HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 05.07.2025PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Rezoning Items
4. Case No. REZ25-0005
Location: Portion of land located north of E. Foster Rd.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 2.69 acres of land from High Density Single-
Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone.
5. Case No. REZ25-0006
Location: Portion of land located south of E. Foster Rd.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 2.69 acres of land from High Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-12) zone to High Density Single-Family Residential zone with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12).
6. Updates from Steering Committee members on the Comprehensive Plan Update
7. Consideration of meeting minutes: March 5, 2025
8. Planning and Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: May 21 / June 4 / June 18
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ25-0005
Prepared by: Madison Conley
Date: May 7, 2025
Parcel: 1003127002
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owner:
Foster Road Development, LLC
340 Herky St
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
(319) 351-2028
gstiltner@stillnerelectric.com
Contact Person: Ron Amelon
MMS Consultants, Inc
1917 South Gilbert St
Iowa City, Iowa, 52240
(319) 631-2703
r.amelon@mmsconsultants.net
Requested Action: Rezoning of 2.69 acres from High Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to
High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12)
zone.
Purpose:
Rezoning that provides consistency with the
adjacent property to the west (parcel
1003201002). Rezoning is needed in order to
approve associated boundary line adjustment
(BLA25-0003) application.
Location: North of E. Foster Rd.
Location Map:
Size: 2.69 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: High Density Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant, OPD/RS-12
South: Vacant, High Density Single-Family
2
Residential (RS-12)
East: Multi-Family Residential, OPD/RS12
West: Vacant, High Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12)
Comprehensive Plan:
Conservation Design & Public/Private Open
Space
Neighborhood Open Space District: N2
North District Plan: Conservation Design & Public/Private Open
Space
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and occupants within 500’ of
the property received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. A rezoning sign was posted along E.
Foster Rd. in front of the property.
File Date: April 4, 2025
45 Day Limitation Period:
June 19, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner, Foster Road Development, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of
approximately 2.69 acres of land from High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone
for a portion of the property located north of E. Foster Rd. (parcel 1003127002). Concurrently with
the rezoning, the owner has applied for a boundary line adjustment (BLA25-0003) to increase the
size of the adjacent property to the west (parcel 1003201002).
The subject property is a part of Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision. The boundary line adjustment
request is to remove 2.69 acres from Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates and add it to the adjacent property to
the west. This land is currently vacant and has not been subdivided. These two properties have two
different zoning designations. To approve the boundary line adjustment, the zoning must be
consistent. Hence the request for the rezoning.
Staff has prepared the map below, Figure 1, that visually shows the parcels of land involved in the
proposed rezoning and boundary line adjustment.
Figure 1 shows the location of Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates outlined in red. The adjacent property to the
west is outlined in blue. Subdivision boundaries are show in purple. The area proposed to be
rezoned is generally shown in the black dashed line. This area is also the area proposed to be part
of the adjacent property to the west with the boundary line adjustment application.
3
Figure 1. Proposed Rezoning and Boundary Line Adjustment Area
In terms of case history, the subject property was rezoned and subdivided in 2017 and 2018. As of
today, some of the land has been developed. Here’s a summary:
In 2017, a rezoning was approved for land located south of I-80 between Dubuque Street and
Prairie Du Chien Road (including the subject property). That rezoning rezoned 50.11 acres to
OPD/RS-12 zone and 3.18 acres to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to allow for multifamily
residential and office development (REZ17-00017).
In 2018, the City adopted a resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Forest Hill Estates
(SUB18-00004 & Res. No 18-96) and the Final Plat for Forest Hill Estates was adopted in May 2018
(SUB18-00008). The Final Plat states that Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates is approximately 9.52 acres and
includes a conservation easement that applies to the subject property. See Attachment 2.
In 2024, a Major Site Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates was approved for a total of five buildings and
nineteen dwelling units. These units are currently under construction. The property directly south of
Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates is also concurrently involved in a separate rezoning (REZ25-0006) request
and boundary line adjustment (BLA25-0002) as part of the land swap between owners.
The applicant has indicated that the subject property is to be added to the adjacent property to the
west in Figure 1. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to have consistent zoning on the adjacent
property to the west and to increase its size. That said, the subject property contains numerous
sensitive features and is located within a conservation easement. Therefore, the subject property
will not provide any additional development potential to the existing property.
A good neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning. Attachment 3 includes the applicant
submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the
rationale behind the request.
4
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned OPD/RS-12. The purpose of the RS-12
zone is to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing
units at a higher density than in other single- family zones. Properties zoned RS-12 allow
townhome style multi-family with up to six units attached. The maximum height in this zone is 35’.
An OPD was required due to impacts to sensitive areas and the mix of housing types proposed
which includes a large-scale multi-family building that provides housing to seniors, as well as
townhome style multi-family residential units.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the RS-12 zone.
The intent of the RS-12 zone is to provide housing opportunities for individual households,
duplexes, and attached housing units at a higher density compared to other single-family zones.
This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential
neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities.
Table 1 includes the minimum lot size required for detached single-family, duplexes, and attached
single-family housing types in the RS-12 zone.
Table 1. RS-12 Zoning Summary
Minimum Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)
Detached single- family, including zero lot line 5,000
Duplexes 6,000
Attached single-family 3,000
Regardless of the zoning for the subject property no development will be allowed because it is
located within an existing conservation easement. The rezoning combined with the boundary line
adjustment do not change the land uses that are allowed on Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision.
Lastly, since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff is
recommending a condition that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates
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 Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is reviewed to the North District
Plan and the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Future Land Use Map of the North District Plan identifies the subject property as
appropriate for Conservation Design & Public/Private Open Space. The Conservation Design
land use designation is intended primarily for areas where sensitive environmental features or
the land topography limit the development potential of the land, and the Public/Private Open
Space designation indicates there is existing open space that is important for the protection of
sensitive natural features. Development may occur if development density is clustered away
and/or if a proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements in addition to the Iowa City
Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property
appropriate for Conservation Design & Public/Private Open Space uses.
5
The proposed rezoning to RS-12 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the City’s
adopted plans. The plans envision conservation design and open space. The existing
conservation easement will ensure the subject property will not be developed. Development to
the east of the subject property (on the remainder of Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision) will
still be allowed pursuant to the approved rezoning (REZ17-00017).
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by
RS-12 to the south and west, OPD/RS-12 to the north, and OPD/RS-12 to the east. A majority
of the land surrounding the subject property is currently vacant. Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates, which
is located south of the subject property and across E. Foster Rd. is currently under
development. Nineteen townhome style dwellings are currently being built at this location.
