HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-05 OrdinanceItem Number: 8.b.
October 5, 2021
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 14, Z onin g Cod e and Titl e 15, Land Subdivision ,
to create form-b ased zon es and stan d ards consisten t with the South District
Plan . (R E Z 21-0005) (F irst Con sideration )
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Memo to City Manager, S eptember 14, 2021
Memo to Planning & Z oning Commission, J uly 1, 2021
Memo to Planning & Z oning Commission, J uly 15, 2021
Memo to Planning & Z oning Commission, August 5, 2021
Z C A21-0005 Memo to P lanning & Zoning Commission, A ugust 19, 2021
Staff Summary - S takeholder I nput on Public Review Drafts
Written S takeholder Comments
Additional Correspondence
J uly & August P lanning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Ordinance & Zoning Code A mendment
Date: September 14, 2021
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Overview of the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption
of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Introduction
The South District Plan, adopted in 2015, recommended the creation of a form-based code to
manage new development, ensure a mix of housing, and encourage compact and connected
neighborhoods. In 2019, the City contracted with Opticos Design to develop a form-based zoning
code for the area identified in Figure 1. After over two years of planning work, staff presented the
proposed amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission at meetings in July, August, and
September 2021.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be
held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed
form-based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005). Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public
hearing for October 5, 2021 for Council review and consideration of the proposed amendments.
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
September 14, 2021
Page 2
Overview of Form-Based Zoning
The Zoning Code is one of the City’s primary tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning regulates how land can be used and developed, including what structures can be built
where. A form-based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is
regulated in Iowa City. While the City’s current Zoning Code provides flexibility for new
development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with land
uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use-based
codes, form-based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than use, as
the organizing framework. Form-based codes also regulate elements to create a high-quality
place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended physical
form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be called
"main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of
uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant walkable
urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a change
from the City’s current use-based standards. Form-based codes still regulate use secondarily,
but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended
physical form. The intent of the code is to produce neighborhoods that:
• Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking;
• Will preserve important environmental resources;
• Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and
• Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points.
Summary of Proposed Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
To help facilitate the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff
proposes the following changes to the South District Plan:
1. Updated descriptions of the City’s development of form-based standards and changes
throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form-based standards,
specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario,
street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas.
2. New goals and objectives in the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters
that explicitly discuss adoption of a form-based code.
3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better
accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which aligns with a more
conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map distinguishes
between single-family, mixed, and multi-family residential uses and provides for limited
neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types.
Zoning Code Amendment
The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed
codes:
1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area,
requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not
have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other
building type allowed by the zone.
2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of
frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape.
3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street
area. However, parking must be setback from the front façade of the building.
4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly.
September 14, 2021
Page 3
5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units,
granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current
code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home.
6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way.
7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths.
8. Design Sites: A new term “design sites” has been incorporated into the draft. A design site
is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with
exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more
flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted.
9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size
requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width
standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development.
10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also
identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height
bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing.
12. Thoroughfare Types and Standards: The proposed code includes a section on street
standards, which regulates right-of-way width, pavement width, bicycle facilities, and
landscaping types.
13. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be
submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types
on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The
Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types,
and other code requirements.
Planning Process
Since January 2019, staff has been working with Opticos Design to develop a form-based code
for the area identified in Figure 1. Table 2 outlines the project timeline and a summary of the
planning process.
Table 1: Summary of Planning Process
Date Milestone
April 2019 Project Kick-Off with Focus Group Meetings
July 2019 Residential Market Study Completed
November 2019 Public Review Draft of Form-Based Code
Released for Comment
February 2020 Public Review Draft of Future Land Use Map
Released for Comment
March 2020 – May 2021 Ongoing Stakeholder Outreach; Code and
Map Revisions
June 2021 Revised Public Review Drafts Released
July, August, and September 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Public
Meetings
During the formulation of the form-based code in 2019 and 2020, staff engaged approximately
125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and
presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included representatives from the local
development community, the Iowa City Community School District, property owners, architects,
affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 2 provides a summary of the outreach
conducted.
September 14, 2021
Page 4
Table 2: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings
Group Date Approx.
Attendance
Focus Group Meetings (Local Builders & Development
Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors
& Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates)
April 2019 25
Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property
Owners and Development Community
July 2019 15
Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30
Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18
Iowa City Community School District Dec 2019 5
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019
June 2020
5
Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5
Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action
Team
Jan 2020 8
City Council Joint meeting w/ ICCSD Board Feb 2020 10
Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4
Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10
Home Builders Association June 2020 5
Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing
Draft Code Review Meetings (Neighborhood Groups,
Realtors, Landowners, etc.)
Ongoing
Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings & Stakeholder Comments
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s August 19, 2021 meeting, 13 members of the public
testified. Details of this testimony are included in the August 19 meeting minutes. Staff also
received several written comments from stakeholders. All comments, as well as staff’s summary
and responses, are included in the agenda packet.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s September 16, 2021 meeting, a public hearing will be
held on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and the proposed
form-based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005).
Next Steps
At the City Council’s meeting on September 21, staff is requesting that they set a public hearing
for October 5, 2021 on the proposed amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and
the proposed form-based zoning regulations (REZ21-0005).
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Date: July 1, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Introduction to the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption
of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Introduction
The City has been working with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form-based
zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District, shown in Figure 1. The hope is to
eventually apply these standards to other undeveloped, greenfield sites in the city. When applying
the form-based code to new areas in the City, the district plans must first be updated to facilitate
its adoption. The first such district plan update running concurrently with the zoning code
amendment is the South District Plan amendment (CPA21-0001).
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
The Zoning Code provides rules for how land can be used and developed and is the City’s main
tool to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans. It outlines what structures can be built
July 1, 2021
Page 2
where, and how they will be used. Conventional zoning dictates the density of dwelling units
allowed, maximum heights, lot coverage, and minimum on-site parking, among other standards.
Form-based codes differ from conventional zoning by focusing less on land use (e.g. single-family
vs. multi-family) and more on the development’s scale (e.g. bulk and height) and its relationship
to the public realm (e.g. streets and sidewalks). The purpose of the form-based code is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for walkable development through context -specific
standards. It will help produce neighborhoods that:
• Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking
• Will preserve important environmental resources
• Contain a connected network of streets and paths
• Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points
Overview of Stakeholder Outreach
The form-based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the
South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlines the vision
for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos
Design to assess the feasibility of implementing a form-based code for undeveloped areas in the
district with a goal of expanding their applicability in other undeveloped areas of the city over time.
Completed in August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form-based Code Analysis included
the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise
for the South District. A residential market analysis was also completed in July 2019 to help inform
the form-based code standards. These documents are available on the project website:
https://www.icgov.org/project/form-based-zones-and-standards.
Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form-based code in 2019 and
2020. The City engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group
meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included
representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property
owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 1 provides more detail on
outreach conducted as part of this process.
Table 1: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings
Group Date Approx.
Attendance
Focus Group Meetings: Local Builders & Development
Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors
& Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates
April 2019 25
Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners
and Development Community
July 2019 15
Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30
Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019
June 2020
5
Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5
Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8
Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4
Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10
Home Builders Association June 2020 5
Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing
July 1, 2021
Page 3
Amendment Framework
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (REZ21-0005) is coupled with a proposed
amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). Although the proposed changes to the code
align well with existing goals and objectives in the South District and Comprehensive Plans, staff
has also proposed amendments to the South District Plan to make these connections more
explicit. Many of the proposed changes to the District Plan are intended to provide additional
context and aid in the implementation of this proposed zoning code amendment. Most notably are
the updated future land use maps for the planning area described in Figure 1 [Attachment 1]. As
part of the proposed update to the future land use map, staff created new land use designations
which directly align with the proposed Form-Based Zones included in the code amendment.
The proposed code amendment includes changes to several chapters of the Zoning Code (Title
14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the new Form-Based
Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site
Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). In addition, new standards are being proposed for
Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form-based standards. While
the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title
14, they will be summarized in follow up memos so the Commission can understand how the
proposed changes work together towards implementation of the new standards.
Form-Based Zoning
A form-based zoning code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the City’s built environment
is regulated. Unlike conventional, use-based codes, the proposed amendment utilizes the
intended physical form, rather than use, as the organizing framework of the code. Further, it
regulates elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The
terminology in the proposed amendment reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of
different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be
called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a
mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant
walkable urbanism.
While the proposed code primarily regulates the intended physical form, it regulates use
secondarily. The code allows a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility
between uses and the intended physical form. As a result, the use tables are simplified and
categorized by use type, and clearly defined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision-
making related to particular uses.
The proposed amendment uses an organizing principle called the Natural-to-Urban Transect. This
enables a customized framework of zones that are based on intended physical form. It uses a
hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the most urban. The
designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the physic al character,
form, intensity of development, and type of place, and secondly by the mix of uses within the area.
This hierarchy of physical environments becomes the framework for the entire code, replacing
use as the organizing principle. Each transect is used to reinforce existing or create new walkable
environments. Figure 2 depicts the Natural-to-Urban Transect.
July 1, 2021
Page 4
Figure 2. Natural-to-Urban Transects
Summary of Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Although the proposed zoning code amendment aligns with many policies of the City’s
Comprehensive and District Plans, staff is proposing some amendments to the South District Plan
to better align the plan with the proposed form-based code. To help facilitate the adoption and
implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the
South District Plan:
1. Updated descriptions of the City’s development of form-based standards and changes
throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form-based standards,
specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario,
street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas.
2. New goals and objectives to the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters
that explicitly discuss adoption of a form-based code.
3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better
accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which better aligns with a
more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map
distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi-family residential uses and
provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types.
Zoning Code Amendment
The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed
codes:
1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area,
requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not
have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other
building type allowed by the zone.
2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of
frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape.
3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street
area. However, parking must be setback from the front façade of the building.
4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly.
5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units,
granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current
code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home.
6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way.
July 1, 2021
Page 5
7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths.
8. Design Sites: A new term “design sites” has been incorporated into the draft. A design site
is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with
exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more
flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted.
9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size
requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width
standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development.
10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also
identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height
bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing.
12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be
submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types
on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The
Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types,
and other code requirements.
Future memos to the Commission will provide a detailed outline of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code amendments.
Justification for Amendments
Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the community’s goals
and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While the City’s current zoning code provides
some flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development in greenfield
sites with land uses separated into discrete districts with a limited mix of uses. In order for
development to achieve some flexibility to accommodate a diversity of housing types it typically
requires a planned development overlay (OPD) rezoning, which can be a relatively burdensome
tool. Additionally, the current code allows duplexes on corner lots in single-family zones; however,
we have not seen a significant number of duplexes on corner lots be developed, and most
subdivisions in greenfield sites still tend to be exclusively single-family. Requiring a mix of housing
types and moving away from zoning that distinguishes single-family and multi-family building
types is important to ensure a variety of housing options. Attachment 2 includes a more
comprehensive analysis of recent greenfield development.
The changes contemplated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
amendments are broad because it is a new kind of zoning for greenfield sites in Iowa City, to first
be applied to the South District. The changes are consistent with the long -term direction of the
City, especially as it relates to goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City’s
strategic goals is to “advance social justice, racial equity and human rights”. While land use
decisions can reinforce existing inequities, they can also be a tool to actively promote equity.
Additionally, Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action through implementation of its
Climate Action & Adaptation Plan.
Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to enforce racial and class
segregation. While courts invalidated explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones and
large minimum lot sizes were often used an as exclusionary practice, along with other public
and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of “slums” where persons of color lived.
In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in 1968. A
2019 Fair Housing Study completed by the City found that 81% of residential land in the City is
zoned for single-family development, and over half of single-family residential zoning is for low
density development (RS-5). Prioritizing disadvantaged groups that are still recovering from
generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment can help increase opportunity for all
July 1, 2021
Page 6
members of the community. The adoption of a form-based code for new development helps
address this issue by permitting a mix of housing types and price points for all members of the
community. While this does not solve this complex issue, it removes one barrier to providing
more variety in housing options and allows for a broader range of housing choices for residents.
Furthermore, the City strives to demonstrate leadership in climate action, which has culminated
in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The plan includes goals to reduce carbon
emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Conventional zoning
contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because it produces neighborhoods that are
difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Low density zoning encourages
sprawl which reinforces an auto-oriented pattern of development and increases traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of the form-based code will seek to
address this by improving the City’s building and transportation systems through development of
compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars.
Next Steps
For the Planning & Zoning Commission’s two July meetings, staff will present the proposed
changes to zoning and subdivision codes, including the new form-based standards. Additional
memos will assist Commissioners and the public in their own review of the code by providing
more detailed descriptions of proposed changes. The Commission will also receive a memo
detailing changes to the District Plan prior to holding a public hearing. During this time, the
public draft will be available for the public, and staff will be accepting comments throughout this
adoption period.
Attachments
1. Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan
2. Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019)
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Prepared by Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Neighborhood and Development Services
Prepared July 2020
ATTACHMENT 2:
Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019)
Introduction
This analysis aims to better understand how development occurs under the City’s current zoning
code by reviewing greenfield developments in Iowa City and summarizing the characteristics of units
produced in new neighborhoods, including how affordability is affected. This analysis was completed
in 2020 using data available through 2019.
Building Types
Approximately 51 residential subdivisions were developed on greenfield sites from 2010 to 2019
(Figure 1). Only around 18% of these subdivisions mix detached single-family lots with other building
types, such as duplexes, townhomes, or multi-family buildings. However, the City has experienced a
greater diversity in residential building types over time. Subdivisions platted after 2014 are nearly 4.5
times more likely to include another housing type with single-family detached homes compared to
subdivisions before then (32% to 7% respectively). Infill subdivisions are also more likely to mix
single-family detached homes with other residential building types (and are much more likely to
include only duplex, townhome, or multi-family buildings).
Over this timeframe, greenfield subdivisions include capacity for some 1,564 dwelling units. On
average, 68% of units expected in these subdivisions are for single-family detached units, though
this number varies by year from 27% in 2018 to 100% in 2011 and 2012. In terms of building form,
another 4% of units are expected to be duplexes, 15% are expected to be townhomes, and 13% are
expected to be multi-family buildings.1 As with subdivisions, the diversity of housing types in
greenfield sites increased most beginning in 2015.
Figure 1: Greenfield Building Types: Dwelling Units by Type by Year
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data, City of Iowa City Development Services data
Note: No subdivisions had final plats approved in 2020 (as of June)
1 These numbers address building form rather than ownership structure. As such, two single-family attached homes are counted as a
“duplex”, single-family and multifamily properties with a run of units each with separate entrances are counted as “townhomes,” and
multiple units in a single building that don’t have individual entrances are considered “multi-family.”
58 83
122
249
187 156
84
43
86
34
8
16
2
34
92
33
62 8
16
72
30 53
36
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Dwelling UnitsYear
Detached Single-Family Duplex Townhome Multi-family
2
Lot Characteristics and Affordability
Residential parcels in greenfield subdivisions platted between 2010 and 2020 provide additional
information about the characteristics of recent developments in Iowa City. Around 1,468 parcels
intended for future residential development are platted in greenfield subdivisions. 58% have
structures built, while the other 42% are still vacant. Most parcels (78%) are intended for single,
individual ownership (regardless of building form), with the remaining parcels structured as
condominiums. Condominium parcels are more likely to have a structure but are less likely to be
owner-occupied than individual lots, as evidenced by the use of Homestead Tax Credits (21%
compared to 74% of single lots).
Figure 2: Ownership Characteristics for Greenfield Lots
Single Lot Condominium Total
Total Lots 1,141 327 1,468
Vacant 558 61 619
With Structure Built 583 266 849
Homestead Credit 432 56 488
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data
Most individual greenfield lots are between 8,050 and 11,932 square feet, though lots ranged
from 3,000 to 166,246 square feet (see Figure 3). Individual greenfield lots were mostly
assessed between $285,400 and $419,270 with a median value of $340,810 (this includes the
assessed value of the land and structure). Condominium properties tend to be more affordable
with assessed values typically between $96,940 and $224,470 with a median value of
$209,940. When looking at all ownership types, greenfield properties are primarily assessed
between $217,960 and $382,560 with a median value of $293,080.
Figure 3: Greenfield Lot Sizes and Assessed Values
Single Lot
Area (sf)
2019 Assessed Value
Single Lot Condominium
Average 11,464 $361,222 $181,596
Minimum 3,000 $82,530* $83,850
25th Percentile 8,050 $285,400 $96,940
Median 9,472 $340,810 $209,940
75th Percentile 11,932 $419,270 $224,470
Maximum 166,246* $747,770* $325,050
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data
* Some outliers were excluded from the Single Lot minimum and maximum area and assessed value to better represent the data;
they were included for the purpose of calculating average, median, and percentiles provided.
Data about properties built and sold from 2015 to 2020 adds further clarity. Sales prices tend to
be higher than assessed values, especially at lower home values, though some of this is due to
the timeframes involved (assessed values are for properties platted from 2010-2020 vs. sales
prices which are for properties built from 2015-2020). However, sales prices also contain
information about the total living area of properties, which tend to be between 1,405 and 1,775
square feet, with a median of 1,669 square feet. On a price per square foot basis, this means
that most properties sell for between $149 and $240 per square foot.
3
Figure 4: Greenfield Residential Sales Characteristics Sales Price Lot Area (sf) Total Living
Area (sf)
Price per
Square Foot
Average $328,465 8,719 1,645 $201.82
Minimum $167,099 3,637 798 $102.16
25th Percentile $239,175 5,507 1,405 $148.95
Median $309,950 8,556 1,669 $211.36
75th Percentile $385,500 10,529 1,775 $240.06
Maximum $725,000 20,194 3,692 $319.63
Source: Iowa City Assessor residential sales data built and sold from 2015 to 2020
Discussion
Iowa City’s current zoning code is not a true “conventional” zoning code in that it has some
avenues for flexibility built into its current regulations. This includes capabilities for planned
development overlay (OPD) rezonings on greenfield sites, and form-based infill opportunities in
Riverfront Crossings. However, many of these are not provided “by-right” and require
discretionary processes including rezonings or design review which can add cost to projects.
Based on this review, it is apparent that there is more demand for alternative housing types on
greenfield sites. Some of this is likely due to the benefits that these types of buildings can
provide in terms of variety of options and smaller unit size, which can lead to reduced price
points. However, affordability is always a challenge with new construction given the higher costs
of building new rather than rehabilitating existing units.
While the City does not yet know what kinds of neighborhoods a form-based code will produce,
the draft code is structured to reinforce the trend towards a wider variety of housing types. It will
also help ensure there is a greater mix of unit types within individual subdivisions and will do so
in a manner that provides more certainty for developers which should reduce total development
costs and increase the speed with which developments can happen. Based on this analysis, it
appears these measures will assist the City in its goal of providing a diversity of housing at a
variety of price points in new neighborhoods, and denser developments also creates additional
benefits related to sustainable neighborhoods. However, the City must continue to monitor
housing development in the future to ensure the code is helping to achieve its goals.
Date: July 15, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Follow-up to comments on the draft form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Introduction
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s July 1, 2021 meeting the Commission had several
questions and comments regarding the draft form-based zones and standards. This memo
provides a summary of those comments and staff’s response.
Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
Comment #1: Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric Vehicle
(EV) charging stations
Staff Response:
The City recently participated in a regional EV readiness study with representatives from multiple
cities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations. In June 2021, the Eastern Iowa Electric
Vehicle Readiness Plan was finalized which identifies a number of key readiness strategies and
actions. One action is to expand access to EV charging infrastructure by amending local zoning
codes to allow EV charging as a permitted accessory use and to include requirements or
incentives for the installation of charging infrastructure in new construction and major renovation
projects.
The City’s zoning code currently allows EV charging stations within parking areas, but it does not
require or incentivize EV charging infrastructure. Staff recommends that changes to the regulation
of EV charging stations be a city-wide endeavor and not be limited to the draft code.
Comment #2: Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced
Staff Response:
Minimum parking standards are intended to provide off-street parking which accommodates most
of the demand for parking generated by the use, particularly where sufficient on-street parking is
not available. It also seeks to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
In form-based zones, minimum parking standards were reduced in line with important City goals,
especially for non-residential uses. Where minimum parking standards are too high, housing
affordability can be negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate-income
households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition, requiring more off-street
parking encourages car dependence by making development less compact which leads to
destinations that are further away, thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle.
In addition, minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on-street
parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on-street parking is almost
always available on either one or both sides of the street, which becomes underutilized in areas
with higher parking minimums. For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in
the minimum off-street parking required.
July 1, 2021
Page 2
That being said, builders can still provide higher amounts of off-street parking where desired by
the market. The reduced parking minimum just places a floor on the amount of parking required.
Table 1 provides a comparison of current parking minimums and proposed parking minimums in
the draft form-based code.
Table 1. Examples of Minimum Parking Calculations
Current Standards Proposed Standards
Greenfield Dev't T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4-Unit Apartment Building (with differing # bedrooms)
1 BDR 4 4 4 4 4 4 Max
2 BDR 8 4 4 4 4 4 Max
3 BDR 8 8 8 6 6 6 Max
Single-Family House (with differing # bedrooms)
2 BDR 1 1 1 NA NA NA
3 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA
4 BDR 2 2 2 NA NA NA
Non-Residential
1,500 sf Restaurant 10 0 0 0 0 0
2,000 sf Salon 7 2 2 2 0 0
5,000 sf Office 17 9 9 9 7 2 Max
7,500 sf Retail 25 15 15 15 14 6 Max
Note: Current standards are based on use and can vary greatly depending on zone, intended
occupants, location, and number of occupants
Comment #3: Concern that the fee in-lieu of affordable housing does not lead to affordable
housing
Staff Response:
There are two situations where a fee in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing is an option:
1) Upon annexation of residential land; and
2) During the rezoning of land to a Riverfront Crossings zone.
A large portion of the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County. Upon
annexation, this land would be subject to the City’s affordable housing annexation policy, which
allows a fee to be paid in-lieu of building affordable units on-site. If the Commission wants staff to
re-examine the option to provide an in-lieu fee for affordable housing, the affordable housing
annexation policy and the affordable housing requirements in the Riverfront Crossings code will
need to be revised rather than the draft code. Although the draft code does not include an
affordable housing requirement, it does include regulatory incentives for affordable housing.
These incentives can only be provided for voluntary, income-restricted units provided on-site.
Comment #4: Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi-modal transportation
system
Staff Response:
The draft includes 14-2H-9 Thoroughfare Type Standards and changes to Title 15 Land
Subdivisions, which outline standards for sidewalks, bike facilities, and streets, including block
length and connectivity requirements. Staff will cover this section in detail at your July 15 meeting.
Transit service is not currently provided to the form-based code planning area. This is not
surprising given that the area remains largely undeveloped. That said, the draft code ensures that
development will result in a highly interconnected street system by requiring shorter block lengths
July 1, 2021
Page 3
and more street connections. The draft code also requires a diversity of housing types. Both of
these requirements will result in a more compact development pattern than is not currently seen
at the fringes of Iowa City. This compact development pattern is better able to support future
transit service than typical suburban development.
Additionally, the City recently completed a transit study. Attachment A provides a summary of the
proposed changes, which include faster service, improved weekday evening service, and
improved on-time performance. The proposed changes also result in more coordination with other
transit agencies. Specifically, starting July 6, all passes and single-ride tickets can be used on
both Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit. There are also free transfers between these two
transit agencies. The attachment also includes a map showing the Iowa City Transit Preferred
Alternative, which includes an extended South Gilbert route that provides service to Terry
Trueblood Recreational Area, which is located just to the west of the form-based code planning
area.
Comment #5: Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts deviations
from the map will have on how the area develops
Staff Response:
During the development of the land use map we met with stakeholders, and the development
community felt it was important to have a more detailed map. They had concerns with the
unpredictability of the development process, including neighborhood opposition to higher density
housing, and felt a more detailed map would provide some certainty to conforming projects.
Staff originally examined rezoning this entire area to form-based zones and establishing a detailed
regulating plan map (i.e. zoning map) identifying both zones and a street network. Unfortunately,
this was not feasible because a City-initiated rezoning would have required an extensive survey
of land and the creation of multiple legal descriptions. Additionally, any changes to a zoning map
would require another rezoning, which defeats the purpose of a master rezoning aimed at
streamlining the development process. Therefore, staff developed a workable solution to create
a detailed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) where consistency with the map will be evaluated at the
time of rezoning. To aid in this process, staff drafted specific rezoning criteria, which are outlined
in 14-2H-1 Introduction. The approval criteria do the following:
• Create a unifying set of standards that staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
the City Council must use.
• Identify when variations from the FLUM can be made (e.g. sensitive areas).
• Provide a system by which the zones must be organized. For example, including
neighborhood centers and transitioning between zones within the block or across alleys.
Additionally, new subdivision standards ensure that the required block lengths are met. If the
street alignment shifts, which is likely, the block standards must still be met. Modifications to the
location of streets and blocks can occur through the rezoning and subdivision process, but newly
aligned blocks, zones, and streets must still meet similar standards to those which were used to
develop the FLUM.
Comment #6: How does this code work with the Housing Code and the City’s regulation of rental
housing?
Staff Response:
The zoning code does not regulate if a dwelling unit is owner-occupied or a rental unit. However,
all rental units within the City need to comply with the Title 17, Chapter 5 Housing Code. There
are portions of the housing code that reference the zoning code and staff will review the code to
identify any necessary amendments to ensure compatibility between the two codes.
July 1, 2021
Page 4
Comment #7: Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be
incorporated into open space areas
Staff Response:
Planning staff relies on the expertise of Parks and Recreation and Forestry staff when it comes
to landscaping requirements. The City aims for a higher diversity of species, both native and well-
behaved non-natives, in order to create a more resilient urban forest. The code requires diversity,
specifically it states:
Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one species and
maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the Director.
Some natives also do not work well as street trees, which this code requires. Instead of
requiring native plantings, staff recommends requiring a diversity of species and ongoing
coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department in the review of landscaping plans to
ensure that the species are diverse and work well in the Iowa City environment.
As for stormwater, Planning staff relies on the expertise of Public W orks staff, who ensure
compliance with the City’s stormwater management regulations. Staff wanted to provide the
option to incorporate stormwater management facilities into civic spaces. However, there may
be situations where stormwater management cannot be accommodated through civic spaces.
Therefore, staff included this in the draft code as an option, but not a requirement.
Comment #8: Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials
Staff Response:
The draft code helps achieve sustainability goals through standards which provide compact,
pedestrian- and bike-friendly development. For example, reduced block lengths make it easier for
pedestrians to navigate the area and as it develops, transit will also become a viable mode of
transportation. In addition, ensuring a diversity of housing types and missing middle housing
allows more development on a smaller land area, reducing the amount of land consumed for
development. Since the draft code addresses sustainability through other methods, and requiring
the use of local materials could impact other important City goals such as affordability, staff does
not recommend requiring development to incorporate local materials.
Comment #9: Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarity on how the provision
of green space would be ensured
Staff Response:
There are three different ways that the draft code regulates open space:
1. 14-2H-6 Building Type Standards outlines requirements for private, on-site open space to
be used by the residents. Staff will discuss Building Type Standards at the July 15 meeting.
2. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the comprehensive plan identifies several areas
where additional civic space/open space needs to be provided as the area develops.
Some areas will be privately owned and maintained, but must be accessible to the public.
Other areas are identified as land the City would like to acquire for additional park space.
These civic space areas will need to be developed consistent with the FLUM and 14-2H-
5 Civic Spaces through the rezoning and subdivision process.
3. The City’s Neighborhood Open Space provisions require that developers of residential
subdivisions either dedicate land to the City for public park purposes or pay a fee in-lieu
of land dedication. This is a current regulation that applies city-wide.
Figure 1 shows the amount of open space that exists within the South District. Currently, the
planning area includes Wetherby Park, Sand Prairie Park, and Sycamore Greenway. This is
approximately 20% of the land within the planning area. Additional parks adjacent to the planning
July 1, 2021
Page 5
area include Kickers Soccer Park, Terry Trueblood Recreational Area, and Napoleon Park. In
short, this area is relatively parks-rich and currently contains notably more acres of open space
per resident than any other area of the City. Figure 2 is the draft FLUM. It identifies existing open
space, areas where existing open may be expanded, new City open space, and new privately
maintained/publicly accessible open space.
Based on conversations with Parks and Recreation staff, they have identified areas where they
would like to acquire additional parkland. Specifically, they identified a need for a park and
playground area to the east of Sycamore Greenway, which is also articulated in the Parks Master
Plan (pgs 46-47). The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed multi-use trail running diagonally
to the west of Alexander Elementary School, which would ultimately connect with the Sycamore
Greenway trail. Parks and Recreation staff also identified the area along this future trail as a linear
City park space. For the rest of the area, Parks and Recreation staff expressed an interest in
collecting in-lieu fee payments due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists and needs
to be maintained by the City.
Due to the large amount of parkland that currently exists in this area and the recommendations
from Parks and Recreation staff, staff does not recommend additional civic space areas.
Figure 1. Open Space Area within the South District
Source: South District Plan, page 33
July 1, 2021
Page 6
Figure 2. Draft Future Land Use Map
Comment #10: Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial nodes
Figure 2 identifies the neighborhood nodes with a red circle. The planning area includes seven
nodes. Two of these nodes are open space areas. Four are areas proposed to be an open sub-
zone, which allows a greater variety of non-residential uses. One is the main street district, which
includes a commercial area and civic space. Each of these nodes are located within a pedestrian
shed, which is approximately a 5-minute walk to the node. Based on how the nodes have been
placed, all residents will be within a 5-minute walk to either a civic space or a commercial node.
In addition, the code allows for live-work uses in T4 zones, which also allow for a greater variety
of non-residential uses than are typically allowed in those areas.
Attachments:
A. Iowa City Area Transit Study, Overview of Proposed Changes
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Neighborhood Node
Iowa City Area Transit Study (ICATS)
Overview of Proposed Changes
Study Goals
Faster, more frequent, and more reliable service
Make transit more dependable for those who rely
on it, and an easier choice for others
Better access to areas of high need
Simplify the system to make it easier to understand
Improve communications so riders have up-to-date
information on bus location, arrival times, routes,
fares, service alerts, and access to trip planning tools
Make transit stops more comfortable and accessible
Improve coordination across transit agencies
More consistent fare and transfer policies between
Iowa City and Coralville
Route Highlights Service Highlights
Same routes days, nights, and
weekends
More direct routes, using main
roads and fewer side streets
More Saturday routes
Improved access to key retail
destinations/job centers
Reduced duplication between
Iowa City Transit, Coralville,
and CAMBUS
Faster, more direct service
Improved on-time
performance
Improved weekday evening
service
More service during mid-day
“Transit” app available to plan
trips and find your bus
Notice Some areas have longer
walks to service
Fewer one-seat rides to
UIHC on Iowa City TransitSummer 2021 Changes
Coming Soon / Next Steps
Fares &
Passes
Effective July 6, 2021
• All passes and single-ride tickets can be used
on Iowa City Transit and Coralville Transit
• Transfers allowed at all bus stops in Iowa City,
not just the interchange
• Free transfers between Iowa City Transit and
Coralville Transit
• Seniors (65+), disabled passengers, Medicare
card holders, and SEATS card holders ride for
free, any time of day
• Youth fare (5-18 yrs) reduced from $0.75
to $0.50
• 31-Day Youth Pass reduced from $27 to $16
• ICCSD students to use discounted 31-Day
Youth Pass
• Saturday Family Fare no longer offered due to
low demand
Transit
System
Effective August 2, 2021
• 11 new or modified bus routes with new
names, new schedules
• Saturday service on all routes except
Downtown Shuttle and Eastside Loop
• Consolidated routes with overlapping service
• Some bus stops consolidated to help improve
reliability and on-time performance
Evaluate on-demand
options for late evening/
overnight transportation
Improve bus stop amenities
(ie: lighted bus shelters,
benches, and trash cans)
Improve accessibility and
access to bus stops
Late 2021: First electric
buses hit the streets
Late 2021/early 2022:
Launch Sunday Service
two-year pilot
For more information visit www.icgov.org/transit, call Iowa City Transit at 319-356-5151, or email ICTransit@iowa-city.org.
Date: August 5, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner and Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner; Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Follow-up to 7/15 Commission comments on the draft form-based zones and standards
(REZ21-0005)
Introduction
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s July 15, 2021 meeting, the Commission had a few
questions and comments regarding the draft form-based zones and standards. This memo
provides a summary of those comments and staff’s response.
Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
Comment #1: Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed regulatory
incentives for voluntary affordable housing
Staff Response:
Housing is considered “affordable” if a household pays less than 30% of its gross annual income
on rental or owner housing costs. Rental costs include the combined cost of rent and selected
utilities, while homeowner costs refer to mortgage and insurance payments, and selected utilities.
Because affordable housing depends on a household’s income, it can change with every new
occupant and increase or decrease over time.
Income Limits
Most affordable housing programs are targeted towards housing that is affordable to low-income
households. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines households
as low income if they make 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI) based on their
household size. If households make less than 50% AMI, they are considered very low income,
and if they make less than 30% AMI (which is close to the poverty line), they are considered
extremely low income. Figure 1 shows 2021 income limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD.
For example, a family of four is considered low-income if they make less than $79,750 annually.
Figure 1: Income Limits
Income Category Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6
Low Income (80% AMI) $55,850 $63,800 $71,800 $79,750 $86,150 $92,550
Common Rental Limit (60% AMI) $41,880 $47,880 $53,880 $59,820 $64,620 $69,420
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $34,900 $39,900 $44,900 $49,850 $53,850 $57,850
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) $20,950 $23,950 $26,950 $29,900 $32,300 $34,700
Rental Limits
Many federal affordable housing programs use the Fair Market Rent (FMR), as calculated
annually by HUD. In general, the FMR is the amount that would be needed to pay rental costs
(rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest nature. This is
typically set at the 40th percentile of the distribution of gross rents in the metro area. Figure 2
shows the 2021 FMR limits for Iowa City as determined by HUD. As an example, a 2 -bedroom
unit with utilities included cannot cost more than $1,036 monthly, which is affordable to a
August 5, 2021
Page 2
household making $41,440 ($1,036 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 1- or 2-person
household making at least 60% AMI, or a 3-person household making at least 50% AMI.
Figure 2: Rent Limits
SRO Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR
Fair Market Rent $551 $735 $803 $1,036 $1,483 $1,794 $2,063
Affordable to HH Making… $22,040 $29,400 $32,120 $41,440 $59,320 $71,760 $82,520
Program Design
Different affordable housing programs use different income and rent limitations depending on if
and how much of a subsidy is available, and the targeted income segment. It is often only possible
to provide affordable housing to those making less than 30% AMI with deep subsidies. For
affordable housing encouraged by the proposed Form-Based Code, income limitations of 80%
AMI for owners and 60% AMI for renters imitates other affordable housing programs administered
by the City. These include HOME, CDBG, Healthy Homes, the Riverfront Crossings Affordable
Housing Requirement, Public Housing (PH), and the economic development and affordable
housing annexation policies. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program requires that
participants earn no more than 50% AMI. A few programs also allow higher incomes limits, such
as GRIP (110% AMI), UniverCity (140% AMI), and Historic Preservation grant assistance (140%
AMI). While affordable housing projects can always require lower incomes, and often do, these
are the base standards for these programs.
Rents limits for most of these programs are based on, or informed by, Fair Market Rents.
However, Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Programs instead base rents on 30%
of a given household’s income. Consistent, City-wide rent limits assist with ongoing monitoring
and administration of affordable housing programs. In the case of the PH and HCV programs,
these are funded federally to cover the costs of ongoing compliance requirements. For affordable
housing encouraged in the draft Form-Based Code, the proposed rent limitation is Fair Market
Rent. However, where a project is awarded Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through
the Iowa Finance Authority, they may use LIHTC rent limits. A separate discussion on the LIHTC
program is below.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides owners a reduction in tax liability
in exchange for providing affordable rental housing for those with limited incomes. The amount of
the credit is based on how much is invested. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the
program nationwide in conjunction with state housing finance agencies. In Iowa, the Iowa Finance
Authority (IFA) directly allocates tax credits and routinely monitor compliance.
To retain awarded tax credits, a development must rent to qualified households, keep rents
affordable, and maintain the property in good repair for 30 years. There are two sub-programs
which have different applications, compliance requirements, and levels of subsidy:
• 9% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is applied for competitively and provides the highest
level of subsidy. Applications are accepted and awarded annually.
• 4% Housing Tax Credit. This credit is awarded on an ongoing, noncompetitive basis
and provides a lower level of subsidy.
Income limits vary, but one of the following tests must be met:
1. At least 20% of units must be occupied by those making less than 50% AMI; or
2. At least 40% of units must be occupied by those making less than 60% AMI; or
3. At least 40% of units may serve households earning up to 80% AMI, as long as the
average income/rent limit in the property is 60% or less of AMI.
Often income levels are lower than those required by these tests, especially for competitive
proposals. Figure 3 shows three projects within Iowa City that were recently awarded through the
August 5, 2021
Page 3
9% tax credit process. While all provide some market rate units, most units are provided to
households at or below 60% AMI, with some units also provided to those making 40% and 30%
AMI.
Figure 3: Iowa City LITHC Projects
Developer The Housing
Fellowship
Iowa City Senior
LLC
Sand
Development
All Recent
Projects
Project Del Rey Ridge Diamond Senior
Apartments
NEX Apartments
Address 628 S Dubuque 1030 William St 671 Nex Avenue
Tenure Rental New
Construction
Rental New
Construction
Rental New
Construction
Unit Mix by Income Level
Market Rate 4 4 4 12
60% AMI 20 20 17 57
40% AMI 5 12 11 28
30% AMI 4 4 4 12
Total Units 33 40 36 109
Rent limits for LIHTC projects are based on an affordable rent for each given household income
level. Rents for each unit at a particular income level are thus theoretically affordable for the
occupant of that unit, especially in lower income units. However, a lower income occupant may
also live in a unit that is affordable to someone making 60% AMI, which may be higher than Fair
Market Rent. Figure 4 shows LIHTC rent limits. As an example, gross rent for a 2-bedroom, 60%
AMI unit cannot cost more than $1,347 monthly, which is affordable to a household making
$53,880 ($1,347 x 12 / 0.30). This means it is affordable to a 3-person family making exactly 60%
AMI. If that unit is occupied by a household with a lower income, it would be considered
unaffordable.
Figure 4: Iowa City LIHTC Rents
Eff. 1 BDR 2 BDR 3 BDR 4 BDR 5 BDR
60% AMI Unit $1,047 $1,122 $1,347 $1,555 $1,735 $1,915
40% AMI Unit $698 $748 $898 $1,037 $1,157 $1,277
30% AMI Unit $523 $561 $673 $777 $867 $957
Summary
The goal of incorporating the voluntary regulatory incentives in the draft code is to incentivize the
building of additional affordable housing in the community. Although it does not provide financial
assistance, it offsets the loss of revenue for voluntary affordable units by allowing more units or
density and decreased costs associated with parking reductions and flexibility from certain
standards. Flexibility can also be used by other affordable housing providers that do not utilize
the density bonus.
Staff has structured the proposed incentives consistent with existing affordable housing policies
administered by the City. This creates consistent expectations for owners and simplifies ongoing
monitoring requirements. While these affordable housing incentives will not solve housing
affordability in Iowa City, they will encourage the development of additional units that are
affordable to low-income households. This is especially important in an area that will be entirely
new construction, which is often unaffordable to low-income households.
August 5, 2021
Page 4
Comment #2: Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations?
Staff Response:
Gas stations are classified as a “quick vehicle servicing use” in the City’s zoning code. Table 14-
2H-3B-1: Uses of the draft code lists the permitted uses, provisional uses, and uses allowed by
special exception. Quick vehicle servicing uses are not allowed in any of the proposed zones.
Comment #3: Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code.
Staff Response:
Zoning through a Form-Based Code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built
environment is regulated. Unlike conventional, use-based codes, FBCs utilize the intended
August 5, 2021
Page 5
physical form and character of a context type, rather than use as the organizing framework of the
code. Further, FBCs regulate a series of elements not just to create a good individual building,
but a high-quality place. The terminology in FBCs reflects the intended physical form and
hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use,"
it might be called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which
includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create
vibrant walkable urbanism. For this reason, FBC also do not regulate by maximum density, which
is a change from previous use-based standards utilized by the City.
While FBCs primarily regulate the intended physical form, they regulate use secondarily. FBCs
allow a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the
intended physical form. Table 14-2H-3B-1: Uses (inserted above) provides an overview of the
uses allowed in the various zones. As is shown in the table, commercial uses, such as eating and
drinking establishments, are only allowed in the open zones (i.e T3NG-O, T4NS-O, and T4NM-
O) and the Main Street Zone (T4MS).
The draft future land use map [Attachment 1] includes a land use designation for open subareas.
The open zones align with this open subarea. The draft future land use map identifies four areas
where the open subareas are depicted; it also identifies the main street area. These are the areas
that function as walkable, neighborhood centers and allow non-residential uses. In these open
zones, the building types must comply with the base zone. For example, in a T4NS-O zone the
allowed building types include Cottage Court, Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and
Townhouse. The most likely building type for non-residential uses in this zone would be
Townhouse.
There are other instances where non-residential uses are allowed outside of the Main Street zone
and the open zones. These include home occupations and live/work uses. Home occupation
regulations will not be changed with the draft code. The draft code does include live/work as a
new use category. Live/work uses are allowed in T4NS, T4NS-O, T4NM, T4NM-O, and the T4MS
zones. Live/work uses are subject to the following use specific standards:
Specific
Use
Description General Standards
Live/Work Combines residence
and place of business
for resident(s) with
“work” typically at
ground level and
“live” on upper levels
Differs from home
occupations in that
work may be the
predominant use (ex.
outside employees, a
separate designated
entrance, signage,
window displays, etc)
• Non-residential uses limited to: sales oriented
retail, personal service oriented retail (with
some exceptions), daycare, bed and
breakfast homestays, and specified office
uses
• On-premises sales limited to goods made in
the unit.
• No clients/deliveries before 7 AM or after 10
PM
• The “live” component must be the principal
residence of at least one person employed in
the live/work unit
• Up to 3 additional outside employees
• Cannot sublet part of unit as
commercial/industrial space to someone not
living there or as residential space for
someone not working there
• Limit of 10 clients/customers day
August 5, 2021
Page 6
Correspondence to Date
Staff has received some correspondence from stakeholders regarding the proposed amendment
to the South District Plan and the draft form-based code. You can find those comments in
Attachment 2. Staff will continue to collect comments and share those with the Commission.
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachments:
1. Draft South District Future Land Use Map
2. Correspondence received as of July 29, 2021
Date: August 19, 2021 [Attachments 4, 5, & 6 Updated September 10, 2021]
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Neighborhood and Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005) to adopt form-based standards for new
development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and District Plans
Introduction
At the Commission’s July 1 and July 15 meetings, staff presented a comprehensive overview of
the proposed Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005), which will apply a form-based zoning
code to a portion of the South District (see Figure 1). On August 5, the Planning and Zoning
Commission had another opportunity to ask questions of staff related to the proposed
amendment. During these meetings the Commission brought up several questions and concerns.
Questions included transit availability, affordable housing, parking minimums, and open space,
among others. Staff responded to these questions in multiple memos (see Attachments 1-3). Staff
also incorporated comments from the Commission into a summary spreadsheet, along with other
comments received on the draft (see Attachment 6).
At the August 19 meeting, staff will ask the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed
Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0005) to the City Council.
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
August 19, 2021
Page 2
Background
The South District Plan guides the growth and development for a large amount of undeveloped
land. To help manage new development in these areas, the Plan recommends that the City
consider a form-based code to ensure that a true mix of housing at compatible scale can be
achieved. A form-based code can also encourage the development of compact and connected
neighborhoods. The City has worked with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form-
based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District (the study area is shown in
Figure 1). Through this process, staff also determined that amendments to the South District Plan
were necessary before the City could consider adoption of a form-based code (CPA21-0001).
The Zoning Code is one of the City’s primary tools to implement its Comprehensive and District
Plans by providing rules for how land can be used and developed, including what structures can
be built where. A form-based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built
environment is regulated in Iowa City. While the City’s current Zoning Code provides flexibility for
new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with
land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use-
based codes, form-based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than
use, as the organizing framework. Form-based codes also regulate elements to create a high-
quality place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended
physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be
called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a
mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant
walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a
change from the City’s current use-based standards. Form-based codes still regulate use
secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the
intended physical form.
In addition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff is recommending adoption of
form-based zoning standards to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for context-specific,
walkable development that reflects Iowa City's distinct development patterns and community
character. Although this proposed amendment would only apply to a portion of the South District,
the goal is to apply it to other greenfield sites at the fringe of the community over time. The intent
of the code is to produce neighborhoods that:
• Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking;
• Will preserve important environmental resources;
• Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and
• Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points.
Staff developed the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment (REZ21-0005) to adopt form-based
standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and District
Plans. However, it also supports other goals of the City Council, especially those related to equity
and climate action, as discussed in the memo for CPA21-0001.
Overview of Stakeholder Outreach
The form-based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the
South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlined the vision
for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos
Design to assess the feasibility of a form-based code for undeveloped areas in the district with a
goal of expanding its applicability to other undeveloped areas of the city over time. Completed in
August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form-based Code Analysis included the results of
stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise for the South
District. A July 2019 residential market analysis also helped to inform the form-based standards.
August 19, 2021
Page 3
Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form-based code standards in
2019 and 2020. The City engaged approximately more than 240 people at a mix of individual
interviews, focus group meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos.
Participants included representatives from the local development community, local government
entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Staff also had
meetings with the Iowa City Community School District to better understand their future facility
needs. Figure 2 provides more detail on outreach conducted as part of this process.
Figure 2: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings
Group Date Approx.
Attendance
Focus Group Meetings (Local Builders & Development
Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors
& Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates)
April 2019 25
Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners
and Development Community
July 2019 15
Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30
Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18
Iowa City Community School District Dec 2019 5
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019
June 2020
5
Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5
Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8
City Council Joint meeting with the Iowa City Community
School District Board
Feb 2020 10
Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4
Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10
Home Builders Association June 2020 5
Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing
Draft Code Review Meetings
(Neighborhood Groups, Realtors, Landowners, etc.)
Ongoing
Amendment Framework
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code is consistent with and intended to implement the
recent amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). The South District future land use
map (see Attachment 4) created new land use designations which directly align with the proposed
Form-Based Zones in the amendment.
The proposed code amendment (Attachment 5) includes changes to several chapters of the
Zoning Code (Title 14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the
Form-Based Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site
Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). Staff also proposes amending Title 15 (Land
Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form-based standards. While the Planning
and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, they are
summarized in this memo so the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work
together towards implementing the proposed standards.
Together, the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment and these proposed code amendments
should streamline the development process without compromising the breadth of review and
ensure quality design. To that end, the proposed amendment encourages closer adherence to
the future land use map in the Comprehensive and District Plans by better defining consistency
with planning documents.
August 19, 2021
Page 4
The following list summarizes the most substantive differences between the current and
proposed codes:
1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, except in the main street area, requires at least
two different building types. For example, a block could not have all single-family homes.
At least one of the lots must contain a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone.
2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of
frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure visual variety along the streetscape.
3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required except along the proposed main street area.
However, parking must be set back from the front façade of the building.
4. Parking Ratios: The required minimum amount of parking has been reduced slightly.
5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units
(ADUs), granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The
current code only allows ADUs in conjunction with single-family homes.
6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way.
7. Block Length: Block lengths are shorter depending on the zone to ensure a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths.
8. Design Sites: A new term “design sites” has been incorporated into the draft. A design site
is an area of land that generally accommodates one primary building type. A platted lot
may contain multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional
platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted.
9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the current code which includes minimum lot size
requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width
standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development.
10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also
identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Affordable Housing: The code does not include an affordable housing requirement, but it
does include regulatory incentives (e.g. more units, height bonuses, etc.) for affordable
housing that is provided voluntarily.
12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be
submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types
on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The
Neighborhood Plan will be used to track landscaping, civic space, building types, and other
code requirements.
A comprehensive overview of the proposed amendment is outlined below.
Comprehensive Overview of Proposed Amendment
TITLE 14: ZONING CODE
Title 14, Chapter 2, Article H – Form-Based Zones and Standards
Article H (Form-Based Zones and Standards) sets forth standards for neighborhood design,
building form, and land use within Form-Based Zones. It is a new Article to the Zoning Code and
contains the bulk of changes to be reviewed. For clarity, staff integrated many of those changes
in the final draft into other existing sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. This
consolidated redundant and conflicting provisions.
August 19, 2021
Page 5
Section 1 – Introduction (14-2H-1)
14-2H-1A: Intent
This section introduces the form-based code and how it will implement the community's vision in
the Comprehensive Plan by ensuring that development reinforces the character and scale of Iowa
City's urban centers, neighborhoods, and corridors with a mix of housing, civic, retail and service
uses in a compact, walkable, and transit-friendly environment. Specifically, the standards are
intended to:
• Improve the built environment and human habitat;
• Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi-modal transportation
options, including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit;
• Reduce vehicle traffic and support transit by providing for a mixture of land uses, highly
interconnected block and street network, and compact community form;
• Provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and levels of affordability and
accessibility to serve the needs of a diverse population;
• Promote the health and sustainability benefits of walkable environments;
• Generate pedestrian-oriented and pedestrian-scaled neighborhoods where the
automobile is accommodated but does not dominate the streetscapes;
• Reinforce the unique identity of the City and build upon the local context, climate, and
history; and
• Realize development based on the patterns of existing walkable neighborhoods.
14-2H-1B: Zoning Districts
The form-based code includes five new Form-Based Zones. The naming is based on a spectrum
of context types as listed in Figure 3, derived from the model transect for American communities.
Six individual transects are each given a number: Natural (T1), Rural (T2), Walkable
Neighborhood/Sub-Urban (T3), General Urban (T4), Urban Center (T5), and Urban Core (T6),
together with a District (D), designation for areas with specialized purposes (e.g., heavy industrial,
transportation, or university districts, among other possibilities). Higher numbers designate
progressively more urban environments, and lower numbers designate less urban and natural
environments. These transects were used to help structure the proposed future land use map for
the South District Plan.
Figure 3: Natural to Urban Transect
August 19, 2021
Page 6
Because the proposed amendment is initially being adopted for greenfield locations on the edge
of Iowa City, it includes only designations from the T3 Sub-Urban and T4 General Urban
transects. Specifically, the Form-Based Zones (described in more detail in Section 2) are:
• T3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE)
• T3 Neighborhood General (T3NG)
• T4 Neighborhood Small (T4NS)
• T4 Neighborhood Medium (T4NM)
• T4 Main Street (T4MS)
The reference to Form-Based Zones should not be confused with the Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed Use District Form Based Development Standards, which are regulated through
Title 14, Article G.
14-2H-1C: Applicability
The standards in this Article apply to development on land rezoned to a Form-Based Zone. This
is primarily intended to apply to new development. Table 14-2H-1C-1 on page 4 of the proposed
code amendment (Attachment 5) provides a thorough summary of how this Article interacts with
other standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code), Title 15 (Land Subdivisions), and Title 18 (Site Plan
Review).
14-2H-1D: Rezoning to Form-Based Standards
Rezoning to a form-based zone follows the same process for any other rezoning, but with defined
approval criteria that provide higher levels of predictability for the community and developers.
Where a proposed development generally matches what is shown in the future land use map of
the Comprehensive Plan, including the location and type of proposed uses, streets, and civic
spaces, then the development substantially complies. However, development may vary from the
future land use map as long as the rezoning criteria in the code are met. Rezoning approval
criteria include:
• Conditions have changed, the proposed modification of the future land use map is in the
public interest, and the change is necessary based on criteria such as the presence of
sensitive areas or other situations discussed in the code;
• Zones are organized to respond appropriately to the various site conditions, including
intensity of uses and provision of a neighborhood node;
• There is an appropriate transition between neighborhood Form-Based Zones; and
• The design suits specific topographical, environmental, site layout, and design constraints
unique to the site.
Specifying rezoning approval criteria provides a more objective basis for analysis and helps
ensure that rezonings are substantially consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans. As
development continues through the subdivision, site plan, and building permit processes,
standards will be reviewed to ensure compliance.
14-2H-1E: Neighborhood Plan
The proposed code requires submittal of a Neighborhood Plan at the time of a final plat
application. The Neighborhood Plan ensures compliance with building and frontage type mix,
location of civic space, and other requirements of the proposed code. Staff will use this plan to
check compliance with the code as the area begins to develop. If circumstances change and
developers wish to update the plan, such as changing building types, those changes can be
reviewed by staff for compliance with the zoning code upon submission of an updated
Neighborhood Plan.
August 19, 2021
Page 7
Section 2 – Zones (14-2H-2)
14-2H-2A through 14-2H-2B: Purpose and Sub-Zones
This section provides standards for Form-Based Zones including general building and lot
characteristics (including height limits), allowable frontage types, permitted sub-zones, and the
amount and location of parking. The proposed neighborhood Form-Based Zones (T3NE, T3NG,
T4NS, and T4NM) are intended to provide a walkable neighborhood environment supporting and
within short walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail and services. The T4 Main Street
zone is intended to provide a walkable, vibrant district with neighborhood-serving ground floor
retail, food and services, including indoor and outdoor artisanal industrial businesses.
The proposed amendment also incorporates “open” sub-zones, which provide additional flexibility
near intersections to allow a neighborhood node with non-residential uses. In other words, it
allows more uses than the base zone in a way that is consistent with its form and character, and/or
more easily allows certain uses that are already allowed in the base zone.
As compared to the City’s current standards, T3 Form-Based Zones are more similar to single-
family (RS) zones, neighborhood T4 zones are more similar to multi-family (RM) zones, and the
T4MS zone and open subzones tend to be more similar to neighborhood commercial zones.
14-2H-2C through 14-2H-2G: Form-Based Zone Summary
In the proposed Form-Based Zones, the amount and location of parking is dictated by each zone.
One moderate change in this regard is that minimum required parking spaces tend to be equal to
or less than those for current zones. In addition, parking must be set back further from front street
lot lines than the building, which helps avoid large areas of garage doors with blank facades. For
example, in a T3 Neighborhood General zone, the majority of the primary building must be set
back 20 to 30 feet from the front lot line whereas parking must be set back at least 40 feet. This
should improve the quality of the streetscape, which is comprised of both the public realm and
the private realm.
Other characteristics of Form-Based Zones are described in Figure 4. To understand where
different zones may be appropriate, refer to the proposed South District future land use map
(Attachment 4). Generally, Form-Based Zones that allow a higher intensity of uses are
concentrated along major streets and intersection, neighborhood nodes, and along single-loaded
streets or open space.
August 19, 2021
Page 8
Figure 4: Zone Summary
Zone Building Characteristics Building Types Lot Characteristics Frontage Types Sub-Zones
14-2H-2C:
Transect 3
Neighborhood
Edge
(T3NE)
• House-Scale
• < 2.5 Stories
• Detached
• Footprint: small-to-large
• Low-Intensity Residential
House Large
Duplex Side-by-Side
Cottage Court
• Design Sites: small-to-
large
• Front Setbacks:
medium-to-large
• Side Setbacks: medium
Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
None
14-2H-2D:
Transect 3
Neighborhood
General
(T3NG)
• House-Scale
• < 2.5 Stories
• Detached
• Footprint: small
• Low-Intensity Residential
House Small
Duplex Side-by-Side
Duplex Stacked
Cottage Court
Multiplex Small
Townhouse
• Design Sites: small-to-
medium
• Front Setbacks: medium
• Side Setbacks: medium
Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
Open
(T3NG-O)
14-2H-2E:
Transect 4
Neighborhood
Small
(T4NS)
• House-Scale
• < 2.5 Stories
• Detached and Attached
• Footprint: small-to-
medium
• Moderate intensity
Residential
Cottage Court
Multiplex Small
Courtyard Building Small
Townhouse
• Design Sites: small-to-
medium
• Front Setbacks: small-
to-medium
• Side Setbacks: small-to-
medium
Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
Open
(T4NS-O)
14-2H-2F:
Transect 4
Neighborhood
Medium
(T4NM)
• Primarily House-
• Scale
• < 3.5 Stories
• Detached and Attached
• Footprint: medium
• Moderate Intensity
Residential
Multiplex Large
Courtyard Building Small
Townhouse
• Design Sites: medium
• Front Setbacks: small
• Side Setbacks: small
Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
Forecourt
Terrace
Open
(T4NM-O)
14-2H-2JG:
Transect 4 Main
Street
(T4MS)
• Block-Scale
• < 3.5 Stories
• Attached
• Footprint: medium-to-large
• Moderate Intensity Mixed-
Use
Townhouse (stacked)
Courtyard Building Large
Main Street Building
• Design Sites: medium
• Front Setbacks: small-
to-none
• Side Setbacks: small-to-
none
Dooryard
Stoop
Forecourt
Maker Shopfront
Shopfront
Terrace
Gallery
Arcade
None
August 19, 2021
Page 9
Section 3 – Use Standards (14-2H-3)
14-2H-3A through 14-2H-3B: Purpose and Allowed Uses
This section describes standards for the location, design, and operation of uses to assure they
are developed consistently with the purpose of the zone where they are allowed. It does so
through two tables that describe allowable primary and accessory uses. Compared to current
zones, the use tables better incorporate missing middle housing types.
