HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-18 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to
Transfer of Development Rights for certain historic properties. (ZCA18-
00003)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo to City Manager -Updated Receiving Area Maps
Late Addition - Planning District Map
Memo to City Manager
PZ Staff Report
HPC Minutes
P&Z Minutes - Preliminary
Ordinance
1 � 1
mg
4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 4, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of
Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003)
At the City Council's November 20, 2018 public hearing on the proposed transfer of development
rights ordinance for historic properties, the Council requested revised maps showing the proposed
eligible receiving sites. Attached are the updated maps that show the eligible receiving sites by
planning district.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maps by Planning District
N
AM -ash
WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
00.075 0.15 0.3 Miles Downtown Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY
I i I i I
Prepared By: Luke Foelsch
Date Prepared: Nov. 2018
17
-AL, -71 U) O O
z~' z
QJ
„� < z Z �
Z
- � � "-W JEFFERSON ST E JEFFERSON ST
W IOWAAVE -,. E IOWA AVE
F-
w
4 W WASHINGTON ST E WASHINGTON ST
Aihlip
A
E COLLEGE ST
{ c,a• � a z
"w
• I w c =LINGTON ST E BURLINGTON ST
W BUR
z
LU
COURT ST E COURT ST m D
�• • ` m z
J
~ (7
W HARRISON ST w
• • • • • OO
0]
D
W PRENTISS ST
1 �
J
H
a
N
WE
S
0O.2 0.4 0.8 Miles
I i I i I
}d�
Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
North Planning District
Prepared By: Luke Foelsch
Date Prepared: Nov. 2018
S�.
r
�F
i ...,v:. INTERSTATE 80
BRISTOL DR
0r
HAYWOOD DRr
STANNE'S DR C�
Cz
SER 1 o Jw o GAG
C = Jm to
�tAFTSPEEDPiAY t m O
z
w
Y !I
��`� irr', ♦��d a VI �
L e g e n }I�
I.
North District Boundary'`
o
Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites `
4
N
WE Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles North Corridor Planning District
N
f
♦"a
0,0
V.
10-.. � � '. q',�♦
Legend y 1F
North Corridor District Boundary
Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
A;
Prepared By: Luke Foelsch .
Date Prepared: Nov. 2018
.yr... ;
N
AM
41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles Northeast Planning District CITY OF IOWA
Prepared By: Luke Foelsch
Date Prepared: Nov. 2018
vkw
IJ
4�
r.40
411
n
I
r,
+
w
q
u
...
i� ! I' i� +yin �. °" •.`
�r
u =
y
r
t" �
,rte f
1 !Northeast District Bo u
Proposed Eligible Receiviri `Site
N
AM
41 Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
0 0.275 0.55 1.1 Miles Northwest Planning District CITY OF IOWA CITY
Prepared By: Luke Foelsch
Date Prepared: Nov. 2018
t 444i
I
Ix v4 j
t
1�Y?'
,
"a 1
I
•c
e
t ` -• • • 1 -
e
t
i t a r
3..
egen,f�
z
Y
a:
Northwest District Boundary
f
A ,
°,Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites -
t
y r rVY
y
Riverfront Crossings BoundarP
j
Ir
_Mw_ -4
I[[�1
4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 20, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood & Development
Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of
Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003)
Introduction
At the City Council's work session on September 4, staff received direction on specific policy
questions from the City Council on the development of a city-wide transfer of development right
ordinance for historic preservation. Since then, staff drafted an ordinance and presented it to both
the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the draft transfer of
development rights ordinance at its meeting on October 18, staff completed some additional
research and analysis. In addition to providing a summary of the draft ordinance, this memo
outlines the recent research and analysis, which includes the following:
• An analysis of potential sending sites and the estimated density and height transfer
potential.
• An updated map identifying potential receiving sites and several associated maps to help
visualize the maximum height, density, and number of dwelling units allowed by the
current zone district.
This memo also outlines some remaining staff concerns related to the efficacy of the proposed
ordinance.
Summary of Draft Ordinance
A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below:
Eligible Sending Sites
At the City Council's work session, the Council recommended that eligible sending sites only
include future Iowa City historic landmarks. Based on feedback from the Historic Preservation
Commission, staff expanded this to include the five properties designated as Iowa City historic
landmarks in Summer 2018, as well as contributing properties in future Iowa City historic districts.
The HPC expressed concern that applying this only to future local historic landmarks could act as
a disincentive to the creation of local historic districts. In addition, the properties designated in
Summer 2018 came before the City Council around the same time as the proposed local landmark
designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street, which resulted in the development of the draft ordinance.
Therefore, the draft ordinance outlines the following requirements for sending sites:
• Sending sites must be zoned single-family residential, multi -family residential, or
commercial.
November 15, 2018
Page 2
• Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a
contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district after January 1, 2018.
In addition, the draft ordinance includes language that states all historic buildings on the sending
site must be preserved against deterioration and kept free from structural defects. If rehabilitation
is necessary due to poor condition, this provision allows the staff design review committee to not
recommend the approval of a transfer. In addition, if a transfer is approved, the applicant must
agree to ensure the property will be preserved against decay and deterioration.
Eligible Receiving Sites
For the receiving sites, the City Council recommended that staff explore including properties in
Riverfront Crossings and those that allow multi -family development.
The draft ordinance identifies the following sites as eligible receiving sites:
• Properties zoned Riverfront Crossings. This does not include all properties within the
Riverfront Crossings district, only those properties rezoned to an RFC -XX designation;
• Properties zoned Multi -family; and
• Properties zoned Commercial that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or
provisional use.'
Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic districts
or conservation districts, or designated in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible
as receiving sites. [Attachment 1]
Transfer of Development Rights
The City Council instructed staff to create a more limited transfer formula than that which currently
exists in Riverfront Crossings. Council requested that staff use other city's formulas as a guide.
Based on this input, the draft ordinance provides the option to allow a transfer request for either
a height bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. The draft also allows
transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, with the
following limitations:
• Height bonuses are restricted to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed
per the base zone districts, and
• For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, height bonuses are limited to two
stories above the height of the existing single-family home.
The draft ordinance does not place any restrictions on the increase in density transferred. Any
projects that receive either a height bonus or a density bonus must still comply with the other
requirements in the zoning code, such as setbacks, parking, landscaping, etc.
The draft ordinance outlines the following transfer formulas:
1. Height Bonus Option:
• The difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site based on
the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark or district
designation and the existing height of the historic structure.
• In cases where the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10 feet, the
allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet.
' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria
and standards.
November 15, 2018
Page 3
2. Density Bonus Option:
• The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City
historic landmark or district designation and the existing number of dwelling units on
the sending site.
Transfer Review Process
During the Council work session, the Council expressed an interest in having all transfer requests
be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The draft ordinance creates a process where the
staff design review committee reviews transfer requests and provides a recommendation to the
City Council for review and approval.
Additional Research & Analysis
Proposed Sending Sites
Using the eligibility criteria outlined in the draft ordinance, staff conducted an analysis to estimate
the transfer potential of future sending sites. Table 1 outlines the estimated transfer potential of
sites that may be eligible as sending sites in the future .2 The analysis includes the following
potential sending sites:
• The five properties locally landmarked in Summer 2018,
The contributing properties in the proposed downtown historic district outlined in the
recently completed downtown survey, and
• Sites eligible as local historic landmarks identified by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Other local historic landmarks and districts may be contemplated in the future, but are not included
in this estimate.
Table 1. Estimated Transfer Potential of Eligible Sending Sites
Potential Sending Sites
Dwelling Units
Height (Feet)
Locally Landmarked in 2018
13
95
Potential Downtown District
n/a
5,995
Potential Local Landmarks
138
370
Total
151
6,460
Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites
Staff also put together several maps of the proposed eligible receiving sites to help the City
Council visualize the heights and densities allowed by the current zone districts.
• Attachment 2 outlines the maximum heights already allowed per the base zone district. A
majority of the proposed eligible receiving sites have a maximum height of 35 feet. The
downtown core, outlined in red, has no maximum height.
• Attachment 3 outlines the maximum density (dwelling units / acre) already allowed per the
base zone district. Sites zoned Riverfront Crossings and sites within the downtown core
have no maximum density requirement. The other multi -family sites range between 16
and 100 dwelling units per acre.
2 Staff utilized Assessor and rental permit data to determine the number of existing dwelling units and the
maximum allowable density per the existing zone district to determine the number of dwelling units that
could be transferred. Staff estimated the height of buildings using Assessor photos and Google street views
to determine the number of stories. Staff converted stories to feet by assuming 1 story = 10 feet.
November 15, 2018
Page 4
• Staff took the maximum density and converted that to dwelling units. Attachment 4 outlines
the maximum number of dwelling units already allowed on eligible receiving sites.
Attachment 5 outlines the proposed eligible receiving sites that are either vacant or
underutilized. In conducting this analysis, staff utilized assessor data to identify the vacant
sites. Underutilized sites include any site with an improvement -to -land value ratio of less
than 1.0, which indicates that the buildings on the sites are less valuable than the land,
and therefore, more likely to be redeveloped. The map shows there are several sites,
identified in red, that have redevelopment potential. Based on the current zoning,
approximately 2,369 dwelling units could theoretically be accommodated by the vacant
and underutilized sites. This estimate does not include any potential density bonuses. In
addition, it also does not include the dwelling unit capacity of sites that have no maximum
density (i.e. Riverfront Crossings & Downtown).
Issues and Constraints
In a staff memo to the City Manager dated August 19, staff outlined several issues and constraints
related to a potential city-wide TDR ordinance. Since that time staff has listened to concerns and
input and developed a draft ordinance that may help to preserve some of the city's historic
resources. However, these issues remain and are worth re -iterating.
• Market Potential: There was no market study completed for this project, so it is unknown
whether a demand for a TDR program exists. Furthermore, staff is concerned that the
complicated nature of TDR may make it infeasible, and at the very least daunting, for an
owner of a single local historic landmark.
Lack of Certainty in the Process: The process outlined in the draft ordinance requires
review and approval by the City Council. Although this provides oversight and may help
to address some concerns regarding potential negative impacts to existing
neighborhoods, the proposed process lacks certainty. It lacks certainty not only for the
developer looking to utilize credits, but also for the property owner of the proposed local
historic landmark.
• Other Bonus Mechanisms: Some of the more effective TDR programs throughout the
country provide few or no other alternatives to achieving additional development potential.
The City's zoning code outlines several bonus provisions for public benefits. With other
bonus provisions to choose from, the effectiveness of the proposed TDR ordinance may
be reduced.
Historic Preservation Commission Review
Lastly, staff presented the draft TDR ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission on
October 11. Based on some concerns raised, staff also provided an update to the HPC on
November 8. Below is a list of comments received from the Commission on November 8:
• Concern regarding the effectiveness of the ordinance due to the number of other bonuses
allowed by the City's zoning code.
• Concern that the height and density bonuses could negatively impact existing
neighborhoods. One Commissioner suggested reducing the height bonus allowed next to
existing single-family from two stories, as is suggested in the draft ordinance, to one story.
• Concern that limited stakeholder outreach was conducted as part of this proposed
amendment, particularly to properties adjacent to potential receiving sites.
November 15, 2018
Page 5
Timeline
On May 29, the City Council deferred the local landmark designation of the property at 410-412
North Clinton Street for eight months to give staff time to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR
ordinance. The 8 -month deferral expires at the end of January 2019.
The table below outlines the project schedule.
Date
Task
June — August 2018
Research and analysis
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 20, 2018
City Council (Public Hearing & 1St reading of
ordinance
December 4, 2018
City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance
December 18, 2018
City Council meeting if needed
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
Attachments:
1. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map
2. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Height
3. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Density
4. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Maximum Allowable Dwelling Units
5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites — Vacant & Underutilized Sites
M=■
CITY OF IOWA CITY
\]
0
x�`stttttyt¢b
I`
.�A.
�I
NQ16
i
mmuuuu�m
F
r1l
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Ir
_Mw_ -4
I[[�1
4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2018
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of
Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003)
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Since that meeting, staff prepared two memos to the City Manager regarding a potential ordinance
[Attachments 1 and 2] and the City Council discussed the establishment of a city-wide TDR
ordinance for historic preservation at two work sessions and directed staff to move forward with
its development for Council's consideration. [Attachment 3]
At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on October 18, staff will present a draft TDR
ordinance [Attachment 4] for the Commission's review and recommendation. This memo provides
a background on TDR programs, summarizes the existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings,
and outlines the draft ordinance. The draft is based on a September 4 work session discussion
with the City Council.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
October 12, 2018
Page 2
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Proposed City-wide TDR Ordinance for Historic Preservation
Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has developed a draft ordinance to apply
city-wide. A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below.
Eligible Sending Sites
Staff proposes that eligible sending sites include properties eligible for Iowa City historic landmark
designation. More specifically, a sending site must be designated as an Iowa City historic
landmark after the adoption of the proposed city-wide ordinance in order to be eligible for the
transfer incentive. Furthermore, properties already within existing Iowa City historic districts and
conservation districts are not eligible to obtain Iowa City landmark status and benefit from the
TDR incentive.
Eligible Receiving Sites
The eligible receiving sites proposed include the properties zoned Riverfront Crossings and zone
districts that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use'. This includes
all multi -family residential zone districts and several commercial zone districts. Properties
designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, Iowa City historic districts, and designated in the
National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 5]
' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria
and standards.
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Transfer of Development Rights
Staff proposes to consider transfer requests for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not
both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed
either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no
more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. Staff does not recommend any restrictions
on the increase in density transferred.
Staff proposes to calculate these transfers as follows:
(1) Height Bonus Option:
• Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure.
In cases where the transfer is less than 12 feet, staff suggests including a
provision that 12 feet may be transferred even if the difference is less than 12
feet. In many instances historic properties are residentially zoned, which
typically have a maximum of 35 feet. Since historic buildings typically have
higher ceilings a two-story historic building may not result in much of a height
transfer. Therefore, staff suggests allowing a transfer of 12 feet, which will allow
a minimum of at least one story to be transferred.
(1) Density Bonus Option:
• Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City
historic landmark designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
Transfer Review Process
Staff proposes that any request for a transfer be reviewed by the staff design review committee,
which will then submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval.
Historic Preservation Commission Review
On October 11, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Commission voted to move the proposed ordinance forward in the process; however, they
did outline some concerns and suggestions. Below is a list of their comments and staff's feedback.
1. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future
Iowa City landmarks.
In 2018, the City Council approved Iowa City landmark designation status for the following
properties:
• David Boarts (Sylvanus Johnson) House, 412 N. Dubuque Street
• George and Hellen Hummer House, 504 E. Bloomington Street
• Parrott House, 1029 N. Dodge Street
• Albert Henry Byfield House, 715 Park Road
• Anton Geiger House, 213 E. Market Street
The Commission felt that these recent designations should receive the incentive due to
their very recent designation. The Commission also expressed concern that the proposed
ordinance could deter downtown property owners from supporting a downtown district.
October 12, 2018
Page 4
The Commission suggested considering allowing future Iowa City commercial historic
districts, and potentially, future districts, in general, to be eligible for the incentive.
Staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to the properties
designated in 2018. In addition, staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to
apply to properties within future Iowa City historic districts to help incentivize the creation
of local historic districts. Based on a conversation with the Historic Preservation Planner,
at present there are a limited number of areas in the city that would be eligible for a local
historic district. Lastly, to ensure consistency between the city-wide ordinance and the
existing Riverfront Crossing's ordinance, staff also recommends amending the TDR
provisions in Riverfront Crossings to include Iowa City historic districts.
2. The Commission expressed some concern over the receiving sites and the potential
impact of additional height and density in existing residential neighborhoods. One
Commissioner expressed concern regarding the process and lack of confidence in the
design review committee.
The proposed ordinance suggests capping height bonus transfers at 40 feet beyond the
maximum height of the receiving site. In addition, any request will need to be reviewed by
the design review committee and City Council. However, to address the Commission's
concerns staff recommends incorporating the following provisions that protect existing
single-family neighborhoods: For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, limit
the height to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home.
3. Lastly, the Commission requested that staff explore other incentives, such as property tax
reductions.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The draft ordinance supports the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy:
Goal: Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets.
Strategy: Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas
and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve
as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development.
The City's Historic Preservation Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft
ordinance supports the following historic preservation goals:
Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement
this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
October 12, 2018
Page 5
Attachments:
1. July 18, 2018 Memo to eoff Fruin, City Manager
2. August 29, 2018 Me to f Fruin, Cit Manager
3. Staff presentation to t n "Manager
4, 2018
4. Draft Ordinance
5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Item Number: 8.a.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Barbara McFarland: Ped Mall Benches
Robin Kash: Ped Mall benches
Jeanette Love: Benches in Iowa City 2019
Mark Petterson: Benches on the Pedestrian Mall
Garry Klein: Ped Mall Progress?
Sean McRoberts: Ped Mall Benches
Ethan Forsgren: Those awful benches
Caroline Dieterle: New benches
Kellie Fruehlin
From: McFarland, Barbara J <barbara-mcfarland@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 8:45 AM
To: Council
Subject: Ped Mall Benches
Greetings City Council Members,
I would like to express my opinion about the new benches on the Ped Mall.
I feel that the new benches with the incorporated arm rests are perfectly fine. I believe it offers a more
inviting sitting area to people.
I agree with Senior Civil Engineer Scott Sovers statement: "If there's someone you don't know, someone is
going to feel more comfortable so to speak if they can have a divider or something to divide their space,"
Personal space is a viable issue.
do not see any reason to change them out.
Thank you,
Barb McFarland
Kellie Fruehling
From: Robin Kash <robinkashl807@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 4:56 PM
To: Council
Subject: Ped Mall benches
Good Day,
One of the great things about living in Cedar Rapids is that Iowa City is nearby. My wife and delight to come there to
dine (love Trumpet Blossom), shop downtown (Prairie Lights is one of our stops without fail), visit the library (such a
welcoming place), and walk everywhere.
I was glad when the Ped Mall was reopened, but shocked to see benches with armrests midway. For one thing, it
removes the middle seat! Then I learned how it affects homeless people who have no place to recline and sleep at night.
I don't think benches should take the place of adequate housing for homeless people, but since there seems not enough
housing, open benches could serve as an alternative while adequate housing is developed.
I hope something will be done to make benches more accessible by all.
Thank you,
Robin Kash
1806 Grande Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids IA 52403
Robin Kash
Kellie Fruehling
From: Jeanette Love <jlovearchaeology2@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 6:18 PM
To: Council
Cc: opinion@press-citizen.com
Subject: Benches in Iowa City 2019
To Whom It May Concern:
It has been brought to my attention a concern regarding the proposed change of benches in downtown Iowa City to
incorporate separation bars, with the intent to discourage people from sleeping on benches.
I encourage the council to reconsider this action, and continue to provide non obstructed benches for persons who wish
to rest in them.
Regardless if a person is homeless or not, a roomy bench is a good spot to relax for anyone.
When I was in the Iowa City shelter, folks could not stay there during the day, they were asked to leave and return in the
evening to have a bed.
For myself, I face high fatigue during the afternoons. As a U of I student, I slept in libraries, parks, and benches. Finding
it necessary to lay down, rest to recharge.
When my daughter was young, we both stretched out on benches, a bench without separations is also a great place for
children.
In my experience, disabled persons use the benches as they are currently.
It may appear scary at night when a homeless person is at rest, however, many have health issues where a place to lie
down, off the ground is needed.
The requirements of the Iowa City homeless shelter may not meet every person's needs, such as time schedule for a
bed, anxiety, substance abuse, or lack of transport to the shelter.
If there is someone on your board who has faced homelessness, and has health issues, this person may have good ideas
on how to approach this.
Perhaps an agency placed downtown with rooms and cots. Or just leaving the benches as they are for all persons to
relax on.
I personally prefer the outdoor sunshine to stretch out on a bench in the spring, summer and fall, for a nice nap.
Thank you,
Jeanette Love
Jlovearchaeoloey2@email.com
Lyme Disease Survivor
Kellie Fruehling
From: Mark Petterson <petterson.mr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 8:24 AM
To: Council
Subject: Benches on the Pedestrian Mall
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for all your tireless work to make Iowa City one of the best places to live in the Midwest. I have lived
here for over a year, and am proud to call Iowa City home.
I am writing to express my concern regarding the handrails on the newly -installed Pedestrian Mall benches.