The subject property is part of Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates and zoned OPD/RS-12. This lot is 9.52
acres and the OPD plan approved a total number of 33 dwelling units. The proposed rezoning and
boundary line adjustment would reduce the size of Lot 4 by 2.96 acres resulting in a total acreage of
6.83. The development approved with the OPD plan could still move forward even with this rezoning
and boundary line adjustment. Also, the development potential of this area would remain unaffected
because the subject property is not considered developable land due to the conservation easement
and sensitive areas.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property is in an existing conservation
easement that was established as part of the Final Plat and does not allow for development. The
Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates identifies regulated sensitive
features including critical and protected slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0005, a proposed rezoning to rezone 2.69 acres of the
property located north of E. Foster Rd. from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-12 zone subject to the
following conditions:
a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no
building permit shall be issued for Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision until the City
approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the
zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement
is attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location & Zoning Map
2. Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
3. Applicant Submittal Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Maps
St A n n e 'S D r
Bjaysville L n
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
B
u
r
e
s
h
A
v
e
V e ntura Ave
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
Oa
k
l
a
w
n
Ave
M e a d owRidge
Ln
80 Wb to Dubuque St NE
N D u b u q u e S t t o 8 0 E b
Interstate 80
E Foster Rd
REZ25-0005
E Foster Roadµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: April 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application to rezone approximately 2.69 acres of land
from High Density Single-Family Residential zone with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone
Li
n
d
e
r
Ln
N
E
St A n n e 'S D r
Bj
a
y
s
v
ill
eL n
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
B
u
r
e
s
h
A
v
e
V e ntura
A
ve
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
O
a
k
l
awn
Ave
Me
a
d
o
w
R
i
d
g
e
L
n
80 Wb to Dubuque St NE
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
t
o
8
0
E
b
Interstate 80
E Fos
t
e
r
R
d
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS12
RS5
RS12
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS12
2 ʹͷǦͲͲͲͷ
2q
Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer
Date Prepared: April 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application to rezone approximately 2.69 acres of land
from High Density Single-Family Residential zone with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone
OPD/OPD/OPD/
OPD/
OPD/
ATTACHMENT 2
Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal Materials—Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant
Statement
117,184 SF
2.69 AC
"AMENDED"
FOREST HILL ESTATES
LOT 4
OUTLOT "A"
FOSTE
R
R
O
A
D
NW
1
\
4
-
N
E
1
\
4
SEC
T
I
O
N
3
-
T
7
9
N
-
R
6
W
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
PER RRN REVIEW - RLW04-02-2025
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
04-01-2025
1401RLA
RLW
RRN
11619-002IC 1
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
NE
1
\
4
-
N
W
1
\
4
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
-
T
7
9
N
-
R
6
W
REZONING PARCEL
(OPD/RS-12 TO RS-12)
N89°29'44"E 700.61'(M) 700.42'(R)
200.30'
S0
2
°
3
5
'
0
4
"
E
31
1
.
0
7
'
S1
3
°
4
2
'
1
4
"
W
38
9
.
5
9
'
S89°56'41"E 248.02'(M) 247.95'(R)
90.87'
N0
2
°
3
5
'
4
0
"
W
68
8
.
1
1
'
(
M
)
6
8
8
.
0
1
'
(
R
)
POINT OF
BEGINNING
NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 4
LOCATION:
A PORTION OF LOT 4 OF "AMENDED" FOREST HILL ESTATES,
LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
LAND SURVEYOR:
RICHARD R. NOWOTNY P.L.S
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240
PHONE:319-351-8282
APPLICANT:
FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC
340 HERKY DRIVE
NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA 52317
PROPRIETOR OR OWNER:
FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC
340 HERKY DRIVE
NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA 52317
REZONING EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
LEGEND AND NOTES
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL ( OPD/RS-12 TO RS-12)
BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 4 of "Amended" Forest Hill Estates, to Iowa City, Iowa, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 62 at Pages 109-110 of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89°29'44"E, along the North Line of said Lot 4, a distance
of 200.30 feet; Thence S02°35'04"E, 311.07 feet; Thence S13°42'14"W, 389.59 feet, to a Point on the
South Line of said Lot 4; Thence S89°56'41"E, along said South Line, 90.87 feet, to the Southwest
Corner thereof; Thence N02°35'40"W, along the West Line of said Lot 4, a distance of 688.11 feet, to
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 2.69 Acres, and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record.
A PORTION OF LOT 4 OF "AMENDED" FOREST HILL ESTATES
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
REZONING PARCEL
(OPD/RS-12 TO RS-12)
G:
\
1
1
6
1
9
\
1
1
6
1
9
-
0
0
2
\
1
1
6
1
9
-
0
0
2
Z
1
.
d
w
g
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ25-0006
Parcel: 1003126004
Prepared by: Madison Conley
Date: May 7, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owner:
Raymond Alberhasky
4756 Dingleberry Rd NE
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 330-5481
Contact Person: Ron Amelon
MMS Consultants, Inc
1917 South Gilbert St
Iowa City, Iowa, 52240
(319) 631-2703
r.amelon@mmsconsultants.net
Requested Action: Rezoning of 2.69 acres from High Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone to High
Density Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12)
zone.
Purpose:
Rezoning that provides consistency with Lot 5
Forest Hill Estates. Rezoning is needed in
order to approve associated boundary line
adjustment (BLA35-0002) application.
Location: South of E. Foster Rd.
Location Map:
Size: 2.69 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Multi-Family Residential, OPD/RS-12
South: Vacant, High Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12)
East: Single-Family Residential, Low
2
Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5)
West: Vacant, OPD/RS-12
Comprehensive Plan:
Conservation Design & Public/Private Open
Space
Neighborhood Open Space District: N2
North District Plan: Conservation Design & Public/Private Open
Space
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and occupants within 500’ of
the property received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. A rezoning sign was posted along E.
Foster Rd. in front of the property.
File Date: April 4, 2025
45 Day Limitation Period:
June 19, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner is requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 2.69 acres of land from High
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone to High Density Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone for a portion of the property located south of E.
Foster Rd. (parcel 1003126004). Concurrently with the rezoning, the owner has applied for a
boundary line adjustment (BLA25-0002) to increase the size of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates.
The subject property has not been subdivided. This area is planned to develop as the stormwater
system for the townhome development located on Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates. Additionally, adjacent
property south of the subject property has not been subdivided. The boundary line adjustment
request is to remove 2.69 acres from the current parcel (1003126004) and add it to Lot 5 Forest Hill
Estates. These two properties have two different zoning designations. To approve the boundary line
adjustment, the zoning must be consistent. Hence the request for the rezoning.
Staff has prepared the map below, Figure 1, that visually shows the parcels of land involved in the
proposed rezoning and boundary line adjustment.
Figure 1 shows the location of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates outlined in red. The adjacent property to the
south is outlined in blue. Subdivision boundaries are show in purple. The area proposed to be
rezoned is generally shown in the black dashed line. This area is also the area proposed to join Lot
5 Forest Hill Estates with the boundary line adjustment application.
3
Figure 1. Proposed Rezoning and Boundary Line Adjustment Area
In terms of case history, Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates located directly north of the subject property, was
rezoned and subdivided in 2017 and 2018. As of today, some of the land has been developed.
Here’s a summary:
In 2017, a rezoning was approved for land located south of I-80 between Dubuque Street and
Prairie Du Chien Road. That rezoning rezoned 50.11 acres to OPD/RS-12 zone and 3.18 acres to
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to allow for multifamily residential and office development (REZ17-
00017).
In 2018, the City adopted a resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Forest Hill Estates
(SUB18-00004 & Res. No 18-96) and the Final Plat for Forest Hill Estates was adopted in May 2018
(SUB18-00008). The Final Plat states that Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates is approximately 6.53 acres and
includes a conservation easement. See Attachment 2.
In 2024, a Major Site Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates was approved for a total of five buildings and
nineteen dwelling units. These units are currently under construction. The Major Site Plan shows a
variety of proposed and existing easements on the subject property. These easements include
storm water management, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and grading.
Additionally, Lot 4 Forest Hill Estates is also concurrently involved in a separate rezoning (REZ25-
0005) request and boundary line adjustment (BLA25-0002) as part of the land swap between
owners.