Table 14-2H-3B-1 (Uses) in the code indicates whether a principal land use is permitted for each
zone by right, with provisions subject to certain standards, or by special exception subject to
Board of Adjustment approval. Specific land uses are grouped into use categories and subgroups.
Cross-references are provided to applicable specific standards for each use.
Table 14-2H-3B-2 (Accessory Uses) in the code indicates whether an accessory use is allowed
for each zone. Again, cross-references are provided to applicable standards for each use. In many
cases, accessory uses continue to be guided by the current accessory use standards in Section
14-4C-2.
14-2H-3C: Standards for Specific Uses
Two new uses that are not part of the City’s current code are also defined in this section, including
new standards: Community Gardens and Live/Work. They are described in Figure 5.
Figure 5: New Specific Uses
Specific Use Description Standards
Community
Gardens
Land cultivated by multiple
users for fruits, vegetables,
plants, flowers, or herbs
Also a civic space type
• On-site retail is only allowed for produce grown
on-site.
• Limited structures are allowed (stands to sell
produce, small storage sheds, greenhouses,
and other small hardscape areas and
amenities).
• Outdoor storage of tools and materials it not
permitted.
Live/Work Combines residence and
place of business for
resident(s) of the unit with
“work” functions typically at
ground level and “live”
functions on upper levels.
Differs from home
occupations in that work
may be the predominant
use with outside
employees, a separate
designated entrance,
signage, and other features
not custom in residential
units (e.g. window displays;
food handling, processing,
or packing; etc)
• Non-residential uses are limited to the
following: sales oriented retail; certain personal
service oriented uses; daycare uses; bed and
breakfast homestays; and certain office uses.
• No clients/deliveries before 7 AM or after 10
PM.
• On-premises sales limited to goods made in
the unit.
• The “live” component must be the principal
residence of at least one person employed in
the live/work unit.
• Cannot rent or sell part of the live/work unit as
commercial/industrial space to someone not
living on premises or as residential space for
someone not working in the same unit.
• Up to 3 additional outside employees.
• Limit of 10 clients/customers per day.
August 19, 2021
Page 10
Section 4 – Site Standards (14-2H-4)
14-2H-4A: Purpose
This section describes screening, landscaping, and parking standards to ensure development
makes a positive contribution to the development pattern of the area.
14-2H-4B: Screening
Standards for screening, fences, and walls help conserve and protect property, assure safety and
security, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and improve the visual environment of the
neighborhood. In general, screening cannot exceed 4 feet on front and side streets and 8 feet on
side and rear lot lines. Some Form-Based Zones, like T4MS, don’t allow fencing or free standing
walls. If mounted on a retaining wall, the total screen height cannot exceed 6 feet. Barbed and
razor wire is not allowed.
Mechanical equipment must also be screened. Generally, building parapets or other architectural
elements must screen roof-mounted equipment with exceptions for solar equipment and taller
vents. For existing buildings with no or low parapet heights, an opaque screen wall must surround
mechanical equipment with paint, finish, and trim cap detail that matches the building. For wall-
and ground-mounted equipment, it cannot be between the face of the building and the street.
14-2H-4C: Landscaping
Landscaping must be installed as part of the development and may include shrubs, street trees,
ground cover, and some limited decorative non-living landscaping materials (i.e. sand, stone,
water, etc.). Tree diversity is reinforced by only allowing up to 5% of any single species and 10%
of any single genus, to be spatially distributed over the site, and mature on-site trees should also
be incorporated into the landscaping. In addition, shrubs and ground cover should avoid large
monoculture plantings. Landscaped areas must be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a
wall or curb, and they must be maintained after planting in a neat, clean and healthy condition,
including pruning, mowing, weeding, litter removal, watering, and replacement when necessary.
14-2H-4D: Parking and Loading
Parking and loading standards establish requirements to help reduce motor vehicle trips. The
amount and location of on-site parking is determined by each Form-Based Zone. Parking lots
must generally include a five-foot sidewalk between the building and parking area and a
landscaped area for larger parking lots. Tandem parking is allowed in all Form-Based Zones. For
residential uses, both stacked spaces must belong to a single dwelling unit. For non-residential
uses, tandem parking must be subject to on-site parking management. On-site parking must have
appropriate vehicular access to a street or an alley such that parking spaces are accessed from
an on-site driveway, aisle, or a public alley or rear lane. On-site loading spaces are not required
in Form-Based Zones, and parking for larger commercial vehicles must meet special standards.
Portable cargo or freight storage containers may only be parked temporarily for loading or
unloading. Inoperable or unlicensed vehicles and trailers must be parked indoors.
Form-Based Zones also have standards to help minimize traffic. Carshare spaces are required
where there are 50 or more residential units or at least 10,000 square feet of office space, to be
made available to a carshare service at no cost. For office uses, 10% of spaces must be for
carpooling if there are more than 10 parking spaces. Where provided, carpool parking spaces
must be in preferred locations, such as near building entries. Bicycle parking is also required for
buildings with three or more dwelling units.
August 19, 2021
Page 11
Table 14-2H-4D-3 (Required Parking Lot Landscaping) identifies landscaping, fencing and
screening standards for parking areas in collaboration with the standards of Section 14-2H-4B
(Screening) and Sub-Section 14-2H-4C (Landscaping). Parking lot landscaping must include a
specified amount of landscaped medians and percentage of landscape coverage. Landscaping
requirements increase with the number of parking spaces. Parking lots larger 0.25 acres must be
broken into smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas to minimize the perceived scale.
Trees are also required based on the site area and building footprint. Where solar panels are
installed over a parking area, tree standards may be waived and shrubs and ground cover be
planted instead. Parking and loading areas in the T4MS zone must generally be screened from
adjacent zones by a wall, fence, or evergreen.
14-2H-4E: Adjustments to standards
This section describes flexibility for certain standards, to be processed as part of the preliminary
and final plat processes or as minor adjustments during site plan and/or building permit review.
Minor adjustments may be approved where findings as identified in the code are met, up to the
allowable maximum adjustment. Figure 6 summarizes allowable adjustments.
Figure 6: Allowable Minor Adjustments
Standard
Modified
Amount Required Findings
Modify design
site depth/
width standards
10% of
standard
• Accommodates an existing feature
• An existing or new design site can still be developed in
compliance with the zone standards
Modify amount
of façade in
façade zone
20% of
standard
• Accommodates an existing feature
• The development is visually compatible with adjacent
development and the intended physical character of the
zone
Modify building
main body or
wing depth/
width
10% of
standard
• Accommodates an existing feature
• The wing(s) maintains a 5' offset from the main body
• The building complies with the setbacks
• The development is visually compatible with adjacent
development and the intended physical character of the
zone
Modify front
parking setback
10% of
standard
• Accommodates an existing feature
• If accessed from the street, the driveway complies with the
zone standards
• Ground floor space complies with zone standards
Modify screen
height
Up to 33%
of the
standard
• Little to no impact on the adjoining properties.
• Height is necessary to achieve the objectives of the sub-
section or is required for health and safety
Flexibility for
affordable
housing
Depends on
request; see
Section 10
• Request is reasonably required to provide affordable
housing
• Other specific standards depending on the request
August 19, 2021
Page 12
Section 5 – Civic Space Type Standards (14-2H-5)
14-2H-5A through 14-2H-5B: Purpose and General Standards
This Section establishes standards for civic spaces, which is public or private land used for civic
gathering purposes. Where accepted by the City, civic spaces may help meet Neighborhood
Open Space Requirements pursuant to Chapter 14-5K. Civic spaces must comply with these
standards and the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies intended
locations for such space.
14-2H-5C through 14-2H-5J: Civic Space Types
The general characteristics of each civic space type is summarized in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Civic Space Type Summary
Civic Space Type Description Allowable Zones
14-2H-5C:
Greenway
A linear space 3 or more blocks in length for community gathering,
bicycling, running, or strolling, defined by tree-lined streets typically
forming a one-way couplet on its flanks and by the fronting buildings
across the street. Versions may have a street only on one side in
response to site conditions that prevent the one-way couplet.
Greenways serve an important role as a green connector between
destinations and are often used for passive recreation.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-5D:
Green
A large space available for unstructured and limited structured
recreation. Primarily defined as planted areas with paths to and
between recreation areas and civic buildings, they are spatially
defined by tree-lined streets and adjacent buildings.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-5E:
Plaza
A community-wide focal point primarily for civic purposes and
commercial activities. They are generally more formal and urban in
nature with hardscaped and planted areas. Spatial definition is
achieved by buildings and tree-lined streets.
T4MS
14-2H-5F:
Pocket
Park/ Plaza
A small-scale space, serving the immediate neighborhood, available
for informal activities in close proximity to neighborhood residences,
and civic purposes, intended as intimate spaces for seating or
dining.
All zones
14-2H-5H:
Playground
A small-scale space designed for the recreation of children. They
serve as quiet, safe places protected from the street, typically in
locations where children do not have to cross major streets. An open
shelter, play structures, or interactive art and fountains may be
included. Playgrounds may be included in all other civic space types.
All zones
14-2H-5I:
Community
Garden
A small-scale space designed as a grouping of garden plots
available to nearby residents for small-scale cultivation. Typical uses
include food production, passive recreation. Community gardens
may be fenced and may include a small accessory structure for
storage. Community Gardens may be included within all other civic
space types. Additional standards are in 14-2H-3C.
All zones
14-2H-5J:
Passage A pedestrian pathway that acts as a thoroughfare type, extending
from the public sidewalk into a civic space and/or across the block
to another public sidewalk. The pathway is lined by non-residential
shopfronts and/or residences. Passages tend to me a more formal,
urban civic space type with a combination of hardscape and
landscape planters, including trees and shrubs in planters.
Accessory structures are not allowed.
All zones
August 19, 2021
Page 13
Section 6 – Building Type Standards (14-2H-6)
14-2H-6A through 14-2H-6B: Purpose and General Standards
This section provides standards for the development of individual buildings. They are categorized
into house-scale buildings, typically ranging from 25 feet up to 80 feet wide, and block-scale
buildings, which are individually or arranged together along a street as large as most of a block
or all of a block. Allowable types are determined based on the intended physical character of each
Form-Based Zone. Except in the T4MS zone, at least two different building types are required
within each block. Most building types require at least one frontage type along the front street,
side street or a civic space.
The lot/design site size standards for each building type, including both minimum and maximum
sizes, are set in each Form-Based Zone. Most lots/design sites can only contain one primary
building type. However, some (such as the Carriage House, Cottage Court, and Courtyard
Building Small, or Courtyard Building Large types) may have more than one building.
Building types also regulate the size of structures allowed on each lot/design site. Buildings
consist of a main body, consistent with the standards in each building type, and they may also
include additional wings. Unlike the City’s current standards based on minimums, the proposed
standards help ensure that the scale of the buildings remain consistent with adjacent properties.
14-2H-6C through 14-2H-6N: Building Type Summary
The characteristics of each building type is summarized in Figure 8.
August 19, 2021
Page 14
Figure 8 Building Type Summary
Building Type Number of Units Description Maximum Width Allowable Zones & Height
Frontage Types
14-2H-6C:
Carriage
House
1 per building;
1 building per site
Accessory house-scale structure at the rear of a design
site, above the garage, that provides a small accessory
apartment, home office space, or other small commercial
or service use.
32’ (body) All zones:
2 stories
None
14-2H-6D:
House
Large
1 per building;
1 building per site
Medium-to-large-sized detached house-scale building with
medium-to-large setbacks and a rear yard in low-intensity
neighborhoods.
95’ (55’
body + 2 x
20’ wings)
T3NE:
2.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
14-2H-6E:
House
Small
1 per building;
1 building per site
Small-to-medium-sized detached house-scale building
with small-to-medium setbacks and a rear yard in low-
intensity neighborhoods.
75’ (35’
body + 2 x
20’ wings)
T3NG:
2.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
14-2H-6F:
Duplex
Side-by-
Side
2 per building;
1 building per site
Small-to-medium-sized detached house-scale building with
small-to-medium setbacks and a rear yard in lower-intensity
neighborhoods. Consists of two side-by-side units in a
single massing, both facing streets. The lot may be under
one owner or two (as attached single-family units).
48’ (body) T3NE &
T3NG:
2.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
14-2H-6G:
Duplex
Stacked
2 per building;
1 building per site
Small-to-medium-sized detached house-scale building
with small-to-medium setbacks and a rear yard. The
building consists of two stacked units, both facing the
street and within a single building massing. This type has
the appearance of a small-to-medium single-family home
and is scaled to fit within lower-intensity neighborhoods.
66’ (36’
body + 2 x
15’ wings)
T3NG:
2.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
14-2H-6H:
Cottage
Court
1 per building
(up to 3 in rear
cottage);
3-9 buildings per
site
A grouping of small, detached buildings arranged to define
a shared court open to the street. The shared court is
common open space and takes the place of a private rear
yard as an important community-enhancing element. This
type is scaled to fit within low-to-moderate-intensity
neighborhoods and in non-residential contexts.
40’ (rear
cottage)
T3NE,
T3NG, &
T4NS:
1.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
14-2H-6I:
Multiplex
Small
3-6 per building;
1 building per site
Medium detached house-scale building with side-by-side
and/or stacked units, typically having one shared entry or
individual entries along the front. It appears like a medium-
sized single-family house
90’ (50’
body + 2 x
20’ wings)
T3NG &
T4NS:
2.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
August 19, 2021
Page 15
and fits as a small portion of low- to moderate-intensity
neighborhoods
14-2H-6J:
Multiplex
Large
7-12 per building;
1 building per site
Medium-to-large house-scale detached building with side-
by-side and/or stacked units, typically having one shared
entry or individual entries along the front for ground floor
units. This type is scaled to fit in within moderate-intensity
neighborhoods or as a small portion of lower-intensity
neighborhoods.
100’ (60’
body + 2 x
20’ wings)
T4NM:
3.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Stoop
Forecourt
Terrace
14-2H-6K:
Townhouse
1 per building
(3 in T4NM-O &
T4MS);
1 building per
design site
(3 in a row in
T3NG or 8 in T4
zones)
Small-to-large, typically attached, building with a rear yard
that consists of side-by-side townhouses. This type may
also be detached with minimal separations between
buildings. Each townhouse consists of 1 unit or, up to 3
stacked units in higher intensity zones. This type is typically
in moderate-to-high intensity neighborhoods, or near a
neighborhood main street.
Per Row:
T3NG: 90’
T4NS: 120’
T4NM: 100’
T4MS: 200’
T3NG &
T4NS:
2.5 stories
T4NM &
T4MS:
3.5
stories:
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Dooryard
Stoop
Terrace
14-2H-6L:
Courtyard
Building
Small
10-16 per site;
2 buildings per
site
House-scale building with attached and/or stacked units,
accessed from a shared courtyard. The shared court is
common open space and takes the place of a rear yard.
This type is typically integrated as a small portion of lower-
intensity neighborhoods or more consistently into
moderate-to-high-intensity neighborhoods.
100’
(body)
T4NS:
2.5 stories
T4NM:
3.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Stoop
Terrace
14-2H-6M:
Courtyard
Building
Large
18-24 per site;
3 buildings per
site
Block-scale building with attached and/or stacked units,
accessed from one or more shared courtyards. The shared
court is common open space. This type is typically
integrated into moderate-to-high-intensity neighborhoods
and on Main Streets contexts.
100’
(body)
T4MS:
3.5 stories
Projecting Porch
Engaged Porch
Stoop
Shopfront
Terrace
Gallery
14-2H-6N:
Main Street
Building
As limited by
Building Code;
1 building per site
Small-to-large block-scale building, typically attached,
which provides a vertical mix of uses with ground-floor
retail, office or service uses and upper-floor service or
residential uses. This type makes up the primary
component of neighborhood and downtown main streets,
therefore being a key component to providing walkability.
200’
(body)
T4MS:
3.5 stories
Dooryard
Stoop
Forecourt
Maker Shopfront
Shopfront
Terrace
Gallery
Arcade
August 19, 2021
Page 16
Section 7 – Architectural Elements Standards (14-2H-7)
14-2H-7A through 14-2H-7B: Purpose and Overview
This section helps ensure visually interesting, safe, attractive, and pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods, in conjunction with building and frontage type standards. Generally, they apply to
facades on a street or civic space. On corner buildings, front and side street facades must have
equal architectural treatment. There are also glazing requirements with ground floor residential
requiring at least 30% glazing and shopfronts requiring at least 75% glazing. In addition, stairs
must be integrated into the building space, similarly to what is required by the City’s current multi-
family site development standards.
14-2H-7C through 14-2H-7F: Architectural Elements
Figure 9 provides a summary of each architectural element and when that treatment is applied.
Figure 9: Architectural Element Summary
Architectural Element Description Applicability
Tripartite
Façade
Articulation
Tripartite architecture uses architectural
elements to delineate the base, middle
and top. The ground floor façade
composes the base. The building
element and features above or including
the uppermost floor (and parapet walls
and eaves), compose the top.
Building of at least 2 stories
Architectural
Recessions
Architectural recessions modulate the
apparent size and scale of a building by
recessing a portion(s) of the facade from
the plane(s). They may include a
recessed entry, a loggia or recessed
balcony cut into the plane of the facade.
Buildings of at least 2 stories and
over 50' long, except for the House
Large, House Small, Duplex Side-
by-Side, and Duplex Stacked
building types.
Corner
Element
A corner element that gives visual
importance to corner and shapes the
public realm.
Optional architectural element for
Main Street building types where
the building is over 75' long
Rooftop
Room
A small enclosed or unenclosed room
on the uppermost roof of house-scale
buildings.
Optional architectural element as
allowed by Item 3 (Building Size
and Massing) of the building type.
Section 8 – Frontage Type Standards (14-2H-8)
14-2H-8A through 14-2H-8B: Purpose and General Standards
This section establishes standards for the components of a building that provide the transition
and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (yard or
building). Each building must have at least one frontage type along the front street, side street, or
a civic space, and there must be at least 2 different frontage types within each block. Frontage
type names indicate their configuration or function, not the intended uses within the building. For
example, a porch may be used by non-residential uses including a restaurant.
The primary building entrance must be on the front of the building unless it is on a side street or
passage. Ground floor dwellings and their entrances must be connected to adjacent public rights-
of-way, to parking areas, and other on-site facilities. Access doors to individual dwelling units
above the ground floor level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway.
Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are not allowed as the primary means of
access to dwelling units located above the ground floor.
14-2H-8C through 142H-8L: Frontage Type Summary
The characteristics of each frontage type is summarized in Figure 10.
August 19, 2021
Page 17
Figure 10: Frontage Type Summary
Frontage Type Description Allowable Zones
14-2H-8C:
Porch
Projecting
The main building facade is set back from the front design site line
with a covered structure encroaching into the front setback. The
resulting setback area can be spatially defined by a fence or hedge to.
The porch may be one or two stories and is open on three sides.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-8D:
Porch
Engaged
A portion of the main facade of the building is set back from the front
design site line to create an area for a covered structure that projects
from the facade. The porch may project into the front setback. The
resulting yard may be spatially defined by a fence or hedge. The porch
may be one or two stories and may have two or three adjacent sides
that are engaged to the building with at least one side open.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-8E:
Dooryard
The main facade of the building is set back from the front design site
line, which is defined by a low wall, hedge, or other allowed screening,
creating a small private area between the sidewalk and the facade.
Each dooryard is separated from adjacent dooryards. The dooryard
may be raised or at grade.
All zones
14-2H-8F:
Stoop
The main facade of the building is near the front design site line with
steps to an elevated entry. The stoop is elevated above the sidewalk
to provide privacy along sidewalk-facing rooms. Stairs or ramps from
the stoop may lead directly to or be parallel to the sidewalk.
All zones
14-2H-8G:
Forecourt
The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line
and a portion is set back, extending the public realm into the design
site for an entry court or shared garden space for housing, or as an
additional shopping or seating area within commercial areas.
T4NM
T4MS
14-2H-8H:
Maker
Shopfront
The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line
with an at-grade or elevated entrance from the sidewalk. This type is
only allowed on side streets from the adjacent main street and is
intended for industrial artisan businesses showing their activity to
people on the sidewalk, as well as for retail sales of products made
on-site. The maker shopfront may include a decorative roll-down or
sliding door, glazing, and an awning over the sidewalk.
T4MS
14-2H-8I:
Shopfront
The main facade of the building is at or near the front design site line
with at-grade entrance along the sidewalk. This type is intended for
service, retail, or restaurant use and includes substantial glazing
between the shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may
include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk.
T4MS
14-2H-8J:
Terrace
The main facade is at or near the front design site line with steps
leading to an elevated area providing public circulation along the
facade. This type is used to provide outdoor areas along the sidewalk
for housing or to accommodate an existing or intended grade change
for retail, service or office uses.
T4NM
T4MS
14-2H-8K:
Gallery
The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site
line and an at-grade covered structure, typically articulated with
colonnade or arches, covers an area not in the right-of-way. This type
may be one or two stories. When used in nonresidential settings,
should be used in conjunction with shopfront standards; when used in
residential settings, should be used in conjunction with stoops,
dooryards, and forecourts.
T4MS
14-2H-8L:
Arcade
The main facade of the building is setback from the front design site
line and the upper floor(s) contain habitable space overlapping the
area below not in the right-of-way. When used in nonresidential
settings, should be used in conjunction with shopfront standards;
when used in residential settings, should be used in conjunction with
stoops, dooryards, and forecourts.
T4MS
August 19, 2021
Page 18
Section 9 – Thoroughfare Type Standards (14-2H-9)
14-2H-9A through 14-2H-9B: Purpose and General Standards
This section describes the range of thoroughfare types that supports the intended physical
character of each zone and ensures streets are multi-modal and interconnected to provide
multiple routes. The individual standards of each thoroughfare type may be adjusted where a
proposed adjustment supports the intended physical character of the zone abutting the
thoroughfare and maintains multiple modes of transportation (transit, pedestrians, bicycles,
automobiles), 6-foot sidewalks, on-street parking for a majority of each block face, and regularly
spaced street trees. Thoroughfare type locations are identified in the future land use map.
Planning staff worked closely with the City Transportation Planner and staff from the Department
of Public Works to develop the thoroughfare type standards.
14-2H-9C through 14-2H-9L: Throughfare Types
The characteristics of each thoroughfare type is summarized in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Thoroughfare Types Summary
Thoroughfare Type Standards Description Allowable Zones
14-2H-9C:
Main Street
with Median
100’ ROW
50’ pavement (25’ each side)
2 x 10’ traffic lanes
2 x 7’ bike lanes
2 x 8’ parking lanes
10’ median/turn pocket
Sidewalks: 20’ min.
Provides for slow traffic flow
appropriate for a main street area
with heavy pedestrian activity.
Trees should be planted every 30’
in individual planters
T4MS
14-2H-9D:
Main Street
without
Median
80’ ROW
36’ pavement width
2 x 10’ traffic lanes
2 x 8’ parking lanes
Sidewalks: 20’ min.
Provides for slow traffic flow
appropriate for a main street area
with heavy pedestrian activity.
Trees should be planted every 30’
in individual planters
T4MS
14-2H-9E:
Avenue 2
without
Parking
100’ ROW
35’ pavement (17.5’ each side)
2 x 11’ traffic lanes
2 x 6’ bike lanes
20’ median/turn pocket
Sidewalks: 6’ min. on one
side, 10’ min. on the other
Provides for slow traffic flow
appropriate for a primary street.
Trees should be planted every 30’
in a 11-15’ continuous planter.
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-9F:
Avenue 2 with
Future
Parking
100’ ROW
50’ pavement (25’ each side)
2 x 11’ traffic lanes
2 x 6’ bike lanes
2 x 7’ parking lanes
20’ median/turn pocket
Sidewalks: 6’ min. on one
side, 10’ min. on the other
Provides for slow traffic flow
appropriate for a primary street.
Trees should be planted every 30’
in a 4-8’ continuous planter.
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-9G:
Avenue 3
100’ ROW
34’ pavement width
2 x 11’ traffic lanes
2 x 6’ bike lanes
Sidewalks: 5’ min. on one
side, 10’ min. on the other
Provides for slow traffic flow
appropriate for a primary street.
Landscaping: Trees should be
planted every 30’ in a 18-24’
continuous planter.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-9H:
Avenue 4
87’ ROW
33’ pavement width:
2 x 11’ traffic lanes
11’ painted median/turn lane
Provides for free traffic flow
appropriate for a primary street.
Trees should be planted every 30’
in a 24’ continuous planter.
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
August 19, 2021
Page 19
Sidewalks: 5’ min. on one
side, 10’ min. on the other
14-2H-9I:
Neighborhood
Street 1 with
Parking both
sides.
70’ ROW
28’ pavement width
1 x 12’ traffic lane (yield)
2 x 8’ parking lanes
Sidewalks: 5’ min.
Provides for traffic flow with the
possible need to yield, appropriate
for neighborhoods. Trees should
be planted every 30’ in a 14’
continuous planter.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-9J:
Neighborhood
Street 2 with
Parking one
side
70’ ROW
26’ pavement width
1 x 18’ traffic lane (yield)
1 x 8’ parking lane
Sidewalks: 5’ min.
Provides for traffic flow with the
possible need to yield, appropriate
for neighborhoods. Trees should
be planted every 30’ in a 14’
continuous planter.
T3NE
T3NG
T4NS
T4NM
14-2H-9K:
Alley
20’ ROW
20’ pavement width
1 x 20’ traffic lane (yield)
Sidewalks: none
Provides for traffic flow with the
possible need to yield, appropriate
for immediate vehicular access to
a site. It includes a shared travel
lane with mountable shoulders
and landscaping. Unlike other
types, alleys provide secondary
access to a lot. It allows modified
lot dimensions and is required
along McCollister and S. Gilbert
unless vehicular access is
otherwise provided.
All zones
14-2H-9L:
Passage
20’ ROW
10’ pavement width:
1 x 10’ pedestrian/bike
path
Provides for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic appropriate as a
midblock crossing, or as a street
where vehicular access is
otherwise provided. It is also a
civic space and allows longer
block lengths.
All zones
Section 10 – Affordable Housing Standards (14-2H-10)
14-2H-10A through 14-2H-10C: Purpose: Eligibility and Incentive Provisions, and Definitions.
The draft code does not include an affordable housing requirement. However, around 50% of the
land within the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County and when it is
annexed it will be subject to the City’s affordable housing annexation policy. To help incentivize
the development of additional affordable housing, this section establishes regulatory incentives
that may but utilized wherever affordable housing is voluntarily provided within a Form-Based
Zone. Affordable housing provided pursuant to the City’s affordable housing annexation policy or
economic development policy (i.e. TIF) may not utilize these incentives. Incentives include:
•Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum
number of dwelling units may be increased by 25%.
•Minor Adjustments to “Zone Standards”. One of the following adjustments may be
administratively approved:
o Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up to 15’.
o Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%.
o Minimum amount of façade required within the façade zone may be reduced by up
to 20%.
•Minor Adjustments to “Building Type Standards”. One of the following adjustments
may be administratively approved:
o Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%.
o Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories.
August 19, 2021
Page 20
• Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to “Zone
Standards” and “Building Type Standards” may be administratively approved where
Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50% of less than the
area median income.
For minor adjustment to be approved the proposed adjustment must fit the characteristics of the
site and the surrounding neighborhood and demonstrate consistency with the intent of the
standard being adjustment and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
Additionally, on-site parking is not required for affordable housing, including voluntary affordable
housing and for affordable housing provided through the annexation policy or a TIF agreement.
14-2H-10D: General Requirements
This section sets administrative standards for voluntary affordable housing in Form-Based Zones,
which may be accomplished by providing one of the following:
• Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing; and/or
• Onsite renter-occupied affordable housing.
Such affordable housing must be deed-restricted as affordable housing for low- and moderate-
income occupants for a minimum of 20 years.
14-2H-10E: Owner Occupied Affordable Housing
In addition to general requirements, owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the following:
• Eligible households include those making no more than 80% area median income (AMI).
• Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of
the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types.
• Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of
affordable housing.
• Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings.
• Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on occupancy and future sales.
o Affordable owner-occupied housing must be an income-eligible household’s
primary residence and may not be rented out during the term of affordability;
o The City must verify the household’s annual income prior to sale; and
o If sold before the end of the term of affordability, the home must be sold to another
income-eligible household at either the original purchase price or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, excluding limited sales and improvement costs.
14-2H-10F: Affordable Rental Housing
In addition to general requirements, affordable rental housing must satisfy the following:
• Eligible households include those making no more than 60% AMI.
• Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of
the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types.
• Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of
affordable housing.
• Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings.
• Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on rents, occupancy, and reporting:
o Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households at HUD fair
market rents (or LIHTC rent limits if awarded by the Iowa Finance Authority);
o Household income must be verified prior to lease and annually thereafter; and
o The owner must annually verify to the City that it follows these requirements and
provide all necessary documentation.
August 19, 2021
Page 21
14-2H-10G: Administrative Rules
Administrative rules, similar to those of Riverfront Crossings, describe in more detail how
affordable housing providers must operate those units to ensure they are affordable and provided
to low income persons for the duration of their compliance period. These are adopted separately
by Neighborhood and Development Services.
Minor Miscellaneous Changes to Title 14 Zoning
As part of the proposed amendment, staff also recommends a few minor changes to
miscellaneous aspects of the code:
•Introductory Provisions, Interpretation and Scope (14-1B): adds new clarificatory
language.
•Off Street Parking and Loading Standards (14-5A): applies provisions for single-family
zones to T3 form-based zones.
•Sign Regulations (14-5B): establishes standards regarding allowable signage types and
specific requirements for Form-Based Zones; adds two new signage types which are
appropriate for walkable neighborhood areas, the porch sign and post sign.
•Outdoor Lighting Standards (14-5G): Includes T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones
in the Low Illumination District and T4MS zones in the Medium Illumination District.
•Woodland Retention and Replacement Requirements (14-5I-9C): Requires 50%
woodland retention for T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones (which is required for RS
zones) and 20% woodland retention for T4MS zones (which is required for RM zones).
•General Definitions (14-9A): Incorporate new definitions that clarify provisions of the
form-based standards. Examples include building façade, missing middle housing, half
story, and principal street frontage. These not only define new methods of regulating the
form of housing, but they also further explain important new concepts and categories in
the form-based code, including missing middle housing and how it differs from other multi-
family uses.
•Sign Definitions (14- 9C): Adds definitions for the new porch and post signage types.
TITLE 15: SUBDIVISION CODE
Title 15, Chapter 2 Plats and Platting Procedures
Changes ensure that staff can review compliance with the new form-based zoning standards
throughout the entitlement process.
15-2-2: Preliminary Plat
For preliminary plats, staff recommends amending the code to require that all preliminary plats
identify proposed non-platted design sites, thoroughfare types, civic space types, and building
types. A concept plan for any private civic space must also be submitted with the preliminary plat.
15-2-3: Final Plat
For final plats, staff recommends that submittal of a Neighborhood Plan be required as a separate
exhibit with the final plat. The Neighborhood Plan must identify the Form-Based Zones, lot and
design site lines, building and frontage types, thoroughfare types, civic space types, and
compliance with landscaping and other required provisions in the Form-Based Zones. The
Neighborhood Plan must be updated to reflect all approved adjustments as part of the building
permit and site plan review processes.
Title 15, Chapter 3 Design Standards and Required Improvements
Changes to this chapter include new development standards for subdivisions that occur in Form-
Based Zones, specifically changes to sections on streets and circulation, blocks, and lots.
August 19, 2021
Page 22
15-3-2: Streets and Circulation
The current Subdivision Code requires the continuation and extension of arterial, collector, and
local streets, sidewalks, and trails to promote connectivity. For example, arterial streets must
comply with Iowa City’s arterial street plan and all streets, sidewalks, and trails must connect
within the development and be extended to the property line. However, the proposed code
supplements these requirements in Form-Based Zones. Generally, thoroughfares must be
arranged to provide for the alignment and continuation of thoroughfares into adjoining properties
where they are undeveloped and intended for future development. Thoroughfare rights-of-way
must also be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries for each direction (north, south,
east, and west) abutting vacant land to provide a roadway connection in compliance with block
standards discussed below.
The largest proposed change for areas subject to Form-Based Zone standards is additional
guidance for the design of the street network. First, the thoroughfare network must substantially
comply with future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, including compliance with its
Thoroughfare Type standards. Where multiple thoroughfare types are allowed, the developer
must identify the selected thoroughfare type in plat documents. Thoroughfares that pass through
multiple zones may transition appropriately. For example, a thoroughfare in a more urban,
commercial zone (e.g.,T4MS) may have wide sidewalks with trees that transitions to narrower
sidewalks with a planting strip in a less urban residential zone (e.g., T4NM). Any proposed
adjustments must comply with the rezoning criteria for Form-Based Zones found at 14-2H-1.
Similarly, pedestrian passages may replace a required street if the site has vehicular access.
However, thoroughfare types on major streets (i.e. S. Gilbert Street, Sand Road SE, McCollister
Boulevard, Sycamore Street, and Lehman Avenue) may not be substituted. In addition, single-
loaded streets shown on the future land use map must continue to be adjacent to a civic or open
space even if the street alignment changes. Alleys may be added or removed in compliance with
its thoroughfare standards, except where required for vehicular access in the T4 Main Street zone.
15-3-4: Layout of Blocks and Lots
The Subdivision Code requires that all blocks be limited in size and laid out in a pat tern that
ensures street connectivity, efficient provision of services, and efficient and logical routes between
destinations. Typically, this means that block faces are 300 to 600 feet with enough width to
accommodate two tiers of lots.
However, the block network in Form-Based Zones must substantially comply with the future land
use maps in the Comprehensive Plan. Substantial compliance is defined as ensuring the location,
shape, and design of blocks is similar to that in the maps with individual blocks complying with
the block length and perimeter standards (shown in Figure 12). These standards vary by zone
where more urban zones require smaller block lengths and perimeters. Where a block contains
multiple zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the size. Blocks may exceed the
base maximums if a pedestrian passage bisects the block to provide pedestrian connectivity.
Figure 12: Block Size Standards
Zone Max. Length Max. Length with Passage Max. Perimeter Length Max. Perimeter Length with Passage
T3NE 500’ 800’ 1,600’ 2,200’
T3NG 500’ 800’ 1,600’ 2,200’
T4NS 360’ 600’ 1,440’ 1,950’
T4NM 360’ 600’ 1,440’ 1,950’
T4MS 360’ 500’ 1,440’ 1,950’
Similarly, lots must be platted in appropriate sizes to accommodate other form -based standards
including buildable area and setbacks, off-street parking, and service facilities required by the
use. However, developers in Form-Based Zones may instead use design sites which are not
platted. As long as the design site can accommodate the zone and building type standards, a lot
can contain multiple design sites. When a zone has a range of design site widths or depths for
August 19, 2021
Page 23
different building types, the applicant may choose the shortest minimum with an
acknowledgement that it may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed.
Analysis
Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics,
goals, and objectives of the community. While the City’s current Zoning Code provides flexibility
for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites
with land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Adopting a form-based
code seeks to ensure neighborhoods include a variety of housing types at different price points
with the ultimate goal to create more equitable communities. Conventional zoning also contributes
to unsustainable practices by creating neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate by anything
other than a personal car due to low densities and distance from services and amenities. This
auto-oriented pattern of development increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher minimum parking standards also assume car-ownership and increase the price of housing.
The changes are consistent with the long-term direction of City policy, especially as it relates to
goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City’s strategic goals is to “advance social
justice, racial equity and human rights”. Land use decisions can be a tool to actively promote
equity. Prioritizing a variety of housing types and price points creates opportunities for all
members of the community to live together. Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action.
As part of the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, the City has set goals to reduce carbon
emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
An important component of that goal is to improve the building and transportation systems by
creating neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars.
While form-based development standards will not fix these complicated issues, they are an
important step in implementing the City’s vision for equitable, sustainable, and walkable
communities. They reflect a context-specific approach to community character and are based on
Iowa City's distinct development patterns in its historic neighborhoods near downtown. They will
also help protect natural areas, including waterways.
Anticipated Outcomes
Due to the structure of the code, the proposed amendment will help promote, preserve, and
enhance community design and character in support of the community's vision of a community
with a variety of neighborhoods and neighborhood centers along pleasant and convenient
corridors that connect the city. Anticipated outcomes include appropriately-scaled development
for a variety of physical contexts, a diversity and wide variety of housing choices appropriate to
their location, buildings which play a role in creating a better whole, and development patterns
that support safe, effective, and multi-modal transportation options for all users and help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
In residential neighborhoods, the proposed amendment will encourage walkable neighborhood
patterns through highly interconnected networks of multi-modal streets that are safe for
pedestrians and bicycles. It will also create neighborhoods with quality housing and a diversity of
context-sensitive housing choices while protecting the character of established neighborhoods
and building upon and reinforcing the unique physical characteristics of the city's neighborhoods.
Within districts, corridors, and employment centers, the proposed amendment will lead to
neighborhood main streets as centers that act as vibrant social and commercial focal points, with
services and amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods within a safe, comfortable walking
distance of homes. New districts and centers will accommodate appropriately scaled housing,
mixed-uses, and cultural development which will balance pedestrian comfort and place-making
with traffic efficiency and encourage and accommodate high-quality community design. Through
this process, it will promote a wide variety of housing choices and small local businesses as an
important part of the City's economy. Over time, it will facilitate transitions from single-use
August 19, 2021
Page 24
employment centers to mixed-use districts that are compatible with adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment supports several goals from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan:
•Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households
of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.
•Encourage pedestrian-oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that
make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk.
•Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale
neighborhood commercial centers.
•Support preservation of valuable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas.
•Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street.
•Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks
with single-loaded street access.
Similarly, many current goals of the South District Plan align with the proposed amendment:
•Preserve environmentally sensitive features and ensure long-term stewardship for the benefit
of the neighborhood and the community.
•Consider opportunities for small neighborhood commercial or mixed use nodes at key
intersections…and encourage quality design and construction that enhances adjacent
residential or public open space areas.
•As residential development extends south toward the school, ensure multiple safe and logical
walking routes to the school, including well-marked crosswalks for schools.
The proposed amendment also is supported by three new goals recommended as part of the
concurrent South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001):
•Adopt a form-based code for the South District to encourage a diversity of housing types.
•Adopt a form-based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use
of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence.
•Adopt a form-based code that provides for a compatible mix of non-residential uses,
including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood.
In addition to being compatible with the Comprehensive and South District Plan, the proposed
amendment aligns well with other more recent policy efforts of the City, including the City Council’s
Strategic Plan, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the City’s Black Lives Matter &
Systemic Racism Resolution. In June 2020, the City adopted Resolution 20-159 outlining actions
to enhance social justice and racial equity in the community. The City also seeks to demonstrate
leadership in climate action, culminating in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. An
important component of achieving these goals is developing walkable neighborhoods with a
diversity of housing types and price points, which will be assisted with the adoption of the form-
based standards. Incorporating these elements into the Zoning Code is an essential next step
after amending City documents.
Public Comment
Staff received comments regarding the proposed Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Staff has summarized specific comments and requests, and staff responses, in
Attachment 6. Written comments received are in Attachment 7.
Based on this feedback, staff made the following changes to the public comment code draft:
August 19, 2021
Page 25
1.Allow Alcohol Oriented Retail Sales (e.g. liquor stores) only by special exception in Form-
Based Zones. This includes the T4NS-O, T4NM-O, and T4MS zones.
2.For the open zones, add limitations on operating hours for non-residential uses.
Specifically, non-residential uses shall not be open to the public between the hours of
11:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 5 to adopt form-
based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in Comprehensive and
District Plans (REZ21-0005).
Attachments
1.Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; July 1, 2021
2.Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; July 15, 2021
3.Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; August 5, 2021
4.Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan
5.Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
6.Staff’s Summary of Stakeholder Input on the Public Review Drafts
7.Stakeholder Comments Received as of August 12, 2021
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFTS - Updated 9/15/2021 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
South District Plan Amendment
Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation
1
Concern that there is a lack of transition to the existing neighborhood
(McCollister Court) on the proposed Future Land Use Map. Requested
that the proposed land use designations be changed from T4 to T3
categories.
7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff met with two members of the HOA to discuss all their concerns. Please
also see the comment letter from the HOA.
Staff incorporated transitions from existing single-family into the Future Land
Use Map in two ways: 1) designating the adjacent land T3-NE, or 2)
designating the adjacent land as new open space.
The transition proposed for the area adjacent to McCollister Court includes
an approximately 40' wide area of open space that includes an existing trail
and a proposed 70' of public right-of-way. Due to the proximity of two major
streets (S. Gilbert St. & McCollister Blvd), staff is proposing T4NM along
McCollister Blvd, which allows Multiplex Large, Courtyard Building Small, and
Townhouse building types at a max. height of 3.5 stories. North of
McCollister Blvd, staff is proposing T4NS, which allows Cottage Court,
Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building Small, and Townhouse building types at a
max. height of 2.5 stories.
Here's a summary of the building types:
Multiplex Large - allows up to 12 units (not allowed in T4NS)
Cottage Court - one-story buildings facing an interal courtyard, 3-9 units
Multiplex Small - allows up to 6 units
Courtyard Building Small - allows up to 16 units that access a shared
courtyard
Townhouse - Up to 4-8 individual townhomes per row
Additionally, the proposed land use map is not a significant change from the
current land use policy direction for this area. The current Future Land Use
Map shows this area as appropriate for Low Density Mixed Residential (8-13
No changes recommended.
2
Concern with how the plan will impact education.7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff had many discussions with the Iowa City Community School District
throughout the process. They informed staff that no additional land would be
needed in the planning area for an additional school.
No changes recommended.
3
Concern with access to emergency services.7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA The City recently purchased land for a new fire station at the intersection of
S. Gilbert St. and Cherry Avenue. Based on conversations with Fire staff,
they do not anticipate needing more land in the proposed planning area for
providing timely emergency response.
No changes recommended.
4
Would like to see indoor recreation space somewhere in the South
District.
7/27/2021 South District
Neighborhood
Association Leadership
Group
The Parks and Rec Department are about to embark on the development of
a Rec Facilities and Program Master Plan, which will analyze the needs of
indoor facilities. Public outreach is anticipated to start in the Fall of 2021 and
a representative from the South District Neighborhood Association has been
identified for the steering committee.
No changes recommended.
5
Request from land owners to remove their property from the form-based
code area.
8/3/2021 Steve Gordon & Aleda
Feuerbach
Staff does not support removing this land (south of Lehman Avenue and east
of the Sycamore Greenway) from the planning area, as it would undermine all
of the work that has gone into this planning effort over the past 2.5 years. In
order to achieve complex policy goals related to equity and sustainability, the
City needs to think about growth differently, especially at the fringe of the city.
No changes recommended.
6
Excerpts from Email Dated 8/13:
- Realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of nothing
but farmland. What wasn’t disclosed to us was the plan to eventually
develop this land in
the near future.
- We had our share of attempted break-ins. Someone dug up and stole
the bushes in our front yard. I’ve caught on camera twice someone trying
to enter our home between 2 am – 3 am. My wife and I have been struck
by a car speeding around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon.
We have a lot of speeders who use Langenberg as an arterial between
Gilbert and Sycamore.
- We are still bitter toward SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future
plans for this land. We excepted that someday we would be looking from
our back porch into someone’s backyard and would probably see a few
dozen homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago
when we learned that the plan was to build 4,000 – 8,000 livable units
along with a walkable main street with businesses in this land.
- On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the
concerns that we also share with other members of our neighborhood
association. This includes the lack of parking for the proposed condos and
apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and
McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct,
and Langenberg Ave. This will also most likely increase traffic on
Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by finishing the
McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city
has not made plans to increase emergency services.
- We learned through our neighborhood association that the
Superintendent of schools hadn’t been included in the conversations for
the expansion of the South District.
8/13/2021 Richard Stapleton See explanatory notes related to comments 1, 2, and 3.
No changes recommended.
7
Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have
reviewed the materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking
spaces being allowed for the proposed buildings. I do not approve of
allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of parking for the
proposed housing that is being proposed.
8/15/2021 Bill Neal See explanatory note 5 below under the "Revised Draft Form-Based Codees
and Standards" comments. No changes recommended.
8
I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South
District plans but in particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses
on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here before and want to
make sure our feelings are known.
Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here.
'We bought customer built houses for a reason never expecting multi
family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to many of my
neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this
goes through. Our previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on
density and types of housing seem to be gone. I may be incorrect but I
feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in
cahoots with the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate
development as I have seen many of their properties in IC in disrepair. I
don't want that in my back yard. I guess I was remiss in thinking that our
previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no one
wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on
the table. After seeing the plans, I'm assuming they are no longer
considered. I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised.
8/19/2021 Glenn Lynn See explanatory note 1.
No changes recommended.
9
Request from land owner to modify land use designations south of
Wetherby Park. This includes replacing some of the T3NE with T3NG.
9/3/2021 Southgate Staff supports this change. It is based on engineered plans provided by the
land owner and maintains a transition between the existing single-family
neighborhood to the south.
Based on this request, staff is
proposing a change to the FLUM
to the area just south of
Wetherby Park.
Revised Draft Form-Based Codes and Standards
Proposed Amendment/Questions Date Commenter Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation
1
The affordable housing plan is unlikely to result in new affordable housing
in part because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling
at Fair instead of 30% of a selected AMI
7/10/2021 Cheryl Cruise
No changes recommended.
2
HUD Fair Market Rent is volatile.
No affordable housing programs use FMR (unverified)
Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower
rents than LIHTC
7/21/2021 Cheryl Cruise
No changes recommended.
3
Concern about safety for children walking or biking to Alexander
Elementary (types of commercial uses in the Main Street, traffic calming
on Sycamore)
7/15/2021 Kelcey Patrick-Ferree Staff met with Patrick-Ferree and others associated with the South District
Neighborhood Association and discussed these concerns. No changes recommended.
4
Design sites being administratively changed after approval. 7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Regardless of being able to administratively alter design sites, developers will
be able to change proposed building types as long as the proposed type
meets the standards in the code. Staff would like to keep the proposed
flexibility in the code; however, we do not anticipate it being used often. We
anticipate most developers will plat lots that will be coterminous with design
sites (as opposed to multiple design sites on one lot).
No changes recommended.
Housing is affordable if a household spends 30% or less of its income on
housing costs. The voluntary affordable housing standards are income-
restricted to low income households (60% AMI for rentals and 80% AMI for
owners). The code offsets revenue loss by allowing more density, decreased
parking costs, and flexibility from certain standards. Staff has structured the
proposed requirements similar to the City's other affordable housing policies
to create consistent expectations and simplify ongoing monitoring. These
incentives will not solve housing affordability, but they may encourage
additional affordable units which is important in an area that will be entirely
new construction. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff
memo to P&Z, dated August 5, 2021, that follows up on questions about the
code.
5
Concern with the proposed reduction in parking.7/22/2021 Sandhill Estates HOA Staff proposed slight reductions to minimum parking standards in order to
align with important City goals, especially for non-residential uses. Where
minimum parking standards are too high, housing affordability can be
negatively impacted, which can especially affect low- and moderate-income
households which are more sensitive to the price of housing. In addition,
requiring more off-street parking encourages car dependence by making
development less compact which leads to destinations that are further away,
thus increasing the likelihood of requiring a personal vehicle. In addition,
minimum parking standards are typically more important where sufficient on-
street parking is not available. In neighborhoods on the fringe of the City, on-
street parking is almost always available on either one or both sides of the
street, which becomes underutilized in areas with higher parking minimums.
For these reasons, the draft code proposed a modest reduction in the
minimum off-street parking required. However, buildings can still provide
higher amounts of off-street parking where they feel it is necessary due to
market conditions. Additional discussion on this topic is available in the staff
memo to P&Z, dated July 15, 2021, that follows up on questions about the
code.
No changes recommended.
6
Would like to see more wayfinding signage to points of interest (parks,
main street, etc.)
7/27/2021 South District
Neighborhood
Association Leadership
Group
Staff from the MPO plan to add more bike wayfinding signs within the South
District as part of the 4-3 lane conversion of Keokuk.
Staff likes the idea of
incorporating more wayfinding
signage into new communities.
Currently, the City does not have
a comprehensive approach to
wayfinding, which may be
something that needs to be
explored as part of a separate
planning process.
7
Questions on commercial uses. Not interested in more liquor stores and
gas stations.
7/27/2021 South District
Neighborhood
Association Leadership
Group
The proposed code does not include any zones that allow gas stations.
Liquor stores would be allowed either provisionally or through a special
exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM-O, and T4MS zones. The maximum size is
capped at 1,500 sq ft.
Based on this comment, staff is
proposing two changes:
1) Alcohol sales oriented uses
(i.e. liquor stores) are only
allowed through a special
exception in the T4NS-O, T4NM-
O, and T4MS zones.
2) For the open zones, staff
recommends adding limitations
on operating hours for non-
residential uses. Specifically, non-
8
Would like to see some opportunities and some spaces that local
entrepreneurs could lease.
7/27/2021 South District
Neighborhood
Association Leadership
Group
The proposed code carries forward the City's current home occupation
standards, but it also incorporates some opportunities for live/work, which are
not provided in most other areas of the city. The code also provides areas for
neighborhood commercial. That said, the entire area will be newly
constructed and rental costs may be a factor in providing affordable spaces.
No changes recommended.
9 Consider revising parking requirements to require or incentivize Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging stations
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
10 Concern that required minimum parking standards are reduced. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
11 Concern that the fee in-lieu of affordable housing does not lead to
affordable housing.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
12 Requested clarification on how the draft code ensures a multi-modal
transportation system.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
13
Concern with the specificity of the Future Land Use Map and impacts
deviations from the map will have on how the area develops.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
14 How does the code work with the Housing Code and the City's regulation
of rental housing?
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
15 Concern that the code does not require native species or stormwater to be
incorporated into open space areas.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
16 Consider requiring development to incorporate local materials. 7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
17 Concern that the plan lacks green space and requested clarify on how the
provision of green space would be ensured.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
18 Concern that the draft code will not lead to neighborhood/commercial
nodes.
7/1/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated July 15, 2021 No changes recommended.
19 Many concerns and questions were raised regarding the proposed
regulatory incentives for voluntary affordable housing
7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended.
20 Do any of the proposed zones allow gas stations? 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended.
21 Please clarify how form and use are regulated in the draft code. 7/15/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission See staff's response in memo dated August 5, 2021 No changes recommended.
22
Parking minimums will not ensure the area has less parking; explore
parking maximums.
8/5/2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission
The draft includes parking maximums for the T4MS (main street) zone, but
not the other more residential zone districts. Staff has received other
concerns related to the slight reduction in the minimums. Staff would
recommend keeping the slight reduction, but not requiring a max for the other
T3 and T4 zones.
No changes recommended.
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, July 10, 2021 11:50 AM
To:Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann
Cc:mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov
Subject:Input regarding draft form based code
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files; Inclusionary_Housing_US_v1_0.pdf; ATT00001.txt
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Staff,
The affordable housing plan in the new draft is worth comment. It is unlikely to result in new affordable housing in part
because it is voluntary but more because of setting the rent ceiling at Fair Market Rent (which is 40‐45% AMI level)
instead of 30% of a selected AMI. You will see in the attached article that in 1,019 affordable housing plans in the
country NO ONE USES FAIR MARKET RENT for rent ceilings. 87% of plans use 51%‐80% AMI income AND rent limits. 2%
use 50% AMI income and rent limit. All others plans are higher than 80% AMI. The majority use a mixed income
approach such as 25% of affordable units at 50% AMI and 75% at 80%AMI.
HUD has issued tables for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% AMI paying 30% of income for as long as LIHTCs have existed
though the math is easy to calculate. The new draft plan continues the dichotomy of private developers using FMR and
LIHTCs using 60% AMI paying 30% of income even though the latter are highly subsidized. Using FMR for new
construction would cause rental housing owners to lose hundreds of dollars a month in addition to all the expenses for
every affordable unit produced. Agreeing to lose money for 20 years seems unlikely. The added density allowed would
all go to money losing units. Less parking would not be much incentive in out lying areas that are likely to need a car.
Inclusionary housing plans work in high growth areas where incentives and density bonus will allow market rate units to
cover the cost of the affordable units. Otherwise it will not pencil out and will not be built. (Note we are not in a high
growth area now, in fact we lost population from 2019 to 2020.) The objective of inclusionary housing is to provide for
low‐moderate income households at 60% AMI‐100% AMI who do not qualify for Federal programs. Very low and
extremely low income require a public subsidy.
Fair Market Rent should only be used for Housing Choice Vouchers, CDBG, and HOME projects. It is volatile as adjusted
annually because it is based on the 40th percentile of a tiny number of survey takers who are renting a 2 bedroom unit
and moved recently. Median income is not as volatile.
Best regards,
Cheryl Cruise
Iowa City IA
https://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2021‐01/Inclusionary_Housing_US_v1_0.pdf
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Kelcey Patrick-Ferree <kelcey.patrickferree@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 15, 2021 12:08 PM
To:AJ
Cc:Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann; Megan Alter; Jessica Bovey; Elinor Levin; Eric Harris; Tatiana Washington;
South District
Subject:Re: Revised Draft Form-Based Code Available for Public Review
Anne and Kirk,
I'm starting to look through this, but the odds of me finding time for 140 pages of highly detailed information are low.
The map on the first page has no key, so I can't tell what the plan is quickly and easily. I am glad that this level of thought
and detail is available, but find it nearly impossible to wade through in a helpful or timely fashion. Is there a better high
level summary available?
Preliminary feedback:
One thing I was able to figure out from the newspaper: Part of the plan is to build a "main street" district on the circle on
Sycamore north of Alexander Elementary. I am concerned with the idea of elementary school children having no option
but to walk through a commercial district, even a small one, on their way home from school. If it's ice cream and dry
goods shops, that's one thing. If it's more liquor stores (which seem to be proliferating at an alarming rate in our area),
that's quite another. I see on p. 82 that the uses of "Main street" areas are unrestricted. So that's a big concern for me.
I'd also like to know what traffic calming measures along Sycamore are built into this plan. People speed there, even
(and if they're late, especially) on their way to drop off kids at the elementary school. This plan appears to add housing
on the far side of Sycamore, and depending on what ICCSD does, that could mean more children having to cross
Sycamore to get to school.
TLDR: I want the plan to consider safety issues for Alexander Elementary children walking or biking to and from school.
Warm regards,
Kelcey
--
And biannual time changes must be abolished. #LockTheClock
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 21, 2021 12:00 PM
To:Anne Russett; mhensch@johnsoncountyiowa.gov; Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Public input to Planning and Zoning Commission
Commissioners,
Some of you may be unfamiliar with HUD’s Fair Market Rent. It is neither fair nor market. It is the annual calculation
by HUD of maximum rent for a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8). Each year since 2005 the American Community
Survey has gathered data from about 1.6% of local households. About half are renters. Of those some rent a 2 bedroom
unit. HUD looks at data from the 2 bedroom renters who moved recently. They may report $700/month rent or
$1500/month rent. HUD finds the 40th percentile of the 2 bedroom rents and averages it over the last 5 years and then
mathematically figures out rent for other size units. That is FMR. It is based on very few households which can make it
volatile. It may go up or down 10+% each year. It is used for government subsidized projects.
