be Comprehensive and District Plans. reduced by up to 20%. Building Type Standards Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building main body and wing minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing standards may un itS.2 be adjusted by up to 15%; or 2 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the Maximum building height surrounding neighborhood. may be increased by up to 3 The adjustment is consistent with 0.5 stories.' the intent and the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans. 20 Additional Minor Adjustments Select an additional The Affordable Housing units are An additional minor adjustment each for income restricted to households minor adjustment to each of the two sets of making 50% or less of the Area the minor adjustments for Median Income.2 minor adjustments described affordable housing for Affordable Housing described above. I I above. In compliance with section '14-0-1-8 (Frontage Standards). In compliance with section 14-2H.-J.0 (Affordable Housing Incentives). .............................................. This may be combined with other reductions in section 14-21-J-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25'. 4 With this adjustment, the building height may exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in item 4a (Building Form; Height) of section 14­21J,-.2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 51 BB.Amend Table 14-2H-6D-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE Max. number of stories 2.5 b. Main Body': Width 55'max. (A) Depth2 55' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 20 24' max. (C) Depth 20 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min.3,141 (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Exce t at a corner of two uiVdin faces where neither of those faces front_a �ublic 21 � LLq�ht-of-w�ath�enthe minimum is �9. CC. Amend Table 14-2H-6E-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: Max. number of stories T31NIG 2.5 b. Main Body': Width 35'max. (A) Depth2 45'max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 2-0 24'max. (C) Depth 2-0 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15'min. Offset from main body 5' min.1-1. (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. Ece t at a corner of two buiidin faces where neither of those faces front Apubfic, riqht-of-wav, then the minimurn is 0'. DID. Amend Table 14-2H-6F-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE T3NG Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5 b. Main Body': Width2 48' max. (A) Depth2 �1_4 40'max. (B) c. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 22 (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When units are rear loaded and onIv one story in heiaht, the max. main bodv w�dth MAy be increased to 60'.. 3 When units are rear loaded and mav be increased to 70'. When Dorch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excludin EE.AnlendTable 14-2H-0G-3.Building Size and Massing, bvdeleting the Sthke{hp0ughtext and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NG Max. number of stories 2.5 Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min.14 (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for Parkinq, front parkinq setback shall comr)lv with standards in jLem 7�Farkinc of the zone. 23 FF. Amend Table 14-2H-6H-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE T3NG T4NS Max. number of stories 1.5 1.5 1.5 Max. height to mid- point of roof 18' 18' 18' b. Main Body': All Cottages Width 32'max. (A) Depth2 24 30'max. (B) Most Rear Cottage Width 40'max. (C) Depth 24 30'max. (D) Separation between cottages 10' min. (E) c. Standards. (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub -section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a orch is deli ned to extend the full width of the front facade (e-11 lrl;nn araqes), the maximum maven b�de�th may be increased b 5", GG. Amend 14-2H-6K-1, Description, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. A small -to -large sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of three-(-X) two ZLto eight (8) townhouses placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one (1) unit or, up to three (3) stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this the house -scale townhouse type may also be detached M-h-miniar-afiens--betweeR-bufldings. Tl-*s-type-is-typiGa4ly,-4GGated -W-t-hip HH. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-2, Number of Units, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Units per primary building 1 max. 3 max. in T4NM-0; T41VIS Primary buildings per design site 1 max. House -scale building,-: attached -- 2 townhouses min. 3 townhouses max.detached — 2 townhouses minimum T3NE X T3NG A T4NS X T4NM X 24 T41VIS X Block -scale building-,: attached — 4 townhouses min, 8 townhouses max. -pef-row, T3NE X T3NG X T4NS A T4NM I A T41VIS I A Key: A = Allowed X = Not Allowed 11. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NG T4NS T4NM T41VIS Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 b. Main Bodyi: Width 18'min.; 30'max. (A) Depth 2 50' max. (B) Max. width per building 90, 120' 4-00160' 200' (C) c. Wing(s)': Width 15' max. (D) Depth 15' max. (E) Separation between wings 8'min. (F) c. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub -section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) In T4NM-0 and T4MS, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. No separation is re aired for win s used for n when entireV behind attached townhomes. JJ. Amend 14-2H-7B-2b, General Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: b. Ground floor glazing on residential buildings shall be thirty fifteen percent (30 15%) minimum with a minimum of one (1) window on the around floor of each buiidina elevation -and -on, Attached garages are excluded from this standard and calculation. Ground floor aiazing on shopfronts; shall be seventy- five percent (75%) minimum. 25 KK.A08Od14-2H-8C-1,Description, bvremoving the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Setback R0VV ILL. Amend Table 14-2N-8C-2.Size, bvdeleting the S[hkethnOughtext and adding the underlined text: Height, Clear 8'min. (C) Stories 2 stories max.1 Pedestrian Access Width Tmin. (D) 26 Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 21-1-9). (E) 1 Glear-width Width reduce to 8'when applied to Cottage Court (14-21-1-61-1) building type. Story height maximum reduced to 1 story. MM. Amend 14-2H-8D-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Setback ROW Street NN. Amend Table 14-2H-8D-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: � Width-;--GL-a-F 1 -1-5 121 min. (A) 27 Depth; -4)v9r-a4 (B) 4-ro-pi--average-fin- i4i-qrade FIMFI.. E-4evat-ed-421'--fFopi-rage-.fin' 4-grade 6'min . Height, Clear 8'min. (C) Stories 2 stories max. Pedestrian Access Width Tmin. (D) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 21-1-9). (E) Encroachment Area of Building Facade Depth 6'max. (F) Width 1/3 min. of overall building facade' (G) May not exceed porch clear width ( (A) ) 00. Amend 14-2H-8E-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 28 Setback ROW street Key - - - - ROW/ Design site Line Setback Line Setback ROW MM PP.Amend Table 14-2H-8E-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Depth,--Glea-r 10' min. 1 (A) Length 15' min. (B) Dint nGa_between-g4aziwng 4LR4a*,--(.G,) Depth of recessed entries - 4-2! 3' max. (D-YLQ Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (E-) LQ) Height of dooryard fence/wall above finish level 36" max. (F-) LE) I Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (G) 1 Reduce to 8'when applied to Cottage Court (14-2H-6H) building type. QQ. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Description: The main facade of the building is near the front design site line with steps to an elevated entry. The stoop is elevated above the sidewalk to provide privacy along the sidewalk -facing rooms. ta_0&-9r-famps4rGrfi-4b", oop m -ay .l dig tly to the td lk-Gr-4-Ray- be-iaar-allel -tG4 RR. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 29 Soback ROW Street Key - - - ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Seibm k ROW stleet SS.Amend Table 14-2H-8F-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width-,--Qaa-r- 5' min. (A) Depth; Aglear 3' min. (B) Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 1 story max. Finish level above Gi4awalk gayvge[raqgg_finished 9E299-9LOn fronts e 12" min. (D) Depth of recessed entries 4-2—" 3' max. (E) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (F) TT. Amend 14-2H-8G-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 30 I Setback ROW stleet Key - .- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Setback ROW Street UU. Amend Table 14-2H-8G-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width-,-C� 15' min. (A) Depth Clear- 15' min. (B) Ratio, height to width 2:1 max. (C) Height from sidewalk 12" max. (D) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (E) VV.Amend 14-2H-9B-3, Miscellaneous, by adding the underlined text: 3. Miscellaneous: a. Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building facade. b. Ramps shall be parallel to facade or along the side of the building. 31 LC._SSlooedd walkkwa shall conng!qt to the ublic sidewalk or drivewa . G. d. Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements. d-: e. Gates are not allowed. e, f. All doors shall face the street. WW. Amend 14-2H-9B-2, by adding the underlined text: 1. The individual standards of each thoroughfare type in this section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision process. In considering adjustments, the Director of Public Works and the Director of NeigbtgEhood and Develo ment Services shall find that the proposed adjustment meets the following criteria: XX.Amend Table 14-2H-9L-2, Overall Widths, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Widths: ROW Width 2 0' (A) Pavement Width 10' (B) b. Additional Standards: (1) Side/front street adjoining design sites to comply with section 14-2H- 9 (Frontage Standards). (2) Pedestrians share 10' section with bicycles. (3) See sub -section 14-2H-6J51 (Passage) for additional standards. (4) Passage shall be open to the public at all times. YY.Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, by adding the underlined text: ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Exterior building elements intended to provide ornamentation to the building massing, including, but not limited to: 1-ight-fktuf&&,--GaRepies,-are 4ba[Genie&.-awnir)qs, balconies, bay windows, belt COUrses, caagpies, windows and door surrounds. T-QWP4H0USE­.�--A#aGhed s e-fan44y dwel4pgs--GGRtai-Riog--not4ess--t4a- st4b-,c,ec4i,en44-2-H-6K+T-ew-R.hG�e)-. DRAFT LAND SUBDIVISIONS CODE TEXT ZZ. Amend 15-3-4A, Blocks, by adding the underlined text: A. Blocks: 1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient and logical routes between residences and nonresidential destinations and public gathering places. 2. Block Lengths: 32 @. Except as required by Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones And Standards), to provide multiple travel routes within and between neighborhoods, block faces along local and collector streets should range between three hundred (3O0)and six hundred feet /6DO'\iOlength and for [8SideO[i@| subdivisions have 8 width sufficient to accommodate two (2) tiers of lots. Longer block faces may be 8||Ovv8d in C@S8S of large |0t CO[OrDe[Ci3|' industrial, Or rU[@| [8SidROU@| development, 0[where topography, water features, O[existing development prevents shorter block lengths, although 0idbl0Ck pedestrian connections may be required (Gee section 15-3-3 of this chapter). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline. b. Where the area iSsubject t0Article 14-2H/FDrm-B8G9dZones And St8nd8rdS\.the block network shall substantially comply with the Form -Based Code Future Land Use K48p in the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the following standards: (1)Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall comply with the standards iD Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Gt8Od8ndS\.Where 8block contains multiple Form -Based Zones, the most intense zone iStObeused |Oestablish the standards for block size. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed length if@compliant passage (14-2H-AL)iS provided tObreak Upthe block. Table 15-3-4A-1: Block Size Standards Zone Length (max.) Length (max.) With Passage' Perimeter Length Perimeter Length With 1 in compliance with the standards for a passage in sub -section 14-2H-9L (Passage). 2 A criteria and stments contained in 15-3-4A-5. (2)Blocks shall be8minimum width toresult iOtwo (2) halves of developable design sites iD compliance with the minimum design Sit8de[thS18Od8ndS0fUl8GUOwedbUi|diDgtvoeaiD the Form -Based Zone. When the zone has 8range Ofminimum design site depths, the applicant may show the shortest minimum design site depth with an acknowledgement that the S8|eC[ed depth may not accommodate the full [8DgB of building b/p8S 8||UVVed by the zone. AsiOg|e half is @||Ovved when adjoining an existing half -block. (3) The size, shape, length, |OC8tiOO. and design Of b|OCkS may vary from the Future Land Use Map where required tOaccommodate sensitive areas, O[where the variation complies maintains street connectivity, complies with Table 15-3-4A-1 /B|0Ck Size St8Od8PdS, minimizes changes tDForm-Based Zones Oneach block, and adjusts all blocks affected by the proposed change(s). Where this affects the location, shape, or design of civic Sp8Ce. the Vari@UOO Sh8|| OO8iDt8iO civic space of SiOli|a[ size in B OB@[by |OC8tiOO within the subdivision. 3. Block faces 8|OOg arterial SiFeStS Sh0U|d be at least six hundred feet /800'\ in length. Intersecting collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adequate connectivity between neighborhoods, but also nO@iDt@iOS the C@p@Citv of the street for the SGf8 and efficient Ol0v8Dl8Dt of traffic. LODg8[ block faces may be required @|ODg high capacity or higher speed @rt8[i@| StF88tS where the interests in moving traffic outweigh the connectivity between areas of development. The City may approve shorter block faces in high density COOnOle[Ci@| 8[8@S 0Fother areas with high pedestrian counts. 