The applicant has indicated that the subject property is to be added to Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates,
shown in Figure 1. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to have consistent zoning on Lot 5
Forest Hill Estates and to increase its size. That said, the subject property contains numerous
sensitive features and proposed and existing easements. Therefore, the subject property will not
provide any additional development potential to Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates.
4
A good neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning. Attachment 3 includes the applicant
submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the
rationale behind the request
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned RS-12. The purpose of the RS-12 zone
is to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units at a
higher density than in other single- family zones. Properties zoned RS-12 allow townhome style
multi-family with up to six units attached. The maximum height in this zone is 35’. This zone also
allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods,
such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the OPD/RS-12
zone. The OPD was required for the Forest Hill Estates Subdivision due to impacts to sensitive
areas and the mix of housing types proposed which includes a large-scale multi-family building
that provides housing to seniors, as well as townhome style multi-family residential units. The
intent of the RS-12 zone is to provide housing opportunities for individual households, duplexes,
and attached housing units at a higher density compared to other single-family zones. The
rezoning combined with the boundary line adjustment do not change the land uses that have been
approved on the 2024 Major Site Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates.
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 Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is reviewed to the North District
Plan and the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Future Land Use Map of the North District Plan identifies the subject property appropriate
for Conservation Design & Public/Private Open Space. The Conservation Design land use
designation is intended primarily for areas where sensitive environmental features or the land
topography limit the development potential of the land, and the Public/Private Open Space
designation indicates there is existing open space that is important for the protection of sensitive
natural features. Development may occur if development density is clustered away and/or if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requiremnts in addition to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property
appropriate for Conservation Design & Public/Private Open Space uses.
The proposed rezoning to OPD/RS-12 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the
City’s adopted plans. The plans envision conservation design and open space. The subject
property would become a part of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates which is clustering residential
development away from sensitive features and providing a mix of housing in Forest Hill Estates
Subdivision.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by
RS-12 to the south and west, OPD/RS-12 to the north, and RS-5 to the east. A majority of the
land surrounding the subject property is vacant, except for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates, which is
currently under development. Nineteen townhome style dwellings are currently being built at this
location.
5
The proposed rezoning and boundary line adjustment would increase the size of Lot 5 Forest Hill
Estates by 2.69 acres resulting in a total acreage of 9.22. The OPD plan approved a total number
of nineteen dwelling units for this lot. The development approved with the OPD plan would not be
impacted with this proposed rezoning and boundary line adjustment. Additionally, the
development potential of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates would remain unaffected because the subject
property is not considered developable land due to the sensitive areas and proposed and existing
easements located on the property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates contains regulated sensitive
features including critical and protected slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas. A conservation
easement was established on Lot 5 as part of the final platting process. The Major Site Plan for
Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates shows that the subject property will be used to accommodate stormwater
for the development of townhomes.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0006, a proposed rezoning to rezone 2.69 acres of the
property located south of E. Foster Rd. from RS-12 zone to OPD/RS-12 zone.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location & Zoning Map
2. Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
3. Applicant Submittal Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Maps
N Dubuque
St to 80 Eb
OaklawnAve
BureshAve
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
D
u
C
h
i
e
n
R
d
St A n n e 'S D r
Interstate 80
E Foster Rd
REZ25-0006
E Foster Roadµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: April 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application to rezone approximately 2.69 acres of land
from High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone to
High Density Single-Family Residential zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12)
N Dubuque
St to 80 Eb
O
a
k
l
a
wnAve
BureshAve
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
D
u
C
h
i
e
n
R
d
S t A n n e 'S D r
Interstate 80
E Fos
t
e
r
R
d
RS5
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS5
RS12
RS5P1
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS5
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5 RS5
RS5
RR1
RS12
RS5
REZ25-0006
E Foster Roadµ
Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer
Date Prepared: April 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application to rezone approximately 2.69 acres of land
from High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone to
High Density Single-Family Residential zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12)
OPD/OPD/OPD/
OPD/
OPD/OPD/
ATTACHMENT 2
Forest Hill Estates Final Plat
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal Materials—Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant
Statement
117,184 SF 2.69 AC
"AMENDED" FOREST HILL ESTATES
LOT 4 LOT 3
LOT 5
OUTLOT "A"
FOSTER ROAD
S1\
2
-
N
W
1
\
4
-
N
E
1
\
4
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
-
T
7
9
N
-
R
6
W
RE
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
O
F
L
O
T
3
0
C
O
N
W
A
Y
'
S
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
LO
T
2
5
LO
T
2
4
LOT 25
LOT 24
REZONING PARCEL (RS-12 TO OPD/RS-12)
POINT OF BEGINNING
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5
LOCATION:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA
CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
LAND SURVEYOR:
RICHARD R. NOWOTNY P.L.S
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240
PHONE:319-351-8282
APPLICANT:
FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC
340 HERKY DRIVE
NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA 52317
PROPRIETOR OR OWNER:
MARY ELLEN ALBERHASKY
DAVID LEE ALBERHASKY
RAYMOND C ALBERHASKY
M & B ALBERHASKY PROPERTIES LLC
227 ELIZABETH STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
LEGEND AND NOTES
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL (RS-12 TO OPD/RS-12
BEGINNING at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of "Amended"
Forest Hill Estates, to Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the
Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 62 at Pages 109-110 of the
Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S89°56'41"E, along the South Line of said Lot 5, and the Easterly
Projection thereof, 966.58 feet, to a Point on the West Line of a
Resubdivision of Lot 30 Conway's Subdivision, in accordance
with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 17 at Page 53 of the
Records of the Johnson County recorder's Office; Thence
S03°34'39"E, along said West Line, 48.28 feet; Thence
S83°38'13"W, 1226.50 feet, to a Point on the East Right-of-Way
Line of Foster Road, in accordance with the Condemnation
Recorded in Book 3100 at Page 358 of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N57°07'54"E, along
said Easterly Right-of-Way Line, 133.57 feet; Thence
Northeasterly, 177.75 feet, along said Easterly Right-of-Way Line
on a 783.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose
177.37 foot chord bears N50°37'42"E; Thence Northeasterly,
0.07 feet, along said Easterly Right-of-Way Line on a 467.00 foot
radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 0.07 foot chord
bears N44°07'45"E, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning
Parcel contains 2.69 Acres, and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
04-02-2025 PER RRN REVIEW - RLW
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
04-01-2025
RRN
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
11619-002 1
1401
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
N03°34'39"W
19.85'
962.84'(M) 962.88'(R)1
S0
1
°
5
7
'
2
8
"
E
13
2
.
1
4
'
(
M
)
1
3
2
.
2
6
'
(
R
)
FOREST HILL ESTATES
S89°56'41"E 966.58'
S03°34'39"E
48.28'
S83°38'13"W
1226.50'N57°
0
7
'
5
4
"
E
133.