Of 1,019 affordable housing programs across the country Fair Market Rent is not used for rent ceilings. Everyone else
uses 30% of a selected AMI level. 87% use somewhere between 51% AMI and 80% AMI. 2% of programs use 50% AMI
for rent ceiling. Others are 80% AMI to 120% AMI. 60%‐100% AMI is considered low to moderate income and is the
target of non subsidized programs although incentives must be offered to insure that there is some profitability or
nothing will get built.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, and Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition all define
affordable housing as 80% AMI paying 30% of income for rent. Other than new luxury units, most Iowa City rents are
under the 80% AMI level. Many units are available for less than Fair Market Rent.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs average 60% AMI paying 30% of income. They have lots of funding subsidy.
Private developers should not be expected to produce units with lower rents than LIHTCs.
There may be “sticker shock” looking at rent amounts if you are not a renter or didn’t recently buy a house. The cost of
land, lumber, and labor have all gone up for builders. You may be shocked to look at property taxes or insurance costs or
maintenance costs on apartments even if they are old. Profits may be 4%‐8% ROI for well managed units.
I hope this information helps as you discuss the ordinance.
Best regards,
Cheryl Cruise
Iowa City IA
Sent from my iPad
This email is from an external source.
From:Sandhill Estates
To:Anne Russett
Subject:South District Plan - Letter of Concerns
Date:Wednesday, July 28, 2021 11:30:16 PM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
sandhill-estates-south-district-plan-concerns.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Hi Anne,
Attached you will find a document highlighting some concerns our Home Owners Association
and residents share regarding the South District Plan. We request you please include the
attachment in the packet provided to Planning and Zoning Commission members in advance
of the August 5th meeting. The attachment contains a letter of concern drafted by HOA
members, signatures of support from our neighborhood residents, and maps highlighting (in
yellow) those households where signatures were obtained.
We look forward to learning more about the South District Plan and to our discussion with you
on August 3rd.
Sincerely,
Robert Domsic
Director-at-Large
Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association
From:Richard Stapleton
To:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing - South District Plan Amendment & Form-Based Code
Date:Friday, August 13, 2021 6:46:38 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
08/13/2021
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
I apologize that my wife and I cannot attend the meeting on August 19, 2021, as we have other
obligations. We wanted to make sure our voices and opinions are heard regarding the zoning and
development of the South District.
We bought our home at 1153 Langenberg Ave. About five years ago when we moved to Iowa City.
We both talked and decided that we had enough of living in a city with my wife having lived steps
from North Western in Chicago and after I spent 12 years living in downtown Denver, CO. When we
talked with the realtor, we stated that we wanted a home within the city limits, but on the edge of
town away from a lot of people and we wanted a home that was move-in ready. 1153 Langenberg
was the perfect spot for us. Our realtor pointed out the view from the living and dining room of
nothing but farmland. What wasn’t disclosed to us was the plan to eventually develop this land in
the near future. For the past few years, I’ve enjoyed having coffee on my back patio and watching
the cows from the farm behind us. I’ve enjoyed watching the wildlife such as deer, foxes and in the
winter seeing and hearing the coyotes. This part of our home has been perfect. However, we
learned that this dream was just temporary about a year after we moved in. That was when we
learned that the city planned to develop the land behind us.
Not everything on Langenberg has been perfect. We had our share of attempted break-ins.
Someone dug up and stole the bushes in our front yard. I’ve caught on camera twice someone
trying to enter our home between 2 am – 3 am. My wife and I have been struck by a car speeding
around the corner on Langenberg and Covered Wagon. We have a lot of speeders who use
Langenberg as an arterial between Gilbert and Sycamore. However, the one thing that we do enjoy
is our backyard where we can escape busy city life.
We had a few years now to grieve the future loss of our safe space, and we are still bitter toward
SouthGate for not disclosing to us the future plans for this land. We excepted that someday we
would be looking from our back porch into someone’s backyard and would probably see a few dozen
homes behind us. This once again was shattered a few weeks ago when we learned that the plan
was to build 4,000 – 8,000 livable units along with a walkable main street with businesses in this
land. Our dream to get out of the city and now placed our home right in the middle of it, and we are
irate at Iowa City for this proposal. Will this hurt our property value. No, in fact, it will probably help
it. However, our safe space and sanctuary will be devastated.
On top of our personal issues regarding this development comes the concerns that we also share
with other members of our neighborhood association. This includes the lack of parking for the
proposed condos and apartments that will be built between Gilbert, Covered Wagon, and
McCollister. This will push parking up on Covered Wagon, McCollister Ct, and Langenberg Ave. This
will also most likely increase traffic on Langenberg, which the city recently attempted to reduce by
finishing the McCollister extension to sycamore. We are also concerned that the city has not made
plans to increase emergency services. The same police and fire station that services our area now
Late Correspondence
will also be responsible for the new development. This puts a burden on our existing emergency
services. In addition to these concerns, my wife and I are also concerned that the new development
and city expansion doesn’t include a plan to reduce traffic by increasing public transportation that
utilizes clean forms of energy.
Finally, we learned through our neighborhood association that the Superintendent of schools hadn’t
been included in the conversations for the expansion of the South District. My wife and I have a
two-year-old child. Prior to learning about the development, we were concerned about Alexander
Elementary School because they have already outgrown their space and from what we have heard,
has a teacher shortage. By the time this development is complete, our daughter will be in school,
and we are greatly concerned about the impact of 4,000 – 8,000 living units on an already strained
school system.
My wife and I would like to see these concerns along with the concerns listed in the letter from our
neighborhood association (SandHill Estates) before zoning for this project is approved.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Stapleton
1153 Langenberg Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52240
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:34 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
All –
The Planning and Zoning Commission will be holding a public hearing on an Amendment to the South
District Plan and the Draft Form-Based Code at their meeting next Thursday, August 19, 2021. This is
related to the City’s form-based zoning project for a portion of the South District. Many of you have
been engaged with this project over the last couple of years and we appreciate your involvement.
The meeting will be in-person at The Center – Assembly Room, 28 S. Linn Street. Masks are
required to enter City buildings.
The agenda packet for this meeting is available here: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
More information on this project is also available on our website: https://www.icgov.org/project/form-
based-zones-and-standards
Please let me know if you have any questions.
From:Bill Neal
To:Anne Russett
Subject:South District Plan
Date:Sunday, August 15, 2021 10:20:54 AM
Anne,
Just a quick note in regards to the South District Plan Amendment. I have reviewed the
materials and my biggest concern is the amount of parking spaces being allowed for the
proposed buildings. I do not approve of allowing the developer to set or reduce the amount of
parking for the proposed housing that is being proposed.
Thx
Bill Neal
828 Oxen Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
52240
From:Glenn Lynn
To:Anne Russett
Subject:City Council Meeting 8/19/21
Date:Tuesday, August 17, 2021 7:16:13 PM
Hi Anne. I will be attending the above meeting to learn more about the South District plans but in
particular the plans for the out lot behind the houses on McCollister Ct.. It seems like we have been here
before and want to make sure our feelings are known.
Many of us were given misinformation when we bought our houses here. 'We bought customer built
houses for a reason never expecting multi family buildings in our backyard. I have personally talked to
many of my neighbors and was surprised at how many are considering moving if this goes through. Our
previous efforts to work with Southgate and the city on density and types of housing seem to be gone. I
may be incorrect but I feel like this time around our voices will not be heard. Southgate, in cahoots with
the city, will do as they please. I am not a fan of Southgate development as I have seen many of their
properties in IC in disrepair. I don't want that in my back yard.
I guess I was remiss in thinking that our previous discussions had some impact on the plans. Although no
one wants any building back behind us, many had thought duplexes were on the table. After seeing the
plans, I'm assuming they are no longer considered.
I will attend the meeting hoping to be pleasantly surprised.
Glenn Lynn
725 McCollister Ct.
From:Jerry Waddilove
To:Anne Russett
Subject:Applications regarding the South District Plan
Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 6:58:46 PM
Anne,
SouthGate Companies has provided quality homes and workplaces to Iowa City and
surrounding communities since 1962. We pride ourselves on building community pride and
neighborhoods, one project at a time. Those projects have included neighborhoods in the
South District; those outside the planning area (residential just north of the planning area -
Pepperwood Addition) and one residential neighborhood within the planning area (Sandhill
Estates). Furthermore, SouthGate owns approximately 90 acres of residential development
land within the South District planning area.
SouthGate has a vested interest in the long-term health and viability of the South District as
well as other areas in Iowa City and surrounding communities. We support the initiatives of
walkable neighborhoods to inspire social interaction, small commercial nodes, access to parks,
mass transit, and providing a diverse mix of housing types to help provide more equity and
inclusion in Iowa City. We believe the proposed South District Plan can help achieve the
desired outcomes of those initiatives.
The changes proposed in the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment
are not without challenges. Single-loaded streets with housing on only one side of the street
are not economically feasible without the increased intensity shown in the future land use
map. In addition, clustered development is one solution in limiting impact on the significant
natural environment within the District. Providing land use guidance surrounding Wetherby
Park (which is 'land-locked') rolling hills throughout the South District, natural drainageways,
and traditional development is not easy. SouthGate concurs with the Transect Development
Theory as used in the Natural to Urban transitions, specifically the T3 Neighborhood Edge, T3
Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, T4 Neighborhood Medium, and T4 Main
Street Zones noted in the Code.
Any multifamily development we potentially do in this planning area will include the
consistent management, maintenance, and long-term investment we have made many times
over in the South District. On a related note, Navigate Homes (our homebuilding company)
has provided townhomes in the Cardinal Pointe West neighborhood in Iowa City, which is one
of the housing options we could provide in the South District. Those housing types have
brought young couples, medical professionals, entrepreneurs, and first-time homebuyers to
that neighborhood. The diversity of housing types noted in the South District can also provide
homes for our nurses, our firefighters, our restaurant chefs, our teachers, and other similar
professions.
Collaboration is defined by Merriam-Webster as 'to work jointly with others or together
especially in an intellectual endeavor.' SouthGate Companies strives to collaborate with the
City of Iowa City and neighbors alike in helping achieve our community's vision including
development tools to help address equity and inclusion, climate change, social interaction,
and healthy recreation. We believe the South District Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
Amendments, as proposed, can be one method in helping achieve this vision.
Sincerely,
Jerry
Jerry Waddilove
CEO / Partner
SG your way home
755 Mormon Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52246
Mobile: 319.621.0412
Office: 319.337.4195
SouthGateCo.com
Confidentiality Notice: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply
email, delete and destroy all copies of the original message.
From:Kim Palmer
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting Information - South District Plan Amendment & Form-Based Code
Date:Monday, September 27, 2021 12:14:01 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Anne and Kirk - We realize that the SouthGate property behind our house on McCollister
Ct. will one day be developed and we knew that when we built this house. We have one main
concern - that the current small buffer on each side to the sidewalks and pathways be
maintained and the trees NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED! I've done some
measuring and they appear to be within the 20-foot buffer on each side of the paths and walks.
Thanks - Kim and Lula Palmer, 803 McCollister Ct.
On 9/22/2021 9:44 AM, Anne Russett wrote:
All –
The City Council has set a public hearing for the proposed South District Plan
amendment and the associated form-based code. Here is the meeting
information:
Tuesday, October 5
6 PM
28 S. Linn Street, The Center – Assembly Room (this is subject to change,
so please check the agenda packet)
The Council agenda packet should be available the Friday before the meeting
date. You can access it here: https://www.icgov.org/councildocs.
More information on the proposal is available here:
https://www.icgov.org/project/form-based-zones-and-standards.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior PlannerShe/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251410 E Washington StIowa City, IA 52240
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 4 of 20
the height bonus to have up to six floors and are nearing completion. Welch noted he has a
couple loose ends to tie up as far as a maintenance agreement and working through a couple
minor items related to that height bonus. The site plan has been submitted and they received
their first round of review comments from City staff they have responded to and resubmitted that
plan so they are feeling they're on track there as far as having a project that staff can approve
with both the height bonus and site plan. The goal for starting construction is yet this year on
that new building and their easements are in place to cover the gap between when it's conveyed
and when those other buildings are taken down.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County
Seat Addition public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility
easement, access easement, and sanitary sewer easement, as described in the staff
report and in forms approved by the City Attorney's office.
Martin seconded the motion.
Nolte noted he was glad to hear the project is moving forward.
Signs agreed and stated it seems like this is a logical step in order to get that block redeveloped
and is sure the applicant will have come before the Commission with something amazing to look
at.
Hensch stated he is really looking forward to this redevelopment because it looks like a difficult
lot with the railroad tracks to the north and Ralston Creek to the east and he is very curious to
see what comes next.
Townsend asked what happens if they can't purchase all that other property. Hensch replied
then the title won't be conveyed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the
adoption of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Russett along with Lehmann will jointly be presenting this item and noted this is going to be the
first of many presentations on the proposed South District Form-Based Code. Tonight Russett
will provide an overview of the work that they've done so far, how they got to this point, discuss
the planning process, and give a very high level summary of the proposed amendments. She
will also share some examples of the types of neighborhoods that this Code could produce and
then provide some justifications for the amendments. Lehmann will then provide a more detailed
summary of the draft Code, tonight they’re going to go through about half of it, and then will
discuss next steps.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 5 of 20
In terms of project background, Russett explained they initiated this project back in January 2019
when the City executed a contract with Opticos Design, an urban design firm out of Berkeley
California, to really start developing this Form-Based Code. They have been working very
closely since January of 2019 with Tony Perez and Martin Galindez of Opticos on this code.
They have all put a lot of work into this Code and the goals of the project are to implement the
vision of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the South District Plan. They want to create
neighborhoods that are safe for pedestrians, encourage walking, preserve environmental
resources, create communities that have a highly interconnected street network and allow for a
variety of housing types for residents to have more choices and a variety of price points. The
ultimate goal is then to apply this Code to other greenfield and other undeveloped areas of the
City, this is the starting point and they expect that it will expand to other areas over time.
Russett showed a map of the area that they're looking to start this is within the South District.
Wetherby Park is the northern boundary, Alexander Elementary School in the middle, Gilbert
Street is on the West and the Sycamore Greenway is on the east side of the planning area.
In terms of the planning process, Russett explained this started back in 2015 with the adoption of
the South District Plan. After that Plan was adopted City staff worked toward different ways of
implementing that vision. The first project that they worked on was a project direction report,
which was phase one of this project, where the City worked with Opticos to assess the feasibility
of implementing a Form-Based Code and as part of that process there was a lot of stakeholder
meetings, community workshops, and a visual preference survey. Some of the input that they
got from that planning process back in 2017 is that the community saw a need for small
neighborhood centers in the South District, they wanted to see a strong network of trails and
parks, they saw that the community needed different housing options, including missing middle
housing, better street connectivity, traffic calming, and the opportunity for people to age in place.
Russett showed a graphic created by Opticos to help visualize missing middle housing and
explained that missing middle housing is basically everything between detached single-family
housing to midrise or larger scale apartments so everything in between those two scales is
missing middle (such as duplexes, three- and four-unit buildings, courtyard apartments, and
townhomes). The goal of this Code is to allow more of those housing types.
Russett stated after that was completed, they started with phase two, which is the development
of the draft Code. As part of that they worked with another consulting group that prepared a
residential market study to examine whether or not there was a market for missing middle
housing in the South District, and the short answer is yes, this study did conclude there is a
market. Therefore, since that time they've been doing stakeholder meetings and outreach to
develop the initial draft of the Code they released in 2019. After staff released that draft, they did
more stakeholder meetings and outreach to get feedback on that draft, and then for the past year
staff has been working on revising that draft based on comments received and making sure that
it can work within the existing City processes related to land development. The revised draft was
released just a couple weeks ago. Russett showed a chart that summarized the stakeholder
outreach that they did since the beginning of the project. They've met with community members,
affordable housing advocates, property owners, developers, the homebuilder’s association and a
variety of different groups throughout the process. What they heard from developers and
landowners was that the development process is often lengthy and uncertain and if the new
process is more predictable even with more regulation, that would be acceptable. There was also
some concern that the market wouldn't support missing middle housing but there was also a
need for more choices and more affordable housing. There was also some concerns with the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 6 of 20
Plan’s goal of creating single loaded streets along open spaces and green areas from the
community, they heard that they see the open space in this area as an amenity and there was
some concern about development near existing neighborhoods. There was an expectation that
any development would be high quality development, and they also recognize the need for
housing that is both affordable and accessible.
Russett next discussed the summary of the proposed amendments, explaining there are two
parts to these amendments, the first is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically
the South District Plan. Staff feels that the Form-Based Code that they are discussing tonight
does align with the existing South District Plan. What they are proposing are some amendments
to more explicitly link the Comprehensive Plan to the proposed Code, some new goals and some
new objectives. Russett noted one of the more major changes that they're proposing is the new
Future Land Use Map for this area, they're proposing new land use designations and the map
itself to directly align with the new zones. Russett explained the reason that they're doing this is
because it is really necessary to allow the missing middle housing and a diversity of housing
types and it's important to have land use designations that are clear to show there's a diversity of
housing types that are allowed. Russett noted it also creates options for neighborhood
commercial centers or just neighborhood centers in general which could be commercial or could
be an open space area.
In terms of the Zoning Code amendments, Russett gave a high-level summary. Some of the big
changes that staff is proposing with the Zoning Code amendments is that a mix of building types
will be required, so every block must have a mix of building types. For example, if a block has
eight lots, not all eight lots can be single family, there could be seven lots that are single family,
but one would need to be something different, like a duplex. Staff is also requiring a mix of
frontage types, so that could be a porch or stoop and there's a variety of different frontage types
that could be selected by the developer. She explained this is to ensure that there's a diversity
and there's visual interest within the streetscape and there's not monotony in the building design.
In terms of parking, alleys are only required in the main street area, parking must be set back
from the front facade of the building. In terms of the amount of parking that the Code requires, it
is slightly lower than the current Zoning Code. Carriage houses in the proposed Code are
allowed with most building types, carriage houses are also referred to as granny flats or
accessory dwelling units or accessory apartments, they are typically in the City now seen
associated with a single-family home, but this Code would allow them with a townhome or with
the duplexes, so there's going to be more allowances to incorporate this housing type. Street
trees will be required to be planted within the public right-of-way, also block lengths will be
reduced to ensure a highly interconnected street network. The Draft Code also includes several
civic spaces which are defined, and the locations are identified on the Future Land Use Map.
Russett noted they have incorporated regulatory incentives for developers, who are providing
affordable housing. So if a developer is voluntarily providing affordable housing through low
income housing tax credits, or some other funding source, they can seek out height bonus or
different flexibility or waivers from development standards.
Staff has created a new term which is called design sites. A design site is an area of land that
can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with exceptions). A platted lot may
have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more flexibility than traditional platted lots since
they can be administratively adjusted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 7 of 20
The draft code also includes minimum and maximum depth and width standards for these design
sites currently our code just has minimums.
Lastly Russett discussed the minimum dimensional standards, minimum lot sizes and proposed
maximums to help ensure more compact development. She shared some examples of what this
type of Code could produce, they're looking to produce pedestrian friendly areas that are easy to
walk in and are safe to walk in. There's lots of porches and frontage is facing the street and not
seeing a lot of garages. These are going to be typically house scale buildings so, even though
some of these housing types and building types will allow multiple units they're still in scale with
the existing single-family buildings.
In terms of justifications for the proposed amendments, the current Zoning Code provides limited
flexibility, it tends to lead development to separating land uses and limiting the mix of land uses.
There is some flexibility allowed through the plan development overlay rezoning process and the
Code does allow accessory dwelling units with single family homes and also allows duplexes on
corner lots. However just allowing those uses within these zones hasn't resulted in mixing those
types or seeing a lot of duplexes or accessory dwelling units being built. Also zoning regulations
have historically been used to segregate communities through single family zoning, through
creating minimum lot sizes, through only allowing single family. Currently, in the residentially
zoned areas of the City 81% is zone single family. Russett also noted conventional zoning
results in auto oriented development, residents need to rely on cars as more land is consumed.
The City has goals to address climate change and to address equity issues, so the goal of this
Code is to create a more sustainable community and more equitable community, and it does that
by providing a wider variety of housing types and a variety of price points. It requires a mix of
building types and includes incentives for developing affordable housing, it ensures that streets
are connected, and neighborhoods are connected. It creates neighborhood nodes either by
identifying centers of communities which could be a small commercial area or open space and it
ensures more compact development.
Lehmann next went into the nuts and bolts of the Code. He noted it can be complicated so the
Commission should feel free to ask questions along the way. He started with the Form-Based
Zones and Standards and the first section which is the introduction. The introduction talks about
the intent briefly discuss the Zoning Districts and how this Code applies with other sections of the
Code. It also talks about the process, about how reasonings are slightly different, how
subdivisions would be slightly different, and the neighborhood plan which is a new component of
this as well. In terms of intent Lehmann wanted to reiterate a couple things. The point is to
improve the environment by supporting multimodal transportation options and reducing vehicle
traffic, they want a variety of housing types, levels of affordability and accessibility, health and
sustainability to focus on pedestrian scale neighborhoods that reinforced the unique
characteristics of Iowa City and all of this is done to also promote walkable neighborhoods.
Lehmann stated the way the Code is organized is a little different than conventional zoning code.
The conventional one is based on use, residential single-family zones, residential multifamily
zones, and commercial zones. This Form-Based Code is organized more around a transact
concept which looks at the spectrum, from urban to rural, and it gives them a number for each of
those. Tier one is the natural area and tier six are areas like downtown. The South District is
generally suburban in nature, so would really be tier two, three and four areas which are lower in
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 8 of 20
scale and buildings don't really get over two to three stories, maybe up to four stories in the main
street area.
Moving on to process and the way that this Code works, staff wants to make sure that it fits into
existing processes and they’re not creating new ways of doing things, but rather enhance the
ways that they do things currently to try and improve them to reach these goals. Lehmann stated
the first step would be rezoning to a Form-Based Zone which is a standard Zoning Code Map
Amendment. Staff does recommend that it is done concurrently with a preliminary plan, because
the zoning standards are tied into lot sizes and all those sorts of things, and also with the Future
Land Use Map because it is a lot more detailed and it's hard to just blanket zone a whole area
like they often see as RS-5, low density residential single family zone, because that can't be
done in this case unless they already have some engineering done in advance, which is why
they recommend that it goes with a preliminary plat.
As far as the staff review and the Planning and Zoning Commission review, there are specific
criteria that are included in that rezoning, and that is to try and provide some certainty to both
developers and to the community as to how things can develop in this area. First and foremost, it
has to comply with the Future Land Use Map but there are some situations where it can be
changed and those are specifically laid out in the Code or alternatively if circumstances have
changed or something comes to light, like a public interest to change how it looks, then they can
incorporate that into the rezoning and change what is on that Future Land Use Map. The other
criteria are tied to responding appropriately to site conditions, for example, making sure that
more intense zones are organized around neighborhood features. Also, making sure that
transitions between neighborhood Form-Based Zones make sense as they don't want two
different zones looking at each other across the street instead they want that to happen across a
block or cross an alley if possible. Also, they need to make sure that the design of the sites suits
the topographical environmental or other constraints that might be there.
Regarding the subdivision process, Lehmann said they basically would consider it a more
detailed preliminary plat so, for example, they would show certain things that are not on current
preliminary plants such as design sites, thoroughfare types, civic spaces and building types.
There is also some additional notation about the possible administrative changes that can be
made and then it should also abide by the new standards that are part of this Code for parcel
size, street size, layout, block size, some of those changes are incorporated into the subdivision
code, rather than in the zoning code. In addition, for the final plat when they’re actually laying
out the parcels there is an additional submittal that would come that is called the Neighborhood
Plan which is very similar to what the preliminary plat has but is updated to reflect any changes
that have happened since then and also adding in the frontage type standards as well. Lehmann
reiterated that every design site should have a building type and frontage type and then streets
would correspond with thoroughfare type and open spaces would correspond to a civic space
type, so it really is categorizing different uses and different forms of the physical environment and
applying it on individual parcels. As development happens, it would then follow that
Neighborhood Plan that would be submitted with the final plat. Again, there would be an
opportunity for administrative changes if, for example, design sites need to be modified and they
can swap out building types, frontage types, civic space types, as long as it meets the underlying
standards. For example, a duplex requires a larger lot, but if there is a single-family lot that
would fit a duplex and they think a duplex is more appropriate for that location they'd be able to
administratively change that. Lehmann did state however, for those changes to happen all other
development standards would have to be met as well.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 9 of 20
Craig asked if this new Form-Based Code is one for the new areas that are developed or will it
apply to the already developed areas such as the development across from the school where if
someone bought two houses that sit together that were in bad condition and tore them down
could they put a four plex there. Lehmann responded that all the existing properties on the map
do not have a designation, they would just stay under their current designation. Also, many of
those are in the County but if they are annexed in the future the map shows what the City
expects development to look like around the existing properties. Lehmann explained what he
was showing was the detail on the Future Land Use Map noting it doesn't have street names but
the area they are discussing has McCollister Avenue that goes right through the heart of it from
South Gilbert Street on the west, Lehman Avenue is to the south, that curves into Sycamore
Street, Wetherby Park is the north boundary and to the east is The Sand Hill Prairie that the City
maintains.
Craig asked if the red lines are alleys. Lehmann confirmed those are alleys and he really just
wanted to show this map because it's a more detailed land use map than a lot of the greenfield
sites shown on current maps to show it as low density residential but there's not a lot of
distinction of what that means. Lehmann will show a more detailed version of the Future Land
Use Map and explained he will go through every element and the individual Code sections.
To summarize the process section, Lehmann stated it is a slightly modified version of a regular
development process and again those purposes are really the balance that upfront certainty and
the developmental flexibility. On the upfront certainty side, rezonings are based on approval
criteria, so it gives more certainty that things would follow that Form-Based or the Future Land
Use Map and what that means is actually defined and there are enhanced plans that gets
submitted including the Neighborhood Plans. On the development flexibility side there's an
opportunity for administrative changes later on, so even though there is more detail upfront, they
can come back and change it if it's still meets the different provisions of the Code and this really
does offer a much broader variety of missing middle housing types that has been talked about.
Lehmann next discussed the zones, which is the second section of the Code. The first two
subsections are really tied to the purpose and it describes sub zones. The bulk is really just
going through the individuals zone standards, so mostly focusing on those individual zone
standards but he’ll talk briefly about the sub zone as well.
Martin noted they are looking at these proposed zones and talking about connectivity and
walkability, but she is not seeing any neighborhood commercial in there, is that something that's
going to be addressed later. Lehmann explained neighborhood commercial is incorporated
through the sub zone because they’re regulating by building type, not by use so it's not going to
be specifically labeled a commercial zone. The commercial zones are going to be the open sub
zone and then the Main Street Zone will also allow commercial. Martin stated then there could
be a neighborhood grocery store on the corner and Lehmann confirmed in certain locations and
with certain building types.
Lehmann started with the palette of zoning districts, or tiers, T2, T3 & T4. There is also T1 but it's
not a separate zone it's more just the open space areas. T1 zones are not reflected as separate
zones on the maps but are reflected through those natural areas that are located on the Future
Land Use Map and its basically nature or open space. T3 are the neighborhood edge zones, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 10 of 20
then they go up in in density/intensity, but it doesn't really regulate density in the same way as
other areas because they're more focused on the building types, how they lay out within the
street, and how they interact with each other. That is the form that really guides the zone, which
is why it's called a Form-Based Zone. In the T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone there are house-scale
detached buildings, approximately two and a half stories, occupied attics and walk out
basements. Lehmann noted half stories are not something that are Zoning Code currently
identifies, so this is a different way of looking at height. The Form-Based Zone does include
height standards, but it also includes stories as one of its measures of height. In terms of the
housing types that they could expect to see in this zone are the building types of large houses,
duplexes, and cottage courts, so for example similar to a RS-5 zone but a little less restrictive.
Instead of regulating what a duplex might look like through provisional zoning criteria, it will be
regulated through the building type standards, and those will be in the presentation in two weeks.
The T3 Neighborhood Edge is the lowest intensity zone. T3 Neighborhood General would be a
step up from that in a higher intensity of those suburban zones. Again, it would be buildings up to
two and a half stories, occupied attics, walk out basements and low scale detached buildings.
T3 Neighborhood General allows a broader variety of building types than are allowed in T3
Neighborhood Edge. It can still be houses, duplexes, cottage courts but also adds in small scale
multifamily and townhomes. The multifamily could be up to six units and townhomes could be up
to a row of three units. This would be similar to a RS-12 or RM-12 zone, but it doesn't allow
large scale multifamily and there are limits on the size that a multiplex could be, the building type
is specifically called multiplex small. So again, the T3 Neighborhood General is a little more
intense but still relatively low density.
Lehmann next discussed the T4 zones, the urban zones, the T4 Neighborhood Small is still two
and a half stories, so it's the same height, it is house scale, detached with some attached
buildings, occupied attics, walk out basements. Lehmann explained these can be some larger
units, but they blend in with low scale buildings, and don't look out of place in a residential
neighborhood. Building types are cottage courts, small multiplexes, courtyard buildings (which
have up to 16 units), townhouses in rows of up to eight, but overall the scale of buildings
generally won't occupy an entire block in these zones. It could be compared to a RM-20 zone,
but the difference is with the way the building types are defined, there are maximum building
sizes to not end up with a block size apartment complex. T4 Neighborhood Medium is where
there starts to be larger units, heights of three and a half stories with an occupied attic, they are
still primarily house scale buildings, a larger house scale, and then there would be some block
scale attached and detached buildings as well. Lehmann noted it's a more intense zone with
larger multiplexes up to 12 units, courtyard buildings up to 16 units, and townhouses up to a row
of eight units. This would be similar to a RM-44 zone, but again these no building with more than
16 units and although they may get some block scale buildings in this, they can only be up to
three stories. Finally, there is the T4 Main Street, it is the most intense and allows the broadest
variety of uses. It allows up to four stories, there are block scale buildings, there are attached
buildings, and there can be up to 24 townhouses, a courtyard building can have up to 24 units
and Main Street buildings are unrestricted. Lehmann stated the T4 Main Street are the
neighborhood focal points, and are denser attached buildings, which is what one would expect in
a traditional Main Street in perhaps a town of 5000 people.
Lehmann next discussed one of the other ways commercial uses are accommodated are through
sub zones in the T3 Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood
Small and would just be designated T3NGO instead of T3NG. Also, in those zones there are
additional flexibility for uses that would be allowed, and, basically, that means that it allows more
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 11 of 20
than nonresidential uses. These areas tend to be at the neighborhood centers and to see as a
walkable area. It could be childcare, it could be commercial, etc., but it's a broader variety that is
allowed in those open sub zones.
Lehmann presented the Future Land Use Map again to show item by item, show where all these
zones and sub zones are. The T3 Neighborhood Edge areas are generally placed next to
existing development, so it is just south of the existing development that's currently along
Langenberg, it is also up north around the school and around the existing County subdivisions
that are there, it is also adjacent to the golf course. Next is the T3 Neighborhood General, which
can be considered a bulk zone where there are neighborhoods outside of busier roads or
commercial centers. Quite a bit of the map is Neighborhood General as it’s one of the more
versatile zones, it allows single family duplexes and then small scale multifamily, but there is the
height limit of two and a half stories. The T4 Neighborhood Small are generally located along
either smaller collector streets, next to some denser existing development or on single loaded
streets where there's not development on the other side, and it is also surrounding major
intersections as well. Lehmann specifically pointed out South Gilbert Street and McCollister
Avenue as an area to see this zoning. The next zone is Neighborhood Medium, this is where
buildings can be up to three and a half stories, so it is really only located along major corridors
and especially at major intersections such as at the intersection of South Gilbert and McCollister
where they expect more intense uses to be located based on the characteristics of the area.
Finally, is the Main Street and it's really only a small commercial node at the heart of this part of
the community with the idea being the focal point in the school district. Lehmann noted there are
also neighborhood nodes where there are open zones and those are located in the heart of their
respective sub districts. Between those there are quite a few different places for neighborhood
commercial uses as the zones are laid out according to what the City expecting in terms of the
road network, in terms of uses, in terms of intensities, and in terms of scale of development with
single loaded streets, for example.
Lehmann explained the way that this is different is the Future Land Use Map is more detailed
and the dimensional standards are slightly different because a lot of building bulk is primarily
regulated by building types, it's not regulated by uses as much. There are some opportunities to
modify or decrease lot size further if they provide, for example rear access, rear utility
easements, or additional civic space. However rear access is not required, so the way that the
lots were designed was to accommodate the buildings given front access and/or rear access, but
rear access with allow a smaller lot. Another change that was touched on briefly in the
introduction was that parking is regulated by zone in this case, so it is slightly different because
the amount is regulated by the zone, as is the location, so there are different setbacks for
buildings compared to parking such that the buildings are to be closer to the street than the
parking with the idea being they don't want the street front to be dominated by garage doors or
blank walls, so it does require that parking is set back a little further. Lehmann showed a
diagram on how parking is set back from the front façade, he noted there are some opportunities
to tweak that a little bit but generally it's going to be set back from whatever is occupying most of
the streetscape.
Some other changes Lehmann wanted to mention are there are frontage types and building
types and those are required for each design site, and then there's also the sub zones,
specifically the open zone which allows for greater variety of uses, especially nonresidential
uses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 12 of 20
Lehmann next moved on to discuss the use standards, noting they are pretty similar to what they
are used to seeing with a standard use table, uses that are permitted just straight up, uses that
are provisionally allowed that requires staff review.
Signs noted looking at the Future Land Use Map, there's a lot of detail put together on these
various zones and into all these potential streets, but does the plan say that this is where streets
really will be because otherwise if they start moving streets, then they lose the zones. Lehmann
stated that's where those rezoning criteria come into play acknowledging if they move streets it's
going to move zones and so that's where the specific criteria come into place so that when they
are reconstructed, zones are related upon it, it has to make sense in the same way and that
those zoning criteria are followed. Lehmann stated the Future Land Use Map isn’t an
engineered plat or anything so changes can and will happen but hopefully it would be
reconstructed in a similar manner.
Lehmann went back to the use standards and stated staff does still regulate uses in Form-Based
Zones, again permitted by right, provisionally allowed where staff reviews to make sure that it
meets some criteria, and then through special exception, where it goes through a discretionary
process by the Board of Adjustment. Lehmann noted in most cases the missing middle housing
is permitted by right and that would be all of the building types that are allowed. Detached single
family dwellings aren't permitted in those urban zones and a lot of the other standards follow the
existing zones. Lehmann did point out that in the open zones how the commercial uses are
allowed as well in the Main Street Zone how commercial uses are allowed. He stated there are
additional uses called live/work that also allows some commercial uses that would be within
certain residential zones, specifically those that are T4 zones.
Lehmann next discussed the missing middle, the definition that they use in the Zoning Code is
house scale buildings with multiple units and walkable neighborhoods. He wanted to touch on
this again because this is one of those major changes that is missing in a lot of zoning codes
because usually there's high priority for single family detached or high priority for large
multifamily and some of those missing middle housing types get lost. The way this Code looks at
it is makes them allowable uses and instead of regulating by the uses it regulates by those
building types instead.
Lehmann stated there are two new use categories, one is community gardens, land cultivated by
multiple users for plants essentially, it is also a joint civic space type and does allow some onsite
retail for produce that was grown on site, but most structures on it are pretty limited and it's
mostly going to be that green space. He noted they did want to include this as is not included in
the current Zoning Code and they don’t really have any use category that would allow for this. It
would have likely been classified as agriculture, so this is a way to make sure that there was an
opportunity for community gardens and civic space. The other new use category is live/work
space, it is similar to the home businesses that are currently allow but it's a slightly more intense
version of where someone lives in the unit that they also work in. Those nonresidential uses that
are allowed are limited, it's similar to what is allowed in the Peninsula live/work areas, but it does
limit on premises sales to goods made in the unit, for example an artist studio, and it does
prohibit certain hours for deliveries, certain hours for clients and only up to three outside
employees, and it does limit the number of clients per day. It is a more intense commercial use
that could be allowed but does have its own restrictions that come with it and it's really only
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 13 of 20
allowed in those T4 Zones and above, likely the live/work would be in the town home building
types.
Lehmann explained the differences between the use standards as they currently are and these,
these use standards incorporate the missing middle, there is an accessory use table that isn’t in
the current Zoning Code, which makes it easier to interpret some of those uses and then there
are those two new use categories. Lehmann reiterated however that uses are not the primary
way that they're regulating the form of the environment, it is really by those forms in building
types and in frontage types.
The site standards are similar to the site development standards and it works in tandem with
them. Some of these standards, like screening, supplement the existing standards and some
just add slight differences to them. Regarding screening they do regulate walls and fences, they
regulate mechanical equipment, again these sites standards supplant the existing standards that
the City has. Generally, there are height limits on walls and fences, and they're not allowed in
the T4 Main Street Zone. Mechanical equipment has to be screened either by the building, by
wall parapets or by walls if it's an existing building that's in one of these zones. For landscaping,
it is a bit unusual in that it works in tandem with the existing landscaping standards. Lehmann
noted there are some new parking landscaping requirements and there are new street tree
standards which was touched upon when talking about the thoroughfare street types. He stated
these things are all checked during the site plan or building permit review process. Plant
diversity is probably the biggest change in that for new street trees they would only allow 5% of
any species and 10% of any genus in any trees that are on the sites, they should be spatially
distributed and also should try to incorporate mature trees when possible. Those do work with
the existing standards, but it is a bit more detailed in how they want to encourage a biodiversity
within these areas to promote sustainability. Landscaping is expected to be installed with
development and should be maintained, and it should be separated from vehicular areas.
Lehmann discussed parking, as already mentioned the amount and location of onsite parking is
listed by zone, there are also current parking standards, some of which apply, and then there are
new parking landscaping standards that are involved in this section as well. Some of the
differences are tied to traffic minimization, there's provisions for bicycle parking, for carpool
spaces, for office uses and then for cars to share spaces for large residential and office uses.
There are some large vehicle parking and loading standards and they're slightly different than
current Code standards. Lehmann stated the parking lot design standards and landscaping
standards are to try and avoid larger areas of pavement so there are standards about breaking
up larger parking areas, making sure there's pedestrian access to sidewalks, and landscaping
when it's a larger area. They want to make sure that parking spaces are accessed from an
internal drive and not just from the streets. He noted one difference is that tandem parking is
allowed, where there are two cars located front to back, but it's regulated by use generally and
would only be allowed within one unit, so someone is not going to get stuck behind a neighbor.
Overall, the more parking there is, the more landscaping that’s required, tree coverage is based
on the lot area, so the bigger the lot more trees required. They do encourage that the
landscaping areas incorporate stormwater management to try and filter the storm water rather
than treat it as a waste product, but that is not required.
Finally in the site standards, Lehmann noted there is a subsection on adjustments to standards
He explained these are administrative changes that again that can be made to different
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 14 of 20
provisions. They do require that there is a finding that is made with that so it's similar to the
current minor modifications accept that there wouldn't be a notification requirement, it would be
more like the adjustments in Riverfront Crossings. Those include things such as the design site
size, the amount of façade, the facade zone, the main body or wing height, which comes with
building types, the front parking setback, screen height and then there's some flexibility that's
allowed for affordable housing which he’ll discuss later in the affordable housing chapter.
Adjustments or modifications do require findings that are made by staff and most of it is to
accommodate an existing feature. Lehmann noted the Form-Based Code provides flexibility like
dimensional standards for affordable housing.
The final section to discuss tonight is on civic space types as those are really a new concept for
the City of Iowa City, it basically typifies open space and categorizes them and provides some
standards with that. The first two sub sections are the general standards and the purpose and
then the rest of them are just the different types of civic spaces that could be selected. A civic
space could be a public open space, or it could be private open space, but it has to be
accessible and dedicated to public use and it would be really delineated in that subdivision
process and finalized in that neighborhood plan. Again, there is the opportunity to change what
the civic space type is in the standards but that's where it would be codified, or at least made
public. Lehmann stated there is required open space in that City requires that land must be
provided for public open space or fee-in-lieu paid. That is an existing standard that can tie into
this, but it doesn't always tie into this. Public spaces that are dedicated to the City could qualify
as a civic space and meet that requirement, but if it's a private civic space it would not meet that
requirement and those would not be able to be used for the neighborhood open space
dedications. In terms of what public access and visibility means, Lehmann explained it really
means that they have to allow the public to access it and see it, so they want to ensure that it's
visible through single-loaded streets, bike and pedestrian paths, and making sure that it's not
tucked away behind existing development as a sort of private park, it has to be accessible. This
also does include natural features such as creeks or other natural open spaces that are there,
some of those are delineated on Future Land Use Map, some may be located later as the
sensitive areas plans are developed. Building facades must front on the civic space, they want
the civic spaces to look on complete facades that are nicely developed and not just the side of
building. As far as the use of civic spaces, there primarily intended to be gathering spaces and
they must be designed accordingly, but there might be some opportunity for commercial uses,
there are opportunities for service areas, especially if it's privately owned as they do want it to
contribute to stormwater management, and using some of that green infrastructure and since
they are looking at street trees they are looking at things that absorb water instead of piping it
into storm sewers, it'd be great if they could incorporate the stormwater management into these
green spaces that exists.
Lehmann pointed out seven options for civic spaces, the first two are the Greenway and the
Green. The Greenway is basically a long linear space that would be multiple blocks, it would be
an opportunity for strolling, there could be sidewalks along it, there could be a trail down it, it
could be flanked by streets and could be flanked on one side by buildings. It serves as a
connector between open space areas. This civic space type would be allowed in all zones,
except for the T4 Main Street Zone. The Green is similar but it's just a standard open space, a
large space available for unstructured recreation, it limits the amount of buildings that can be put
on site, and it also is allowed and all zones but the T4 Main Street Zone. The next two are the
Plaza and the Pocket Park/Plaza. The Plaza is only allowed in the T4 Main Street Zone. It's
really a community focal point similar to a historic town center that is seen in some small Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 15 of 20
towns. It might have some structured space, but it would be primarily a gathering place. The
Pocket Park/Plaza is a little different, it's basically a smaller version of either the Green or of the
Plaza depending on the context, because it is allowed in all zones, so if it's in a T4 Main Street
Zone it would be expected to be a Plaza and a more formal space that serves the neighborhood.
It it's in a T3 Zone or a lower density neighborhood zone, it is expected to be some sort of small
park that serve as an immediate neighborhood. The next two are the Playground and
Community Garden. Playgrounds pretty self-explanatory and intended for children and are
allowed in all zones. They could be incorporated into any other civic space, so it could be in a
Plaza or it could be in a Green, but it is its own type as well. The Community Garden has
already been briefly touched upon, but it's intended for garden plots available to nearby
residences and is allowed in all zones. The final type of civic space is the Passage, which is a
little unique in that it is both a civic space and also a thoroughfare type. The City does have
standards right now that allow for pedestrian passageways through blocks that can allow a larger
block length. Lehmann explained this is similar to that, but it adds some more standards as to
what that has to look like and it is allowed for all zones. For a Passage, one would expect the
houses to front it, the Ped Mall would be an urban example of what a Passage might look like. It
does increase the allowable block size which Lehmann will touch upon during the next meeting
as to how those standards work together in the subdivision process. Lehmann showed on the
Future Land Use Map the variety of civic space types. Ones to the east are more neighborhood
focal points similar to some of the open zones, there are some linear spaces where there's
infrastructure, there's an existing trail on the northeast side of McCollister, east of South Gilbert.
Staff is proposing another one where there's an existing sewer line as it makes sense to put
some sort of trail where they have some infrastructure. He noted they are also proposing an
expansion of the Sand Hill Park, some buffer on the southeast side next to the sanitary sewer
plant, and finally, they are showing a Plaza in the middle of the T4 Main Street Zones. The
imagine they would see some commercial areas there with outdoor seating, etc.
Lehmann next explained how this is different from the existing Zoning Code, it can be public or
private, it is a new concept, but it builds on current open space standards, and really classifies
the open space, both natural and urban open spaces, and it creates standards. He noted it also
formalizes some of the pedestrian route criteria that they have currently with the Passage, it does
tie stormwater management into the amenity space and builds it into the Future Land Use Map
and then through that it is also incorporated in the neighborhood plans and the other new
planning processes.
Lehmann stated the next steps will be a discussion next time at the July 15 meeting on the
building type standards, architectural elements standards, the frontage types, thoroughfare
types, and then the affordable housing incentives. They will also talk about some other minor
changes that were required throughout the Code to implement this and then some changes with
the South District Plan. Then at the August 5 subsequent meeting they will have an opportunity
to discuss anything the Commission would like more clarity on and then at the August 19
meeting is when staff would expect to make a recommendation on the Form-Based Code and on
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council. Once Council receives the recommendation,
they would set a public hearing and have three hearings of the Code, and one hearing of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So theoretically the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
couldn't be approved until September 21 and theoretically if this schedule is followed the Code
would be adopted potentially on October 19.
Lehmann acknowledged they are accepting public comments throughout this entire process but
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 16 of 20
strongly encourage that public comments are provided by August 5 so that by the end of the
meeting, staff could have an opportunity prior to the Commission hearing it on August 19 to
incorporate any changes.
Hensch asked if at the August 19 meeting is where the Commission considers adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Form-Based Code, is that also when the public hearing
would be held for the first time for the public to weigh in on this. Lehmann said they could submit
written comments prior to that and those could be provided to the Commission at the August 5
meeting for consideration, otherwise the formal public hearing on both of these items would be
August 19.
Craig first asked about the parking in the images that were shown, to her it appears like there
were not near enough parking spaces for some of those big buildings. Will there be parking
underground, even for a four-plex, four parking spots doesn't seem like enough. She recognizes
they said that the parking standards were diminished somewhat, but what are the parking
standards and will there be enough parking for some of those structures, particularly the bigger
ones. Also, is there any way to make it an incentive or incentivize a developer to include
electrical charging stations in the parking, she feels that would be very attractive for someone as
10 years from now they’re going to have a lot more electric vehicles around. Craig also stated
she is still a little fuzzy about the whole design sites and what that means, they showed a picture
of the big square that was divided into three squares or three rectangles and who divides those
and decides if there are single family homes on them, maybe one with the granny suite or
whatever, she needs to try to educate herself more on that. Finally, on the gathering places,
Craig thinks all those concepts are great but it just feels like maybe there's not enough of them in
there, this feels like a very dense development. Overall, she really likes it, but there are no plans
for a City park, or all the civic spaces maintained by the City or maintained privately.
Lehmann responded briefly on the parking question. For each zone, there is a subsection seven
called parking and that sets the minimum standard for that zone. For example, for the T3
Neighborhood Edge Zone, studio up to two-bedroom units would require one parking space per
unit minimum, three or more would require two parking spaces per unit, for commercial or
nonresidential uses no parking would be required up to 1500 square feet with the assumption
being it would use the on-street parking, if it's greater than that, then the parking standard starts
to come into play. Lehmann acknowledged the parking standards are less than the current
standards, but these are minimum requirements and they are trying to look at ways to encourage
walkable, denser developments, and so these are the minimums that would be required for a
unit. However, a developer could decide they want two parking spaces for every bedroom, and
they can still do that, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that, it's just that the
minimum required would be less than the current Code.
Craig said then for a four-plex with just four parking spots that is okay. Lehmann responded it
would be acceptable if those were all one-bedroom units.
Lehmann noted in terms of design sites, the design sites show flexibility and one could have an
entire large parcel fit for duplexes or fit for five single family homes. The flexibility of not platting
those individual sites can allow for a mix of homes that would fit the site and could be tweaked as
developed. He acknowledged realistically most people are probably still going to plat parcels like
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 17 of 20
they currently do. For example, if there is a plat for a multifamily building but in the future they
decide that parcel would be better for two single family homes instead they don't have to
subdivide it again, instead, they would just use design sites and deal with it that way.
Craig asked how the individual who's purchasing it know what’s their property. Lehmann said it
would be similar to the legality of a condo regime and that's why they would still expect most
people to probably development it as they buy it.
Hektoen confirmed it would be like a condo association or the owner is also the developer and
continues to own all of the units.
Lehmann said it can also be similar to a planned overlay process with sometimes all of the
buildings on a single lot, and they have to put invisible lot lines. The difference is in this those
invisible lines can be shuffled around depending on what the market forces seem to be as long
as they're meeting the frontage mixed standards, the dwelling type standards, and all of those
sorts of things.
Lehmann next answered the question on the civic space, he does believe they do make a
distinction on the Future Land Use Map about public versus private open space and what they're
thinking for those areas is one of them would be a small public park, the one that's in the central
east side. He noted there are already a lot of park amenities in the South District, that’s one of
the selling points, there is Terry Trueblood, open space from the prairie, Wetherby Park and the
Sycamore Trail and greenway. Craig recognizes that but was thinking more about playgrounds
for children, she acknowledged there is the school playground, but not much else. Lehmann
agreed and noted that a decision to put in a playground will be up to the person that is
developing the civic space, because the City does not distinguish which civic space types should
be where, that would be up to the developer.
Russett added staff did talk to the Parks and Rec Department about park needs in this area and
they felt that a playground was really needed east of the greenway so that's why they identified
that area as a public park that will become an area with a playground.
Signs is interested in discussing the affordable housing piece and the fee-in-lieu piece. He is
personally done with the fee-in-lieu concept because everybody's using it and if they really want
to get affordable housing truly scattered throughout the community and incorporate into these
areas they have to do away with that fee-in-lieu because every developer uses it, and they don't
build affordable units in their developments. He just wanted to say that is something he is going
to harp on a lot through this process.
Signs also had an interesting observation about multimodal transportation and looking at these
spaces, they talk about a lot less parking with the idea that people will use other transportation
sources and that concerns him in light of the fact that the transportation department is cutting bus
routes. So here they are creating a whole development, a whole area that's going to
theoretically rely more on buses, so he hopes they are having that conversation with the
transportation department and with City Council as far as funding the transportation department.
Signs is also concerned about the map, it shows very distinct zones in very distinct places and
from his experience with developments, especially in this larger area of land, rarely do they end
up that way. All of a sudden streets won’t be there and uses will change so he’d like to hear
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 1, 2021
Page 18 of 20
much more about what happens as things change because they all know what they do today and
what's going to be done five years from now, are distinctly different.
Finally, Signs has a quick question of if this ties into the needs for adjustments in rental codes.
Will development here discourage or encourage rental units, it may not be relevant to the
conversation, but those were just some things he made note of tonight and he looks forward to
having more conversations in the in the couple of sessions to come.
Padron agrees with Craig about electric vehicle stations, that would be great. She likes that
parking requirements are being reduced, but she would like to see how they will be
complimenting or encouraging other modes of transportation. Will there be more parking for
bicycles or wider streets for bike lanes, etc. Finally, regarding the trees, will they be requiring the
use of native species to reduce the use of water, also in terms of landscape are they
encouraging the use of local materials that don't require transportation for landscape.
Padron also agrees with Craig that it seems that are not enough green spaces, and also the
greenway is allowed in some of those zones, but it's not a requirement, so what would happen if
a developer chooses not to have any of those green spaces. The area would then become very
dense and not good for stormwater management without be something like permeable
pavement. She also agrees with Signs on the concern over public transportation and would like
to hear much more about that.
Finally, Padron is also concerned about the commercial inside the neighborhoods because that's
another thing if they're hoping that people will use less cars, but if they have to drive really far
away to get groceries, how's that going to work.
Hensch looks forward to the future opportunities to hear more about this and encourages all
Commission members to continue to do some research and reading on this.
DISCUSSION OF RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS:
Russett noted a couple updates for the Commission. The Governor’s emergency declaration
allowing cities to meet virtually has been extended through July 25, but it is expected that it will
not be extended after that point. This Commission has one more chance to meet virtually, on
July 15, but Russett stated there's been some interest from the Commission to meet back in
person. Russett would like to request that they have that July 15 meeting as a virtual meeting so
the consultants can participate more easily.
Hensch agreed that seems reasonable unless somebody has an objection to that. He added
that he saw today that persons 12 years age and up in Iowa City have a 69.9% vaccination rate
so almost at that 70%. Johnson County is doing really well.
Russett also wanted to mention that at this point there's not going to be any hybrid meetings, it
will all be back to in person. Lehmann added they will all be recorded so people can watch it at
least.
Craig asked why no hybrid, with zoom people could still participate.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and
the public presented by COVID-19.
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Mark Nolte, Maria Padron, Mark Signs,
Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the
adoption of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Lehmann stated this is a continuation from the presentation that he had started at the last
meeting and tonight he will be going into detail on the Code. This Form-Based Code is available
to view on the City's website and the Code itself is the first one in the appendix and includes
changes to Title 14 and 15 and then proposed changes to the South District Plan.
At the last meeting Lehmann started the general discussion about why how this process came to
be what's been done so far and went over a brief summary of amendments and the examples of
the types of neighborhood this Code will produce and then also the justifications for the proposed
amendments both to the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He had also started talking
about the intensive principles of the Code, some of the zone’s use standards, site standards and
civic spaces. Tonight, he will go through the remaining chapters, of which there are five, on
building type standards, architectural element standards, frontage type standards, thoroughfare
type standards and affordable housing incentives. Those are all part of Title 14-2H. Lehmann
noted there's also other minor changes of Title 14 which he will briefly cover as well as some
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 2 of 23
changes to the Subdivision Code, which is one of the ways that this Code will help be
implemented, go over some of the draft changes to the Comprehensive Plan and then finally
summarize the next steps that will happen through this process.
Lehmann began by reiterating briefly the items that were discussed at the last meeting. The first
section of the Code was the intent and principles which basically talks about how Form-Based
Codes are different than current development standards and the process that is used to
implement them through the regular development process and the minor changes that happened
to make sure that these standards are met. He went over the Zones as well, there are five zones,
and he went over the new standards which are the uses that are allowed in the different zones
and the site standards which affects what development looks like in those zones, specifically
regarding landscaping, parking, design, screening, etc. Finally, he went through civic space
types, which are essentially types of public or private open space that might be provided in these
areas.
To briefly refresh the different zones are organized by transects so that's what the T stands for,
with T3 referring to suburban zones and T4 referring to urban zones so T3 is a lower density and
T4 is a higher density. Within those broader transects there are two T3 areas, T3 Neighborhood
Edge Zone which is the lowest density, and T3 Neighborhood General is the next highest
density. Then there are three T4 zones, Neighborhood Small, Neighborhood Medium and Main
Street. He will review the Future Land Use Map when he goes through building types.
Lehmann next discussed tonight’s standards and noted at least three of the sections relate to
different types and some broader design standards that are incorporated in those, so it will be a
lot of lists and information. The first section is 14-2H-6, Building Type Standards and within this
section the first two subsections are the purpose and the general building type standards and
then the rest are all of the different building types that would be allowed, and they do differ by
zone. As he goes through his presentation, he did group them by familiar terms such as houses,
duplexes, etc.
In terms of the general standards Lehmann pointed out a couple that are important. First the
scale of the building types are based on the intended character of the zone and that's how they
determine what different building types are allowed in each zone and they will notice that
throughout the Code it describes house scale versus block scale. House scale are smaller
buildings, what one would expect to be the size of a house, block scales is when an individual
building size covers most of the block. The purpose of the scale of the Zoning Code is to create
pedestrian oriented buildings and also pedestrian oriented public realms like the streetscape. In
terms of building types and as they relate to design sites, the size of the design site is regulated
by the zone, so it's not included in this, but it is governed by the building type. Typically, within
each design site there would be one building per design site, some certain buildings do allow
multiple buildings such as an accessory type like a carriage house. Lehmann reminded the
Commission that when they are talking about design sites, they are going to be concurrent with
the parcels. For example, in a typical single-family development they could have a larger parcel
that has multiple design sites. Lehmann also wanted to touch on frontages because each
building type needs at least one frontage type, and that frontage would contain the primary
entrance and has to be along a street or civic space. There are some exceptions such as a
Cottage Court and he’ll explain later why that's a unique design or building type. Finally,
Lehmann discussed the diversity of building types. Within each block this Code requires that
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 3 of 23
there are at least two different building types, there is an exemption for the T4 Main Street
requirement because that is basically the commercial zone and doesn't require the diversity of
housing types. But within the neighborhood-based zones, they do want to see a diversity of
building types.