4. CU|-de-SBCSmay not exceed nine hundred feet (8OO')iOlength. The length Of8CU|-dC-S8Cis Ole@SU[8d from the centerline of the street from which it CODlDleOCeS to the center Ofthe bulb. 5. Acjrustments to Block Size Standards 33 The individual standards of each zone in this section ma be ad"pasted as art of the subdivision rocess. In considerinc an ustment, the Director of Neiahborhood and Development Services shall find that the Dr000sed adiustment meets the followinq criteria: Demonstrates that one or more of thgjgt!pwin s ecial cir°cumstances a l to the ro ert whuch make it im tactical to corn I with e block size standards: 1. The adjustment is needed to avoid re uVated sensitive area, 2. The adiustment is needed to reduce the amount of ( radinrl needed due to the pEqpLrty's exisfingtop Aofgp . 3. The adjustment is needed because tl7e ali nrnent of an existin street that rnust be j extended creates a confi oration that snakes corn giance irra tactical. 4. The adjustment Vs needed because the abut!tLq_Liethborhood is deli ned with Ion r blocks that impact the proposed develoment. The new blocks abuttinq the existinlone er blocks cannot accommodate new streets and edestrian ease es are infeasible. 5. The ad as been deterrntned to be undesirable for the block to Drotect the sensitive nature of r)ubfic 2q[Kand. 6, The adjustment is needed because and natural open spaces are Drovided throe other means besides a sin le -loaded street. The adjustment wilQ not be detrimental 'to tle ubQVc health safet or weVfare r be injurious to other ro err car tm rovements in the vicinit and in he zone in which the ro err is located. The adjustment re nested is in conformtt with the intent and ear ose of tyre re elation modified. k4� cable statutes, ordinances, laws, and EgggLa!� 34 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: February 28.2025 TO: P|8DOiDg &ZODiDg CDDlnOiSSiOO From: Anne RUSSett,Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Update on Comprehensive Plan Update & Steering Committee Introduction At the Commission's February 19'2O25meeting, Commissioner Craig requested and 8Dupdate on the COrDpF8h8OSiv8 Plan UDd8i8, as well 85 8 |iSi Of those nlen0b8[s OO the Steering Committee. Comprehensive Plan Update The Steering Committee met for the first time onJanuary 22'2O25.Ajthis meeting, the consultant Ke80 presented the slides provided in AU8ChnOeDt 1. The presentation covered the project schedule, what 3 CODlpF8h8DSive p|8D is and hOVV it differs from zoning and subdivision regulations. A portion of the meeting was used to obtain feedback from the Steering Committee through 8 series Of visioning qUeSiiODS. The qUeS[iDDS and neSpOO8eg from the Steering Committee are also provided iOAttachment 1. Attachment is list Ofthe Steering Committee members. |Dcreating this committee, staff aimed to create 8 membership that was diverse in he0OS Ofpolicy areas and expertise, race, ethnicity, and gender. Next Steps The consultant team is currently working OD an existing COOdUk]DS 8D8lySiS. which iDVDk/eS the dOCUrOeDtatiOD Of deOlUQ[8phiC and gOCD-eCODODliC [neDdS in 8 [D8DDe[ that can be easily understood bymembers Ofthe community. The analysis will cover population trends, summarize |@Od use p8Ue[OS' and diSCUSS issues related to hOUSiDg, eC0OOOliC development, and transportation. This 8O8|ySiS will be presented LO the Steering Committee at their 0efHiDQ OO March 10' 2025 and OD May G' 2025 at 4 PM at @ joint meeting of the P|8DOiDQ and Zoning Commission and City Council. Attachments 1.Gteehng Committee Presentation & Meeting Results, January 22,2025 Meeting 2. List 0fSteering Committee Members Approved by: Department DfNeighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Steering Committee Presentation & Meeting Results January 22, 2025 Meeting SRI 0 I 00% NOWSUM own[ \\\ 0000 000, OM, ,E w E L'o 10 0 Q) c u (N Ld (-\,I . .. . .. ... . 1%, Lmi L. \ � C / o 0 ,,,, �/9/� � �,, e ,,i` 1 ii,�'� �1Giii rfylr�f i��,rf/�j/ �riji��ji, �, ���` o �� i r � �`� 10 > >1 ,E E im (1) E Lm 0 lu u i(D lu 14) E DOM 0 1> w M, MEM= 0 m lim I_ Lm LM 10 0 0 1 mm �r Inc =C i L y. L i m 0 0) trM 0 14 �p 3 E Wire CL J 0 r••�y W C 0 ol CD I. E QU 4-5 im LO (D 0 Cy (o Vj, Ln CD (D 4-N L) 0 2 n. (D + (3 i4j, C CD V) cn Ull A 0, �E (D (D LU *NMI cl, + C. AwW cl cmm - CL L�n 42 Ln (j LLJ �U ca L- Ljwwjl '-s- 0 4-1 ur), 4--j :D Ll D QW. D El CL (D 5 (D 0 Ol 4,Jl 2 E m E E E m E c) 4-1 4--J (JI ICL Noun' solos son", 508,85, 1 So is 0 .7 E E 0 ol D, E U) 7-) ago", C C - I rrj� A-:�� M 11 > (A, —5 0 + >)i C 0, 10 omm 0 0 (.nl o 0 M, cri 16,11.1 a 11 F-) -,0 LL C c C m mo m) M v) ro n 13 (cl, ru o 0 -, a, 121 a 0. 1 c ul) ol Ic- 10 M, 1+ rL c (D Ull T loom mi U) u E wmwm� IM IC (o E Omni LL — Cl. C�f 0 U Ln M Ul D w �E:. rE ('0 al, i,-Ij LEI X 0. ("Dry A C.) C, 0 "q 0 d aN AM �Jl I I'll, u 17, �z In ... .. I ... Ij 1 J o t i, I If') rIB LO m C m 4-J :D 0 c M, D CL —0 > w, Q- C (D U) 0 4-J .0 CL > 4-J 0 E 0, T) ul 0 c 4-J :3 U r LL U) c (1) U 10 4-d Ulf E ,o 0 Chi (71 >) 0 Ln Ln L;-- U) >1 C (D 4--J D 0 NNW m 0 u CL o E ®' 0 ul womm Immo > Q) (n x M, C: DOW CL xL- u E 4-d 0 ip 0 "s 0 (n lu ol C: E 0 ro LA o lu m (1) Dow QL C: Z T- T N,lF- Ln m m o u >r N o0 ui C: C: a) 0 > (n C > E 0, m 2 U 4-J m C: L- (D i(D, 0 CLI S 0 E E ol o N 4 U OS- 4 ME -U, -1 m C: C, 0 -0 ul M a) E > "I I C: 4-) Ul I_ I— — u E 4- - � 3: m 1 laC 0) U) I(D 0 0 c: a) c (D IC U) 0) 0 0, M C C), N 1 -0 (-,n— -C I -C — N Im 4-Jl M Miles; >) 4 C: U Q > C CX3 4-J rD TD 0 r.- CO Q) 71 --j C: TE E uj 4-d c Q) E 75 LIJ (.7 Ull cl C: 4-J < m % u E V) Ul ul C (T3 (,D U U (4- 0 0 > Ur) 4--) u :73 C C7 0, E L'I p Q) U C t E V) E 4— M 0 , Jo M (TJ C. 0 M, "r7 U' >) (D V) (a) U C > m (D 0 L4-- "E m 0 U E -'C (Tj 4— 4—J 0 Lo m (D *j >) -C m 0 -C ol U 4-J C 0 (D T) ol u �4- E j, 14-. 0 0) 0 U m S: M 4-J 4- 4-J 0 > (D �E 4--d +-J Ll C. 'E Ln 0 4-d a) 0 CrL 4-h LA C E > �E Ln .3 0 U > > 4,-J Ln ti f 73 +J :D, 'ri x m M m 13 4-P Ti, J. 0 7C3 m > (D 4 p., r2 U (d C: > M r C) ro C: 0 ICL 0 c > c 0 b 10) C) c') c C)l, cy) u Im, i'D E 4-1 �,n 0 0 0 0 ".D 10 'o �ol U) I �-j aj r u IU 0 (n E C.. C 0 IU Q) 4�J rm 4- 0 0 U m 0 10) 0 0LL 0 711 u 4J 0 D (z M, Jc fJ u CD 4-� CD m 4-1 0 tn 4.0 (1) IU 0)�aw �,7t, m U) C)) 01) C) > Z Cl 0 rul Cl) (A 0 0 0 > -f-, ". C: I&,,- C, U 1 Ln 4--1 IA 1. V) 0 Ca Ul 1 I� rye a ` (D o l� Cu 7' 0 a:,. ) ., M 4-J um iw ry yrvr Im (N. 4-J dkd 4-J C: ILI) Cl ull Z 0 Q 0 4- 0 10 0 4-J (TJ C111, , ul D CD V.) (D rz (D 10 — GD LID W 4-J Q,) V) D 4--J 0 n U) ul . . ................. (70 V) U M M > Lf) Ca M 7C) C:, j 4-J 113) 10 4-j Lrj (3) IrD Ln (3 LZ r 73 4- U) 0 4-J Ln (D (n D C7 0 D 0 o (a 10 Ln 0 L- Mj 4-A +-IlJ 1 4 4-J m (0 (73 (01 Tj iro (o 0 Lri ri-� ob T; c 0 i p va 13 rD B LI 8 I t,i ic") @ Ii di a 9 I NO m m SE 0 4- 1 k J q- 'NJ mc T-3 (1) T) T,� 0 z CD i. -73 01 10*04 C E M, 4 .......... 0 > 0 z 0 LL fl, U) C-L T fl) T < 1 (D I I I I I (D > it4-J BONN 4 0 01 U) MAN VII�E lj�i 4� C r tj amom, IV, 0 (1) low I L > -jz 4 a4 ) C (71) c C: 0 QL &-�I 4 )1 ,, 1�11( "3Tj 1 14 >1 0 70 _r_- 0 0 u �Li- LL T 0 0 0 m 4-J 0 C 4-d L,L C Ic 0 0 C 4 0 C- 0 iii E (7j 4-J q) LL T-) r 21 . . ... 0 > 4-J > c VI, 0 0 0 l U kD 0 > 4--) 0 TD -—C- CL c aj� GCS ..... . . ... . 4-J ......... . ......... 76 73, 4-j Loom r '0 4 J co 4-j 6'. Q (j 4J u U) U) -5 4-J (7) C3 C, ol 4-J c 4-d U) c W 4-- E (NAM' E E Lz 4-j m 0 0 1 0 6- (D 4- c�Ll E Li i 42,J 0 0 lov, L- 0 M, (D 0 E lac Ljj > '+- 0 _0 C 0 .......... P Q') ul > 00 1111111- IL8 CL 7,3 :3 mini, om um T") 0 0 D) 0 0 0 C fu 10 -L u V11 rop- c) 0 BENINESE 0 CID 7-1 C ON one > 0 ........... . 1153) (D ¢ aLr) 0 If *Now U) CD no (T) 'D 0 0 (D ('0 16 W Z 4- aw Seem IN Q) > 4-J to T 100, 4 010 0 0 1) 01 Xn U) Mc Fri "zz 77 V) C) 13 I'D 0 0 U 0 4 4--1 C L c CYI cvi 0 10) 0 'D MD no -Tj U) IOU, 0 LA C 0 0 OD 41 Y -Fri lu 41"d 1 4.J INTO cl� 2tL OEM, 70 4-J E D Qjl (D IA 0 Ll '-4m- o 0 0 0 E o-- 10 ,2 4-' ull 11531 ham �-z 0 Pull Dj 0 ro IA ell ANN! 0 T CZ -1111 Q) C) Cl aw ') sm 41 %MIIIIIIIIN MINIMUM 0 am c (D 7 mU) C:L mc CL 0 0 (7) 73 77 LO V) 0 T rE, 7,3 � 0 (La u z z Voi D Li 0 0 LO 4-4 75 0 (Z 41 0 E A, 71) Ei 0) 0) 0 10 0) (To EE E 9 o g- -a) �) cf r"-2) U (0, 7 ci 101) 10, ORB 0 (D U) NOR 0 A LJ) (0 44, r7i Q, 0 cl CC" C T-) 0 (,,) C 4--J fu 4 ID, cu 0 ORR mij 4-J 11 t3 dog Lp 77 > Lm W 0 (D (D N11111 T11) > 4 , CL eaj 0 6 2 Z� 40-P ON C11,1111 0 0 u 00 c) -2- (.D .......... low Z u (Z CID 12 u 4- K EE �D Q�i C E2 (D > 2 1-: 4 1 U T) 0 4-J mam > D ............ 0 0 0 (T5 A �` �E ('5 w„w0 0 Win, u0 QL u CL, Cl 5 co: 01 . . . . .......... o" IE 01 (j, tum CL I ORB m all 10 c 0 M6 .2 tj 4-J +-P 0 CID (7j 0 -IF u C, > game �1 N11111 I m o 0 10 4j zo 4 I I 1 00 ICL U 0 1 rP .2 "J "Z: M, 7j IGO q IT Inc ru UL� cc V) I'D 0 Room 4,J U') Mu L-,,L 5 1111), E . . . . ....... 111.1', �-J C) �J) 2 Ul GI IN PON (u in >1 �j Ij (T) 0 73 C, ` 7) E co 15T 5— wm .7 MEMO, u I ij C111010i 0.) -CL" 11111RIN 0 Lill NONE MOVES CD IA wkf 0 211 76 AmIlill 773 CD j OM 10 J) c 102M x.0 ul C')"" AI T7 IfI, ciQ C. 0 -15 CD I) o", V) 3 -:I el"D -7 C C: . "'I- Co �Z o' 0 0 S"Y INI MCI")D QJ CID C: low A Q) X: .17 EE C) C, lv� U� Nj 4-` jjq� x- V� ID ru 1121, w V) 'i ID 4-j f7j 11 ?78 Ij -'1", I -; - (r, Y 1: -55 'S 1 11 0 C� 09 4. . E 0 E E E 11r, r1l 2 E E e, DI Ln -C cl 0 0 0 C 0 0 7 U -C 7,7) C , (10 > rC a� E c-, fl 0 LA I EE 73 - 0 > 0 tn 0 w OTJ EE C 4-J Its c A 4'. Ul 0 0 4-1 > qry�,:D, c (Z 0 Ff� C) 0 CID E T hum ry JJ slot ol E 4-0 U) CC, tj C: 0 0 E fill 03 — k';, E�51 c 2 D 115 P. pry yE CC- 4-J ............ r (7i .0 > u (D 0 L) E E (10 cri 5�1 C: Ll 1 0 C, 1� a) L) , L I low" 0 ci Ul (0 E V) Cd cl) ul E E Co 03 0 0 �LL Zrr —i C: Imes, 0 mm 0 VI C VI CID CID 0 om � 14 C', o e"n R5 o o o 0 r-I -0 _C' ON% 1 5 0 0 0 0 141 Q) M M D 0 0 E T .......... ......... . (11) E 0 LM mc u ) 3, U') 0 —0 LO C M ... . ....... . ro CO W -0 V) Avol 0 ("Dry A C.) C, 0 "q 0 d aN AM �Jl I I'll, u 17, �z In ... .. I ... Ij 1 J o t i, I If') ATTACHMENT 2 List of Steering Committee Members 0 i (rDL OC ,000 0 MNNN—=,OM"OCO) 4) Q u 0 a- 0 .Um U) E E EM C 'E 0 od 'E -T CL 0 U) E E C 'E 0 C-6 'E -T CL 0 En E E C 'E 06 -T a- 0 C: 0 C) 0 c 0 >1 o m 00— cn > -E Z) 0 C/) :3 E M o c: m C: a) CT a) 0 -oj a) E 0- 0 a) > E 0 0 wo U) U) U) U) m 0 0 -6-6 'Fn 0 -r m 0 0 < 'M in :3 0 m a) E c 2 c > w o C,6 cn > (D C/) u) (D m 6 a) RS 0 > 0 0) C 0 C-o co 0 0 —C m E c E E 0 E 0- 0 a) > (D a) 0- 0 0) > 0) a) > m — a) U)U) a) 0� 00 0 = 0 5 zi a) > m — a) a) 0� 0 = 0 =a) zi m 0 U) c 0 L -C :3 U) a) — Dc m a) L- 0 C a) = (D L) L- 0 — a) L) a) M ,>-0 Cl) r a) " a) .2- = m 0 U) a) > U) o CL U) 0 =3 .0 U) W U) a, a) m — 0 — 0 a) U) 0 C: a) 0 0 -0 0 E E .2 .2 0 0 ui C) (0 C: a) C: C: 0 -0 -C L - 0 0 (n .(n U) . Ln a) C) (D C-6 .>, - o o -0 m O = c 0 () -C Lm E E .> c 06 E M X -0 L- .0 U) a)t 0 0 L) L) a) z 0) a5 C: E 0 E 0 :D E 0 0 0 < C: a) m -0 a a) Z 0 N C) 4- 0 n L- 0 0 -2 (n E E a) o 0 — od C) o 0 76 a) -0 CO cm 0 a) > C a) L: o L: o o I- o 0 'a c a) x m L-- U) C: to tm C: 0 •0 C: 0 4-- -j cy) m C: w m E a) a) (n a) a (D (n a) C) 0 a) CY) (n 10 r-) h- 0 n h-- n .0 a) c ) a m 5, a) -0 m C: N m 06 co 0 C: L) C: 0 w m cm -�e 0 0 0 0 < a) m U) CM = 0 =3 0 ac) tS 0 Mo E m " — M — M — M > — = a) m L: o 0 L) W a) > a) -C -0 tm m c c >1 >1 Z M L) a)j 0 a) L) a) 0 a) E (10) (D -r- 5 c E c 0 n 5- c) 8 n 2 > 01 I-L Wx Wx Wx Wx A= -) 70- o w -r 0- 0 2i 3:1 N -Co M (A 3 0 C c m a) > 0 m L) U) a) (D m = U) (1) L- 0) > m -0 70 C: 0 5; 0 >1 m — " m 0 0 x 0 c a) o < 0 M > 0 0 0- a) < m C/) U 3: m m -C U) m 3 0 _0 a) E E a) EM 0 o w co a) M m a) > w o CM (D M m M (3) m > (1) M= E U) M 0 E x 'n -C 0 Iz --.) 2 0 -i U) --.) w 00 2 (7) -0) < -C-) 2 < < < < 21 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2025 — @:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J-NARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike HeO5Ch,Steve Miller, Scott {]UeUhDrst'Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Anne RuSSett, Liz Craig OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Jon M8rn8r,Stephen Vovue.Sharon C)8Grovv. Jennifer Baum, Bethany Berger, Marie Wilkes, Audrey B8hriCk' Matthew GO|iOge[' Matthi8U Bigge[, Orville Townsend, Andrew Evans B«8vote Of8-O(Miller [eCUSCd)the Commission recommends approval OfF|EZ24-0D18,@ proposed rezoning tOrezone 7.2acres Dfthe property located east OfCamp Cardinal Blvd and north OfMelrose Ave (Parcel Number 1O073510O3\from |[}-RGzone tOK4[]zone subject to the fOUOVviDg condition: * Prior k]issuance Of8building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median U]allow access and also construct 8dedicated left -turn lane OnCamp Cardinal Blvd subject tO review and approval bythe City Engineer. R»8vote Of6-1 d dissenting) the Commission recommends approval OfREZ24-0001' Gproposal tDrezone approximately 549acres Ofland between yJ. Dodge aDdN. GOVe[DO[ Streets k][}P[)/RS-12 (approximately 0.17acres) and [)PCVRK8-20 (approximately 5.32 @Sr8G) subject tOthe following conditions: 1. |Dconsideration Ofthe City'Srezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shOvvD on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property tOconform tDthe zoning boundaries established bythe rezoning On1iD8OCe tOwhich this Agreement iSattached. 2. Prior tOthe approval Ofthe Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex aS shown OOLot 2Dfthe Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan tOone dwelling unit tOensure compliance with the maximum density standards 0fthe zone. 3. AGpart OfFinal Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public [ight-of-vv@yand easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject tOreview and approval bythe City Engineer. 4. ASpart OfFinal Plat approval, the Owner shall grant 8temporary construction easement OD the western 1C)'Dfthe subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior tOthe issuance 0f8building permit for Lot 188shown OOthe Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 9O2.904.and 9O0N.Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 9O2. 904. and 908 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off Ofthe water main in N. Dodge Street SUbi8Ct to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. @3SCPeeDiOg headded tOthe southern retaining wall. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 2 of 27 CALL TO ORDER: NanSChcalled the meeting k]order 818:OOPM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: mDO8. CASE NO. REZ24-0016: Location: North ofMelrose Ave. and East ofCamp Cardinal Blvd. /\Dapplication for arezoning Dfapproximately 7.2@C[eSDf|8OdfRJ[D|DtehOD Development Single - Family CODlOUisGk)De[ Miller [eCUsed himself from this item due UJ conflict of interest. Conley began the staff report showing where the subject property is located, it borders Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which is an arterial road, as well as Melrose Avenue, to the north is St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, hJthe Northwest is existing multifamily apartment living and then there are single family homes tOthe east and the south Dfthe subject property. Additionally, Conley stated the subject property iSthe only undeveloped area east OfHighway 218. She next shared the zoning map, the subject property is zoned ID-RS, the properties to the north and the south are both zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) with a Planned Development Overlay zone. The properties tOthe east are zoned Rural Residential (RR-1) with @Planned Development Overlay and then tOthe west side Ofthe subject property iSprimarily Highway 21O with the |OsUtUtiOD8| Public (P-2) zone tOthe south. Regarding the background for this application, the subject property is located along two arterial streets and iSnear Highway 21B. The property does contain sensitive areas such @Swoodlands, wetlands and regulated slopes found along the northern border. The |C2O30Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map originally identified this area appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre then iO2O16 there was @ Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted bySt. Andrew Presbyterian Church that changed the subject property's land use designation to Office Commercial. Conley explained the Office Commercial land use designation i8assigned t0areas intended to provide the opportunity for @ variety 0fcommercial uses. Conley noted the subject property iScurrently for sale and the owners have expressed 8Dinterest iOrezoning ittOprovide more C|8[itv and certainty tOfuture buyers regarding deVe|OpnOeDi potential. Conley next reviewed the rezoning exhibit that was provided by the applicant noting 8Dexisting 3Ofoot pipeline easement that runs north/south Ofthis property OOthe eastern side. She also shared the sensitive areas exhibit that was also provided bythe applicant which also indicated that existing pipeline easement ODthe eastern border, near the sensitive areas, which would be the construction area limit line. Staffs analysis of the subject current zone, the |D-RS zone provides for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban areas of land may continue until the City can provide services and urban development can occur. The ID-RS zone has a limited selection Ofland uses allowed, for example detached single family, communication transmission facility uses, parks and open space, religious and private group assembly uses and agricultural Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 3 of 27 uses, specificallyplant and animal related are all part Ofthat selection. Plant related agriculture iS the only permitted |GOd use @UOVV8d and detached single family dwellings would [8qUi[g @ DliDiDlUOn of five acres to be @||OvV8d in this zone. CODlrD8nCi@l USeS are 8||Ovv8d 3Uhi8C[ to specific standards inthe |O-RS zone. These include general and intensive animal related oonnnnmroia) uses; however, any outdoor facilities associated with these uses are required to be setback atleast one hundred feet from any lot line. Staff next looked 8ithe proposed zone. The applicant iSrequesting that the property b8rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) zone. The purpose of the MU zone is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The mix of residential and CD[O[Ue[Ci@| USeS 8||OVVed in this zone iDC|Ud8 lower scale retail and office uses and 8 variety of residential uses that require special consideration of building and site design. Some of the allowed commercial uses include office uses, community service, sales oriented and 8variety Vf others. The staff report iOC|UdeS 8 table that lists all of the G||DVVed USeS in this ZOD8. Conley pointed out that the MU zone does not allow for drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing uses O[any industrial uses (such @Sbars, gas station, car washes, etc.\. Conley next reviewed the rezoning review criteria. These are the criteria used to review all FezOOiDgS.First, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with existing neighborhood. For criteria number one, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan staff was only able to utilize the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan since there's currently no district plan for the Northwest Planning District. The 201GComprehensive Plan Amendment, [|PA16-O001, changed the subject property's land use designation from two to eight dwelling units per acre to C)[hCe CO00e[Ci8|. ReSO|UtiOD 18-129 noted that the Amendment was warranted due tOthe subject property's close proximity to Highway 218 and the Comprehensive P|3D'SgeDer8| principles that encourage buffers between residential development and major highvv@yuse88Dd that CO-1 zone is an appropriate zone near residential neighborhoods and an appropriate transition to more intense uses. Due tDthe similarities between the CO-1 zone and the MU zone staff finds that the proposed K8Uzone aligns with the intent Ofthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment @Swell. Furthermore, drinking establishments, quick vehicle service uses, outdoor storage and display oriented retail are not allowed in the C[)-1 zone are also not allowed in the W1[]zone. Additionally, drive th[VVghSare not allowed iDthe W1Uzone. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following goals and strategies that are supported by the rezoning request. These goals include to encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected tOexisting neighborhoods tOreduce the cost 0fextending infrastructure and services and tOpreserve farmland and open space 8tthe edge Ofthe City and 1Oencourage 8diversity Ofhousing options inall neighborhoods. The strategies that the Comprehensive Plan includes are toensure that iDD||development iScompatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and all incomes, and lastly identify and support iOfill development and redevelopment opportunities iOareas where services and iDfF8St[U[tUnS iGalready iD place. Conley stated the pnOpOS8d P8zODiDg aligns with the Comprehensive P|8D'Sgoals and strategies listed here because they focus OOencouraging iOfi|| development and @ diversity Ofhousing types. Due tOthe subject property being surrounded by developed land currently serviced by City services, if rezoned to the MU zone, the diversity of housing types that the yNUzone would encourage what iSlisted. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 4 of 27 Staff next looked @tthe compatibility with existing neighborhood 8OdfOUOdUlat the subject property is sU[R}UOd8d by single f@Dli|y. DlU|LifBDlik/' and the iOSUtUtOO@| use LO the north (St. Andrew ChUrCh).Also, the neighborhood includes regulated sensitive areas, for example the vvD0d|8ndS abut the Walnut Ridge single family homes tOthe east, and [h8nB i8that 3Ofoot pipeline easement along the eastern border of the subject property which does not allow for any development within the easement. Therefore, these features together help create and leave 8 natural buffer. Additionally, any development would need to comply with all Mixed Use site development standards, which are Ginl8d to eOSU[g building sites are designed to be inviting to pedestrians. These standards regulate service parking, screening, building scale, articulation, orientation and other things. The Mixed Use zone iSalso iOthe medium illumination district that allows for more lighting than 8 single family zone, but still regulates light trespassing Si8nd8[dS and shielding in order to prevent light from extending onto @di@ceO1 properties. Next Conley reviewed the transportation and public iDfraS[RJCiUne. Camp Cardinal Boulevard @CceSS COnt@iOS 8 DlOdi@D that limits iOg[US8 and egress, thH[8fO[g' as part of this staff is recommending that the owner reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left turn OD Camp C8PdiD8| BOU|eV8nd. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east OfCamp Cardinal Blvd and north OfMelrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003)hD0 ID-RS zone to M}] ZDDe subject tOthe following condition: ^ Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct adedicated left -turn lane VDCamp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval bythe City Engineer. Conley noted staff did not receive any written correspondence from the public and @good neighbor meeting was held on January 23, 2025. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, @ public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. Elliott asked about the good neighbor meeting 8Sdwas not addressed inthe agenda packet. Conley noted staff received the summary at 8 later date, 8O it was not iOC|Vd8d in the time of packet publication. Elliott asked what ifany the concerns were. Conley stated @tthe good neighbor meeting the general concerns were about the lighting Ofany future development on the subject property and lighting trespassing DDtOthe adjacent properties. Staff was Bt the good neighbor meeting and did discuss that the City does have specific site development standards that would regulate the lighting OO the future development. RUSSett noted there were probably only three O[four people there SOthey didn't hear 8number Ofconcerns, most people just were curious what was being proposed. Wade asked ifthat left turning lane from Camp Cardinal would gDinto this development and Conley confirmed itwould. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Shoemaker & Haa|@Od Professional Engineers) noted to the e8Si iSthat 3Ofoot easement for the pipeline, and then the wooded area which would put them 8distance from those properties iDWalnut Ridge and the closest house U]that pipeline easement iSmore than Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 5 of 27 300 feet. Hensch closed the public hearing. Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Elliott seconded the motion. Townsend noted concern with the commercial section and not having any idea what kind of businesses would be going there. Elliott states she thinks it's a good use of the land, it's infill property and she likes the diversity of housing options that are available. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Miller recused). Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting. CASE NO. REZ24-0001: Location: 900, 902, 906, and 908 N. Dodge St. and 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor St. An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R313) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-1 2) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the property noting Happy Hollow Park located to the south of the subject property. She next reviewed the zoning map, which shows the current zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property currently includes several different zoning designations, it has some Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS- 8) zone on the southeast corner, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), and then there are Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R313) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. To the south is some Public Zoning for the park and most of the rest of the zones around the subject property are zoned single family. In terms of background, Russett noted in 1987 there was an Iowa Supreme Court decision related to this property. At the time there were properties zoned R313 (again a multifamily zone from the 1970s) and a developer obtained building permits to construct an office building and an apartment building. The City revoked the building permit and rezoned some of the parcels to only allow single family and duplex residential so the owner sued the City and the Court determined that the City's actions were unreasonable. As a result of the Iowa Supreme Court Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 6 of 27 decision, SeVe[@| lots F8OO8iOed zoned R3B. Then in 2011 there VVGS a [OzOOiD0 request to rezone property along North Governor Street kJF{M-12 Low Density W1UUU-F80i|y RgSid8DU@|, and that rezoning would have allowed approximately 18units ODthe eastern portion Ofthe subject property. The City Council denied the rezoning and directed staff to explore designating the properties tOODlonger allow multifamily development. |D2O12.based VDCouncil direction, the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Central District Plan to change the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and [)Up|eX [8Sid8nii@| UOseveral properties. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was accompanied byseveral City initiated down zonings, meaning a rezoning of property from a multifamily zone tOGduplex O[ single family zone, and these actions bythe City also resulted in8lawsuit iD2O18(TSB Holdings. LLC V. Board OfAdjustment fO[ City of |OVV8 City) and in that C8Se the [}OUdS determined that the Kempf decision from 1QG7prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance and the property owner was permitted to move forward with multifamily development consistent with the R3Bzoning. Therefore, that iSwhy today the zoning Dnthe subject property is 8 mix OfR3Bfrom the 1970s and some cU[R3Ot [Du|Uf@DOi|y RyN-20, and some single family. This property has Glong and complicated zoning history. FlusSett also wanted to OlgOUOO that the City is acting as @ co -applicant to this rezoning for several reasons. First, the City would like tOsee 8cohesive development ODthe subject property, as opposed to that which would be allowed under the current zoning. The City would also like to see compliance with modern zoning regulations, which include the sensitive areas ordinance and the multifamily site development standards which FHgU|@te things like SC[8eUiDg, parking, design, and building Ol8te[i8|S. L8SUy' the City Council Strategic Plan includes 8goal related tDestablishing partnerships and CO||8bO[8tiOOS, particularly iDthe interest in 8dV8DCiDg the Ciiy'Shousing goals. As staff has discussed many times with the Commission, an important aspect Ufmeeting the housing goals iSincreasing the overall supply Ofhousing iDthe community. Russett did note the applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. RusS8ttshowed slides ofphotographs Ofthe subject property. She noted the vacant office building and the existing apartments. The eastern portion Ofthe subject property iSmainly surface parking, there are some trees along the southern border Ofthe property and 8Dexisting duplex 0Dthe subject property. RUSSett reiterated the current zonings are Medium Density Single -Family Residential (R8' 8) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12)zones which allow single-family and duplex F8SideDU8|. The RS-12 also 8||OvvS1UvvDhV[D8 Gtv|8 [DV|U-f8Dli|y up to Six units attached. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential and the maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also 8||OVVS multi -family residential at 8 [DiOiOlU[O lot area per UOii Of75O square feet which equates tDapproximately 5Mdwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313the existing zoning would allow 8maximum Of84dwelling units. The maximum height iDthe R3Bzone iS45'@Dd3stories. The proposed zoning iSfor the majority Of[h9p[0p8rtyf0beyNediUDlD8DSitvyWU|U-FGnOi|y(FlyN- 2D)zOOeVVith@P|@OO8dDeVe|Op08OtC)Ver|@y(C)P[]).TheC)P[)iS[eqUi[eddUetOi0p8CiStO sensitive areas. The northwest piece would beHigh Density Single -Family (QS-12) zone with G Planned Development Overlay. The maximum density iDthe (]PO/RIVI-2Ozone is24dwelling units per acre with the nl8XiOOUOl height Cf35` The applicant is not requesting any waivers with this C)PDapplication and ifthis rezoning iSapproved any future development and redevelopment of the property must substantially comply with what is shown on the OPID plan. Staff i5 Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 7 of 27 recommending 8condition that as part of this project the final plat of the property must gO through a replat so that the lots follow the proposed rezoning boundaries. Russett next shared the preliminary plan and development overlay plan. The projectprDpOS8S redevelopment Ufthe land along North Governor Street and would include the demolition Dfthe two SiOg|8 family h0OneS that currently exist at the southern portion of the site, as well as the demolition Ofthe vacant office building tOthe north. There are two multifamily residential buildings being proposed, each COOL@iD 42 units for total Of84 UDitS' and the p|@DS ShOVV StD0O water being located OOsite. The open space iSproposed OOthe southeast corner and the parking is internal to the buildings, as well as there is some surface parking located behind the buildings. The plans also include 8sidewalk along North Governor Street. RUSSeUreviewed the landscaping plan, the applicant isproposing tDkeep 15 existing mature trees on the southern portion of the boundary and proposing to add several more, around 54, on the remainder Ofthe property. Several will bestreet trees proposed along North Governor Street. Russett reiterated since the proposed rezoning complies with all development standards, there are OOwaivers requested, and the [)PC)iSrequired due tOthe sensitive areas impact. The criteria to consider with this rezoning are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the eXi9UD8 neighborhood Ch8n8Cie[. In |8[[OS Dfconsistency with the Comprehensive P|8D the |C 2030 P|8D as well as the CeDi[@| District P|8D hOih apply tOthis land. The Future Land Use Map Ofthe |{|2030Plan shows the majority Ofthe site, the properties along North Dodge and into the Site. are all designated as appropriate for multifamily development up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan also shows that a majority of the Site is appropriate for multifamily. However, uD|ih8 the |[|2030 P|@D the Central District P|8D dO8S show some single family tOthe north, as well as open space in the middle Of the property. The Future Land Use Map functions 8S8conceptual future vision and both Plans envision this area as allowing [Du|Ut8[Di|y dev8|Opn0ent, upt024 dvvg||iOg units per acre, which is the rD8xi0uOU density allowed in the proposed OPO/RM-20 zoning district. RUSSeUnoted iOaddition tOthe Future Land Use Map there are several goals and policies that support the proposed d9v9|OpOleDL In t8[DlS of land use g08|8' there's gO@|S eDCOV[@giDg compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected with existing neighborhoods, while ensuring that infill development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are housing goals that encourage 8diversity Dfhousing types that ensure @ mix Ofhousing types within each neighborhood tOprovide options for households Ofall types, @tall incomes, and supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there's existing services and infrastructure. In terms of environmental goals, the Plan encourages compact and efficient development that [8dUCeB the C08t of extending and O08iDt@iDiDg infrastructure, diSC0U[8gHS Sp[8VV\ and again promotes iOfi|| development. Lastly, iOterms Ofparks and open space goals Russett stated there's a goal to improve overall access to the parks throughout the City. Looking at the Central District Plan the housing and quality Oflife element includes 8goal t0 promote the CeOi[8| District as an 8tt[8[fiVe place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the District and bysupporting new housing opportunities. Russett acknowledged that although this proposal isn't necessarily reinvesting in residential properties, it will result in the FenOOV@| of the vacant office building and provide OlUCh Deeded housing units. There's also @ statement within the CeO[[@| District P|8D specific LOthe subject property and to the history with the F|313 zoning, which notes that this area is zoned F<313 and it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 8 of 27 should be rezoned to a valid designation, such as RM-20. In terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood ch@racte[Russett first talked about the existing context ofwhat surrounds the subject property. Again, there is Happy Hollow Park to the south, across Governor Street tDthe east there's single family residential, tOthe north there's a mix Ofduplex and single family and tOthe west, OO the SUbieCi property is an existing nOU|tit8nli|y building as well as two duplex units, and then further south, there's single family. In te[rnS Of compatibility Russett reviewed the site design, open space, landscaping, as well as substantial compliance with the OP[)' which StGt8S OD more units than Cu[PeDUy exist on the western portion Dfthe property could b8built. The (]P[}would also ensure 8transition from the detached single family from the south to the multifamily tOthe north. One condition that staff iS [8COOlDleDdiDg is prior tOthe final platting Ofthe subject property the duplex building needs tobe converted tOa single family unit tOensure compliance with the density standards. HVSGUtt@CkDOvvedgHd the preliminary plan and the development overlay plan was designed U}fit into the neighborhood, which includes 8 OOiX Of housing h/p8S. Ao8iD, there's two rDuKhaDli|y buildings being proposed that front North Governor Street, the front of that northern building that fronts North Governor Street is about 70' and it's positioned in a way to lessen the impact of the larger GC@|e building from the Governor Street right of way. RUGSett stated the G@OO8 is true for the SDUthe[D building, which is positioned at an angle which allows the longest side Ofthe building [Ohe positioned further away from North Governor. Again, there's open space provided iDthe southeast corner and both buildings would b8@maximum Of35' There iSlandscaping being proposed that maintains some of the mature trees to the south and more landscaping proposed throughout the site. RUsSettnoted also there are OOplans 8tthis time for redevelopment along the North Dodge Street side Ofthe property, however any future development that's proposed on lot two will be required to substantially comply with this pFe|i[DiD8ryCJP[} p|8D and that DO more dwelling units then currently exist could be developed OO the site. This OPD p|@D also ShOvvS 8transition from the existing single family south to the multifamily must bemaintained iDsome way ifthat area iSever tOberedeveloped. RUSSeUshowed the elevations for the proposed buildings, they have incorporated entrances to individual dwelling units from the exterior to CF8@tB more of tDvvD hOrD8 atv|8 f88| and this also helps to break up the long fagade with the pedestrian walkways that provide connections into individual units. The subject property iSbordered OOthe west byNorth Dodge Street and 0Dthe east by North GOVeOlD[ Street, hOih of these streets are one VV8y streets and they're both adeh8|S. The existing capacity for both streets is between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicle trips per day and are currently operating well below that between 5'0D0and 0'2OOaverage trips per day. The site also has access to Iowa City Transit on both the North Dodge Street and the North Governor Street sides. As mentioned this is an iDO|| project, so there's access to existing sewer lines and eKiSUOQ VV8te[ |iDBS. Staff iSrecommending several conditions related tDtransportation and public utilities. The first iSthe dedication ofpublic right 0fway and easements along North Governor Street t0 increase the right Ofway and allow for the construction Of8sidewalk. The second condition iS that @ dedication 0f@temporary construction easement along North Dodge Street which will help with the planned reconstruction OfDodge Street, which iSplanned for 2O27-2028.and lastly, the Water Superintendent recommended the abandonment of existing water lines for the North Dodge Street Apartments. These lines currently come off North Governor and he would like those lines t0beabandoned and instead have water lines connect tOthe North Dodge water Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 9 of 27 Russet stated this property does have sensitive areas, iDparticular critical slopes. Staff can approve Upb3835%impact Ofcritical slopes and the proposal iS86%Ofthe critical slopes bJbe impacted, and that's why it's coming to the Commission for review. Staff recommends approval ofF|EZ24-OOO1.@proposal torezone approximately 54Bacres of |8Dd between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets tD (]P[/RG-12 (approximately 0.17 8C[8S) and [)PD/RK4-2D(approximately 5.32acres) subject kJthe following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Pn8|irDiO8ry P|8DDRd Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property tOconform iOthe zoning boundaries established bythe rezoning ordinance tOwhich this Agreement isattached. 2. Prior k]the approval Ofthe Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex @s shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling Unit tDensure compliance with the maximum density standards Vfthe zone. 3. /\Spart OfFinal Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public i and easements along N.Governor Street consistent with what iDshown ODthe P[e|i0iO8n/ Planned Development Overlay Plan subject tOreview and approval bythe City Engineer. 4. Aspart OfFinal Plat approval, the Owner shall grant @ temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior k}the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902'9O4'and 906N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for SO2, 804, and 806 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off Ofthe vv@t8[ [O8iD in N. Dodge Street subject to [Hvi8vv and 8ppFDv8| by the City Engineer. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Gpublic hearing will be scheduled for consideration bvthe City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City COUOCi|; 2\Asite p|@O application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3)Adesign review application which will be reviewed byCity staff. Hensch asked if storm water was managed onsite O[is itjust all runoff, there doesn't appear to he any storm water detention and most of the site is D8V8d. RUSS8tt replied there is some ODSO space tDthe south but there isn't any storm water detention. Hensch noted there's currently no sidewalk on the Governor side, is that because the existing commercial facility appears b]have not been used for 8tleast 20years. RUSs8UiSunsure. HeO8ChiSunsure exactly how long it's been but the last tenant iOthat building was Johnson County, it's public health and social services were there and was a pretty intensive use in that facility at that time. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 1OnfI7 Hensch noted there are no waivers requested by the applicant for this rezoning which Russett confirmed was correct. HenSChasked about the maximum height Ofthe current and the proposed multifamily buildings and how many units are in the current building. FlUSSettn8p|ied the new building will be 35' VVhiCh is also the SaOlS height of the CU[ReOt multifamily building, and ihGn8 are currently 29 and 12 units in the existing buildings. Elliott asked about the landscaping proposed and isthere any teeth k]the landscaping plan. Russett explained similar to approving the OPID plan, the landscaping plan is part of that so they'll need b]substantially comply with the landscaping 8Swell. []ue||hVrst asked ifstaff feel that the proposed rezoning would offer some environmental protections because the legacy R3B zone wouldn't be subject to things like the sensitive aF88S ordinance. F<USSett replied possibly but the main concerns with the existing R31B zoning is the hodgepodge nature Ofit. Also the three properties that are zoned R3Bare not contiguous and don't abut each other aoit'd be three separate developments onthree separate parcels and not subject to the sensitive areas ordinance and since this site has some sensitive areas, mainly slopes, ifthey stayed with the R313 zoning the could remove all trees. Qu8||hO[stnoted basically today, the way the site is zoned, one could construct relatively high density housing projectsth@t would b8interspersed and wouldn't beconnected. RUSGettconfirmed that. C)U8UhO[Stasked about the fact that 88%Dfcritical slopes would beimpacted and how that impact iSevaluated and does that happen 8Spart Ofthe application process. F|USSeUeXp|@ined ithappens @Spart Ofthis rezoning. Staff isallowed b]administratively approve UptO35%Of impacts but anything beyond that requires an OPID rezoning and has to be reviewed by the Commission, but iDterms Ofspecific criteria, there aren't any specific criteria that need tObHmet to allow them to impact more than 35%. (]ue||h0[Stasked ifstaff has any concerns with the impact tOcritical slopes. RuGGett stated 8lot of the impacts are due to the accommodation of the stormwater management system on the site and the development in general, but this is an infill site and staff thinks the benefits of more density and more housing offset the impacts to the critical slopes. Craig asked about the retaining wall that is shown on the images at the southwest corner of the S|GOt8d building, likely because of the dOpeS, but hOvv t@|| is that retaining vV8|| and what does it look like from the park. R|VSS8ttstated there will b8some existing trees along the wall and behind the retaining VV3|| that will be seen when looking to the OOdh from the park. She is not sure of the height of the retaining wall, the applicant can answer that question. Craig noted the significant elevation change down to Happy Hollow Park and just wanted