While I am thankful for the renovations to the Ped Mall, I am concerned that the design of the new benches is
harmful to the welfare of the city's homeless population, and more broadly, does not represent the inviting
community that Iowa City strives to embody.
Regardless of intent (and I am not interested in placing blame on designers, the city, or anyone else), the
current design that incorporates middle -of -the -bench armrests is an unnecessary impediment to our under -
housed neighbors who use public benches to lay down and rest, regardless of the weather. While there are still
full benches available, even the optics of the new benches are hostile to our homeless and under -housed
friends. This isn't the image that we, as a city, should be projecting. Just as we strive to provide shelter and
services to the most vulnerable in our society, we should also design our public spaces to be inviting and open.
The homeless pose no threat to the city; they are our neighbors and every bit a part of our community as those
with stable housing.
I respectfully ask that you act to replace the benches in questions with re -designed benches that do not
incorporate center armrests. I would be happy to speak to any council person interested in further discussion
on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Petterson
932 East College St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
913.231.4972
Petterson.mr@gmail.com
Kellie Fruehling
From: Garry Klein <garryklein@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:54 PM
To: council@icgov.org; Council
Subject: Ped Mall Progress?
Council Members,
I know that you've likely heard an earful about the benches on the Ped Mall. Beyond the fact that they seems to have a
well -intended purpose to give comfort to those with physical limitations and personal space for those who might be
company shy, they also have what I perceive and hope are unintended consequences of keeping people from lying on
them, of keeping overweight people from having a place to sit, of adding a place for kids to accidentally clang their
heads while playing, and of creating a place for bicycles, dogs, or anything else that can be secured to the armrests (and
which would deny others the ability to sit). At the very least, it might be good to consider a few benches without those
partition bars (or any bars). We are a city that celebrates diversity and this is another opportunity to publicly display that
intention.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Kellie Fruehling
From: Sean McRoberts <pastor@stmarks-umc.net>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Council
Subject: Ped Mall Benches
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern about the new benches on the pedestrian mall downtown. I appreciate the
city's efforts to maintain and update the ped mall, which is a unique feature of our community. Unfortunately, the
selection of the new benches, with a center armrest, to replace the beautifully painted benches previously on the mall
sends a message that some members of our community are not welcome in this space. In particular, the center armrest
prevents people from laying on the bench, either to rest or to sleep for a time. In the past, the ped mall has been a
welcome space for our neighbors who may be homeless or who may want or need to rest.
I am proud to call this community home, and proud of our ethic of welcome and inclusiveness, so I am confident
that the inhospitable design of these new benches was an oversight and unintentional. However, now that the impact
of the design has been brought to your attention it is important that you take appropriate action to remedy the
situation. I recommend maintaining those benches without a center armrest that remain in the ped mall, rather than
replacing them next spring. Further, those that have been removed should be restored, so that we will not lose any
space for sitting or sleeping.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Peace,
Pastor Sean McRoberts
St. Mark's United Methodist Church
2675 E Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 337-7201
Virus -free. www.avast.com
6,6t,-
Kellie
.6t,-Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Forsgren, Ethan A <ethan-forsgren@uiowa.edu>
Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:06 PM
Council
Those awful benches
Have you tried to sit on the benches in the Ped Mall?
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
I've been talking with people about this bench fiasco and decided to do a little research myself. Behold, the problem is even worse
than I thought: These new benches are hostile toward people who want to sleep on them. That's for sure. On top of that, they are
also hostile toward anyone who would want to sit on them.
Dividing up the bench with armrests, first of all, eliminates the ability to sit comfortably together in a group of 3 or more. A family
with children, for example, can no longer sit together. Nor can a group of friends. Because of the armrests, you also can't you vary
the distance between you and another person; you either have to sit super close together or section yourselves on either side of a
cold steel bar, each of you in your own pen. If you want to rest your hand on the "armrest", you'll find you can't keep it there long
because the metal's so cold to the touch. And if you wanted to turn toward your friend and sit side -ways, you'd can't do so
comfortably because the seat is so slanted your hips will kink at an awkward angle. These benches are universally uncomfortable.
I'm sure you've already received a wave of letters about these benches because of their hostile architecture. I fear you're about to get
a whole second wave of letters when the weather's warm enough that people actually try to use these things.
It seems Iowa City is now stuck with benches that are doubly bad because they were so clearly designed to repel people that are
homeless, and, in attempt to do so, repel all of us... Serves us right, I guess.
Ethan Forsgren
Ethan Forsgren
MD Candidate, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine
MPP Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
(515)451-9158 I x8365
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original
message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or
regulation. Thank you.
Kellie Fruehling
From: Dieterle, Caroline M <caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 4:28 PM
To: Council
Subject: New benches 12—)1-7 ZI T
(Date)
To the City Council:
The comfortable old 72" undivided benches have concave seats and could comfortably
accommodate a mother sitting in the center with 2 or more children. The new ones won't.
Whether homeless, temporarily dysfunctional due to inebriation, or simply TIRED, the old
benches were inviting. Most of the new bench seats have a length of 64", divided into two
seats by an `arm rest', so that each seating area is 31" wide. An ordinary kitchen chair is
approximately 16-17" wide. Thus the new benches — which the City insists will provide more
seating — really will seat fewer people than the old undivided benches did. The arm rest
wastes 2". Two people will ordinarily not want to sit together in one space on the benches:
too tight. So now only 2 can sit where formerly 3-4 could fit. A few new benches (those with
black rails) have two 34" seats with a 2" wide armrest — but the seats are strongly convex!
Mazahir Saleh is the Ione Councilperson who objected to the new bench design. Even her
suggestion to leave half the benches 'as is' was not acceptable to the rest of the Council.
Why? She was out -voted 6-1. Rockne Cole and most recently Bruce Teague have
campaigned on representing the disadvantaged in our community. Why did they vote for
these benches? With a professional landscape architect and a city planner also on the City
Council, how could the new benches have been chosen in ignorance of the Defensive
Engineering field?
The Guardian (UK) published an expose' of Defensive Engineering, the new design field
(https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-
poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile?)
Defensive architecture: keeping poverty
unseen and deflecting our guilt
www.thequardian.com
The spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester are the
latest front in the spread of 'defensive architecture'. Is such
open hostility towards the destitute making all our lives
uglier?
This engineering is specifically geared toward creating methods to prevent the free use of
spaces hitherto considered "public", to satisfy corporate 'hygiene' and businesses' desire to
get the poor out -of -sight and out -of -mind of shoppers and business owners. Specifically
mentioned are spikes in the pavement, periodic sprinklers — and benches with solid metal
dividers. Cited in The Guardian article are experts in urban architecture, environmental
psychology, and urban geography; an artist, Fabian Brunsing, created a satirical "pay bench"
art installation in protest. Chinese officials took Brunsing seriously, thought the idea was
wonderful, and used his design to make and install park "pay benches": spikes on them are
retracted for a limited time in response to feeding coins into a built-in meter. Will we be
seeing those here next?
In contrast to the old benches, the new ones look sterile, cold, and corporately ugly. As soon
as the shine of newness wears off they will look shabby and cheap as well.
Caroline Dieterle
i
Anti -homeless spires: 'Sleeping
rough opened my eyes to the city's
barged cruelty'
1-Yornelessness
The spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester are the latest front in the spread of
`defensive architecture'. Is such open hostility towards the destitute making all our lives
uglier?
Alex Andreou
1�,c 1 E; ' 'c; � 2('15 12,30 FS' Last �-nodif ed oti I hL;,, 112 Al! >G18 05 EDT
F
w' 6
Metal studs outside private flats on Southwark Bridge Road, London, Photograph: Guy
Corbishley/Demotix/Corbis
More than loo homeless people are "living" in the terminals of Heathrow airport this
winter, according to official figures — a new and shameful record. Crisis and the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation have warned that homelessness in London is rising significantly
faster than the nationwide average, and faster than official estimates. And yet, we don't
see as many people sleeping rough as in previous economic downturns. Have our cities
become better at hiding poverty, or have we become more adept at not seeing it?
Last year, there was great public outcry against the use of "anti -homeless" spikes outside
a London residential complex, not far from where I live. Social media was set
momentarily ablaze with indignation, a petition was signed, a sleep -in protest
undertaken, Boris Johnson was incensed and within a few days they were removed. This
week, however, it emerged that Selfridges had installed metal spikes outside one of its
Manchester stores — apparently to "reduce litter and smoking ... following customer
complaints". The phenomenon of "defensive" or "disciplinary" architecture, as it is
known, remains pervasive.
Sign up to the Art Weekly email
From ubiquitous protrusions on window ledges to bus -shelter seats that pivot forward,
from water sprinklers and loud muzak to hard tubular rests, from metal park benches
with solid dividers to forests of pointed cement bollards under bridges, urban spaces are
aggressively rejecting soft, human bodies.
We see these measures all the time within our urban environments, whether in London
or Tokyo, but we fail to process their true intent. I hardly noticed them before I became
homeless in 2000. An economic crisis, a death in the family, a sudden breakup and an
even more sudden breakdown were all it took to go from a six -figure income to sleeping
rough in the space of a year. It was only then that I started scanning my surroundings
with the distinct purpose of finding shelter and the city's barbed cruelty became clear.
I learned to love London Underground's Circle line back then. To others it was just the
rather inefficient yellow line on the tube network. To me — and many homeless people —
it was a safe, dry, warm container, continually travelling sometimes above the surface,
sometimes below, like a giant needle stitching London's centre into place. Nobody
harassed you or moved you on. You were allowed to take your poverty on tour. But
engineering work put a stop to that.
Next was a bench in a smallish park just off Pentonville Road. An old, wooden bench,
made concave and smooth by thousands of buttocks, underneath a sycamore with
foliage so thick that only the most persistent rain could penetrate it. Sheltered and
warm, perched as it was against a wall behind which a generator of some sort radiated
heat, this was prime property. Then, one morning, it was gone. In its place stood a
convex metal perch, with three solid armrests. I felt such loss that day.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Hostile architecture on the former Coutts Bank, Fleet Street, London. Photograph:
Linda Nylind for the Guardian
"When you're designed against, you know it," says Ocean Howell, who teaches
architectural history at the University of Oregon, speaking about anti -skateboarding
designs. "Other people might not see it, but you will. The message is clear: you are not a
member of the public, at least not of the public that is welcome here." The same is true
of all defensive architecture. The psychological effect is devastating.
There is a wider problem, too. These measures do not and cannot distinguish the
"vagrant" posterior from others considered more deserving. When we make it
impossible for the dispossessed to rest their weary bodies at a bus shelter, we also make
it impossible for the elderly, for the infirm, for the pregnant woman who has had a dizzy
spell. By making the city less accepting of the human frame, we make it less welcoming
to all humans. By making our environment more hostile, we become more hostile within
Lit.
Defensive architecture is revealing on a number of levels, because it is not the product of
accident or thoughtlessness, but a thought process. It is a sort of unkindness that is
considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to
exclude and harass. It reveals how corporate hygiene has overridden human
considerations, especially in retail districts. It is a symptom of the clash of private and
public, of necessity and property.
Pavement sprinklers have been installed by buildings as diverse as the famous Strand
book store in New York, a fashion chain in Hamburg and government offices in
Guangzhou. They spray the homeless intermittently, soaking them and their
possessions. The assertion is clear: the public thoroughfare in front of a building,
belongs to the building's occupant, even when it is not being used.
Setha Low, a professor in environmental psychology, and urban geographer Neil Smith,
in their book The Politics of Public Space, describe the phenomenon as a creeping
encroachment that has "culminated in the multiple closures, erasures, inundations and
transfigurations of public space at the behest of state and corporate strategies". They
contend that the very economic and political revolutions that freed people from
autocratic monarchies also enshrined principles of private property at the expense of a
long tradition of common land.
Sculptor Fabian Brunsigg brought a satirical eye to the issue by creating the "pay
bench", an art installation of a park bench that retracts its metal spikes for a limited
time when the prospective sitter feeds it a coin. Chinese officials, completely missing the
joke, thought that this was a great idea and installed similar benches in Yantai Park of
the Shangdong province.
.' Ati. 111' Av i.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Concrete spikes under a road bridge in Guangzhou city, Guangdong, China,
Photograph: Imaginechina/REX
The architecture of our cities is a powerful guide to behaviour, both directly and in its
symbolism. One of the very first acts of the newly elected Syriza government in Greece
was to remove the metal barriers between the Hellenic parliament and Syntagma
Square. The effect on the centre of Athens of the removal of this barricade — which
represented the strife of the last few years — was almost magical, as if an entire city
breathed a sigh of relief. The symbolism of a government saying that they were a part of
the people, rather than apart from the people, was understood by all.
Artist Nils Norman has been documenting the phenomenon of defensive architecture
since the late gos with thousands of photographs. This "vernacular of terror", as he calls
it, has its roots in leftover space or "gap sites": plots that are too small to develop but
large enough to encourage loitering. He sees the loss of public space as directly related
to a loss of public life. "City space is quietly altered to maximimise its control and
circulation," he says. "Benches become bum -free, which in turn become `perches', which
are in turn removed. As city spaces become cleaner and more symbolically `safe',
defensive design becomes more abundant and paranoid."
Recently, as I walked into my local bakery, a homeless man (whom I had seen a few
times before) asked whether I could get him something to eat. When I asked Ruth — one
of the young women who work behind the counter — to put a couple of pasties in a
separate bag and explained why, her censure was severe: "He probably makes more
money than you from begging, you know," she said, bluntly.
He probably didn't. Half his face was covered with sores. A blackened, gangrenous -
looking toe protruded from a hole in his ancient shoe. His left hand looked mangled and
was covered in dry blood from some recent accident or fight. I pointed this out. Ruth
was unmoved by my protestations. "I don't care," she said. "They foul in the green
opposite. They're a menace. Animals."
Spikes keep the homeless away, pushing them further out of
sight
It's precisely this viewpoint that defensive architecture upholds. That the destitute are a
different species altogether; inferior and responsible for their demise. Like pigeons to be
shooed away; urban foxes disturbing our slumber with their screams. "Shame on you,"
jumped in Libby, the older lady who works at the bakery. "That is someone's son you're
talking about."
We curse the destitute for urinating in public spaces with no thought about how far the
nearest free public toilet might be. We blame them for their poor hygiene without
questioning the lack of public facilities for washing. It costs £5 to take a shower at King's
Cross station. Wilful misconceptions about homelessness abound. For instance, that
shelters are plentiful and sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice. Free shelters, unless one
belongs to a particularly vulnerable group, are actually extremely rare. Getting a bed
often depends on a referral from a local agency, which, in turn, depends on being able to
prove a local connection. For the majority of homeless people, who have usually
graduated from a life as itinerant sofa -surfers, it is impossible to prove.
This tripartite pressure of an increasingly hostile built environment, huge reduction in
state budgets, and a hardening attitude to poverty can be disastrous for people sleeping
rough, both physically and psychologically. Fundamental misunderstanding of
destitution is designed to exonerate the rest from responsibility and insulate them from
perceiving risk. All of us are encouraged to spend future earnings through credit. For the
spell to be effective, it is essential to be in a sort of denial about the possibility that such
future earnings could dry up. Most of us are a couple of pay packets from being
insolvent. We despise homeless people for bringing us face to face with that fact.
Poverty exists as a parallel, but separate, reality. City planners work very hard to keep it
outside our field of vision. It is too miserable, too dispiriting, too painful to look at
someone defecating in a park or sleeping in a doorway and think of him as "someone's
son". It is easier to see him and ask only the unfathomably self-centred question: "How
does his homelessness affect me?" So we cooperate with urban design and work very
hard at not seeing, because we do not want to see. We tacitly agree to this apartheid.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Spikes installed outside Selfridges in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond
for the Guardian.
A homeless man, Pawel Koseda, was found dead last year; bled out, im aled on the six-
inch spikes of the metal fence that surrounds St Mary Abbots in Kensington, the
Camerons' chosen place of worship. He had high levels of alcohol in his blood and was
wearing hospital pyjamas under his clothes. Koseda used to be a university lecturer in
Poland. Ed Boord, who found the body, said that several people walked by and didn't
even notice. "It upset me that someone like that spends their life not being noticed," he
said, "and even in their last moments people still walk past."
Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's research says that UK homeless numbers
have increased by a third in the last five years. Benefit sanctions are cited as the main
reason. In this context of depressed wages and soaring living costs, reduced services and
lack of housing, we are facing a humanitarian disaster. The Red Cross is involved in food
aid in the UK for the first time since the second world war. Can our response as a
civilised society really be limited to moving people on from our doorsteps?
This, more than anything else, will determine our future as a species. Our ability to
share will be key to our survival. The rough sleeper's bad fortune is intricately connected
to someone else's good fortune. The person sleeping outside the expensive Bond Street
boutique is part of the same nexus as the person inside spending £foo on a pair of
socks.
Resources are scarce. Infinite wealth creation is a fairytale. Real wealth — land, food,
water, fuel — has physical limitations. If some take more than they need, others go
without. We obsessively focus on the external: carbon emissions, recycling, charity
work, social security, saving the snow leopard — all of them excellent goals — while
doggedly refusing to look inwards and make the adjustments that might allow us to
coexist more equitably.
A ray of hope from Vancouver — benches that unfold into shelters and read "This is a
bench" during the day, but light up to reveal "This is a bedroom" at night. Perhaps a
small step on what David Harvey, author of Social Justice and the City, calls the "path
from an urbanism based on exploitation to an urbanism appropriate for the human
species".
Defensive architecture acts as the airplane curtain that separates economy from
business and business from first class, protecting those further forward from the
envious eyes of those behind. It keeps poverty unseen and sanitises our shopping
centres, concealing any guilt for over -consuming. It speaks volumes about our collective
attitude to poverty in general and homelessness in particular. It is the aggregated,
concrete, spiked expression of a lack of generosity of spirit.
Ironically, it doesn't even achieve its basic goal of making us feel safer. There is no way
of locking others out that doesn't also lock us in. The narrower the arrow -slit, the larger
outside dangers appear. Making our urban environment hostile breeds hardness and
isolation. It makes life a little uglier for all of us
Item Number: 8.b.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Carol deProsse: Recycling bins [Staff response included]
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Jennifer Jordan
Sent:
Monday, December 10, 2018 11:22 AM
To:
'Carol deProsse'
Cc:
Council; Geoff Fruin; Ron Knoche
Subject:
RE: Recycling bins
Hi Carol,
Thanks for your email. The Council did not mandate the larger recycling bins. However, like many other cities across the
county, we are updating our program and providing 65 -gallon carts for several reasons: to increase recycling
participation and volume, decrease the amount of recycling that is getting landfilled and reduce staff lifting. While
waste reduction is always our first goal, we also aim to provide convenient recycling programs and have had an
overwhelmingly positive response to the new carts.
The footprints of the carts are very similar to the 18 -gallon bins but I understand the carts do take up space. The trucks
we are using can accommodate both the 18 -gallon bins and the 65 -gallon carts so if the cart is a major hardship for a
household, we can take the customer off the delivery list or pick up the cart if it's already gone out. However, we are
not purchasing additional 18 -gallon bins as we phase those out so we'll replace those as needed in the future with the
65 -gallon carts.
If you'd like me to take your name off the delivery list, I'm happy to do so. Please email or give me a call with your
address if that is the case.
Please note that the organics carts (yellow lids) are not required—we're providing those only for the customers who are
signing up to use for yard waste and food waste.
Thanks,
Jen
Jennifer Jordan
Resource Management Superintendent
City of Iowa City
319-887-6160
iennifer-iordan(aDiowa-citv.orQ
Never miss an update or schedule change!
Sign up for service notices at www.icciov.orq/subscribe.
From: Carol deProsse [mai Ito: lonetreefox@mac.comj
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 5:21 PM
To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>; Jennifer Jordan <Jennifer-Jordan@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Recycling bins
Did the Council adopt an ordinace mandating the use of the new blue -topped recyling carts. What the hell are those
with smaller yards going to do with one big boy for garbage, an almost big boy for recycling, and yet a second almost big
boy for composting.
If it's not a law I don't want any of these, but since I have the garbage one and use it that's fine. But where am I to stash
the blue one? You think my neighborhood will be enhanced when all the driveways have plastic carts lined up on them?