5
7
'
Δ=13°00'24"
R=783.00'(M)(R)
L=177.75'(M)(R)
T=89.26'
C=177.37'(M)(R)
CB=N50°37'42"E
Δ=0°00'31"
R=467.00'(M)(R)
L=0.07'(M)(R)
T=0.03'
C=0.07'(M)(R)
CB=N44°07'45"E
REZONING EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
REZONING PARCEL
(RS-12 TO OPD/RS-12 )
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
G:
\
1
1
6
1
9
\
1
1
6
1
9
-
0
0
2
\
1
1
6
1
9
-
0
0
2
Z
2
.
d
w
g
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 5, 2025 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie
Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch
STAFF PRESENT: Madison Conley, Anne Russett, Rachael Schaefer, Liz Craig
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Gina Landau
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to
rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5
zone subject to the following conditions:
a. 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 a
boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning
boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision,
Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection 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. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot
without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall
submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of
said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to
make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a
building permit for said lot.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of a proposal that Title 14 Zoning be
amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form-
cased code and to further implement the City's goals.
CALL TO ORDER:
Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEMS
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-12) to Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) Zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 2 of 17
Conley began the staff report with an aerial image of the subject property noting the subject
property is a small triangular piece and it abuts Lot 25 Conway Subdivision, which is directly to
the east. To the south and west of the subject property is vacant land. The subject property is
currently zoned OPD/RS-12 and it's located in Lot 5, Forest Hill Estate Subdivision. Directly west
and northeast of the subject property is OPD/RS-12 as well, and then that abutting lot to the east
is zoned RS-5, in addition to the land just south of the subject property. Lastly, the southwest
portion of the land is zoned RS-12.
Regarding background, Lot 25 Conway Subdivision is undeveloped and in order to make this lot
more appealing to buyers a boundary line adjustment is being proposed to increase the size and
square up the lot. A boundary line adjustment involves changing the property lines between two
or more adjacent parcels of land without creating any new lots or parcels. In this case, 0.06 acres
of the subject property would be added to Lot 25 Conway Subdivision. The subject property and
Lot 25 Conway Subdivision have two different zoning designations so that is why the rezoning is
needed, to create a consistent zoning designation on the parcel. Regarding the case history
Conley explained in 2017 there was a rezoning to OPD/RS-12 and CO-1 rezoning (case number
REZ17-00017) and included the subject property. Then in 2018 there was a final plat established
for Forest Hill Estates Subdivision and then in 2024 Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates had a major site
plan that was approved and the site plan includes a decent amount of sensitive areas, as well as
designated some conservation easements. Conley reiterated the current zoning of the subject
property is OPD/RS-12 and the RS-12 zone allows for a higher density than other single family
zones. The OPD was required because of the sensitive areas and the mix of housing types that
were proposed with this area. The proposed zone is to RS-5 and the RS-5 allows some flexibility
to household types and nonresidential uses, but at a lower density compared to the RS-12 zone.
Conley explained the rezoning, combined with the boundary line adjustment, does change the
land uses that are allowed on Lot 25 Conway Subdivision as Lot 25 will be increasing in size to
11,369 square feet, therefore now meeting the minimum lot size requirements to allow for a
duplex or attached single family. Prior to the boundary line adjustment or this rezoning, Lot 25
would not meet those minimum requirements. Staff is recommending a condition that no building
permit be issued for Lot 25 until the City approves a boundary line adjustment that conforms to
the proposed zoning boundaries.
Conley stated there are two criteria used to review all rezonings. First is consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with existing neighborhood. Regarding
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 identifies this area as appropriate for
public and private open space, the North District Plan identifies this subject property appropriate
for single family and duplex residential, and the Future Land Use Maps that function as a
conceptual future vision for these areas. Both of these plans also envision open space and
housing in the subject property area. To continue on with consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, in the IC 2030 Plan there is a land use goal that encourages compact and efficient
development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of
extending infrastructure and services to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the
City. Additionally, there's a housing goal and strategy that focus on encouraging a diversity of
housing options in all neighborhoods and also concentrating new development in areas
contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it's most cost effective to extend infrastructure and
services. Regarding compatibility with neighborhood character, this subject property is in a
conservation easement which does not allow any development. Therefore, regardless of the
boundary line adjustment and the rezoning of the subject property, there is no development
potential on that subject property since it is located in that conservation easement. Additionally,
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 3 of 17
the surrounding properties consist of single family homes located along St. Anne’s Drive, the
duplexes at the corner of St. Anne's and Prairie Du Chien Road, and multifamily on the other
area of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning would
help future development stay consistent with the development patterns seen in and around the
neighborhood.
In regard to transportation and public infrastructure St. Anne's Drive essentially dead ends and
connects to Buresh Avenue to the south, there is no access provided to Lot 25 from St. Anne's
Drive. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the owner installed pavements in order
to allow City vehicles to provide service to Lot 25 without having to back up. Additionally, the
owner would need to submit construction drawings of the proposed improvements before a
building permit is issued.
Regarding sensitive areas, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates
identifies regular sensitive features, including critical and protected slopes, wetlands and wooded
areas.
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the
property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following
conditions:
a. 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 a boundary
line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established
by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner
shall install additional pavement at the intersection 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. Anne's
Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings
for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City
Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by
the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot.
Staff did not receive any written correspondence from the public, and there was no good
neighbor meeting held for this rezoning.
Next steps, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing
will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
Craig is curious why if that lot has always been there didn't the street go through when all those
other houses were built. Russett is unsure, it is an older subdivision so that would not be how it
would be approached today.
Elliott asked why they didn’t have a good neighbor meeting. Russett stated good neighbor
meetings are optional. Staff will sometimes recommend that the applicant hold a good neighbor
meeting for something staff thinks is a substantial change. In this case, it was in staff's opinion, a
pretty minor rezoning.
Miller noted the portion that's being rezoned, the triangle, is in the conservation easement and
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 4 of 17
can't be built on. Conley confirmed that’s correct. A home could be built on Lot 25 but just not on
that specific 0.06 acres of that triangular piece.
Wade stated since this is such a minor rezoning was there any consideration to just go through
staff approval, versus having to always come through the Commission. Russett replied not for a
rezoning, no matter how small or how minor it's a legislative action that has to come to the
Commission for a recommendation to Council.
Quellhorst opened the public hearing.
Ron Amelon (MMS Consultants) is present on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions.
Having no questions or other speakers, Quellhorst closed the public hearing.
Miller recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of
the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the
following conditions:
a. 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 a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that
conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to
which this Agreement is attached.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's
Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection 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. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City
vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to
issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction
drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said
construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to
make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance
of a building permit for said lot.
Wade seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS
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.
Schaefer began the staff report with background about the form-based code zones. This zone
was adopted in 2021 to support high quality, walkable and vibrant neighborhoods and guides
physical development, specifically in the South and Southwest Districts of Iowa City. Comparing
form-based code zones to conventional zoning code, the form-based code focuses more on
design, form and character, rather than land use as the main focus. Unfortunately, since its
adoption in 2021 no significant development has occurred within the form-based code district
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 5 of 17
and feedback from recent developers working to rezone and develop in the form-based code
district has highlighted areas of the code that could be clearer, more streamlined and better
aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code's
effectiveness and support its intended outcomes, so staff is proposing some updates to the code.
Staff is proposing to adjust regulations to improve feasibility, clarify standards and remove
unnecessary complexities. They're hoping to improve the codes effectiveness and support its
intended outcomes. To implement these updates, staff is proposing to amend Title 14, the
Zoning Code and also Title 15, the Land Subdivision Code. P&Z doesn't officially review
amendments outside of the zoning code, but staff wanted to also inform them of those Title 15
changes since they do work together with the zoning code.
In addition to the code updates, staff also created a user guide to highlight key standards of the
form-based code, which was included in the agenda packet, and walks users through the
requirements for development in this area in a little more simplified and more graphic way than
the code itself.