Lehmann stated there are 10 choices of building types in the Code. The first one is the Carriage
House and is a little unique as it is an accessory structure that can be added to other building
types. A Carriage House does not count as its own building type, it is strictly accessory, so it is
allowed in all zones. Only one dwelling unit would be allowed in a Carriage House and typically
it would be on the rear of a design site, likely above the garage. Lehmann added it doesn't have
to be residential, it could also be a commercial space say for a small business owner. Carriage
Houses would only be two stories max and a width of 32’. Lehmann will give the size of each
building so the Commission can get a feeling for the building bulk that is expected for each
building type.
The next set of building types are houses, there are two different ones, House Large and House
Small, and is essentially what is currently classified as a single-family use or a single-family
detached use. A House Large would be found in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone and is the
lowest density building type. It is a medium to large sized detached building and would only have
one unit like a single-family detached unit. It would only be allowed to be up to two and a half
stories tall and the maximum width would be 95’ and that would include a 55’ main body and
there could be wings that could be allowed up to 20’ on each side. The wings do have to be set
back from that main body or extended out from the main body by an offset and part of the reason
for the distinction between the main body and wings is to make sure that the building facade is
broken up in a way that doesn't create just a large blank facade. The House Small is the less
dense in the T3 Neighborhood General, it is a smaller unit that doesn't have quite as large of a
lot size. Again, it can be two and a half stories tall but would have a maximum width of about 75’
which would be 35’ for the main body and then 20’ for the wings.
The next set of building types are duplexes, and there are two different types, Side-by-Side and
Stacked. Side-by-Side are probably typically what folks are used to seeing and would be
allowed in both T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge and Neighborhood General. Each duplex would
have two units within the design site and would be a medium to small building, the idea is that it
would be about the same size as a House Large or a single-family home generally. Side-by-Side
would be allowed to be two and a half stories tall but would be narrower than a House Large at
48 feet on the main body. Lehmann explained that again that helps ensure that these are house
scale buildings. As far as garages, they can have garages on the front, but they have to fit within
these building standards, so in some cases it's going to be challenging with a Side-by-Side
duplex, but it is possible. The Duplex Stacked looks even more like a house essentially where
there are two units, one on top of the other. Again, it's a small to medium sized detached
building and it would only be allowed in the T3 Neighborhood General, as it is a slightly denser
form of duplex. Duplex Stacked would have the same height standard of two and a half stories,
but it could be a little wider up to 66’ which would include a 36’ main body and two 15’ wings.
The next building type is a little more unique and not something that's currently allowed in the
City Code. It's called a Cottage Court and is where there is a courtyard that would have
buildings arranged around the outside of it and the courtyard would basically act as shared
common space, rather than having private individual yards. Lehmann noted the City has had
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 4 of 23
some interest in this development type and it's been difficult to try and accommodate it. Cottage
Court would be allowed in the T3 zones, Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General and the T4
Neighborhood Small but the idea is that it would fit with existing single-family homes or duplexes.
A Cottage Court could have three to nine units, with the rear cottage being 1-3 units. Depending
on the number of units affects the size of the Court so more units means that the Court has to be
larger to help disperse the concentration of units. As far as height goes it fits in with existing
single-family buildings but has a smaller height where these buildings can only be one and a half
stories tall. The rear cottage can be 40’ but the rest of the cottages have to be less than that, so
it creates low-scale buildings along the street facade. Lehmann noted this is one of those
examples where the main entrances would actually be on the Court rather than on the street,
because the Court is the central focus point of this building type.
Next are multiplexes, both small and large variety. Lehmann stated this would be similar to what
is currently in the Code as multifamily. The Multiplex Small would be allowed in the T3
Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and allow up to three to six units. Those
units could be stacked or could be side by side, but the idea is again it's approximately the size
of a large house and is scaled to fit with low to moderate intensity neighborhoods. The building
height would be two and a half stories and it could be up to 90’ wide, which is about the same as
a House Large with a 50’ main body and two 20’ foot wings. Multiplex Large are allowed in the
T4 Neighborhood Medium and have 7 to 12 units. Again, they could be side-by-side or stacked
with the shared entry. Multiplex Large is intended to fit with moderate intensity neighborhoods or
maybe a small portion of lower intensity neighborhoods. The max height does get taller with this
building type and can be up to three and a half stories, and the max width can be up to 100’, so
overall slightly larger than some of the house scale buildings. It would allow for a 60’ main body
and two 20’ wings.
Another unique building type is the Townhouse because it's pretty versatile and how it is
implemented within the Form-Based Zones. It is a small to large house that can be attached or
may be detached, but it consists of one unit typically but can be three in certain zones. The
Townhouse would be located in moderate to high intensity neighborhoods or near neighborhood
main streets, basically more dense zones. It allows larger and more units per design site. In the
T3 Neighborhood General it would allow Townhouses in a row of two to three units with one unit
per site and a max height of two and a half stories with a row width up to 90’. Again,
approximately the size of a House Large. In the T4 zones, Townhouses are allowed to have
rows of four to eight units and the T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium would
still maintain one unit per site. In the T4 Neighborhood Small it could be up to two and a half
stories and in T4 Neighborhood Medium it could be up to three and a half stories. Lehmann
pointed out that row lengths increase in the denser zones of the Townhome are in the T4
Neighborhood Medium zone, and the T4 Main Street zone which could allow some commercial
uses and then still have four to eight townhomes in a row and up to three stacked.
Another variety of multifamily is the Courtyard Building. Lehmann explained this is a different
building type than the multiplex and is similar to the Cottage Court except it is a multifamily home
with a central court that replaces rear yard open space. The Courtyard Building Small would be
allowed in T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium zones and could have 10 to 16
units. As far as building height goes, T4 Neighborhood Small would only be two and a half
stories and T4 Neighborhood Medium would allow up to three and a half stories. The max width
in both zones is 100’ and there are standards as to how large the courtyard needs to be that's
located within the zone and also along the street facade the size of the building is broken up by
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 5 of 23
the presence of that courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large is only allowed in the T4 Main
Street zone and it allows 18 to 24 dwelling units, again they can be stacked or side-by-side but
must have that common courtyard. The Courtyard Building Large can be up to three and a half
stories, but the main body again remains 100’ so a lot of that excess building bulk would be
located on the rear of the site. Some of the buildings are allowed to have more than one building
on a design site where instead of just a courtyard in the middle, they can have separate buildings
with the courtyard between them and allow a slightly different configuration but again, the
building bulk is broken up by that courtyard.
The final building type is the Main Street Building and is the most general building and probably
most appropriate for commercial uses. It is a small to large building and only allowed in the Main
Street zone. The amount of dwelling units is unrestricted except by the Housing Code and the
Building Code. Lehmann explained the Main Street Building type is similar to the Riverfront
Crossing Zone where they have to meet the minimum standards for safety, but if they can fit
them within the building envelope then they can work. The Main Street Building is intended to
provide a variety mix of uses, typically with some ground floor commercial and residential above.
The max height again is three and a half stories and the max width for the body is 200’. These
can be block scale buildings. Lehmann noted some other building types, such as larger
townhomes also get towards that block scale, but a lot of these buildings are designed to be
house scale buildings and that's part of the point of providing missing middle housing types.
Lehmann stated as far as where these different building types are allowed and as they relate to
the zones he showed the Future Land Use Map that would be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Edge is typically low-density development, two and a half
stories with the House Large, the Side-by-Side Duplex and the Cottage Court. The
Neighborhood General is located in the center of neighborhoods away from busier roads
typically. They are still two and a half stories and allow the House Small, both varieties of
duplexes (Stacked and Side-by-Side), they would allow Multiplex Small and Cottage Court, and
also allow Townhomes in runs of two to three units. As they move into the T4 zones, those are
denser zones and are along major intersections and arterial roads. Buildings are still two and a
half stories in the T4 Neighborhood Small zone, and would allow the Multiplex Small, the
Courtyard Building, small Townhomes in a run a four to eight and the Cottage Court. Then in the
denser zones located along major corridors or major intersections is the T4 Neighborhood
Medium. These buildings can get up to three and a half stories tall, but that’s primarily in the
southeast along the single loaded streets where there's open space on the other side. Finally,
the T4 Main Street, which is that densest zoning category is located at the corner of McCollister
and Sycamore and it would allow the Courtyard Building Large and Townhouses in a run of 4-8
and they can be stacked up to three.
Lehmann noted the current Zoning Code does not consider building types, so this is a newish
concept for the Zoning Code. Riverfront Crossings does have different building types, so this is
more similar to what is south of downtown. The biggest difference is that it distinguishes the
building from the use, so currently the City defines uses in the Zoning Code as single family or
duplexes or multifamily. In this Form-Based Code everything is defined as building scale. In
looking at scale rather than use is a way to deal with what buildings look like because mostly
they’re interested in the experience with the public realm and how does that interact with
surrounding properties.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 6 of 23
Lehmann stated using this building scale rather than use does create some new standards that
staff hasn’t historically reviewed. It includes some minimum and maximum bulk requirements,
such as the scale of a block scale building. It regulates the number of units, whereas the current
Zoning Code regulates by density of a lot sizes. In the Form-Based Code they are noting the
number of units that can be within an existing building type and also creates a requirement for
housing diversity on each block. Finally, these building type standards are incorporated into the
revised processes that were discussed at the last meeting and would be included on the
preliminary plan and they'll get finalized in the neighborhood plan and do either a building permit
or site plan review, depending on the use and of number of units. That is the point where staff
would check it against the neighborhood plan to make sure that it was in compliance with all of
these standards. He noted there is a possibility of administrative change, but that would happen
on the neighborhood plan as well and if a design site can accommodate a House Small but it's
also large enough to accommodate a Stacked Duplex those could be switched out
administratively as an update to the neighborhood plan.
The next set of standards Lehmann reviewed was the Architectural Elements Standards and
there are four different elements that are regulated by this Code. In general, it is similar to what
some of the current site development standards are, for example, the multifamily site
development standards or the four different sets of commercial site development standards, and
the different sets of single families site development standards. However, the Architectural
Elements Standards work with both the building type standards and the frontage type standards
to try and provide visual interest and make sure that the interaction with the public realm
provides walkable neighborhood friendly environments.
The first Architectural Elements Standard is the Tripartite Facade Articulation and applies to
buildings that are at least two stories and basically states there has to be a base, a middle and a
top and an architectural element must be used to distinguish those three areas to create some
horizontal visual interest. So, the ground floor has to be articulated by some sort of string
courses, cornice expression or awnings or canopies. It could be different materials, but it doesn't
require different materials, it could be colors it could be any number of ways as long as they are
distinguishing the base from the other portions that standard can be met. The middle area only
applies if it's three stories, but it would need to have some feature to create visual interest on the
horizontal plane. The top should be delineated with some form of cornice expression, either trim
material, brackets and panels, eave details or accentuated masonry.
The next Architectural Elements Standard is Architectural Recessions which would apply to
buildings have at least two stories and are over 50’ long, so essentially a house scale building
however this explicitly excludes houses and duplexes from having to comply with the
Architectural Recession standards. The purpose really is to modulate the appearance of a
building and recess a portion of the facade, whether that be an entry, whether that be balconies,
but it has to be carried through the building and it has to be 12 to 20 feet and up to two locations
with longer buildings requiring a wider recess. Lehmann explained again with a lot of these
standards the goal is to provide visual interest which helps create walkable neighborhoods and
Architectural Recessions are one of the ways that they currently do that within the Code.
Next is the Corner Element and this is actually a voluntary architectural element that could be
used on Main Street buildings and the idea is to provide emphasis to corner and it help shape
the public realm. On those corners it could be a slight bump out or it could exceed that zone
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 7 of 23
height that would typically be allowed by a little bit to create that visual interest on the corner and
to help define the public realm. Lehmann noted again this would be a voluntary element and not
a required element.
Another voluntary element is the Rooftop Room which is an enclosed or unenclosed portion on
the top of the roof, but it can't just be another blanket additional story. It would have to be
somewhat setback; it has to have openings or windows and it has to be consistent with the
primary building. It is another architectural element that provides visual interest, and it can
provide a neat feature on buildings.
Lehmann noted these architectural elements are relatively limited in this Form-Based Code
compared to some other zone-specific site development standards in the multifamily zones or
the Riverfront Crossings Zone. The requirements are similar but many of them are addressed
through other ways within this Form-Based Code. For example, building and frontage types
address a lot of the standards that would typically be included in the site design standards such
as parking lot design, landscaping, building entries, exterior stairways, mechanical equipment,
etc. In other cases, some of the standards don't really apply in this area because it is greenfield
development where they're not working within an existing historical neighborhood, for example.
In a lot of ways, it's similar in that it looks at building bulk and provides facade articulation that
would create visual interest, it requires tripartite articulation within the building and that's
something that they City also requires within the Riverfront Crossings District. It does require
equal treatment of facades, which is something else required in Riverfront Crossings. Regarding
differences, this Form-Based Code doesn't regulate building materials nor regulate windows.
They didn’t want to limit architectural creativity in new areas but there are still standards related
to visual interest to hopefully address a lot of issues that may come with just a standard box
building.
Hensch asked if building materials are not regulated than how can they say the transact for Main
Street would be similar to the downtown area. Lehmann replied the more proper comparison
would be the Main Street area and a Neighborhood Commercial zone that we have rather than
the downtown zones, as the City really only regulates building materials within certain areas like
downtown.
Lehmann moved on to the next section which is related to frontage types. In terms of general
standards, it doesn't necessarily restrict frontage types as they don't correspond to the uses, one
could have a porch on a commercial building and can have a porch on a residential building.
They are really guided by the zone and the building type in that zone. Building types may have
multiple frontages, depending on the frontage type and depending on where it's located on the
block, but the frontage type does have to be located within the frontage zone, which is on the
front of that building designed site. In addition, they must have frontage types that front
thoroughfares or a civic space, such as a circumstance where a house is fronting on to a
pedestrian passage rather than fronting on the street. Lehmann noted however they would still
need equal architectural treatment on the street as well. The frontage is just where the primary
individual entrance would be. Exterior stairs can be used as entry on ground level but for any
units that are above ground, they have to be entered from an enclosed staircase. Similar to
building types, they also require at least two different frontage types on each block to help
provide visual interest and create a pedestrian friendly environment. Part of the reason they
have the frontage standards is to really look at the interaction of the public realm and the private
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 8 of 23
realm being the right-of-way, which is the streets, the parking, the green space and the sidewalk
and then into the private yard and the frontage type is that interaction with those areas.
Lehmann noted there are 10 choices or frontage types. The first is Porch Projecting, which is as
it sounds to project the porch into the front yard or within the front set back, and it is basically a
covered structure that can be elevated or it can be at grade. It could be one or two stories, but it
has to be opened on three sides. This type of frontage is allowed in all zones except for the T4
Main Street. As far as the dimensions go, it does require a minimum of 6’ to 8’ so it is usable
space and really creates a purpose like an outdoor room that can facilitate that interaction
between the public and the private realms. They expect to see a lot of Porch Projecting in the T3
zones, especially because one of the features of the projecting porch is that with the parking set
back in the T3 Neighborhood Edge zone they can move the garage closer to the front of the lot.
The other type of porch is considered an Engaged Porch so that's where it's partially set back
within the facade. With an Engaged Porch it could have two to three sides that are within that
facade but obviously the front would have to be open and, potentially, one of the sides could also
be open as well, but again, it is a covered structure that creates an outdoor room. It follows
similar standards as the porch projecting on where it's allowed in all zones except for the Main
Streets, and it has similar dimensional standards.
The next set of frontages are the Dooryard and Stoop. Lehmann noted they're probably the
most versatile ones in that they are allowed in all zones. With the Dooryard the main facade is
set back and is defined by a wall ahead or some other sort of small screening that would create
separation. Again, the purpose is to try and create some sort of outdoor room to facilitate that
interaction between the public and private realms. For the Dooryard the dimensions would be a
little wider so it would have to be 10’ deep and 15’ wide and then the wall would only be able to
be up to 3’ around that area as well. With the Stoop, the purpose is to create some separation
between the public and the private realm so it's set up a little higher than other development
standards and would be expected along busier streets where someone walking by could be
looking right in a window. It would have an elevated entry and the stairs could either be parallel
or in front depending on how it's designed. The Stoop has a shallower depth, it could be 3’ by 5’
and would need to be at least 12 inches above grade so it provides some of that separation.
The next frontage type is Forecourt and is intended for use in denser zones. The Forecourt is
specifically in the T4 Neighborhood Medium and T4 Main Street zones. The idea is that the
building is set near the front of the design site, but there is essentially an extension of the public
realm into the interior of the building site for an entry court or shared garden. The For ecourt has
to be at least 15’ wide and deep and it does have a height to width ratio so the walls don’t tower
over the court area, there needs to be light and air within the area.
Craig asked if it’s the public realm like a sidewalk anybody can go there, but obviously if there's
going to be a restaurant or something there it’s not going to be used for just anyone. Lehmann
replied it would depend on the use, it is technically private space but should feel like it's part of
the public realm and that's what he means when saying it's extending the public realm into the
space. If it were commercial uses it could be something like outdoor seating, if it's residential
uses it would probably be more of a private space, but it creates that visual extension of the
public realm.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 9 of 23
The next set of frontages are the shop fronts, there's a Maker Shopfront and just a Shopfront.
Lehmann explained these are typically intended for commercial buildings, although they're not
restricted to commercial buildings, but the idea is that the facade is at the front of the design site
in each of these cases and they're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone. The difference is that
the Maker Shopfront is somewhere where there's maybe industrial or seasonal businesses or
other businesses that are oriented towards retail or consumers and may include decorative roll
down doors depending on the use. For example, a restaurant that has rolled down doors that
open up to the public could be there, but the goal is to have some interaction with the public and
the private realm. At least 50% of the facade would have to be glazing or windows, The Maker
Shopfront is for businesses that are less customer centric but still want interaction with the public
realm.
The Shopfront is for more customer centric businesses and include substantial glazing between
the Shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an awning that overlaps the
sidewalk.
Craig asked if the glazing requirements are similar to the convenience stores that have been built
lately and have a requirement for glazing but really it is just looking through this giant window
and seeing a wall, there's nothing in there. Lehmann confirmed those are glazing requirements,
but in this case the glazing is limited to the front edges so it's a little difference as it's going to be
the front of the buildings and the intention is for it to open up into customer centric spaces, rather
than a hallway as in the convenience stores Craig is talking about.
Lehmann stated the next frontage type is the Terrace and this is again meant for higher intensity
zones, the T4 Neighborhood Medium and Main Street zones. The idea is that the facade is near
the front of the design site, but that there's some sort of elevated surface between the sidewalk
and that space. Perhaps in commercial uses a Terrace could be a sidewalk café, but it can be
used with residential uses as an outdoor seating area for residents. There are standards that it
can only be up to 2’ above grade and does require a certain depth affiliated with it and it provides
some privacy similar to a Stoop.
Finally, the last two are the Gallery and Arcade. Lehmann explained these are both covered
spaces and the idea is that the main facade is set back somewhat from the public realm on the
design site. They're only allowed in the T4 Main Street zone but there would be covered space
that's not within the right-of-way. It could be one - two stories in the case of the Gallery, or up to
three stories in the case of the Arcade. These are typically intended for commercial uses and do
require that they be used in conjunction with other frontage types so, for example with
commercial uses there'd be used in conjunction with the Shopfront Type and must run along the
entire front of that facade. These frontage types are a newish concept, there are some similar
requirements in Riverfront Crossings, but these are a little more specified and little more detailed.
Overall Lehmann explained the purpose is to really work with those other standards to provide
visual interest that interacts the public and private realms. Again, review of frontage types would
be included on the neighborhood plan and would be reviewed during building permit or site plan
review and could have administrative changes similar to building types with the goal to maintain
that diversity of frontage types.
The next set of standards is related to thoroughfares which are essentially public streets and in
some cases alleys or passages. Lehmann explained there are several different thoroughfare
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 10 of 23
types that are use and they're built around the intended physical character of the zone, but the
goal is to provide multimodal ways of getting around the City. He noted at the last meeting they
had talked about thoroughfare types to incorporate different modes of transportation, such as
walking, biking, different vehicle types and transit. Lehmann noted it does require an
interconnected network and the goal is to provide multiple routes through the area, which is
generally required for more pedestrian friendly areas, because when there are extra long blocks,
it makes it a lot more difficult to travel places. Regarding the individual standards most are in the
public right-of-way and won't be privately owned so during the subdivision process there is an
opportunity to tweak some of the criteria, but those would come before the Planning
Commission. Another requirement in the Standards is that street trees are required and would
have to be planted either prior to acceptance of public improvements or prior to the certificate of
occupancy for the adjacent property. It will depend on if the property is going to be developed, if
it's going to be developed, but isn't developed yet they don't want to put in the street trees and
then need a bulldozer to get on site, so the street tress will be planted when the building is
constructed. There are other opportunities to delay such as if the seasons don't cooperate, but
there are also standards as to what that looks like to ensure that the street trees are planted at
regular intervals throughout that area.
Hensch noted it is the current practice where now if there's street trees required in the zoning it
becomes the responsibility of the particular lot owner, as it becomes developed, but this would
happen with the developer to have to plant those right up front. Lehmann explained a developer
would pay an escrow for the trees that would cover the cost of installation, so if the developer
doesn’t follow through, then the City would have the funds to be able to play for the trees.
Lehmann stated again there are 10 choices Throughfare Type Standards, and they correspond
to major streets in the area and a lot of them are based on current engineering for those streets
where engineering already exists. The first type is the Main Streets and there are two varieties,
With Median or Without Median. They are intended for the Main Street zone, the Main Street
with Median has a wider right-of-way at 100’ with the idea being that there would be 50’ of
payment with 25’ on each side of a 10’ median. There would be two traffic lanes, two bike lanes
and two parking lanes. As far as landscaping the expectation is that trees would be every 30’ and
the sidewalk would extend over to the street, the sidewalks are 20’ sidewalks with planters within
the sidewalk. Lehmann said this would be essentially along the main street zone of McCollister.
The Main Street Without Median would be along Sycamore Street where it’s zoned T4 Main
Street. It is a narrower right-of-way because it doesn't have the median so it has 80’ right-of-way
but would still have two traffic lanes and two parking lanes. It would have trees in planters with
the 20’ sidewalk.
Craig asked if it is just 20’ from the building to the street then. Lehmann noted it might even be
wider than that in spots, similar to the downtown area where there are very wide sidewalks and
also planters within that area. It is intended to mimic a typical historic main street where there
are tree planters with the sidewalks so most of the area that's not intended for pedestrian travel
use could allow for things like sidewalk cafes or other uses that can spill over into the right-of-
way like business sidewalk sales and such. Craig commented that 20’ didn’t feel big enough and
Lehmann said it’s wider than a typical trail which is usually only 10’.
Padron asked specifically which sidewalk downtown is 20’ to help her visualize what this would
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 11 of 23
look like. Lehmann is not sure off hand but Washington Street especially wide sidewa lks.
Russett confirmed on Washington Street in front of the US Bank Building there's a 20’ foot
sidewalk but across the street in front of the Java House and Chop House that sidewalk is more
like 35’.
Lehmann noted as far as where bike lanes are shown on the Future Land Use Map they're
generally shown corresponding to where the City's future bike lanes are planned for in the
Bicycle Master Plan and that’s how they determine which streets have bike lanes.
Lehmann moved onto the next set of Throughfare Type Standards, which are also along
McCollister but away from the main street areas. These are Avenue 2 Without Parking and
Avenue 2 with Future Parking. These pass through a couple different zones and are in the T3
Neighborhood General and T4 Neighborhood Small and T4 Neighborhood Medium. In both the
right-of-way is consistently 100’. In areas Without Parking, the pavement with is 17’ 6” on each
side, so 35’ total which includes traffic lanes, bike lanes, and median/turn pockets. In areas of
Future Parking there is 50’ pavement with 25’ on each side, and would include traffic lanes, bike
lanes, parking lanes, and the median/turn pocket. In these areas there will still be trees spaced
every 30’ but are continuous planters rather than individual planters as in the Main Street Zone.
Lehmann explained it is similar to what is along almost any other right-of-way in Iowa City, the
continuous landscaping. For sidewalks, they will be 6’ on one side and 10’ on the other so that
10’ sidewalk acts as a trail for pedestrians
Avenues 2 and 4 correspond to the other major streets in the area. Avenue 3 corresponds with
Sycamore Street and Lehman Street will be developed to an Avenue 4. Avenue 3 and Avenue 4
can be used in all zones except for the Main Street zone. For Avenue 3 there is a right-of-way of
100’ but the pavement width is reduced to 34’ without any kind of median and is just two traffic
lanes and two bike lanes. There are trees in planters, but these planters are a little wider than the
McCollister oriented ones. There is still have a trail size sidewalk on one side and a standard
size sidewalk, on the other side. Avenue 4 has a narrower right-of-way of 87’ with two traffic
lanes and a median/turn pocket. Trees would be planted in a continuous planter with wide
continuous planters and the sidewalk would be trail on one side and 5’ on the other side.
Lehmann next discussed Neighborhood Streets noting generally throughout most of the
neighborhood it will be Neighborhood Streets, and there are two options. Neighborhood Street 1
is with parking on both sides and Neighborhood Street 2 is parking on just one side. They are
both allowed in all zones except for the T4 Main Street Zone. Neighborhood Street 1 is with
parking on both sides has a 70’ right-of-way with which is slightly larger than the current Code
standard right-of-way width of 60’, but the idea is for it to be a little wider to accommodate street
trees in addition to other utilities and things that go in the right-of-way. The pavement width is
28’ and this is a yield type parking arrangement so where there aren't cars on the streets, one
could expect there could be up to two cars on each side, but if there are cars coming at each
other and it's fully parked, then they will need some maneuvering between those two cars to
negotiate. Lehmann explained the reason that it's designed this way is to slow the traffic on
those local streets and to create safe environments for children and pedestrians. For
Neighborhood Street 2 where parking on just on one side the right-of-way is narrower at 70’, the
pavement width is 26’ with 18’ for traffic and 18’ parking lane. The traffic lane again is a yield
type lane, however, with cars moving slow they can actually pass each other but it's still
expected that one would yield to help reduce those traffic speeds within local streets. Trees
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 12 of 23
would still be every 30’ and 14’ planters to accommodate those trees and utilities. In the
Neighborhood Street 2 with parking on just one side the sidewalks are 5’ on each side.
Hensch asked if the 60’ right-of-way is what is currently in residential areas. Lehmann confirmed
it is and also in these areas the pavement doesn’t change, the difference is that continuous
planter is wider. He thinks typically developers choose to do parking on both sides to provide
additional parking for residents, but it’s not always the case.
Craig asked about the term continuous planter, that is in the ground and not like a raised three-
foot planter. Lehmann confirmed when he says planters, just imagine the typical planting strip
area between the street and the sidewalk.
Lehmann moved onto the next type of Thoroughfare Type which is the Alley and is allowed in all
zones. It has a right-of-way of 20’, which would be expected behind the buildings, rather than in
front of them, so it's not a frontage type. The Alley would be fully paved with a 20’ traffic lane so
it does allow some room for passing of cars, but typically this would be expected to be a yield
type traveling as well. Within the Alley there is a requirement for street trees and individual
planters in the area between driveways, however no sidewalks have to be provided, as it's
expected that traffic's minimal enough where they don't have to worry about traffic as it's really
only to access those individual sites. Lehmann explained the way that the Alley is a special type
is that it does allow some modified lot dimensions, where they can reduce the size of the design
site in exchange for an Alley with the idea being that they want to encourage alleys behind
buildings to pull some of those garages off of the street frontages and create a more pedestrian
friendly environment. He pointed out again it’s not required to have the garages behind the
houses, but this allows an option. Along the primary streets within the area, South Gilbert Street
and McCollister they will need to provide access to the design sites from the side roads, rather
than those primary roads, but those would typically be expected, because they don't expect that
the design sites will have access to the side streets.
Hensch asked if these Alleys would be public routes or private roads. Lehmann stated it is not
specified, they could be public or private, but staff anticipates that they would be private.
Lehmann stated the other special type is a Passage and is also allowed in all zones. It's also a
20’ right-of-way but it would not have any traffic lanes and would be a 10’ pedestrian path with 5’
of plantings on the side of the host and required street trees about every 50’ within that
continuous planter. It doesn't have sidewalks because the general purpose of a Passage as a
sidewalk is to allow pedestrian connections in exchange for larger plots or wider block links and
to be able to create a pedestrian friendly environment, they want multiple routes that pedestrians
can take to reach their destinations. Those same kinds of accommodations are not needed for
vehicles as they can travel at faster speeds versus a pedestrian. Lehmann noted this is one way
to allow an extension of a block by providing that pedestrian connection through the block length.
Lehmann also noted there may be certain circumstances where there is a pedestrian Passage
with buildings running along it and Alleys behind, so the cars are provided vehicular access and
the pedestrian Passage would provide that pedestrian access.
Craig noted however the pedestrian street is the responsibility of either an association or the
property owners, unlike a regular street. Lehmann noted that alleys in the current Code are not
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 13 of 23
specified to be public or private and this would be the same. However, in many cases the
pedestrian Passage that are required are noted as public land. Craig asked if the City would
maintain those Passages, and Lehmann replied if it's public the City would maintain it, however if
adjacent to property, the owner would maintain it similar to any street where the owner may have
to mow the grass between the sidewalk and the street. Russett anticipates if Passages get built
that they would be privately maintained, but there would probably be some type of public access
easement over them that would be memorialized through the subdivision process that would
allow anyone to use the Passage.
Lehmann stated as far as visualizing where these thoroughfare types are imagined, the primary
streets are the Avenues, otherwise most of the areas within the developments would be local
streets and those neighborhood streets, which again are similar to the current standards in the
Code and pedestrian Passages would be added in if developers wanted to try and have longer
blocks and provide less vehicular streets, they could replace them with pedestrian streets. Alleys
are currently shown primarily along those major streets where they would be required, unless
they can provide access from the side lots. Alleys may also be present in a couple other places
and usually are tied to fronting pedestrian passageways or civic spaces and provides vehicular
access to where they're currently isn't vehicular access.
Craig asked if a gas station or convenience store type of thing wants to be built on and the
corner of McCollister and Sycamore, would that be allowed. Lehmann would have to look at the
standards and can report back at the next meeting, but if it were allowed it would have to follow
all of the standards and the design standards as well.
Lehmann stated these thoroughfare types are a completely new concept because a lot of it is
going to be actually publicly owned land but it builds on Code requirements from the streets that
are currently there and provides some additional standards with the goal to ensure that
multimodal access is possible within the neighborhood. Like other types that are in this Code,
there is a possibility of administrative changes, one can add or take away passageways that
meet certain standards or swap out neighborhood streets.
Lehmann stated the last chapter of 14-2H is Affordable Housing Incentives and is something that
has been added on since the initial public review draft and it really mirrors some of the standards
used in Riverfront Crossings, but in this case it's a voluntary set of standards. To explain, within
the City there are some mandatory affordable housing policies, like the annexation policy of
which a lot of this area is going to be subject to. However, if annexed, these standards would not
be able to use those required affordable housing units, they would not be able to take advantage
of this, but if additional voluntary units were provided, they would be able to take advantage of
some of these incentives. To receive these incentives, it also has to be in a Form-Based Zone, it
doesn't apply to other zones within the area. It has to be for onsite affordable housing, they can't
just pay a fee-in-lieu and use these standards.
Lehmann reviewed the standards, first is a 25% density bonus where any additional unit has to
be affordable. So, looking at building types that have three or more units, if they had four units
and wanted to provide five units within that building type, would have to be an affordable unit.
Next is a parking reduction, where the affordable units would not be required to have parking but
again that's for the minimal parking standard purposes, it does not mean that there won't be
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 14 of 23
parking, it means that it would be up to the developer to include extra parking.
There is flexibility from some other certain standards in hoping that it will encourage mixed
income developments and diverse housing opportunities for different folks within the community.
Lehmann noted they also hope that will increase the number of units produced and hopefully
incentivize some who might not otherwise consider affordable housing within this area.
Townsend asked if there is going to be a time limit on that affordable housing. Lehmann will go
over the actual standards and how it is enforced in a bit but first wanted to talk about the
incentives.
Lehmann noted as far as the adjustments go, they’d be allowed one adjustment to the zone
standards and one adjustment to building type standards that are specified in the Code. Staff
would have to make a finding that it fits into the site, fits into the neighborhood characteristics
and is consistent with the intent of that standard being modified. He added it does provide some
protection if there's a scrupulous developer who's trying to manipulate the system to create
something that just frankly doesn't fit the neighborhood, staff would be able to stop that. The
zone standards that can be adjusted are design site depth which can be adjusted by 15’ in terms
of depth and 15% for width. The minimum area within the facade zone can be reduced by 20%
as well. The building type standards that could be modified are the building main body and wing
standards could be adjusted by 15% and building height could be increased by a half a story.
Lehmann added there would be an opportunity to provide additional minor adjustments if those
affordable housing units are further restricted in terms of who they'd be provided for. Generally,
the affordable housing units will be available for owners at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) 60%
AMI for renters but if those were reduced to 50% AMI then they would be allowed to have
another building type adjustment, subject to those same eligibility standards.
In terms of the general requirements, Lehmann stated they can be met by providing either onsite
owner-occupied affordable units or rental units. The units would be subject to sales price limits,
80% AMI (which for a family of four that's income just shy of $80,000 and for an individual person
it would be just shy of $56,000).
Hensch asked if the current AMI in the City is $100,000. Lehmann doesn’t know what 100% AMI
is but noted these numbers do get updated annually and are based around a family of four and
based on the family income in Iowa City.
Lehmann stated for rental units, they need to be at 60% AMI and subject to HUD fair market
rents and LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) income limits. The term of affordability would
be 20 years and that would be secured with an agreement and the deed restriction on the
property. So even if the owner was to sell it, they would still have to abide by the standards, and
it would be administered through some administrative rules that are adopted by the City.
Lehmann showed slides with the income and sales limits based on household size and then the
rent limits based on size of units. He noted for owner occupied properties there's also the HUD
purchase limits, which are pretty high purchase limits in Iowa City because it’s based on sales
prices within the City. He stated there is a difference between existing and new homes as to
what those purchase price limits are and right now most of the sales are new homes and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 15 of 23
standard single family home purchase price is limit a of $240,700. Regarding rent limits the fair
market rents are also pretty high, for a one bedroom it's around $800 and for a three bedroom it
is up to $1,483. That would be the cap and again those are adjusted annually, based on the
rents and 40% of the area median rent. Lehmann explained it's partially based on market prices
but it's below market prices, which is why it's considered the fair market rent. If a property is
awarded a LIHTC by the Iowa Finance Authority (an affordable housing subsidy program that
can be specifically applied in certain areas), those rent limits are based on the income of the
person in the unit so there could be differing rents for different units, depending on their
distribution and can be pretty complicated.
Padron had a few questions regarding the income limits that Lehmann showed on the slides. Is
it correct that at 60% AMI a family of four would have an income limit of $60,000 so what level of
rent is affordable. Lehmann stated it varies over time but generally a household making $60,000
is expected to spend 30% of their income on housing, so if they're spending less than 30% it's
considered affordable. Spending up to $1500 on rent (so one-, two- and three-bedroom units
would be affordable) is acceptable to a household at 60% AMI.
Padron is confused when they say income limits less than 80% of the AMI, can they change that
number to something lower or is that something that cannot be modified, because 80% seems
high to her. Lehmann stated that would be a family making $80,000 to be at 80% AMI.
Craig noted then if a family of four made less, say $60,000, they still meet that standard because
it less than 80%. Lehmann confirmed the definition of low and moderate income is 80% and that
is the upper limit for a homeowner limit. For rental households on the HOME program, they use
60% which was what was used for Riverfront Crossings.
Lehmann stated he can try and prepare something for the next meeting to show how they came
up with these limits and what they mean in more concrete terms rather than these abstract
numbers.
Padron appreciates that because saying that the rent limit for one bedroom is $1400 that is really
high, her mortgage is half of that, and she lives in a house. Lehmann acknowledged it is
considered affordable, based on the income of someone making 80% AMI because it would be
30% of their income. Padron asked if the developer could put that price on a one-bedroom
apartment and then get all the benefits of having affordable housing. Lehmann said they would
only be able to do that if they're awarded low-income housing tax credits which requires a mix of
different market rate and affordable units. Padron reiterated they will get a tax credit and her
point $1496 rent doesn't seem affordable.
Russett stated the City has more flexibility on changing the AMI standards than they do these
rent limits. For the low-income housing tax credit limits, these are the limits that would only be
applied to projects that receive tax credits from the State, and if they receive tax credits from the
State, the City cannot ask the developer to lower the rents, these are the rents that they would
be required to charge through that program.
Lehmann stated the fair market rents are the standard rent that would be provided with bonus
units unless they happen to get LIHTC, which is not common, there is maybe one LIHTC project
every other year or so. Most of these units would be expected to be under fair market rent.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 16 of 23
Hektoen noted the distinction is the LIHTC standards are set by State regulations, where the
discretion comes in, as to whether Planning and Zoning and the City Council wants to provide
additional incentives for LIHTC projects is since they can't really change the structure of the
LIHTC program what is being proposed here is to allow these additional incentives for LIHTC
projects.
Townsend acknowledged the problem is they are calling this affordable housing and it really is
not affordable to those people that are low income, it's a lie.
Signs stated he has been around the affordable housing issue for some time now and he doesn’t
know if they've increased those limits recently but does agree with everyone else that it doesn’t
seem affordable. He understands they can't do anything about it, other than go to the State
House but in this environment, that's probably not going to change.
Hektoen explained there's two programs that they're talking about here, and where the Council
and P&Z do have more discretion is in the fair market rent and the structure that's being created
by this Code change. The LITHC structure is a separate animal. But there are two programs
and in this Code they are offering incentives for both of those programs.
Hensch stated he is interested in increasing the very few LIHTC projects that get built because if
they can do something to encourage more LIHTC projects they will increase the pool of
affordable housing. It may not be as affordable as people want, but it helps increase the overall
pool. Right now, not much is being built at all, so if they can create some incentives, it is a good
thing. The reason developers are spending their money is because they're going to get their tax
credits through the Iowa Finance Authority, qualifying for their programs, and so the City needs
to help encourage them to do that or they won't get built at all.
Signs noted looking at those limits quite frankly, they're not terribly far off of market rate so who's
benefiting from that is the developer. He’s been around these projects and he knows there is a
group in town who has done LIHTC projects and are not going to be very happy with this
conversation or with him, but these rents are not affordable at all.
Craig noted looking at the percentages, at 80% means they're making $80,000, and a two-
bedroom is $1800 and at 40% where that family is making $40,000 and they need a two-
bedroom apartment the rent is $900, which is a big difference from $1800 dollars.
Hensch agreed and noted they do have to look at the definition of affordable, if someone is
spending 30% or less of their income on the rent by definition it is affordable, even though the
numbers seem high. He did agree there's always sticker shock about these bigger numbers, but
Iowa City is just an expensive place to live. Perhaps Lehmann can provide some examples to
help illustrate this in a future presentation.
Signs agreed that due to the fair market rate limits those numbers seem reasonable to him but
he would say no incentives for LITHC projects.
Townsend asked if there are there other programs for affordable housing. Lehmann will try to
create a summary of the programmatic requirements. He did note he doesn’t think there would
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 17 of 23
ever be a single LITHC project that would only have 80%, most LITHC’s have a mix of 60%, 40%
and 30% AMI. There may be a couple 80% but there's some level of averaging at what different
income levels are so there is a mix of income ranges to create cash flow within the property.
Townsend stated they might also be confused that these percentages are, is it how much of their
salary they’re spending for rent. Lehmann replied no, the percentages are based on income.
80% is considered low income and rents limits are based on 30% of what someone who makes
80% AMI.
Hensch asked if the Del Rey project was LITHC funded and Lehmann believes so. Hensch
noted that is a good example of one that's got a mix of 30/40/60 and maybe a couple at 80.
Lehmann also added they can't charge more than what the market would bear so even if the rent
limits are high if no one's going to be able to live there, then they can't charge that rent limit.
Padron stated in the Housing Commission they were having a conversation over the last few
months before she left that the problem in Iowa City is not the lack of affordable housing,
because there is a lot of affordable housing right but units that are being built are not being
occupied because the City needs more vouchers. If the City could create its own voucher
program, then they could help people get into those units.
Lehmann suggested they table the affordable housing discussion and move on with the Code
and they can discuss affordable housing in more depth next time and then he can prepare
answers for Commissioner’s questions.
Lehmann stated as far as requirements go then the market rate in the affordable units have to be
the same floor area, number of bedrooms, and similar quality or at least a similar proportion
inequity in units or any barrier that might be there. The affordable units must be developed
concurrently with all other units through these voluntary incentives. For owner occupied units,
their income would be qualified prior to sale and it would have to be their primary residence.
They can't rent it, except for a bedroom, and if they sell it within that 20-year span, they would
have to sell it to an income eligible household at either the HUD sales limit with some deductions
for real estate commissions, closing costs, or permanent capital improvements that would
increase the value. As far as renter units, the owner would be responsible to income certify each
tenant annually, prior to lease and then annually thereafter, and if there is a tenant who is doing
well during the affordable unit period and get more money and become over income they
continue to be qualified until they vacate the unit and at which point, it would be occupied by
another income qualified units. Again, the rental rates for a rental unit or the HUD fair market rent
is the basic one but if they do get LITHC than they would have those LITHC grants and then the
owner is responsible for clients and they would have to verify annually with the City, including
their documentation for income certifications.
Lehmann next wanted to discuss three other general sections that are no longer part of title 14-
Chapter 2-H. Some are other changes to Title 14 and some are changes to Title 15, which is the
Subdivision Code and Title 14 is the zoning code and then also the Comprehensive Plan would
need to be amended as part of this.
The other changes are mostly administrative sorts of changes. The first Lehmann discussed is
that in sign regulations and there is a new subsection in the appendix on other changes to Title
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 18 of 23
14. The biggest change is applying the sign standards to these zones and what they look like.
Generally, the only signs that are allowed are temporary signs and portable signs, but as they
get into open subzones that allow a greater variety of commercial uses they’re also allowed to do
Porch signs and Post signs and in the more intense zones like the T4 Main Street zone pretty
much all sign types are available. Lehmann explained it really depends on the intensity of the
zone, the size of the buildings, and the uses that are allowed as to which signs are allowed. The
Code also creates new sign types, which are the Porch sign and the Post sign, which are pretty
self-explanatory by their names.
The other larger changes are in the definitions, there are new concepts that they have been
discussing throughout this presentation, things like missing middle housing, civic space, etc.,
definitions that the City doesn’t currently have and it also clarifies other concepts as they applied
to Form-Based Codes. There are Form-Based Zones, which zones those correspond to, there
are some changes to how to define building heights, frontages, or parking setbacks, and then
one more notable is there isn’t currently a half story in the Zoning Code.
The other minor changes Lehmann wanted to mention are in the introductory section and would
provide some clarificatory language, in the off-street parking standards they talked about special
vehicle parking in T3 zones, they also make sure that they apply lighting standards in zones,
they apply woodland retention requirements in the zones, and those are basically similar to their
corresponding zones as residential single-family zones. Finally then there are the sign
definitions, which he just mentioned.
The other piece is something where the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn’t recommend
changes, Title 15, which is the Subdivision Code, but because it incorporates the way that these
things work, Lehmann wanted to make sure that they were aware of them and how the
Subdivision Code fits in with the zoning code changes. The first is the plats and platting
procedures, a lot of the changes are housekeeping items, such as adding a step for submittal
and review and departmental titles and positions as those are all out of date.
The other two items that are larger changes are what's reflected in the preliminary plat and as
Lehmann stated earlier the way a lot of these standards will be implemented is in the preliminary
plat so that's where they'll have to show design sites, thoroughfare types, civic space, building
types and they'll also have to include notation about connections to adjacent properties and
notations about which things can be substituted for other types, specifically civic space and
building types.
Lehmann reiterated the neighborhood plan is a new document that would be submitted with the
final plat and that's where the rest of this will be implemented. He explained it is very similar to
what's in a preliminary plat, it would have all those items, but it would also include frontage types
as well. That is the document where they could look in the future and say what was expected to
be there. The neighborhood plan will be checked upon a building permit or site plan and that's
how they’ll make sure that the standards are being met.
Craig asked if that will only apply to plots for this particular area of the City or was it now for
everything. Lehmann confirmed it'll be only for this area of the City, subject to the form -based
standards.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 19 of 23
Lehmann next discussed some of the design standards which is a different chapter of the
Subdivision Code. Some are related to streets and some are related to blocks but generally it
adds some language about promoting connectivity throughout the City and promoting multimodal
transportation. Lehmann noted there has to be appropriate transitions between thoroughfare
types, but it also requires that the right-of-way, or the streets have to abide by the thoroughfare
type standards and those thoroughfare type standards have to rely on the Future Land Use Map
that would be in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated where there are variations, they have
to meet specific criteria, similar to what is required in rezoning where they have specific criteria
that are required. For example, if there are sensitive areas, they can shift things and substitute
thoroughfare types, except for those major streets of South Gilbert, Lehman, Sycamore and
McCollister. They can change the alignment in the block orientation, and this is a question that
someone had on how staff will ensure that something similar is created and it's the standards in
the Subdivision Code. So, alignment can change, but the connections to existing streets have to
stay and they have to continue to abide by the block standards, and single-loaded streets will
need to continue to abut civic or open space. Lehmann explained the reason that they have
these standards here is because that was what was used to design this Code and the point of
these standards is that if there are changes to it, it would create a similar outcome to what is
currently there or what they would propose to show in the Future Land Use Map.
The other changes are tied to Passages which can replace a thoroughfare type as long as the
design site has some sort of vehicular access, whether that be an alleyway or street. Alleys can
be added if a developer would like to take advantage of some of those other benefits of alleys or
they can be removed as long as those sites have access to adjacent streets, other than
McCollister or South Gilbert. For the blocks and block lengths, the Form-Based Code zones
have a different set of block standards that they currently have. So currently they require them to
be between 300’ and 600’, there's an opportunity to lengthen them but again the block network
has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the block length of perimeters have to comply
with the block size standards table, but those with Passages. Lehmann stated with these
standards the blocks are shorter than they would currently allow typically in most T3 zones. The
maximum block length would be 500’ and then in more intense T4 zones the length would be
360’. Again, those could be extended with a pedestrian Passage in the middle of the block to
provide that pedestrian connectivity and that would increase them to 800’ and 600’, respectively,
except in the Main Street zone which would retain a 500’ maximum block length. Lehmann
reiterated there are perimeter standards, so there are no super blocks where there are really
large areas of no street connectivity and that further reinforces these block size standards.
Finally, Lehmann discussed the Comprehensive Plan draft and changes to that. This is
specifically located in the South District Plan and the reason that they have to amend the
Comprehensive Plan is because they're relying on the Future Land Use Map, which is more
detailed and it's not currently in the South District Plan. This plan was initially adopted in 2015
which is what kicked off this journey down the Form-Based Code path as one of the objectives
was to adopt a Form-Based Code for the South district. Lehmann said there are some additional
updates other than just the Future Land Use Map and they also wanted to reflect some current
priorities of City Council.
The changes are specifically to update some background and context and to generalize more
specific language, based on the new Future Land Use Map. To modify some goals and
objectives, to discuss Form-Based Codes and generally how they fit in, and then the updated
Future Land Use Map, which is the important piece as far as the rest of this Code applies.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 20 of 23
The updates and context are included to really reflect those Council objectives and to make sure
that the Code is up to date. They include input for the Form-Based Code process, provide some
additional context that wasn't included in the original such as regarding the history of native
persons, the implications of past planning practices as it relates specifically to equity and
sustainability, and then recent equity and sustainability initiatives. They also generalize some
language in the plan, in the housing transportation commercial areas section, that has happened
since the Code was adopted. Lehmann noted that doesn’t always align with the Future Land
Use Map that's being proposed, so they generalize that, but it still does generally comply without
those changes, they just wanted to make it more explicit to facilitate that adoption.
Lehmann stated there's a new chapter on Form-Based Code which discusses what they are and
how they're implemented in the South District and how they are carried out through the zoning
and subdivision code.
They also added in some new goals and objectives that more explicitly link the goals of the
Form-Based Code with the goals of the Plan. Lehmann noted these may or may not need to be
added, but they wanted to explicitly address some of these ideas. One of them is in housing,
there's a new goal and objective to provide a diversity of housing in the South District, creating a
range of housing types, densities and price points to improve equity and sustainability and the
objective is to adopt a Form-Based Code. They also added in a goal for streets, trails and
sidewalks connectivity and that is to adopt a Form-Based Code that promotes walkable
neighborhoods, encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car
dependence. In the Commercial areas they added a goal regarding development and
redevelopment of commercial areas and adopting a Form-Based Code provides for compatible
mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the
neighborhood. Lehmann noted that looking at a lot of the Form-Based Codes, a lot of these
goals are implicit within the Code, but they're not explicitly linked to Form-Based standards and
so that's really what these objectives do.
Finally, Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map that is currently within the Plan and
acknowledged there's a lot of discussion in the Plan about missing middle housing types there's
a whole page on it essentially, and what new neighborhoods should look like and this was the
Future Land Use Map that was used. Regarding the missing middle housing types, that has
some pretty specific uses, and it follows a more conventional use standard rather than focusing
on the form of missing middle housing types, and so the change was made to the existing Future
Land Use Map for greenfield areas to be where that would be applied. Any new development
has to reflect the Future Land Use Map with more explicit regulations of what that looks like and
much more detailed greenfield sites.
That was the overview of the Code, Lehmann stated as far as next steps, the next meeting is
August 5 where the Commission will be discussing any questions or clarifications they’d like, and
staff will try to give some more information on affordable housing. Staff will discuss the public
comments received thus far, and then the Commission would set a public hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Commission will then be considering a recommendation
on the Form-Based Code and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at the August 19 meeting.
Into September and October is when Council would be setting their public hearing in considering
the Code and the Plan. Lehmann reminded everyone they can find information on the website
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 15, 2021
Page 21 of 23
about how to contact staff or email members of staff with comments or questions.
Hensch thanked Lehmann and staff for the very impressive work.
Townsend asked if these new Codes would eventually replace all of the Codes in the City if they
do work on the south side. Russett replied they are just looking at these 900 acres in the South
District, but eventually they would like to apply this Code to other greenfield areas that are at the
fringe of the community, some of those areas are still in unincorporated Johnson County but are
likely to be annexed at some point, so the idea is that it would eventually apply to other
greenfield sites as well. Townsend said then they will actually be working with two sets of Codes
now, one for the old stuff and this area.
Signs stated for next time if staff could present something that f helps him understand Form-
Based uses. If he wanted to build a single-family two-story home that fits in one of these blocks,
so he could open whatever business he wanted to in that house how would he achieve that in
this new Code.
Hensch noted if Commissioners have any questions they'd like staff be prepared for to discuss
on the next meeting on August 5 please forward those to staff so they can have an opportunity to
prepare.
COMMISSION INPUT ON THE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS:
Russett noted there was a letter from Rachel Kilburn, the Assistant City Manager, in the agenda
packet about these funds and the City is currently in the process of taking comments on how the
funds should be used. The City is looking at Boards and Commissions to see if they have any
ideas but there is also an online survey each member can take individually or send an email to
the email address that was in the letter as well.
Hensch stated he would really like to see the City aim this towards affordable housing and
affordable, quality childcare, particularly in the qualified census tracks, because that's presumed
an eligible expenditure and is something they could start working on right away. He is also very
interested in housing rehabilitation, particularly looking at asthma mitigation in children and lead
pipe elimination for water distribution and then mold abatement in the homes and also taking
care of the leaking problems that are allowing the mold to form in the first place.
Padron would like to see the Council or staff look into using this money or part of the money to
create a local voucher program for affordable housing.
Signs noted there's a lot of opportunity there and there's a greater need and he is anxious to
hear what other people are saying.
Craig stated she filled out the survey online and agrees with Hensch that childcare is an issue
that needs to be address. Hensch stated it is probably the biggest obstacle for working class
and poor folks and it is not only affordable childcare, but affordable, quality childcare that is
needed.
Padron also agrees with the childcare issue and would like to see some money going to that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2021
Page 8 of 13
CASE NO. CPA21-0001:
A request to set a public hearing for August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the South
District Plan.
Russett said this item is just for the Commission to set the hearing.
Nolte moved to set a public hearing on August 19, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the
South District Plan.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
CASE NO. CPA21-0001/REZ21-0005:
Discussion on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) and draft form-based
zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Russett stated this is a continuation of the discussion that the Commission has had at the
previous two meetings regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
South District Plan and the proposed Form-Based Code. Tonight’s agenda item is an opportunity
for the Commission to ask questions and bring up items that they'd like staff to look into and
present at the hearing on the 19th.
For the August 19 meeting, staff will be preparing a comprehensive memo going over the Form-
Based Code, it'll be the written version of staff’s oral presentations and will be included in the
agenda packet for the 19th. Staff will also go over all of the comments that they've received to
date, some of those were included in this agenda packet for tonight and there will be more that
will be included in the August 19 agenda packet. After the presentation they will hold the public
hearing and at that meeting staff is recommending that the Commission make a recommendation
to Council. The Commission tonight may discuss amongst themselves what they’ve heard or ask
questions.
Signs had a question about the public transit issues with the transit changes and staff did supply
the Commission with the information on the upcoming changes which was appreciated. He said
it was his impression that there were some routes being curtailed in the South District so is the
City going to be able to accommodate all this new development. Russett noted staff believes
that through the proposed plan amendment and the changes to the Code that they will have
regulations that will create an incentive for transit to provide service in this area. The
development is going to be more compact, there's going to be more residents, and there will be a
need for transit. Additionally, they think based on how it's being proposed to be developed, the
City could serve this area with transit more easily than some of the more suburban type
development that is currently at the fringes of the community. There is a proposed extension to
the Gilbert line, which will now serve Terry Trueblood, which is just to the west of the proposed
planning area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2021
Page 9 of 13
Signs believes there was a question for some information about form versus use and was hoping
to get a little clarification on that and what that means in practicality. Russett said the Code
actually regulates both form and use but this is a new way of approaching zoning from the
conventional zoning code which is a use-based code. The purpose of this Code is to really focus
on the physical form of the buildings but allow different types of uses both residential and
nonresidential in those building types in areas that are appropriate. So for the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the areas that would allow commercial uses are the
open zones and these are located in the walkable neighborhood nodes. Russett showed on the
map areas that would only allow residential uses and commercials uses. The Form-Based Code
also includes a new type of use, the live/work use, but only certain types of uses are allowed in
those zones. Signs asked then in a residential zone, if someone were to build a single-family
structure or a duplex they could open a dentist shop or an attorney office. Russett confirmed
they could if it was an open zone.
Padron asked about parking and the Code proposing a reduction of the minimum requirement for
parking. Russett replied that depends on the use, but a developer will likely determine the
parking based on what the market is asking for. Padron asked if they could put a cap on the
maximum number of parking spaces because that would be more restrictive, instead of reducing
the minimum. Russett replied the only zone that has a parking max is the T4 Main Street Zone,
the area in the center of the community, but the rest of the zones have a minimum so they could
provide more. Padron stated when Lehmann provided his presentation, he was trying to convey
the idea that they wanted to have less parking spaces in this whole new area but she notes
reducing the minimum parking will not meet that goal.
Townsend noted however they are seeing that more people have more vehicles so they're going
to need more parking spaces. Padron said the goal is to get away from cars. And there is the
transportation hub issue, if the City wants less vehicular travel is the City providing
transportation, are they providing bike lanes, or safe sidewalks so people can walk. Right now
there is no Sunday service.