Item Number: 8.c.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Lori Kendrick: Deer Management [Staff response included]
Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham: Bow hunting for deer management
Julie Mock: Deer Management
Lynn Gallagher: bow hunting
Margot Bilanin: Oppose bow hunting
Kellie Fruehling
From: Lori Kendrick <kendricklori@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 6:03 AM
To: Geoff Fruin
Cc: Council; Bill Campbell
Subject: Re: Deer Management
Mr. Fruin,
Thank for your quick response. I'll forward this information on to Iowa City Deer Friends.
Sincerely,
Lori Kendrick
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 8:59 PM Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruingiowa-city.org wrote:
Ms. Kendrick,
Thank you for your email. Iowa City's request will be in front of the DNR's Natural Resource Commission this Thursday,
December 13th. You can access the agenda and meeting information at httos://www.iowadnr.gov/About-DNR/Boards-
Commissions/Natural-Resource-Cor-i_,ii_iS'; ",-) n (scroll down to see a PDF agenda). It is my understanding that the
meetings are fully open to the public.
I misspoke at the last City Council meeting about the Deer Commission. The group is not continuing to meet at the
current time. The City is awaiting the NRC's decision. If our request is granted will conduct a follow-up deer count and
discuss options for continuing any activities after we have that information. In the meantime, it is best that you share
your thoughts, ideas and comments with Captain Bill Campbell of the Iowa City Police Department.
My apologies for the confusion caused by my statement.
Best,
Geoff Fruin
From: Lori Kendrick <kendricklori@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 5:28 PM
To: Council <Council@iowa-city.ore>
Subject: Deer Management
Dear Council members,
I'm writing in regards to your recommendation to Iowa City Deer Friends at the December 4th City Council Formal
Meeting. Geoff Fruin stated that the Deer Commission will be looking at short term needs, as well as long term needs,
and it would be appropriate to work with that group. Can you please provide how best to contact the Deer
Commission?
It was also mentioned that there would be an upcoming meeting with the DNR and NRC. Will that meeting be open to
community members? If not, would a representative from our group be allowed to attend?
It is our hope that we can work with all who are involved with the future of the Iowa City deer herd to consider adding
a sterilization project to the current sharpshooter program.
Sincerely,
Lori Kendrick
Iowa City Deer Friends
319-504-1851
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham <sarajacobmeyer@gmai .com>
Friday, December 14, 2018 12:46 PM Late Handouts Distributed
Council
Bow hunting for deer management
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
f2 -l/-7 �C g
(Date)
I oppose bow hunting as a deer management method in Iowa City. Thank you for all your work so far as you
continue to address this issue.
Sincerely,
Sara Jacobmeyer Pinkham
1125 Pickard St
Iowa City
Kellie Fruehling
8�
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mock, Julie M (UI Health Care) <julie-mock@uiowa.edu>
Friday, December 14, 2018 1:03 PM Late Handouts Distributed
Council
Deer Management
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose bow hunting as a deer management method.
Sincerely,
Julie Mock
3923 Stewart Road NE, Iowa City, IA 52240
(Date)
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original
message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or
regulation. Thank you.
M
Kellie Fruehling
ENNNNN�
From: Lynn Gallagher <lynngall726@gmail.com> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 7:34 PM
To: Council
Subject: re: bow hunting A-7
(Date)
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I do not understand why the NRC forced you to have a public forum about deer management and then ignored the
wishes of the community. It appears that they had an agenda from the start.
Please stand firm against bow hunting. I appreciate the fact that you understand that is is inhumane. We need to have
respect for wild animals and if an intervention is necessary, it should be with the most humane method possible.
Sincerely,
Lynn Gallagher
4674 Sutliff Rd NE
Solon, la 52333
a
Kellie Fruehling
From: Margot Bilanin <mbilanin@mchsi.com> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 7:47 AM
To: Council
Subject: Oppose bow hunting f �/ 7
(Date)
Dear City Council,
Please hear my voice. I oppose the inhumane practice of bow hunting and the ineffective long term practice of
sharp shooting to reduce deer herds in city limits.
Thank you.
Margot Bilanin
3923 Stewart Rd NE
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Sent from my Whone
Item Number: 8-d-
M
.d.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
Submission of FY20 TCDD Budget to City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Meeting Agenaa and Budget
Meeting Minutes
Ito
IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
DOWNTOWN IOWACITY.COr
Open Public Meeting Review
To Review Fiscal Year 2020
Iowa City Downtown District Preliminary Budget
1:30 pm
December 11, 2018
City of Iowa City
City Hall
Helling Conference Room (off Lobby)
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
AGENDA:
Call to Order
New Business
• Review of the Preliminary Draft FY20 ICDD Budget provided by ICDD Advisory
Committee
• Recommendation to Approve/ Deny /Amend to the ICDD Board of Directors
Adjourn
Iowa City Downtown District
FY19 BUDGET comparison to proposed preliminary FY20 Budget
December 2018
1 INCOME
2 SSMID Property Tax Assessment
3 University of Iowa Contribution
4 Program & Initiatives Income
5 Events & Sponsor Income
9 TOTAL INCOME
10
11 EXPENSES
12 District -Wide Marketing
13 Event Expense
14 Programs & Initiatives
15 Membership & Community Engagement
16 Office Administration
17 Personnel
18 Contingency
19 TOTAL EXPENSES
20 NET GAIN / LOSS
FY 19 Budget FY 20 Proposed Budget Percent Change
$421,139 $421,139 0.0%
$195,500 $199,250 1.9%
$99,700
$99,700 0.0%
$334,000
$334,000 0.0%
$1,050,339
$1,054,089 0.4%
$150,000 $150,000 0.0%
$264,000 $273,000 3.4%
$194,500
$194,500
0.0%
$11,500
$11,500
0.0%
$54,200
$42,200
-22.1%
$359,850
$365,850
1.7%
$16,289
$17,039
4.6%
$1,050,339
$1,054,089
0.4%
$0
$0
0.00%
IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Minutes from Public Review of FY20 Budget
December 11, 2018
ICDD Public Advisory Committee Representative Present: Michelle Galvin
ICDD Staff Present: Nancy Bird
Iowa City Staff, ICDD Ex -Officio Board Member Present: Wendy Ford
Members of the Public in Attendance: 0
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1:30pm, December 11, 2018 at City Hall Lobby Conference
Room.
Discussion
The Preliminary Draft FY20 Budget was briefly discussed and approved by the Advisory
Committee representative and will advance to the ICDD Board of Directors in 2019. No
members of the public attended to comment on the budget review.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 1:50pm.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 18, 2018
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Paul Roesler: Interns
Ruthina Malone: Interns
Item Number: 8.e.
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Geoff Fruin
Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:37 AM
To:
Simon Andrew; Ashley Monroe
Cc:
Kellie Fruehling; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject:
FW: Interns
FYI.
Geoff Fruin
City Manager
From: Paul Roesler [mailto:proesler@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 7:15 AM
To: Rockne Cole <Rockne-Cole@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <Pauline -
Taylor@ iowa-city.org>; John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-city.org>; Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-
city.org>; Mazahir Salih <Mazahir-Salih@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Geoff Fruin
<Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Interns
Good Morning Council Members and Geoff,
This morning I read in the Press -Citizen that you are looking at the possibility of adding paid interns to help those council
members do their council work should they choose to have an intern. This comes on the heels of the approval of a raise
for council members that will now pay you between $11,000 and $14,000. 1 would ask that you stop and really think
about what you are asking for and how that comes across to those of us that also currently serve the public in elected
positions as well as the public in general. As more money goes into your own pay as well as the possibility of paying
someone to help you do your job one has to think if the funds you have are endless and if that is the case why can't we
have more money to complete needed projects in Iowa City, for example putting in sidewalks around Hoover
Elementary so kids have a safe way to walk to school or an Eastside Sports Complex that would bring people to town
where they will spend money to support our local businesses, the list goes on and on.
As you all know I am a member of the Iowa City Community School District School Board, an elected position that is
strictly done on a voluntary basis, without pay. Of course, I knew that was the case when I decided to run. When I was
thinking about running for the position I met with current and former School Board members and one question I always
asked is how much time do you spend on School District things to do your job successfully as a board member. The
answers I got back were all over the place. After getting that feedback I discussed that with my family and my workplace
to make sure that all sides were aware of the time commitment. I then had to make the decision if I was willing to put in
the time and work to serve if I was elected. After being elected and serving on the board for over two years now I know
that in our role at times the workload is very demanding, yet I have found the time to do it and still be successful in my
career, my family life, my coaching career and still finding time for me.
I do not know the amount of work that you all do to serve in your current roles and I do not know the amount of time
that your full-time job if you have one, demands of your time. If the workload of a council member is that great that you
can't do both then I tend to question if the decision to run was the right decision for you to make. I appreciate the
comments in the article from Susan Mims and would love to hear the other side of the argument from and councilor
that would be in favor of this idea. If this is truly needed, please help me understand the why.
Thank you for your time.
Paul Roesler
proesler@email.com
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Ruthina Malone <rawest45@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:45 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Interns
Dear Council,
I am hopeful that after careful consideration, you will hold off from implementing paid interns for council members.
While I can appreciate the amount of time you all are devoting to serving our community and can support the recent pay
increase that was voted on to help compensate you for this time, I'm more hesitant to add resources to fund paid
interns as well.
I can see the value some students, who are pursuing public office, can gain from this experience, but I don't think this is
an action you should move forward with as noted by comments that Council member Susan Mims in the Press Citizen
article.
I believe that when a person decides to run for public office, they should recognize that a delicate balancing act must
take place to meet the demands of the office they will serve, family and work life.
Because of this, I resigned from other committees within my professional organization, waited until my child was a
senior in high school and often times find myself declining to get involved in time consuming commitments in order to
serve effective as a school board member.
I respect that this balancing act can be difficult but have faith that as elected members of the community, you can meet
these demands without the assistance of a paid intern. And im hopeful that the pay increase will been seen as an
acknowledgement of your dedication to your roles.
If this position was for the sole benefit of interested students, I think an unpaid internship that allows them to work on
projects/committees spearheaded by council members or city officials could give them that experience.
Thank you for your time and continued service.
Ruthina Malone
2628 Catskill Court
Iowa City, IA
Item Number: 81.
r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
December 18, 2018
Installation of "Do Not Enter" sign at 1301 South Gilbert Street.
Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Acting Transportation Engineering Planner
Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood & Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Executive Summary:
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the
following action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (1); Install (1) "Do Not Enter" sign on the west side of South Gilbert
Street, adjacent to the exit -only driveway located at 1301 S. Gilbert Street.
Background /Analysis:
This action is being taken to alert vehicles to the exit -only driveway. This south driveway is
designed for right -out traffic only.
r
��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
]MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 1.
Date: July 18, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator
Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Update on Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic
Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
This memo provides an overview of TDR, outlines the City's existing TDR policy in the Riverfront
Crossings District, and highlights some issues that staff will need to further analyze before moving
forward with a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated and consider the following: 1) is there a market for these transfers; 2) can the
infrastructure in the receiving area handle the additional development; 3) does the
comprehensive plan support the additional development in the receiving area.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
October 12, 2018
Page 2
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
even when the resulting height bonus does not exceed two stories
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Potential Receiving Areas for a City-wide Historic Preservation TDR Program
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council seemed interested in identifying potential
receiving areas for a city-wide ordinance. The table below outlines some potential options for
receiving areas, as well as some pros and cons.
Potential Receiving Area
Pros
Cons
Riverfront Crossings
- Master Plan & form-
- Current allowable
based code
densities and
encourage higher
intensities combined
densities and
with height bonus
intensities
provisions are
- Current receiving area
generous
for the form -based
code TDR program for
historic preservation,
public right-of-way,
and open space
transfers
Downtown
- Core of the city with
- Receiving properties
access to amenities,
in the downtown may
services, and
be limited due to the
transportation options
results of the
downtown historic
building survey that is
underway
South Johnson Street and
- Area already zoned
- Smaller geographic
South Van Buren Street
for higher density
area that may not be
between Court Street &
housing
able to accommodate
Railroad
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Next Steps & Conclusion
Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide
ordinance. Specifically, staff will:
- Conduct best practice research
- Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
- Further analyze potential receiving areas
- Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of
potential transfers
The proposed timeline for the project is as follows:
Date
- Transfers could
provide an incentive
for redevelopment of
this area
the demand of a city -
wide ordinance
Land designated for multi -unit
- Areas are already
- Potential concern
development
zoned for higher
from neighboring
not proceed on ordinance drafting
density housing
property owners
October 11, 2018
- More scattered
Discussion
approach that would
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
not concentrate
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
transfers in one area
Recommendation
Any combination of the above
City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
areas
ordinance)
Next Steps & Conclusion
Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide
ordinance. Specifically, staff will:
- Conduct best practice research
- Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
- Further analyze potential receiving areas
- Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of
potential transfers
The proposed timeline for the project is as follows:
Date
Task
June — August 2018
Research and analysis
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance)
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
1� r
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 2.
Date: August 29, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Update on Research and Policy Questions regarding Possible City-wide Transfer of
Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation until the
end of January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
At the August 7 work session, the City Council discussed the July 18 memo to the City Manager,
which provided an overview of TDR, summarized the City's existing TDR provisions in Riverfront
Crossings, and outlined potential receiving areas. At the work session, the Mayor expressed
interest in South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets from Court Street to the railroad tracks
being a receiving area if an urban design plan existed for the area.
This memo provides an update on staff's research and analysis and outlines specific policy
questions for the City Council. In order to meet the January 2019 deadline, staff needs direction
from the City Council on the following: the formula for calculating the transfer of development
rights, the priority of preserving historic resources compared to bonus provisions currently offered
for other public benefits, the process for the review and approval of development transfers, and
areas to further pursue as receiving sites. In general, staff recommends a program that is fair,
legally -sound, easy to administer, and simple to understand. Additionally, staff wants an effective
program that preserves historic resources while not compromising the ability to achieve other
important comprehensive plan goals.
Overview of Research & Analysis
Sending Areas
Staff conducted an analysis of possible sending areas in order to estimate the potential for
development transfers. Staff estimated the amount of development that could be transferred
through a city-wide TDR program by applying the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula'.
Furthermore, the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions require that prior to requesting a transfer
of development rights, the property must be designated as a local landmark. Therefore, in this
analysis staff applied the transfer formula to existing landmarks (see Table 1).
'The formula for calculating the transfer in Riverfront Crossings is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
October 5, 2018
Page 2
IdWIV 1. 0U111111dFY Ur IfdllblUt rUtUlltldl UY LUUdl d11U 1MMnr-L1b1UU Ld11U111dfK5
Sending Sites I Development Transfer Potentia12
Local Landmarks Only 4,367,0683
Local Landmarks & National Register of 5,368,9974
Historic Places -Listed Landmarks)
The analysis conducted only looks at existing local and national landmarks. There are several
other buildings that are eligible for local landmark designation and the Historic Preservation
Commission has been proactively identifying sites to locally landmark. The City is also in the midst
of a survey of downtown historic properties. Several properties in the downtown are eligible for
local landmark designation. As more properties are landmarked the transfer potential will continue
to increase.
Staff reviewed several other TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to
future landmark designations. In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending
sites. However, some cities required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming
eligible as a sending site.
Receiving Areas
The areas identified by staff as potential receiving areas include:
• Riverfront Crossings,
• Downtown,
• South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the Railroad, and
• Land Designated for Multi -Unit Development throughout the city.
Using these areas, staff conducted an analysis to determine the amount of existing development
potential (see Table 2). For the analysis, staff identified vacant and underutilized sites within the
potential receiving areas. The following areas were removed from the analysis: land within the
500 -year and 100 -year floodplains, local historic landmarks, local historic districts, conservation
districts, and publicly zoned land. In addition, several historic properties in the downtown were
removed from the analysis. For a more detailed outlined of the methodology, please refer to
Attachment 1.
Table 2. Summary of Development Potential for Receiving Areas
Potential Receiving Areas
Development Potential
Development Potential
(square feet)
(dwelling units)
Riverfront Crossings
2,522,3135
-
Downtown
242,4716
-
South Johnson Street & South
-
-
Van Buren Street between
Court Street and the Railroad?
Citywide Land Designated for
5,389,5258
845
Multi -unit Development
Total
8,154,3099
84510
2 Staff used the square footage of the RISE, which is 363,268 sq ft (excluding the lower levels), as a gauge.
3 Approximately equivalent to 12 RISE buildings.
4 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
5 Approximately equivalent to 7 RISE buildings.
6 Approximately equivalent to 0.67 RISE buildings.
None of the properties met staff's criteria for underutilized.
8 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
9 Approximately equivalent to 22 RISE buildings.
10 The residential portion of the RISE includes 332 dwelling units.
October 5, 2018
Page 3
Accommodating the potential development transfers depends on a number of factors, including
the eligible sending and eligible receiving sites. Another option to consider that could also help
preserve historic structures is a parking reduction. Instead of transferring development rights, the
receiving site could purchase the right to receive a parking reduction. Staff has not explored this
thoroughly. More research is required to better understand the viability of this option.
Other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs
Staff also reviewed other local jurisdictions' TDR programs across the country that focus on
preserving historic resources. For a more detailed overview of other programs, please refer to
Attachment 2.
Transfer Formulas
There are different ways to approach calculating the transfer rights from a sending site to a
receiving site. Several cities consider the existing development on the sending site. More
specifically, these cities calculate the transfer by taking the maximum development potential of
the sending site less the existing development on the sending site. To provide an incentive, many
cities also allow development to exceed the maximum allowable density/intensity on the receiving
site. Table 3 outlines some examples.
Table 3. Example Transfer Formulas
Local Jurisdiction
Transfer Formula
Chico, CA
(Max density of the sending zone X Acreage
of sending site) Less (Existing and proposed
Number of dwelling units on the sending site)
*Receiving site bonus above that allowed by
comprehensive plan
Minneapolis, MN
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Floor area of existing development on
sending site)
*Receiving site bonus of 30% above max
allowable floor area
Pittsburgh, PA
(Max allowable development) Less (Existing
amount of development)
*Receiving site density bonus of between 20%
and 200%
Providence, RI
(Max allowable height) Less (Height of historic
landmark)
*Receiving site bonus height of 1.6 times the
max height or 300 ft, whichever is less.
Vancouver, WA
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Existing floor area of the sending site)
*Receiving site development must not pose
hazard to low-flying aircraft.
West Hollywood, CA
Residential: (Max allowable dwelling units)
Less (Existing number of dwelling units)
Commercial: (Max allowable floor area) Less
(Existing floor area)
*Receiving site FAR bonus allowed through
Planning Commission review and approval.
West Palm Beach, FL
(Lot area X Max allowable floors) Less (Floor
area of existing structure)
*Receiving site height bonus.
Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront
Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings does
not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site. In establishing the
October 5, 2018
Page 4
transfer formula for Riverfront Crossings, staff anticipated a significant amount of redevelopment
pressure, and therefore, intentionally recommended a generous transfer formula in order to
incentivize the preservation of historic resources.
Approval Process for Transfers
TDR programs also vary in how the sending and receiving of transfers are reviewed and
approved. Many jurisdictions have a process that requires review by either the City Council or a
board or commission. Table 4 provides some examples of how other local jurisdictions review
and approve transfers.
Table 4. Examples of TDR Processes
Local Jurisdiction
TDR Approval Process
Chico, CA
Non -administrative: City Council approval
required
Minneapolis, MN
Administrative: Review and approval by
Minneapolis, MN
Planning Director
Pittsburgh, PA
Non -administrative: Historic Preservation
Pittsburgh, PA
Commission approval required
Providence, RI
Non -administrative: Downtown Design
Review Committee approval required
Vancouver, WA
Non -administrative: City Council approval
required
West Hollywood, CA
Non -administrative: Cultural Heritage
Advisory Board reviews and approves
rehabilitation plan
West Palm Beach, FL
Non -administrative: Downtown Advisory
Committee review and approval required
The City's existing TDR provisions require that the City Council review and approve any transfer
of development rights request. Although several of the example jurisdictions above include the
equivalent of the Historic Preservation Commission in the review, some also require review and
approval by the City Council. Only one jurisdiction, Minneapolis, MN, reviews and approves
transfers administratively.
Administration & Tracking
Staff also looked at how other local jurisdictions administer and track TDR programs. Table 5
outlines some examples from other jurisdictions.
Table 5. Examples of TDR Administration &Trackin
Local Jurisdiction
Tracking Mechanism
Chico, CA
Documented in adoption of Specific Plan or
Planned Unit Development or executed
through a Development Agreement.
Minneapolis, MN
Recorded with the County as a conservation
easement or similar restriction.