The first section is regarding building placement standards. Schaefer explained these standards
regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create a cohesive streetscape, support
walkability and protect privacy between neighboring properties. The first change is related to the
minimum side yard setbacks for primary buildings. She shared a table noting the existing
minimum side yard setback standards for each zone. Staff is proposing for the T3NE and the
T3NG to reduce the side yard setback from 10’ and 7’ to 5’ so they're consistent with the other
form-based zones and also mimics what is in the traditional zones for residential properties. This
makes all side setbacks 5’ instead of changing for those zones.
The second change is regarding placement of garages associated with the duplex side by side
and the townhome building type. Currently, depending on the zone the accessory structures
have to be set back between 5’ and 10’ from the side property lines. Staff is proposing that, when
used for parking, accessory structure side setbacks could be reduced to as little as 0 for duplex
side by side and attached townhome building types. This change allows for more efficient use of
the building area and provides more flexibility for developers.
Quellhorst asked if these changes being proposed are from staff of a private applicant. Schaefer
stated this is coming from staff.
Schaefer moved on to building types. She stated the building type standards set clear rules for
each kind of building so that each zone achieves its intended physical character. This also
supports a mix of housing options within the form-based code districts and in the form-based
zones, each block of a development has to have at least two different building types. She noted
it's a little different than a traditional zone. Examples of building types include a house small, a
duplex, townhome, things of that nature. The first change is related to the wing dimensions for
the house large and the house small building types. A wing is a structure that is physically
attached to and is smaller in footprint and in height to the main body of the building, similar to an
addition to the main home. For the house large and house small building types currently the
maximum dimensions allowed by the code are 20’ by 20’ and staff is proposing to increase those
dimensions to 24’ by 24’ because they’re seeing developers utilizing these wings as attached
garages and increasing the size to 24’ by 24’ allows enough space for two vehicles, stairs if
needed to go into the main home and storage for items.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 6 of 17
The second change is wing offset, currently there is a requirement that wings have to be offset 5’
from the main body of the building and staff is proposing to create an exemption for the house
large, house small and duplex stacked building types. When wings are adjacent to the corner of
a building that connects two building faces that do not front a public right of way, when this
placement is met then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0. Schaefer showed a graphic
of the requirement.
Elliott asked if the wing could this be an ADU. Schaefer stated they could fill that in with what
would be considered an ADU with a kitchen, a bathroom, etc.
Russett added that for the building types Schaefer is discussing, house large, house small, they
also have maximum sizes for those building types so the wing does add an additional square
footage.
Wade asked if there is anything dimensionally that makes the wings separate from the main
structure. Schaefer replied nothing significantly different.
Quellhorst stated the wing is really just used where they need extra square footage. Schaefer
noted unlike in a traditional zoning code which would be restricted by the setbacks alone in the
form-based code they are more concerned with the form of the building so there's additional
restrictions for what width and depth of building can be. Schaefer stated there must be an offset
between wings, they cannot have two wings butted up against each other, there's some
separation required.
Next, for the duplex side by side building type the maximum width of the main body is 48’ and the
maximum depth is 40’. Staff is proposing that when units are rear loaded and only one story in
height, the maximum width of the body of the building can be increased to 60’ and the maximum
depth increase to 70’. The larger main body sizes allow for the development of single story
duplexes, ranch style duplexes, which would otherwise be infeasible using the current zoning
standards and thus providing this building type to individuals such as seniors and those with
accessibility needs. Schaefer stated while this would be the widest building allowed in several
zones, approximately 10’ wider than the biggest currently, it is only one story in height compared
to 2.5 stories that typical buildings can have.
The next is related to cottage court building type standards. Currently the maximum depth of the
main body of the cottage court style building is 24’ and staff is proposing to increase the
maximum depth to 30’ by increasing the maximum main body dimension. Schaefer explained
this allows for more flexibility with interior layouts while maintaining the compact nature of this
building type. The cottage court building type is unique, it’s one of those missing middle housing
types that the City is trying to develop to increase housing variation and affordability, and this
change would make the building type slightly more attractive and a viable option for developers
and residents alike. Staff is also proposing to increase the maximum depth of the lot for cottage
court building type from 180’ to a maximum depth of 200’ and increasing that lot depth is related
to having bigger buildings and that increase in depth allows for adequate space for the buildings
themselves, the required setbacks, the shared courtyard that's required with these building
types, sidewalks, parking spaces, landscaping, and all those things.
The next section is architectural element standards. Schaefer explained these establish
requirements that supplement the zone standards and further refine the intended building form
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 7 of 17
and physical character of the zoning district. The one staff is proposing to update is related to
glazing. Glazing is defined as an opening in a building which glass is installed. Windows are
mainly what's utilized as glazing. Staff is proposing to reduce the glazing requirement to 15% of
the ground floor with a minimum of one window per building side. They're also proposing to
exempt attached garages from this standard. Schaefer stated this change provides a more
practical and achievable standard for residential buildings and this new percentage is similar to
the glazing standards required by the City funded affordable housing projects. Additionally, this
update ensures that homes maintain an active and visually appealing streetscapes while
allowing for functional design flexibility. For example, reducing that glazing requirement allows
room on walls for upper cabinets in kitchens, spaces for televisions to be mounted and other
things instead of having windows there, exempting attached garages also allows for enhanced
privacy for items stored inside of a garage. She stated this also aligns with the standards for
typical residential construction by not requiring those windows all around a garage.
Craig stated with this particular one she was taken aback because she feels that people
generally want to have natural light in their homes, but she doesn’t have a good sense of what
15% versus 30% means. Schaefer concurred that staff’s gut reaction was sort of similar when
they were first reviewing decreasing these, but when they saw it in practice, as they were
working with developers, 30% was hard to accomplish for a lot of these smaller homes and 15%
seemed more reasonable and still met what staff felt was the standard of having ample windows
for the homes.
Quellhorst asked out of curiosity what is the percentage of a typical single family house. Russett
is not sure, it's not a standard that they have now in the code so it's not something that they
check for current development. Based on what they saw from a developer they have been
working with, the developer submitted plans that range from below 15% up to 20% so staff
thought 15% struck a balance with the calculations that they had provided on their proposed
elevations. Additionally, staff did add that they needed to have at least one window per side,
because they thought that would help ensure that there was glazing on all four sides of the
building. Townsend added that these are just minimums, there are no maximums.
Craig noted personally if she lived in a house with houses 5’ on either side of him he would want
all the glazing on the front and the back, not on the sides. She has no problem with the garage,
but the jump from 30% to 15% just seems like a big jump down. She asked where did the 30%
come from in the first place. Schaefer explained it was recommended by the consultant that
drafted the form-based code and staff did reach out to them and they've made similar
adjustments in other communities they've worked with where developers and builders and
planners are also saying that 30% is hard to accomplish on many of the homes they're
developing.
Russett added one more point, this is just the first floor glazing requirement so there will be
windows on the second stories of these buildings too, just because they're needed for egress so
the 15% is only for the first floor and there will be additional windows that are not calculated in
that 15% on the second story.
Miller noted it would probably help to see what this actually looks like or what examples that they
based the decision on because especially the front facing if those are too small it starts to make
the neighborhood feel less friendly.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 8 of 17
Wade thinks that's the most challenging, on the right of way facing, whether it's a corner or such,
how do they incentivize on those corners that to get windows on both street facing sides.