to say for the record that if this project were to 00e forward, She certainly hopes that the City m0U|d take responsibility tOadd sidewalks 0]both sides 0fHappy Hollow Park for people who are trying to traverse that side without crossing Governor to get to downtown or anywhere close to UOVVOiOVVO. Miller noted staff mentioned that it needs LObB@D[]PObecause Ofmore than 35%ofcritical slopes are impacted, if that wasn't the case what would happen and if less than 35% of the Cht|C8| slopes were impacted COU|d City staff just rezone the whole thing to RM-20. RUSSett explained it wouldn't [8qUiF8 the (]PD, the 0v8[8|| project would Sb|| [8qUiF8 8 rezoning, but it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 11nfI7 wouldn't require an OPD, it would still have to go through P&Z and Council. Miller asked about the multifamily development standards because @lot of the correspondence they received from the public was 8bOU[ hOvv many trees they were taking out and his initial challenge with the current design is just the way that building along Governor was diagonal and if iiwas more parallel LOthe street they could potentially save 8lot Ofthose trees and put the open space behind the buildings like it was identified in the Central OiSt[iCi Plan. He appreciates the VV8|k Up UOitS' but they don't face the street. RUSS8tt8ckOOVV|8dged it could have been realigned SDitall fronts North Governor, but itprobably would have been @ shorter building and with that there's some economies of scale of designing one building and it would get rid of the open space feature. C}ve[8||, it probably would have resulted in fewer units and 8 SDl8||e[ building. Miller asked about the maximum setback. RuSSettnoted there are easements that run through this property and the building can't be set further towards the street and they will need the applicant to request minor modification to that, which is an 8dnniDiStm8LiVe review. Wade asked if there is a significant difference to the City being the co -applicant on this versus just being staff supported. RUSS8Uacknowledged it's not something that they've done for map amendment before, they have done itfor text amendments where the City has been the applicant, so there are rezoning applications where the City is the applicant. This iSdifferent and it's because Ofthe history Ofthe property and the complexity Ofthe property and the lawsuits that exist so looking at it in the context of what can be built now with the current zoning and trying to get tO@compromise with the property owner tOhave @ better project th@DvVh@tCOU|dCU[[8Dt|y bebuilt ODthe existing zoning designations. However, with the City being 8co-applicant that changed nothing in the rezoning process O[staff review. Townsend noted there are two Habitat homes right there ODNorth Governor and also several rental homes OONorth Dodge SOare any Ofthese new homes going tObe affOPd8h|8. RUSSett replied no, they're going to be market rate. Townsend stated 84 units going iDthat area and DOD8 of them are affordable. RVGSett reiterated that one of the City COuOCi|'S strategic p|8D goals is collaborating and creating partnerships for ways to reach the City's housing goals, and one of the ways to achieve some of the housing goals is just increasing overall supply, not necessarily having income restricted units, but getting more units online that could heused hysomeone who needs housing. Townsend acknowledged they need more housing units in the City at all income levels but iOthat area there are 8lot Ofaffordable places and ifthese units will be@tmarket value that would be way above what would DD[O0@||y vvOu|d be there. HeOSChasked ifthe only areas that are required tOhave a10%affordability requirement isiO F|iv8rfrOnt Crossings 0rannexed land and F|uSS8ttconfirmed that's correct. HeDSChasked about the R313 zoning and ifthat's 8legacy zone not used anymore are there any other parts UfIowa City that still have R313O[i8itonly because Ofthe litigation that it's still affixed to these pGnC8|S in this area. RUSSett C0Dfi[OOed it's only bBC8US8 of the litigation. Wade asked about the tree screening between this development and Happy Hollow Park. RUGSettexplained the existing trees that are along @ portion Ofthe proposed lot one would remain and then there's some trees that are being planted 0Dthe eastern side. Wade noted it looks like 8fair number Oftrees would betaken out under this proposal. RUs8ett confirmed that but wanted to note even though there are critical slopes, there's no woodlands on the property Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 12nfI7 that are regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance so they're not limited iDterms of the number of trees that could be removed. Hensch asked about the trees being removed and if they are oaks, maples or what. RusaeU stated she was unsure. Elliott noted regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and there's 8lot of single family homes, and while she understands the infill and the need for more housing, why so much more housing. RuSSett explained the current R31B zoning would allow uptO84dwelling units and the pnJpOS8| is for 84 dwelling units. She stated these are certainly larger than the single family homes across the street but this property has been envisioned to allow multifamily development and it's currently zoned tDallow multifamily development. Russettalso stated with the [OU|Uf@Oli|y Site development St8Dd8FdS there's meqUineDl0DtS in t8[mOS of articulation and building 08te[i8|S that help minimize the Size of the building. Ag8iD, they're proposing the eXi8[iOr entrances which help break up the building and make it into modules and those are the points that were in the staff report that point to compatibility with the neighborhood. Also, when looking at it from the street, at least for the northern building, the shorter frontage fronts the street and it's also pushed back @ little further, same with the southern building and the diagonal orientation which helps to minimize the size. HeD8Chnoted the current parcels are zoned RS-8.RS-12.F|yW-20and R3BsOifthere was DO rezoning and each parcel was developed @tits fullest zoning capacity, would that not bemore dwelling units per acre than what this p[UpOS8d project is. RUGSeKSt8ted the R313 8||DVVS more density and iSactually more than RK4-2O8t58dwelling units per acre. The C}P0RK4-2OiS24 dvvg||iDg units per acre SO CODlbiOiDg all properties it may be possible. Townsend asked ifthere iS8possibility tOhave stop lights installed. RUSSettreplied no, the transportation staff and engineering staff reviewed this and there was no discussion of traffic signals D[any off -site improvements. Townsend noted she travels that area during rush periods and it's not easy tOget iOand out Ofthose areas. Miller noted the other thing that they heard 8lot from the public about was the lack [faffordable housing and with the OPD rezoning process is that even something that could be suggested. RUSSetteXp|8iOed the only times they require iDCODle restricted units is in RiVerfn]Dt Crossings and through 8Oannexation. Alternatively, itwould have tObe through @ condition Ofthis rezoning and tDapply that condition the Commission would need tOdemonstrate that this rezoning creates some sort Ofpublic need that could justify that condition. Miller asked ifithas ever been done outside 0fRiverfrOOtCrossings O[GDannexation plan. RUSsettstated itwas done with Forest View because there were existing residents iO manufactured housing units that were going to be displaced with the rezoning. Townsend asked with the City being a co -applicant does that affect the units, Russett replied it doesn't. Townsend asked then why isthe City iSacting 8S8co-Gpp|iC@OL f{UsSett explained to demonstrate the concern with how the property is currently zoned, so they are joining the applicant 1Dput forth this rezoning due tOconcerns about what could b8developed under the existing zoning and the hodgepodge nature Ofthat. The City iShoping iDget 8better development project VVi[h[hiS[ezOOiOQth8OVVh@tVVOU|db8@||OVVedUOderCU[[eDtzDOiD0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 13nfI7 Townsend asked if@Sthe co -applicant the City could request some Ofthose units b8affordable. Russett replied no, again itwould have tOb83condition Ofthe rezoning and the CDrDDlisSiOO would need to demonstrate why the rezoning is creating a public need and justify why that would beneeded for this rezoning. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer for this application and will try to address some of the questions that that arose from Commission members. The first one is the orientation the building on the southeast corner. Part of the reason for that orientation is to pull that facade back away from Governor Street and tOlessen the impact for the neighborhood from Governor Street. The other benefit to that is the highest point of the site is that southeast corner, so this also addresses some of the questions about the sensitive slopes. Most of the slopes that are being impacted are iDthat corner, they're actually man-made altered slopes and were put there quite a while back as part of the construction of those homes and when Happy Hollow Park and some of the other history of the site was developed. Those aren't original natural slopes, those are [D8n-[D8d8 S|Op8S. Back tOthe orientation the building, by rotating it away it allowed them tOsink the building down just @little bit lower from that southeast corner S08Ssomeone comes down Governor Street the building iSgoing toappear closer t0two stories, @Sopposed tO the full three stories. M@Ol8[also addressed the tree preservation. Again, one Vfthe intents tVrotate that building was b]allow them tDpreserve 8Smany trees 8Spossible. There are quite 8few mature existing trees there DO the park property that would not be touched. He acknowledged during the good neighbor meetings there was concern expressed about some Ofthose trees being preserved SO the building D[iHDt@bOD was to help facilitate preserving as 0@Oy of those trees as possible. He thinks there's 8couple large cottonwoods iDthat area. Last but not least, some Ofthe other trees that were spoken about in that open space area, as Russett pointed out on the Central District Plan one Ofthe goals was tOhave 8little bit 0fopen space iDthat area and they also accommodate that. Obviously, they have to provide storm water detention, but that is the area where they were able to preserve some of those larger specimen trees. Regarding inventorying those trees, they went out and did an investigation and they were nicer specimen trees, not scrub trees, the ones that are identified are the better specimen trees in that area. Hensch asked about the easements going from the northeast to the southwest, how many easements are there and what type. K8@[De[stated there's two easements there, one iSfor @D existing public sanitary sewer that runs through the site and it runs straight through the site, as opposed to bending partway through. City staff has investigated that and he knows there's some other concerns about the capacity of that sewer and they've discussed with City staff throughout this process whether that sewer was adequate and the determination was made that it is adequate 8tthis time SOthe easement iSi0ensure protection 0fthat and provide access for City officials and for maintenance and repairs. The other easement iSfor storm sewer and it's actually conveying the storm sewer from the low point in Governor Street that's right on the northeast corner Ofthe site, through the property into the storm sewer that then runs southwest down through Happy Hollow Park. H8D6Chasked what the widths Ofthose easements are. yN@[D8[ stated the sanitary sewer easement iG3O'vvid8and the storm sewer iG4O'@Od3D'GSitvaries iO width through the site. Hensch asked about some of the slopes being created by previous grading, where were those Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 14nfI7 slopes created. Marner pointed on the map to those slopes around the backside of the two units that are constructed ODthat corner. |twas pushed out tDestablish the flat grade for those units and that's where the slopes were created. Lastly, H8DSCh asked about the angle of that building, VVGS the angle just @ Dl8SS and scale issue of tryingh}deCrH8S8Ul88ppear8nD8Ofmn8SS8ndSC8|83Sp8Op|88r8gOingfrOnnSOUth Governor to North GOV8OlDr. yWGrn8r acknowledged that was part of it, it served two pUrpOS9S. rotating that building served to pull it away so as one is approaching the site they're not seeing one C0DbDuDuS block |8DQ[h from Governor Street, it's rotated and provides @ little different ViSU8|. It allowed the trees tO [8Dl@iO which will also help SO0eO that visual. Regarding the question about what it's going to look like from Happy Hollow Park Marner stated those specimen trees OOthe park property will still bethere and will help buffer some of that visibility. M8[Oe[8|SD reiterated rotating the building @||DvVS them to Set it down in the Site 8 little bit so that it's closer to two and 8 half stories visible. Hensch asked about the retaining wall, what would it look like, what will the height be, and what will it be constructed of. K48Ole[[8p|i8d it's an engineered VV8U varying from 5' to 13` in height. Hensch asked if someone is down in the park, say on the ball field, what is the change in elevation VptOthe base Ofthe retaining wall. yN@[O8[iSnot sure because that's not OOpart Of the rezoning but just by observation his rough estimate is 5' to the property line and then a few feet Ofrise iOthe retaining VV8||. Hensch asked if there is any screening in front of the retaining wall, because that would certainly help. Marner said not currently but certainly that's something that could be discussed. K4@[Oe[ noted one other idea regarding the retaining wall iS@Sitfollows along the south edge then bends and goes northwest to follow the building, they could lessen the height of the wall by rotating it back down closer to the property line and that would allow them to slope from the building down and meet closer tOthe grade iDdoing so, although that would also remove more trees. Craig thinks it's better to have the retaining VV8U and keep the 1ReeS, it feels like they're protecting the park more as opposed to just blending it all right into the park. Marner noted that's one of the goals expressed during the good neighbor meeting. H8also noted there was @ second, not @full good neighbor meeting, but they met with some other concerned, interested neighbors at their office with Russett maybe a month and a half after the first neighbor meeting and those were concerns that were