Pittsburgh, PA
Legal document signed by sending and
receiving site property owners and approved
by the City Attorney. Document outlines
reduction in development rights on sending
site and increase on the receiving site.
Providence, RI
Owners of sending and receiving sites
execute a deed or other agreement to be
recorded with the title to both sites.
West Hollywood, CA
City staff maintains a list of eligible sending
sites to assist potential receiving site
developers.
October 5, 2018
Page 5
West Palm Beach, FL City staff maintains a registry of development
rights available and transfers. Execution of
City -approved restrictive covenant that
outlines transfer. Covenant recorded against
the sending and receiving sites and added to
City registry.
There are a variety of methods that other jurisdictions employ to administer and track TDR
programs, some are more complex than others. The Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions do not
outline a method for tracking transfers. Currently, planning staff maintains a spreadsheet of
approved transfers and the applicable sending and receiving sites. More formal tracking
mechanisms should be contemplated in a city-wide TDR program and developed in coordination
with the City Attorney's Office.
Receiving Areas
Table 6 outlines other jurisdictions' receiving areas.
Table 6. Receiving Areas
Local Jurisdiction
Receiving Areas
Chico, CA
Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
receiving site can accommodate the additional
development.
Minneapolis, MN
Sites within the downtown that are not a
designated historic structure or eligible for
designation.
Pittsburgh, PA
Focused in the downtown.
Providence, RI
None specified, but program is focused in the
downtown.
Vancouver, WA
Sites with the same zoning district as sending
site.
West Hollywood, CA
Medium and high-density commercial zones.
Do not allow transfers into residential zones.
West Palm Beach, FL
Specific sites identified in the downtown.
Issues / Constraints
Several cities across the country have adopted TDR programs to preserve historic resources and
some are more effective than others. There are variety of factors that could impact the success
of program, which are outlined below.
Market Potential
At this time staff does not have a market study that examines the market potential for a city-wide
TDR program and completing a market analysis within the timeframe required is not feasible.
Therefore, it is unclear whether a demand for such a program exists.
Lack of Certainty in the Process
Another factor that could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program is how transfers are reviewed
and approved. Programs that allow by -right transfers that are reviewed and approved
administratively provide more certainty for developers. Programs that require a discretionary,
public process provide less certainty and more risk to developers.
Other Bonus Mechanisms
Some of the more effective TDR programs provide few or no other alternatives to achieving
additional development potential. If other mechanisms exist to developers to achieve more
development potential it could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program. Some examples that
the City currently offers in Riverfront Crossings include bonuses for public art, Class A office
space, affordable housing, and energy and environmental stewardship.
October 5, 2018
Page 6
Policy Questions for Council
The most fundamental question for City Council is whether they wish to continue to pursue a city-
wide TDR program to preserve historic resources. If the City Council would like staff to continue
to pursue a city-wide program, staff needs direction on the following policy questions:
1. Should eligible sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only
future local historic landmarks?
The City has 52 local historic landmarks and the Historic Preservation Commission is
working to identify and designate more local landmarks. In addition, the downtown
includes a number of properties that are eligible for local landmark designation.
Some options include:
a) Eligible sending sites include existing and future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
Fair
Consistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
• Cons:
i. Depending on the transfer formula and the identified receiving sites
the city may not have enough capacity to receive all of the potential
transfers.
b) Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
i. May be easier to accommodate the transfer potential
Cons:
i. Inconsistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula
that is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings form based code or a new formula?
The transfer formula adopted in Riverfront Crossings was intentionally generous to
incentivize preservation in an area anticipated to be redeveloped. The formula does not
take into consideration existing development on the sending site; and therefore, results in
higher transfer potential. Using the same formula for a city-wide program provides
consistency and clarity between the two programs. It would also make administration and
tracking of the program easier. However, depending on the receiving sites identified there
may be an issue with the capacity available for development on the receiving sites.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula.
• Pros:
i. More generous, could provide more of an incentive to developers
ii. Consistency in administration, application, and simpler to
understand
• Cons:
i. More generous, may not be able to accommodate the amount of
potential transfers
b) Establish a new transfer formula that considers the existing development on the
sending site.
• Pros:
i. May be able to accommodate the potential transfers with a less
generous formula
• Cons:
i. More complex and more difficult to administer
October 5, 2018
Page 7
ii. May want to revisit the Riverfront Crossings transfer formula to
ensure consistency, which would require more time
3. The City already gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with
development projects. Should preservation of historic resources be treated in a
similar manner or given a higher priority?
Several other programs across the country provide an incentive to transfer development
rights by allowing a density or intensity bonus on the receiving site. This comes in many
forms: height increases, additional floor area, and additional dwelling units. The City's
zoning ordinance currently includes several bonus provisions.
In the central business district zones (i.e. CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10) bonuses are reviewed
and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of
public benefits:
• Masonry finish;
• Provision of a theater;
• Funds for street furniture, lighting, and landscaping within the public right-of-way;
• Open space;
• Adaptive reuse of certain historic properties;
• Provision of off-street loading areas that meet specific requirements; and
• Provision of class A office space."
In the planned high density multi -family residential zone (PRM) bonuses are reviewed and
approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public
benefits:
• Materials, specifically masonry finish;
• Open Space;
• Rehabilitation of a historically significant building;
• Assisted housing;
• Streetscape amenities;
• Landscaping; and
• Installation of window units that have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater
than the width. 12
In addition to the bonuses offered for transferring development rights, height bonuses may
be requested in Riverfront Crossings for several public benefits. Requests to exceed the
base height by two stories are reviewed and approved administratively. Requests to
exceed the base height by more than two stories are reviewed and approved by the City
Council. Bonuses are reviewed for the following public benefits:
• Class A office space;
• Public art;
• Energy efficiency and environmental steward through Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) or a similar program;
• Student housing;
• Hotel space;
• Workforce or affordable housing; and
• Elder housing. 13
Some options include:
a) Model a city-wide TDR program on the current bonus provisions offered in the
central business district zones, planned high density multi -family residential zones,
and Riverfront Crossings.
11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2C-8.
12 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-213-7.
13 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2G-7.
October 5, 2018
Page 8
Pros:
i. Simpler and easier to administer
Cons:
i. Bonuses for multiple public benefits may dilute the effectiveness of
preserving historic structures
b) Allow transfers for historic properties to exceed the City's current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity).
• Pros:
i. Offering more of a bonus may be more of an incentive to preserve
historic resources over bonuses offered for other public benefits
• Cons:
Community concerns with additional density/intensity and height
An analysis of the potential impact of an additional bonus would
take time to evaluate
4. What type of process should be established for the review and approval of sending
and receiving transfer of development rights?
The City's existing TDR provisions require review and approval by the City Council when
a transfer of development rights is proposed. In staff's review of other TDR programs
several require a non -administrative review and approval; however, some jurisdictions
review and approve development transfers administratively in order to streamline the
process and provide some certainty.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings review and approval procedure by City
Council.
• Pros:
i. Simpler and consistent with current process
Cons:
i. Lack of certainty in the approval process
b) Establish a new procedure that allows transfers up to a certain height or
density/intensity to be reviewed and approved administratively. This could be
similar the City's existing central business district bonus provisions or certain
Riverfront Crossings' bonus provisions, which are reviewed and approved
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified threshold would be reviewed
and approved by the City Council.
• Pros:
i. Streamlines the review and approval of transfers
ii. Allows the City Council to review and approve larger transfers that
would potentially have more of an impact
• Cons:
i. Not consistent with current process
5. What areas should a city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving areas?
Staff has proposed a few options for potential receiving sites:
• Riverfront Crossings,
• Downtown,
• South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and
• Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development.
Based on the analysis staff conducted there is limited development potential in the
downtown due to the number of historic structures. There is also limited potential for
October 5, 2018
Page 9
redevelopment along South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets since none of the sites
in this area met the threshold needed to be identified as vacant or underutilized.
Furthermore, the Mayor expressed interest in this area as a receiving site only if
accompanied by an urban design plan. Staff could explore the development of an urban
design plan for this area, but completing a plan by the January 2019 is not feasible. The
most capacity exists on multi -unit zoned parcels city-wide. Riverfront Crossings also has
capacity, if the area is rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation.
Some options include:
a) Riverfront Crossings, and/or
• Pros:
i. Current receiving area
ii. Master Plan and form -based code encourage higher
densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. May not be able to accommodate the amount of transfer potential
for a city-wide program
b) Downtown, and/or
• Pros:
i. Core of the community with existing infrastructure
ii. Commercial zoning allows for higher densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. Significant amount of historic buildings; and therefore, not able to
accommodate much transfer potential
c) South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and/or
• Pros:
i. Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment
ii. Zoned for higher density housing
• Cons:
i. May require the development of an urban design plan, which would
take time
ii. May not be able to accommodate much transfer potential
d) Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development, and/or
• Pros:
i. Provides the most capacity for transfers
• Cons:
i. Could potentially be more impactful and cause concern from
neighbors
ii. Areas with sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands)
require a sensitive areas development plan which often leads to
clustering. Transfers to these areas could result in even higher
densities.
e) Other sites or areas
Next Steps & Conclusion
In terms of next steps, staff will prepare a presentation for the September 4, 2018 City Council
work session. In addition to the tasks outlined in the timeline below, staff will need to conduct
some public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders.
Date
Task
June —August 2018
1 Research and analysis
October 5, 2018
Page 10
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council (1St reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
Attachments:
1. Methodology for vacant and underutilized sites
2. Overview of other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
ATTACHMENT 1.
Methodology for Vacant & Underutilized Sites Analysis
Potential Receiving Areas:
a. Riverfront Crossings'
b. Downtown
c. South Johnson & South Van Buren Streets between Court Street & the Railroad
d. Land zoned for multi -unit development, including commercial zones that allow
multi -family (city-wide)
2. Removed the following from the potential receiving areas:
a. Land within the 100 & 500 -year floodplain
b. Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts
c. Historic properties within the downtown
d. Publicly zoned parcels and other parcels that do not allow multi -unit development
3. Vacant & underutilized sites analysis:
a. Used Assessor data to identify vacant sites
b. Underutilized sites include the following:
i. Improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the
buildings on the site are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more
likely to be redeveloped
c. Staff also referred to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the areas
identified for potential redevelopment
d. Additional sites were included based on staff's knowledge of potential future
developments
4. Calculated development potential of vacant & underutilized sites:
a. Commercially -zoned properties: Floor area ratio (FAR)
i. FAR converted to square footage by multiplying the maximum height by
the lot area
b. Residentially -zoned properties: Density (dwelling units / acre)
i. Density converted to maximum allowable dwelling units
c. Applied 80% discount factor assuming that maximum allowable density/intensity
will not be achieved
1 Staff assumed rezoning of all properties to Riverfront Crossings
Eli ibili
Mecbanics
6q
$entlin
ReceiNn
Base Unit
Glculation Metbotl
Atlministration
TrxkinRprowl
Steps
Notes
econdRd in Me office of Me county
Appl can[lb!o ssemdimg sM1el
Mui be e ther res tlental send ng
M d, etlf Tult fart ly
3d fferent
kmn wfi M1 M1 p pert, slocated re
bb f ear dreg
3 fd by
p cel su to ble Nr
d .uses
development factors
Property own b PPI.. f
s pe M1 3 n property
gM1, approved
I:C YC9 nn9 bodY)��M1PJIIb
P p. 486666 S 1&28 023 f:
9 properly
P detlh dntal
may be[rzn3erred
Owedpment potental of the3temnus Me
d—gna on as d gl ng 3
pdbR b, f useof Property
d f ng dtes
ry- d-M6N tlantalc
Atlanta, GA
tlesg td labl—.
buld�le or ese_dhdel
mponent represents at I—
_df Ne p,, mu show
Floor area rata total
landmarkgdeveopr ,t
approval of tran3ers Appb-by Cty,
Klfv[ hp I pmxmTy of one
anotM1er ajdnt app can be sibmRted
ppoprate for tlev and Nat Me
—1-b of oN nanceslrwtleld�Tlll
GOORANOECO PT18Z0 CR28GEGUR
buldgdr-by lbe Atlente
F63onc Pres bbn Omens
flRure use of Ne property meths
reqs asolR linetl in Ne code
open space, and
seableo pen space
econdl by Bureau of Ranning
Bureau of Ranning has asy3em for
nM1 M1i
onngsveronce, owners p'
assignmenS and [ran3er ofdw dgM1[s
ran3erw 'cruse adverse
evronmental/economidmcial
impact, peva perm[
atlmini3ers as
rf a wed.
—
E_51&2862 —DER
5 oma Ily e'giblg in
similahy applicant mu3 make
ing Ne
dlM1y f ppo ces
Pp86666-CM1apter 1634 Ne
ppl for TOR M1 ner(s)
d f ren d—, f.,
(((#of OUlGross Acre) II wetl nsenting
Rolletl dN PUOIOwelopmen[Pgreement
Ooesnr appear to be a TOR bank entq
same process they use for PUOs
of
f II g k
a-, CA
t M1 h--lfll-b
TOR conservators program
IRlinetl by the Gly
M1 d f M1 rete g be
E—ftblly the onusis on the
applicant N do the legubrk of
Dwelling Unit
mne)'(sendng rtes erg]) (gand
pbldde#of OU on sending ate)
prod
The TOR srecondl—, Ne specffc
PUOIOevelopment Agreement
specrfc Rd, and Development
Agroerment
htp— hco dau3 tldocu
P governmen
ment1te16u ptlaterptlf
determining eligibility, Nen hty
get,th passjudgment
Eligibleff 1)Nehistd propertyis
., anurban M1isNdcdi3dq
2) the hisNdc property is a
Property owner mu3 —L
to the Planning OireRor indra0ng the
b g Kure Istetl n the
N IReg erof FSNrc Places
Off De gfl f
PI gd Ron appmves fore for send ng
d g M1 g d
M1 fd p gh o
P p 1 3 II
M1 p 1 II ryM1 Il comldepartment3sus
Glias, TX
rf etl Ne— End
Locatetl n[M Cental Area G4
t.Acts
Floor Ara
lad kb 1d g d M1 fFl
d gsRes and amt to be
Appf an[ f les fore vnth county deetl
be 3 etl- M1 k.f
t bletl e'opmentlOCR 26tlocu_nt
_
H O and
3)the ffsNdcpropertyhasbeen
1(A)aM
alb etl by g f senting sRg tansfe
sone-reone
n3ertetl; county deetl recoNer recoNs
form
recoNer
prance wM1en ret g R e
developerroquestsabulld ng
3pdflb IdinglOevelopmentProg,b-ppll
neM1ab'ed the last 5 yrs and the
perm[
for a project using dw rights, Ne
a
,.nofwlin
thbal e of Me reh.b exceetls
56% of Me pmpert,'s perehab
,alu
econd. tran—,ng form is cM1ecketl
and building pernft is issued
n oerde,N the d gi bb for TOR, the
psu tng use of the'N the reg ulatetl
roperty [sending bt ]moa be Ina
N
"Offfloor be
Appu cant sibmts 3[e plan for
proposetl sending sde Indkafing amt
- that.— be
advance goals,
obiect—e pot f the
Redevelopment areasand M1dg M1t
¢e area and resdental unit can
nfermang. at the rate of2666 square feet
Appf irons b ed Cry.Loal
Appl ca p etl ser remnng
of aaomodatetl
M1 d gste sretuned
Pp.61666 s 4626 f:
Delray BeacM1,
CorpreM1en3ve PI M1 ugM1_
(a)Prese on fff
ovetlaY inner fa retlevel opment
OA,a
of ff Fl Da' g eq
e —.1 d dl g A f
Plann ng Ag,ry d s
appropr erten f d g drecev ng
reque3 d Nevalue of the
(ppl d g
Co tyF 1.. Op sp e,
M1 p Jll b ry tl- N/tl l y b
d mtl tlevelopment regulators
FL
3Tctures &sten (b)Ob ning
&
are a the developmen[proposetl
farther[3[e mu3compyvnth the
Un or FloorArea
Unfts I'll
off d f d
3tes and cer[f M1 Gry
mreretld Ip gM1t Certfcate of
Gve'op en[RIgM1t sssuetl. approvetl by
G Z n g
b
?
s d Id CH4ZORE ART46SUOIRE
d
and for pubic fal -(c)
Preservat on of de3gnatetl
retlevelopmen[plan farther[area
off y y p M1
appfcaton of theCer[f eta a—,ver
Commson-G rtrf cafe approvetl by
Attorney.
Ory Att ey.
mayalm neetl to be etl,f
processed smcurremtiv):o
84626TROERI To date no TOR
appl catonshavebeen sibm tted.
as;(d)Myfime
w avoluntary ac0on ubuM aide
in fulfilling a poli"objeRive of the
Gd,,hen3ve Plan"
pro W,
ehF ate whdh3 tesvalue
of ttan3erretl dgM1[s, wM1icM1 can De
mldttran3eretl to receiving ble
Any land w dgnifrant
aroM1aeolog al li3oral or
"determined as capable of
acceptng dw rightsbasetl onthe
GnsM1y (u nits per
AsmucM1 as the maxmum posble denary
TOR CeI,fi— Resnds both sending
d ng neously-
GesnYappearre beer TOR bank en[M1y-
Ce f ppl ns cviewetl by
Pop-]5,666- sxtion 4 l of following
link
Largq FL
onmental sgnffance OR
ccoNingN aretlevelopmen[plan
Comp Ran and the Ocve'opment
Code Amount limM1etl by sRes
acre)orintensM1y
(FAR)
n.nary of senting sRe
Co providetl in
applkato asdetermined by Cty
The cer[fate gels recoNetl wRM1 the Gcunry-Planting
Gommssan
M1ttpslNwrv�Jaryo comldocumen[centerl
Permi-2—DRanni nglPlanbinglCO
appm— by R anning Cdmmdd.n
m nicipal service capa,,q
Gormison-
CJPdo ptetl_26 _CDC-ptlf
Retl p AgGry Planning
--llopment Ag" must
C.1— M.her an app for TFAR
II6 d thry
Pop. 4 63 million
A-le 4 5.