Schaefer stated the City does have a blanket architectural standard that requires similar feature
treatments for corner lots.
Townsend asked if there is a standard that every room has to have a window. Schaefer replied
yes, it is in the building code for ingress and egress.
Quellhorst noted windows are expensive so is this mostly a financial concern. Schaefer
acknowledged that from the developer side it is a concern.
Quellhorst noted it sounds like staff looked at a few different proposed plans for residential
buildings and were happy with the esthetics of 15%. Russett stated there were some that were
not happy with it if caused certain sides with no windows and there was a totally blank facade, so
that's why they added that additional requirement that there must be at least one window on all
four sides.
Schaefer stated if the Commission wants they can discuss this later and change the 15% they
can if they have a good sense of what they think it should be, but they should table this for now
and continue with the staff presentation.
Schaefer moved on to frontage types, frontages are the components of the building that provide
the transition and interface between the public realm, the street and the sidewalk, and the private
realm, the yard and the building itself. Frontage type standards establish the base standards for
each of the frontage types that are defined within the form-based code. Frontage type examples
include porches, stoops and dooryards, which are like a hedge or a fence around the front yard,
and each block, similar to the building types, requires two different frontage types per block, so
there has to be some design variation within the block. The first change staff is proposing is
related to the depth and width of the porch projected and the porch engaged frontage types.
Currently both of those frontage types measure the width and the depth using a “clear” or
“overall” measurement which basically means that they're being measured from within the posts
of the porch. Then the minimum width clear is 15’ and the minimum depth overall is 8’ for
porches elevated less than 12” and 6’ deep for porches elevated 12” or more. Staff is proposing
to simplify the measurements by removing the “clear” and “overall” terms and proposing to
reduce the width to 12’ wide by 6’ deep for all porches, regardless of elevation. Eliminating the
“clear” and “overall” from the width and depth measurements reduces confusion and ensures
consistency. Applying these standards and reviewing them, in addition using a clear dimension,
is difficult at plan review since certain details like column width might be unknown, and because
of this staff is also proposing to carry over the removal of the “clear” and “overall” measurements
to all frontage types to reduce that confusion and ensure consistent application and review of
frontage type standards.
The second change that's being proposed is related to the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types
and their depth of recess entry standards. Currently, for both those frontage types the depth of
recess entry maximum is 12” or 1’, this is measured from the front of the facade to where the
front door is placed. Staff is proposing to increase the depth of recess entry maximum to 3’ for
both the Dooryard and the Stoop frontage types as this change provides greater flexibility for
architectural design while maintaining and inviting a pedestrian friendly streetscape.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 9 of 17
The third change is related to the Dooryard frontage type and again another standard related to
glazing. Currently, there's a standard for the Dooryard frontage type that the distance between
glazing or windows can be no more than 4’ maximum. Staff is proposing to remove this glazing
measurement standard, and by eliminating this requirement it will allow for more adaptable
designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure a high quality, pedestrian friendly
development. Schaefer noted a lot of times they've run into issues because Dooryards allowed
for some of the single family homes to have windows on either side of the of a door and it's
harder to meet those glazing requirements.
Next is related to the Stoop frontage type. For the Stoop frontage type the landing of the stoop is
required to be elevated a minimum of 1’ above the sidewalk and stairs and ramps can be used to
access the elevated landing. Staff is proposing to maintain the same elevation standard but
change slightly the way they are describing the measurement to be consistent to how they
measure height of a building. Schaefer explained there was confusion about what sidewalk were
they talking about, was it the public sidewalk or the sidewalk leading to the door, so they've
changed that to above average finished grade along the frontage, which is the same way they
measure height. Staff is also proposing to add language to explicitly allow a sloped walkway,
which provides a more accessible and flexible entry option for the Stoop frontage type and this
change improves accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges and offers an alternative to
stairs or a ramp that would have to be parallel to the building. This update enhances usability
while maintaining the intended elevated entry design of the Stoop frontage type.
Elliott asked for clarification on a sloped walkway. Schaefer explained the sidewalk to the
building is elevated slightly and not a flat, zero entry. Elliott asked why not just do a zero entry
and Russett clarified there's no elevation change, with zero entry the sidewalk and door are at
the same elevation and here they have a home that's slightly elevated from the elevation of the
sidewalk, with the Stoop frontage house type there is a sidewalk and the front door is above the
sidewalk with stairs that are elevated to provide that privacy between the private living space and
the public realm. Typically, it is stairs but providing a more accessible way than building a ramp
and keeping it slightly elevated is the sloped walkway. It is just providing another option for
builders.
Wade noted then with this type of house if there was an attached garage doesn't that become a
challenge from the garage to in house, because of those are two different heights. Russett
acknowledged it could be and in the building code there is what's called visibility standards which
states every house does not necessarily have to be designed to provide zero entry but designed
so that it could be altered easily to provide zero entry access. If someone does need zero entry
at all access points, then they're going to have to figure out how to design that home accordingly.
Wade noted the 12 inch above grade is one of the biggest challenges in building homes, many
have zero entry front doors but then have a garage that's usually a foot above the floor grades.
Schaefer also wanted to note that this is one option for frontage types, both porch options do
allow zero grade with no elevation requirement for those porches so that's also an option for
builders to use as well for those Stoop and the Dooryard.
Schaefer moved onto parking standards which regulate private parking spaces such as how
many are required and where those parking spaces are. It also regulates driveways, where
driveways can be located and the allowed sizes for both parking spaces and driveways. The first
change staff is proposing is the minimum distance between driveways. Currently the minimum
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 10 of 17
standard is to have a 40’ spacing between driveways in the form-based code and they're
proposing to decrease the minimum distance between driveways to 20’. Schaefer explained this
change allows for flexibility of driveway placement which is needed in instances where the site’s
topography restricts where the driveway can go for drainage reasons and other things. She also
noted one of the main intents of the standard is to mitigate concerns about the visual dominance
of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that increase walkability and while reduction from 40’ to
20’ will allow for more driveways per block it is still much less than what is allowed in the City’s
traditional single family residential zones, which only requires a separation distance of 6’.
The next section is related to the flexibility for unique situations and these changes are being
proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site conditions, while
maintaining the intent of the form-based code. The first one is related to maximum lot depth and
width adjustments. Schaefer stated each building type has a maximum lot and width dimension
that it must meet and this change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to
the maximum design site or the lot depth and width standards if specific approval criteria are
met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the lot standard is needed to avoid
a regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configurations of existing streets, or
the block size of an abutting neighborhood. She explained this adjustment recognizes that
certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting lot standards impractical and
allowing an option for an administrative adjustment ensures that projects can respond to these
challenges without compromising functionality or quality. One example of a unique scenario that
might utilize this adjustment is if at the end of a block there's a large hill or a ravine that makes
that portion of the property unbuildable, making that topographical problem and an outlot for an
HOA to maintain. Having this adjustment would allow the lot dimensions of that adjacent site to
absorb that topographical challenge to increase efficiencies and how things are subdivided.
The second is related to two way traffic and driveway width adjustments. Currently, the maximum
driveway width for all zones in the form-based code area is 12’ and parking areas for a lot of
these sites must be behind the residential building or set back from the public right of way. If
alley access is not feasible a longer drive aisle is then needed to access the parking area and
these longer drive aisles will typically be used for two way traffic, as there's multiple residents of
these sites, and therefore warrant a larger driveway. This change allows applicants to apply for
an administrative adjustment to increase the maximum driveway width to 18’ if specific approval
criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a
parking area for a building with three or more units, and they must also prove that alley access is
not a feasible option for that site. This change ensures that multi-unit building types have
adequate access to off street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design with that
two way driveway.