consistently expressed. Therefore, they worked with the design and grading tOtry tDsave @Smany trees tOaccommodate those requests 88best 8Gpossible. Craig wanted to make positive comment, while she thinks these are huge buildings the options for bicycle parking are fantastic 8Sthis is 8 prime |OCQU0O for people who want tO bike and to have covered bicycle parking. She would just also encourage some Evehicle options iDthose parking garages. Stephen Voyce /829N.Dodge Street) lives directly across from 90Oand QO2Dodge Street and wanted tOspeak DObehalf Ofsome Ofhis affected neighbors. Heread the planned development overlay and the RyN-2Oelements 0fthe zoning ordinance that the Commission are tOconsider when reviewing the pn}pOS@| and the following vvOPdG stood OUL "This zVDH' F|K8-20' is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access tOall City services and f8Ci|iti8S". VOyCefails 1Osee how the proposed rezoning complies with that StGte08DL The property is not adjacent to 8 CD008[Ci@| area, the |8Ch of sidewalk OD Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 15nfI7 Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians, and as someone who only rides @ bike and does not ride @ car those are extremely dangerous streets iDthat area without sidewalks. VOyCe 3[8tHd this |OC8tiOn is not suited for the proposed density ShOvVO OO this p|8D based Onthe words written inthe zoning code. Moreover, the RK8-2Ozone also says "careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types iDany one location are compatible with one another." Voyce stated the site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single family duplexes and apartment buildings in the neighborhood, in order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be an GS1OuOdiDg 23G'long. Compare that tO@standard city block Of3OO'theSebuildings will b8almost 8Oentire block inlength, and the image shows it. Although the City must abide bythe court ruling that imposed the R31B zoning on parts of this property it should not go beyond that to approve aplan that iSincompatible with the single-family duplexes and existing apartment buildings iOthis neighborhood. Yes, some multifamily buildings are appropriate here, but not these two enormous buildings. The zoning codes also states "the (]P[)zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended or harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods" more it says it "should encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features 0fthe surrounding G[8@~ VOYCequestions how does this {]P[>plan comply with these provisions iDthe zoning code, itsimply does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed. That just shows that the proposed very large scale buildings dOnot take into account these natural features, they are simply too large for the property. VOyCenotes these are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPID zoning. The general standards reads "the density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in t8[O0s of land use, building, O1@SS and GCG|e" Again, the proposed 23O'long buildings are way out Ofscale, even with the existing apartment buildings, and in no way complement the 8di8CeOt deVe|OpnOeOL Number two, "the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities". There are DOsidewalks 0D the west side of Governor Street t0provide pedestrian access 1Othis property. Although the developer will put iD sidewalks OOhis property, they will lead essentially iOnowhere. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas, other than tOsay the 88%Ofcritical slopes will be graded away and the grove Oftrees adjacent tOHappy Hollow Park appears tDh8removed. Voyce reviewed the sensitive areas section of the zoning code and it states the intent is to preserve the scenic character Dfhillside 8[e8S' particularly the wooded hillsides" and it says encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. If disturbance Ofmore than 35%Vfcritical slopes iSproposed, 8level two sensitive area review iG required". VDyCe stated level two requires P|8OOiDg and Zoning PBVieVV and if88% of critical slopes are to be wiped away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code tOdevelop the city iO8way that respects environmentally sensitive areas. |tdoes not because too much development isbeing proposed OOthis property. Sharon DeGraw (Northside) submitted a letter but noticed only a portion of it made it to the Commission iOthe agenda packet. She iSwriting @s@resident Ofthe NOrthSideneighborhood and the G0OSek}wnapartment development and rezoning petition iS8complicated matter with 8 |0Og history that iDdUd8S @ [U|iDg from the State Sup[8[D8 Court OfIowa infavor 0fMr. B@[k@|Ow against the City. AS @ CO[O[DiSSiDO charged with responsibility iOserve the public she would like to point out that they may find themselves in an unusual position reviewing an application which began 8S@rezoning petition from Mr. B8[k@|0vv(TSB Holdings) and iSnow 8joint rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 16nfI7 petition from TSB and City staff. |OVV8 City governance has rules in place for non -biased eV8|U8tiDD SD hDVV dO8S the COm[DiSSiOD escape the weight of the Cih/S LhU[Ob OD this D8tiLiOD when the City staff is 8 CO-@pp|iC8Dt of COOi[DV8[si8| rezoning. OeG[8vV personally has 8 feeling that if the Commission voted this down City staff will just march it over to City Council anyway. Aside from the procedural concerns [)gG[@VVnoted there are problems with the rezoning petition and the development proposal. Page one of the staff report states the proposed development would allow the demolition and replacement Ofthe buildings along North Governor Street, including the existing vacant commercial office building. So why does the plan include the rezoning Ofproperties OODodge Street, specifically 0OO@Dd9DO1/2NOrthDodge Street, where OO infill development is proposed. Apparently, density from the Dodge Street properties can be transferred to a Governor Street address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number Ufdwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the GVOSetovvDapartments have issues too, they are much too large for the neighborhood. These are two three story buildings, dimensions 236'times 70' making each building almost the length of one city block, and there are OVother buildings 0Othat scale iDthe neighborhood. There are 133parking Sp8CeS and other p@ViDg'S which is equivalent to the footprint of the two dvV8||iOg St[U{tU[gS. There are only two or three guest parking spaces, that's not enough. Construction of the development, @spresented, will remove 86%Ofthe critical slopes contiguous tOHappy Hollow Park and [)eG[@vvthinks that ifsomeone iGstanding 8t the basketball court they could see 40'Of the building that will be 14' from the park edge boundary. ASignifiC8Dt retaining VV8||' as 8 structural necessity, will be built 8ithe bottom Dfthe hill iD8sensitive wooded overlay 8tthe north end of Happy HO||OVV Park, the retaining wall will be 5'tO 14` (}|8@[|y' the development has too many units, the buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, and the scale of the development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city, DeGraw states that can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal tOomit the address 80Oand 9OO1/2NOrihDodge Street from the rezoning. Page six of the staff report shows figure four, the Central District Neighborhood P|@D Future Land Use Map, and it exhibits 90Oand 90O1/2NDrthDodge Street @GRS-12property. It's transitional and appropriate next to single family homes and any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. DeGraw is supportive of redeveloping the land, having North Governor Street addresses on the R313 zoned lots, and sees no need for the lots having North Dodge Street addresses to be rezoned. That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. She urges the Commission tO rejectthe rezoning application, having 8rezoning petition which removes the property 9OOand 9OO1/2N0rthDodge Street would likely result iD@density more appropriate for the sensitive property. O8G[8vvshared 8handout tOshow iSthe lot that has @ rectangle and an arrow around as a designated lot that should not become RM-20, it's supposed tObetransitional RG-12and itsits next tO830North Dodge Street, which iS8single family residential home. The other thing iDher handout iStOshow where there iSthe Fl3Bzoning iG they have the choice to leave that as is and to not vote it in favor of this, and just hold on to those R313S,she doesn't believe all Ofitcould bedeveloped as planned. Jennifer Baum U814 iGinagreement with O8Gr3vvthat the buildings are just too big for the lot and the p8[C8|s that are in the little COOler have DO business being included in that property. Baum does agree that the area needs tVberezoned but the little properties there are simply giving away for two bigger buildings and if those buildings had 8 third cut off, it might be able tOwork. Baum stated having that many people in that space is going to increase the traffic on the northside, even on the streets that are not Governor and North Dodge, because people have to get from one side to the other side as they're both one ways, so to do that one has to cut Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 17nfI7 through extremely residential areas like Deweyville, where she lives 8Sthe @dhoc mayor. She noted people going to HyVee from Governor Street assume that it's a shortcut and go through there about 40miles @Dhour, they already have trouble with that, they already stand ODthe street corner and yell 8tpeople because they have lots 0fsmall children and are hoping k}have more and hoping k3have @ development ODNorth Summit that includes families. So, they're looking to put more families in their neighborhood and when they start increasing the number of humans that only have one recourse in egress and ingress, they have to figure out how to get to that one spot. Baum stated there's been no discussion about putting an alley or a way of getting through from the North Dodge property to the Governor property and that is problematic. If they gave these folks a way to go between those two properties, where there is actually room because they made a smaller number of units, they could have a little more space to put in a way So that people could get across those two lots and from one side of the one way tOthe other one way. E3aU0 stated that would [8|ieV0 all that traffic that's trying to make 8 shortcut somehow really fast through the neighborhood. She stated all they have iDtheir neighborhood iShumans that are either alive 0[dead and the dead folks have visitors. The people that live ODher streets gOreally slowly and don't want people going bythat fast. They finally, after 1Oyears Offighting, got GerDiS off our street and this is just going to set them back. B8UOl stated there's 8 VV8y to make it a little bit easier and still have infill, still have apartments, still have housing, even though it's not going tObBaffordable for 8majority OfhU[D8DSth@t|iveiDtheyWidVveSt'@OdDOtd8StR}y the neighborliness Ofthe neighborhoods. Bethany Berge /NOrthside\ states she lives probably about GO eight minute walk from where the proposal is a nd wanted to speak in support of the proposal. One thing that hasn't been necessarily mentioned is that this development is also a short walk from the HyVee, it's a short walk from the Ace H@ndvV@n8, this is an ideal place to put housing vvh8[8 people actually can walk t0various services, s0they won't need tOdrive all the time. She noted looking 8t the site now, it's really an eyesore, it's an abandoned office building and big parking lot, so the new buildings will make the landscaping there will b8much more attractive than some Ofthe buildings that are CU[[eDUy there. Berger stated one of the things that she |Ov8S @hVUt |Ow@ City is its vV@|k@bi|ity which is @ truly unique thing. She lived in Connecticut for B long time and it's 8 unique thing that Iowa City has so in order to preserve that walkability they need dense housing where people can walk to services. Berger also F8@||y liked reading about the plants that are going to be planted there and really appreciated that. Marie Wilkes (917yJ.Governor Street) stated she moved tOIowa City in the early k}0id-1H8OS and bought her home @t917North Governor in1987. She iSvery committed k}Iowa City and been ataxpayer Ofproperty taxes for almost 4Oyears. She has raised two children here and loves the northside. She'd love to get rid of that empty lot but she also knows something about how that road is, having had Gtleast three cars iOher front yard, her house iSjust 8little bit beyond where it goes straight, then there's a curve and a dip, and when the road is icy people end up in her yard, she is concerned when they have had possibly 100 cars in and out. Over the last 40years there's been traffic that has increased over time and thank God itwas SO complicated for everyone to decide tOdevelop First Avenue, but itdid lessen the traffic Glittle bit OOGovernor, but it's still building. Because they're doing 8good job iOprogressing and trying tD make those hard decisions she asks the Commission to make this decision, not for money today, but for the citizens that live and are committed tDIowa City 8B@unique eCDstructure. Iowa City is very walkable. She took @ d@Ss at the University that talked about hOVV unique |DVV8 City is in that they had an area that busses, people were dropped off, they could walk through downtown, they can walk their children tOschool. With this development they will have how many extra Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 18nfI7 people coming in, and how close are they tOHorace Mann and b]P[8U[j|'how will that limit children that have been able to be raised in an area that makes them able to be independent and learn those decisions earlier. Wilkes stated its hard decisions and she appreciates the people that they vote in to municipal offices to conduct the business that most are too busy to do, but the Commission finds the time tD do it so she would ask them simply iOthink |OQiCG||y about why are they considering more density. Nothing has changed from 2011when iiwas turned down. If someone can explain the difference tOher she'd gladly listen but she doesn't see how they're able to support comfortably and welcome that many people into this neighborhood. VVi|k8S stated they are good neighbors and like tOwalk and say hitOeach other and walk down tOCity Park tDenjoy thefiPeVVO[hS8Ddb8CkS8fe|yODFOUdhOfJU|y8ndVV8!kdOVVDtOH8rDbUrQ|mDOD a Saturday or Sunday for breakfast, they're the people in