httld llibnary am1e 1com/n gatevray dll
IGalifomiallapLmunicipakodechapte,pl
g d g Ihaptergenenalprovi
hb
Floo A Ra 3.1
-
-
Co IAOyG and Mayor
nsfyes
pp pp. City Plann ng
g d gl 1e15tan3 dffloonar
Los Ange'es,
yp c Dl ,,tn the Cental
B Os[rc[Retlwe'opment
yp the Cental
Bu3ness Os[rc[Retlwe'opment
ped gars
Basetl on floor arear 31 fit
depend ng on [M1e Biba ea n wdcM1 the sR s
II d d Ily d whether an
applcatonfo TFAR (Tran3er of Floor
Fletl vnth GTy Clerk
Co IAOyGcuncl &
e gM1
c[r2flernplates$fn�efaulLM1[m$86$vi
04
ProjeciAra
Project Ara
thesu
the subarea n w1icM1
me srte is roared
locatetl
Ara Rlgddnd all sn—t,a
Commis ublL, hea,ng proves[ron3er
following public M1eadng-
m-1 repattli s process-
oireemr�ssues a reporcm amssbn
re meridingapprovall approvalw
oT
condM1ion3 disapproval of req for
Trani
tl�mlegal ser ca$anc, day A4-5
"Oevelopersa,,uiretlN payer Public
Ba'idtt Payment on V—ensin otherth
fund pubis open space, affordable
housing, cultumllpublic facLI,, hi3odc
pmsemphd=rvation and public tansporta0on
its'
"R,ceving pane's must mea all
three of Me Mlb gmt,da
1> Ded Tad nal
ed bas f ba f a ry of me
H d mu3 be
,
N gM1b°M1 dRedental or
Md ed U R, d nt aV
sedgy y gd Iing
F e I d
Plan, ng dep pp MR,f
L dRak by M1 TOR, o, prepaty
fee aryl TDR
Own fq IAygadng Stemu3
b by
t t
yl d kl etl M1
Greenpdnt and reg etl
Cn erc al on Future Land Use
Map,
a p g
d M1 b d ry M1 Il be M1
f M1 I d,,- by M1
dg sad f L d
R kR M1 Fl d g
, a
gseg corpH dap
f d
-1-a, app pant etl
ff pp oMe planst
d Re
Pp.4000 A-1,111 :
M1 p Jll b ry_ d_ omlgalmadmn
Madimn, GN
Landmark by Me M d H c
2) WIn M, "Ii gM1,r densry
OensM1y
9 h
° f M1 Ing d,.,. F .,n
d
TDR M1 b TORS I p M1 by
,
'ry
Y OMa orb Bank Bemed
eqable by Me Bank RoaN Nppt f
p _ ,ng own„ mu3
pplyd p M1etl k ppt for
/,. code of ord es2n°d,ld FTII
Presavat on Com _ (Mer
port ons of Me W WasM1 ngMn
r etl gd b d ry
g s[e er_ Mayor and c
bath recervng and senting ecoNetl
yrand counclr pbl
COOR—RD GH54PLDE_NRFIIITRDERI 5
°n R3orcal se'id g apply
M Me TDR pregam a,wel)
Gatevray, and
3)1, 2000 R of a nbgh-h-
sM1 11 be talc —'ng atf Rs pe,aca Th,
d
ran rvng sRe at pubt
m -ng
,nth Me Cou my Cour[ TORG ffi at�meetng_Up°n
apprval,plandng
54TROERIPR
r, w/in 1500R ofa
n,,h b°rh°°d park and wlin 1500
R of an arterial sta3 or state
M1i M1we '•
aof aparcel —fact°nal acre�,vnll be
oundetl downMMe 1,— ll4 acre"
R Rk
e,.,d. In Me TOR Regi3er_
dept record, Me tan,nt3er_
AdministativeJcve reviery of TDR
Po p_ 415,000_ Sl,k,i llydesg,ed M,
L M1 I allydesgnated or
Igbl R 3mctures
Do Y ally I,— an e I,,t
M1 M1 [sa
(M GFA I,—— by ,d,ng s
f
Appl cat°n f TDR b etl If abbb—
ecoNetl M1 M1 G ry M1e form of
ppl by PI n g 0 _
Oe fappeald
H R _ Can tan—t. up M four
dff g f d g
Mlnn_ddl,,
MN
vnttin
` g ff d s,a,d,t„m sed by
sR
R sp f tltl nMwne
GFA
m) (GFN gtl p
a=tl g )M1 g ppm
e3consen att la,
3o a p bl M1 ry specfyng
Dd—appear t,ea TOR bank,ntq
Th, ce11—g-d wfh Me G°unry_
M1 gM1 PBZ sM1 B Id g
pe g edf g -
L k -
M1 p IIIb ry_ cotl _
M1 G y, Ha tag,Praservaton
Commsoa
d d M1 R ,n,g
0 or approves of[M1e tansfer
M30h above lsmn m -mum allowable
GFA
tof floor ar�tansferetl and
nvolvetl pane's
untl senting stesR c3mcNre
M1as been r,hab and appreved by=MI_IIT20Z000
HPC
p°I sl descode of_ Nnances_nodetl
CH540DOD1_N
RFIIITRDERI 5492700E
P R tw d 9 etl
R gd H uric
d d T five sped
m Fl ra�allowetl by Mebaa=
a of sending s[, record, an easement
Mat perp lyp l d tld
development M1 _tl P Y
puaM1aa=or betl .d gM1 (f etl
Cn ney f d g gM1 p °
g M1 M1 getl by
Ownersof sending,be and
rving v[es mu3 apply for tan-,
fd IdgM1 M1 M1
pl gd p_R gd p_I, 1°
M1 g f pp I_TDRs
Pop 800000
NasM1ville, TN
Landrk03r3 (Ila g tetl
In 200] wRM1 Me Downtown
Cn mmunily Ban Update)
d M1dwnMwn as
ery ng v[es
FI°°rNr�
mg Mefl°°rarea of Melandmark
bu Id ng
by CNoS on paf
oras
pr, -,eros orgright, an onlybe
t °n
donateiJ Planning dept retrive, app and
appave, it
a betl pl gap M1
approval Men remrdetl n Me off ce of Me
register of deetls
Ib_ trete, ng prepaty only
ce Merig M1Lsarendt-I'wli0ng
t sgn,d by owner of
-—Ing v[b th. Is -ml ttetl to Me
DI annInd de t
M1ttpsllwm�nasM1vllegovlmclord ,antes
perm 2003 200]Ib1200] 1358 M1[m
— — —
New Qleans,
"place; buildingsor3mcNresln
( cennal eusn,s; o13de
y
(CRO)mne Mat are""
d g etl R d ks
prepeh—n GR0.1, GR02or
ceD2Rm ,,,b, preperties In
CR09mne can receive acv
gM1 3 ed from Me CROS
p je dcM1 ncorp°rate
dff be M1e maimum Floor ar
alb ed by M1 g code, v hd't baso
Nppl ns are approved ordedetl byM1
PI g G°mmssan followng pbl
f Is[ran3a appfcan[s mu3 fie vnM
M1Gyb°M an n—menti 3 d
a,ofbothm,,ndln ana
9
' g wbmtan
ppl ti p
Pp. 3910005ect°n 160 of /orme,
d g n effe3.
M1 p Jl Z g ICty
LA
g zetl ft gape
R dy M1,tcapp—al,MnvaN
TDR y eed by l0%M,
FI°°rNr�
de ry nd Meal flo°,are f
M1 g If pprevetl recommend f
MMe Qly Go I-
ce of ra3r Sons on Me d g M1
M1 deeds of bath Me senting and re, kng
gM1 M1 d g d
d ry M1 g
pl gl 1f comp,hensys
- h, n the ownetl by
by gbhn_M1 d ry dart °n to
Me ei 3ng bu king to be prea=rvetl
Cn and l may appreve, m°drfy, or deny_
s
g M1 gM1 p bl M1 g f
m g d tt,man,wo,l,an, la-
Me GTy, State, or Fedeal
Government
densry nc,�a=s all°—
nMe receiving sRe by baseline
sing
Plana ng G°mss°n and GTy G°unci
m ng hm n, 20,20141
Located Incertaindi 1, Nota
M1i3odc sRe Locatetl>=150R
f a
Application for"major NRR review of
M1 (.,Msec—
Pop_ 0],000_ Gly G°d, 3ataa'7M1, hty
TM1ey desgnate certdn bu kings
(H C eg ryl or 2). TOR
ally nedpapem
( p MU or OPO,)_
OM1 pl e9 d gs[es
F H Rehab m g _ Ib th
1° fl by 2500 `A fee
25%f lag bg
F ons under the, Fl o,NaaBdn°,
p S owns of appreved R3odc
F.A.B. 3 [ t
emrdedd sg ed by Me ttan,r„or
Van f desgnedto
p 1 p,.,-
fletl Id gli 3orc reab
pl perf nt of d,v tight,
does notgoaant-th II 1°
M f M1 wll be off Ig bile
M1TOR,.
Pal° A t., CA
g . p, apps -d e
R M1 d p k'g
FI°°, Arm
gb wflM1
vn M1 M1 g R d M1
p a en er no an
b d ated pl-d-tve covenant
and ”" mn
,nth Me I d a 3 ry M Me c ry
pl ed be sf etl d
r
CM1 p 10.10 f II g l k:
pp l M1sfd,fc
d _ L
and
dfFl
d ff f d B
b al Mdlg
M1 dl tat on Plans Mrthoa=
FAR—I alba �
- -FARI- _Nim 3pulates that,
,g h,prop1y,dIIb Nabbed
Me am° o, are�M1tan3,redre
ReM1 bPl euetl by HPC
Gplf aid I I� ap I nd, pal
td,dl ngs
ILTOMI add tion 1fl,"4,
apr H ata max of ID FAR
unless mare ra3dctive FAR ads
M, that m,;=
e<I�
7R ho ur area must be fully pa,ketl.
cord,g to appfcable 3antlartls.
Up omtplet°n, PI U, "'d
wes mi en demrmman°n of
—Ing,Re', hams„ligibil Ty.
cdde'lf3empIat,4fn default h -30W
d=am l pal°arco_ca
TM1ree sending areas (Sending
Treasure HIII, Sending OM Town,
and Senting H,..,,d 13);
Planri,g Oreeo, determines Me number of
"E., t— ed an3ared forma
Sending s[, pmpertty owners an
eq Oevelopmen[Gedt
popCM1_15224 f
Park ORy, UT
d,sgnZ,t prese pe space
res sens[ve
vrenmainarea
ands 3r sofae3M1Htl
Nllp pe R Me TOR
Re g dy neare
elgbleM receve Tansfa
OensM1y
Allocaton rat°, vary d,pendng on senting
a1TOC 1000 sa Rof bonus
mmer calfl°°rar�or2000 sq Rof bonus
development cr , allowed to a senting
ate Sale'tansfe,ofc ftd cond,dbd
b,tweenan3,re, and tansferee o, Me,
t
senting ,eaa=ment or
deed re I tled A Deveopment
QetC. I—, mus[ be recd Jbd In Me
d erfromth Park
Glyn gd 3o,_TM1°se c”"
mayonly bemldl c.nveyetll
_8300
M1 p lip kGcfty. d pakodeonl ne.com
Ib° k'2type d antes#name-1S
arch.1,aV M1istori cal
Development—It'
esde,tal floor area
legal representatives, M be recorded by
unry', pmperty record,—, credit, are
anfaretl by Me owner to th
�q Tan3er Of Ocvel°pmen[RgM1[s
(TOR)_,an—_f D
nb
sgnificance Al l vacant lots l n Me
Park GTy P3odc S— Inventory
ab—Ild,ble
Planning Di1—.,designee
ran3enetllmld_
,an3eree and Men mu3 be reiswetl
In Me tan3,ree', nam,_
Pasadena, CA
eWei
CaR,kayS—c
Gan b,anyw nM, Wei
Bell al density can be cone— to ndn-
de,alfloorareaand vicevasa
Conus,., Formula_ One dwelling unItshall
be equivalentto050 square—ofndn-
restlential development and 850a1uare fee[
of,onrasdent al d,v,l°prren[sM1all be
W M1 p pe written consent of senting and
Ownerofsendingaterecord,awritten
c v,nant documenting M,ttan3,,, approved
by GlyNttomey_O
T,an—ran be appm—by Me
Z ggd oa,l°ng as Me
Pop. "I,ta�ded to prepot, enhancement
of the_ Cty'„ymbolic—,n gat,vray
antlto facill[ate preservationofhl3 ,d
3ructures antl beovetl open bates”
1]300038_
Plan
Gatevray Specffc Plan area
cvntti
Gatevray Specffc Plan area
°sm
epu d-d.p td ght,VunR_
Nnydeveopmdh[deLs tansferretl forma
donor ate sM1all be detluctetl form Me
additional densly oMavnse all Quad o n Me
parte' by Mis SeRion_
owners
9 any preperty owner
MnMear-rreytan3er_
and thec,,,nts
record, of alltansfeany, Meche
densry allocat°ns Many of all Me
pmpeM1i Pin the -if plan area"
g p je3 meets
regulat°ns
htp
M1 .del, ry. tl _ mlalpaeden
alcodescode of ord 2nodeld Tl
T17ZONINGCODE ART3SPPLSTC
H1]3 GASPPL_l 7.38 OOO -M
EST
L g't"—gnatetl
L etl G5 & C6 d an
be sd I.
1 1 ran3er a0o_'YM1e amount of development
av 1" 3 s Med�fference between
thg fd,,d.pn, nt., Me
AI be pl dpgam for
M1 bt d nance ofMe
""
AI be pp ved by h Gry
Pop_ 30Q000. Pagam L. only been
used abou[3[mes M1 b f
great nterest M poteri I tl pe
because Me pace of
dcomme
s(wdcM1 can be
d g etl cM1,,ty Me
Co -flu gM1
f d g d
sed g d h ax amount of
Bevel p wti M1 ould be allowetlon that
The GrysH R Co
ppaves Me dd Gry sol
app
etur f 40y rs beyond Me
Ser AI be leg,document
H Rev G Ri
pp -, ,hall pl dd
d p has notg etl ugh
d j rfy Me q f
PRt3rurgM1, PN
consent of Me property owner)or
ly be 3 red to mdng
g
Floor Arm
and g d h mn ng code_Ifsend -d,
& f
approvesaleg (document sgnetl by M1e
getlby pall by
t 'fn department bu,1
p g f M1 til dfor
add Id Iopm capacry [andf
not for paf[perf
d rR
ce axa
g adj
Bevel II h be
partesconcemetl sfletl wRM1 Me
Banda ,b"e
ane ,
t h ff G
g fhe
basemdng allows Mll fsa Rof
hlI
,d,.,,
faclRes n twos ficd3rets
laba'etl GS and GB_
Red I- gM1 an be
t
3 etl from any older mdng
p g n
2rc M1 II etlby M1 g d _If not
b
bed
pa,
appfcaton for occupancy penrr[
and all
all etl ydepartments.nd,n
nolo n appbp, d Meretluet on n
develop lot
H 5[ gAl,
Faclry. for hatless Man 40 years
f d p [vi M1 M1 neetl for
d ry pp ov I _Co sequently
G5 &C6di3riets
adjacen[dev thandnc only
an
b—
by 20%more Man densry allowetl by base
ning_
gM1 ,,e,ng ng and
thencr - M1 recery ng lot
P ghd persh—Ifttle
mhe TORONinance_
(smaIM—a0on)
"Bu, d g 1 etl h N al
Oowncry Deg R Co Rtee(DRC)
Yee ow f ,ng& Beery ng 1oL5
Reg f H R I.,
St fth he DowncRy
0 be 3oretl
Off be h gM1 fl d k d
h Ib d d
a
rea ed to erg d p e
ble M1d h
execute erg be recorded wRM1
Ad be by Me
P p.100000 Ch p. 2] A 603
s G ff 11 k-
Paviden c, RI
wH M1 h ppf d
sM1 all and
etl eq retl by Me
BUlding hegM1t
m gM1 etl o g
cu ghegM1 f rvng s[e -not
ompat vn wtiM
c atnga 24M1 petlf dlyd h
re
ter
h le b h l _ f a ro that equals
appavetl
ryDeg R ew CommR[ee
gl
hplllb ry od_ I1p d
r¢t
p ""oo
purpose s Me pr n fMe
enorofMebuilding'tO
d desgn revery
mRtee
ex eetll6 h maxh gM1tor300 R,
w"cM1ever Bless
permutes andh g
rt ma nment
ev a
d-1 paposetl TmpavemenLs wRdn
thedi3r ncluding TOR
Beed ', 1n fn pt'P"n me
glt- any cM1angesM plan mu3 be
approved thb han—application
at
tapubfc near ng_
el deslcode of oN nance3lnode'd�T
--
IICOOR_GH2]ZO ART60O01_8030EIN
Gvic san OMgo TOR Rogram (a
on -fit o" awnetl by me Sty)
'Po qualify. mu3 contain
d g edh rcalremurces and
Tran3er Is appmvetl by Civic san Diego
sending site owners most en n
to t aPp.141
11 on Hasnottenused
san OMgq CA
tel.— me block as
y
bje3
Alu3 be on Me mme block as Me
FloorAr�
deterMned by amt of development allouetl by
Me sendng s[es,rex base FAR may al be
P- d C - s OMg on pbft
g tlbyM1 Cry of Dego tasketl
— hentbd by remrdbd cer[frates of
[ran3er GTy an acqure bank and hold
Preservert on. Rea ton. and,
Ma ntenance Agreement Mat
s 2014
httplldd¢ degag I
gs[e orbeM1 ofa
dy, apprevetl by M1 ng c san
—Ing
deten"netl on acam bycam bass bamtl on
o
vnM perm tng econoMctlevelopment n
ran3enetl Floorarea prorM tan3erMa
comm 1sMem to rehab Me3mclRre
codelkluni
CodeGhapterl5ICM115A O8O isan03ptl
VanlPre flo,,venryi ngMata
ran3er of Floor area is neetletl M
rehab and d—wa0on of
andmark"
neetletl reM1ab and premrvaton co3s
nelud,,gootlsMaugM1outMecry
c utling Me tlownMwn
e rvng s[e
P—l-t uctiftleLafe, Cs0
Presitlent appaves transfer
f
GO Men ILL I TOR Rogram m
be—In GO Hill Rannetlu3
G3det; Mree types of eligible
Pop_141 million TDRpavisions
remo- fam ordinance in Golden Hill
Planned Di3ri3 in 1909
I, cal properties"a property
-problems
densry all owetl by code usually wasn't
desgnatetl as a bi3 ,,,al sRe by
h H IGte Boad,a
[ran3er difference between the floor area of
Me l and mark and the floor area that would be
m M1g h nth de- ry f the
b g a ewRnnMe
H 3orc Oar q or a 3ructure
paper[eslo�tetl wRM1inS
mba—s of the Aria
FloorAr�
pennRtetl under tnedensM1ylm� of Me
and ng cod, than3erretl r g hts all owetla
ran3ers reg3eral wRn Ranting Debt
a pu,,h—of devel opme, M1Ls hadM
reg ster all tan3ers vnM Me CRy Planting
CNfPanri ng Oep[hasM approve
ran3ers
h fm wfi h gM1suere
than-'. 3 ed'=sof po e,,ng
desgnatetlniAdh_llyla"hft,
pmt M exceetl Me base densty allowetl by
Department
erten h ad IiLIeincent eM buy add Ri anal
densry-aum Mry could acM1ieve Me
ahsgnif ant inamnrey
appmvetl by Me HI3oM1e Ste
code by 25%
densry MeY wantetl ander the Ilmfts
ImIdd- by the
Board'; pm,,y owner atm must
grana a facade easement to the
G
rod, w ,hundmg
bdgth omomsvire--ntM
additional development
'.nd .,ks landmarks or
d k oMerMan
landmark building_ Me greater of Me follovnng
10x the floor area of Me landmark or Me diff
b M1 g Fl r area of Me structure
Application M e3ald- TDR—fits
approved by d POD, property mu3
be ti d hated before
N g
P 261000 16]0040.1.1] f
p
b g u3ures nati 3odc
tl M1 Fl aallowetlb mn ng
tl k 3 Floor Me
Plann Dept
greglstry fTOR ed fVan4e,..e,
ed teof TDR
f 11 gl k
s[Peter�urg
FL
d d ygovt ownetl
Meror mu
property -e 3be
p p M1e tlownd—center
tl d cal
FloorAr�
a - abM ar�sSx
la tl k fterdetlu3ng any lot
areao ccugetl by alandmark bu Mng
ng (POD)appaves
e 3abl sM1mentantl transfer of TOR ed
Gry Atto vappaves ownerstl n
h PI gDep_A ofran3er owner
he ds tl notmvenanLs and
,A uer
ed ad eretl uponapprovalhp111b
by POD owner ofcreelMw"oZ is
ry_ d_ M/ _p
burglcode—de of d, nances ddeld
premrvetl and ehadlMtetl In
ac cordance vnMMesec of the
bb d acts
"Mr mcM1 sq ft of development—It
n
of covena 6antl re3dc0ons
reaiii wfiM1 Men appavetl by Me
gr y
G Nttorne_
Muse MemMran3er
de-ty"ntens (;owner of
ry Rthan appy
PHISTPECO CHI 6tADERE S18]0A
PPR 16 ]0040PLZODE IB ]�04�1.1]
errors sMndarasfn,
Presava0on and Reh.biIita0hn
tr
ath-'p.,$50 mu3begivento Mealys
M1i3oric preserva0on gant pager,,{ mnus
any funtls went on requi re a0on or
reh,b work"
ecd nave mea 1
"ng s[emu3 ppava
of a ste plan before ":ts are
an3enetl
_
TRDHx1H1
Designated historic landmarkin
:thanA d
Own f h h p perty d
h ad p f H
Any M1 h mme mdn9
a M1 h Sty Co h M1
P p 1]5000 S 20510.050:
P Ove y 0
d g [vi 11 not
Floorarea elbwebk h nd ng sRe Mnus
Gry au 11 makes recoN of cov h
d cp perty Ilb etl
Covenantmu3 be appavetl by Gry
h p JAwrv+ ry N n tlef
Vancouver, WA
d ny3 he
Overtay O3d3 that s 13etl in Me
hamrd toMwfly ng
Floor Arm
the actual floor area of h ting ste_
her of the hstoic property/send g l _
a
h, d U rf h oven ant
Coundl
a IVf leSfl attacM1me'i sN h cM1ap
—20.510_ptlf Very IRtIe specR c
S tate or National Regi3ers of
Hi3odc Races o,desgnatetl o n a
cal regi3eris e1gible
a caR
add—the tan—orsmply Me
preservation of Me 3mctuz
inMnna0on isgiven_
Owners must pe00on M qualify
Mei, land s th,hugM1
" r0R albca0on vadesdepending on sending
fo,e.h sRe
Pop_24,000 Pmgam th
as sending
condRional use permit pacers,
unless Meste isvnmin Me
ning_ nH acre ofmndIng
land owners can receive 065 DUs in Me RA
_e'l li n Me R -1,10U in he R-1 L, 20Us
Ifnotm Me RAdi 1,Me B.aJof
supervisors he
ai—
premnre environmental ,ace and
hi3orically sgnrfican[stes
Red IAg cultural mne In
5 h pe,mf hgher
n h R2 R21 d100U heR31
PI gGom - dTownsdp Board
Alen[ on of w"ere TORS are recd Netl does
must appreve
tan3er conerder ng Me
Mtps/Aw ecoda',60com11306]0641hi
Warrington, PA
w h ould alRomatcally
Stecan be
d ry d I, office and
Land Area
add ti base II rings
bonumsof l5%in the
fsup I _ M1 pp Metran3ers
by Me TDRReviery Board_
[,noappear nMe code_
recommendat ons of Me Platin ng
ghIght.evelopdevelopetldeveloperde
development
qualrfy only add—
rf R meets four mteda including
ndu3ral uses
ng tic vie
RA or 10% in older districts and addit"nal
are advsetl
Department or Planting Com sson
velopersdevelopment
developed,development
ency wfh Me Gomprd�ensive
bonuses(, r rtes wh hi3od c or natural
and the TDR Review Boards
righ[,d-1.pment
Plan and promotion of public
welfare"
ce sgnfiicance_ RA s_ mu3 be at
lea. five acres M qualify-"
dgM1t�,dove'opment�,develops,rigM1t,rigM1Ls
Pop_3],000 "Avner of designated
o—P, w
equ�e I,— by thb
Guttural Hertiage Nd—ly Board to
ed for
�ff I,— N p etl
Grys CUINaIH -erg Nd ryBoaN
Cl, allows developers to purcM1ase an opt on
on TBRs M1 M1 be recorded to
Rgh[s can be purchased by anyone
d h be earmarketl fora
rve full fundsfrom a ele of dev
ngM1 If d g neetls reM1ab
Ily Iy 25% fTBR
propert es cont gGry
yp pe
etl Ili gh tyc --ll
tl p tl h g b f
approvesa rW dl Planfneetletl on
',,had
prior
adopto f g to project (anangetl
p ng _Ctt al
el p cetl _ g]5% pl etl
West
H011ywoQ GN
desgnatedI d an
wh cM1 have lessd M1Y hero Me
-,,h ultural
OensM1y
tlwNlg f tlental culWal
t. the max
ces, s[he tlR—a,
asendng beortpletetl
before tan3 r_Gouncl has ¢tablhe
y bet use wasconcerne
H erg Nd ry Bo d pp ve s
n ounf h
r M1 b f h sendng Accord ng to
allowetl by Memning code"
er cann otbe tansfenetl
r esdental tunes
the al
codspenbRtetl Floorarea and Me a3ual Floor
aof Me desgnatetl building
c ena upon wM1icM1 tan3ea sM1all be
condM1ion.