The next section is language clarification and code cleanup. Schaefer stated these changes are
proposed to improve clarity, removing inconsistencies and streamline the code to ensure easier
interpretation and application. The first one is related to encroachments into setbacks. Currently,
architectural features such as bay windows, light fixtures, canopies, balconies and stairs can
encroach into building setbacks a certain amount depending on the zone. Architectural features
and stairs can encroach a maximum of 3’ to 5’ into side setbacks, depending on the zone district.
Staff is proposing a change to ensure that the maximum allowable encroachment of architectural
features and stairs remains proportional to the reduced side setbacks 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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 11 of 17
Next is related to driveway curb cut widths. The current code language only refers to curb cut
width, which is meant to refer to the width of the driveway, and that is 12’ maximum however
staff found that most code users define curb cut width as the width of the driveway where it
meets the street payment, so the width of the driveway at the curb. Therefore, for clarity they are
going to change that from curb cut width to driveway width and for consistency it will be
measured at the property line. Schaefer noted this change helps prevent confusion among
developers, homeowners and staff by clearly defining what measurement they're talking about.
Townsend asked if one can't have a driveway more than 12’ how would that affect a larger
garage, like a three-car garage. Schaeffer stated the way the code is set up it doesn't lend itself
to three car garages because of the wing dimensions mentioned earlier that are a maximum of
24’ by 24’ but if someone did have a two stall garage it is allowed since it's set back from the
property line and they could have a wider driveway at the garage, this measurement would be
just at the property line.
Schaefer stated the next one is related to the Townhome building type description. Currently the
Townhome building type is described as a small to large size, 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 by the zone. As allowed by the zone,
this type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. Staff is proposing to
change it by simplifying the description to small to large size, typically attached building with rear
yard that consists of two to eight townhouses placed side by side. Each townhouse consists of
one unit or up to three stacked units, as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, the
house-scale townhouse type may be detached. She explained this change aligns with the
definitions used in other sections of the Townhouse building type that distinguishes house-scale
townhomes from block-scale townhome units and this update removes the confusion of what
minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying that the house-scale
townhome building type may be detached and set back from adjacent properties at the minimum
setback distance.
Next is related to the Neighborhood Plan and the current code requires an updated
Neighborhood Plan to be submitted and approved prior to the site plan or building permit
approval when any changes to the Neighborhood Plan are requested. Schaefer stated 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 entirely updated Neighborhood Plan. City staff
will internally update and track changes to the overall Neighborhood Plan to maintain
consistency and accuracy. She stated the proposed change aims to streamline the development
review process while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed,
and this adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive
updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan and instead they can focus on the specific modifications
relevant to their project. Schaefer explained in the form-based code developers are required to
provide an entire Neighborhood Plan detailing where the lots will be and lot dimensions, similar
to a subdivision, but then also stating what building types they're planning to use for each of
those lots and which frontage types. Staff is foreseeing issues if a separate developer is
developing one portion of a site that was different than the person who originally updated the
Neighborhood Plan, so this just streamlines that process by allowing them to update the site
plans and building plans they're specifically working on and staff can track those changes
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 12 of 17
internally.
Next update is related to the architectural feature definition. Currently, the definition for
architectural features doesn't list several features that staff often receives questions about. Staff
proposes to add awnings, belt courses and chimneys to the definition to provide more examples
within that definition. Staff hopes by explicitly listing some of those common design elements the
update helps ensure predictable application of the encroachment standards, while reducing
ambiguity for what's allowed to encroach.
Townsend asked what a belt course is. Russett explained a belt course as like a horizontal band
across a building and can function as a separation between the first story and the second story.
Schaefer stated the last change within the zoning code is just code cleanup, again staff is going
through this more in depth noting as other people are utilizing the code, they are noticing small
mistakes like missing super scripts and some of the table’s items mislabeled, or slight spelling
errors, things like that.
The last section is related to Title 15, the Subdivision Code, which P&Z won't make a
recommendation on but staff wanted to inform the Commission on the proposed update. The
only update staff is proposing for the subdivision code is related to the block sizes. Currently, the
form-based code has a maximum block length range from 360’ to 500’, depending on the zone.
There is also a maximum block perimeter length and there's an allotment for both the block
length and the perimeter lengths to be increased if a pedestrian passage is added mid-block to
connect streets on either side of the block. Staff is proposing an adjustment that allows
applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the block size standards if specific
approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the block
standard is due to at least one of the following special circumstances. The first three criteria are
related to the need to slightly increase the block lengths to incorporate sensitive area,
topographical features, or to extend existing streets. For example, a block layout may be limited
due to an existing street grid and to lay out the streets efficiently will require curves and can
make for some funky block configurations so this adjustment would allow for some flexibility with
those perimeters and block lengths for situations where there's existing topography or an existing
intersection, or right of way. Criteria four through six are related to when adding a pedestrian
passage isn't feasible, which again is the only way right now to increase block size using the
current code standards. An example of where adjustment might be necessary is related to the
block lengths of abutting neighborhoods. If there is a form-based code area that is developed
abutting an existing conventionally zoned district that has a 1300’ long block it doesn't make
sense to have a single loaded street on the on the rear of those lots because it would make a
stub street that goes through the middle of one block to split it up. It also doesn't make sense to
have pedestrian passageways going to people's backyards. Criteria five is related to a single
loaded street or pedestrian passageways not being desirable because of a highly sensitive
nature of a public park land. Schaefer noted this one is fairly specific for Sand Prairie Park, which
is one of the most sensitive areas in Iowa City in the South District. The highly sensitive nature of
the park and the efforts to revive the prairie mean that this area functions more as a preserve,
instead of an active park with sidewalks and pedestrian paths. This adjustment would allow
homes to be built along the prairie instead of a street and would allow the block to extend the full
length of the prairie without those pedestrian pathways breaking it up. An example of criteria six
regarding visibility and access to public parks, civic uses and natural open spaces is the land to
the east of Sycamore Greenway is proposed to be developed in the form-based code, if it were
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 13 of 17
in the current code it would require a single loaded street to be developed along the western
portion in order to break up the blocks. However staff thinks there might be some more unique
ways to utilize and enjoy the Sycamore Greenway, which is really just used as a bike path and
this would allow an adjustment to have homes in this area but then have pedestrian pathways
that don't lead to a parallel street, but lead directly to the bike way itself. This still allows for that
public access and enjoyment of the Greenway but wouldn't necessarily require the developer to
build a single loaded street. Schaefer stated there's places like Weatherby Park where public
access and visibility is something they want so they would prefer not to have a single loaded
street along the park land. She acknowledged those are some very unique scenarios, but ones
they foresee happening.
Finally, regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schaeffer stated the proposed
amendments support several goals for the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan such as helping to
ensure a mix of housing types, encouraging pedestrian oriented development, encouraging small
scale neighborhood commercial centers, the form-based code in general, preserving open space
and sensitive areas, ensuring parks have visibility and access from the street, and encouraging
developments of parks with single loaded street access where appropriate. In addition, the
proposed amendments also help to further the form-based land use policies incorporated into the
South and Southwest District Plans.