this neighborhood, so please think about them. N.Dodge iea25year owner and resident of83ONorth Dodge Street, her home is visible at the very bottom southwest corner and shares a driveway with the 900North Dodge Street duplex. She opposes the request for rezoning iOits current state and requests removal from the proposal Ofthe duplex 8t9OONorth Dodge Street. She iSwholly supportive of DlV|UfarDi|y iDfi|| development of an appropriate Size that considers the context Of the existing neighborhood, the critical steep slopes and the relationship to the public park. Her understanding is that Planning and Zoning reviews the application through a lens of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with compatibility with the neighborhood. TheB8[kO|Ow/Citv rezoning proposal iSproblematic iDregards tOboth principles. Rezoning the Q00North Dodge Street duplex iSinconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because historically City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the R3Bhigh density multifamily zoning ODportions Ofthe proposed rezoning was a spot zone and was considered a mistake. They called it a mistake. They twice tried tDbring the zoning iDline with the neighborhood and was prevented bythe Iowa Supreme Court. Now staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Regarding rezoning 900 North Dodge Street, staff offer a rationale of desiring consistency with the RK8-20portions Ofthe property rather than seeking consistency with the nature Dfthe surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter Ofthe Comprehensive Plan. What was once understood 8S8spot zone has now become the model for density. Second, the staff pF000OUOD of v2|U8 of consistency of zoning within the required OP[) is CODt[8diCtBd by leaving one Ofthe North Dodge Street duplexes 8Sis, the northwest one, but rezoning the other to RM-20. B8h[iCkSt8ted it's not specified in the staff report that the fact that the C)PO 8||OVVS unused residential density within it tOb8transferred tOthe proposed new buildings. So what's occurring is that the 900 North Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 square feet, but only 5000 square feet are required for a single family home. By rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex from RG-12 to RM-20 and Ch8DQiOg it from 8 duplex to 8 single UDit, Mr. B8[k8|DVVwas able to transfer unused density, gaining six of his 84 units in the proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged OOpage 1ODfthe staff report where i[isstated that the owner shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards Ofthe zone. |t took her Glong time tOunderstand why are they including her neighbor there when there's no plan to redevelop it, they're capturing density. The two North Dodge Street properties she has been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District P|@D as NS-12 SiDg|ef8Dli|V/dVp|ex. The [|0OOpn8h8DGive P|8O stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. Bahrick stated she has invested a significant portion of her financial resources in her home at 830 North Dodge Street adjacent to the 900 North Dodge Street duplex with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan iS8reliable dOCunl8Dt. |fseems tOher now the City iSprepared t0override the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 19nfI7 Central District Plan iOorder bJfacilitate achieving @Dinappropriate density for the neighborhood. The Supreme Court did not obligate the City k}include SOONorth Dodge Street inits decision and doing SDiSinclear violation Ofthe Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at 900 North Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park and removing most of the trees on the border development. Bahrick stated it does seem that the City may be concerned if they don't go along with the current proposal that the development could bgworse due tDwhat's allowed bythe Supreme Court decision however, given the odd shape Ofthe court imposed R313 zonings, the three disparate plots, and the steep slope 0Olot 51 which may make it difficult even to build on, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely that M[ B8[h8|OvVcould, in practice, achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R3Bzone. 8@h[icka8ks the Commission tOsend the plans back tOthe staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better environmentally and is more eOVi[OnFOeOt8||y sensitive. Matthew Solinge U001 N.8urnnnit has lived inthe neighborhood furabouk10yeoraand has been VVD[kiOg as 8 delivery driver in it for @ little longer than 8 year. He mostly wants to bring Upissues with the design and traffic, because that's 8lot Ofpeople that are all going U]be leading right out into Governor, which they all know is a one way, and that driveway is right at the top of the hill. People like to drive fast, they're going to be coming up it and without some kind of 8iOp light O[something, there's going to be problems. While people have mentioned biking and VV@|kiOg, which are gFeat, but if people try to bike out onto GOV8[D0[' eventually they're going to die. |t'9 bad. It could be fixed 8Q8iO with 8 light Orsomething, maybe 8 SideVV8|h going the other way so one could walk to the Ace Hardware or the HyVee without having to get on the road. Seems like something that could bebrought into this plan. Also, SO|iOg8[stated when somebody says market range he hears rich jerks. |fthey said they're going to put people that need @cheGp place tOlive iOhere, he'd feel better about itpersonally. (51QN.Johnson Doted everybody has made somany great points and he'll try not reiterate too many things but first has to concur on both market prices and the fact that the units would beone and two bedrooms only. Staff, P&Zfolks, and planning people need k}figure out if that would indeed help with providing options for people, for households of all types and of all incomes, if that would really increase of the stock that is needed in the city. He is hoping that they have access tOthat information. The City has sometimes fought for three and four bedroom housing because they are trying to limit the density of student housing, but if they want families fO nOOv8 into those uDitG. or into that current empty |Vt, he imagines they would want more than one and two bedroom housing. Regarding traffic, between the danger Of Governor Street, he wishes people VVOU|d test going up that hill in the winter, the |8Ck of access tObusses OnDodge Street and tObike down the city, it just doesn't make any sense. Bigger acknowledged he is not a planner but between that and the great points before about the what seemed tObeunnecessary rezoning Ofsome Ofthe RS-12lots, they could cut off the current RW1-20 down the middle and then avoid the houses OOthe southeast and have two and Ghalf acres ready for 8nRW1-20.They would take over all the R3B.some ofthe current RM-2Oand COU|d still put in maybe 40-50 units. That VVOU|d @||8Vi8te some of the COOCerOS with tn8OiC' which will beextreme. Bigger notes h8loves going through []evVGyvi||8.H8usually walks V[bikes through it. NHdefinitely never comes down there from the north inhis car, but people do, just like the northside has had concerns with people crossing and taking Ronalds and choosing a cobbled street to go from Dubuque east, he doesn't know why, it seems crazy, but people do it. H8loves those streets, but again h8does itODhis bike because it's fun. Regarding the slopes, Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 3OnfI7 even if some of those were man-made per code encroachment must be minimized for critical slopes. That would not b8done. Regarding storm water, dOthey know ifthere's current issues with StOrDlvv8hSr8nd vvOU|d doing all this 8CtU8||y rD@k8 things worse with pO18nU8| issues with flooding. If this is to proceed they need to think about permeable pavers. Also light pollution was mentioned and this will be more light pollution then with just houses. With big lots there's a lot of lights and LED lights have been proven to be convenient and cheap and not consume much electricity but they're awful for wildlife. Also cutting about an acre of trees won't be good for wildlife, but whatever isleft Ofthe wildlife will not b8happy with all that artificial light day and night. Bigger would also love staff to check the code for the distance that is needed between a playground and 8building, hesaw somewhere that one can install @ playground only ifit's 20 feet from a property line. Working backwards from that there's currently a basketball court that would bgtoo close tOwhat would come. Finally, market price iGaDugly and contentious buzzword. Is this really what is needed, maybe ithasn't come yet but there's going to be an eOn]||Dl8Di cliff @t the universities in the K4idvVeSi S0 if this is targeting students, who kDOVvS VvhBi is going to happen tOthose uDitS. sadly demographics in |Ovv8 is not going the right direction. Orville Townsend (713Whiting Avenue) noted h8iSOvictim Dfhis VVde'stake your husband tO work initiative Sn@Shehas been sitting here this evening and observing, itdawned OOhim that this CODl[DiGSiOD is not only citizens who have VO|UO0B8ned to give their time to help make the Chv 8better place, but they also have some influence and some impact. The area he'd like tO address i8affordable housing and affordable housing i8just what itsays affordable. TOVVD8eOd stated 8ffOnd@b|e is the big word, it's no problem when one can afford it, but unfortunately in this community there's so many people who can't afford it. This Commission is in a position to be able to make a difference, they have a lot of cases that come before them and a lot of opportunities tOinitiate efforts that can help tOmake the City'saffordable housing better. Townsend noted while he has a house and it's very comfortable he remembers a time when he was a student and it was a nightmare. He hadn't gotten a job yet after he graduated from college and was struggling just trying tOmake itSVaffordable housing iSsomething that iSimportant, because when someone iSstruggling, they have alot Ofthings coming 8tthem that they have Do control over. Townsend encourages the Commission to do anything they can to assist the City in improving this affordable housing initiative. Andrew Evans (941 lives within 5OD Ofthe proposed site and works 8S8D architect in |OVVD City. He wanted highlight 8few points, first is how much iSthe developer held to the specifics of the plans and elevations that are contained within this proposal, assuming that the zoning change would pass. Any means Ofholding the developer tOthe plans would be beneficial, especially items like the unit setbacks are very beneficial iOtaking this from a 236` long building and segmenting it to match more of the single family scale that folks have been discussing. Evans dO8S have C0DCe[U that when v8|U8 engineering C0Kles into p|8y, that instead Dfhaving those delineated units itonce again starts 10appear like 8238'mass that people have expressed concern with. Evans also noted the wall tDthe south Ofthe site right now doesn't have @ material called out and h8iSconcerned that iS@large concrete graffiti -ready wall there. N8acknowledged the representative for the developer pointed out that the three story building will actually bemore like two and @ half iOmany parts Ofthe site, but ifthe side yard elevation that's attached 8Spart Ofthis evening's document iSaccurate for that elevation, h8iSnot sure how the vv8|k Up Units vvOU|d work for @ building that is SUDkeD half story into the ground. If anything it'd likely rise up from there and having elevated porches. Regarding elevations, looking briefly 8ttopographical maps, i[looks like Happy Hallow Park sits somewhere between 710'and 72O'Ofelevation and the building iSproposed 8f735'.the edge Ofthe site iSbetween 735'and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 31nfI7 745' so that's @ massive grade increase. Evans also acknowledged the trees to the south of the site, demOiOg some of those trees is pulling back the curtain and SO this is e|8V@t8d OD @ platform and serves as a billboard for all that traffic coming up North Governor. By pulling back that curtain, instead Dfexposing 87O`f8V8dethey're now exposing 8238'f8C8d8.The idea Ofpulling back for more green space and setback works well for sites that are accessed from 360 degrees, but here 90-90% of the eyeballs OD this site are coming from the south Up that road. SO if it was jUSi 70' vvide and more p8[8||8| with the road, it would appear actually much more in SC8|R with the rest Ofthe houses. Evans noted that VOMormon Trek Road between Benton and ROh[gt Roads are tDvVDhD[D8Svery similar tDthe designs currently proposed here and those run parallel. He uses that comparison because there's sidewalks in front of bunches of town home units and so those are unparallel and he doesn't think anyone is offended by those even though there's not 8 0U8SSive' @Dg|Gd setback. EV8DS stated another resident of the area, Jennifer 8@u[D' brought up alley connection and access between the two units and he thinks if they're proposed as a package deal, then that should bHused 8S8Dadvantage. When arterial roads, like Dodge and Governor are seen @Sone ways that's viewed ODthe whole city scale, i1makes 8ton Ofsense, but unfortunately when on one side you can only use what's in front of you and can't use both that are advantageous. Therefore, creating the alley access would bevery beneficial. Evans also noted many of the roads people are cutting through, many of the neighborhood roads, don't have sidewalks O[are brick and SOthose are much more popular for bikers and walkers than other neighborhoods. If the City is 8OCOU[8giOg bikers, with this new development and SO0eDOe has to hike downtown, what route are they taking. If the developer is encouraged tOconnect the two via some sort Dfpath, even ifit's not @ full connection Ufthe parking lots, th@t'dbevery beneficial tD the safety, because no person in the right mind is going to hop on their bike, ride uphill north a quarter mile just to |OOp back down into town. As CO-8pp|iC8Dt hethinks that puts the City in more responsibility to step up and make beneficial moves for the park, the compatibility with the existing neighborhood, GSwell aGconnection with the alley. His final point would bewith the environmentally sensitive areas, it's just a bit concerning to him that there were only like five lines Oftext ODthat about crossing the 35% threshold t086%and some points were made about artificial slopes, but none ofthose slopes are near the road, SDL0him that point iGmoot and perhaps there are some more creative ways to configure the site to bring that 86% number much |OVYe[ He thinks it'd be beneficial and VVOU|d counter that the 238' of the building VVDU|d |e@V8 most 0fthe slopes and highlight the 70'f8C@d8instead tOmaintain the economy Dfscale that was referenced earlier. Jennifer Baum wanted tDadd speaking Ofwildlife there's Gherd Ofabout 4Odeer that every night goes from the ravine on the other side of Dodge Street, go through Happy Hallow Park, come up across Governor, go up the hill into Deweyville and then on into the cemetery and Hickory Hill. 8O. thinking about safety and driving again the more people OD that street the more likely deer are going tDget hit. Sharon DeGraw noticed in reading the staff report there was a fee in lieu paid and she believes that that means rent, a fee in lieu is the cost of doing business that's going to be passed on to fUtUF8 F8Dt8[S' making the property more expensive tO n8OL Also, when 8 SnO8|| group of neighbors did talk tOthe yWK8S engineers and asked for 8walkway that would connect the apartment complex buildings to the park as that would be a nice way for people to get tOthe park safely, that was tU[D8d dOvvD. She thinks that's GO incredibly important thing that ShDU|d be added as somehow in the course of this discussion it was misinterpreted that they were wanting tOkeep people away from the park and that's not true @[ all, they want people [Ouse the park, they're just trying tOfigure out safe ways they can access the park. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 32nfI7 wanted tDread verbiage from code. In the RK8-12. RK4-20@Dd RN@-20ZDn8S. if any portion Of8two family use, multifamily use, group living use, O[nonresidential use iSlocated within 15'of a property that contains an existing single family use, then the portion of the building located within 15' of said property may not exceed two and a half stories in height. Bigger is pretty sure that inall 0fthis there's something that's 15'away from said property and somebody should check. Also, a point of sustainability, which the City cares about, if 905/909 North Governor ought tOb8razed, the City 8S@CD-@pp|iCGD['maybe can exercise some light pressure tOplease include deconstruction Ofsaid houses instead Ofstraight razing and demolition and sending tOthe landfill. The house may not have immense historical value but itwould benice tD see ifthere's elements that could b8salvaged for somebody else tOuse. Jon Marner (MMS) briefly added 8couple Ofcomments based ODsome Ofthe additional CDDCerOs expressed bythe community and the neighbors. Regarding the proposed grade and the question raised earlier about elevations, the elevation Ofpark @1the southeast corner, directly east from the proposed amenity gathering area, is approximately 745' and the proposed building elevation for the finished first floor is 736` SO it sits 8' below that e|8V8UDO at the retaining VV8||. That's part Dfhow they would accommodate that gathering seating area amenity iStOhave 8 retaining vV8|| Out closer to the Fight of way to allow that SeGUDg area and it steps up S|Vw|y from the building and allows that town home entrance for that building. The other question raised was the existing elevation just north Ofthe basketball court which isabout 718'and iidoes slope UptO the retaining wall and the existing grade Gtthe bottom Ofthe proposed retaining wall i8about 722'SOabout 4'Ofelevation change just from the property line tOthe bottom Ofthe retaining wall. Marner noted it was expressed about the desire to have a pedestrian connection to the park and that was discussed with staff whether that was desired by Parks and Rec and the understanding at the time was that the Parks Department did not desire for there to be a pedestrian connection directly from the units dOVVD to the park. There may be an opportunity in the future, via sidewalk O[any potential capital improvements 0[City improvements tOGovernor Street, tVutilize that access tOcome down tOthe park for this development. Craig asked how about @ pedestrian exit over tODodge Street, 8bicycle Dr pedestriantr8ii yN@Ole[ stated they did |0Ok at that and it was another DODSide[81oD but just @|ODg the property line, east Ofthe existing parking lot, there's a dumpster pad with a retaining wall and the grades on the west part of the site are significantly higher than the east part of the site. Also, that's some of the GFe@G they're trying to protect and it vvOU|d be challenging at best to get @ an @CC8SSih|e path from east tOwest through the site because Ofthe elevation change. Audrey Bahrick stated regarding having 8 trail from the development tOthe park, to read from page 5O0fthe 2O30Comprehensive Plan itstates there iS@requirement t0"identify and plan for the development Oftrail connections 8Spart Ofall new deVe|OpDleOtS." B8h[iCkstated the proposed development turns its back on the park offering no designated pedestrian access for residents Ofthese buildings and that iSiDclear violation Ofthe Comprehensive Plan. T0assume that residents would simply walk through the formerly wooded threshold to the park is not possible because Of8retaining wall from 4'tO13'high iSplanned that will separate the development from the park. She'd like everyone to irO8giO8 8 parent with @ child going to the pG[h. or parent with Q StF0||e[' or someone with [DObi|ih/ limits, trying to get to that park from this development, that's just not happening. They need tOgOout the exit onto Governor Street, and then there's 8 sidewalk to OOVVhe[e. cross mid -block on 8St@te highway, walk down to BFDVVD Street, vv@|k GCn}SG Bn}vvn Street 8 vvhO|8 city block to get to the entrance of the park, b8C@uS8 Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 23 of 27 it's just not accessible from the site. Developments should relate to the amenities, that's also part of the Comprehensive Plan, that there should be a relationship there, and this development literally is turning its back on the park. Hensch closed the public hearing. Quellhorst recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Craig seconded the motion. Quellhorst began Commission discussion wanting to thank everybody for a great discussion tonight, he made the motion he made because he thinks they need more housing. People pay too much for housing and a lot of people can't afford to live here so if they want to change that they need to build more housing units. This is an opportunity to do that, which would bring housing prices down for all. The land seems very well situated to multifamily development, it's largely unused, close to two arterial streets, public transportation and a grocery store. Additionally, if they don't do this it seems likely to that there would be a similar development, but it would be worse because it would be less well organized and not subject to modern zoning standards. So for those reasons he supports the motion. Craig echoed what Quellhorst said would just add that one of the points people made tonight Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 34nfI7 was families, and that maybe they wouldn't b8feel comfortable iO@one O[two bedroom @p8rtDO8OL She can't remember what the D@1iOO@| St@tiSdCS are, but in |OVV8 City 40% of the housing units are for one person so they have to build housing for everybody. She acknowledged if she had herdnJ[herS it'd be @ little bit Sm8U8r' but it's bringing housing that is desperately needed. She doesn't believe it is incompatible with the neighborhood, it's going to fit in and the people are going to be 8h|e to bike. vv@|k and the livability of the neighborhood is increased. When more people are added more activities happen and she will support the project. HeOSch first wanted to commend everybody and thank them for showing uptonight Doting it's hard to show up in public and speak but he listened carefully to every word said and read every word submitted iDwriting. Hepersonally will support this application, and his reasons are affordable housing. They have tOdosomething and the only way k}dOthat iSeither lower the price O[increase the supply and this iSdefinitely going b]increase the supply. Unfortunately, since no one is displaced they can't add a condition that there be affordable housing but so everybody knows, right now there isBsteering committee meeting k}update the current Comprehensive Plan, because every 1Oyears they're required bylaw tOupdate that, and he's a member Ofthat steering committee and will advocate strongly that affordability beincluded iOall zoning areas, not just HiVg[f[ODtCrossings and annexations. Just 1Oaddress Gcouple issues people had about traffic concerns, H8OSch completely understands that. He's been in |OVVa City since 1985 and that was an intensive CO[DDleFCi8| use there, where that office building is, with probably hundreds Dfpeople coming going every day with C)HSthere, 8Othe traffic flow has already been seen. Also the idea Df@Dalley access, h8respects that being brought Upbut doesn't think that's 8good idea because all alley accesses turn into CUt-thnJUghSand iileads tO increased speeds, and any residents around there will rue the day that an alley or a cut -through was put through that property, because people want to go the shortest way they can when they're getting somewhere, n[@tleast what they think it's the shortest way, and then the people that live there pay for that. Lastly, because heiSthe chair, hecan't make @ motion O[second it, but would ask that they add another condition ifthe motion maker and seconder would approve, to add S3screening (the highest level Ofscreening) Gt the base ofthat retaining wall for the purpose of making it look green and when people are in the park and look up they just don't see 8 bare wall, they'll see foliage, they'll see plants, they'll see vines and beautification. Also, |OVV8 City has @ horrible p[Ob|8[O with graffiti and if they can d0 anything to keep people from spray painting that wall, they Deed to do that. HeDSCh stated he will be voting yes and hopes that they can make @ consideration for adding another condition tOthe five that currently exist. Elliott likes the idea of a consideration for S3 screening and would vote yes with that and if they could add a consideration for some kind of walkway path to the park. Hensch noted the Recreation Commission may not have agreed to that nor was it in the Comprehensive Plan but since the City iS@co-applicant itseems they can put @S8consideration that idea because it is very odd there is no sidewalk to get to the park on Governor Street, they could 8tleast ask that it gets pushed forward tOthe Recreation Commission UJtry b]get iO8 capital plan. (]UeUhOrStSt8ted there would be 8 sidewalk UJthe park, because there's going to be @ sidewalk that runs down Governor @Spart Ofthe property development. ||eDSChnep|ied that only goes k} the property line. Craig stated the City has to take responsibility for bringing that SideVV8|h dOVVD to BnDVVD @t[8eL C)Ue||hO[St stated that is outside the scope of this p@rtiCU|8[ prOpOS8| and they cannot saddle the cost tOthe developer, because itiSnot their project. H8DSChagreed but Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 35nfI7 stated they could at least advocate or communicate to recreation department to consider putting it in their capital p|@O at some pDiOt, to extend that sidewalk SD people can S8fg|y get down to the park. The City i3aco-applicant SOthey can suggest i[bepresented 1Othe Recreation Committee, even just by8memo tOconsider Dntheir capital plan. Russett stated they can certainly pass along the interest of the Commission to have a sidewalk, that's probably something the public works department would look 8isince it's inthe public right of way, but she is UOC8rt@iD DOVV hOVV they VVoV|d add it as @ C0OdidVO and not have it be placed OOthe owner. HeOsch8Sked if they can get staff assurance that they will forward that to public works and RuSSettconfirmed absolutely staff will pass that along. Regarding adding 8 COndUUDD Of83 screening at the retaining vV8U {]Ue||hOrstthinks screening is generally a good idea but is not familiar with the cost or logistics associated with that and would staff any have any position DDthat. H8DSChnoted the applicant actually agreed tDit already, they said they wouldn't have no objection to that. Russett confirmed staff thinks it's a reasonable request as well. Que|khorstmmoved to amend the motion tmadd msixth condition that S3 screening be added to the retaining wall. Craig seconded the amendment. Townsend noted she probably be the only no vote on this one because as she is looking at these units and the neighborhood, the buildings are huge and, in her opinion, it needs to be reconfigured as it just doesn't fit in with the look of the neighborhood. Miller 8gFeDS and is all for density and iDfiU' but the SC8|e of the buildings and hOVV they neb]he to the street don't feel appropriate, and he doesn't think it's because of the density they could fit that [D@Dy units OO this site in @ more appropriate way with stepping 8 little bit DlO[8. The 8xp|@D@b0D about making the buildings identical is economical but itdoesn't feel like the right long term solution. But he agrees overall and may have designed qualms with it but they're in an affordable housing C[iSiG and getting the units is the most important thing at this point. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-1(Townsend dissenting). Elliott moved tDapprove the meeting minutes from December 4.2O24. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Townsend nominated Quellhorst for chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion ,__-_- 7-0. Craig nominated Elliott for ViCe-Ch8i[' Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the [OOiiOO passed Planning and Zoning Commission February 19,2O25 Page 36nfI7 Townsend OO[OiD8t8d Wade for secretary, Elliott seconded, 8 vote was taken and the [DOdOD paesed7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the two rezonings at Western Homes and Cardinal Heights that the Commission saw 8while ago with changes b]the [)PDwere both approved 8tCouncil. RuSSe[tstated the next meeting will be on yW8[Ch 5vvith OD [O88UDg OO yW@[Ch 19due to spring break. Townsend moved tOadjourn, [}UeUhOrst seconded and the motion passed 7-O. Z U) U) O U Z Z N Z Z Z J a p O U Ill LO N UJ c U, Z N inN Z w h h Q T- X X X X ; X X x N N x x x x ; x x X T �x Wxx 0 wwx 00 oo x x x x x x x X X w x ; x X X N x X x X X X x X © X X D X xx 00Xx NX XX X X X X c� NX Qx ; x x x x ;x xx ; x x x x r G N X x ; X X x X O to N T X X X ; �O w X X X Ln XXX;Xxxx T 0 o X X X , x X X X o X X x ; x X X x r F O w 'Ue w ,C( coJ Z w> F m p g y 0 O Z = 1J _ �w='QLij =oa U wx5aClF—� cn c L 0 -0 U E X W N Q Z } n 11 I I W 11 II W Yxoo