d—ld the
develo m Ith, h udbnt gto use Me
be
program rf[heyhad to buy dgM1ts before
Van 3erwas approvetl)_
reM1ab plan If Z t cl has
ria Mat RfollowswM1en approving
anter_
Bmart Preservaton, no tansfeahave
http tlyet"1858150Fof
M1ttpllgcodeuslcodesN.e_ M1ollywodNie
_hp p-1— 4
19_58& h-11- &fra—ff
Gould notfind a copy of the-cffro
a mat appea,,n the Tansler of
Beve'opment Rghts Program_
H13nde properties, landmarks
(lot nal regi3er3aNs),
Gemats. ��.n- tion d
TBR registry mai ntai ned by city that records
total—thf—a-lableon the
Planning dire3ore3 e'gi
urban ,all asdepi"d
in the Cty's code. H13ndc sRes &
Iandmarksmu3havecomplHed
"mu3—plywRh the TBR map
ran—able floor area is determined by
a3te, and
date & amount of any [ranter that occurs,
city-approved re"t"`trvecovenant is ¢toted
-of
sending sRe, letter (w ¢timate of
BRs available
Pop.1B8,000 Sec. 94132
renovatio act to code and mu3
sM1ovnng where TBRcan be used
multiplying lot area by allowable nu rrber of
and recorded in public recoNs (iBR�
sending)of availablilry may be issuetl
a—al,ftymybe
of
B—Palm
Beach�FL
beiswetlna ce11-df
t. —h an egM1t-, terF and 20.
Floorarea
Floors (and detluctng Me floorar�of [he
Planning dire3ore3ablisM1es eligibility,
Q4C appmves tansfer
rein Rivecovenant), whicM1d¢mbes Me
byplanningdeptupon req ,all
tan 3eaaresibjstto approval of
hUpslllibrary.nu-de.comlFlAves[ pal
mbeacNcodeScode of oNinance5lno
ccupancy_"As an addetl incentive
forhi3odclandmarkdesignation,
tory maximum;'asdepi3etl in
the Cfty moi ng code
exiting 3roclRre in Me case ofahi3odc
landmark sending s<e)
adju3etl BRs of sending and receving 3te�
"bank entry"_ TBRs may beacquiretl forma
Me Bowntown Ncton CommR[ce
(Q4C), after whicM1 a"T ft of
deld=PHIGOOR GHB4ZIXABERE AR
Ted-111 WRRE BB 11DI FRE PR
wRM1 hi3odc landmark 3atus
eligible for addRional cM1y-
wned TBRsin an aunt
sending bbe and heldfor an untletenninetl
amt of t me a ntl asiRable receiving ate is
found
an3erisigvetl (recoNetl in TBR
r�i3ry)
equivalent to the —s eating
development cap.q"
City of Iowa City
City Council Work Session
September 4, 2018
September 4 — Council Work Session Goals
• Direction from Council on the following:
• Eligible sending sites
• Transferformula
• Priority of preserving historic resources compared to other public benefits
• Review and approval process for transfers
• Eligible receiving sites
Background
• May 29:
• Council considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N.
Clinton Street
• Deferred to January 2019 and directed staffto explore the creation
of a city-wide TDR program
• August 7:
• Council discussed initial memo on TDR at work session
• September 4:
• Direction from City Council on key policy questions
Staff Goals of a Citywide TDR Program
Fair
Legally -sound
Easy to administer
Simple for developers and members of the public to understand
• Effective program that preserves historic resources
• Consistent with comprehensive plan
Transfer of Development Rights
TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
• Incentivize protection of historic
jY RFC Transfer Formula
resources
_p.. _.. • No. of stories allowed on sending
• Property owners can sell/
site (4)
transfer development rights
X
from historic resource (sending
I
Area of sending site (8,700 sq. ft.)
site)
._
j
• Development rights applied to
another site where development
Development Rights Available for
can occur at a higher densityI
Transfer (34,800 sq. ft.)
(receiving site)
Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
TDR Example—Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
ending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St.
_
�.{
tlY y
7,400 sq. ft.
r
b�
Total De, Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft.
Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks
Research & Analysis
Sending Sites
• Only analyzed existing local and
national landmarks
• Several other buildings eligible for
local landmark designation
• HPC proactively identifying sites to
locally landmark
• Used the RFC Transfer Formula:
No. of stories
X
Area of sending site
Development Transfer
Potential
Research & Analysis
Receiving Sites
• Identified vacant and
underutilized sites
• Removed sites within
floodplains, sites with
historic buildings, publicly
zoned land
RKeM.eSlee AYatyM
".w4IWt Geral"D
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
• Transfer Formulas:
• Consider existing development on sending site
• Typical formula = Max allowable density/intensity on sending site Less Existing
density/intensity on sending site
• Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond
plan/zoning
• In comparison, the RFC transfer does not consider existing development
Research & Analysis
Summary of Sending & Receiving Sites Analysis
• Significant amount of transfer potential —will increase as more
properties are locally landmarked
• Depending on receiving sites identified it may be difficult to
accommodate transfer potential
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
Approval Process for Transfers:
• Many cities require some type of a non -administrative review
• Some cities approve transfers administratively
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
• Administration & Tracking:
• Variety of methods:
• Documented through a PUD or Specific/MasterPlan
• Executed through a development agreement
• Recorded with the County as a conservation easement
• Legal documents signed by property owners & City Attorney
Tracking
• City staff maintained registriesand databases of possible receiving sites, eligible sires,
capacity of these sites
Issues/Constraints
• Market Potential:
• No market study
• Lack of Certainty in the Process:
• Non -administrative review of transfer (e.g. P&Z, City Council, etc.) provides
less certainty
• Administrative review of transfer (i.e. staff -level) provides more certainty
• Other Bonus Mechanisms:
• City currently offers bonuses for other public benefits
• Uncertain how a city-wide TDR policy would compare to other bonuses
Research & Analysis
Other Local urisdictions' Program —Approval Process
• Receiving Areas:
• Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the
community/downtown
• Explicitly state that historic resources are not eligible as receiving sites
• Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
potential receiving site
• Commercial zones only — no transfers allows to residential zones
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing
1. Should eligible & future local historic landmarks.
sending sites include
existing local historic
landmarks or only
future local historic
TDR p—mi—
landmarks?
Option b. Eligible sending sites only include
future local historic landmarks.
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer
formula.
2. Should a city-wide
TDR ordinance apply
the existing transfer
calculation formula
that is outlined in
RFC or a new
formula? Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that
considers existing development.
Policy Questions for City Council
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings
4. What type of
review and approval procedure bythe City Council.
process should be
established for the
review and approval
of sending and
Option b. Establish a new procedure that allows
receiving transfer of
transfer up to a certain level to be approved
rights?
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified
historic resources be
threshold would be reviewed by city council.
Policy Questions for City Council
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or
city-wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Option b. Downtown and/or
Option a. Model a city-wide TDR program on
3. The City already
the current bonus provisions.
gives bonuses for
certain public
benefits provided
with development
projects. Should
Option la. Allow transfer for historic properties
preservation of
to exceed the City's current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity?
historic resources be
treated in a similar
manner or given
higher priority?
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or
city-wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Option b. Downtown and/or
June -August 2818
Research antl a n.lys,s
September4, 2018
Presentation to Council on msearch, mcommentlation from Council to
pmreetl or not pmreetl on ooJm.nr. tlraging
September-October2818
Omm.nce tlmfling; ifd.t.-,n.d by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Pmser bon Commission Review & Oisrussion
October 18, 2018
Planning& Zoning Commission Review&Discussion
Novemb.r20,2018
City Counril(1" modmgof.ohn.nr.)
December4, 2018 City Council(2-&possible 3- reatling of.ohn.nr.)
January 29,2019 Exp,ration of&month tleferral ofthe local la ntlmark d --nation f410 412
North Clinton Street
10/12/2018
M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti
5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or
tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or
e_Othersites
7
a_ Existing&futum Local Lammancs
1. Eligible sentling sites?
Fair& Consistent / May not have ad,quat, receiving site capacity
b_ Only future Local Lantlmarks
• Maybeeasiertoarrom motlate transfers/Inconsistent with current pmcess
a. RFCiransfer formula
• More generous&consistency in atlminisiration; easierto untlemtantl
2. Transferformula?
May not have atlequ.toreceiving site ca parity
b. New transfer formula
• May be easier to accomm otlate transfers / More cum plex & d,M,, It to ad ,n,,t,r
3. Bonuses& Plenty of preserving
a_ Current bonus pmvisions
historic resources compamtl to other
om
Simpler&easier/May tliluteetfedioom- of preserving historic resources
public ben
b. Exceetl current bonus provisions
More of an incentive / Com munity concems & unknown im pacts
a. Existing RFCpmress(ie. app—i by City Council)
4. Review 8 approval pmcess for
Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty m app—, is
tomsfem?
b. New pmcess
• Streamline the review& allow Council review for larger tmnsfers
• Not consistent with current RFC pmcess
a_ RFC
M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti
5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or
tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or
e_Othersites
7
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance
Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
E. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose:
The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an
incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
a. The sending site must have a base zoning designation of "Single -Family Residential' per
14-2A, "Multi -Family Residential' per 14-213, or "Commercial' per 14-2C, of this title.
b. Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a
contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-313-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
4. Eligible Receiving Sites:
1. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
a. Located within a Riverfront Crossing zone district and the sending site is located outside
of the Riverfront Crossings district as identified in 14-2G-2 "Regulating Plan" of this title;
or
b. Located within a zone district that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or
provisional use according to Table 213-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family
Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of
this title.
2. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic
districts, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving
sites.
5. Transfer of Development Rights:
a. Transfer requests shall either be for a height bonus or a density bonus using the
following formulas:
(1) Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure. In no case shall the transfer be less than 12
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
feet even if the difference between the maximum allowable height and the existing
height is less than 12 feet; or
(2) Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending
site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of the Historic District
Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
b. Transfers requests may exceed either the height or density on the receiving site with the
following limitations:
(1) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located outside of the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed 40 feet above the maximum height allowed on the
receiving site.
(2) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located in the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed the height bonus maximums outlined in 14 -2G -7G -1d
of this title.
(3) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located adjacent to an existing
single-family home shall exceed two stories above the height of the existing single-
family home.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-813-3, of this title.
b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-813-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
a. The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
b. The proposed receiving site,
c. The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
d. A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on
the receiving site, and
e. Any other information required per the application form.
7. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
Amend 14-213-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
D. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E.
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
C. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E.
Amend 14 -3C -2A, Applicability, adding a new paragraph 12, as follows:
12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-
2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-
2C11 "Special Provisions", of this title.
Amend 14 -3C -3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows:
2. Level II Review:
a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and
structures:
(1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as
signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building
concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I
review.
(2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the
specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
(3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to
subsection 14 -2G -7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014)
(4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14 -2G -7G "Building Height
Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with
their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or
disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article
B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14 -3C -3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows:
10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in
subsection C of this section.
Amend 14 -2G -7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection
as follows:
3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and
corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of
historic properties:
a. Eligibility. The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the
following criterion:
(1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as
an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district;
eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or
listed as a historically signfcant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of
the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity.
b. Requirements:
(1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or Iowa
City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation
as a condition of the transfer of development rights, and
(2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, 'Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect" of this title.
c. Transfer Of Development Rights:
(1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the
sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the
sending site maybe transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront
crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is
located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet
in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) maybe
transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the
4
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits
established in this section.
(2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the
maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 5 of 16
Boyd asked about the Commission about the motion in the staff report. He said he was inclined to
support the motion as written. He felt given the constraints of the property and given there was
already a garage there a new larger garage smaller in scale than the house could be approved.
He asked if there was additional discussion.
DeGraw said she was inclined to vote yes. She thought it looked a little contemporary but, it was
within the guidelines, so she would vote yes.
Builta said he was inclined to vote yes and added that this is an exception because there are
constraints on what can be done.
Boyd noted there were property limitations. This is a corner property. The garage is going to face a
street. It does not have alley access.
Bristow noted that the guidelines do include the possibility for exceptions. There is the possibility
for an exception for unique site conditions and that is the specific exception that staff was
considering for this particular project.
Boyd asked if the Commission was ready for a vote.
MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 802
South Summit Street as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines
allowing an attached garage due to the unique conditions present at the site and existing
setback. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Nays: Kuenzli
and Pitzen. (Aaran. Burford. and Clore absent).
REVIEW OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ZONING AMENDMENT
Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services presented a proposed ordinance for a
city-wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She said she would provide a
background on how we got here and explain what Transfer of Development Rights are. She said
she would explain the existing Transfer of Development Rights policy in our Riverfront Crossings
District and then go over what we are proposing in the ordinance. She said since this ordinance
was related to historic properties, they wanted to bring it to the Commission for input.
Russett said this began on May 291h when the City Council discussed considering a local landmark
designation at 410-412 North Clinton Street.That motion was deferred to January 2019 based on a
recommendation from the property owner's attorney to put the vote on hold for that local landmark
designation until the City had an opportunity to explore a city-wide Transfer of Development Rights
program. Since then, Council has discussed a city-wide transfer program. Staff presented to them
at a work session on September 41h and received some direction from the Council on how they
would like to move forward.
Russett explained Transfer of Development Rights. She said they are an incentive to protect
historic resources which allows property owners to sell or transfer development rights from historic
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 6 of 16
resources, which are called the sending sites, to receiving sites, which are areas where the City
wants to encourage higher density development. The development rights would be applied to
another site.
Russett said there are some key components to a Transfer of Development Rights program. There
are the sending sites, which in this case would be historic resources. The receiving sites are areas
where there could be additional development or additional density. There is the transfer
calculation, that's used to figure how much density, or how much height, could be transferred from
one site to another. There is also a review process and an administration procedure.
Russett explained that the City does have an existing TDR program that applies to the Riverfront
Crossings District. In Riverfront Crossings the City requires Iowa City landmark designation prior
to requesting a Transfer of Development Rights. The receiving sites in this area are any site in
Riverfront Crossings. The formula that's used to calculate the transfer potential is the lot area of
the sending site x the maximum number of stories allowed on the sending site, the result is the
square footage that a property owner could transfer to another site.
Russett said for the Riverfront Crossings District, any request for a transfer must be reviewed and
approved by City Council. She explained that while receiving sites can go above the base height in
that zone, there is a max depending on which area of the district they are located in. Russett said
one project has used this incentive since it was adopted into the Riverfront Crossings Ordinance,
the Tate Arms Building at 914 South Dubuque. On this site the maximum number of stories is four
and the area of the site is 8700 square feet, so the total development rights available for this site
that could be transferred, were 34,800 square feet. The developer transferred at least 7400
square feet to the property to the north. The property to the north received an additional story, a
height bonus, through this transfer. Tate Arms still has 27,400 square feet of transfer potential that
could go to another site in Riverfront Crossings.
Boyd asked if the owner of the Tate Arms Building had these rights, but didn't really want to
develop something somewhere else, could sell those rights to another developer or must the
owner of the landmark property use them. Russett said they could be sold on the private market.
Shope asked if there was any restriction or requirement that those funds be used in any way to
improve the historic property.
If they transferred the development rights for money, would there be any requirement that the
money be invested in the historic property from which the rights were sold. Russett said no.
Shope asked if the Tate Arms allowance of four stories was based on current zoning for that
property. Russett said it was based on the current zoning designation. Karr asked if the zoning was
changed, would there then be additional rights that would be sold. Russett said staff is proposing
no.
Russett discussed direction received from Council regarding the proposed ordinance. She said
Council asked that sending sites only include future local historic landmarks, so existing historic
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 7 of 16
landmarks would not be eligible for transfer rights. They requested that staff develop a new transfer
formula and not use the one that's currently used in Riverfront Crossings. City Council wants to
continue to review and approve any transfer requests. For receiving sites, they wanted it to include
areas in Riverfront Crossings and sites throughout the City that allow multiunit development.
As a summary of the proposed ordinance, Anne said staff is proposing that properties eligible for
Iowa City landmark designation would be eligible, but it only applies to future landmarks.
Properties that are already landmarked, if they are already in an historic district, or if they are
already in a conservation district, would not be eligible for a transfer. City Council felt that it was
important to only apply this to future landmarks since these other properties are already protected,
and this incentive would only apply to future designations. Russet said that receiving sites could be
areas that are zoned either Riverfront Crossings, multifamily residential, or commercial zones that
allow multifamily. She displayed a map of the eligible receiving sites.
Russett said staff is proposing that there are two options for what could be transferred. An owner
could either transfer height or transfer density, not both. The transfer could exceed the maximum
height on the receiving site, as well as the maximum density on the receiving site. For the height
bonus, it could not exceed 40 feet above the maximum height that is allowed in that zone. There
would not be restrictions on increases in density.
Boyd asked how many stories 40 feet would be. Russett said four, maybe a little less.
Russett said the calculation for the bonus potential for height would be the difference between the
maximum allowable height on the sending site and the existing height of the historic structure, so
the maximum allowable height minus the existing height would equal the amount that could
transfer. Russet said the minimum transfer would be 12 feet. She explained that a 30 -foot existing
historic structure with a maximum in the zoned district of 35 feet, would only have five feet to
transfer. She said that since that is not much to transfer, the minimum would be 12 feet, or a story,
that could transfer.