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance
land use regulations related to the form-cased code and to further implement the City's goals.
Schaefer noted that in the staff memo it says attachment one, but an additional attachment was
added and the recommendation is attachment two.
Pending a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must
hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Townsend wanted to mention that even though they have these codes contractors are still going
to ask for exceptions correct. Russett stated there are some cases where a minimum has to be
met, like the glazing and there's no exception but there are some code amendments where staff
thought more flexibility is needed and where it made sense to have the ability to adjust the
standards, but that doesn't apply to every standard in the code.
Quellhorst opened the public hearing.
Gina Landau (Navigate Homes) noted there was reference to working with a developer with
some of these changes and that's her, she’s been working closely with the City for well over a
year on some of these changes. Navigate did a concept solely on the form-based code,
following everything to a T as well as they understood it to be and then they did a concept that
would work financially, and the two were so far apart that it was decided at that time that either
form-based code wasn't ever going to come to fruition and all that land was just going to sit
there, or possibly they could work with the City to make a few changes that would update it and
clarify things. Landau stated that's the path they’ve been on over the last year and City staff have
been fabulous to work with. Schaefer has become the expert on the form-based code and she
developed a great user guide for any developer coming and wanting to develop the land. To
address a couple things mentioned, the glazing with the windows, Landau noted they worked
with an architect that designs homes all across the nation and have probably seven or eight
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 14 of 17
different locations, Dallas, Des Moines, everywhere and they came up with the initial plans but
had issues with the glazing percentages. The just basically did windows how they normally do
but when they added in the garages and everything the percentages were 10% and that was
shocking because 30% doesn’t seem like that much. Once they talked with the City and could
exclude the garages that made it better and then were at the 11% to 15% range on almost
everything. Landau noted currently Navigate is building in quite a few different areas and have
$600,000 to $800,000 homes that are currently being built at Eagle Bend in Coralville, and the
windows are very comparable to exactly what is being proposed here so they’re not cutting back
on windows. She stated they want to make nice architecturally, desirable homes for everyone.
She noted she just had a meeting with the architects and looking at the proposed 15% they did
have to add some windows in a few places, and had to strategically do it because they need to
make sure there's room for big TVs on walls, kitchen cupboards, showers, things like that. One
may think a window would look great there but then when they look at the room and realize
where they are going to put their bed. Landau stated she is pleased with the 15% and knows
others will be too as the plans look really good and also a lot of them have gone up above 15%
and there's only a few that were really at the minimum. The second thing she wanted to address
was the stoops and the discussion about the zero entry. Landau stated that was very important
for them, they know that they're able to do porches as zero entry, but they really wanted an
option of the stoops to be zero entry as well. Again, the City worked with them and there will be
the 12” but they can slope it down and do a zero entry. She noted that is what all of their
customers want, they would love zero entry at the front door and the garage, that doesn't always
work out, but that would be ideal. Landau stated while she was closely involved with a lot of
these amendments, there were quite a few that the City determined themselves that needed
clarification which were also very good.
Wade noted it's not uncommon now to see a bathroom window, which is a high window in the
wall that's a 1’ high and 4’ wide or so that comes in the percentage but as the builder if that's the
single window on a wall it becomes a pretty blank wall except for that one so is there any
concern about over a wall length having a certain requirement or what challenges have they run
into. Landau stated they have worked really closely with these plans and they agree they don't
want to just stick one little sized window just to placate everyone and so have started going
towards three 18”x18” being shown on some of their plans. The majority of the windows are on
the front and the back, because houses are so close on the sides, but there are still very few
sides that will just have one little window.
Quellhorst closed the public hearing.
Elliott recommends approval of REZ25-0002, a proposal that Title 14 Zoning be amended,
as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form-cased
code and to further implement the City's goals.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Townsend asked regarding the American Disabilities Act has all the curb cuts for the sidewalks
and the door openers been taken all that in consideration with this new plan. Russett confirmed
yes, however that more comes into play with the building code, because there are accessibility
requirements for certain building types, but not for probably some of the building types they're
talking about like a single family home, for example not all single family homes have to be ADA
compliant but they are following all federal regulations in terms of new buildings and ADA
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 15 of 17
compliance.
Quellhorst thought all the changes made a lot of sense, if there's anything that gave him a little
bit of pause it was the window requirement but thinks it makes sense given that it's a minimum
and they can always install more. He understands that windows are extremely expensive and
when the consultant that recommended 30% is coming back and saying that 15% is more typical
of what they're seeing in the market, he is inclined to follow that recommendation.
Miller thanked staff and the City for engaging in the dialog and being responsive to what they're
hearing, it speaks highly of the City to be able to make it more clear and but still maintaining the
integrity of the intent.
Wade noted the glazing was a little bit of harboring on 15% especially on the street facing right of
way, that feels like it could become an opportunity for a long wall, especially with a wing with one
window requirement. On the other two items he is a little bit more relaxed, he knows the
challenges that people run into from an accessibility standpoint, from the garage into the house,
which is honestly most commonly used, especially from an attached garage, but it has to be
made up somewhere, and it's either in the garage or a ramp, and it becomes pretty awkward.
Maybe in the future there will be an opportunity to visit the 12” requirement and maybe that
doesn't really need to be a requirement. Regarding the 12’ driveway, it just seems a little narrow,
if there is an 18’ garage door this seems like a little bit narrow on the opening, but not a reason to
stop it from proceeding, again maybe an opportunity to expand later on or upon further review.
Quellhorst stated to elaborate on that a little bit, just for future, thinks one tiny improvement, like
with the window change, would be to see an example of what 15% looks like versus 30%. He
stated because it's not just one elevation and there's so many different varieties that might be
difficult to show. Russett stated part of the reason that they added the standard of one window
per side is because they didn't want the 15% to be just on the front and back, but they also know
they can't code their way out of these worst case scenarios that they may be envisioning in their
head.
Craig stated she is still a little concerned about the windows, it just seems like such a big
decrease but if that’s the industry standard these days so be it. She also is concerned about the
driveway and if they have an 18’ garage door, which is standard for a two car garage, why only
have a 12’ driveway. Schaefer clarified that 12’ is the standard for front-loaded, if it is an alley-
loaded garage they can be as wide as they want to be. Part of the form-based code is they’re
trying to promote the use of alleyways and rear loaded garages to make the walkability and in
front of homes look a little better and not be so dominated by garages.
A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND STEERING COMMITTEE:
Russett shared the list of steering committee members and a summary of what has been done
so far. Staff is going to be meeting again with the steering committee on Monday, but if the
Commission has any questions, staff can take those.
Craig asked how the consultants were picked. Russett explained the City issued a request for
proposals, reviewed the proposals, did interviews, and then selected Confluence.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 2025
Page 16 of 17
Townsend asked what's happening over in Forest View, she noticed that there are things
happening over in there, they were clearing it out the other day and will it still be affordable
housing. Russett can't speak to that as they haven't received any applications for development in
that area.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 19, 2025:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from February 19, 2025. Elliott seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett reminded the Commission that there's no March 19 meeting due to spring break.
Craig asked what's going on across from the old Mercy Hospital on Market. Russett is unsure as
it is likely University property now but believes it will be more parking.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Miller seconded and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
10/18 11/15 12/6 12/20 1/17 2/7 2/21 4/3 5/1 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X
PADRON, MARIA X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
WADE, CHAD X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member