Signs shares the concern and for his entire tenure on this Commission he has spoken against
reducing parking and the parking reduction falls in the category of if they don't build it, they won't
come and he doesn’t think that's true. The reality is they live in a mobile country, a mobile state
and mobile city. Bike lanes are going unused throughout the community and in neighborhoods
where they have reduced the parking it is just bumper to bumper cars in the streets and a lot of
those are in the near downtown areas making it hard for people coming to downtown. He
understands the desire but doesn’t know how practical reducing parking really is.
Signs stated he does love the concept of the missing middle and the mixed neighborhoods. He
lived in the Sherman Hill area of Des Moines for a while and it's an old neighborhood, just to the
west of downtown. It was where all the rich people lived back in the 1800s and it was a mixed-
use development with the corner grocery store, some other business and fourplexes and
duplexes sitting next to big Victorian homes. It was a delightful neighborhood, and it was very
walkable and a lot of people who have lived in that neighborhood chose that neighborhood
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2021
Page 10 of 13
because it had that character. He loves the concept of the missing middle but doesn’t know that
this plan 100% addresses that. This is probably a step in the right direction but his is concerned
that it doesn’t fully takes on the heart and soul of that concept.
Townsend is still hung up on the affordable housing and the fair market rate and the area
medium income and none of it is making much sense as to what's actually affordable. They need
to address that whole segment of what is affordable housing, and how can they make things
more affordable. Those people that really need a home can't afford most of the stuff in Iowa
City.
Signs has been involved in in the Affordable Housing Coalition for a number of years and one of
the things that happens is affordable versus more affordable and what a mixed neighborhood
provides is potentially more affordable units. With this they can put two or four units on a lot as
opposed to just one house, which significantly lowers the development cost of each unit. From
the affordable housing standpoint, the perspective is as units become available at a more
affordable prices than what's currently available typically they will have people who are living in
lower priced homes moving into that level of home where they can't afford to right now and that
opens up some of the lower priced housing stock in the community. When the cities and
counties talk about true affordable housing, they're looking at people who make 80%, 60%, and
30% of the area median income but those are typically projects that cannot be built in this day
and age unless there are significant subsidies and/or external input. They do see those projects
in town fortunately because they have groups in town that are getting LIHTC funds and things
like that because it is impossible for a developer to build a unit that is totally affordable on their
own.
Townsend noted the challenge here is to build affordable housing the developer get perks like
additional heights, which gives them additional units, which means they make more money off
the expensive units and if two or three or four units in that complex are actually affordable, they
wouldn't be losing any money, they'd still be getting good money for the rest of the units.
Signs noted this proposed code change doesn't have any built-in affordable percentage
requirement like the Riverfront Crossing District. Russett confirmed it only has the regulatory
incentives. Signs acknowledged there's honestly not a lot of opportunity in this zone for larger
scale buildings that have multiple affordable units because there's not going to be any buildings
in this area that are more than 8 or 10 units.
Russett noted about 50% of the land area is in the County so development in that area would be
subject to the annexation policy and the affordable housing annexation policy would apply.
Nolte likes the plan overall but every projects going to be different and they have to look at every
block. Comprehensively this is a good plan, but the proof will be in the pudding when people start
wanting to build.
Townsend stated her other concern is when those come into the Commission will the exceptions
be presented with that plan. Russett stated the first step would be if this Code is adopted, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2021
Page 11 of 13
the plan amendment is approved, if a developer wants to come in it would be a rezoning process
and come before the Commission. The Code includes specific review criteria for rezonings that
they will be using to analyze that rezoning and would be written in the staff report. So if there's
anything that's different from what's in the plan, it would be noted in the staff report.
Signs stated another thing that he was really pleased to see in the staffs recommended plan
changes early on in the process when they had the consultant, the Opticos Group, here they did
a number of community information gathering sessions with the neighbors in that area. Some of
the concepts that Opticos had in their version of the missing middle involved a lot of additional
amenities in both on the houses’ structure and in the street frontages, and alleyways and
whatnot. However, all the developers at that time pointed out that all those things have a
significant price tag attached to them, which makes it even harder to be affordable. However,
staff has done a good job of not putting a lot of frilly extras that would increase the price of t hese
homes just artificially.
Russett noted if the Commission has more questions they want answered on the 19th, send her
an email and staff can prepare something.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 15, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 15, 2021.
Nolte seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett stated as many are probably already aware, the proposed Hickory Trail Estates rezoning
near Hickory Hill Park failed at Council so that will not be moving forward.
Russett had sent out an email earlier this week about moving the Commission meetings to
Wednesday, if they haven't responded please do so.
Lastly all City employees received an email today that the City's mask mandate for City facilities
is going to take effect tomorrow. So starting tomorrow in all City buildings masks will be required.
That will affect the meeting on the 19th and staff will try to figure out spacing. She will also have
to find out what if people want to remove their mask. The meeting will still be in person, here in
this building on the 19th.
Signs shared he sent an email to the chair and to staff the other day expressing some concerns
about the City Council's disapproval of the Hickory Hill project, which went against the
Commission's recommendation. This has happened a couple other times in recent history, and
they've been called in for consults on some of them. In this case some of the comments that
were made by Council members concerned him in how they were interpreting the two-decade
old neighborhood plan, and how they were interpreting the Comprehensive Plan. Some of them
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 2 of 33
Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from
Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban
Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres.
Signs moved to set a public hearing for September 2, 2021, on a proposed amendment to
the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use
Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future
Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres.
Townsend seconded the motion and a vote was taken and passed 5-0.
CASE NO. CPA21-0001:
Public hearing on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that
follows form-based principles.
Russett noted this item and the next item will be presented separately but are both part of the
same project. The first is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The South District
Plan was adopted in 2015 and that area of the City includes a lot of land that is undeveloped. In
that Plan it was recommended that a form-based code for the area be considered to manage
new development, ensure a mix of housing at compatible scales, and encourage compact and
connected neighborhoods. Since January of 2019, the City has worked with Opticos Design to
develop a form-based code and as part of that process staff has determined that amendments to
the South District Plan are necessary prior to considering adoption of the Code. Again, the South
District Plan was adopted in 2015 and after it was adopted the City worked with Opticos Design
in 2017 to assess the feasibility of implementing a form-based code. Several stakeholder
interviews were conducted, there was a community workshop and a visual preference exercise.
After that work, in 2019 the City continued to work with Opticos Design to implement the vision of
the South District Plan and then worked with a consulting firm that prepared a residential market
analysis as part of this project and worked on drafting the Code. Staff prepared options for a
Land Use Map which will be reviewed in more detail shortly. In November of 2019, the City
released the initial draft of the Code for public comment and a few months later in February 2020
they released the draft future Land Use Map for public comment. Last year, staff conducted
additional outreach and worked on Code revisions and map revisions based on feedback
received. In June 2021, they released a revised draft Code and a revised draft Plan. Russett
showed a table that gives a summary of the outreach that they've done since the beginning of
this process in 2019. She specifically mentioned the work that they did with the Iowa City
Community School District. When they met with the School District, they informed staff that
based on the planning area that they were looking at, they did not need any additional land to
address their school needs, at least not within the 900-acre area that they are looking at. Staff
also coordinated with affordable housing developers and affordable housing advocates and met
with the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Plan and based on that outreach,
they had recommended some revisions to the initial draft that was released in 2019. Their main
concerns were related to housing affordability and housing accessibility. Based on those
comments, staff integrated regulatory incentives for affordable housing into the draft Code that
the Commission will be reviewing tonight. They also incorporated changes to the frontage type
standards to address concerns related to accessibility and to make sure there were options for
developers to develop at grade entries at the front of buildings. Staff also received input on the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 3 of 33
Future Land Use Map and changed proposed designations based on concerns related to single
loaded streets, where they propose increased density along single loaded streets to offset the
costs of building a street but only having housing on one side of those streets and also along
major corridors such as McCollister Boulevard. Staff also received input that a property owner
wanted to downgrade an area along the golf course, which was accommodated.
Lehmann reiterated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is running simultaneously
with the Zoning Code Amendment that's happening. The changes to the Code are mostly minor,
there's new context that is added, some new goals and objectives added to make more explicit
the connection between form-based codes. Additionally, within that context trying to look at other
goals that the City has regarding equity and sustainability, and also provide context as to what
form-based planning looks like within the community. The bigger change is to the Future Land
Use Map to accommodate missing middle housing types and more opportunities for
neighborhood commercial than are currently there. Lehmann explained it's a lot of switching the
designations from one that is use-based to one that is form-based.
Lehmann first discussed the contextual changes, stating there's new background information,
information about the input for the form-based code, context regarding native peoples that were
not mentioned within the first drafts of the Plan, implications of past planning practices, and then
some discussion of equity and sustainability initiatives within the City. He also updated
information that was out of date, for example, development that's happened since 2015, some
changes in names, etc., and there's some generalized language as well in the housing,
transportation and commercial areas. Lehmann noted all of those changes are redlined in the
draft plan that was included in the agenda packet for tonight.
The other contextual change is there's a new chapter regarding form-based codes that's added
in form-based planning and discusses what they are and clarifies how they might be
implemented within the South District. As far as changes to goals and objectives, Lehmann
reiterated a lot of them are trying to explicitly link broader Comprehensive Plan goals to form-
based planning as it relates to the South District, especially goals related to housing, diversity,
walkable neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial nodes. The one for housing is a new
goal to provide a diversity of housing in South District including a range of housing types,
densities and price points to help improve equity and sustainability with the objective to adopt a
form-based code for the South District that encourages the diversity of housing types, densities
and price points for streets, trails and sidewalks. The new objective is to adopt form-based code
that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of
transportation and reduces car dependence. The new objective for commercial areas is to adopt
a form-based code that provides for a compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including
commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted there were other
conversations throughout the Plan about adopting a form-based code, this is just tying it to the
broader goals that are available throughout the Plan.
Regarding form-based planning Lehmann explained with the Comprehensive Plan, the primary
way that the City implements its Comprehensive Plan, and District Plans, is through the zoning
code. The zoning code provides rules on how land can be used, how it can be developed,
regulates what structures can be built and where, and the form-based planning represents
somewhat of a paradigm shift for the City. Instead of organizing zones around use categories,
such as residential or commercial, form-based zoning looks at the intended physical form and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 4 of 33
character of the space. For example, instead of commercial it would be Main Street, or instead of
residential, it would be some sort of neighborhood. Lehmann clarified however that doesn't
mean the use isn't regulated in form-based planning, it's just regulated secondarily and is tied to
the maximizing compatibility between those uses and that physical form. Form-based planning
also looks beyond individual buildings to a create vibrant, walkable urbanism and looks at the full
space, which includes things like frontage types (which is the interaction between the street and
the private realm), it includes civic spaces, thoroughfares, and building types as well. Lehmann
reiterated this is a change from previous conventional zoning standards and from some of the
City’s Future Land Use categories that they’ve had in the past. Form-based zoning doesn't
regulate by density like it has in the past but rather focuses more on the intended character of
the area and as a result it does not delineate between single family and multifamily uses.
Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map from the 2015 South District Plan and noted the
change to this map that's been proposed by staff is to have an area of it, basically the
undeveloped area, be regulated under form-based future land use districts rather than use-base
future land use districts. It also includes a series of new maps that propose where different form-
based districts might be. Lehmann explained the existing areas don't get painted under these
new land use categories, they retain their existing land use categories, so this really is only
applying to the undeveloped portion of the South District. The new Future Land Use Map is a lot
more detailed and that is to provide some certainty as to what uses go where, and how things
might look based on new form-based standards that might be implemented. Lehmann pointed
out the boundaries of the area are roughly South Gilbert Street on the west, the soccer park road
going through the middle of the south portion, and McCollister goes through the center of the
area. As far as the street network, this is still a Comprehensive Plan, so the street network is not
a subdivided area where this is going to be exactly what it looks like. However, based on the
proposed standards that staff has proposed for form-based zoning in the area, these will be
approximately the block sizes, and there are rules about connectivity and rules about what uses
get located where. Lehmann showed one example of what that future land use might look like
noting it doesn't incorporate all stormwater management areas either so it could change over
time. The new future land use categories are based on the rural to urban transect, a set of
typologies where T1 is the most natural or open space all the way up to T6 which would be urban
core, such as downtown Iowa City. In the middle is rural, suburban, general urban, and urban
center. Lehmann explained a lot of this is looking to incorporate missing middle housing types
within the City. Missing middle housing is necessary because low scale multifamily used to be
very common in cities but a lot of current zoning codes don't allow it and instead focus on low
density single family detached and high density multifamily with very little in between. Again,
being a form-based approach, this is a slightly different way of looking at those uses.
Lehmann stated the two transects that would be used would be T3, sub urban, and T4, general
urban, because it is at the edge of the City. The South District would have a mix of both of those
housing topologies or neighborhood topologies. T3 is generally less dense and T4 has denser
development, more block scale buildings, less house scale buildings, etc. In terms of what the
individual land use categories look like, on the sub urban side, the T3 side, there is neighborhood
edge, which is detached single family, duplexes and cottage courts, and then on the
neighborhood general side there may be the same uses as T3 but also including some
townhomes and some small multifamily uses and those are house scale multifamily uses. On the
T4 side it gets a little denser, so neighborhoods include building types such as cottage courts,
townhomes, small multifamily uses and small courtyard buildings. There are also neighborhood
mediums where there are larger multifamily buildings, still predominantly house scale, but also
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 5 of 33
the opportunity for some block scale buildings there. The Main Street is a relatively finite area
where there be with larger multifamily above and storefronts down below. Lehmann showed
again the Future Land Use Map and noted the T3 zones that Opticos developed to be the
neighborhood edge, which again is a smaller, less dense, land use category. The T3
neighborhood general tends to be in interior neighborhoods. The T4 zones, T4 neighborhood
small is generally allowed around collector streets and around neighborhood nodes proposed
things such as parks, Main Street areas, major intersections. T4 neighborhood medium arterial
streets and single loaded streets, areas that are more appropriate for higher density uses. T4
Main Street areas are reserved for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister. The Future
Land Use Map also looks at thoroughfares that demonstrate the proposed hierarchy of streets.
Lehmann reiterated it's not the exact layout that would happen, that would depend on subdivision
and on developers as they come in, but it does provide that concept about what a potential map
might look like based on the new standards that are incorporated in the code.
Tonight, the Commission is looking at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and there are two
approval criteria that are in the Code at 14-8D-3D explains what should be considered when
adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments. The first criteria is that the circumstances have
changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the amendment is in
the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with
other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or
amendments thereto. Lehmann explained as far as circumstances and how they've changed
over time, since 2015 the South District has continued to see residential developments,
Alexander Elementary School was developed in 2016, and McCollister Boulevard was recently
extended over to Sycamore Street. About half of the undeveloped land in the South District is
within City limits and about half is outside and are many different land uses that are currently
there. A lot of the undeveloped area is agricultural, there's single family and multifamily
residential uses, there's some civic uses and some open space uses. Further north there's also
some commercial uses, but that is not within the study area that they're looking at tonight.
Lehmann stated generally development has aligned with that 2015 Plan, but since that time
there's been extensive work made towards the objective that the City should consider a form-
based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved. So
again there was the 2017 feasibility study, which looked at form-based zoning in the South
District and noted the need to build on the South District Plan. Generally, the current future land
use scenario aligns with current conventional zoning standards and therefore doesn't really align
with form-based standards. That really came to light as they were working on this form-based
code amendment because it distinguishes between single family mixed and multifamily
residential uses and provides limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial areas. Most
importantly it regulates future land use categories by use rather than by form. Work towards the
standards revealed the need for the revised Future Land Use Map, which staff believes
constitutes a change in circumstances and makes this amendment in the public interest.
However, Lehmann noted there have been other changing circumstances as well, such as
looking at goals related to social justice and equity, which are often tied to things like housing
diversity and housing affordability. In 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-159 to
enhance social justice and racial equity, which also looked at housing diversity and conventional
zoning regulations have also been used in the past in other areas to support racial and class
segregation. Explicitly racial zoning was allowed prior to 1917 and once that was done some
cities turned to other exclusionary practices such as single family only zoning, large minimum lot
size sizes, etc. They’ll often hear about exclusionary zoning in reference to those things that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 6 of 33
worked with other policies such as redlining, slum demolition, etc. that actively worked against
promoting equity. Even Iowa City had racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in
the 1960s so right now, in Iowa City, about 81% of residential land is zoned single family
development and about half of that is zoned for low density development. Therefore, form-based
planning helps address this by trying to increase housing choice by allowing a mix of housing
uses which allows a range of price points. Lehmann acknowledged it doesn't solve the issue,
but it does mitigate one barrier to providing affordable housing options and diverse housing
choices. He encourages all to look at the mapping segregation that shows where there were
racially restrictive covenants in Iowa City. Obviously, a lot of those were in place prior to the
development of the South District but those sorts of policies have shaped zoning and housing
policy in the US. Another changing circumstance was the City adopted its 2018 Climate Action
Adaptation Plan and that includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and
achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Looking at conventional low-density zoning, it contributes to
higher greenhouse gas emissions because when things are spread out, it's difficult to navigate
by anything other than a car, which reinforces an auto oriented pattern of development. As more
people have cars it increases traffic congestion, especially near major employment centers.
Higher parking minimums also assume car ownership and can increase the prices of housing.
Form-based planning helps address this by helping to improve the City's building and
transportation systems by seeking to develop compact neighborhoods, trying to allow the
opportunity to be traversed easily by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. With these changing
circumstances staff does believe constitutes something that is in the public interest to address in
the South District Plan.
As far as consistency and compatibility with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, and other plans, Lehmann explained generally, the proposed changes align with existing
goals and objectives that are in the South District Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan as well.
The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as primarily residential land uses, mostly two to eight
dwelling units per acre with some areas that are eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. It also shows
some commercial uses. Lehmann noted with the Future Land Use Maps, they generally defer to
the district plans which are more specific and that shows future land use categories based on
use, such as low and medium density single family residential, low medium density mixed
residential, multifamily and mixed-use commercial. Lehmann pointed out that somewhat
contrasts with the text of the Plan that says to incorporate a true mix of housing at a compatible
scale, and that includes those missing middle housing types which are also discussed in the
current Plan. This amendment will refine those future land use categories to better reflect the
range of housing types discussed. Lehmann showed what the Future Land Use Map of the
South District looked like in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2013 and what it looks like in the
2015 South District Plan. Both follow some similar principles to the way that the new future land
use categories were mapped out, there is denser housing along major corridors or clustered at
neighborhood nodes, it does include multifamily at the corners of South Gilbert and McCollister
and Sycamore and Lehman, and some other areas as well. It also includes some neighborhood
commercial at the heart of the district at the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister, it is
designated as mixed use but neighborhood commercial intent partially. Lehmann next showed
the new Future Land Use Map that makes the undeveloped areas subject to form-based
standards. Again, it was developed following some similar principles to the development of the
prior Future Land Use Map but it does better align with the text of the code regarding future land
uses and form-based planning. As far as other goals from the Comprehensive Plan, there are
many that are incorporated throughout it, including ensuring a mix of housing types within each
neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian-oriented developments, planning for commercial and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 7 of 33
defined commercial nodes, supporting preservation of open space, farmland, and then visibility
from parks and discouraging parks that are surrounded by private property. As to fitting into the
South District Plan goals, it aligns with things like preserving environmentally sensitive features,
considering opportunities for small neighborhood commercial and mixed use at key intersections,
and providing safe and logical walking routes to school with well-connected streets. The new
goals and objectives that are proposed to be added to the Plan support the plan and clarify how
those form-based standards implement the Plan’s intent as it relates to housing, transportation
and commercial areas. It also aligns with other more recent policy efforts of the City including the
City's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and then Black Lives Matter and
systemic racism resolution. Incorporating these elements into the Plan helps ensure consistency
across all of the City's policy documents.
Russett discussed some of the more recent feedback that staff received on the Plan and started
with a question that was received from a Commission member this week. The question was
based on the land that is currently in unincorporated Johnson County and not part of the City,
what happens if they do not want to annex and if they want to develop within the County.
Russett explained the land that's in the County is currently within the City’s growth boundary and
is subject to the policies in the City/County Fringe Area Agreement. Any development that
happens in the County would be subject to those policies. Russett noted staff is currently working
on updating the Fringe Area Agreement with the County and hope to present that update to the
Commission very soon. The Fringe Area Agreement states that since this area is in the City’s
growth boundary it would be subject to the City's urban design standards, which is essentially the
City Subdivision Standards, which talk about consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and also ensures compliance with block standards that are currently in the subdivision code.
Moving onto some of the other public comments that staff received, and are included in the
agenda packet, they received a letter from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association, and
they're concerned about a lack of transition between the existing neighborhoods along
McCollister Court and new development and have requested that that area be changed from a
T4 designation to T3. They also have expressed concerns on impacts to education and
emergency services. Representatives of the South District Neighbor Association express an
interest in having more indoor recreation space in this area and then staff also heard from two
property owners that requested to remove their property from the planning area.
Correspondence was also received after the packet was published, from Richard Stapleton who
mentioned that he wasn't aware of the plans to develop the area and also echoed the concerns
from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association. Phil Neal was concerned with the slight
reduction proposed in parking and Glen Lynn also had concerns with the multifamily proposed
behind McCollister Court. To provide more context, Russett showed the area behind McCollister
Court, and the street just to the east of the area is where it was requested to be changed from a
T4 designation to a T3 designation. Russett explained there were two ways that staff address
transitions from existing neighborhoods with this Future Land Use Map. The first is by
designating adjacent land a T3 neighborhood edge, and the second way was designating
adjacent land as open space and that is the approach for the area behind those homes along
McCollister Court which is designated open space with a proposed future right-of-way of about
70 feet to the T4 identified there. Russett noted this is not that different than what is in the current
land use policy map, the area just to the west of McCollister Court is designated as low medium
density mixed residential which would allow duplexes, townhomes and smaller scale multifamily.
What staff is proposing is the T4 neighborhood small would allow the building types of a cottage
court, multiplex, small townhomes and courtyard building small which are all building types that
are more than one unit. It's not single family. However, in the form-based planning all the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 8 of 33
buildings are house scale buildings. Russett next showed on the map the two areas that property
owners requested being removed from the plan, one is the area south of Lehman and the other
area is east of the Sycamore Greenway but staff does not recommend removing these areas
from the Plan.
Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of CPA21-0003 the proposed
amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based
principles.
In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Commission staff will ask City Council to
set a public hearing to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form-
based standards which will run concurrently at Council.
Hensch asked if staff could illustrate the T3 areas and what would the buildings look like and the
building options available to people in a T3. Lehmann stated the T3 land uses depends on the
T3 zone. There are T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. T3 neighborhood
edge would allow a house large, a duplex side by side, and the cottage court. The T3
neighborhood general would allow a house small, duplex side by side or duplex stacked, a
cottage court, townhomes in rows of two or three and a multiplex small which could be up to six
dwelling units.
Hensch asked in the current zoning that's in the South District how are those types of structures
that are currently listed not encouraged in the current zoning. Why has the missing middle not
occurred in the South District. Russett noted the current zoning in the South District is some RS-
5 and RS-8 and also some interim development zones. The RS-5 and RS-8 are single family
zones and the residential uses that would be allowed in those zones are single family detached
and duplexes on corner lots. The current zoning code does not contemplate things like cottage
court, or some of the small multifamily. It would allow some attached single family but again only
on corner lots. The proposed code envisions multiple housing types that aren't even
contemplated through the current zoning unless they did a plan development overlay.
Hensch stated then without this form-based code implementation in these undeveloped areas
the existing code would pretty much mean that the push for the missing middle housing option as
an effort to increase affordability and access to housing probably could not occur in the South
District. Russett replied not without a plan development overlay rezoning.
Hensch noted people also raised concern about emergency services, but isn't there plans for a
fire station at the corner of Cherry and South Gilbert. Russett confirmed there are plans, the City
owns that land and they are eventually planning to build a fire station there, however it's currently
not budgeted. Once that is there, there's not going to be a need for additional land or another fire
station in the proposed planning area.
Hensch brought up the Fringe Area Agreement because that's a concept that may be new to
folks in the audience, could staff illustrate how it controls zoning in the County and though the
City's planned growth area south of the current city limits going two miles into the unincorporated
County area. Russett explained the Fringe Area Agreement is an agreement between the City
and Johnson County and applies to land within two miles of the City’s corporate limits. A portion
of that land is within the City's growth boundary and that growth boundary is the area of the City
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 9 of 33
they anticipate to be annexed into the City eventually and developed to City standards.
Townsend noted during one of the previous meetings staff reviewed how wide the streets were
and the variability of the thoroughfares in this proposed area and asked if staff could briefly
repeat that for the people who are here. Russett stated the majority of the area where streets
proposed on this map are considered neighborhood streets. The proposed right-of-way is 70 feet
and the width of the pavement of the street would either be 26 feet or 28 feet. There are other
streets that are a little bit wider are where they're envisioning bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and
incorporating street trees and landscaping along those streets. The thoroughfare standards not
only address the width of the street, but street trees and the strip between the sidewalk and the
pavement of the street.
Townsend also had a question regarding the comment made about alcohol retail sales and that it
should be a special exception, which she agrees with but there could be a small restaurant or a
small grocery store that sells beer or alcohol correct. Russett confirmed that was correct, the
correspondence they received was a concern about liquor stores, which is considered an alcohol
related retail use and in the zoning code is separate from restaurants. If a restaurant does want
to serve alcohol, they will need a liquor license, which is a separate process. Grocery stores can
also sell alcohol, but if it gets to be more than a certain percentage of their sales that's when it
turns into a liquor store. Staff is actually proposing a change to how those are permitted and will
be recommending it be changed to a special exception.
Hensch stated speaking of neighborhood commercial in the current zoning and the South District
is there any possibility of neighborhood commercial now. Russett replied it's very limited, there's
one area shown for neighborhood commercial at the southwest corner of McCollister and
Sycamore. The new Future Land Use Map proposes seven nodes for community centers and the
majority of those are commercial nodes, some are also open space nodes.
Hensch asked staff to illustrate in the neighborhood commercial in the form-based code, like
what type of commercial businesses could be in those areas. Russett said the commercial
business would be limited to 1500 square feet and staff is proposing that whatever nonresidential
uses are allowed in those areas have operating hours between 6am and 11pm. Some of those
uses can be restaurants. Lehmann pulled up the Future Land Use Map to point out where those
neighborhood nodes are shown on the Future Land Use Map. In the zoning code, it would be
considered open zones for those neighborhood nodes and uses that would be allowed within
open zones, that wouldn't be allowed in other zones, would include things such as offices, retail
uses, specifically sales and personal service. He added that in the Main Street District there are
some denser uses. A neighborhood open zone that's in a neighborhood small zone is where
potentially alcohol sales-oriented retail may be so staff did recommend that be a special
exception. There are also special exceptions related to general animal related commercial uses,
things like veterinarians, and open zones have similar permissiveness as it comes to educational
facilities and those types of uses.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) is one of the directors of the Sand Hill Estates
Homeowners Association and is speaking today on behalf of the residents in the Sand Hill
Estates neighborhood. They are a neighborhood of 126 homes adjacent to the proposed South
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 10 of 33
District Plan located north of McCollister Boulevard running from McCollister Court east towards
Langenberg Avenue, up towards Wagon Wheel Drive and over and over to the Keel Boat Loop.
Members of their community have been present and engaged during the recent presentations of
the City’s South District Plan and those presentations generated a large amount of discussion
and concern within the community. The board of directors compiled the five most common
concerns from homeowners and took that list and visited homes within the neighborhood asking
homeowners to sign if they agreed with the concerns the board had compiled. On July 29, 2021,
they submitted a document to the City discussing the five areas of concern. That document was
included in the August 5 packet and today's packet and contains homeowner signatures from 64
homes within the neighborhood. Those homes that did not sign the document either were not
home when our volunteers stopped by or volunteers were unable to survey that portion of the
neighborhood due to time constraints. In other words, 100% of the homeowners in the
neighborhood who spoke with the volunteers signed the letter of concern. Domsic urges the
Commission to review the document and understand how the public has reacted in one of the
neighborhoods most affected by the South District Plan. Domsic will discuss each of these areas
of concern and requests that before the Commission votes, they seriously consider each concern
and vote to amend the South District Plan accordingly. The five most common areas of concern
their community notes are the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area
immediately south of McCollister Court, the reduction in required parking, design sites being
administratively changed following an approval, the impact on education and access to
emergency services. Concern one, the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area
immediately south of McCollister Court and the area of greatest concern is the triangular plot of
land immediately south of McCollister Court as that area lacks an adequate housing transition
between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. They ask
that the City revise the South District Plan to include T3 neighborhood edge and T3
neighborhood general zoning in this area. Looking at the Future Land Use Map one can easily
identify areas of transition and other locations which are absent here. Looking east behind
Langenberg Avenue, they will see a private civic space, an area of T3 neighborhood edge and
T3 neighborhood general. Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is contained within
their homeowner’s association, they feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a
single similar zone of transition were adopted on that triangular plot of land. Domsic noted other
areas of transition can be identified throughout the South District Plan but in the interest of time,
he'll forego further analysis. He did note one may assert the public civic space it is an area of
transition, however the map fails to show the existing multi use path and it neglects to adequately
show the bifurcation of the civic space. Furthermore, their HOA pays for the regular maintenance
on the north side of the path and has done so for more than seven years. Their concerns
regarding this plot of land are not new, members of their neighborhood have expressed concerns
at Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings dating back to 2013. More recently, in 2017, a
developer submitted design proposal using nearly identical plotting road and zoning maps to the
proposed South District Plan and when the proposal vote came to a vote, the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council rejected the proposed development. From the
transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 it is noted the City Council members expressed a desire
for better transition between the existing neighborhood and any new development. On
December 5, 2017, then Commission member Freerks said “I carefully went through that South
District Plan and I went through some documents about missing middle and really tried to read
through everything as carefully as possible again. If we try and pass this as missing middle piece
to the community, this is going to be something that the community is not going to want in the
future. It's a large area, almost 22 acres, and that not one is non multifamily”. Freerks then went
on to say “ I think we have to look towards balance as well and that's why I think adding some
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 11 of 33
other types of housing and transitioning would be in the best interest here. I think we're going to
have opportunities for townhomes and zero lots in this area and I really hate to put a huge block
here when we can also peppered through other portions of the South District”.
Hensch noted Mr. Domsic’s five minutes were up and he could come back to that spot once
everybody's has an opportunity to speak.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) noted they are a landowner down in this area and they own
four parcels that are part of the new form-based code. He gave a little history on their land
holdings, as he believes with most of the land holdings in this area, they predate any of the
current Commissioners and most if not all of current City staff. AM Management’s land is part of
the 400 plus acre annexation into the City back in the mid-1990s and was part of a plan that has
since become the Saddlebrook Development. There was extensive negotiation over several
years, covering many issues, including the size of the annexation, and the zoning of the land.
Once annexed it was crucial to the City that this particular piece of ground was annexed into the
City because they needed it for their wastewater treatment plant to make that contiguous with
City limits which was required. Much of the ground was zoned multifamily in the County before
the annexation and agreements were made between the landowners in the City to maintain
those zonings The land was annexed, the City got their treatment plant, and the landowners got
their zoning or so they thought. The land in this area was and currently is zoned ID-RM. The IDs
designation was put on the land as a placeholder, and they were led to believe until City services
were available it would be RM zoned and the ID designation could be dropped, and they would
put a number behind the RM and move forward. Gordon stated they were shocked to find out in
2015 that this was not the case. The City deemed the ID zone as a specific zone not a
placeholder and they must rezone to be able to develop and the letters behind the ID are
meaningless to the City. In AM Management’s case since the zoning map and the
Comprehensive Plan were colored for low density-single family RS-5 and RS-8 that is all they
were told they could zone it. The City got its treatment plant, but landowners did not get their
expected zoning. They view their land as part of the Saddlebrook development. 400 acres were
acquired, consolidated, and annexed through negotiation and zoned as part of an overall
business and development plan. All the pieces had to work together as a part of the whole to
make the whole feasible. These parcels they own were and are a part of the whole just waiting
for their turn. Saddlebrook is a very nice community and has been a positive influence on the
South District. However, their feet were taken out from under them when they learned that the
RM zone was not real. The form-based code will further erode the business and development
plan that was put in place when what they thought was good faith negotiations brought this land
into the City to separate the large development that has been and continues to be built out over
many years. To date, they have built and rented and sold almost 800 units. They do not yet know
what will be built on their remaining land, the market will tell them when the time is right. Maybe a
preschool to take advantage of all the nature in this area is a good idea, maybe a rehab center
where elderly patients recovering from a setback can be outside and enjoy the quiet
surroundings, or an assisted living community or maybe a 55 plus coop building. The current
zoning code allows flexibilities for these ideas and more but when discussed with staff and
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission it was discussed and proved not a good fit or
not in the current zoning. Gordon acknowledged the Comprehensive Plan can be adjusted as
time and ideas change, such as the example earlier tonight to take an area that's slated for
residential development and change it to intensive commercial along the IWV road. Is that a
better use now than what was anticipated as residential years ago, that's hard to say, but
discussions will take place, the public will weigh in, and a decision will be made. If intensive
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 12 of 33
commercial is deemed the best use, the Comprehensive Plan will be changed and the proper
zoning will be put in place. The form-based code does not offer that flexibility. Street
configurations are essentially set up, lot sizes, building sizes and building types are mandated. If
they wanted to build an assisted living center, they would not be able to whereas the current
code allows that flexibility.
Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) is representing her family who owns about
200 acres of ground that will be directly affected by what this proposal. She agrees with
everything Steve Gordon just said and he gave a nice background about how they thought they
had a plan and thought they were talking with the right people at the right time and now things
have changed. Feuerbach stated they own Pleasant Valley golf course and the 70 acres directly
to the east of the golf course where they have always intended to develop into single family
homes. When they built the golf course they wanted to build a fine public course and did that with
their money and their time. They then said they wanted to build a nice clubhouse and have done
that so they are now at the third phase where they want to build a nice, traditional single family
golf course community. They have been landowners in Iowa City and Johnson County for over
50 years and have done a pretty good job of tending to the raw ground that they've owned
through their garden center and through the golf course. They understand keeping good and
maintaining good. Feuerbach stated they been part of the meetings with the City planners and
the California based consultants, but they feel their concerns, their wishes, their dreams, and
their history have fallen on deaf ears. They also find very little flexibility in the current plan and
see many obstacles that would lead to a higher cost for development, poor use of the rolling
terrain and topography of the ground and it would be almost impossible to offer the custom high
quality single-family homes that they had sought for when they started with the golf course. They
were told Sycamore Street was not going to be extended, they have a strip of ground right up
against the golf course and own the 70 acres east of the course. Now, Sycamore Street is
supposed to be extended into a single loaded street which is very expensive. That street not only
will be straight down the south side of their property, but then swing around and come back up
north, basically a racetrack, a single loaded racetrack at their expense. If the City is trying to be
concerned about green infrastructure, that makes no sense. Also it will create major runoff
because of all of the concrete that's going to be put in. It will affect not just their property, but also
the City's property, the soccer fields and the green space to the east. Feuerbach stated in their
opinion, there's really no economic or ecological sense to constructing this road because there is
already a main thoroughfare with Soccer Park Road. All they would have to do is swing
Sycamore across and use what's already there. The water is already there, City water hydrants
are already in place, yes the road would have to be upgraded a bit, but why add more concrete
to nice rolling hills and gentle topography. The second concern is the type of single-family homes
that are going to be allowed. The discussion about missing middle is great but there is no
designation for T1 or T2 homes. What's talked about are homes that will be kept on square
footage, garages to be pushed back, side yards will be small, neighbors will be close, and it'll
have straight streets. That doesn't conform to what they've already developed with the undulating
greens, winding fairways, and raised tees. The opportunity for larger lots offering private open
space is not there. Why can't the south side of Iowa City have homes similar to those built on the
east, west and the north side like Walnut Ridge, Windsor Heights and Hickory Heights.
Sarah Barron (Director, Affordable Housing Coalition) wanted to talk a little bit about how the
Affordable Housing Coalition has engaged in this process. When they listen to the City Council
discuss this form-based code idea they know that it's more than just a neighborhood experiment,
it's really a vision for how the community builds more inclusive housing opportunities and move
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 13 of 33
forward together. The City Council very much anticipates that a similar model to this can be used
for infill development, and for new neighborhoods that are annexed into the City over time.
Therefore, what they're looking at here today is not just a vision for a single neighborhood, but
rather a new plan that more accurately reflects the values that the community has identified.
Values of affordable and inclusive housing, values of climate action and ecological sensitivity,
and values of accessibility for all neighbors. Barron agrees they certainly shouldn’t pass this plan
if they don't think that this new plan reflects those three values that this community has identified.
What Barron is going to ask is for the Commission to reject arguments that they've heard many,
many times before. Such as the idea that a property owners rights extend beyond their property
line, especially if they own expensive homes. That just can't be accepted that in the community
anymore, they have to move forward with a vision that recognizes that Iowa City is a community
that values that economic diversity and inclusion and must come up with a housing vision that
encourages a variety of housing types and price points. That's really the mission today is to
determine whether or not this meets those important goals that have been set forward as a city.
There will be a lot of arguments made that aren't even necessarily true and Barron trusts the
Commission to look at the facts about how neighborhood development impacts things like the
prices of homes nearby. There's simply no evidence that a bigger variety of housing types would
have any impact at all on that. She asks they look at the facts and reject the rhetoric and the fear
that comes with change, and really affirm the value and the vision that they have for moving
forward as a community.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is also one of the board of directors for the Sand Hill
Estates Homeowners Association. And her backyard actually will be in effect directly adjacent to
a T4 designated area. First, she wanted to piggyback on to what Domsic was saying that the
current plan shown on the screen doesn't really address the historical concerns that not only did
the P&Z Commission address in 2017, but also City Council recommendations when they voted
against the last plans of for the South District. Everyone has been talking about the missing
middle and staff showed a map ranging from T1 all the way to T4 and existing neighborhoods,
single family homes, much of that is afforded the T3 neighborhood edge. Unfortunately, most of
Sandhill Estates is not being granted that same luxury of having a neighborhood edge
surrounding their neighborhood. They go basically directly from their single-family homes to the
green space directly to a T4. So basically, her backyard will be adjacent to a walking trail and
directly across from there potentially an apartment complex. Shaw stated one thing is for sure,
they all live in Iowa and all know what happened in Dyersville not too long ago and are very
familiar with the phrase “if you build it, they will come”. This is about a 900-acre project and this
particular plan with the T3 and T4 and so forth is anywhere from four to 8000 dwelling units. Iowa
City's average information states an average of 2.5 people live in in each dwelling unit so this
development, in these 900 acres, can be anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 people added to the
population in Iowa City. To give perspective, Johnson County has Iowa City, Coralville, North
Liberty, Tiffin, Solon, Lone Tree, University heights, Swisher, Hills, Oxford and Shueyville. North
Liberty alone is a population of 20,083 based on Google, so this Plan is looking at putting the
entire city of North liberty in her backyard. That's very, very compact. Additionally, she wanted to
address the concern from their neighborhood with parking. The California consultant talked about
missing middle and about sense of community and narrow streets, including on street parking as
part of the parking requirements to create neighborhoods. But unfortunately, Opticos is talking
about California, this is Iowa, there is 20 below weather with a foot of snow on the ground. As
much as walkable areas might be nice, it's not practical. But if you build it, they will come
regardless of how much parking is offered, they're going to bring their cars anyway. This is very
evident in Iowa City all across the city. Iowa City has always had the challenge of parking. One of
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 14 of 33
the pictures presented was in the T4 section just north of Alexander Elementary where it would
be similar to downtown with businesses on the bottom and apartment buildings on top and
everyone knows what parking looks like downtown, it’s atrocious.
Alex Hachtman (846 McCollister Court is the president of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners
Association and first of all, thanked the Commission for hearing their comments this evening. He
echoes the comments that already been addressed and wanted to add some of the other
concerns that their neighborhood has. First, he’ll talk about the impact of education, their
children are very important to them. He just came from the ice cream social this evening at
Alexander Elementary where his youngest goes to school, and it has been mentioned that the
size of this area will put some strain, potentially, on the Iowa City School District. They need to
ensure that the safety is there as they're thinking about the just the sheer number of families that
will be moving into this part of the community. Hachtman noted at the school there was a time
when there were temporary buildings at Alexander so just wants to make sure that the
Commission considers that as they're considering the South District Plan and the impact that it
will have. He wants to make sure that the City has a plan to address and support the schools
during that period of growth and understand what steps are being taken and how does the City
plan to address the safety for the children when the roads and neighborhoods become more
populated, especially in close proximity to the school. Hachtman stated their children love being
able to bike to school now. Another item of concern that was also addressed was some of the
design sites and the administratively changing of the approval process as well. Historically, the
City has encouraged developers to communicate with adjacent neighborhoods when new
development plans are proposed and these discussions can be beneficial for both parties.
However, the announcement that the design sites can be administratively adjusted at the
subdivision level after approval raises some concern. His concern is once agreements are set,
either formally or informally, between developer and adjacent neighborhood, administrative
adjustments without notice may violate expectations or create tension between the parties.
Hatchman acknowledged they understand the desire to make these processing adjustments
easier, however they feel this could be negatively used and advocate that if adjustments to
design sites are requested that there should be a public notification and response period allowed
for these changes. Finally, his last concern is just the access to emergency services, and they
want to make sure that as this area continues to get developed it will have the sufficient
infrastructure accordingly. Hatchman noted as the neighborhood board went around and chatted
with wonderful neighbors and friends some of the other concerns that were brought up were to
ensure that there were parks and added green space in the area as well. Not just neighborhood
parks that contain children's play equipment but open green spaces. Also, the Iowa City 2030
Comprehensive Plan mentioned goals of environmental sustainability but the code does not
make recommendations for uses sustainable materials, nor does it make recommendations for
minimum installations of alternative energy sources or outline goals for building efficiency
certification. Hatchman is grateful for the ambitious undertaking that this is and a lot of work
that's gone into it but hopes that some of these concerns that have been brought forward on
behalf of the neighborhood association are heard.
Dawn Eckrich (1109 Langenberg Avenue) stated they are fortunate that out the windows of their
great room and dining room they overlook the area that's being discussed, and she really cannot
fathom maybe 8000 people would live in that small space. She wonders if there is another
development in Iowa City that would be similar to this, maybe the Peninsula Neighborhood is laid
out like this. Having grown up in Iowa City, she is real sketchy on if there's any development like
this elsewhere and she doesn’t understand the need for such high intensity housing. She
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 15 of 33
understands wanting to get housing available for everyone but it seems like this is going to turn
the area into an apartment or condo area with tall buildings, a lot of people and that's not really
what they want in the City. They want things spread out and people to have room. She also
wonders about parking, a 26-foot-wide street doesn't allow for on street parking so in these high
intensity12-plexes such townhouses, will there be ample parking in parking lots because that's a
big concern. Every home in Iowa City or apartment has two people living in it with two cars, if
they have teenagers that's three or four cars, and that's a situation that's troubling in town. This
won’t be a place for student housing as it's too far from campus for students, so it’s a shame that
the use has such high intensity. There will be such high intensity population, especially near a
school. Eckrich also stated the buffer is a concern as her house backs up to the buffer and all it
will be is a little green strip of maybe four or five feet before there is a row of townhouses. She
acknowledged they’ll have to see what happens.
Tim Lehman (Prospect Farms) is representing his family, he has eight siblings, and they own the
property that is just south of Langberg Avenue. The Alexander school was built on their farm
here a few years ago. He is also part owner with Maureen Gatens of the 100 acres that's on the
east side of Sycamore Street. That was the original Gatens family farm and they'd love to
develop this land. His family has farmed it for since the 1960s, he still has a brother that lives on
the farm down there. The livestock out there is his family's livestock and he is still involved in the
farm. Lehmann stated he is a local realtor here in Iowa City. They’ve got about 235 acres there
that they would love to develop, but they want to develop it the right way. They've been to a lot of
the meetings over the last couple of years. Prior to Alexander school being built on the farm, they
had visits with the City and spent about $8,000 to $10,000 with a local engineering company
looking at how they could develop new streets and some plans together. Lehmann said it was
going to be what he would call conventional housing similar to what's in Sand Hill Estates and on
Langenberg Avenue. However, that $8,000 or $10,000 worth of planning was thrown out the
window when this new plan of zoning was presented. He reiterated they would like to develop it
but they just don't understand this new zoning that the City is trying to put in here. They've had
absolutely no one reach out to them, when McCollister Boulevard went in they thought they
might have some developers reach out to the family and talk about what they could envision
there but they've had absolutely no one talk to them. Lehmann thinks a lot of the local
developers are not sure what they can build here or if they can afford to build it or where to even
start.
Rachel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a first-time homebuyer and they
purchased their house in August or late July and then come in to find all of this out. When they
bought their house they loved the fact that it backed to a field. She acknowledged they didn't
expect it to be that way forever but also didn't expect it to immediately be high density housing.
She agrees with everything that the HOA has stated before and just wanted to come here tonight
as a person who’s actually being impacted by this and as a first-time homebuyer coming in to
have her backyard be a commercial zone is ridiculous. There should be some form of buffer
between their neighborhood and high density, it doesn't have to be right up against their
neighborhood.
Bryce Duchman (868 McCollister Court) moved into his home about two years ago, and works at
the hospital and has a new three-week-old daughter. Some of the things that concern him about
the current proposal, is the overall density of the proposal. As people have mentioned, this is
potentially 4000 to 8000 home units, which could vary anywhere from 10,000 to potentially
25,000 people. Looking at the population of Iowa City, that is an increase of 15% to 25% of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 16 of 33
population of Iowa City. Looking at the overall land area that includes, not just developed land,
but overall land in of all of Iowa City, it's about 5%. This plan is potentially expanding the
population of the city by 25% and to 5% of its area and that in of itself is terribly concerning.
When he was a medical student here he lived in an apartment complex on Harlocke Street that
was directly adjacent to single homes, it was a multiplex and he thinks they lived in pretty good
harmony. What he is concerned about is the lack of clear infrastructure that's going to be
provided to this new proposed area. As an employee at the hospital, he already sees the strain
of healthcare and that was even before the COVID pandemic. Within the two years that he’s
been on McCollister Court he’s had things stolen from his home and when he contacted the
police department no one ever got back to them. So that suggests to him that the South District
doesn’t have enough infrastructure already and now they are proposing adding 15% to 25% of
the population of Iowa City into that area without clear areas of additional infrastructure
supporting that area. The City is not creating an equal community at all if they want to put this
many people into an area, they need to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure to
support those people, especially a population as large as this and that will be as densely packed
into this area. Duchman did acknowledge it was encouraging to hear that they have a potential
plan for a fire department, it would be nice to hear that's more definitive rather than just
potentially down the road. He added there’s not a single medical clinic south of Highway 6 to
provide support for that community. Perhaps these commercial nodes could potentially have
clinics but he does not think that these small commercial nodes will be able to support the
amount of people that are going to be in this place potentially. He doesn’t think that equal
infrastructure support is being supplied to this area as the remainder of Iowa City.
Celeste Vincent (1563 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and an
original homeowner on Langenberg Avenue. She asks that the City comprehensively at Iowa
City and all sides of Iowa City and decide if what is being proposed her is fair and equitable for
the south side of Iowa City.
Jessica Elliott (853 McCollister Court) just wanted to say she seconds everything that everybody
has said so far and supports them completely. The lack of parking the lack of buffer between the
neighborhood, etc. When she bought her house four years ago she was told that there would
probably be some development, some parks, some building, some homes, townhouses, and
whatever, but now they're doing this this high density. She chose to live in Iowa City because of
what it looks like out the back of her house, but again knew that it wouldn't always say that way,
she knew some stuff would go up there. But Iowa City is the most beautiful place she’s ever
been and she doesn’t want her kids to grow up in a big city or a concrete jungle surrounded by
buildings. She wants them to see the fields and ride their bikes. She doesn’t want this density
and doesn’t want there to be so much traffic on these roads because it is not safe for children.
None of the neighbors want it. This isn't what the people of Iowa City want. Elliott also wanted to
disclose she was recently a member of the HOA board and Kirk Lehmann who is part of the City
joined their board in 2019. He did not disclose to the HOA the extent of his involvement with this
project until July 1 when he had to disclose it to the public. He was deceitful to the HOA and the
fact that he had no integrity to disclose to them what his involvement was when he ethically
disclosed it to his employer she feels was wrong. Elliott acknowledged Lehmann participated
less in discussing how the HOA felt about this plan going through but he knew how the HOA and
that their neighborhood, Sand Hills Estates, stood against the proposal. She feels he should
recuse himself because he knows he has a conflict of interest, he has listened to their
conversations for years and now there's something in this proposal saying that he wants to be
administratively able to make changes, he could tell the HOA they’re going to build townhouses
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 17 of 33
and then without letting anyone know and build a 16-plex or whatever.
Hekteon noted that Lehmann disclosed this to the City and it was her legal conclusion that he did
not have a conflict of interest. Any interactions between Lehmann and the private HOA is not
City concern.
Daniel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated for the last six years he has served the US Army
on active duty as a combat medic and practical nurse and just got out of the service and moved
to a quiet town in Iowa. He suffers from PTSD, among other things, so when they moved into
their home, his wife Rachel and he, loved the fact that there was a field and were told that when
it was developed it would remain low density, nothing to worry about. Now, as brand-new
homeowners they come to find out that that may not be true. Sharp stated it's really
disappointing to spend all this money on such a beautiful home and not know what the future
holds for this place. He also wanted to reiterate the impact on the healthcare system, how are
they going to provide adequate care for patients, if they're already struggling to do that. What's
the plan. He sees big problems with that and is deeply concerned.
Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to reiterate what he had talked about when
former Commission member Freerks talked about having townhomes and zero lots in this area
and not having huge blocks of homes. In that same discussion from December 5, 2017,
Commission member Parsons said “if you take out the single family, you kind of take out that
transition and if we did it over again, I would like to see a transition between that (meaning the
triangular area) and the single family neighborhood”. On that same date, former Mayor
Throgmorton said “the development should enhance and be compatible with the existing
neighborhood. It should also make a transition from single family housing on the east to some
higher density structures on the far end of the west near the intersection of McCollister and
Gilbert. In between there should be a full range, a broad range of missing middle types of
housing so you see and feel a transition. The core idea is it's got to feel like a neighborhood, and
it does not feel like a neighborhood now when I look at it”. Domsic stated the current South
District Plan does not address any of the historical recommendations from the Planning and
Zoning Commission nor the City Council. They are simply asking for the Commission to not vote
for an approval of the South District Plan until this particular area has been addressed, and the
zoning has been modified to account for a better level of transition. They've been down this road
before with designs that closely follow the proposed South District Plan so let’s not forget the
history and do the best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The right thing is to modify the zoning
to account for a better transition. It's better to do this now and not ignore a past and ideologically
and follow a mistake into the future. Concern number two was a reduction in parking and Domsic
acknowledged it's no secret that parking has been a challenge in certain parts of Iowa City.
Therefore, it's curious why a critical piece like parking would have the minimum standard
reduced. While it's not outrightly expressed, there is clearly a push within the City to emphasize
street parking. The reasoning may be obtained from articles written by the consultants the City
hired as part of the development of the South District Plan, regarding what's right for the site
analyzing the missing middle. This is an article that was previously included in Planning and
Zoning packets and a couple of assertions were made. First to create a sense of community, it's
advisable to make narrow streets, second it states “be sure to include on street parking, push the
municipality to enable you to count this parking towards your required parking count” and this is
exactly what's happening in the South District Plan. This theory may have worked well in Novato,
California, where the article highlights various designs and other intended successes. However,
in Novato they aren’t accounting for January and February were temperatures could reach
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 18 of 33
negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit and cars parked on the streets may fail to start, they aren’t
accounting for days between November and April where eight or more inches of snow may fall
and plows need to clear streets to allow doctors, nurses, first responders and other critical
personnel to travel to work to maintain people's health and safety. Not to mention alleyways
where snow removal is even more difficult and potentially create areas of maintenance that are
not well defined. With that said the goal of achieving a sense of community is great. However,
they must understand that certain applications of ideologies may not be suitable across the
board. A reduction in the minimum required parking is not appropriate here. Domsic
acknowledged they understand the viewpoint that reducing the required parking may encourage
residents to use more man powered means of transportation however, this isn't entirely practical
and likely won't be practiced by the majority people who like their vehicles and attempts to
artificially limit parking will not change the populations practice of owning vehicles. Looking
towards the future, electric vehicle sales will increase substantially in the coming years and
problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available on a per dwelling
basis since battery electric vehicles require a tethered to charge. The long-term expectation of
street parking may not be sufficient for populations. Future populations will likely prefer to charge
their vehicles at their dwelling so the reduction in required parking and emphasis on street
parking will lead to greater street congestion and holds potential to jeopardize the safety and
wellbeing of the neighborhood’s residents. Domsic also reiterated that 4000 to 8000 dwellings
added this area with an anticipated population of 10,000 to 20,000 people, the increase in
population of the proposed district would make it by itself the 25th to 14th largest city in Iowa.
The population equivalents puts the South District Plan in population between Pella and North
Liberty.
Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) wanted to just mention the fact that they've
talked about the history and that this has been on the books since 2017. However, those born
and raised in Iowa City or been around for some time know this is something that has been on
the burner for over 50 years. The discussion about high density, the runoff, the extra concrete, all
of those things are not necessary. She acknowledges that there's been a lot of time and effort
and taxpayer money spent on this, and she appreciates the fact that City doesn't want to change
because they've got so much of an investment, however this Commission should recognize this
is the Midwest, this is Iowa and what works for us is not necessarily going to be the same as
what works in a major metropolitan city on the west coast. For all of those reasons, she
respectfully asks that their ground be left out of this District Plan and all the rules that go with it.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) continued his remarks saying that he doesn’t believe that form-
based code offers a lot of flexibility for some desired project types. If they want to build an
assisted living facility in this area, the current code will allow them at least an opportunity to
request a Comprehensive Plan change and zoning change, but there are no tools in the form-
based code that allows that flexibility. There is no tool under this code that would allow for that
sort of that size, lot and structure. So as Feuerbach just mentioned, AM Management also
requests that their two parcels of land be removed from the code and remain under their current
zoning, which is RS-9. Gordon made a couple of other points, Public Works recently
approached them about acquiring 20 acres of land as the State requires a 1000-foot buffer from
any inhabitable structure to expand, upgrade or replace an existing treatment facility. So to
prepare for future expansion, Public Works wants to create this buffer before any structures get
built, which makes a lot of sense. Assuming a fair and reasonable price can be negotiated this
area will be purchased by the City and that will leave a small piece of land on the on the far edge
of that proposed form-based code area that is not conducive to mandated street alignments,
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 19 of 33
single loaded streets, lot and building size and building types. Flexibility and creativity will be
essential in this area. Again, they are requesting that their two parcels be removed from this
area. Lastly, Gordon want to talk a little bit about the Riverfront Crossings form-based code. That
is the other large area of form-based code in Iowa City and was developed as an additional tool
for landowners in around downtown to create projects with more of an urban feel. The key words
here was an additional tool. The current zone still exists in Riverfront Crossings, the form-based
code is an option landowners have at their disposal to create the project they envision, they
choose to rezone to the form-based code if it helps them achieve what they feel is best for their
land. It allows many options for urban core to grow based on the needs, wants and desires of the
community. At a minimum, he would ask that the Commission to treat the South District in an
equal way as a Riverfront Crossings District was treated. If the new South District form-based
code is adopted, make it an option for the area, another tool that can be used to create the types
of communities’ people want to live in, rent from and buy into. If the form-based code is as good
as staff has spent multiple hours telling you it is it will happen naturally, just like it does in the
Riverfront Crossings District. It is being used there because it creates product that the
community wants and is willing to support. Do not force it upon this area with no other options.
Give the landowners the same respect given to the Riverfront Crossings landowners and trust
that they will use all the tools at their disposal to create a vibrant, sustainable and feasible
community.
Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to finish his comments about the population and
how it would be huge and how that would put a massive strain on the schools and education,
and just the overall resources and the massive amount of support from the City. Domsic noted
their area has been through a number of redistricting’s in the past and it is has not necessarily
been the best overall experience. For example in the future the kids in the neighborhood will go
to City High but the following year they're going to go to West High, and in the future that may
switch back. Concern number five was the access to the emergency services, they’ve heard the
proposed fire station had no funding and was not going to be built so it's encouraging to hear that
in the future it will be built. However, they want to make sure that the infrastructure is there and
this will happen in a timely manner. As Duchman mentioned earlier, he's in the healthcare field
and the emergency rooms and things are overpopulated with patients. One of the things that
their group had made reference to in their letter was that they hope the City would put an
incentivize for the creation of something like an urgent care medical facility, or other sort of
medical clinic, that would be available to the residents. This is a massive amount of population
that's being proposed here and if they don't have that infrastructure for health, and safety, this is
not going to necessarily be the best thing for people. Domsic stated in conclusion, everybody
here in this room are all sharing the same common goal and that is they want Iowa City to be the
best city in the state. The Commission has heard a ton of different things from various different
viewpoints, from their homeowner’s association, people who are currently landowners, and
others throughout the community and he hopes that they take all of these concerns very
seriously and either amend the changes appropriately, as have been identified by the public, or
quite possibly just vote no on the plan right now and reconsider things going forward. He
commends everybody who's gotten up to speak tonight and give their opinion, and in previous
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and City Council meetings.
Hensch closed the pubic hearing.
Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, the proposed amendment to the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 20 of 33
South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
Craig seconded the motion.
Padron thinks the Plan is clear and supports diversity in the City. She heard a lot of personal
issues, but nothing major to make her question the entire Plan. She acknowledged she was a
little bit concerned about parking so last night she looked at the number of car sales since 1951
and they have not increased, they're actually decreasing, so it would be wise to reduce the
parking.
Craig stated she has spent a lot of time with this, as everybody in this room has, and when she
thinks about what the role of the Commission is, it is ultimately the public good, and she agrees
with the person who said we all want Iowa City to be the best city it can be. When she looks at
the City's strategic goals and the current Comprehensive Plan she feels that this proposal is in
keeping with the direction the City has taken and wants to take, as expressed by the public.
Personally, in 20 years when this is all developed the current resident’s kids are going to be out
of school and this is going to be a stellar place to be in Iowa City. For that reason, she is in favor
of approving it.
Padron agreed and regarding the electric cars she feels like, and she has attended a few
seminars talking about electric cars and what they were describing is changing so rapidly that
they still don't know if they're going to be charging cars in the streets or at home, or if gas
stations are going to be charging station for cars. Therefore, she feels that they cannot talk about
how that’s going to affect street parking. Also, there was a comment in one of the emails
received that the electric car sales have increased 30%, or something like that, but the overall
car sales in the United States have been constantly decreasing in the last 45 years. So there
may be the perception that people are getting more and more cars, but the data doesn't support
that.
Hensch noted he was involved in the very initial discussions with Opticos when they came here
and they interviewed Commission members, this is his seventh year on the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and he has heard dozens and dozens of public hearings and the one consistent
thing he has heard in seven years is the absence for the missing middle for housing choice. The
issue in Iowa City is the missing middle and the ability for people to afford housing. He has lived
in the South District since 1993 and won't make a dime off selling property. His backyard is a
field that will be developed someday, and he has always known that. He also knew at the very
beginning if he had concerns about the development next to him, he needed to buy that property.
He believes strongly in and promoting walkability of the neighborhood to try to decrease the
number of cars so everybody doesn't have to be in a car for everything and people don’t have to
drive somewhere to be able to go get a gallon of milk. The problem the South Districts always
had is Highway 6 is like the Mississippi River, it just cuts the South District off from the rest of the
city. He has been bringing that issue up for years as something they really need to work together
as cooperatively with the City to try to make it so it's easier to cross Highway 6 for kids. He
strongly believes in the develop of neighborhood commercial so people don’t have to get in a car
and go somewhere to buy milk or bread. It would sure be nice for somebody to be able to get on
their bicycle or walk down to a local store. He has heard many people talk about the density.
The density, the heavy numbers people are talking about is strictly theoretical. If it was a T4 and
people built the maximum they could for the maximum number of people, maybe, but that's
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 21 of 33
simply not going to happen. There are not developers who are going to build that, and it is also
decades in the future. He personally believes that the form-based code will turn this into a
preferred area in Iowa City because right now in the south side, the City’s kind of turned a blind
eye to it for decade after decade and that's why they are where they are. This is the first time
there's an opportunity to actually make things right and make this a family friendly area where
people will want to move. There's so much open space in the South District, it's unparalleled for
the rest of Iowa City. Hensch acknowledged change is hard and scary, he just simply disagrees
with many of the assertions that were made, his seven years of experience has told him that the
worst never happens. Also change has to happen in understandings, and maybe even
agreements are made decades before, they're simply just not applicable to future councils and
future commissions. Hensch supports this and supports it gladly as person who actually lives in
the South District and not somebody who's worried about profiting from sales of property in the
South District.
Townsend noted she’s only been on the Commission for a little over a year but of all the things
that she has taken from the meetings she’s been involved in is people need housing. The City
needs to have diversified housing options and she thinks some of the most successful
neighborhoods are neighborhoods that have diversified housing. This is a good proposal for the
discussion.
Signs asked staff to explain to him, and to the audience, the difference between the plan
amendment and the zoning amendment, and what each is to achieve and accomplish. Russett
explained the proposed amendment they are discussing right now is the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the South District Plan, which includes some changes to goals and objectives of
the Plan, which is changes to policy. It also changes the Future Land Use Map and the land use
policy. The next item on your agenda is the form-based code, which would help implement the
policy direction that's laid out in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It will include changes to
the text of the zoning code but is not a proposal to change the zoning map. The text amendment
will include standards and regulations that will be applied to future development that is on land
that is rezoned to a form-based zone. Even after the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and the proposed form-based code to develop in this area the land must be rezoned, it must be
subdivided and in some cases it also needs to be annexed into the City.
Townsend wanted to acknowledge the comments that people didn't walk in the wintertime but
when she looks out her window in the wintertime people are walking. She is at the top of Kimball
Road and people walk and they ride bicycles after the snow. She doesn’t see why that's a
concern that people wouldn't want a walkable community. Her concern is about the information
that was given to the Commission in the proposed amendment that talked about the history of
that area and the Native Americans that were here before. She is wondering if anything is going
to happen to have that history of who was here first captured, maybe a museum or something.
Also in the South District she would like to see some of the streets named after prominent
African American people of Iowa City like Mayor Teague, or Royceann Porter, who's the first
African American woman on the Board of Supervisors, or Lulu Johnson, who Johnson County
now is named after, these are street names she’d like to see reflected in that area to capture
some of that history.
Signs stated he is struggling with dealing with this and the understanding that five years from
now changes can happen again. That's something they forget but something he’s reminded of as
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 22 of 33
he’s thinking through this all. The needs and wishes of the community do change over time and
whatever is decided here tonight, and in two weeks or four weeks by the City Council doesn't
mean that down the road change won’t happen again. This development is a result of change of
the previous plan, which was changed over the previous plan, that's the nature of growth. He
noted he is a little concerned about that triangle of land by McCollister Court and McCollister
Boulevard because they have had that conversation before and he hears what the neighbors are
saying there. He struggles a little bit with the use of the pieces of ground on the south and east
which are the ones that have been requested to be removed. He has been part of that
conversation since before he was on this Commission and he hears the comments about there's
no guarantees, which is very true. The Council 20 years ago and the staff 20 years ago may
have had something different envisioned. But he has been part of the discussion for probably 10
years now and will say he has concerns over the way it was handled. However, beyond that he
thinks that everything they’re attempting to do here is where the public over many, many years
over many, many input sessions, over many, many conversations has led them. Signs has
mentioned before that he used to live in the Sherman Hill District in Des Moines, which is a
perfect example of a historic mixed-use neighborhood, and it was one of the most sought-after
neighborhoods in town, and one of the most expensive neighborhoods in town, so everybody
want to live there. So, he really does believe that the demand for mixed use is something that the
public has said they want. What happens is, when that butts up against typically single-family
neighborhoods, that's when they have this feedback. The City has been dealing with this with
this idea since 2015 and this is the largest crowd they've ever had, and the crowd is here from
one neighborhood. Signs noted he was at those neighborhood meetings in 2015 as he also lives
in the South District and has since 2004. He a very happy resident and has been involved in all
those conversations since 2015, he’s been involved in the Grant Wood Neighborhood
Association, which since has merged with the Weatherby Neighborhood Association, which is
now the South District Neighborhood Association and never have they had this large of crowd at
any of those discussions. But as often is the case people don't get involved until it impacts their
backyard, which is what the Commission heard very clearly tonight. He has said it many times
before, if you don't own the land, you don't control the land. Someone in one of the letters said
that their realtor told them it would stay farmland and as a realtor in this town Signs has never
said that to anyone. Anyone who believes that a cornfield is always going to remain a cornfield
is somewhat naive. He appreciates that most who spoke tonight said you understood it would be
developed sometime and he appreciates their understanding of that. Signs noted someone
talked about City goals and the Iowa City vision and having been through all these meetings he
believes this is reflective of all those meetings and all the wishes of the community as a whole.
As a Commission have to represent the community as a whole. He also wanted to point out
there's been a lot of discussion about the huge amount of units in this neighborhood and by his
rudimentary longhand math, if there were 8000 units in that neighborhood, that’s only 8.5 units
per acre, which is basically RS-8 residential development. Anything less than 8000 units is
potentially close to RS-5, which is the biggest residential development classification. So really
900 acres and 8000 units is not that big a deal. There's been some comments about the
infrastructure not being in place and some concerns about the school, although seems to be
more about the safety of kids and transportation. There have been a lot of studies and a lot of
information that narrower streets slow traffic and actually make for a more walkable
neighborhood, so that and these grid systems promote walkability and safety. McCollister
Boulevard is a major thoroughfare but has a strip down the center and crosswalks built into the
length of the neighborhood. Signs is also struggling with the two parcels of land that that don’t
want to be in the district. Those two pieces of land could have adjustments made in the future.
Certainly they could come back before the Commission and Council. The final thing to keep in
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 23 of 33
mind is regardless of what the Commission says or does here tonight, ultimately, this next goes
to City Council who has the ultimate decision power in any of these things.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0005:
Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new
development as identified in the South District Plan.
Lehmann noted this is part of the same project but did reiterate the differences between the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan is what guides the future
land use direction for the area however it doesn't affect any of the standards related to parking or
any of the specific standards related to height or building types. Those are all guided by the
zoning code amendment and that is what they are discussing now. Lehmann noted they have
had very lengthy presentations on this draft code at the last two meetings so for this meeting he
will just highlight the larger points. The introduction lays out the goals and also talks about how
the code would be implemented when the proposed zoning code amendment is adopted. Again,
the first step was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now staff is proposing to
amend the zoning code to match the Comprehensive Plan. Following that would be a rezoning
where they would take a zoning designation that's in the code and apply it to a particular parcel
of land. They would rezone to a form-based zoning just like any other zone in the City, so it
would be similar to Riverfront Crossings in that way. Lehmann stated this isn't a blanket
rezoning, it would be the same process as it would be for a property owner in Riverfront
Crossings. He stated in a standard map rezoning staff recommends that those happen
concurrently with the preliminary plat because that is when they create individual parcels. In this
case zones affect what the parcels are so they could zone it before but it doesn't have to occur
that way, but they could engineer everything in advance. Staff also recommends specific review
criteria for a rezoning and it should comply with the Future Land Use Map and the South district
Plan except where sensitive areas are present, or circumstances have changed, or information
has come to light such that it is in the public interest to change it. He explained that’s similar to a
mini–Comprehensive Plan Amendment and it would also have to find appropriate diverse site
conditions, such as organizing more intense zones around a neighborhood node or a
neighborhood feature, for example, it would have to have a transition for neighborhood for base
zones to occur within blocks or across alleys. Then the design of the site should suit the unique
topographical environmental site layout, and constraints of the site. Lehmann showed how the
Future Land Use Map could look, but it's not how it must look, and that's how that works. Really,
it's a standard rezoning with additional criteria with the preliminary plat and the way that they're
approaching that with additional standards related to design sites, thoroughfare, civic spaces and
building types. They would propose that those would be shown on the preliminary plat and that's
the first stage of planning land and creating individual parcels including notation about possible
changes. This Commission would review it against new standards for parcel size, street size and
layout, and block size, which is proposed to be different as part of the zoning code amendment.
The final plat is where they actually parcel off individual lots and as part of that staff would
propose that a neighborhood plan be submitted, which is essentially an updated preliminary plat
with additional frontage types, to be able to check all the standards that are within the code.
Then as development occurs it would develop under the zone according to the neighborhood
plan. Lehmann wanted to add since it's been discussed tonight, there are administrative changes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 24 of 33
possible according to the zoning code text, specifically if a lot could contain either one use or
another such as having a single-family home, but the lot is big enough for a duplex, then they
could swap out those administratively. Building types and frontage types could be swapped if
someone wanted an engaged porch rather than a projecting porch, or civic space types if they
wanted to add a playground or something.
Lehmann explained as far as design sites go, that's a concept discussed previously and is
similar to invisible lot lines such as in an OPD plan. He did note they can have multiple design
sites on an infill parcel and a design site would just be essentially an imaginary parcel that has to
have a building type on it, a frontage type on it and meet the standards of the underlying parcel.
But again, those could also potentially be administratively changed.
In section two it discusses the zone and what those form-based uses mean. The Future Land
Use Map corresponds with zones and provides more detail. There are additional dimensional
standards for site design that are required within these zones. It primarily regulates by building
type but does include things like minimum and maximum lot sizes, height limits in the zones,
both stories and feet. For example, up to the T4 small a building could be two and a half stories.
In a zone T4 medium and above it could be three and a half stories. Parking would also be
regulated by the zone rather than site development standards as they currently are. There are
additional standards related to where parking can be located. Lehmann wanted to note when
they are talking about parking standards while it would lower the minimum allowed it doesn't
mandate that a developer would provide less parking. The zones also cover allowable frontage
types and then there are open sub zones that allow a greater variety of uses. The least dense
zone is the T3 neighborhood edge. The general character is building types with a maximum of
two and a half stories, so one could have an occupied attic or a walkout basement, they are
predominantly low scale detached buildings, but the building types could be house duplex or
cottage court. Lehmann explained it's pretty similar to an RS-5 or RS-8 zone or typical single
family development pattern. The next step up is the T3 neighborhood general which is still two
and a half stories, house scale detached buildings, but adds in a couple additional buildings such
as a small multiplex that would be house scale to six units, or two to three townhouses in a row.
This would be similar to an RS-12 or RM-12. In the case of a small multifamily building, it's
somewhere in between those two zones and something the City really doesn’t have anything like
at the moment, unless in an OPD zone. The T4 neighborhood small is still two and a half stories,
house scale, predominantly detached, but some attached building types would be allowed such
as cottage court, a small multiplex again, or a courtyard building that could have up to 16 units,
and then a townhouse row of eight units. This is somewhat similar to an RM-20 in that it doesn't
allow single family uses or duplex uses. The T4 neighborhood medium is where they start to get
to three and a half stories and are along those major arterials. They are still primarily house
scale, but can be some block scale buildings, some detached buildings and larger multiplexes up
to 12 units. A courtyard building would still be up to 16 units and townhomes in rows of four to
eight. This would be somewhat similar to RM-44 but promotes smaller blocks of building then the
current RM-44 standards. Then there are T4 main streets which can go up to four stories and
are likely block scale buildings. Townhouses could be stacked in a row of four to eight, which
would be 12 to 24 units, courtyard buildings up to 24 units, and then Main Street buildings, which
would be as allowed by the building and housing and other codes of the City. Lehmann stated it's
somewhat similar to a CN-1 zone and neighborhood commercial zone as it does still require
commercial on the first floor. The open sub zones are special sub zone designations to provide
some additional flexibility and uses specifically that it allows more nonresidential uses in the
neighborhood nodes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 25 of 33
The Main Street area is proposed for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister and the
neighborhood nodes are scattered throughout. Regarding parking, the parking reduction is
predominantly in two-bedroom multifamily units and instead of requiring two spaces under the
current zoning standards it would allow for one parking space. In nonresidential uses is where it
is a larger change and more similar to the Peninsula standards where they restrict the size of the
commercial use, with the goal of it catering to neighbors and residents who are in the
neighborhood already, or others who are driving through. Therefore, in most cases the standards
would not require parking if a business is less than 1500 square feet. Anything above that would
require parking. Lehmann reiterated it's really in the neighborhood for the nonresidential parking
uses where they see that biggest effect.
The third section is tied to EU standards and allows missing middle housing in all zones. It adds
two new categories, one for community gardens and one for live/work uses. Lehmann noted
there are some changes based on feedback that they've discussed. Alcohol oriented sales, in
the version in the packet staff recommended that be switched to a special exception that requires
project approval by the Board of Adjustment. Staff also added in limitations on operating hours
and open zones for nonresidential uses to mitigate negative externalities on surrounding
properties.
The fourth section is on site standards and in some cases that replaces certain site development
standards that are currently in the zoning code such as screening, parking, lot design and
landscaping, and it does add some new standards related to treat diversity requirements,
carshare, and carpool parking requirements. It also includes some flexibility for certain standards
like design, site width and depth, building size, etc. Those could be adjusted administratively
given findings by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Most of those
findings are related to things like there's some feature in the way so they can't meet the standard
and so it's to provide some flexibility there.
Civic space types is discussed in the fifth section. Those are a new concept built into the Future
Land Use Map with the idea being that it could be public or private open spaces dedicated for
public use primarily to be used as a gathering space of some sort. It could be playgrounds or a
plaza, it might contain some commercial uses such as commercial properties having outdoor
seating, but it builds on the open space site standards in the current code and it regulates by
type. There are both natural and urban typographies and the passage is a special civic type,
which is also a thoroughfare type. It formalizes pedestrian routes through neighborhoods that
would allow larger block sizes and the civic standards also encourage tying stormwater
management into amenity space, green fields especially. Lehmann explained this is incorporated
through the neighborhood plan process during final plat.
Building type standards is the sixth section. Lehmann noted again this is kind of a newer concept
but does exist in Riverfront Crossings in some form. It really distinguishes building form from
uses. For example, they could have a house building that would have a commercial use in it, or a
church or an assisted living facility in a multifamily building, this regulates more the shape of the
building rather than the use of the building and what is required for each design site. It also
includes new standards for minimum and maximum bulk requirements to ensure that buildings
stay house scale. It regulates the number of units, but it doesn't regulate by density as the
current zones do. This also requires housing diversity on each block, so at least two building
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 26 of 33
types, and carriage houses are also allowed with most building types. This is all incorporated into
the review processes, it's included on the preliminary plat, finalized in that neighborhood plan,
and reviewed during building permit or site plan review with the possibility of administrative
change if it meets the underlying standards. Again, as they increase from a T3 neighborhood
edge up to the T4 main street they increase in intensity. In the lower intensity zones there are
different varieties of houses and duplexes, smaller multifamily and cottage courts, and then in the
mid-range zones multiplex large, up to 12 units, is allowed in the T4 or T4 neighborhood medium
zones. Bigger buildings are allowed in T4 neighborhood medium and Main Street where there
can be stacked townhouses and courtyard building with up to 24 units. Carriage houses are also
allowed as an accessory, in the T3 neighborhood edge, they allow carriage houses with certain
building types. The T3 neighborhood edge is house large, duplex side by side, and cottage court.
That T3 neighborhood general is house small, the two kinds of duplexes, cottage court, multiplex
small and townhouse in rows of two or three. T4 neighborhood medium is still two and a half
stories with cottage court, multiplex small, townhouse in a row of four to eight or courtyard
building small. The T4 neighborhood medium is multiplex large, townhouses and courtyard
building small. Building can be up to three and a half stories. T4 main street is courtyard building
large and the main street building.
Section seven is the architectural standards and works in conjunction with zone standards and
with the building type standards to try and ensure visual interest and attractive pedestrian realm.
Lehmann explained it's similar to the multifamily site development standards that affect all
multifamily buildings and has some similar requirements as in Riverfront Crossings such as
splitting up the architecture horizontally, an equal treatment of facades and corners, but it doesn't
regulate building materials. It doesn't include window and architectural standards and roof design
is not included in this.
The eight section is related to frontage type, which is the interface of the public and private
realm. Lehmann noted this is also as a newer concept that is in Riverfront Crossings but not
elsewhere. It works with other standards to provide visual interest and is required for each design
site within the facade zone. It does create some new standards and regulates the size and
appearance of the building entrance and requires diversity on each block in that they need to
have at least two different frontage types. It's incorporated into revised processes, specifically the
neighborhood plan but this also would be allowed to be changed during building permit or site
plan review. The frontage types are porches, dooryard stoops, the kind of things that one would
find on residential buildings. However, again they are not restricted by use and there could be a
porch on a commercial building. For courts terraces in higher density zones, and in the main
street zone, there are frontage types like the gallery or arcade and the maker shopfront for side
streets and the shopfront for commercial areas.
The ninth section is related to thoroughfare types. Lehmann stated this is a new concept where
there are different cross sections of each type shown in the zone and is built in the code
requirements for Title 15. The concepts for the neighborhood streets are similar, it's a slightly
wider right-of-way, but the pavement widths are similar. The goal is to ensure that multimodal
access is possible along street fronts. The new standards include things like regulating street
width, lanes, on street parking, the newest standard is street trees required in the right-of-way.
Lehmann stated the types can be switched from the Future Land Use Map, they could switch
from parking one side to parking both sides. Alleys and passages are unique and are again
incorporated into the revised processes. The preliminary plat would show them, they'd be
finalized during final plat with the possibility of administrative change. Alleys would be behind an
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 27 of 33
existing unit and provide separate vehicular access. They are as proposed in the Title 15
subdivision code and would be required on primary streets, specifically McCollister or South
Gilbert, unless vehicular access can be provided from other streets. The goal is to not have
access directly onto a main street. With passages, they're unique in that they can provide a
pedestrian crossing, which can affect the block length standards. So, the amount of blocks that
on the Future Land Use Map could be halved if every other street was turned into a passage. A
passage would be a 20-foot green space with a 10-foot bike path, essentially a pedestrian or
bike path. It's also a civic space type and the idea is that it would be unique, but they would still
have to have some sort of vehicular access whether that be from alleys or side streets.
Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map again and noted the primary streets would pretty
much stay the same, it's the neighborhood streets that could change.
The 10th section is on affordable housing incentives. Lehmann explained this was a section that
staff added from the initial version of the draft a year ago. The idea is that it would provide
incentives for voluntary affordable housing predominantly with some incentives for other
affordable housing. But it must be for onsite affordable housing within a form-based zone. It also
supplements some of the mandatory policies for annexation as half of the area is not yet
annexed, so that would be subject to separate standards the City already has. The general
requirements are rental housing would be for households at less than 60% AMI, which would be
limited to fair market rents, or possibly LIHTC rents if there was a LIHTC project that would
incorporate it. For owner housing, it would be for households less than 80% AMI and that's what
is considered by the Department of Housing Urban Development to be affordable housing. It's
limited to the HUD sales price limit plus some certain fees like realtors’ fees, for example. The
affordability period would be 20 years and it'd be secured by an agreement that ran with the land.
As far as incentives, a parking reduction could be possible for all affordable housing, whether
voluntary or as part of annexation, a density bonus for building types that allow for more units,
but all of those additional units must be affordable, and a potential increase to the maximum
zoning adjustments to one of the following, either design site depth or area in the facade zone
being modified. Building type adjustments could be building width or building height, up to a half
story increase, but the findings must be that the adjustment has to fit the site and neighborhood
characteristics and be consistent with the intent and standards of the plan goals. Additional
minor adjustments to provide an additional zone and additional building type adjustment may be
possible if the housing is restricted to lower income levels.
Lehmann stated there are also other Title 14 changes that are included in the proposed zoning
code amendments. Those affect things like the introduction of off-street parking and loading, sign
regulations, outdoor lighting standards, sensitive features, general definitions and signed
definitions. Those are mostly incorporating the form-based zones into other code sections. For
example, outdoor lighting standards it puts it into similar zones as the RS and RM zones and it’s
similar to the RS and RM standards. Off street parking and loading is only related to on street
parking of large commercial vehicles.
In terms of analysis, it's similar to what they talked about with the Comprehensive Plan, but the
land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics,
goals and objectives of the community. The current zoning code does provide some flexibility,
but it's historically led to conventional green field development and low densities create
neighborhoods that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on automobiles and limits
the variety of housing types and possible price points. Adopting a form-based codes is consistent
with long term City policy towards advancing social justice, racial equity and human rights and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 28 of 33
climate action and adaptation. Form-based standards are a step towards implementing those
goals as discussed and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as the similar goals are
provided for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment such as housing types, pedestrian oriented
development, commercial development in defined commercial nodes, preservation of farm and
open space parks that have visibility from streets and the development of parks with single
loaded street access. Also there are the goals of the South District Plan, preserving
environmental features, small neighborhood commercial uses, safe and logical walking routes to
school and, of course to align with the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
believes that incorporating these elements into the zoning code is the next step in really
addressing some of these items. The proposed amendment also affects Title 15, however the
Planning and Zoning Commission does not review Title 15 or changes to it. But it works with the
proposed zoning code amendment by addressing some housekeeping items, mentioning what
items are in a preliminary plat such as some of the new standards and in the final plat specifically
through the neighborhood plan. It also changes the design standards and required
improvements specifically for streets and circulation, which requires compliance the Future Land
Use Map, the Comprehensive Plan and layout of blocks and lots where the block sizes are
changed based on what zone they’re in. Again, those block lengths can be increased with the
inclusion of a pedestrian passage to make sure that there is still pedestrian circulation when
possible.
Russett reviewed the public comments that staff received on the draft code. They received some
correspondence from Cheryl Cruz, stating that the proposed rental limits for the affordable
housing incentives are too low and would not incentivize new affordable units. They also heard
from Kelsey Patrick Feree who is concerned about safety of children walking and biking to the
elementary school. Sand Hill Estates HOA has expressed their concerns to the Commission
tonight but a couple that relate to the zoning code are designed sites being administratively
changed was a concern and also a concern regarding the lower minimum parking standards.
From the South District Neighborhood Association they would like to see more wayfinding in the
district especially wayfinding to parks and Main Street areas. They had questions on commercial
uses, specifically liquor stores and gas stations, and they would like to see more spaces for local
entrepreneurs. In late correspondence that was presented to the Commission, there were
concerns related to reducing parking, and multifamily in the backyard.
Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based
standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and
District Plan.
Townsend had a question on the affordable housing piece and was concerned that if a person
receives a unit when they're eligible but then get a job and their salary goes up, they can
continue to live there until they vacate. So they can stay there even though they're now not
eligible and does their rent stay the same. Lehmann stated he believes the rent would stay the
same. Hekteon stated the way that it currently works is that if someone in a multifamily building
later becomes not income eligible, at the next leasing period they could stay in that unit, but the
landlord would have to establish a different unit to be rented to an income qualified family. As for
rents, at the end of the lease period, they would be able to negotiate a different price.
Hensch had a question regarding the administrative design review because they’ve talked about
that in this group many times that changes are made after approval, and that is because there's
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 29 of 33
an administrative process. Russett confirmed they do have some processes that allow for
administrative changes in the Riverfront Crossings District and minor adjustments, minor
modifications, which are changes that are administratively reviewed and apply City wide, which
are administrative reviews of changes.
Signs noted in the Riverfront Crossings District a landowner can opt into the code or not, is that
true here. Russett replied it is true, there's land that's currently within the planning area that is
zoned RS-5 or RS-8 and the landowner could develop under that current zoning and it wouldn't
require a rezoning to the form-based zone. The difference between this area and the Riverfront
Crossings District is that a lot of the area in this planning area, the 900 acres, is not in the City
and needs to be annexed and rezoned. Some of it is in Interim Development Zone so they can
continue to farm the land, but to really develop the land it needs to be rezoned and at that point
they would have to conform to the form-based code.
Signs stated another thing that was mentioned were assisted living facilities or churches or a
neighborhood center and are those type of uses allowed in this area. Russett said assisted living
assisted living uses are allowed in some of these zones through a special exception process.
Lehmann added community service uses are also allowed as are daycare uses, general
community service uses, religious private group assembly, a lot of the use standards relevant to
these zones, in terms of the standards that the City would want apply, are allowed by special
exception and some provisionally with compliance with the standards.
Townsend acknowledged this seems more like a neighborhood than just a bunch of houses in a
community when they have the different types of houses and businesses.
Padron also really likes it and thinks it's sustainable.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) wanted to address the land already zoned, there is a piece of
ground of about 48 acres that is Rs-5 so he now understands that they could develop the land
under those zonings. However it they want to do a planned development or had a different idea,
are they going to be allowed to do a OPD or must they use the form-based code. He
acknowledged he is clearly aware that this code does not regulate uses it regulates form and
function but as a person that owned and operated assisted living facilities throughout Iowa he
can assure them that nobody's going to build one that's limited to 16 units or has to be in two or
three different buildings. The care and the staff needed to take care of those vulnerable citizens
is not possible in that size, Bickford Cottage and Legacy Point are examples of quality assisted
living and they're not 16 units. Also, regarding churches, he doesn’t see in this code that they
can be built as the form and function of that building type is too big. The vintage co-ops that
were built along Foster Road and over on the west side are great facilities and are needed in this
community but again the form and function don't allow it. With affordable housing, there's really
two ways to provide affordable housing, one is for professional developer that's versed in how to
get the tax credits and other is in forms of funding. There's a lot of knowledge in that a lot of
costs a lot of skill involved, and typically those developers don’t want to do a small project of 12
units or eight units or 16 units. They need larger projects to justify what it takes to get that. The
project in Towncrest is a good example for the seniors, Sand Companies on Rochester is
another good example of structures that would not be allowed under this code but are needed in
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 30 of 33
this community and provide a great service. Again, he just reiterated understanding that the use
is not a problem but what they can do and utilize the land for or the size and scope of the lots,
and the buildings are.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Padron moved to recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to
adopt form-based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the
Comprehensive and District Plan.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs stated the question about planned unit development is that a possibility anywhere in this
code. Russett stated if the City received a request for a rezoning in this area, they are going to
review it according to the criteria that they’ve laid out for rezoning and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows is envisioning form-based zones in this
area so it would probably require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to move forward with a
plan development overlay rezoning.
Signs also asked is there a maximum number of units of building one can have in this code.
Yes, Russett replied, based on building type. Lehmann added it depends on the zone, the main
street zone doesn't restrict it and the other next densest one would be stacked townhouses and
neighborhood medium to get up to 24 units, or the courtyard building large, which is only allowed
in Main Street. Most of the other smaller ones would be up to 16 units typically, in separate
buildings.
Signs stated he is a huge proponent of the missing middle and thinks it makes for a wonderful
neighborhood. His concern is there are 900 acres here and they potentially can't have anything
over 24 units so they can't house a vintage Co-Op or an assisted living facility in these 900
acres. Having recreational facilities and churches and assisted living, and senior housing makes
for a vibrant community and a vibrant neighborhood and he is concerned about how to add that
vibrancy to 900 acres if the code doesn't allow it. Russett confirmed the code would not allow a
vintage Co-Op but a large block scale building might be allowed in the main street zone with
commercial on the bottom but only probably within that Main Street zone. Signs noted that's very
limited spots in the map.
Craig asked about the civic uses and those sorts of things, are those churches or community
centers or something like that. Russett confirmed those are uses that are allowed, but Mr.
Gordon's concern is that the building types are not the typical building types one sees for a
church. They can have a church, but it has to fit within one of these building types. They could
have assisted living facility, but it needs to fit within one of these building types which is not what
is commonly seen for assisted living facilities, they are usually very large scale. This code is
trying to do smaller scale buildings.
Hensch stated those types of facilities would not be absolutely precluded because somebody
could come in with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that’s been done multiple times
through the years. Russett confirmed that was true.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 19, 2021
Page 31 of 33
Signs agrees most affordable housing developers and most senior living developers can't do it
with 16 or 24 units so they’re going to require the need to go through Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for anybody who wants to put that on any of these 900 acres.
Hensch noted historically, senior living facilities have had difficulty getting approvals in Iowa City,
the one on the west side was withdrawn and built in Coralville because of neighborhood
opposition, and then they saw it again with Hickory Hills. They are difficult to place no matter
what the public good of them is. He has supported them unreservedly every time they come up
in town, but appears nobody wants them in their neighborhood.
Signs agrees that is the issue is this is putting the nail in the coffin here and that does concern
him a little bit. He loves the idea of having these smaller options of a six-plex or a duplex but is
struggling with that balance because he doesn’t know if they need 900 acres of duplexes.
Hensch stated one observation is if this amendment is approved it doesn't mean it can't be
amended again. So as this area matures and develops they may realize some changes need to
be made.
Craig stated it's not 900 acres of duplexes, that's the beauty, it's 900 acres of open space,
walkways, both public and private, multiple parks in this neighborhood, a school and a lot of
commercial uses. She thinks this is going to be a vibrant area if it comes to fruition, the way the
vision is, it's going to be a great place to live.
Padron likes the idea that if they want a community center or something bigger, they can apply
for an amendment. Right now she thinks it is more important to keep the human scale and think
small and then add things as the neighborhood needs them, like a community center or a church.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 5, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 5, 2021.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett didn’t have any updates but noted the meetings would continue to be in this room for the
foreseeable future.
Signs noted they can’t discuss the item because it’s not on the agenda but he is still interested in
more discussion on the Council's reversal of the Hickory Hill decision and some of the specific
statements that were made about the literal interpretation of past neighborhood plans. He wants
to make sure this Commission is using the right criteria in which to judge applications.
Prepared by:Anne Russett, Senior Planner,410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240(REZ21-0005)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code and Title 15, Land Subdivision,
to create form-based zones and standards consistent with the South District
Plan (REZ21-0005)
Whereas, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use and planning policy guide
by illustrating and describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the
City; by providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and by illustrating the
long-range growth area limit for the City; and
Whereas, as a component of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, the South District Plan is
intended to promote patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure and services that encourage
and contribute to the livability and sustainability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods; and
Whereas, the City's zoning code should be amended to implement the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan, especially goals to ensure a mix of housing types to provide for households
of all types; encourage pedestrian-oriented development and attractive and functional
streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk; and plan for commercial
development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial
centers; and
Whereas, these amendments create form-based zones and standards that will facilitate
development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the South District Plan, and
necessitate amendments to the subdivision standards to ensure consistency with these new
zoning code regulations; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set
forth below at the September 16, 2021 meeting and recommended approval.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
amended as follows:
A. Amend Chapter 14-2, Base Zones, by adding Article H Form-Based Zones and Standards
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Amend 14-1B-1, Interpretation and Application of Provisions, by adding Subsection H, as
follows:
H. The applicable standards of this Title apply so as to not require stating the phrase
and all applicable standards"throughout this Title.
C. Amend 14-1B-2, Rules of Word Construction, by adding the following underlined text:
B. Words in the present tense include the future tense. The reverse is also true. Words
in the singular include the plural. The reverse is also true. unless the context clearly
indicates the contrary.
C. The words "shall", "shall not", "must", "must not", "will", "will not", and "may not" are
mandatory. The word "may" is permissive. The word "should" is advisory and identifies
guidance provided by the City in implementation of these standards.
D. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following conjunctions shall be
Ordinance No.
Page 2
interpreted as follows:
1. "And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply,
2. "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply; and
3. "Either/or" indicates that the connected items or provisions apply singly but not in
combination.
D. Amend 14-5A-5, Construction and Design Standards, by adding the following underlined
text:
L. Special Vehicle Parking And Storage Requirements In Single- Family Zones, T3
Neighborhood Edge Zone. and T3 Neighborhood General Zone: The provisions of this
subsection apply in all single-family residential zones and the above listed Form-Based
Zones. For purposes of this subsection, a "special vehicle" is defined as any device, more
than seven and one-half feet (7.5') in height and more than twenty feet (20') in length,
which is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, street, or body of water,
including, without limitation, any motor vehicle, truck, trailer, tractor, wagon, watercraft or
any combination thereof exceeding these dimensions. A storage area for a special vehicle
includes any space equal in size to the outer perimeter of the subject special vehicle that
is used for storage of such a vehicle. The following provisions apply to all such special
vehicles:
E. Amend Section 14-5B-8, Signs Permitted by Zone, by adding Section H, Sign Standards
and Types for Form-Based Zones, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
F. Amend Section 14-5G-4, Physical Controls, by adding the following underlined text:
A. Height Limitations:
1. Light fixtures located within three hundred feet (300') of a residential zone,
Neighborhood Form-Based Zone, riverfront crossings zone, or the eastside mixed use
district must be mounted no higher than twenty five feet (25') above grade.
2. Light fixtures located farther than three hundred feet(300')from a residential zone,
Neighborhood Form-Based Zone, riverfront crossings zone, or the eastside mixed use
district must be mounted no higher than thirty five feet(35') above grade.
G. Amend Section 14-5G-4C, Light Trespass, by adding the following underlined text:
4. Illumination must not exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot- candle and 2.0 initial
maximum foot-candles as measured at any point along a property boundary that is
adjacent to or across the street from properties that are zoned residential, CN-1, or CO-1,
or is adjacent to or across the street from a Neighborhood Form-Based Zone. The city
may increase the maximum up to 1.0 horizontal foot- candle for building code required
lighting on buildings located on or close to the property line. However, lighting must be
located and shielded in a manner that will be least obtrusive to any abutting residential
properties.
H. Amend Section 14-5G-5B, Lighting Environment Districts, by deleting the strikethough text
and adding the underlined text:
1. Low illumination district, E1: Areas of low ambient lighting levels. This district
includes single-family and low-density multi-family residential zones. This district applies
Ordinance No.
Page 3
to the following zones: ID-RS, ID-RM, RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, ari4 RNS-12:
T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM.
2. Medium illumination district, E2: Areas of medium ambient lighting levels. This
district includes higher density multi- family zones and lower intensity commercial and
office zones. This district applies to the following zones: ID-C, ID-I, ID-RP, CN-1, CO-1,
PRM, RM-20, RM-44, RNS-20, MU, T4MS. EMU, and all RFC zones, except the RFC-
WR.
I. Amend Table 51-1, Woodland Retention Requirements, by adding the following underlined
text:
Base Zone Retention Requirement
ID, RR-1 70 percent
RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNS-12, T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4NM 50 percent
RM-12, RM-20, RM-44, RNS-20. T4MS 20 percent
RDP, ORP 20 percent
C and I 10 percent
J. Amend Section 14-9A-1, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text:
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. Exterior building elements intended to provide
ornamentation to the building massing, including. but not limited to: eaves. cornices, bay
windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures. canopies, and balconies.
ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT. Exterior finish(es) applied to a building facade and
intended for ornamentation or to reduce the visual size and scale of a building.
ARTISANAL INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. A business that makes food and/or products by
hand.
BAY WINDOW. A window that projects from the building facade or elevation that begins
on the ground floor and can extend to upper floors.
BLOCK FACE. The aggregate of all the building facades on one side of a block.
BLOCK LENGTH. The horizontal distance measured from one end of the block to the
other end along the same street. Typically measured from one right-of-way to another
right-of-way.
BLOCK PERIMETER. The aggregate of all sides of a block measured along the adjacent
streets.
BLOCK SCALE. BUILDING. A building that is individually as large as a block or individual
buildings collectively arranged along a street to form a continuous facade running the
length of most or all of a block.
Ordinance No.
Page 4
BUILDING AREA: Sometimes referred to as building footprint The area of a building within
its largest outside dimensions, computed on a horizontal plane at the first floor level,
exclusive of open porches, breezeways, terraces and exterior stairways.
BUILDING FACADE. The exterior wall of a building adjacent to a street, the front or side
along a private street, or civic space.
BUILDING FORM. The overall shape and dimensions of a building.
BUILDING FRONTAGE. The length of the design site line of any one premises parallel to
and along each street and/or open space which it borders.
BUILDING HEIGHT:
1. General: The vertical distance from grade to the roofline. (See definitions of grade and
roofline.)
2. In Form-Based Zones subject to Article 14-2H: The vertical distance between the point
of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk within the area
between the building and the streetside property line(s), or when the streetside property
line is more than five feet (5') from the building, between the building and a line five feet
(5') from the building, and the roofline. (See definition of roofline.) Grade shall be
calculated measuring the level of the surface of the ground at least every 20' along the
entire frontage of the property.
BUILDING TYPE. A structure defined by its combination of configuration, disposition and
function.
CARSHARE PARKING SPACE. A parking space dedicated for use by a carshare service.
CARSHARE SERVICE. A service that provides a network of motor vehicles available to
rent by members by reservation on an hourly basis, or in smaller intervals.
CEILING HEIGHT, UPPER FLOOR(S). The height from finished floor to finished ceiling
of primary rooms on the floor(s) above the ground floor, not including secondary rooms
including, but not limited to: bathrooms, closets, utility rooms. and storage spaces.
CHAMFERED CORNER. An external wall of a building joining two perpendicular exterior
walls, typically at a symmetrical, 45 degree angle creating a beveled edge to the building
rather than a 90 degree corner.
CIVIC. A term defining not-for-profit organizations that are dedicated to arts. culture,
education, religious activities. recreation, government, transit. and public parking facilities.
CIVIC BUILDING. A structure operated by governmental or not-for-profit organizations
and limited to civic and related uses.
CIVIC SPACE. Open space that is accessible and dedicated for public use. Civic spaces
may be privately or publicly maintained.
CIVIC SPACE TYPE. One of the allowed types in Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Types
Standards) of this Article.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
CORNER ELEMENT. A physical distinction in a building at the corner of two streets or a
street and public space. The physical distinction is from the ground floor through the top
of the facade.
COURTYARD. An unroofed area that is completely or partially enclosed by walls or
buildings on at least two sides and often shared by multiple residential units or non-
residential suites.
DEPTH, GROUND-FLOOR SPACE.The distance from the street-facing facade to the rear
interior wall of the ground-floor space available to an allowed use.
DESIGN SITE. A portion of land delineated on a preliminary plat and neighborhood plan
from others to accommodate no more than one primary building type (except as allowed
by Article 14-2H). A lot may have multiple design sites when each design site meets the
minimum width and depth required by the zone.
DESIGN SITE DEPTH. The horizontal distance between the front design site line and rear
design site line measured perpendicular to the front design site line.
•
DESIGN SITE LINE. The perimeter and geometry of a parcel of property demarcating one
design site from another.
DESIGN SITE LINE. FRONT. The design site line that abuts a civic space or thoroughfare
other than an alley and is the narrowest of the design site's sides.
DESIGN SITE WIDTH. The horizontal distance between the design site lines measured
parallel to the front design site line.
DIRECTOR. Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, or designee.
DWELLING, DUPLEX: A "two-family use", as defined in chapter 4, article A, "Use
Categories", of this title. Or as outlined in Sub-Section 14-2H-6F (Duplex Side-by-Side) or
Sub-Section 14-2H-6G (Duplex Stacked).
ENCROACHMENT. Any architectural feature. structure, or structural element that breaks
the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit extending into a setback, or beyond the
build-to-line into the public frontage. or above a height limit.
FACADE. See Building Facade.
FACADE ZONE. The area between the minimum and maximum setback lines along the
front of a design site and along the side street of a corner design site where a specified
amount of the building facade is required to be placed.
Ordinance No.
Page 6
FINISH LEVEL, GROUND FLOOR. Height difference between the finished floor on the
ground floor and the adjacent sidewalk. In the case of a terrace frontage that serves as
the public right-of-way, the floor finish level is the height of the walk above the adjacent
street. Standards for ground floor finish level for ground floor residential uses do not apply
to ground floor lobbies and common areas in buildings.
FORM-BASED ZONES: Zones listed in Article 14-2H "Form-Based Zones and
Standards". It does not include Article 14-2G "Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed
Use Districts Form Based Development Standards". Neighborhood Form-Based Zones
include the T3NE. T3NG, T4NS. and T4NM zones.
FREE STANDING WALL. A wall that is separate from a building and supported by
independent means.
FRONT. See Design Site Line, Front.
FRONTAGE, PRIVATE. The area between the building facade and the back of the
sidewalk abutting a street or public open space.
FRONTAGE. PUBLIC. The area between the on-street parking and the back of the
sidewalk.
FRONTAGE TYPE. Physical element(s) configured to connect the building facade to the
back of the sidewalk abutting a street or public open space.
GABLE. A vertical wall in the shape of a triangle formed between the cornice or eave and
the ridge of the roof.
GLAZING. Openings in a building in which glass is installed.
GROSS FLOOR AREA. The total floor area inside the building envelope, including the
external walls. but not including the roof.
HEIGHT. See "Building Height".
HOUSE SCALE. BUILDING. A building that is the size of a small-to-large house and
detached from other buildings, typically ranging from 24 feet to as large as 80 feet overall.
including secondary wings.
LIVE/WORK. A unit that combines and accommodate both residential and the place of
business for the resident(s) of the unit. Typically characterized with having the "work"
function at the ground level and the "live"function on upper levels.
Ordinance No.
Page 7
MAIN BODY. The primary massing of a main building.
MAIN FACADE. The front facade of a primary building.
MASSING. The overall shape or arrangement of the bulk or volume of a building.
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. House-scale buildings with multiple units in walkable
neighborhoods.
OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE: Open space used by occupants of the dwelling unit or units on
one lot or design site. Such open space and any private recreational facilities located
therein are considered an accessory use to the principal use of the property.
ORIEL WINDOW(Syn Upper Story Bay Window).A window that projects from the building
facade or elevation. located on upper floors and may extend for multiple stories.
PARAPET. A wall along the edge of a roof or the portion of a wall that extends above the
roof line.
PARKING DRIVEWAY WIDTH. The horizontal measurement of an access driveway to a
parking area. beginning at the sidewalk, measured perpendicular to the direction of travel.
•
PARKING, SHARED.Any parking spaces assigned to more than one user,where different
persons utilizing the spaces are unlikely to need the spaces at the same time of day.
PLANTING STRIPS. A landscaped or grassy area located between a street and a
sidewalk.
PRIMARY BUILDING. The building that serves all activities related to the principal use of
the design site.
PUBLIC REALM. The combined area along the front and side street portions of design
sites, visible to the pedestrian. that is between the facades of buildings on both sides of a
thoroughfare or between the facades on one side of the thoroughfare and the edge of the
adjacent open or civic space.
REAR. Opposite of front.
REAR-LOADED (REAR ACCESS). Design sites that provide vehicular access from the
rear of the design site.
RECESSED ENTRY. An entrance to a building that is set back from the facade of the
building.
Ordinance No.
Page 8
ROOFTOP ROOM. A room, with or without a roof, limited in size that is located on the
uppermost roof of certain house-scale buildings to provide views across a neighborhood
or the community. See Sub-Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
SETBACK, PARKING. The mandatory clear distance between a design site line and
parking.
SHOPFRONT BASE. A very low wall , that does not include glass. between the display
window(s) of a shopfront and the adiacent sidewalk.
STORY. HALF. A conditioned space that rests primarily underneath the slope of the roof,
usually having dormer windows. The half story is identified by the".5" in the description of
maximum height (2.5). A half-story becomes a full story when its top wall plates, on at
least two opposite exterior walls, are four feet or more above the floor of such story.
STREET, FRONT. Street located along the front design site line. •
STREET FRONTAGE, PRINCIPAL. The horizontal area of a design site parallel to and
along the public right-of-way which it borders and which is identified by an officially
assigned street address. On rectangular design sites at a street corner, the Principal
Street Frontage shall have the narrower width in comparison to the other street frontage.
STREET, SIDE. Street located along a design site line that is not the front design site line.
STREET TREE. A tree of any species or size planted in open spaces, parkways, sidewalk
areas. easements. and streets.
STRUCTURE. ACCESSORY BUILDING/USE. A building. structure, or use which:
a. Is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort.
convenience or necessity of occupants, customers, or employees of the principle use;
b. Is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property:
c. Does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent with the uses
to which they are accessory: and
d. Except for off street parking located on a separate design site as approved through a
special exception, is located on the same design site as the principal use or uses to
which it is an accessory.
TANDEM PARKING. A parking space deep enough to allow two cars to park, one behind
the other.
TOWNHOUSE: Attached single-family dwellings containing not less than three(3)side by
side, attached dwelling units (townhouse units), with each dwelling unit being located on
a separate lot. Or as outlined in Sub-Section 14-2H-6K (Townhouse).
Ordinance No.
Page 9
UPPER FLOOR. A floor in a building containing habitable space that is located above the
ground floor.
WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.Areas that are pedestrian-oriented in nature,with a highly
interconnected network of streets, where bicycling and walking are viable daily options
because services, shopping, or food uses are within a short walking distance of most
dwellings.
WALKABILITY. The condition when an area is highly interconnected to other areas and
appeals to pedestrians for recreational walking or for walking to work, transit, errands,
shopping, or restaurants.
WING. A structure physically attached to, and smaller in footprint and height to, the Main
Body of a building.
K. Amend Section 14-9C-1, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and associated
images:
PORCH SIGN: A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade,
pedestrian-scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk.
•
•
POST SIGN: A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the main facade,
pedestrian-scaled, and intended for viewing from the sidewalk.
Ordinance No. _________
Page 10
L. Amend Chapter 15-2, Plats and Platting Procedures, as shown on the attachment hereto.
M. Amend Chapter 15-3, Design Standards and Required Improvements, as shown on the
attachment hereto.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions 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 not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380.
Passed and approved this _____ day of __________________, 2021.
____________________________________
Mayor
Approved by
Attest:_____________________________ _________________________
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 10/05/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor,
Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Article H:
Form-Based Zones and Standards
Final Draft – September 2021
Prepared By:
Prepared For
Iowa City, Iowa
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
F
T
Form-Based Zones and Standards
This page intentionally left blank
Article H: Zones and Standards ii Final Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
Section 14-2H-1: Introduction 1
14-2H-1A Intent 1
14-2H-1B Zoning Districts 1
14-2H-1C Applicabilit y 2
14-2H-1D Rezoning 5
14-2H-1E Neighborhood Plan 6
Section 14-2H-2: Zones 7
14-2H-2A Purpose 7
14-2H-2B Sub-Zones 7
14-2H-2C T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) 8
14-2H-2D T3 Neighborhood General Zone (T3NG) 12
14-2H-2E T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS) 16
14-2H-2F T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone (T4NM) 20
14-2H-2G T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 24
Section 14-2H-3: Use Standards 29
14-2H-3A Purpose 29
14-2H-3B Allowed Uses 29
14-2H-3C Standards for Specific Uses 33
Section 14-2H-4: Site Standards 35
14-2H-4A Purpose 35
14-2H-4B Screening 36
14-2H-4C Landscaping 38
14-2H-4D Parking and Loading 39
14-2H-4E Adjustments to standards 43
Article H: Zones and Standards iiiFinal Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
Section 14-2H-5: Civic Space Type Standards 47
14-2H-5A Purpose 47
14-2H-5B General Civic Space Type Standards 47
14-2H-5C Greenway 49
14-2H-5D Green 50
14-2H-5E Plaza 51
14-2H-5F Pocket Park /Plaza 52
14-2H-5G Playground 53
14-2H-5H Communit y Garden 54
14-2H-5I Passage 55
Section 14-2H-6: Building Type Standards 57
14-2H-6A Purpose 57
14-2H-6B General Building Type Standards 57
14-2H-6C Carriage House 60
14-2H-6D House Large 62
14-2H-6E House Small 64
14-2H-6F Duplex Side-by-Side 66
14-2H-6G Duplex Stacked 68
14-2H-6H Cottage Court 70
14-2H-6I Multiplex Small 72
14-2H-6J Multiplex Large 74
14-2H-7K Townhouse 76
14-2H-6L Courtyard Building Small 78
14-2H-6M Courtyard Building Large 80
14-2H-6N Main Street Building 82
Article H: Zones and Standards iv Final Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
Section 14-2H-7: Architectural Element Standards 85
14-2H-7A Purpose 85
14-2H-7B Overview 85
14-2H-7C Tripartite Facade Articulation 86
14-2H-7D Architectural Recession(s) 87
14-2H-7E Corner Element 88
14-2H-7F Rooftop Room 89
Section 14-2H-8: Frontage Type Standards 91
14-2H-8A Purpose 91
14-2H-8B General Frontage Type Standards 91
14-2H-8C Porch Projecting 92
14-2H-8D Porch Engaged 94
14-2H-8E Dooryard 96
14-2H-8F Stoop 98
14-2H-8G Forecourt 100
14-2H-8H Maker Shopfront 102
14-2H-8I Shopfront 104
14-2H-8J Terrace 106
14-2H-8K Gallery 108
14-2H-8L Arcade 110
Article H: Zones and Standards vFinal Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
Section 14-2H-9: Thoroughfare Type Standards 113
14-2H-9A Purpose 113
14-2H-9B General Thoroughfare Type Standards 113
14-2H-9C Main Street with Median 114
14-2H-9D Main Street without Median 115
14-2H-9E Avenue 2 without Parking 116
14-2H-9F Avenue 2 with Future Parking 117
14-2H-9G Avenue 3 118
14-2H-9H Avenue 4 119
14-2H-9I Neighborhood Street 1 with Parking both sides 120
14-2H-9J Neighborhood Street 2 with Parking one side 121
14-2H-9K Alley 122
14-2H-9L Passage 123
Section 14-2H-10: Affordable Housing Incentives 125
14-2H-10A Purpose 125
14-2H-10B Eligibility and Incentive Provisions 126
14-2H-10C Definitions 127
14-2H-10D General Requirements 127
14-2H-10E Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing 128
14-2H-10F Affordable Rental Housing 129
14-2H-10G Administrative Rules 129
Article H: Zones and Standards vi Final Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
Appendix 1: Changes to Title 14 Zoning
14-1B Introductory Provisions
14-5A Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards
14-5B Sign Regulations
14-5G Outdoor Lighting Standards
14-5I Sensitive Lands and Features
14-9A General Definitions
14-9C Sign Definitions
Appendix 2: Changes to Title 15 Land Subdivision
15-2-1 Concept Plan
15-2-2 Preliminary Plat
15-2-3 Final Plat
15-3-1 General Requirements
15-3-2 Streets and Circulation
15-3-3 Sidewalks, Trails, and Pedestrian Connections
15-3-4 Layout of Blocks and Lots
15-3-5 Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
15-3-8 Stormwater Management
Appendix 3: Changes to the South District Plan
Article H: Zones and Standards viiFinal Draft – September 2021
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Article H: Zones and Standards viii Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 1
Section 14-2H-1: Introduction
14-2H-1A Intent
1.Article H (Form-Based Zones and Standards), herein after referred to as this Article, sets forth the
standards for neighborhood design, building form, and land use within the Form-Based Zones listed
herein.
2.These standards reflect the community's vision for implementing the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan to ensure development that reinforces the highly valued character and scale of Iowa City's urban
centers, neighborhoods, and corridors with a mix of housing, civic, retail and service uses in a
compact, walkable, and transit-friendly environment.
3.Specifically, these standards are intended to:
a.Improve the built environment and human habitat;
b.Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi-modal transportation
options, including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit;
c.Reduce vehicle traffic and support transit by providing for a mixture of land uses, highly
interconnected block and street network, and compact community form;
d.Provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and levels of affordability and accessibility
to serve the needs of a diverse population;
e.Promote the health and sustainability benefits of walkable environments;
f.Generate pedestrian-oriented and pedestrian-scaled neighborhoods where the automobile is
accommodated but does not dominate the streetscapes;
g.Reinforce the unique identity of the City and build upon the local context, climate, and history; and
h.Realize development based on the patterns of existing walkable neighborhoods.
14-2H-1B Zoning Districts
1.The full names and map symbols of the Form-Based Zones are listed below. When this Article refers to
Form-Based Zones, it is referring to all zones listed in this section. When this Article refers to
Neighborhood Form-Based Zones, it is referring to the T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, and T4NM zones.
a.T3 Neighborhood Edge (T3NE)
b.T3 Neighborhood General (T3NG)
c.T4 Neighborhood Small (T4NS)
d.T4 Neighborhood Medium (T4NM)
e.T4 Main Street (T4MS)
2.The standards applicable to the Riverfront Crossings Districts and Eastside Mixed Use District are
regulated through the provisions in Title 14, Article G. These are not considered Form-Based Zones.