Russett presented an example of density transfer the maximum allowable dwelling units of the
sending site minus the existing number of dwelling units that are currently there provide the
number of dwelling units that could potentially be transferred. This would be determined at the time
the landmark designation occurs based on the base zone for the district at that time. Russett
provided a density example using 412 North Clinton. The maximum allowable number of dwelling
units on the site is 24. There are currently 18, so the potential transfer is six dwelling units.
Russett explained how review of transfers would work. Staff is proposing that transfers would be
reviewed by the staff design review committee based on the guidelines in the zoning code for any
design review project. The design review committee would make a recommendation to City
Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker on the transfer. A proposal that was very out of
scale or that didn't fit within the existing context of the neighborhood, might not move successfully
through the approval process.
Russett discussed how TDRs are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 8 of 16
plan has policies that talk about protecting historical resources. With the historic preservation plan
there are goals related to providing economic incentives to property owners to encourage them to
preserve historic buildings. TDRs are a potential incentive for property owners to landmark their
buildings.
Boyd noted this is for future sites and confirmed that this is local landmarks only, not National
Register listed sites, but local landmarks.
Boyd stated that most of the properties where development rights being discussed here are either
in commercial districts or high-density residential areas. He asked if a potential local landmark is
zoned at the lowest density possible it wouldn't have much to transfer, correct?
Russett said that if it's a large site, such as a farmstead that might be historic on a large parcel but
with only one remaining building, the site could potentially be subdivided and there could be more
dwelling units built. This could result in more potential to transfer.
Kuenzli noticed among the receiving sites proposed were the South Johnson/South Van Buren
Streets between Court and the railroad tracks. She said the stated goal of this is to preserve an
historic structure somewhere, but to be able to increase either height or density within the receiving
area. Johnson and Van Buren currently are mostly two or three-story structures. Kuenzli asked if
this were to pass, could a developer could come in and build eight stories or 12 stories on those
streets.
Russett said theoretically yes, but with the process in place it would go through design review and
City Council, who would look at consistency and compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
Russett added that in the proposed ordinance there would not be limitations on density, but there
would be limitations on height, 40 feet above the maximum in the zoned district. 12 stories in that
area would not be allowed based on the proposed TDR amendment.
The maximum height in that area is 35 feet, so with TDRs a new development could still be much
larger than what's there but there would be a process in place for review and approval to make
sure the development was not out of scale for the area.
Boyd clarified the receiving sites would be Riverfront Crossings and where there are existing
multifamily units. Kuenzli said she was in favor of saving historic properties, but not if the cost is
going to be the destruction of other neighborhoods. Builta pointed out if a house is preserved and
they sell a floor or two somewhere, that's not going to destroy a neighborhood.
Kuenzli said she is concerned that it is not going to be a floor or two judging from the discussion so
far.
Shope noted there are homes in residential areas that have large lots and questioned if this was
based on lot size, not the existing structure size. Russett said the height was based on what's
allowed in the zone compared to what the existing structure is.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 9 of 16
Shope provided an example. A house is one story tall and it's on a lot that is a little over half an
acre. If you figured her allowance based on that half acre for four stories, the existing house hasn't
used much of that. Russett clarified that if it's in a residential district the maximum height is
probably 35 feet where the most she could transfer would probably be two stories.
Shope asked again about the half -acre lot size. Russett said the transfer would just be two stories.
For the height, it doesn't matter what the lot size is. Shope asked if it was based on the size of the
current structure. Russett said the height of the current structure
Karr said he understood it was limited and was concerned that existing homes that are already
landmarked wouldn't be eligible, especially for the six or seven that were recently landmarked.
Karr said he loved the fact that this is incentivizing preservation of individual landmarks, but he
would be upset if he was one of the recent landmarks left out of this incentive.
Karr wondered what happens when we look at the Downtown District. He said he felt this would
have ramifications there. He noted if there were some building owners downtown who probably
weren't excited about getting in the district, this would be a fantastic way to entice them.
Boyd said those may not be individual landmarks. That may be a district. Karr and Boyd asked if it
had to be individual properties. Russett said it must be local historic landmarks. Karr said he was
asking about an entire district, such as the proposed Railroad Depot District on Clinton Street.
Boyd said he thought the railroad qualified because it is currently in Riverfront Crossings.
Russett clarified it is only for individual landmarks in Riverfront Crossings, as well. They need the
landmark designation.
Boyd asked if people could be incentivized individually to be a landmark if a Downtown District
didn't happen. Karr thought that would give a landowner downtown a reason to fight the district and
go on an individual landmark basis, because it'd be worth more money to them. Russett believed
that may be true. Bristow asked if the downtown becomes a district, would it then be removed from
the receiving sites. Russett said yes, Historic districts, conservation districts, and landmarks are not
eligible as receiving sites.
Bristow followed up on Karr's comments about the recent landmarks. She said that because this
deferral and TDR development process came up when the five that achieved landmark status
happened, she wondered if there would be any condition that included just those five because they
were done at the same time when this process started. Russett said if the Commission wanted to
recommend that, if they wanted to recommend changes to the proposed receiving areas, she could
pass that along to the Council and the Planning Commission.
Boyd said he was glad they were talking about this. He said he thought it was helpful because the
Commission gets a lot of questions about the economic incentives that can be provided for
landmarks. He said TDRs are being discussed because one particular property owner asked for it.
Boyd asked if there were other incentives that could be considered. He said that there is an
example in North Carolina where new local landmarks receive automatic property tax deduction.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 10 of 16
Boyd said there may be other incentives that help achieve some of the goals in the comprehensive
plan. He said he felt we were doing this because one property owner asked and the focus had
been narrowed very rapidly based on a very rapid timeline and a deadline that was set by the
property owner and the City Council. Boyd said he wondered if the City could consider other
potential incentives, regardless of what happens with the TDRs. He wondered if the Commission
was supposed to bring those ideas or if Planning and Zoning Commission came with them.
Russett said if the Commission had ideas for Planning and Zoning to investigate, staff could
definitely do that. She wasn't sure if the property tax idea was something we could do here, but she
knew other communities do it, so staff could look into that.
Bristow clarified that the property owner for 410-412 didn't necessarily come up with the Transfer of
Development Rights out of the blue. The Tate Arms project had been successful and the idea of
protecting historic properties this way had been considered by the planning staff in the past. Staff
had always thought about the possibility of adopting something like this to protect historic
properties, partly because through research, we have learned that this is something that other
communities, and there are some examples in the packet, have taken on to promote the
preservation of their historic properties. The first few communities that came up with the process
found there were some lessons to be quickly learned, and they had to tweak the way the process
happened. She said there was a document put out by the National Park Service that she may have
given the Commission earlier in the year. She said it goes talks about those lessons learned and
how a community can make sure TDRs work as they are supposed to.
Russett asked if they could have wording for the downtown stating that if there is a proposed
district, those properties cannot individually landmark for the TDR bonus instead, to avoid a non -
incentive for a potential historic district. Bristow wanted clarification on whether this incentive could
be possible for a future Downtown District. Russett said that once an area has been selected for a
district, if the group of property owners say no to the district, then they cannot individually landmark
to get the TDR. An owner can agree to the district, but you cannot strategize to reject the district in
order to go for the individual landmark and the incentive of the TDR.
Russett said the reason they were not allowing future districts to be eligible is that there are certain
properties in an historic district that might not be contributing or might not be as historically
significant and wouldn't meet local landmark requirements, so it isn't fair to provide the incentive for
the entire district. She said another option is that future districts could potentially be eligible to
utilize the incentive.
Boyd noted that all our current historic districts are largely non-commercial districts. He said he
wondered if there could be a consideration about how we think about commercial districts, which
was something that needed to be considered anyway. Expectations for a residential district are
different than expectations for a commercial district. The buildings are used differently now than
they were historically. In the residential districts those structures are largely being used as they
were when they were built, for the most part.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 11 of 16
Boyd said if there is an effort to limit the scale of this proposal, commercial is one thing to think
about. He said he thought high-density residential by itself, was the highest zoning piece. He
thought that's largely where these properties probably are anyway, just given where our historic
properties are.
Boyd thought one item of consensus would be including anything that's been landmarked in 2018.
Kuenzli asked about the receiving areas that allow multiunit development. Kuenzli thought that was
a little vague. Boyd questioned if that was the red area on the map. Russett said yes it includes all
multifamily residential zones and commercial zones that allow multifamily.
Boyd said since those are the receiving sites, could those also be the categories that we use for
landmarks or districts. Russett said that was a possibility and she liked the suggestion of
commercial districts because residential districts, even though you could maybe get more units,
have lower height limit. Commercial districts generally allow a lot more development potential, so it
could be more of an incentive in a commercial district and a landmark designation could restrict the
ability to develop that property to its maximum allowable density or height under the zone. She said
to her, the commercial districts make sense because the base zoning designation probably allows
a lot more height than is currently there.
Boyd said he thought one other item for consensus was the idea of individual properties and
potentially future commercial districts. Russett said we could bring this back to the Commission at
the next meeting if they want to think about it more, but she needed to move it forward to Planning
and Zoning next week. She asked for the Commission's feelings on if this was something they
wanted the City Council to consider or if there was no interest in providing this type of incentive for
historic properties.
Boyd said he thought we should find incentives for landmark and district designations. He thought
the City should consider it, and the Commission was one step in that consideration. He said
Planning and Zoning will consider it, and ultimately City Council will consider it. He believed the
Commission's job was to look at the impact on historic preservation. He said TDRs are a potential
tool that helps incentivize historic preservation. He noted there were some things that needed to be
worked out as a City, but he didn't believe the Commission was the one to work out all of those
details.
Russett restated what she'd heard from the Commission. She heard this should apply to landmarks
that were designated in 2018, and maybe consider future commercial historic districts being
eligible. She heard some concern about the receiving sites. She said if they wanted those
changed, even if it was not a consensus, she would pass that information along.
Boyd agreed there was some concern about the receiving sites, particularly those in residential
areas. He didn't think there was a lot of concern when there was already a lot of density and a lot
of other taller buildings. He said the Commission was open and interested in exploring what other
incentives might be available outside of this particular program.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 12 of 16
DeGraw said there was a concern with the calculation with regard to lot size that used with Tate
Arms, because at times that would create an overly generous handing out of TDR that couldn't be
honored.
Shope was concerned that this is currently restricted to future landmarks. He said he understood
the rationale, which is that those existing landmarks are already protected, but historic landmarks
also have higher costs of maintenance. He had a bit of an issue with precluding the benefits of this
from those who already own those historic landmarks. Boyd wondered if there was a way for us to
think about other incentives for existing landmarks.
Shope noted this is the incentive that's before us right now. He asked for a clarification on the
following: On page 3 of the October 11th memo it says eligible sending sites include properties
designated as an Iowa City landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the National
Register of Historic Places, or listed as an historically significant building per a survey. He said he
thought what was presented as eligible is an Iowa City landmark, and that's not the way he read
this sentence.
Russett said that portion of the October 11 memo was a summary of the current ordinance in
Riverfront Crossings. She clarified that if the property is in Riverfront Crossings and is registered
on the National Register, it is eligible, but is still required to get local landmark designation before
receiving the incentive.
Russett said she would pass these suggestions forward and incorporate some of them into the
draft ordinance if there was consensus. Russett said if the Commission wants to, it could move this
forward to Planning and Zoning with amendments. The Commission could move that it be deferred
until the next meeting and we it could be brought back.
Boyd asked if the Commission could move that they are generally in favor of this, but have a few
concerns that have been identified. Russett said that was an option. Boyd asked if the Commission
could still revisit the amendment at some point. Russett said it could be revisited at the next
meeting on November 8th, which would be before the amendment goes to City Council for public
hearing.
Boyd said he'd like to move that the Commission is generally in favor of the TDR amendment to
the zoning code and has made some suggestions. The Commission's role is to decide if this is a
tool that historic preservation should use.
Russett suggested moving the amendment forward and then, for a property owner that wasn't
thinking about development but still wondered what was going on with the TDR, add the offer of a
simple tax reduction. That would be appealing and save that person the burden of having to
research how to capture this potential. Russet said she thought some property owners would do
that.
MOTION: Boyd moved that the Commission is generally in favor of incentives, including
this amendment. The Commission has shared some specific concerns but are broadly in
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 11, 2018
Page 13 of 16
favor of moving forward. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0
(Agran, Burford, and Clore absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
1037 East Washington Street.
This project will repair about five of their original windows and replace storms, which we don't need
to review, but they put it on the application anyway.
722 East College Street.
This project will replace the concrete steps that were an original part of the building. They have
completely deteriorated.
900 North Johnson.
This project is repairing siding that was deteriorated and repairing the rear deck.
430 Ronalds Street.
Bristow said the owners of this property are repairing windows
Minor Review — Staff Review.
Bristow said the University Partnership property at the last minute had to replace the roof because
it had failed suddenly. She said it was being replaced, but it would not be metal. It will be shingles.
Boyd wondered if it was just staff review if they go from metal to shingles. Bristow said yes, that
was something that changed at the beginning of the year.
927 South 7t" Avenue.
Bristow said this property was part of a series of bungalows that could have been their own historic
district at the end of 7t" Avenue, but they are a part of the Dearborn Street Conservation District.
The siding on just the front and rear dormers was failing and so they are replacing the siding and
trim.
412 S Summit Street.
Bristow said this roof has been deteriorating for a long time and they are replacing it. The internal
gutters will remain.
900 N Johnson.
Bristow said they will be putting in a radon mitigation system in the area where all other utilities are
located.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 9 of 15
Parsons stated he made the recommendation because while he believes the application
probably does conform with the County, it does not comply with the current Fringe Area
Agreement.
Signs noted this may become a bigger issue as he is aware of two other large open green
spaces nearby are destined for development so there is the potential of a rather large rural
residential area here.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent).
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00003):
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of
development rights for historic properties.
Russett began by providing the Commission with background as to why staff is working on this
ordinance, she will then talk about the existing transfer rights provisions which exist in Riverfront
Crossings, and finally will get into the specifics of the amendment proposed tonight.
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark
designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. Council deferred action on the local
landmark designation until January 2019 while staff reviews and analyzes the establishment of
a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. On August 7,
2018, Council discussed a city-wide TDR program at a work session and then on September 4,
2018, provided direction to staff on some key policy issues. Staff has been given a timeline by
Council, in June and August staff conducted a lot of research analysis of TDR around the
country, on September 4 they presented that research to Council and they directed staff to
move forward with drafting an ordinance. Last week staff presented the draft to the Historic
Preservation Commission and tonight are before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review
and discussion of this ordinance. Staff would like to present a draft to City Council next month,
the deadline for adoption of this ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the ordinance, is
January 29, 2019, because that is when the expiration of the deferral for the local landmark
designation on the North Clinton Street property happens.
Russett provided some background as to why the City is perusing this ordinance. National
Register Districts are an honorary designation, it does not provide any protection for listed
resources, it does not limit a property owner from making modifications on a building or
demolishing a building, but it does offer incentives. On the flip side Iowa City's local historic
districts and local landmarks provide protection to historic resources and any changes to the
exterior of those buildings need to either be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission. The idea behind the transfer of development
rights ordinance is to provide an incentive to property owners to landmark their historic
buildings. Transfer of development rights is meant to protect historic resources by giving
property owners of those historic resources the ability to sell or transfer development rights to
another property. The areas that may receive the transfer of development rights are in areas
where the City wants to see more development. Russett acknowledged the goal is to preserve
historic landmark designations and buildings, right now it is uncertain the effectiveness of an
ordinance like this, there has been no market analysis to determine a market for these transfer
rights, and if people will actually utilize it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 10 of 15
Russett noted key components of TDR programs are:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well
as a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible
for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or
listed as a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development
rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
One example of a transfer of development rights was for the transfer of development rights from
the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S.
Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the
34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer
of 7,400 square feet to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square
feet of development rights remaining to transfer.
Signs asked about the calculations of transfer rights being based on the square footage of the
entire lot and why aren't they based on the allowable square footage of a building that could go
on that lot. Russett stated when the formula was developed for Riverfront Crossings they
intentionally made it very generous because they anticipated development and redevelopment
in Riverfront Crossings and wanted it to be a higher amount that could be transferred.
Russett noted the direction staff received on the city-wide ordinance is to have the sending sites
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 11 of 15
to only apply to future local landmarks, not to existing, staff is to develop a new transfer formula,
however the current formula used in Riverfront Crossings would remain intact for that area only,
Council will continue to have oversight on the program and will review and approve any transfer
right requests, and in terms of the receiving sites Council directed staff to look at Riverfront
Crossings and sites that allow multi -unit development throughout the community.
Russett next gave an overview of the proposal for the City-wide ordinance. For the sending
sites staff is recommending looking at future properties that are listed as Iowa City landmarks as
well as contributing properties listed in future Iowa City local districts. Staff presented this
proposal to the Historical Preservation Commission on October 11 and they expressed concern
that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks and if it is not provided
to future districts it could be a disincentive for the creation of districts and people will just want to
create landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission also noted Council recently adopted
several Iowa City landmark designations and requested those properties also be eligible for the
incentive. Properties within existing historic districts would not be eligible and property within
existing and future conservation districts would also not be eligible as sending sites.
Russett noted in addition to this proposed ordinance, staff is recommending an amendment to
the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer of development rights provisions to allow the transfer
and incentive to also apply to districts and not just landmarks.
In terms of receiving sites, staff is recommending any site zoned Riverfront Crossings, multi-
family residential or any commercial zone that would allow multi -family be eligible as a receiving
site. Russett showed a map indicating the potential receiving sites.
Staff is recommending the transfer of development rights be one of two options, either a height
bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes
to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site,
but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. If the
receiving site is next to an existing single family home the height is limited to twenty feet above
the height of that existing home. Staff is not recommending any restrictions on the density
bonus.
Hensch asked if for density someone could use every square inch of the parcel. Russett noted
with density there would still be parking requirements, open space requirements, and all other
regulations in the zoning ordinance.
Russett noted the formula to be used to determine the potential transfer a sending site would
have, staff is proposing the difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending
site and the existing height of the historic structure. However they are noting that no transfer
would be less than 12 feet, or one story. For example if there is an existing historic structure
that is 30 feet and the maximum height on the sending site is 35 feet, the difference is only 5
feet but the transfer would be 12 feet as it is the allowable minimum. For the density bonus
option staff is proposing the transfer be the difference between the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed on the sending site and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site. The maximum density should also be based on the on the underlying zoning
designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation.
In terms of the transfer process, any requests for a transfer of density or height from a sending
site to a receiving site will be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 12 of 15
submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval.
Russett noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there are
goals in the Comprehensive Plan to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets, there is also a Historical Preservation Plan component of the Comprehensive
Plan which again has goals for the preservation of historic resources and also a specific goal to
establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and
neighborhoods.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
Hensch thanked Russett for the thorough presentation and how helpful it was to explain the
proposal. He noted he is not a big fan of the density bonus and feels there could be issues with
that but likes that City Council has to approve all transfer requests.
Martin acknowledged the process this has gone through and asked if the Historic Preservation
Commission did approve the ordinance. Russett said the Historic Preservation Commission did
have some concerns but recommended moving it forward, she will go back to the Historic
Preservation Commission in November with an update and let them know the progress.
Signs asked about the historic district piece, noting a few meetings ago when the Commission
voted on a large group of properties on South Clinton Street (the Railroad District) that was to
be made into a historic district, would those properties then qualify to have transfer rights.
Russett noted they would if it was a contributing resource to the historic district.
Hensch asked for clarification on how the transfer rights work within a district. Russett used the
Railroad District as an example, any property within that district that is identified as a
contributing resource, that site and that building, would be eligible for a transfer and the formula
would be based on that specific property, not the district as a whole. Hensch asked who can
take advantage of the transfer rights, only the owners of the property, or could they give that
right to some developer in their name. Russett said the transfer rights could be sold to a
developer.
Dyer asked about demolition by neglect or any provisions that say the owner must upkeep the
landmark property. Russett said they followed the language that was in the Riverfront
Crossings Code that says the property is subject to the demolition by neglect ordinance and
property needs to be maintained. If the property is deteriorating the owner would not need to
make improvements to be eligible for the transfer rights.
Townsend asked how they would keep track of these transfers. Russett said the City will
maintain a database of eligible properties and transfer potential, where they are transferred to
and what the receiving site is. Staff is also proposing as part of the application to apply for a
transfer details on the application. They are also requesting that if there is a private sale on the
open market that the City at least be notified the sale has happened.