Final Draft – September 2021
Introduction
2 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
14-2H-1C Applicability
1.Table 14-2H-1C-1 outlines when other Chapters and Articles of Title 14 and other Titles of the
municipal code apply to development and improvements within Form-Based Zones.
2.Neighborhood Design.
a.Blocks and Streets. Streets are required in the approximate locations identified in the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan in compliance with Section 15-3-2 (Streets and
Circulation). When designing a new street or reconstructing an existing street, the design must
meet the standards in Section 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards).
b.Design Sites.
(1)Buildings shall be designed in compliance with the design site width and depth standards of
the zone set forth in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones).
(2)This Article does not require that design sites be platted. The design site width and depth
standards are for the purpose of consistently achieving pedestrian-oriented and scaled
buildings.
3.Building, Frontage, and Use Types.
a.The following shall be selected for each lot and design site as allowed in the zone in compliance
with the standards listed therein:
(1)Only one building type, except for certain building types as outlined in Section 14-2H-6
(Building Types Standards);
(2)At least one frontage type; and
(3)At least one use type.
b.Building Types, Frontage Types, and uses not listed in the zone are not allowed in that zone.
c.There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in Sections 14-2H-6
(Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
4.Site Standards. When a development requires Site Plan Review in compliance with Title 18 (Site Plan
Review) or when otherwise required by Section 14-2H-4 (Site Standards), site standard sub-sections
apply as follows:
a.Screening Standards. The following shall comply with Sub-Section 14-2H-4B (Screening):
(1)All new development, and
(2)Improvements to existing development.
b.Landscaping and Tree Standards. The following shall comply with Sub-Section 14-2H-4C
(Landscaping) and Article 14-5E (Landscaping and Tree Standards):
(1)All new development, and
(2)Improvements to existing development.
c.Parking and Loading Standards. The following shall comply with Sub-Section 14-2H-4D (Parking
and Loading):
(1)All new development;
Introduction
Article H: Zones and Standards 3
(2)Changes in land use; and
(3)Changes in intensity of buildings or structures made after the effective date of this Article that
cause an increase or decrease of 25 percent or greater in:
(a)Gross floor area;
(b)Seating capacity;
(c)Units; and/or
(d)Parking spaces.
5.Civic Space Type Standards. Development is required to create civic space(s) in the approximate
locations identified on the comprehensive plan future land use map in compliance with the standards
of Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards).
6.Building Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards):
a.New buildings (except public safety buildings and utility buildings);
b.Additions over 15 percent of the gross floor area (except public safety buildings and utility
buildings); and
c.Facade renovations along front or side street facades (except public safety buildings).
7.Massing, Facade Articulation and Architectural Elements. The following shall comply with Section
14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards):
a.New buildings; and
b.Building facade renovations facing a street or civic space (except public safety buildings).
8.Frontage Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type
Standards):
a.New buildings;
b.Building facade renovation facing a street or civic space (except public safety buildings);
c.Private property improvements along front or side street; and
d.Modifications of pedestrian entrance(s) along front or side street.
9.Sign Type Standards. All signs, regardless of their nature or location, unless specifically exempted,
which are intended to be viewed from a public right-of-way and from outdoors in areas of public and
private property used for public pedestrian access shall comply with Sub-Section 14-5B-8H (Sign
Standards and Types for Form-Based Zones).
10.Thoroughfare Type Standards. The following shall comply with Section 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type
Standards):
a.The construction of a new thoroughfare and/or when an application for a plat is proposed.
b.Existing privately-owned thoroughfares:
(1)Improvement or modification to curb return, pedestrian crossing, landscaping, or sidewalk;
(2)Improvement or modification to on-street parking, or lane striping; and/or
(3)Improvement or modification to right-of-way.
Final Draft – September 2021
Introduction
4 Article H: Zones and Standards
Table 14-2H-1C-1: Application of Standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code), Title 15 (Land Subdivisions), and
Title 18 (Site Plan Review)
Title 14 (Zoning Code)
Chapter Description/Article Applicability to Article H (Form-Based Zones and Standards)
1 Introductory Provisions Standards in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones.
2 Base Zones Standards in this Chapter do not apply to Form-Based Zones. They are
replaced by zones as identified in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) and uses as
identified in Section 14-2H-3 (Uses).
3 Overlay Zones Standards in this Chapter do not apply to Form-Based Zones, except
for those related to protection of sensitive features or historic
resources. Other standards are replaced by zones as identified in
Section 14-2H-2 (Zones).
4 Use Regulations Standards in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones, except where
use standards are replaced within this Article.
5 Site Development Standards
A. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards in this Article do not apply to Form-Based Zones unless
stated otherwise.
B. Sign Regulations Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
C. Access Management Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones unless stated
otherwise.
D. Intersection Visibility Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
E. Landscaping and Tree Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones unless stated
otherwise.
F. Screening and Buffering Standards Standards in this Article do not apply to Form-Based Zones unless
stated otherwise.
G. Outdoor Lighting Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
H. Performance Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
I. Sensitive Lands and Features Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
J. Floodplain Management Standards Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
K. Neighborhood Open Space
Requirements Standards in this Article apply to Form-Based Zones.
6 Airport Zoning Standards in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones.
7 Administration Standards in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones.
8 Review and Approval Procedures Standards in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones.
9 Definitions Definitions in this Chapter apply to Form-Based Zones.
Title 15 (Land Subdivisions)
Chapter Description Status
All Land Subdivision Standards in this Title apply to Form-Based Zones.
Title 18 (Site Plan Review)
Chapter Description Status
All Site Plan Review Standards in this Title apply to Form-Based Zones.
Final Draft – September 2021
Introduction
Article H: Zones and Standards 5
14-2H-1D Rezoning
1.Rezoning to a Form-Based Zone shall follow the zoning map amendment process (14-8D-5). Any
application for such a rezoning should be submitted concurrently with an application for a preliminary
plat (15-2-2).
2.Approval Criteria. The following criteria must be met or determined to not be applicable to rezone to a
Form-Based Zone:
a.The rezoning demonstrates compliance with the future land use map of the comprehensive plan
and any district plan, as applicable, including consistency between the land use designations and
the proposed zones. Variations from the future land use map may be approved for Form-Based
Zones where sensitive areas are present, or where circumstances have changed and/or additional
information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest.
b.The rezoning demonstrates that the zones are organized in such a manner to respond
appropriately to the various site conditions. When amending zone boundaries, more intense
zones shall be organized around a neighborhood feature. Examples include a major street (such
as a main street or edge drive), civic space, a transit stop, a civic building, or other locations
suitable for greater intensities.
c.The rezoning demonstrates that transitions are appropriate between Form-Based Zones, such as
zone transitions occurring within the block or across alleys to provide the same zoning on facing
blocks.
d.The rezoning demonstrates it is designed to suit specific topographical, environmental, site layout,
and design constraints unique to the site.
Final Draft – September 2021
Introduction
6 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-1E Neighborhood Plan
1.The Neighborhood Plan, submitted as an accompanying document with the final plat, ensures
compliance with the standards in this Article. It shall substantially conform to the future land use map
included in the comprehensive plan and district plan, as applicable.
2.The Neighborhood Plan shall include the following components in plan view on application forms
provided by the Department, along with any additional information as requested by the City:
a.Identify all applicable Form-Based Zones, lots, and design sites.
b.Identify all proposed building types pursuant to Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and
proposed frontage types pursuant to Section 14-2H-8 (Frontages) for each lot and/or design site.
c.Apply thoroughfares in an interconnected network and identify proposed thoroughfare types
pursuant to Sections 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards) and 15-3-2 (Streets and
Circulation), including all proposed Passages (14-2H-9L) and/or Alleys (14-2H-9K).
d.Identify natural open space and civic space types pursuant to Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type
Standards) and delineate all proposed buildings, paved areas, trees, and/or landscaping in civic
spaces.
e.Identify all connections to existing streets and sidewalks and lots and design sites on adjacent
properties in conformance with block standards pursuant to Section 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks
and Lots).
3.Following adoption of the final plat, the following changes to the Neighborhood Plan may be
administratively approved concurrently with building permit or site plan review. Where changes are
requested, an updated Neighborhood Plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to site
plan or building permit approval.
a.Substituting one building type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the
requirements of Sections 14-2H-2 (Zones) and 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and where the
change does not limit the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or
maintain their building type.
b.Substituting one frontage type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the
requirements of Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) and where the change does not limit
the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or maintain their frontage type.
c.Substituting one civic space type for another, including changes to the design of said civic spaces,
where the civic space type meets the requirements of Section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type
Standards).
d.Changing the number, size, and layout of design sites within a single lot where all modified design
sites meet the size and shape requirements of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones).
Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 7
Section 14-2H-2: Zones
14-2H-2A Purpose
This Section establishes the Form-Based Zones that implement the City's Comprehensive Plan to generate and
support the intended variety and physical character.
14-2H-2B Sub-Zones
Sub-zones are slightly modified versions of the base Form-Based Zone. This Article includes one type of sub-zone:
1.Open. The open sub-zone can provide additional flexibility to Design Sites located at or near intersections that
function or can function as a neighborhood node of non-residential uses. The open sub-zone is indicated in the
future land use maps of the Comprehensive Plan and is used for either or both of the following purposes:
a.To allow more uses than the base zone allows in specific areas but within the same form and character of
the base zone; and/or
b.To more easily allow certain uses that are already allowed in the base zone.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
8 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-2C T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE)
1. Intent
a.A walkable neighborhood
environment of detached, small-to-
large building footprint, low-intensity
housing choices from House Large,
Duplex Side-by-Side to Cottage
Court, supporting and within short
walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail, food and service uses.
b.The following are appropriate form
elements in the zone.
(1)House-Scale Buildings
(2)Detached Buildings
(3)Medium-to-Large Design Site
Width
(4)Small-to-Large Building Footprint
(5)Medium-to-Large Front Setbacks
(6)Medium Side Setbacks
(7)Up to 2.5 Stories
(8)Porch, Dooryard and Stoop
Frontage Types
2. Sub-Zone(s)
None
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 9
3. Building Types
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width Depth Standards
a.House-Scale
House Large 60' min.1 110' min.2 14-2H-6D
95' max. 180' max.
Duplex Side-by-Side3 60' min.1 100' min.2 14-2H-6F
75' max. 180' max.
Cottage Court 90' min.1 120' min.2 14-2H-6H
120' max. 180' max.
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is
provided from rear.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is
relocated to alley; and/or
b.It may be reduced by 15’ if the design site fronts
new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan.
Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25’ total.
3 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required
between the units of this building type.
4. Building Form
a.Height
Primary Building1
Stories 2.5 stories max.2
To Roofline3 30' max.
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max.
Other 1 story max.
Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min.
b.Footprint
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 30' min.4
c.Standards
(1)Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of
primary building type allowed and Carriage House per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5
(Building Placement) standards of this zone.
1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for massing
and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the
frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General
Definitions).
4 12' min. for Cottage Court Building Type.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
10 Article H: Zones and Standards
5. Building Placement
a.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site 25' min.; 35' max.
Corner Design Site 25' min.; 35' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1,2
Primary Building 20' min.; 25' max.
Accessory Structure(s) 20' min.
Side
Primary Building 10' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
Rear
Primary Building 25' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
b.Building within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade
zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 50% min.
Side Street 40% min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from
required setback.
2 The area between the front and side street design site lines
and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed
driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the
requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
6. Encroachments into Setbacks
a.Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear
Architectural Features 5' max. 5' max. 5' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 5' max. 5' max. 5' max.
b.Standards
(1)Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement
Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line.
(2)Upper story encroachments on Front and Side Street
require 8' min. of clearance.
(3)See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and
Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further
refinements.
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 11
7. Parking
a.Required Spaces
Residential Uses
Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit
3 or More Bedrooms 2 min. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
≤ 1,500 sf. None
> 1,500 sf.2.5 min./1,000 sf.
after first 1,500 sf.
b.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front1
House Large 15' min. behind face of
Frontage Type or building
whichever is closer to street.
All other Building Types 50' min.
Side Street 20' min.
Side 5' min.
Rear 5' min.
c.Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12' max.2
Distance between
Driveways
40' min.
d.Standards
(1)Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be
attached or detached from main body.
(2)Parking may be located in rear or side wing in
compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards).
7. Parking (Continued)
(3)Porte-cochère allowed if integrated into building
facade.
(4)Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
(5)A driveway may be shared between adjacent design
sites.
1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites.
2 With 2' planting strip on each side.
8. Frontages
a.Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards
Porch Projecting A A 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged A A 14-2H-8D
Dooryard A A 14-2H-8E
Stoop A A 14-2H-8F
9. Signage
a.Sign Type Standards
Temporary Sign 14-5B-9
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
12 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-2D T3 Neighborhood General Zone (T3NG)
1. Intent
a.A walkable neighborhood
environment of small footprint, low-
intensity housing choices from
House Small, Duplex Side-by-Side,
Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court,
Multiplex Small to Townhouse,
supporting and within short walking
distance of neighborhood-serving
retail and services.
b.The following are appropriate form
elements in the zone.
(1)House-Scale Buildings
(2)Detached Buildings
(3)Small-to-Medium Design Site
Width
(4)Small Building Footprint
(5)Medium Front Setbacks
(6)Medium Side Setbacks
(7)Up to 2.5 Stories
(8)Porch, Dooryard and Stoop
Frontage Types
2. Sub-Zone(s)
a.T3NG-Open. See Section 14-2H-3
for additional allowed uses.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 13
3. Building Types
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width Depth Standards
a.House-Scale
House Small 50' min.1 100' min.2 14-2H-6E
75' max. 180' max.
Duplex Side-by-
Side5
60' min.1 100' min.2 14-2H-6F
75' max. 180' max.
Duplex Stacked 50' min.1 100' min.2 14-2H-6G
70' max. 180' max.
Cottage Court 90' min.1 120' min.2 14-2H-6H
120' max. 180' max.
Multiplex Small 70' min.1 110' min.2 14-2H-6I
100' max. 150' max.
Townhouse5 25' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K
125' max.4 180' max.
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is
provided from rear.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is
relocated to alley; and/or
b.It may be reduced by 15’ if the design site fronts
new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan.
Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25’ total.
3 Represents 1 Townhouse.
4 Represents 3 Townhouses side-by-side or attached.
5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required
between the units of this building type.
4. Building Form
a.Height
Primary Building1
Stories 2.5 stories max.2
To Roofline 3 30' max.
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max.
Other 1 story max.
Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min.
b.Footprint
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 30' min.4
c.Standards
(1)Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of
primary building type allowed and Carriage House per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5
(Building Placement) standards of this zone.
1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for
refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the
frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General
Definitions).
4 12' min. for Cottage Court Building Type.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
14 Article H: Zones and Standards
5. Building Placement
a.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site 20' min.; 30' max.
Corner Design Site 20' min.; 30' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1,2
Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max.
Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.
Side
Primary Building 7' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
Rear
Primary Building 20' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
b.Building within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade
zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 60% min.
Side Street 50% min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from
required setback.
2 The area between the front and side street design site lines
and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed
driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the
requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
6. Encroachments into Setbacks
a.Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
b.Standards
(1)Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement
Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line.
(2)See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and
Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further
refinements.
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 15
7. Parking
a.Required Spaces
Residential Uses
Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit
3 or More Bedrooms 2 min. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
≤ 1,500 sf. None
> 1,500 sf.2.5 min./1,000 sf.
after first 1,500 sf.
b.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front1
House Small 15' min. behind face of
Frontage Type or building
whichever is closer to
street.
All other Building Types 40' min.
Side Street 15' min.
Side 5' min.
Rear 5' min.
c.Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12' max.2
Distance between Driveways 40' min.
7. Parking (Continued)
d.Standards
(1)Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be
attached or detached from main body.
(2)Parking may be located in rear or side wing in
compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards).
(3)Porte-cochère allowed if integrated into building
facade.
(4)Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
(5)A driveway may be shared between adjacent design
sites.
1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites.
2 With 2' planting strip on each side.
8. Frontages
a.Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards
Porch Projecting A A 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged A A 14-2H-8D
Dooryard A A 14-2H-8E
Stoop A A 14-2H-8F
9. Signage
a.Sign Type Standards
Awning Sign1 14-5B-8C
Porch Sign1 14-5B-8H-4a
Portable Sign 14-5B-8E
Post Sign1 14-5B-8H-4b
Temporary Sign 14-5B-8B
1 Only in Open Sub-Zone
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
16 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-2E T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS)
1. Intent
a.A walkable neighborhood
environment of small-to-medium-
footprint, moderate-intensity housing
choices from Cottage Court,
Multiplex Small, Courtyard Building
Small to Townhouse, supporting and
within short walking distance of
neighborhood-serving retail and
services.
b.The following are appropriate form
elements in the zone.
(1)House-Scale Buildings
(2)Detached and Attached Buildings
(3)Small-to-Medium Design Site
Width
(4)Small-to-Medium Building
Footprint
(5)Small-to-Medium Front Setbacks
(6)Small-to-Medium Side Setbacks
(7)Up to 2.5 Stories
(8)Porch, Dooryard and Stoop
Frontage Types
2. Sub-Zone(s)
a.T4NS-Open. See Section 14-2H-3
for additional allowed uses.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 17
3. Building Types
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width Depth Standards
a.House-Scale
Cottage Court 90' min.1 120' min.2 14-2H-6H
120' max. 180' max.
Multiplex Small 60' min.1 110' min.2 14-2H-6I
100' max. 150' max.
Courtyard Building
Small
100' min.1 150' min.2 12-2H-6L
130' max 180' max.
b.Block-Scale
Townhouse5 18' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K
160' max.4 180' max.
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is
provided from rear.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is
relocated to alley; and/or
b.It may be reduced by 15’ if the design site fronts
new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan.
Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25’ total.
3 Represents 1 Townhouse.
4 Represents 4 Townhouses side-by-side or attached.
5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required
between the units of this building type.
4. Building Form
a.Height
Primary Building1
Stories 2.5 stories max.2
To Roofline 3 30' max.
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max.
Other 1 story max.
Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min.
b.Footprint
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 30' min.4
c.Standards
(1)Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of
primary building type allowed and Carriage House per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5
(Building Placement) standards of this zone.
1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for
refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the
frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General
Definitions).
4 12' min. for Cottage Court Building Type.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
18 Article H: Zones and Standards
5. Building Placement
a.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site 15' min.; 30' max.
Corner Design Site 15' min.; 30' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1,2
Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max.
Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.
Side
Primary Building 5' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 3' min.
Rear
Primary Building 15' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
b.Building within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade
zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 65% min.
Side Street 55% min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from
required setback.
2 The area between the front and side street design site lines
and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed
driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the
requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
6. Encroachments into Setbacks
a.Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side Rear
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
b.Standards
(1)Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement
Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line.
(2)Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street
require 8' min. of clearance.
(3)See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and
Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further
refinements.
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 19
7. Parking
a.Required Spaces
Residential Uses
Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit
3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 min. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
≤ 1,500 None
> 1,500 2.5 min./1,000 sf.
after first 1,500 sf.
b.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front1 40' min.
Side Street 15' min.
Side 5' min.
Rear 5' min.
c.Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12' max.2
Distance between Driveways 40' min.
d.Standards
(1)Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be
attached or detached from main body.
(2)Parking may be located in rear or side wing in
compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards).
(3)Porte-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4)Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
(5)A driveway may be shared between adjacent design
sites.
1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites.
2 With 2' planting strip on each side.
8.Frontages
a.Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards
Porch Projecting A A 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged A A 14-2H-8D
Dooryard A A 14-2H-8E
Stoop A A 14-2H-8F
9. Signage
a.Sign Type Standards
Awning Sign1 14-5B-8C
Porch Sign1 14-5B-8H-4a
Portable Sign 14-5B-8E
Post Sign1 14-5B-8H-4b
Small Identification Sign1 14-5B-8B
Temporary Sign 14-5B-9
1 Only in Open Sub-Zone
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
20 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-2F T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone (T4NM)
1. Intent
a.A walkable neighborhood
environment with medium-footprint,
moderate-intensity housing choices
from Multiplex Large, Courtyard
Building Small to Townhouse,
supporting and within short walking
distance of neighborhood-serving
retail and services.
b.The following are appropriate form
elements in the zone.
(1)Primarily House-Scale Buildings
(2)Detached and Attached Buildings
(3)Medium Design Site Width
(4)Medium Building Footprint
(5)Small Front Setbacks
(6)Small Side Setbacks
(7)Up to 3.5 Stories
(8)Porch, Dooryard, Stoop, Forecourt
and Terrace Frontage Types
2. Sub-Zone(s)
a.T4NM-Open. See Section 14-2H-3
for additional allowed uses.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 21
3. Building Types
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width Depth Standards
a.House-Scale
Multiplex Large 75' min.1 130' min.2 14-2H-6J
100' max. 150' max.
Courtyard Building
Small
100' min.1 150' min.2 12-2H-6L
130' max 180' max.
b.Block-Scale
Townhouse6 18' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K
130' max.4,5 180' max..
1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is
provided from rear.
2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows:
a.It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is
relocated to alley; and/or
b.It may be reduced by 15’ if the design site fronts
new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan.
Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25’ total.
3 Represents 1 Townhouse.
4 Represents 4 Townhouses side-by-side or attached.
5 In the Open Sub-Zone, each Townhouse may be divided
vertically into 3 units.
6 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required
between the units of this building type.
4. Building Form
a.Height
Primary Building1
Stories 3.5 stories max.2
To Roofline 3 40' max.
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max.
Other 1 story max.
Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min.
b.Footprint
Depth, Ground-Floor
Space
30' min.
c.Standards
(1)Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of
primary building type allowed and Carriage House per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5
(Building Placement) standards of this zone.
1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for
refinements to massing and height standards.
2 ".5" refers to an occupiable attic.
3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the
frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General
Definitions).
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
22 Article H: Zones and Standards
5. Building Placement
a.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)1,2
Interior Design Site 15' min.; 25' max.
Corner Design Site 15' min.; 25' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)1
Primary Building 15' min.; 25' max.
Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.
Side
Primary Building 5' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 3' min.
Rear
Primary Building 15' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
b.Building within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade
zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 65% min.
Side Street 55% min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
1 If utility easement is 10' as identified by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from
required setback.
2 The area between the front and side street design site lines
and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed
driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the
requirements in Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards).
6.Encroachments into Setbacks
a.Encroachment Type Front Side St.Side Rear
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 5' max. 5' max.
b.Standards
(1)Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement
Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line.
(1)Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street
require 8' min. of clearance.
(2)See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and
Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further
refinements.
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 23
7. Parking
a.Required Spaces
Residential Uses
Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 min. per unit
3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 min. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
≤ 2,000 None
> 2,000 2.5 min./1,000 sf.
after first 2,000 sf.
b.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front1 40' min.
Side Street 15' min.
Side 5' min.
Rear 5' min.
c.Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12' max.2
Distance between Driveways 40' min.
d.Standards
(1)Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be
attached or detached from main body.
(2)Parking may be located in rear or side wing in
compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards).
(3)Porte-cochère allowed if integrated into building facade.
(4)Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
(5)A driveway may be shared between adjacent design
sites.
1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites.
2 With 2' planting strip on each side.
8. Frontages
a.Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards
Porch Projecting A A 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged A A 14-2H-8D
Dooryard A A 14-2H-8E
Stoop A A 14-2H-8F
Forecourt A A 14-2H-8G
Terrace A A 14-2H-8J
9. Signage
a.Sign Type Standards
Awning Sign1 14-5B-8C
Porch Sign1 14-5B-8H-4a
Portable Sign 14-5B-8E
Post Sign1 14-5B-8H-4b
Small Identification Sign1 14-5B-8B
Storefront Projecting Sign1 14-5B-8C
Temporary Sign 14-5B-9
Window Sign1 14-5B-8E
1 Only in Open Sub-Zone
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
24 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-2G T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS)
1. Intent
a.A walkable, vibrant district of
medium-to-large-footprint,
moderate-intensity, mixed-use
buildings and housing choices from
Townhouse and Courtyard Building
Large to Main Street Building,
supporting neighborhood-serving
ground floor retail, food and services,
including indoor and outdoor
artisanal industrial businesses.
b.The following are appropriate form
elements in the zone.
(1)Block-Scale Buildings
(2)Attached Buildings
(3)Medium Design Site Width
(4)Medium-to-Large Building
Footprint
(5)Small-to-None Front Setbacks
(6)Small-to-None Side Setbacks
(7)Up to 4 Stories
(8)Dooryard, Stoop, Forecourt,
Maker Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace,
Gallery and Arcade Frontage Types.
2. Sub-Zone(s)
None
General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 25
3. Building Types
Primary Design Site
Building Type Width Depth Standards
a.Block-Scale
Townhouse4 18' min. 1 100' min. 14-2H-6K
220' max.2,3 180' max.
Courtyard Building
Large
100' min. 180' min. 14-2H-6M
150' max. 200' max.
Main Street
Building
25' min. 100' min. 14-2H-6N
150' max. 200' max.
b.Standards
(1)Min. depth may be reduced by 15’ if the design site
fronts a new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the future
land use map of the comprehensive plan.
(2)Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25’ total.
1 Represents 1 Townhouse.
2 Represents 8 Townhouses side-by-side or attached.
3 Each Townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units.
4 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required
between the units of this building type.
4. Building Form
a.Height
Primary Building1
Stories 4 stories max.
To Roofline 2 45' max.
Accessory Structure(s)1
Carriage House 2 stories max.
Other 1 story max.
Ground Floor Ceiling 14' min.
b.Footprint
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 30' min.
c.Standards
(1)Design Site Coverage defined by max. building size of
primary building type allowed and Carriage House per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5
(Building Placement) standards of this zone.
1 See Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for
refinements to massing and height standards.
2 Typically measured from average finished grade along the
frontage. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General
Definitions).
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
26 Article H: Zones and Standards
5.Building Placement
a.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front (Facade Zone)
Interior Design Site 0' min.; 10' max.
Corner Design Site 0' min.; 10' max.
Side Street (Facade Zone)
Primary Building 0' min.; 10' max.
Accessory Structure(s) 0' min.
Side
Primary Building 0' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 3' min.
Rear
Primary Building 10' min.
Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.
b.Building within Facade Zone
Total length of facade required within or abutting the
facade zone, exclusive of setbacks.
Front 80% min.
Side Street 70% min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be
designed in compliance with Section 14-2H-7
(Architectural Element Standards).
(2)Utility Easement required in Alley as identified by the
applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
6. Encroachments into Setbacks
a.Encroachment Type Front Side St.Side Rear
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. 3' max.
Stairs X 3' max. 3' max. 3' max.
b.Standards
(1)Encroachments are not allowed within Utility Easement
Area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line.
(2)Upper stories encroachments on Front and Side Street
require 8' min. of clearance.
(3)See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and
Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further
refinements.
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
Article H: Zones and Standards 27
7. Parking
a.Required Spaces
Residential Uses
Studio or 1-2 Bedrooms 1 max. per unit
3 or More Bedrooms 1.5 max. per unit
Non-Residential Uses
≤ 5,000 0 max.
>5,000 2 max./1,000 sf. after first
5,000 sf.
b.Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line)
Front 40' min.
Side Street
≤ 75' from Front 25' min.
5’ min. > 75' from Front
Side 0' min.
Rear 5' min.
c.Characteristics
Curb Cut Width 12' max.1
d.Standards
(1)Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be
attached or detached from main body.
(2)Parking may be located in rear or side wing in
compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per
Section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards).
(3)Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
(4)A driveway may be shared between adjacent design
sites.
1 With 2' planting strip on each side.
8. Frontages
a.Private Frontage Type Front Side St. Standards
Dooryard X A1 14-2H-8E
Stoop X A1,2 14-2H-8F
Forecourt A A 14-2H-8G
Maker Shopfront A A1 14-2H-8H
Shopfront A A2 14-2H-8I
Terrace A A 14-2H-8J
Gallery A A 14-2H-8K
Arcade A A 14-2H-8L
1At 60' min. from front of design site.
2Also allowed within open space in Courtyard Building Large.
9. Signage
a.Sign Type Standards
Awning Sign 14-5B-8C
Canopy Sign 14-5B-8C
Directional Sign 14-5B-8C
Masonry Wall Sign 14-5B-8E
Porch Sign 14-5B-8H-4a
Portable Sign 14-5B-8E
Post Sign 14-5B-8H-4b
Small Identification Sign 14-5B-8B
Storefront Projecting Sign 14-5B-8C
Temporary Sign 14-5B-9
Wall Mural Painted Sign 14-5B-8E
Window Sign 14-5B-8E
Key A = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Zones
28 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 29
Section 14-2H-3: Use Standards
14-2H-3A Purpose
1.It is the intent of this Section to establish appropriate standards for location, design, and operation of uses
to assure that they will be developed in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Form-Based Zone
where they are allowed.
2.This Section provides additional standards for certain uses and activities to ensure compatibility with site
features and existing uses.
14-2H-3B Allowed Uses
1.Uses Allowed
a.Table 14-2H-3B-1 (Uses) indicates for each Form-Based Zone whether a principal land use is
permitted (P), allowed with provisions (PR), or allowed by special exception (S). Specific land uses are
grouped into the categories and subgroups listed in Table 14-2H-3B-1 (Uses).
b.Table 14-2H-3B-1 (Uses) includes cross-references to applicable specific use standards for each use.
Where necessary and appropriate, the cross-reference indicates the conventional zone use standards
that must be followed.
c.Each use listed in Table 14-2H-3B-1 (Uses) is defined in Chapter 4 (Use Regulations) of Title 14 (Zoning
Code). If a use is only applicable within areas established in compliance with this Article, the use is
defined in Chapter 14-9 (Definitions).
2.Accessory Uses Allowed
a.Table 14-2H-3B-2 (Accessory Uses) indicates for each Form-Based Zone where accessory uses are
allowed.
b.Table 14-2H-3B-2 (Accessory Uses) includes cross-references to applicable specific use standards for
each use. Where necessary and appropriate, the cross-reference indicates the conventional zone use
standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code) that apply.
Final Draft – September 2021
Use Standards
30 Article H: Zones and Standards
Table 14-2H-3B-1: Uses
Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG-O T4NS T4NS-O T4NM T4NM-O T4MS Specific Standards
Residential Uses
Household Living Uses
Detached Single-Family
Dwellings P P P - - - - -
Detached Zero Lot
Line Dwellings PR PR PR PR PR - - - 14-4B-4A-4
Group Households PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR2 14-4B-4A-6
Live/Work - - - PR PR PR PR PR2 14-2H-3C-2
Missing Middle
Housing P P P P P P P P 2
Group Living Uses
Assisted Group Living - - - S S S S PR 2 14-4B-4A-8(RM-44)
Independent Group
Living - - - - -S S S 2 14-4B-4A-9(RM-44)
Fraternal Group Living - - - - -S S S 2 14-4B-4A-10(RM-
44)
Commercial Uses
Eating and Drinking
Establishments - - PR/S 1 -PR/S 1 -PR/S 1 P 14-4B-4B-10(CN-1)
Office Uses
General Office - - P 1 -P 1 -P 1 P
Medical/Dental Office - - P 1 -P 1 -P 1 P
Retail Uses
Sales Oriented - - P 1 -P 1 -P 1 P
Personal Service
Oriented - - P 1 -P 1 -P 1 P
Alcohol Sales Oriented - - - - S 1 -S 1 S 14-4B-4B-15
Hospitality Oriented PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4B-18(CN-1)
Indoor Commercial
Recreational Uses - - - - - - - PR/S 14-4B-4B-7
General Animal
Related Commercial
Uses
- - - - S 1 -S 1 PR 14-4B-4B-2(CN-1)
Commercial Parking - - - - - - - PR 2 14-4B-4B-9
1 Max 1,500 sf per building; shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.
2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from t he
front of the design site.
3 Use must be completely within enclosed building.
Final Draft – September 2021
Use Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 31
Table 14-2H-3B-1: Uses (Continued)
Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG-O T4NS T4NS-O T4NM T4NM-O T4MS Specific Standards
Institutional and Civic
Uses
Community Service Uses
Community Service-
Long Term Housing - - - S S S S S 2 14-4B-4D-6(CO-1)
Community Service-
Shelter - - - S S S S S 2 14-4B-4D-5(RM-44)
General Community
Service - - - S S S S PR 14-4B-4D-3(CN-1)
Day-care Uses S S S PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-7
Educational Facilities
General S S S PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-10
Specialized - - - - -PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-12(CN-1)
Park and Open Space
Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-15
Religious/Private
Group Assembly Uses S S S PR PR PR PR PR 2 14-4B-4D-16(CO-1)
Other Uses
Temporary Uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4D-2
Community Garden PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-2H-3C-1
Communication
Transmission Facility
Uses
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4E-4a
Basic Utility Uses - - - PR 3 PR 3 PR 3 PR 3 -14-4B-4D-1(CN-1)
1 Max 1,500 sf per building; shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.
2 Not allowed on the ground floor within 30' of the sidewalk. Allowed on ground floor along side streets if at least 60' from the front
of the design site.
3 Use must be completely within enclosed building.
Final Draft – September 2021
Use Standards
32 Article H: Zones and Standards
Table 14-2H-3B-2: Accessory Uses
Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG-O T4NS T4NS-O T4NM T4NM-O T4MS Specific Standards
Accessory Apartments1 PR PR PR - - - - -
Accessory Retail Sales - - - - - - - PR 14-4C-2B
Accessory Uses Within
Parks and Open Spaces
Uses
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2C
Bed and Breakfast
Homestays
PR PR PR - - - - -14-4C-2D
Bed and Breakfast Inns PR PR PR - - - - -14-4C-2E
Childcare Homes PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2G
Communications Towers,
Antennas, and Satellite
Receiving Devices
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2H
(residential)
Daycare PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2I
Decks and Patios.
Uncovered
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2J-2
Fences, Walls, and
Hedges
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-2H-4B
Home Occupations PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2M
Mechanical Structures PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2N
Off Street Loading - - - PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2O
Outdoor Dumpster
Areas
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2Q
Outdoor Lighting PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-4C-2R
Outdoor Service Areas
- - PR -PR -PR PR 4-3-1 (RFC-G within
100’ of a residential
zone)
Swimming Pools, Hot
Tubs, and Tennis Courts
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR -14-4C-2T
(Residential Zones)
Signs PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 14-5B-8H
Small Wind Energy
Conversion Systems - - - - - - - PR 14-4C-2Y (CC-2)
Rooftop Services Areas - - - - - - - PR 14-4C-2AA (CN-1)
1 Accessory Apartments attached to the primary building must comply with Sub-Section 14-4C-2A. Accessory Apartments that are
detached from the primary building units must comply with the Carriage House requirements, see Sub-Section 14-2H-6C.
Final Draft – September 2021
Use Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 33
14-2H-3C Standards for Specific Uses
1.Community Gardens
a.General Standards
(1)Only the following buildings and structures are allowed on-site:
(a)Stands for sale of produce grown on-site limited in size to 120 square feet;
(b)Sheds for storage of tools limited in size to 120 square feet;
(c)Greenhouses, consisting of buildings made of glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are
cultivated, limited in size to 120 square feet and designed in compliance with setbacks for
accessory structures; and
(d)Other small hardscape areas and amenities (including, but are not limited to, benches, bike
racks, raised/accessible planting beds, compost or waste bins, picnic tables, seasonal farm
stands, fences, garden art, rain barrels, and children’s play areas).
(2)The combined area of all structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the community garden site
area.
(3)On-site storm water systems and irrigation shall be consistent with applicable City standards.
(4)See Sub-Section 14-2H-5H (Community Garden) for additional standards.
b.Limitations on Use.
(1)Retail is allowed on-site but only for retail of produce grown on-site.
(2)Outdoor storage of tools and materials is not permitted.
c.Maintenance Required. Maintenance of community gardens shall ensure that no conditions
constituting a nuisance are created, including that water and fertilizer will not drain onto adjacent
property. If conditions constituting a nuisance are created, the owner or other individual(s) responsible
for the community garden shall ensure that it is replaced with landscaping in compliance with all
applicable standards in Title 14 (Zoning Code) and/or seeded.
Final Draft – September 2021
Use Standards
34 Article H: Zones and Standards
2.Live/Work
a.General Standards. These standards establish regulations for the construction and operation of
live/work units and for the reuse of existing commercial and industrial buildings to accommodate
live/work opportunities where allowed in the zone. Live/work differs from home occupations in that
the “work” component of the live/work occupancy may:
(1)Include employment of persons not living in the residential portion;
(2)Function predominately as work space with limited living facilities;
(3)Have a separate designated access or private entrance specifically for the business use;
(4)Include alterations or features not customarily found in residential units;
(5)Have window displays; and
(6)Include food handling, processing, or packing.
b.Limitations on Use. The non-residential component of a live/work unit shall be one of the following
uses:
(1)Sales Oriented Retail;
(2)Personal Service Oriented Uses, except for dry cleaners, taxidermists, and crematoriums;
(3)Daycare Uses;
(4)Bed and Breakfast Homestays; or
(5)Office Uses limited to dental practices, general medical practices, insurance, real estate or travel
agencies, accounting practices and law offices.
c.Occupancy Standards. The “live” component of a live/work unit shall be the principal residence of at
least one individual employed in the business conducted within the live/work unit.
d.Operation Standards
(1)No clients or deliveries to the live/work unit are permitted before 7:00 A.M. or after 10:00 P.M.
(2)Sale or Rental of Portion of Unit. No portion of a live/work unit may be separately rented or sold
as a commercial or industrial space for any person not living in the premises or as a residential
space for any household where no members of said household work in the same unit.
(3)Noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial properties in the applicable
zone. However, storage of flammable liquids or hazardous materials beyond what is normally
associated with a residential use is prohibited.
(4)On-Premises Sales. On-premises retail sales must clearly be subordinate to the primary use of the
live/work unit. On-premises sales are limited to products manufactured, processed, or fabricated
in the live/work unit or associated with the principal use of the live/work unit. Occasional open
studio programs and gallery shows are also allowed.
(5)Nonresident Employees. Up to three persons who do not reside in the live/work unit may work in
the unit.
(6)Client and Customer Visits. Client and customer visits to live/work units are limited to ten (10) per
day to ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial or industrial uses, or adjacent residentially-
zoned areas.
Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 35
Section 14-2H-4: Site Standards
14-2H-4A Purpose
1.General. This Section is intended to ensure that development of property within Form-Based Zones
accomplishes the following:
a.Makes a positive contribution to the development pattern of the area;
b.New or altered structures are compatible with the design and use of existing structures on
neighboring properties;
c.Respects the existing conditions and safety of neighboring properties; and
d.Does not adversely affect neighboring properties, with "adversely affect" meaning to impact in a
substantial, negative manner the habitability or enjoyability of these properties.
2.Screening. Standards for screening, fences, and walls are adopted to help conserve and protect property,
assure safety and security, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and improve the visual environment of the
neighborhood.
3.Landscaping. Standards for landscaping are adopted to help protect and enhance the environmental and
visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, and control dust.
4.Parking and Loading. Standards for and limits on the development of motor vehicle and bicycle parking,
and loading and access drives, are adopted to help ensure that development accomplishes the following:
a.Establishes and/or reinforces the character and scale of walkable, urban neighborhood environments,
where development supports and is within a short walking distance of shopping, food and services;
b.Ensures the provision of appropriately designed bicycle parking, in order to increase bicycle trips and
reduce motor vehicle trips per capita;
c.Appropriately limits, screens and landscapes motor vehicle parking, to protect and enhance the
environmental and visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and control
dust; and
d.Reduces motor vehicles trips per capita to and from development.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
36 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-4B Screening
1.Applicability. Screening in all Form-Based Zones is subject to the standards set forth in in this this Sub-
Section and in Section 14-4C-2L (Fences, Walls, And Hedges). Standards in Article 14-5F (Screening and
Buffering Standards) only apply where stated otherwise.
2.Design Standards for Screening. Screening shall comply with the following:
a.Height Maximums. Screening shall not exceed the maximum height identified in Table 14-2H-4B-1
(Maximum Screening Height).
b.Screening Height Measurement. Screening height shall be measured as the vertical distance
between the finished grade at the base of the screen and the top edge of the screen material.
3.Screening on Retaining Walls. The total height of screens and the retaining walls that they are mounted
on or attached to is up to six feet.
4.Mechanical Equipment Screening.
a.Mechanical equipment exempt from screening:
(1)Free-standing or roof-mounted solar equipment; and
(2)Vents over 30 inches in height and located on a roof.
b.New installation or relocation of existing mechanical equipment shall be screened in compliance with
this Sub-Section.
Table 14-2H-4B-1: Maximum Screening Height
Zone Item Maximum Height Allowed
Front Side St. Side Rear
T3 Neighborhood Edge Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max.
T3 Neighborhood General Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max.
T4 Neighborhood Small Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max.
T4 Neighborhood Medium Fences 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Free Standing Walls 4' max. 4' max. 8' max. 8' max.
Landscaping 4' max. 4' max. No max. No max.
T4 Main Street Fences X X 10' max. 10' max.
Free Standing Walls X X 10' max. 10' max.
Landscaping 3' max. 3' max. No max. No max.
Key X = Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 37
(1)Roof-Mounted Equipment. Building parapets or other architectural elements in the building’s
architecture style shall screen roof-mounted equipment.
(a)New buildings shall be designed to provide a parapet or other architectural element that is as
tall or taller than the highest point on any new mechanical equipment to be located on the
roof of the building;
(b)For existing buildings with no or low parapet heights, mechanical equipment shall be
surrounded on all sides by an opaque screen wall as tall as the highest point of the
equipment. The wall shall be architecturally consistent with the building and match the
existing building with paint, finish, and trim cap detail; and
(c)All new roof screens are subject to Title 18 Site Plan Review.
(2)Wall- and Ground-Mounted Equipment:
(a)Shall not be located between the face of the building and the street;
(b)All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened.
Equipment and screening shall be in compliance with the setbacks of the zone; screening
shall be architecturally compatible and include matching paint, finish and trim cap of the
building; and
(c)All new mechanical screens for ground or wall-mounted equipment are subject to Title 18
Site Plan Review.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
38 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-4C Landscaping
1.Applicability. Landscaping in all Form-Based Zones is subject to the standards set forth in this this Sub-
Section and to the general landscaping standards located in Article 14-5E (Landscaping and Tree
Standards). Standards for landscaping in parking areas shall be in combination with Sub-Section 14-2H-4D
(Parking and Loading).
2.Landscape Plan and Timing. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted for developments either at Site Plan
Review or Building Permit processes. The landscaping required by this Sub-Section shall be installed as
part of the development or improvement requiring the landscaping.
3.Design Standards.
a.Acceptable required landscaping materials are defined as follows:
(1)Shrubs, of one-gallon size or larger;
(2)Street trees, of 15-gallon size or larger, and double-staked;
(3)Ground cover; and
(4)Decorative non-living landscaping materials including, but not limited to sand, stone, gravel, wood
or water may be used to satisfy a maximum of 25 percent of required landscaping area when
approved by the Director.
b.Species Selection. Native and drought tolerant species are encouraged to increase native plants and
pollinator species. Tree diversity shall be incorporated using a maximum of 5 percent of any one
species and maximum of 10 percent of any one genus of tree unless otherwise approved by the
Director. Trees should also be spatially distributed to avoid monoculture rows or blocks of any one
species or genus. Shrubs and ground cover should also be diverse and spatially distributed to avoid
large monoculture plantings.
c.Separation. Any landscaped area shall be separated from an adjacent vehicular area by a wall or curb
at least six inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area.
d.Existing Vegetation. Every effort shall be made to incorporate mature on-site trees into the required
landscaping.
e.Maintenance. Required landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condition. This
shall include pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants
when necessary, and the appropriate watering of all plantings.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 39
14-2H-4D Parking and Loading
1.Applicability. On-site parking is allowed in all Form-Based Zones subject to the standards set forth in this
this Sub-Section. Standards in Article 14-5A (Off-Street Parking and Loading) apply, except where
superseded by this Sub-Section or Section 14-2H-2 (Zones).
2.Number of Parking and Loading Spaces.
a.The number of motor vehicle parking spaces required is listed in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone pursuant
to Section 14-2H-2 (Zones).
b.On-site loading space(s) is not required.
3.General Parking Standards.
a.Sharing of Non-Residential Parking Required.
(1)If on-site parking spaces for non-residential uses are provided, such spaces shall be made
available for use by the general public during at least one of the following time periods:
(a)Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM; or
(b)Monday through Friday, 5 PM to 11 PM and all day on Saturdays and Sunday.
(2)Owners and operators of these shared spaces are required to post a sign identifying that the
spaces are shared along with other information as needed by the owner/operator.
b.Larger Vehicle Parking. Commercial vehicles more than seven and one-half feet (7 ½’) in height may
not be stored in any Form-Based Zone unless the standards of Special Vehicle Parking and Storage
Requirements are met pursuant to Sub-Section14-5A-5L (Special Vehicle Parking and Storage
Requirements).
c.Storage of Unregistered or Inoperable Motor Vehicles. Automotive vehicles, trailers, or vehicles of
any kind or type, requiring licenses, but without current plates or inoperable, shall be only parked
within completely enclosed buildings.
d.Cargo or Freight Container. Portable cargo or freight storage containers in any Form-Based Zone for
purposes of loading or unloading, may be parked or stored on-premise for a period not to exceed 10
days in any one calendar year.
4.Traffic-Minimizing Parking Standards.
a.Carshare Parking Spaces.
(1)Carshare spaces shall be provided in the amounts specified in Table 14-2H-4D-1 (Required
Carshare Parking Spaces).
Table 14-2H-4D-1: Required Carshare Parking Spaces
Use Carshare Parking Spaces Required
Residential
0-49 units None
50-100 units 1
101 or more units 2 + 1 per additional 200 units
Office-General, Office-Medical/Dental
≤ 10,000 sf None
> 10,000 sf 1/10,000 sf
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
40 Article H: Zones and Standards
(2)The required carshare space(s) shall be made available, at no cost, to a carshare service for
purposes of providing carshare services to its members, except as provided in this subsection. At
the election of the property owner, the carshare spaces may be provided:
(a)On the design site; or
(b)On another off-street site within 800 feet of the design site.
(3)Required carshare space or spaces shall be designed in a manner that will make the spaces
accessible to non-resident subscribers from outside the building as well as building residents.
(4)Carshare spaces shall be identified by signage approved by the City.
(5)If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City that no carshare service can make use of the
dedicated carshare parking spaces, the spaces may be occupied by non-carshare vehicles;
provided, however, that upon 90 days of advance written notice to the property owner from a
carshare service, the property owner shall terminate any non-carsharing leases for such spaces
and shall make the spaces available to the carshare service for its use of such spaces.
(6)Carshare spaces shall be dedicated for current or future use by a carshare service through a deed
restriction, condition of approval, or license agreement. Such deed restriction, condition of
approval, or license agreement shall grant priority use to any carshare service that can make use
of the space, although such spaces may be occupied by other vehicles so long as no carshare
organization can make use of the dedicated carshare space(s).
b.Carpool Spaces. If parking is provided at a development, parking spaces reserved for use by
carpool/vanpool vehicles shall be designated in preferred locations (including, but not limited to
closest to building entries). The locations of these spaces shall be approved by the City through the
Site Plan Review or Building Permit processes. The required number of carpool spaces is listed in
Table 14-2H-4D-2 (Required Carpool Parking Spaces).
Table 14-2H-4D-2: Required Carpool Parking Spaces
Use Carpool Parking Spaces Required
Office-General, Office-Medical/Dental
≤ 10 parking spaces None
> 10 parking spaces 10% of the total number of spaces
All other uses
All Other Uses None
5.Parking Spaces, Design Site Design and Layout.
a.Access. Parking lot access and design is subject to the following standards:
(1)All on-site parking facilities shall be designed with an appropriate means of vehicular access to a
street or an alley to cause the least interference with traffic flow.
(2)Parking spaces in any parking lot or parking structure shall not be designed or located so as to
allow a vehicle to enter or exit a parking space directly from a public street. Ingress to and egress
from parking spaces shall be from an on-site aisle or driveway, except parking spaces within
design sites may be designed or located so as to allow a vehicle to enter or exit a parking space
directly from a public alley or rear lane.
b.Driveways.
(1)Access to Driveways.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 41
(a)Driveway access to and from developments of two or fewer dwelling units onto public streets
shall be where practical by forward motion of the vehicle; and
(b)Driveway access to and from developments of three or more dwelling units onto public
streets shall be by forward motion of the vehicle.
(2)Driveways shall extend to and include the area between the design site line and the edge of the
street pavement.
c.Materials.
(1)All on-site parking areas and driveways shall be surfaced with materials as approved by the City
Engineer and maintained in compliance with the City Standards.
(2)The use of pervious or semi-pervious parking area surfacing materials, include, but are not limited
to “grasscrete,” or recycled materials including, but not limited to glass, rubber, used asphalt,
brick, block and concrete, is subject to approval by the Director and City Engineer. Where possible,
such materials should be used in areas in proximity to and in combination with on-site
stormwater control devices.
d.Landscaping, Fencing, and Screening. The landscaping, fencing and screening standards identified
in Table 14-2H-4D-3 (Required Parking Lot Landscaping) shall be applied with the standards of Sub-
Section 14-2H-4B (Screening) and Sub-Section 14-2H-4C (Landscaping).
(1)Table 14-2H-4D-3 outlines required parking lot landscaping. Parking lot landscaping must include
the required minimum landscaped medians and must meet the minimum percentage landscape
requirement. The landscaped medians can count toward the minimum percentage requirement.
Table 14-2H-4D-3: Required Parking Lot Landscaping
Number of Parking Spaces Percent of Gross Parking Area Required to be Landscaped
6 or fewer Curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between every 5
spaces, property line, and building(s).
7 to 15 4%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between
every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s).
13 to 30 8%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between
every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s).
31 to 70 12%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between
every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s).
71 and over 16%; curbed, landscaped median minimum 5' in width between
every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s).
Required Shade Trees
Amount 1 tree per 2,700 sf of gross design site area, minus building
coverage (footprint).
Pot Size 15 gallon
Caliper 1.25" minimum.
Height at Installation 6'-8' minimum.
Characteristics High branching, broad headed, shading form.
Location Evenly spaced throughout parking lot to provide uniform shade.
Required Border 6" high curb or equivalent.
Border and Stormwater Curb shall include breaks every 4' to provide drainage to retention
and filtration areas.
Tree Well Size 5' min. in any direction; Any vehicle overhang requires the minimum
planter area width to be expanded by an equivalent dimension.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
42 Article H: Zones and Standards
(2)Parking and loading areas in the T4MS zone shall be screened from adjacent zones by a six foot
wall, fence, or evergreen.
(3)Parking area screening is not required when adjacent to an alley.
(4)For the portion of a parking area over which photo-voltaic solar collectors are installed where they
also function as shade structures, the minimum standard for trees shall be waived, and shrubs
and ground covers shall be planted for every eight parking spaces.
e.Location. Location of on-site parking areas in all Form-Based Zones is regulated by minimum setbacks
in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) and the following:
(1)Parking lots with 20 or fewer spaces shall include a minimum five foot wide sidewalk between the
building and parking area; and
(2)Parking lots with more than 20 spaces shall include a minimum five foot wide sidewalk, and
minimum five foot wide landscaping between the building and the parking area.
(3)The above does not apply to the rear of buildings in areas designed for unloading and loading of
materials.
f.Size of Parking Lot. Parking lots larger than one-quarter of an acre in size shall be broken down into
smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas with a minimum width of 15 feet between them to
minimize the perceived scale of the total field of stalls.
g.Tandem Parking. Tandem parking is allowed in all Form-Based Zones for all uses as follows.
(1)Tandem spaces shall comply with size requirements in Sub-Section 14-5A-5C (Parking, Stacking
Space Size, And Drive Dimensions);
(2)For residential parking, tandem parking only allowed for the spaces assigned to each unit; and
(3)For non-residential parking, tandem parking allowed subject to on-site parking management.
6.Bicycle Parking Standards.
a.Applicability. Bicycle parking standards apply in all Form-Based Zones.
b.Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces and Standards. Bicycle parking shall be provided in compliance
with the standards of Article 14-5A (Off Street Parking and Loading Standards).
(1)Buildings with three or more units are subject to the multi-family use bicycle parking standards.
(2)Bicycle parking is not required of single family and two family uses, and Cottage Court
developments, see Sub-Section 14-2H-6H (Cottage Court).
Car Overhangs Shall be prevented by stops.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 43
14-2H-4E Adjustments to standards
1.Allowed Adjustments. This Sub-Section allows flexibility to adjust certain standards of this Article.
Adjustments shall be processed as part of the preliminary plat and final plat processes per Title 15 (Land
Subdivisions) or as minor adjustments during the Site Plan and/or Building Permit Review process, as
applicable. Minor adjustments may be approved where the required findings are met as identified in Table
14-2H-4E-1. Standards may be adjusted as identified in this Sub-Section.
2.Minor Modifications. Additional flexibility is provided through the minor modification process subject to
standards at Section 14-4B-1 (Minor Modifications).
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
44 Article H: Zones and Standards
Table 14-2H-4E-1: Adjustments to Standards
Eligible Standards and
Allowed Adjustments Required Findings
Adjustment/
Amount of Adjustment
Design Site
Design Site Dimensions (Depth/Width)
Decrease in the minimum
required or increase the
maximum allowed.
1 The adjustment accommodates an existing
feature including, but not limited, to a tree or
utility; and
Up to 10% of the standard
2 An existing or new design site can still be
developed in compliance with the standards of
the zone.
Building Setbacks
Facade within Facade Zone
Reduction of the
minimum amount of facade
required within the facade
zone.
1 The adjustment accommodates an existing
feature including, but not limited, to a tree or
utility.
Up to 20% of the standard
2 The proposed development is visually
compatible with adjacent development and the
intended physical character of the zone.
Building Footprint
Size of Main Body or Wing(s)
Increase in the allowed
length or width.
1 The adjustment accommodates an existing
feature including, but not limited, to a tree or
utility.
Up to 10% of the standard
2 The wing(s) maintains the required 5' offset
from the main body.
3 The building complies with the setbacks of the
zone.
4 The proposed development is visually
compatible with adjacent development and the
intended physical character of the zone.
1 In compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Standards).
2 In compliance with Section 14-2H-10 (Affordable Housing Incentives).
3 This may be combined with other reductions in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25’.
4 With this adjustment, the Building Height may exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building
Form; Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5’.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 45
Table 14-2H-4E-1: Adjustments to Standards (continued)
Eligible Standards and
Allowed Adjustments Required Findings
Adjustment/
Amount of Adjustment
Parking Location 1
Front setback
Reduction in the required
parking setback.
1 The adjustment accommodates an existing
feature including, but not limited, to a tree or
utility.
Up to 10% of the standard
2 If accessed from the street, the driveway
complies with the Form-Based Zone standards.
3 The ground floor space is in compliance with
the Form-Based Zone standards.
Screening
Maximum Screening Height
Increase in the total
height of screens and the
retaining walls that they are
mounted on or attached to
beyond 6 feet.
1
There will be little or no impact on the adjoining
properties or the surrounding neighborhood.
Up to 33% of the standard
2
The height is necessary to achieve the
objectives of this Sub-Section or is required for
health and safety.
Affordable Housing
Zones (14-2H-2)
Select one of the following
minor adjustments. 1
The adjustment is in a building that contains
Affordable Housing units.2
Building type design site depth
may be adjusted by up 15’;3 or
Building type design site width
may be adjusted by up to 15%; or
Minimum amount of façade
required within the façade zone
may be reduced by up to 20%.
2
The adjustment fits the characteristics of the
site and the surrounding neighborhood.
3
The adjustment is consistent with the intent of
the standard being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and District Plans.
Building Type Standards (14-2H-6)
Select one of the following
minor adjustments. 1
The adjustment is in a building that contains
Affordable Housing units.2
Building main body and wing
standards may be adjusted by up
to 15%; or
Maximum Building Height may
be increased by up to 0.5
stories.4
2
The adjustment fits the characteristics of the
site and the surrounding neighborhood.
3
The adjustment is consistent with the intent of
the standard being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and District Plans.