Martin asked what would happen if a private sale happens and the developer does not use the
transfer rights for a while and in that time the City decides this ordinance is not appropriate and
removes it from Code, what happens to the developer that is now the owner of a transfer they
cannot use. Dulek acknowledged that is an issue that is potentially out there. She added with
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 13 of 15
regards to maintaining this database there will have to be the ability to keep track of the change
of title for these rights.
Hensch asked if this ordinance is in response to market demand. Russett said it was a request
of the property owner's at 410 North Clinton when that property was going through the historic
designation process, they requested for their local landmark designation be put on hold until this
ordinance could be discussed and implemented.
Hensch opened the public hearing
Matthew Kulzak (222 N. Clinton St.) is an econ student at The University of Iowa and is taking a
class on planning livable cities and that is why he attended today's meeting. In class they are
discussing the development rights and transferring those and he feels from an economic
perspective it is great because one issue that occurs with historic buildings is there is potential
development in that area but it is unusable because it is historical and something that is valued
by a city to maintain historic character. One issue that could arise is the building being
neglected and the rights still sold, and that seems like a valid concern and not in the spirit of the
program to benefit for the historic building but not maintain it.
Andrew Hoffmann (718 Oakcrest Street) is a College of Law student at The University of Iowa in
a property law class and commented on the density issue noting it was pretty limited in the way
the presentation was shown because the density can only be transferred by the extent that the
landmark has the capability to do that. Hoffmann feels it would be a pretty small transfer and not
a big issue. Additionally the distance of transfer, the transfer could be sold and used anywhere
in the City and there are no restrictions given in the presentation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City
Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Signs noted he likes this amendment in that it does address some of the concerns he expressed
when the Commission was acting upon the historic properties at past meetings. There is
potential for economic loss to a landowner when the City designates a landmark against the
property owners will, and now there is a potential benefit and may mitigate any owner loss on
the property.
Townsend would like to see some requirement that the property had to be kept in good
condition to be eligible to transfer development rights.
Martin asked if a property sells their rights, then has the property demolished due to disrepair,
what can be rebuilt in that location.
Dyer recalls that when the Tate Arms transfer of development rights happened the property
owner was required to upgrade and maintain the Take Arms building as well as be able to
construct the new building. Russett agreed and noted there was a provision in the Riverfront
Crossings Ordinance related to demolition by neglect. That provision will also be in this
ordinance. Russett also noted there is a City ordinance that requires all buildings in the city to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 14 of 15
be maintained.
Signs is concerned about an indefinite time frame, but likes to idea of bringing the building up to
standards at the time of development transfer.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2018.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted two things. First she introduced the new associate planner Ray Heitner. Second,
staff received a letter from property owners in the Cardinal Pointe Subdivision that she emailed
out to the Commission members, the letter expresses some concerns to a property that is for
sale off Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Russett noted staff has not received an application for a
rezoning on the property yet.
Signs noted there has been a substantial change of membership on the Commission and in
staff and he wonders if a work session is needed to talk through expectations going forward.
Hensch noted it seems like staff reports are different now and perhaps stormwater can always
be referenced even if just to say no report for that application. Signs agreed, that is an issue
brought forth in many applications.
Adjournment:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
10.0"
Deferred to 1/8/19
Prepared by: Anne Russett,Senior Planner,410 E.Washington Street,Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5240
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code
related to Transfer of Development Rights for Certain Historic Properties
(ZCA18-00003)
Whereas, the City of Iowa City aims to preserve historic resources through the creation of
Iowa City historic landmarks and districts; and
Whereas, the City is interested in ways to incentivize the designation of Iowa City historic
landmarks and districts; and
Whereas, one way to incentivize the preservation of historic resources is through the
transfer of development rights; and
Whereas,the City currently provides this incentive within the Riverfront Crossings districts;
and
Whereas, allowing the transfer of development rights city-wide for the preservation of
historic resources may provide an incentive to property owners of historic buildings throughout
the community; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment allows for the transfer of development rights in the
form of a height or density bonus from Iowa City historic landmarks and contributing structures
within Iowa City historic districts to eligible receiving sites; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Goal and Strategy:
Goal:Continue to protect our community's historical,environmental, and aesthetic assets.
Strategy: Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas and historic
features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve as assets and/or amenities
for adjacent development; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Historic Preservation
Plan goals:
Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement
this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods; and
Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission held a meeting on October 11, 2018 and
voted to move the aforementioned zoning code amendment forward; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 18, 2018 and
recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
1
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by adding the following
sections and underlined text, as follows:
Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding a new subsection E. Transfer of
Development Rights:
E. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses
provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
a. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A
"Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of
this title.
b. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as
a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-3B-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
3. Receiving Sites Requirements:
a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(1) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this
title; or
(2) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a
permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Multi-Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Commercial Zones", of this title.
b. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(1) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark,
(2) Located within an Iowa City historic district,
(3) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or
(4) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Transfer of Development Rights:
a. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one
of the following formulas:
(1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time
of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of
the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10
feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5
or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the
transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the
CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet
shall equal 1 story in height; or
(2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD)zoning designation and
the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site
b. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a
height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following
limitations:
(1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14-
26 "Multi-Family Residential" or 14-2C"Commercial", no transfer of height shall result
in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the
receiving site base zone.
(2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height
shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14-
2G-7G-1 d of this title.
(3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of
height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the
existing single-family home.
5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-8B-3, of this title.
b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
(1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
(2) The proposed receiving site,
(3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
(4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the
receiving site, and
(5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and
(6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer
of development rights; and
(7) Any other information required per the application form.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
Amend 14-2B-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of
Development Rights:
D. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses
provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
3
d. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A
"Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of
this title.
e. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as
a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-3B-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
f. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
3. Receiving Sites Requirements:
a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(3) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this
title; or
(4) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a
permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Multi-Family Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Commercial Zones", of this title.
c. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(5) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark,
(6) Located within an Iowa City historic district,
(7) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or
(8) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Transfer of Development Rights:
c. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one
of the following formulas:
(1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time
of the Historic District Overlay(OHD) zoning designation and the existing height of
the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10
feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5
or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the
transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the
CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet
shall equal 1 story in height; or
(2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and
the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site
d. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a
height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following
limitations:
(1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14-
2B "Multi-Family Residential" or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result
in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the
receiving site base zone.
(2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height
shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14-
2G-7G-ld of this title.
4
(3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of
height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the
existing single-family home.
5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
c. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-8B-3, of this title.
d. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-8B-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
(1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
(2) The proposed receiving site,
(3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
(4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the
receiving site, and
(5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and
(6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer
of development rights; and
(7) Any other information required per the application form.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection D. Transfer of
Development Rights:
D. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose: The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses
provide an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
g. The sending site must be designated one of the base zones established in 14-2A
"Single-Family Residential", 14-2B "Multi-Family Residential", or 14-2C "Commercial", of
this title.
h. The sending site must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as
a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-3B-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
i. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
3. Receiving Sites Requirements:
a. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(5) Designated one of the Riverfront Crossings zoning designations per 14-2G of this
title; or
5
(6) Designated one of the base zones that allows multi-family dwellings either as a
permitted or provisional use according to Table 2B-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Multi-Family Residential Zones"and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in
Commercial Zones", of this title.
d. A site is ineligible to be a receiving site if it is:
(9) Designated as an Iowa City historic landmark,
(10) Located within an Iowa City historic district,
(11) Located within an Iowa City conservation district, or
(12) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Transfer of Development Rights:
e. Owners of eligible sending sites may request a transfer of development rights using one
of the following formulas:
(1) The difference between the maximum height of the sending site allowed at the time
of the Historic District Overlay(OHD)zoning designation and the existing height of
the historic structure. When the height difference is more than zero, but less than 10
feet, the allowable height transfer shall be 10 feet. Sending sites zoned either CB-5
or CB-10 may only request a height transfer. For the purposes of calculating the
transfer of development rights, the maximum height of a sending site located in the
CB-10 zone district shall be 100 feet. For the purposes of this ordinance, 10 feet
shall equal 1 story in height; or
(2) The difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site at the time of the Historic District Overlay (OHD)zoning designation and
the existing number of dwelling units on the sending site
f. Transfers of development rights may result in the receiving site being developed at a
height or density in excess of that otherwise allowed by the base zone with the following
limitations:
(1) Where a receiving site is designated one of the eligible base zones established in 14-
2B "Multi-Family Residential"or 14-2C "Commercial", no transfer of height shall result
in development in excess of 40 feet above the maximum height allowed by the
receiving site base zone.
(2) Where a receiving site is zoned a Riverfront Crossings base zone, no transfer of height
shall result in development in excess of the height bonus maximums set forth in 14-
2G-7G-1d of this title.
(3) Where a receiving site is adjacent to an existing single-family home, no transfer of
height shall result in development in excess of two stories above the height of the
existing single-family home.
5. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
e. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-8B-3, of this title.
f. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-86-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
(1) The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
(2) The proposed receiving site,
(3) The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
(4) A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on the
receiving site, and
(5) Evidence demonstrating ownership of both the sending and receiving sites; and
(6) Evidence demonstrating eligibility of both the sending and receiving sites for transfer
of development rights; and
6
(7) Any other information required per the application form.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
7
Amend Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Zones, by amending the table, as follows:
Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Zones
•
Maximum Lot
Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk Coverage
•
Total I Maximum Minimum "'
Area Minimum Minimum Total Front Number Of Open
(Sq. Area/Unit Width Frontage Front Side Rear Height Building Building Setback Bedrooms Space12
Zone/Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Width Coverage Coverage Per Unit13 (Sq. Ft.)
RM- Detached 5,000' 5,0007 557 407 155 5+22 See 358 203 50% 50% n/a I 500
12 single-family note
and 10 i
detached r
zero lot line
Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 155 5+22 See 358 1- 203 50% 50% 4 300/unit
note
10
Attached 3,000 3,000 20/28° 20 155 0/104 20 358 n/aI 50% 50r______% 4 150
single-
family
Multi-family 8,175 See table 60 40 20 10 20 35°, I 203 ► 50% 50% 3 10/bed •
-
2B-3 of this 14 room, but
section i no less
than 400
Group 8,175 See chapter 60 40 20 10 20 35° 203 50% i 50% See chapter 10/bed-
living 4.article 4. article room, but
B of this B of this no less
title title than 400 •
Non- 5,000 5,000 60 40 F20 10 I 20 35° 203 i 50% 50% n/a n/a
residential' i I •
RM- Detached 5,000' 5,000' 557 40' 155 5+22 See 73-5r-
203 ( 50% 50% n/a 500
20 single-family note
and i 10
detached
zero lot line i
8
1
Duplex 3,600 1,800 45 35 155 5+22 See 35° 203 50% 50% 4 300/unit
I nom
_ f 10 I �
I
Attached 1,800 1,800 20/28° 20 155 0/10' 20 356 n/a 50% 50% 4 j 150 ;
single-
family
Multi-family 5,000 See table I 60 40 21 10 20 358. 203 50% 50% 3 10/bed-
2B-3 of this I I M I room, but
section i no less
i than 400
Group 5,000 See chapter 60 40 20 10 -1-.1.7.
20 358 203 50% 50% See chapter 10/bed-
living 4,article I 4. article room, but
B of this I B of this no less
title I I I I title than 400
1i r r______
Non- 5,000 n/a 60 40 20110 20 35° 203 I 50% 50% n/a n/a
residential'
RNS- Detached 5,000' 5,000' 407 257 155 5r +22 See 358 O 45% 5050% n/a 500
20 single-family I note I
and j 10
detached
zero lot line
Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 I 25 155 5+22 See 35° 203 45% 50% 4 300/unit
note
10 I
I
Attached 2,500 2,500 20/28° 20 155 0/10" 20 358 n/a 45% 50% 4 I 150
single-
family I I I I
1
Multi-family 5,000 See table 40 25 20 10 20 358, 203 ( 45% 50% 3 10/bed-
2B-3 of this 14 room, but
section and no less
note 9 I I I than 400
i
Group 5,000 See chapter 40 25 20 10 20 358 203 I 45% 50% r Seaach pter 10/bed-
living 4.article I f 4. article room, but
Be of this I I I B of this no less
title title than 400
_
Non- 5,000 n/a 40 ( 25 ri-0 I 10 20 35° 203 45% i 50% �n/a n/a
residential' I
9
RM- Multi-family 5,000 See table None 35 20 10 20 358 1 208 50% 50% 3 r10/bed-
44
2B-3 of this L om, but
sectionno less
I than 400
Group 5,000 See chapter None 35 20 10 120 358 263 50% I 50% See chapter 110/bed-
living 4, article I 4, article room, but
B of this ! B of this no less
I title I I I title than 400
Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 20 10 20 358 203 ; 50% 50% n/a n/a
residential'
PRM Multi-family 5,000 See table None ( 35 20 10 1011 358• 1208 50% 50% 3 1-10/bed-
2B-3 of this L I room, but
section no less
II I i than 400
Group 5,000 See chapter None 35 1-2. 1-1-0.----
1011 358 [ 203 50% I 50% See chapter 110/bed-
living 4, article 1 4,article room, but
B of this B of this no less
title I I title Ithan 400
Non- 5,000 n/a None I1 35 20 10 1011 358 208 50% 50% 1 n/—I Itn/a
residential' I I I
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
1. Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications,
Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title.
2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the
applicable side setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title.
3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length.
4. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And
Provisional Uses", of this title.
5. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must
be set back at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And
Buildings", of this title.
6. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots
must be 28 feet wide.
7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be
reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-2B-4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.)
8. Additional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to single family zones or single family uses. (See subsection 14-2B-4C, "Building Bulk
I0
Standards", of this section.)
9. See the special provisions of this article regarding minimum lot area per unit requirements in the RNS-20 Zone.
10. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet. except in the Central Planning District and Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is
dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100 feet in depth:
minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision, garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a
(non-habitable) breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width)will be considered detached accessory buildings and, therefore, are subject to the setback
requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as
detached accessory structures/buildings.
11. May be reduced to 5 feet if rear lot line abuts an alley.
12. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2B-4E of this section.
13. Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than
16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of
the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
14. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-
7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title.
11
Amend Table 2B-3: Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Multi-
Family Zone, by amending the table, as follows:
Table 2B-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Multi-Family Zone
Zone
i
RM-12 [FRNS 0nd rRM-44 PRM
Minimum lot area per unit(in square feet): f
Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,7252 11,8002 5002 4352 '
f2-bedroom unit 2,7252 1,8002 FT0002 8752
r—
r3-bedroom unit 2,7252 P002 1,5002 1,3152
Maximum number of bedrooms per multi-family dwelling unit 3 F 3
Minimum bedroom size'(square feet) 100 100 ( 100 100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However,for purposes of the
provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with
a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the
Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or
bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any
horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the
City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17,
chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
2. Minimum lot area per unit requirements may be reduced for projects with an approved transfer of
development rights for increased density according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
12
Amend Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements for All Commercial Zones, Except the
MU Zone, by amending the table, as follows:
Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU Zone9
r — —
Maximum
Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Setbacks Building Bulk
Area/ r •
Total Dwellin
Area g Unit Minimum Maximum Minimum
(Sq. (Sq. Width Frontage Front Side Rear Front Height Height
Zone Ft.) Ft.) I (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) FAR
CO-1 None See None None 10 01 0' T None 258,1/ None 1 or
table 33
2C-
2(c)of
this
section
I �
CN-1 None See None None 5 01 01 See 22 or 352, 18 1
table subsection 14- 14
2C- 2C-7E of this
2(c)of article
this
section
{ CH-1 None n/a 100 r None 10 01 0' None None None 1
CI-1 None I n/a [ None rn
e 10 1 0' I 0' None 35 None r 1
CC-2 None See None None 10 01 0 None 35 None 2
table
2C-
2(c)of
this
section
CB-2 None See None None 0 01 ' 01 12 45,19 None 2'
table
2C-
2(c)of
this
section
CB-5 None See None None 0 or 0' 0' 12 75,12 25 35
table 104
2C-
2(c)of
this
section
1
13
CB-10 None See [ None None 0 or 01 01 12 None 25 106
table 10°
2C-
2(c)of i
this
section
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
1. A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a
nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot line or rear lot line abuts a residential zone, a
setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting residential zone must be provided
along the residential zone boundary.
2. Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception: One-story
buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are clerestory windows facing the street that give the
appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet.
3. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots that abut or are across the street from a single-family
residential zone, in which case the maximum FAR is 1. Hospitals are exempt from the FAR limit in
the CO-1 Zone.
4. A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must
be set back at least 10 feet from the Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting
upper stories may be located within this 10 foot setback, provided an adequate pedestrian
passageway is maintained.
5. Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR
bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 5.
6. Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR
bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 15.
7. Maximum FAR is 2, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR
bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 3.
8. Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See subsection C1d(2) of this section.
9. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2C-4E of this section.
10. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of
development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
14
Amend Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), by
amending the table, as follows:
Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone(MU)7
Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk
•
Total Re Total
Area Minimum Side ar Building Front
Zone (Sq. Area/Unit Width Frontage Front (Ft.) (Ft.) Height Coverag Setback
Use Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) a Coverage
MU Detached 3,00 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50%
single- 0
family and
detached
zero lot
line
Two-family 3,60 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 20 355 50% 50%
(duplex) 0
•Attached 1,80 1,800 20/28 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50%
single- 0 4
family
Multi- 5,00 See 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355,4 50% 50%
family 0 table 2C- 2
2(c)of
this
section
Group 5,00 See cha 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355 50% 50%
living 0 pter 4, 2
article
B of this
title
Nonreside Non n/a None 20 5/156 5+22 5+2 355 50% n/a
ntiall e 2
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
1. Nonresidential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise
in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses",
of this title.
2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories, plus 2 feet for each additional story. For
detached zero lot line dwellings, see applicable setback regulations in chapter 4, article B of this title.
3. See applicable setback requirements in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title.
4. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of
attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide.
5. Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a two-family use, multi-family use, group
living use, or a nonresidential use is located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing
single-family use or within 15 feet of a single-family zone boundary, then the portion of the building
located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 21/2 stories in height.
6. Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See
15
subsection 14-2C-9D, "Maximum Setback", of this article.
7. Open space must comply with standards set forth in subsection 14-2C-4E of this section.
8. Maximum height requirements may be exceeded for projects with an approved transfer of
development rights for increased height according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
Amend Table 2C-2(C): Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in
Commercial Zones, by amending the table, as follows:
Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Commercial Zones
Zone
CO-1, CC-2, I
CN-1 And CB-5 And CB-
MU CB-2 10
Minimum lot area per unit(in
square feet):
r—
Efficiency or 1-bedroom 2,7252 4352 There is no minimum lot area per
unit unit standard. However,the
number of 3-bedroom units per lot
2- ieBroom unit
P252 18752 may not exceed 30%of the total
number of units on the lot
3-be
r— droom unit 2,7252 [1,3152
Maximum number of 3 3 3
bedrooms per multi-family
dwelling unit •
r--
Minimum
—Minimum bedroom 1100 100 100
size' (square feet)
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the
provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with
a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the
Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or
bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225 square feet in size or have any
horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the
City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17,
chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
2. Minimum lot area per unit requirements may be reduced for projects with an approved transfer of
development rights for increased density according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8. or 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
Amend 14-3C-2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, by adding a new
paragraph 12, as follows:
12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-
2G-7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, or 14-
2C-11 "Special Provisions", of this title.
16
Amend 14-3C-3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows:
2. Level II Review:
a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and
structures:
(1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as
signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building
concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I
review.
(2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the
specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
(3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to
subsection 14-2G-7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014)
(4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-2G-7G `Building Height
Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-2B-8, 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with
their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or
disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article
B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
Amend 14-3C-3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows:
10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in
subsection C of this section.
Amend 14-2G-7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection
as follows:
3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and
corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of
historic properties:
a. Eligibility: The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the
following criterion:
(1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as
an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district,
eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or
listed as a historically significant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of
the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity.
b. Requirements:
(1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or
listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district, the applicant must apply
for and obtain approval of this designation as a condition of the transfer of development
rights; and
(2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
c. Transfer Of Development Rights:
(1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the
sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the
sending site may be transferred to one or more eligible site(s)within the riverfront
crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is
located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet
in size, then eighty thousand (80,000)square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) may be
transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the
receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits
established in this section.
(2)The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the
maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2018.
Mayor
Appr ed by
Attest:
City Clerk City Attorney's Office /(//51( r
18