Additional Minor Adjustments
Select an additional minor
adjustment each for the two
sets of minor adjustments for
affordable housing described
above. 1
The Affordable Housing units are income
restricted to households making 50% or less of
the Area Median Income. 2
An additional minor adjustment
to each of the minor adjustments
described for affordable housing
above.
1 In compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Standards).
2 In compliance with Section 14-2H-10 (Affordable Housing Incentives).
3 This may be combined with other reductions in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25’.
4 With this adjustment, the Building Height may exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building
Form; Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5’.
Final Draft – September 2021
Site Standards
46 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 47
Section 14-2H-5: Civic Space Type Standards
14-2H-5A Purpose
This Section establishes the standards applicable to land in the public realm (publicly or privately owned) for
civic gathering purposes, including civic spaces and civic buildings. These standards supplement the standards
for each Form-Based Zone.
14-2H-5B General Civic Space Type Standards
1.Standards and Characteristics. Each civic space is described as to its purpose and intent along with standards
and characteristics regarding general physical character, uses, size and location. Characteristics are considered
standards unless stated otherwise.
2.Process. Civic spaces are delineated during the subdivision process (Title 15) and are finalized in the
Neighborhood Plan (14-2H-1D). These areas shall comply with the future land use maps of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3.Open Space Required. As required by Chapter 14-5K (Neighborhood Open Space Requirements),
development sites are required to dedicate land to the City for public open space or pay a fee in-lieu to be
determined with the City. Civic space may be privately or publicly owned. However, private civic space does not
satisfy Neighborhood Open Space obligations.
4.Public Access and Visibility. Public access and visibility are required along public parks, civic uses, and natural
open spaces, including creeks and drainages and stormwater management areas as required through access
easements granted during the subdivision process. Civic spaces shall be fronted by:
a.Single-loaded frontage streets (with development on one side and open space on the other);
b.Bike and pedestrian paths; or
c.Other methods of frontage that provide similar access and visibility to the open space allowed in the zone.
5.Building Frontage Along or Adjacent to a Civic Space. The facades on building design sites attached to or
across a street from a civic space shall be designed as a "front" on to the civic space, in compliance with Item 5
(Building Placement) and Item 8 (Frontages) of the zone.
Figure 14-2H-5B-1 Building Frontage Adjacent to a Civic Space
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
48 Article H: Zones and Standards
6.Stormwater Management Through Civic Space. Civic spaces in Form-Based Zones should serve the
additional purpose of helping to contribute to stormwater management of new development. This may be
accomplished as follows:
a.Stormwater is to be directed to civic space(s).
b.Except for Plazas, Playgrounds, and Passages, each civic space should accommodate stormwater while
primarily being designed as a gathering space for people.
7.Commercial Uses and Civic Spaces. Commercial use of civic spaces may be allowed for Outdoor Service Areas
(4-3-1).
8.Photos. All photos are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 49
14-2H-5C Greenway
1.Description
A linear space three or more blocks in length for community
gathering, bicycling, running, or strolling, defined by tree-lined
streets typically forming a one-way couplet on its flanks and by
the fronting buildings across the street. Versions of this civic
space type have a street only on one side in response to site
conditions that prevent the one-way couplet. Greenways serve
an important role as a green connector between destinations.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Formal or informal dominated by landscaping and trees
with integral stormwater management capacity.
b.Hardscape path
c.Spatially defined by tree-lined streets and adjacent buildings.
d.Typical uses include passive recreation, walking/running,
and formal or informal seating
e.
3.Standards
a.Size Min. 3 continuous blocks in length
b.Width 50' min.
c.Shall be flanked by one-way streets on two longest sides. This
standard is not required where the Greenway is adjacent to an
existing arterial.
Greenway with formal design.
Communit y
Gar den
PassagePlaygroundPocket Par kPocket
Plaza
PlazaSquareGreenGreenwayCommunity
Pa rk
Spor ts
Complex
Reg ional
Pa rk
Wide Greenway with informal design.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
50 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-5D Green
1.Description
A large space available for unstructured and limited
amounts of structured recreation.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Accessory Structure(s)<5,000 gsf; fountains,
benches
b.Informal or formal with integral stormwater management
capacity.
c.Primarily planted areas with paths to and between
recreation areas and civic buildings.
d.Spatially defined by tree-lined streets and adjacent
buildings.
e.Typical uses include unstructured passive and active
recreation, civic uses, and temporary commercial uses
3.Standards
a.Size 300' x 300' min.
b.Streets required on at least two sides of the Green.
c.Facades on design sites attached to or across a street
shall "front" on to the Green.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 51
14-2H-5E Plaza
1.Description
A community-wide focal point primarily for civic purposes
and commercial activities.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Accessory Structure(s)<1,500 gsf; fountains,
benches
b.Formal, urban
c.Hardscaped and planted areas in formal patterns.
d.Spatially defined by buildings and tree-lined streets.
e.Typical adjacent uses include civic uses and commercial
uses in support of civic uses. Typical uses include civic uses
and passive recreation.
3.Standards
a.Size 100' x 100' min.
b.Streets required on two of the Plaza's sides.
c.Facades on design sites attached to or across a street
shall "front" on to the Plaza.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
52 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-5F Pocket Park/Plaza
1.Description
A small-scale space, serving the immediate neighborhood,
available for informal activities in close proximity to
neighborhood residences, and civic purposes, intended as
intimate spaces for seating or dining.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Accessory Structures <200 gsf
b.Informal or Formal, with integral stormwater management
capacity.
c.Combination of planted areas and hardscape.
d.Spatially defined by building frontages and adjacent street
trees.
e.Walkways along edges or across space.
f.Typical adjacent uses include civic uses, commercial uses in
support of civic uses, and residential uses. Typical uses
include civic uses and passive recreation and outdoor seating.
3.Standards
a.Size 50' x 100' min.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 53
14-2H-5G Playground
1.Description
A small-scale space designed and equipped for the recreation
of children. These spaces serve as quiet, safe places
protected from the street and typically in locations where
children do not have to cross any major streets. An open
shelter, play structures, or interactive art and fountains may
be included. Playgrounds may be included within all other
civic space types.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Focused toward children
b.Play structure, interactive art, and/or fountains
c.Shade and seating provided
d.May be fenced
e.Spatially defined by trees with integral stormwater
management capacity.
f.Typical uses include active and passive recreation and
casual seating.
3.Standards
a.Size 40' x 60' min.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
54 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-5H Community Garden
1.Description
A small-scale space designed as a grouping of garden plots
available to nearby residents for small-scale cultivation.
Community gardens may be fenced and may include a
small accessory structure for storage. Community Gardens
may be included within all other civic space types.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Accessory Structures <2,000 gsf
b.Plant beds (in-ground or raised)
c.Decorative fencing, when fencing is present
d.Spatially defined by adjacent buildings and
street trees.
e.Typical uses include food production, passive creation.
3.Standards
a.Size No minimum; within any design site as
allowed by the zone.
b.See Section 14-2H-3C-1 (Community Garden) for use
standards.
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 55
14-2H-5I Passage
Passage providing access to residences.
1.Description
A pedestrian pathway that extends from the public sidewalk
into a civic space and/or across the block to another public
sidewalk. The pathway is lined by non-residential Shopfronts
and/or residential ground floors and pedestrian entries as
allowed by the zone.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2.General Character
a.Formal, urban
b.No accessory structure(s)
c.Combination of hardscape and landscape planters
d.Spatially defined by building frontages
e.Trees and shrubs in containers and/or planters
f.Typical adjacent uses include civic uses and commercial uses
in support of civic uses in T4MS or ground floor residential
uses in T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4NM; moveable seating and/or
outdoor dining may be used in T4NM-O and T4MS.
3.Standards
a.Size 20' min. overall with 15' min. clear width between
or through buildings
b.Dooryards, porches, patios, and sidewalk dining not
allowed to encroach into the minimum required width.
c.See Sub-Section 14-2H-9L (Passage) for additional standards.
d.Ground floor residential in T3NE, T3NG, T4NS, T4MS (side
street only and 60' min. from front of design site.
Passage between lower intensity housing types.
Communit y
Gar den
PassagePlaygroundPocket Par kPocket
Plaza
PlazaSquareGreenGreenwayCommunity
Park
Sports
Complex
Regional
Park
Final Draft – September 2021
Civic Space Type Standards
56 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 57
Section 14-2H-6: Building Type Standards
14-2H-6A Purpose
This Section sets forth standards for development of individual building types to achieve the intended physical
character of each zone and provide housing choices and small businesses as amenities within walkable
neighborhoods.
14-2H-6B General Building Type Standards
1.Scale. Building Types are categorized into House-Scale buildings and Block-Scale buildings. The individual types
within these two categories are determined by the intended physical character of each Form-Based Zone. See
Figure 14-2H-6B-1 (Example of House-Scale and Block-Scale Buildings) for further details.
2.Design Site Size. The design site size standards for each building type in Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) generate
pedestrian-oriented buildings that accommodate the automobile while not letting it visually dominate the fronts
of buildings and streetscapes. The design site size standards identify the range of design site sizes on which the
given building type is allowed to be built.
3.Building Types Per Design Site. Each design site shall contain only one primary building type, except as follows:
A.Where allowed by the zone and as allowed in Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House), one Carriage House
is allowed in addition to the primary building type;
B.Certain building types may consist of multiple individual buildings per design site as specified in Item 2 of
each building type. For an example of a building type where a design site may include multiple individual
buildings, see Cottage Court (14-2H-6H).
4.Building Types Per Parcel. More than one building type is allowed on a parcel that contains multiple design sites
that meet the standards of this Section. See Figure 14-2H-6B-2 (Example of Multiple Design Sites on an Existing
Parcel).
5.Location of Frontage. Each building type shall have at least one frontage type along the front street, side street
or a civic space. The Cottage Court building is only required to have a frontage type on the court. The primary
building entrance shall be through said frontage type.
6.Diversity of Building Types. Except in the T4 MS zone, there shall be a mix of at least 2 different primary building
types within each block, using only the types allowed in the zone.
7.Number of Units. The standard regarding the minimum number of units per building listed in Item 2 (Number
of Units) only applies to residential uses. Where a building type is occupied by a nonresidential use, only the
maximum number of units per building listed in Item 2 (Number of Units) applies.
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
58 Article H: Zones and Standards
Figure 14-2H-6B-1: Example of House-Scale and Block-Scale Buildings
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 59
Figure 14-2H-6B-2: Example of Multiple Design Sites on an Existing Parcel
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
60 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6C Carriage House
1.Description
a.An accessory structure located at the rear of a design
site, above the garage, that provides a small residential unit
(accessory apartment), home office space, or other small
commercial or service use, as allowed by the zone. The
Carriage House is an accessory building type, not a primary
building type.
b.Not allowed with a Cottage Court (14-2H-6H)
2.Number of Units
Units per Building 1 max.
Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 61
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Max.
Number
of Stories
2 2 2 2 2
b.Main Body1
Width 32’ max.
Depth 24' max.
Separation from Primary
Building2
15' min.
c.Standards
(1)Carriage House shall not be taller or have a larger
footprint than the primary building to which it is
accessory.
(2)Carriage House must comply with the ownership and
occupancy standards of Sub-Section 14-4C-2A (Accessory
Apartments).
1 Includes garage story.
2 Carriage House may be connected to primary building by
an uninhabitable space including, but not limited to a
breezeway.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Frontage type not required
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Side Street, alley or internal
to design site.
b.The main entrance shall not be through a garage.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Not required.
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
62 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6D House Large
1.Description
a.A medium-to-large-sized detached building with one unit,
medium-to-large setbacks, a rear yard, and located in a low-
intensity walkable neighborhood.
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 1 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 63
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NE
Max. Number of Stories 2.5
b.Main Body1
Width 55’ max.
Depth2 55' max.
c.Wing(s)1
Width 20' max.
Depth 20' max.
Separation between wings 15' min.
Offset from Main Body 5' min.3
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub-Section
14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub-
Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall
comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or
Passage.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area Per Unit 400 sf min.
b.Standards
(1)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(2)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(3)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,LARGEBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,LARGE
F
C BB
AA
G
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
G
H H
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetD C
CD
F
E
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
64 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6E House Small
1.Description
a.A small-to-medium-sized detached building with one unit,
small-to-medium setbacks, a rear yard, and located within a
low-intensity walkable neighborhood.
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 1 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 65
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NG
Max. Number of Stories 2.5
b.Main Body1
Width 35’ max.
Depth2 45' max.
c.Wing(s)1
Width 20' max.
Depth 20' max.
Separation between wings 15' min.
Offset from Main Body 5' min.3
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed
in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural
Element Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per
Sub-Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall
comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or
Passage.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area Per Unit 300 sf min.
b.Standards
(1)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(2)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(3)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
66 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6F Duplex Side-by-Side
A distinct gable roof gives variety to this Duplex Side-by-Side.
This Duplex's raised porch sits between two bay windows
Example of Duplex Side-by-Side.
1.Description
a.A small-to-medium-sized detached building with small-to-
medium setbacks and a rear yard. The building consists of
two side-by-side units, both facing the street and within a
single-building massing. This type has the appearance of a
small-to-medium single-family home and is scaled to fit
within lower-intensity neighborhoods.
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 2 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 67
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NE T3NG
Max. Number of Stories 2.5 2.5
b.Main Body1
Width 48’ max.
Depth2 40' max.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per
Sub-Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main entrance location at Front Street, Side Street, or
Passage.
b.Each unit shall have an individual entry facing the street
on, or within 10' of the front facade.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area Per Unit 225 sf min.
Dimension 15’ min.
b.Standards
(1)Open space not required if building is located within
1,500 linear feet of a civic space.
(2)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(3)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(4)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
68 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6G Duplex Stacked
1.Description
a.A small-to-medium-sized detached building with small-to-
medium setbacks and a rear yard. The building consists of
two stacked units, both facing the street and within a single-
building massing. This type has the appearance of a small-
to-medium single-family home and is scaled to fit within
lower-intensity neighborhoods.
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 2 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 69
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NG
Max. Number of Stories 2.5
b.Main Body1
Width 36’ max.
Depth2 40' max.
c.Wing(s)1
Width 15' max.
Depth 20' max.
Separation between wings 15' min.
Offset from Main Body 5' min.
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub-Section
14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per Sub-
Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main entrance location at Front Street, Side Street, or
Passage .
b.Each unit shall have an individual entry facing the street
on, or within 10' of the front facade.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area Per Unit 225 sf min.
Dimension 15’ min.
b.Standards
(1)Open space not required if building is located within
1,500 linear feet of a civic space.
(2)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(3)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(4)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
70 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6H Cottage Court
1.Description
a.A grouping of 3 to 9 small, detached buildings arranged
to define a shared court open to the street. The shared
court is common, private open space and takes the place of
a private rear yard, thus becoming an important
community-enhancing element. This type is scaled to fit
within low-to-moderate-intensity neighborhoods and in
non-residential contexts.
b.Synonym: Bungalow Court
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 1 max.1
Primary Buildings per Design Site 3 min.; 9 max.
1 Most Rear Cottage (i.e. Cottage furthest from the street
and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building
with up to 3 units
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 71
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NE T3NG T4NS
Max. Number of Stories 1.5 1.5 1.5
Max. Height to Mid-Point of Roof 18' 18' 18'
b.Main Body1
All Cottages
Width 32’ max.
Depth 24' max.
Most Rear Cottage
Width 40' max.
Depth 24' max.
Separation between Cottages 10' min.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed
in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural
Element Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub-
Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Shared court shall be accessible from front street.
b.Main entrance location to units from shared court, Front
Street, Side Street, or Passage.
c.Pedestrian connections shall link all buildings to the
public ROW, shared court, and parking areas.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
c.Spaces may be individually accessible by the units and/or
a common parking area located at rear side of design site.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Width 15' min.
Depth 60' min. (3-4 units);
Size 70' min. (5-9 units)
b.Standards
(1)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(2)Shared court(s) may be used for stormwater
management if designed as integral site element (rain
garden or bioswale) and does not visually detract from
the frontage of each cottage facing the court.
(3)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
72 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6I Multiplex Small
1.Description
a.A medium-sized detached building that consists of 3 to 6
side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with one shared
entry or individual entries along the front. This type has the
appearance of a medium-sized single-family house and is
scaled to fit as a small portion of low- to moderate-intensity
neighborhoods.
b.Synonym: Triplex to Sixplex
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 3 min.; 6 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 73
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NG T4NS
Max. Number of Stories 2.5 2.5
b.Main Body1
Width 50' max.
Depth2 50' max.
c.Wing(s)1
Width 20' max.
Depth 30' max.
Separation between wings 15' min.
Offset from Main Body 5' min.
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per Sub-Section
14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or
Passage
b.Each unit may have an individual entry from the sidewalk
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area 225 sf min.
Dimension 15’ min.
b.Standards
(1)Open space not required if building is located within 750
linear feet of a civic space.
(2)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(3)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(4)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
74 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6J Multiplex Large
1.Description
a.A medium-to-large-sized detached building that consists
of 7 to 12 side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with
one shared entry or individual entries along the front for
the ground floor units. This type is scaled to fit in within
moderate-intensity neighborhoods or as a small portion of
lower-intensity neighborhoods.
b.Synonym: Mansion Apartment
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 7 min.; 12 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 75
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T4NM
Max. Number of Stories 3.5
b.Main Body1
Width 60' max.
Depth2 60' max.
c.Wing(s)1
Width 20' max.
Depth 40' max.
Separation between wings 15' min.
Offset from Main Body 5' min.
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Stoop 14-2H-8F
Forecourt 14-2H-8G
Terrace 14-2H-8J
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or
Passage
b.Units located in the main body shall be accessed by a
common entry along the front street.
c.On corner design sites, units in a secondary wing may
enter from the side street.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area 225 sf min.
Dimension 15' min.
b.Standards
(1)Open space not required if building is located within 750
linear feet of a civic space.
(2)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(3)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(4)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
76 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6K Townhouse
1.Description
A small-to-large-sized, typically attached, building with a rear
yard that consists of 3 to 8 Townhouses placed side-by-side.
Each Townhouse consists of 1 unit or, up to 3 stacked units
as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this type
may also be detached with minimal separations between
buildings. This type is typically located within moderate-to-
high intensity neighborhoods, or near a neighborhood main
street.
Synonym: Rowhouse
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 1 max.
3 max. in T4NM-O; T4MS
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
House-Scale Building, 2-3 individual Townhouses max. per row
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Block-Scale Building, 4-8 individual Townhouses max. per
row
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 77
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Max. Number of
Stories
2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5
b.Main Body1
Width 18' min.; 30' max.
Depth2 50' max.
Max. Width per
building
90' 120' 100' 200'
c.Wing(s)1
Width 15' max.
Depth 15' max.
Separation between wings 8' min.
d.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element
Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)In T4NM-O and T4MS, each Townhouse may be divided
vertically into 3 units.
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Dooryard 14-2H-8E
Stoop 14-2H-8F
Terrace 14-2H-8J
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Front street, Side Street or
Passage
b.Each unit shall have an individual entry facing a street.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Area Per Primary Building 64 sf min.
Dimension 8' min.
b.Standards
(1)Driveways shall not be included in private open space
calculation.
(2)Required private open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
(3)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:TOWNHOUSEBUILDINGTYPE:TOWNHOUSE
Front Street
G G G
C
B
AAA
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
I
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
E
Front Street
F
D
H
I I
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
78 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6L Courtyard Building Small
1.Description
a.A building that consists of multiple attached and/or
stacked units, accessed from a shared courtyard. The
shared court is common, private open space and takes the
place of a rear yard. This type is typically integrated as a
small portion of lower-intensity neighborhoods or more
consistently into moderate-to-high-intensity
neighborhoods.
b.Synonym: Courtyard Apartment
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 10 min.; 16 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.1
1 Primary building may be designed as up to two adjacent
buildings not more than 15' apart.
House-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 79
3.Building Size and Massing
c.Height T4NS T4NM
Max. Number of Stories 2.5 3.5
d.Main Body1
Width 100' max.
Depth2 100' max.
e.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed
in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural
Element Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
(3)Rooftop Room allowed on uppermost roof per
Sub-Section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the
front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body
depth may be increased by five feet
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Porch Projecting 14-2H-8C
Porch Engaged 14-2H-8D
Stoop 14-2H-8F
Terrace 14-2H-8J
The above frontage types are also allowed within
courtyard(s) in compliance with courtyard size
requirements.
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Courtyard, Front street, Side
Street or Passage
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Width 30' min.
Depth 50' min.
b.Standards
(1)Courtyard(s) shall be accessible from the front street.
(2)Multiple courtyards are required to be connected via a
passage through or between buildings.
(3)Building shall define at least three sides of the
courtyard.
(4)Courtyard(s) may be used for stormwater management
if designed as integral site element (rain garden or
bioswale) and does not visually detract from the
frontage of each building facing the courtyard.
(5)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
80 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6M Courtyard Building Large
1.Description
a.A building that consists of multiple attached and/or
stacked units, accessed from one or more shared
courtyards. The shared court is common, private open
space. This type is typically integrated into moderate-to-
high-intensity neighborhoods and on Main Streets contexts.
b.Synonym: Courtyard Apartment
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building 18 min.; 24 max.
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.1
1 Primary building may be designed as up to three adjacent
buildings not more than 15' apart.
Block-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 81
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T4MS
Max. Number of Stories 3.5
b.Main Body1
Width 100' max.
Depth 140' max.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed
in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural
Element Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Stoop 14-2H-8F
Shopfront 14-2H-8I
Terrace 14-2H-8J
Gallery 14-2H-8K
The above frontage types are also allowed within
courtyard(s) in compliance with courtyard size
requirements.
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Main Entrance Location at Courtyard, Front street, Side
Street or Passage
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Width 30' min.
Depth 70' min.
b.Standards
(1)Courtyard(s) shall be accessible from the front street.
(2)Multiple courtyards are required to be connected via a
passage through or between buildings.
(3)Building shall define at least three sides of the
courtyard.
(4)Courtyard(s) may be used for stormwater management
if designed as integral site element (rain garden or
bioswale) and does not visually detract from the
frontage of each building facing the courtyard.
(5)Required private open space may only be paved with
decorative paving.
(6)Ground floor of building(s) shall align with at least 75%
of the courtyard(s) perimeter.
BUILDING TYPE:HOUSE,SMALLBUILDINGTYPE:HOUSE,SMALL
Front FrontSide StreetSide StreetBB
AA
HH
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Frontage Type
Private Open Space
Ke y
D
ROW / Design Site Line
Setback Line
Building Type
Accessor y Structure
Ke y
F
G
G F
C
D
D
C
E
C
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
82 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-6N Main Street Building
1.Description
a.A small-to-large-sized building, typically attached, but may
be detached, intended to provide a vertical mix of uses with
ground-floor retail, office or service uses and upper-floor
service or residential uses. This type makes up the primary
component of neighborhood and downtown main streets,
therefore being a key component to providing walkability.
2.Number of Units
Units per Primary Building Unrestricted1
Primary Buildings per Design Site 1 max.
1 Number of units restricted by Iowa City’s adopted Building
Code, Fire Code , and Housing Code standards.
Block-Scale Building
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T#Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 83
3.Building Size and Massing
a.Height T4MS
Max. Number of Stories 3.5
b.Main Body1
Width 200’ max.
Depth 120' max.
c.Standards
(1)Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed
in compliance with Section 14-2H-7 (Architectural
Element Standards).
(2)Maximum one Carriage House is allowed per
Sub-Section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House).
1 In compliance with the standards of the zone.
4.Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard1 14-2H-8E
Stoop1 14-2H-8F
Forecourt 14-2H-8G
Maker Shopfront1 14-2H-8H
Shopfront 14-2H-8I
Terrace 14-2H-8J
Gallery 14-2H-8K
Arcade 14-2H-8L
1 Only on Neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60' from
front of design site.
5.Pedestrian Access
a.Upper floor units shall be accessed by a common entry
along the front street.
b.Ground floor units may have individual entries along the
Neighborhood (side) street if min. 60' from Main Street.
c.On corner design sites, units may enter from the side
street.
6.Vehicle Access and Parking
a.Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone.
b.Alley access is required if alley exists.
7.Open Space
a.Private Open Space
Not required
Final Draft – September 2021
Building Type Standards
84 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 85
Section 14-2H-7: Architectural Element Standards
14-2H-7A Purpose
This Section establishes standards that supplement the zones standards to further refine the intended building
form and physical character.
14-2H-7B Overview
1.Massing and Facade Articulation Standards. Facades on a street or civic space shall be designed in
compliance with the standards of this Section.
2.General Standards.
a.On corner buildings, front and side street facades shall have equal architectural treatment.
b.Ground floor glazing on residential buildings shall be 30% minimum and on Shopfronts 75% minimum.
c.Stairs must be integrated into the conditioned floor area of the building, as defined in the Iowa City
Building Code, and cannot protrude beyond the building footprint. In addition, stairs must be designed in
compliance with Section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Types).
3.Photos. All photos are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Architectural Element Standards
86 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-7C Tripartite Facade Articulation
1. Description
Tripartite architecture uses architectural elements to
delineate the base, middle and top. The ground floor façade
composes the base. The building element and features
above or including the uppermost occupied floor, including
parapet walls and eaves, compose the top.
2. Applicability
Buildings of at least 2 stories
3. Standards / General Character
Requires three distinct sections:
a. Base. The base of a building shall be distinguished
from the middle through the use of string courses,
cornice expression, or installation or awnings or
canopies.
b. Middle. For a building that is 2 stories or less, a
middle section is not required; only a top and a
base.
c. Top. For a building that is 3 or more stories, the top
shall be delineated with some form of cornice
expression, either with trim material, brackets and
panels, eave details, or accentuated masonry.
d. Where the exterior wall material changes along the
vertical plane of a building, the materials must be
separated by a horizonal band, such as a belt
course, soldier course, or band board or other trim
appropriate to the building materials being used.
.
Figure 14-2H-7C-1: Diagram of Tripartite Façade
Articulation
Final Draft – September 2021
Architectural Element Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 87
14-2H-7D Architectural Recession(s)
1. Description
Architectural recessions modulate the apparent size and
scale of a building by recessing a portion(s) of the facade as
an architectural element(s) or space(s) from the plane(s): a
recessed entry from the sidewalk, a loggia or recessed
balcony cut into the plane of the facade.
2. Applicability
Buildings of at least 2 stories and over 50' long, except for
the House Large (14-2H-6D), House Small (14-2H-6E,) Duplex
Side-by-Side (14-2H-6F), and Duplex Stacked (14-2H-6G)
building types.
3. Standards / General Character
Recession Height If ground floor is recessed,
recession shall extend through
the building mass
Recession Width
Buildings 50'-100' long 12' min. (distributed in up to 2
locations)
Buildings > 100' long 20' min. (distributed in at least 2
locations)
Depth 16" min.
Figure 14-2H-7D-1: Diagram of Architectural Recessions
Final Draft – September 2021
Architectural Element Standards
88 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-7E Corner Element
1. Description
A corner element gives visual importance to corner and
further shape the public realm.
2. Applicability
Optional architectural element for Main Street Building
Types (14-2H-6N) where the building is over 75' long
3. Standards / General Character
Footprint 10' x 10' min.
Projection from façade 3' min.
Top story height 14' max.1
1 Corner element may exceed maximum height allowed by
the zone by up to 10'. when the highest story on the
building is at the maximum height allowed by the zone.
Figure 14-2H-7E-1: Diagram of Corner Element
Final Draft – September 2021
Architectural Element Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 89
14-2H-7F Rooftop Room
1. Description
A Rooftop Room is a small enclosed or unenclosed room
on the uppermost roof of house-scale buildings.
2. Applicability
Optional architectural element as allowed by Item 3
(Building Size and Massing) of the building type.
3. Standards / General Character
a. Standards
Interior clear dimensions 12' max.
Floor-to-Ceiling Height 10' max.
Overall Height 14' max.
Side setback from building edge 5' min.
Rear setback from building edge 15' min.
Opening or glazing on each side
of room
75% min.
b. General Character
(1)Materials shall be consistent with the primary building.
(2)Exterior access allowed in compliance with Title 17
Building and Housing Code, and Title 7, the Fire Code,
Chapter 7-1 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances.
(3)Roof shall be consistent with roof style of primary
building.
(4)Openings shall be vertically proportioned or square.
(5)Openings may be glazed.
(6)Shutters, when present, shall be of sufficient width to
cover the adjacent opening.
Figure 14-2H-7E-1: Diagram of Rooftop Room
Final Draft – September 2021
Architectural Element Standards
90 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 91
Section 14-2H-8: Frontage Type Standards
14-2H-8A Purpose
This Section establishes standards for all frontages. Frontages are the components of a building that provide the
transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (yard or building).
14-2H-8B General Frontage Type Standards
1.Nomenclature. The names of the frontage types indicate their particular configuration or function and are not
intended to limit uses within the associated building. For example, a porch may be used by non-residential uses
including, but not limited to a restaurant or office as allowed by the zone.
2.Allowable Frontage Types.
a.Frontage types not listed in Item 8 (Frontages) of the zone are not allowed in that zone.
b.Each building may have multiple frontage types in compliance with the allowed types in Item 4 (Allowed
Frontage Types) of each building type. Frontage types not listed in Item 4 (Allowed Frontage Types) of the
building type are not allowed on that building type.
3.Location. Each frontage type shall be located in compliance with the facade zone per Item 5 (Building
Placement) of the zone (Section 14-2H-2) and with the building type location of frontage standard (Sub-Section
14-2H-6B-5).
4.Entries and Access.
a.Along street frontages and passages, sliding doors are prohibited as building entries. Sliding doors may not
be used as a primary means of entrance to any building or residential unit.
b.Access to entrance doors of individual dwelling units located above the ground floor level must be
provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior
stairways are not allowed as the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the ground level
floor of the building. This provision does not preclude the use of fire egress structures.
c.Dwelling units on the ground floor and their entrances must be connected to adjacent public right of ways,
and to parking areas and other on-site facilities.
5.Diversity of Frontage Types. Except in the T4MS zone, there shall be a mix of at least two different frontage
types within each block, using only the types allowed in the zone.
6.Standards. Standards are stated for the front of a design site and are to be adjusted for side street facades in
compliance with the setbacks of the zone.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
92 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8C Porch Projecting
1. Description
The main facade of the building is set back from the front
design site line with a covered structure encroaching into
the front setback. The resulting setback area can be defined
by a fence or hedge to spatially define the edge of the
street. The Porch may be one or two stories and is open on
three sides.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Example of a Projecting Porch.
Example of a glassed-in Projecting Porch.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 93
2. Size
Width, Clear 15' min.1
Depth, Overall
Elevated <12" from average finish grade 8' min.
Elevated ≥12" from average finish grade 6' min.
Height, Clear 8' min.
Stories 2 stories
max.1
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
1 Clear width reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage
Court (14-2H-6H) building type. Story height maximum
reduced to 1 story.
3. Miscellaneous
a.Porch shall be open on three sides and have a roof. Clear
glass may be installed between the porch columns if the
minimum size of individual panes is 12".
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
94 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8D Porch Engaged
1. Description
A portion of the main facade of the building projects into
the front setback to create an area for a covered structure
that projects from the rest of the facade. The Porch may
project into the front setback. The resulting yard may be
defined by a fence or hedge to spatially define the edge of
the street. The Porch may be one or two stories and may
have two or three adjacent sides that are engaged to the
building with at least one side open.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 95
2. Size
Width, Clear 15' min.
Depth, Overall
Elevated <12" from average finish grade 8' min.
Elevated ≥12" from average finish grade 6' min.
Height, Clear 8' min.
Stories 2 stories max.
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the applicable
abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
Encroachment Area of Building Façade
Depth 6’ max.
Width 1/3 min. of
overall build-
ing façade1
1 May not exceed Porch clear width ( )
3. Miscellaneous
a.Up to 20% of the building facade and porch may project
beyond the front setback line into the encroachment area
for the zone.
b.Porch shall be open at least on one side and have a roof.
c.Clear glass may be installed between the porch columns
if the minimum size of individual panes is 12".
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
96 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8E Dooryard
1. Description
The main facade of the building is set back from the front
design site line, which is defined by a low wall, hedge, or
other allowed screening, creating a small private area
between the sidewalk and the facade. Each Dooryard is
separated from adjacent Dooryards. The Dooryard may be
raised or at grade.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 97
2. Size
Depth, Clear 10' min.1
Length 15' min.
Distance between Glazing 4' max.
Depth of Recessed Entries 12” max.
Pedestrian Access Width 3' min.
Height of Dooryard Fence/Wall
above Finish Level
36" max.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the
applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
1 Reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-2H-6H)
building type.
3. Miscellaneous
a.For live/work, retail, service, and restaurant uses, the
Shopfront Frontage Type is to be applied.
b.Each Dooryard shall provide access to only one ground
floor entry.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
98 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8F Stoop
1. Description
The main facade of the building is near the front design site
line with steps to an elevated entry. The Stoop is elevated
above the sidewalk to provide privacy along the sidewalk-
facing rooms. Stairs or ramps from the Stoop may lead
directly to the sidewalk or may be parallel to the sidewalk.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 99
2. Size
Width, Clear 5' min.
Depth, Clear 3' min.
Height, Clear 8' min.
Stories 1 story max.
Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" min.
Depth of Recessed Entries 12” max.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the
applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
3.Miscellaneous
a.Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building
facade.
b.Ramps shall be parallel to facade or along the side of the
building.
c.Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter
from the elements.
d.Gates are not allowed.
e.All doors shall face the street.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
100 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8G Forecourt
1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front
design site line and a portion is set back, extending the
public realm into the design site for an entry court or
shared garden space for housing, or as an additional
shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and
service areas.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Example of a Forecour t in a mixed-use building.
Example of a Forecour t.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 101
2. Size
Width, Clear 15' min.
Depth, Clear 15' min.
Ratio, Height to Width 2:1 max.
Height from Sidewalk 12” max.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the
applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
3. Miscellaneous
a.May be utilized to group several entries at a common
elevation in compliance with the zone ground floor finish
level standards.
b.The proportions and orientation of these spaces shall
comply with Figure 14-2H-8G-1 below for solar orientation
and user comfort.
c.Other frontage types as allowed in the zone may be
applied to the front of the building and/or within the
Forecourt.
Figure 14-2H-8G-1: Diagram for Solar Orientation
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
102 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8H Maker Shopfront
1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front
design site line with an at-grade or elevated entrance from
the sidewalk. This type is only allowed on side streets from
the adjacent main street and is intended for industrial
artisan businesses to show their activity to people passing
by on the sidewalk, as well as for retail sales of products
made on-site. The Maker Shopfront may include a
decorative roll-down or sliding door, including glazing and
an awning that overlaps the sidewalk.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Example of a Maker Shopfront.
Example of a Maker Shopfront.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 103
2. Size
Distance between Glazing 10” max.
Ground Floor Glazing between
Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling Height
50% min.
Depth of Recessed Entries No max.
3. Awning
Depth 5' min.
Setback from Curb 2' min.
Height, Clear 8' min.
4. Miscellaneous
a.Rounded and hooped awning are not allowed.
b.Glazing shall be clear and highly transparent. Reflective
(mirrored) or colored glass is not permitted. Low-E glazing
will reduce transparency, so is discouraged, but if used, the
glass chosen should have a high visible light transmittance
and low reflectivity. Such windows must allow views into the
interior space
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
104 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8I Shopfront
1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front
design site line with at-grade entrance along the sidewalk.
This type is intended for service, retail, or restaurant use
and includes substantial glazing between the Shopfront
base and the ground floor ceiling and may include an
awning that overlaps the sidewalk.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 105
2. Size
Distance between Glazing 2” max.
Ground Floor Glazing between
Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling Height
75% min.
Depth of Recessed Entries 5' max.
Shopfront Base 6" min.; 30" max.
3. Awning
Depth 5' min.
Setback from Curb 2' min.
Height, Clear 8' min.
4. Miscellaneous
a.Residential types of windows are not allowed.
b.Rounded and hooped awning are not allowed.
c. Glazing shall be clear and highly transparent. Reflective
(mirrored) or colored glass is not permitted. Low-E glazing
will reduce transparency, so is discouraged, but if used, the
glass chosen should have a high visible light transmittance
and low reflectivity. Such windows must allow views into the
interior space
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
106 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8J Terrace
1. Description
The main facade is at or near the front design site line with
steps leading to an elevated area providing public
circulation along the façade to connect multiple entrances.
This type is used to provide outdoor areas along the
sidewalk for housing or to accommodate an existing or
intended grade change for retail, service or office uses.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 107
2. Size
Depth of Terrace
Residential 8' min.
Non-residential 12' min.
Finish Level above Sidewalk 24" max.
Distance between Stairs 25' max.
Utility Easement Area as identified by the
applicable abutting Thoroughfare Type (14-2H-9).
3. Miscellaneous
a.Terrace shall also follow the standards for the Shopfront
Frontage Type, when the Shopfront Frontage Type is an
allowed frontage type in the zone.
b.Where the frontage type requires the ground floor to be
flush with the sidewalk, the terrace shall be considered to
be the sidewalk.
c.Low walls used as seating are allowed.
d.Terrace shall be along the façade to connect multiple
entrances.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
108 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8K Gallery
1. Description
The main facade of the building is setback from the front
design site line and an at-grade covered structure, typically
articulated with colonnade or arches, covers an area not in
the right-of-way. This type may be one or two stories. When
used in nonresidential settings, the Shopfront Type is
included; when used in residential settings, Stoops,
Dooryards, and Forecourts are included.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Example of a Gallery.
A two-story Gallery with second s tory uncovered.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 109
2. Size
Depth, Clear 8' min.
Ground Floor Height, Clear 12' min.
Height 2 stories max.
3. Miscellaneous
a.Galleries shall also follow the standards for the
Shopfront Frontage Type.
b.Habitable space
c.Second story of Gallery may be used as deck and may be
covered by a roof.
d.Galleries shall have a consistent depth.
e.Galleries are not allowed to project over the sidewalk in
the public right-of-way.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
110 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-8L Arcade
1. Description
The main facade of the building is setback from the front
design site line and the upper floor(s) contain habitable
space overlapping the area below not in the right-of-way.
When used in nonresidential settings, the Shopfront Type is
included; when used in residential settings, Stoops,
Dooryards, and Forecourts are included.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.
Example of an Arcade.
Example of an Arcade.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 111
2. Size
Depth, Clear 10' min.
Ground Floor Height, Clear 12' min.
Height 3 stories max.
3. Miscellaneous
a.Arcades shall also follow the standards for the
Shopfront Frontage Type.
b.Habitable space
c.Arcades shall have a consistent depth.
d.Arcades are not allowed to project over the sidewalk
in the public right-of-way.
Final Draft – September 2021
Frontage Type Standards
112 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 113
Section 14-2H-9: Thoroughfare Type Standards
14-2H-9A Purpose
1.The provisions of this Section are established to accomplish the following:
2.Provide a range of thoroughfare types to support the intended physical character of each zone.
3.Provide only thoroughfares that are multi-modal and interconnected in a network that disperses vehicular
traffic with multiple routes to destinations.
4.Ensure that streets serve the needs of all users (automobiles, transit and service vehicles, pedestrians, and
cyclists).
14-2H-9B General Thoroughfare Type Standards
1.This Section identifies the allowed thoroughfare types consistent with the intended physical character of each
Form-Based Zone.
2.The individual standards of each thoroughfare type in this Section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision
process. In considering adjustments, the Director of Public Works and the Director shall find that the proposed
adjustment meets the following criteria:
a.Supports the intended physical character of the zone abutting the thoroughfare(s).
b.Maintains multiple modes of transportation (transit, pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles).
c.Maintains sidewalks at least six feet wide.
d.Maintains on-street parking for a majority of each block face.
e.Maintains regularly spaced street trees.
3.Street trees shall be installed in the right-of-way by the owner.
a.Where adjacent property will remain undeveloped, street trees shall be planted prior to acceptance of
public improvements.
b.Where adjacent property will be developed, trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for each adjacent lot, with the following exception:
(1)Where street trees cannot be installed prior to occupancy or commencement of a use due to seasonal
conditions that may reduce survivability, the building official may grant a delay of installation until the
seasonal calendar dates of June 1 or November 1, whichever occurs first, and the property owner
must place in an escrow account, established with the City, an amount which will cover one hundred
ten percent (110%) of the estimated cost of plants and installation.
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
114 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-9C Main Street with Median
1. Application
Movement Type Slow
2.Overall Widths
ROW Width 100'
Pavement Width 50' (25' each side)
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 10'
Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 7'
Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', marked
Median/Turn Pocket 10'
4.Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type 7' x 10' tree well
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type 20' min. sidewalk
Curb Type Raised
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 115
14-2H-9D Main Street without Median
1. Application
Movement Type Slow
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 80'
Pavement Width 36'
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 10'
Bicycle Lanes None
Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', marked
Median/Turn Pocket None
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type 7' x 10' tree well
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type 20' min. sidewalk
Curb Type Raised
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
116 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-9E Avenue 2 without Parking
1. Application
Movement Type Slow
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 100'
Pavement Width 35' (17'-6" each side)
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 11'
Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 6'
Parking Lanes None
Median/Turn Pocket 20'
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type Continuous planter;
15'-6" min. one side;
11'-6" min. one side
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type Sidewalk;
6' min. one side1;
10' min. one side1
Curb Type Raised
Utility Easement 15' from ROW
1 Plus 1' clearance from utility easement.
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 117
14-2H-9F Avenue 2 with Future Parking
1.Application
Movement Type Slow
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 100'
Pavement Width 50' (25' each side)
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 11'
Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 6'
Parking Lanes (Future) 2 @ 7'
Median/Turn Pocket 20'
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type Continuous planter;
8' min. one side;
4' min. one side
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type Sidewalk;
6' min. one side1;
10' min. one side1
Curb Type Raised
Utility Easement 15' from ROW
1 Plus 1' clearance from utility easement.
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
118 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-9G Avenue 3
1. Application
Movement Type Slow
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 100'
Pavement Width 34'
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 11'
Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 6'
Parking Lanes None
Median/Turn Pocket None
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type Continuous planter;
24' min. one side;
18' min. one side
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c.
avg.
Walkway Type Sidewalk;
10' min. one side;
5' min. one side
Sidewalk/Planting 1 34' min. one side;
20'-6" min. one side
Curb Type Raised
Utility Easement 15' from ROW
1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement.
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 119
14-2H-9H Avenue 4
1. Application
Movement Type Free
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 87'
Pavement Width 33'
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 2 @ 11'
Bicycle Lanes None
Parking Lanes None
Median/Turn Pocket 11', painted
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Swale
Planter Type 24' min. continuous
planter
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type Sidewalk;
10' min. one side;
5' min. one side
Curb Type None
Utility Easement 15' from ROW
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
120 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-9I Neighborhood Street 1 with Parking both sides
1. Application
Movement Type Yield
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 70'
Pavement Width 28'
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 1 @ 12'
Bicycle Lanes None
Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', unmarked
Median/Turn Pocket None
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type 14' min. continuous
planter
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type 5' min. sidewalk1
Curb Type Raised
Where required, one side is open space without
buildings in compliance with the Regulating Plan
maps in the comprehensive plan.
Utility Easement 10' from ROW
1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement.
2 6 feet minimum if near park, civic space or school.
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 121
14-2H-9J Neighborhood Street 2 with Parking one side
1. Application
Movement Type Yield
2. Overall Widths
ROW Width 70'
Pavement Width 26'
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 1 @ 18'
Bicycle Lanes None
Parking Lanes 1 @ 8', unmarked
Median/Turn Pocket None
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Curb and gutter
Planter Type 14' min. continuous
planter
Landscape Type Trees at 30' o.c. avg.
Walkway Type 5' min. sidewalk1
Curb Type Raised
Where required, one side is open space without
buildings in compliance with the Regulating Plan
maps in the comprehensive plan.
Utility Easement 10' from ROW
1 Plus 2' clearance from utility easement.
2 6 feet minimum if near park, civic space or school.
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
122 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-9K Alley
1. Application
Movement Type Yield
2. Overall Widths
a. Widths
ROW Width 20'
Pavement Width 20'
b. Additional Standards
(1)A chamfered corner of 5' is required where two alleys
connect.
(2)Garage doors shall be setback min. 3' from ROW; max. 5'
(3)Pedestrians share 20' section with vehicles and bicycles.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes 1 @ 20'
Bicycle Lanes None
Parking Lanes None
Median/Turn Pocket None
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Drainage Collection Type Valley gutter
Planter Type Planter min. 5' x 10'
between driveways
Landscape Type Trees at 50' o.c.
avg.
Walkway Type None
Curb Type Rolled or flush
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
2 0 '-0 "
2 0 '-0 "
Right of way
Yield Lane
1 0 '-0 "
ut ilie s
1 0 '-0 "
u tilies IOWA CITY FBC
Alley
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
Article H: Zones and Standards 123
14-2H-9L Passage
1. Application
Movement Type Pedestrian/Bicycle
2. Overall Widths
a. Widths
ROW Width 20'
Pavement Width 10'
b. Additional Standards
(1)Side/front street adjoining design sites to comply with
Section 14-2H-9 (Frontage Standards).
(2)Pedestrians share 10' section with bicycles.
(3) See Sub-Section 14-2H-6J (Passage) for additional
standards.
(4) Passage shall be open to the public at all times.
T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS
3. Lane Assembly
Traffic Lanes None
Bicycle Lanes 10', unmarked
Parking Lanes None
Median/Turn Pocket None
4. Public Frontage Assembly
Planter Type Continuous planter
min. 5' wide between
access to design sites
Landscape Type Trees at 50' o.c.
Walkway Type Multipurpose path
Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed
Final Draft – September 2021
Thoroughfare Type Standards
124 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
Article H: Zones and Standards 125
14-2H-10: Affordable Housing Incentives
14-2H-10A Purpose
The purpose of this section is to:
1.Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
2.Encourage the distribution of affordable housing throughout all areas of the City;
3.Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
4.Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels;
5.To reduce the number of housing cost-burdened households; and
6.Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
126 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-10B Eligibility and Incentive Provisions
Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this Section shall apply in all Form-
Based Zones that allow residential uses. Owners that provide Affordable Housing not required pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Annexation Policy or the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policies may utilize the
following incentives:
1.Parking Reduction. No parking spaces shall be required for Affordable Housing.
2.Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum number of
dwelling units may be increased by 25% if all additional units are Affordable Housing.
3.Minor Adjustments to certain “Zone Standards” (14-2H-2). One of the following adjustments may be
administratively approved in buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed
adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent
with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a.Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up 15’. This provision may be
combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new Civic Space not
shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of 25’.
b.Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%.
c.Minimum amount of façade required within the façade zone may be reduced by up to 20%.
4.Minor Adjustments to certain “Building Type Standards” (14-2H-6). One of the following adjustments
may be administratively approved for buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the
proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is
consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and
District Plans:
a.Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%.
b.Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the Building
Height to exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form;
Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5’.
5.Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to “Zone Standards” described in
subsection B2c and “Building Type Standards” described in subsection B2d may be administratively
approved where Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50 percent
(50%) or less of the Area Median Income.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
Article H: Zones and Standards 127
14-2H-10C Definitions
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms:
1.AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner-occupied affordable housing" and/or
"affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein.
2.AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for
the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible
household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa
Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted
annually, and rented to an income eligible household.
3.INCOME-ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible
household for purposes of purchasing an owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median
income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income
eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal
to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with
greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets, excluding Retirement Assets, are not
income eligible households.
4.OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most
current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing
and new homes to an income eligible household.
5.RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches
retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and TIAA-CREF, not
including distribution of or income from the assets.
14-2H-10D General Requirements
1.Methods of Achieving Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing may be provided through one or both
of the following methods:
a.Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing; or
b.Onsite affordable rental housing.
2.Affordable Housing Agreement and Deed Restriction. Upon approval of an affordable housing
incentive, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s)
it will utilize and detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the
applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing incentive. The City
Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the
Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction memorializing these
obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at the Owner’s cost.
3.Term of Affordability. An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than twenty (20)
years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed
restriction described below.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
128 Article H: Zones and Standards
4.Remedy. Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules of this
Article is a violation of this Article.
14-2H-10E Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing
Owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-2H-10D
and the following requirements:
1.Development Requirements.
a.Dwelling Unit Size and Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty
percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall have the
same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City Manager or
designee. Where a housing development contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit,
the percentage of affordable dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal
to the percentage of non-set-aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms.
b.Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to
achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling
units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
c.Timing of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a
certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
2.Program Requirements.
a.Occupancy. An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability,
be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
b.Income Verification. The Owner shall determine annual household income according to the HUD
part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified
by the City prior to close of the sale.
c.Rental Restriction. An owner-occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an
owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
d.Sale Restrictions. The following sales restrictions apply to all owner-occupied affordable housing,
compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the
sale.
(1)Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income-eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer’s annual household
income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24
CFR 5.609, as amended.
(2)Sale Price: The sale price of any owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit shall not
exceed the purchase price paid by the original income-eligible household purchaser or the
HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(a)Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(b)Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
Article H: Zones and Standards 129
(c)Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant
to a properly issued building permit.
(d)Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's
fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this
chapter.
14-2H-10F Affordable Rental Housing
Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-2H-10D, the
development requirements for owner-occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection E1 of this
section, and the following:
1.Program Requirements.
a.Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1)no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro
FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2)for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no more than
the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b.Occupancy. Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households. If a tenant
household is initially deemed an income-eligible household, but is subsequently deemed to no
longer be income-eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant household
shall still be considered an income-eligible household until they vacate that unit. However, upon
the vacation of that unit, the subsequent tenant must be an income-eligible household.
c.Income Verification. Owner shall annually verify that the affordable rental housing units are
occupied by income-eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, Owner shall
determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8,
regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal
of a lease, Owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal
income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d.Owner Verification of Compliance. The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
14-2H-10G Administrative Rules:
The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary to
assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City
Clerk and available on the City website.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
130 Article H: Zones and Standards Final Draft – September 2021
ARTICLE B. SIGN REGULATIONS
14-5B-8: SIGNS PERMITTED BY ZONE:
H: Sign Standards and Types for Form-Based Zones
1. Purpose: This Section ensures that all signs installed in Form-Based Zones subject to
Article 14-2H are compatible with the intended physical character, and in compliance with all
applicable plans of the City. This Section promotes public health, safety, and welfare through
a comprehensive system of reasonable, effective, consistent, content-neutral, and
nondiscriminatory sign standards to:
a. Promote and accomplish the goals, policies, and actions of applicable City plans;
b. Balance public and private objectives by allowing adequate avenues for effective
messaging;
c. Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety from injury or property damage caused by, or
which may be fully or partially attributed to, cluttered or distracting signage;
d. Prevent property damage, personal injury, and litter caused by signs that are improperly
constructed or poorly maintained;
e. Protect property values, improve the local economy and quality of life by preserving and
enhancing the appearance of the streetscape; and
f. Provide clear and unambiguous sign standards that enable fair and consistent enforcement
of these sign standards.
2. The sign types established in this Section are intended to be viewed from the public right-
of-way and from outdoors in areas of public and private property used for public pedestrian
access.
3. Sign Types: Table 14-5B-8H-1 (Sign Types Allowed in Form-Based Zones) establishes the
allowed sign types and standards for the identified zones. Any allowed sign type may be
established on any design site within the zone, subject to a Sign Permit in compliance with
Section 14-8B-9 (Sign Permit).
Table 14-5B-8H-1: Sign Types Allowed in Form-Based Zones
Sign Type T3 T4 Sign Standards
NE NG NG-O NS NS-O NM NM-O MS
Awning Sign - - P1 - P1 - P1 P2 14-5B-8C
Canopy Sign - - - - - - - P2 14-5B-8C
Directional Sign - - - - - - - P2 14-5B-8C
Masonry Wall Sign - - - - - - - P2 14-5B-8E
Monument Sign - - - - - - - - Not Applicable
Porch Sign - - P1 - P1 - P1 P2 14-5B-8H-4a
Portable Sign - P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 14-5B-8E
Post Sign - - P1 - P1 - P1 P2 14-5B-8H-4b
Small Identification Sign - - - - P1 - P1 P2 14-5B-8B
Storefront Projecting Sign - - - - - - P1 P2 14-5B-8C
Temporary Sign P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 14-5B-9
4. Certain sign types are only allowed in Form-Based Zones Those sign types and their
applicable standards are as follows.
Wall Mural Painted Sign - - - - - - - P2 14-5B-8E
Window Sign - - - - - - P1 P2 14-5B-8E
1 Illumination shall be consistent with Section 14-5B-4E (Illumination Requirements) and the applicable
provisions in Table 5B-1 (Sign Specifications And Provisions In Residential And The ID And OPD
Zones).
2 Illumination shall be consistent with Section 14-5B-4E (Illumination Requirements) and the applicable
provisions in Table 5B-2 (Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CO-1, CN-1, And MU Zones).
Key P = Allowed with a Sign Permit - = Not Allowed
a. Porch Sign
1. Description
A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to
the main facade, pedestrian-scaled, and
intended for viewing from the sidewalk.
2. Size
Signable Area 6 sf max. total
Width 4' max.
Height 2' max.
Max 1 sign per building.
3. Location
a. Mounted on a beam of other structure
parallel to the face of the building.
Clear Height 6' 8" min.
If located above a
pedestrian walkway
8' min.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative,
not regulatory.
Example of a Porch Sign.
Example of a Porch Sign.
b. Post Sign
1. Description
A sign that is mounted on a porch parallel to the
main facade, pedestrian-scaled, and intended
for viewing from the sidewalk.
2. Size
Signable Area 12 sf max. per side;
2 sides max
Width 4' max.
Height 3' max.
Overall Height 5' max.
Signs per building. 1 max.
3. Location
Clear Height 2' min.
Setback from sidewalk
T4MS 5' min.
T3NG-O1 15' min.
T4NS-O1 15' min.
T4NM-O1 15' min.
1 If utility easement along alley, 8' min.
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative,
not regulatory.
15-2-1
TITLE 15. LAND SUBDIVISION
CHAPTER 2: PLATS AND PLATTING PROCEDURES
15-2-1: Concept Plan
15-2-2: Preliminary Plat
15-2-3: Final Plat
15-2-1: CONCEPT PLAN:
A. Applicability: Whenever the owner of any tract or parcel of land within the corporate limits
of the city or within two (2) miles thereof wishes to make a subdivision of the same, the owner or
the owner's representative shall submit a concept plan to the department of planning and
community development for review prior to submission of a preliminary plat.
B. Submission Requirements: The concept plan must include the following information:
1. The proposed layout of streets, lots, location of stormwater facilities, and open space.
2. General topography, based on existing topographic maps or other resources. The
property is not required to be surveyed at the concept plan stage.
3. Approximate footprints of any existing aboveground manmade features located on the
subject property, including buildings and other structures, streets, sidewalks, etc.
4. Surrounding land uses and approximate location of building footprints on abutting
properties.
5. Sensitive features, including streams, wooded areas, known wetlands or potential
wetlands, known archeological sites, etc.
6. Other necessary information pertaining to the existing conditions of the property, as
requested by the city.
C. Review oOf Concept Plan:
1. Upon receipt of a concept plan the department of Neighborhood and Development
Services planning and community development shall review the concept plan in the context of
the standards of this title, other requirements of this code, and comprehensive plan policies, and
will have the discretion to solicit comments from other city departments.
2. The dDepartment of planning and community developmentNeighborhood and
Development Services will provide general written comments to the applicant within twenty (20)
business days of receipt of the concept plan based on the information submitted by the
applicant. These comments are intended to provide guidance to the applicant in preparing the
preliminary plat and are not to be construed as comprehensive with regard to compliance with
this code.
3. The preliminary plat shall not be filed until said written comments regarding the concept
plan are provided to the applicant. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008)
15-2-2
15-2-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
A. Submission Required; Waiver:
1. After conferring with the Ddepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services
planning and community development on the concept plan, the owner or owner's representative
shall submit to the city clerk twelve (12) copies same Department of a a preliminary plat and
supporting materials on application forms as provided by the City for consideration. This
submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsection B of this
section.
2. The cCity mManager or designee(s) will check the application for accuracy and
completeness. A "complete application" shall mean the following:
a. A plat with accurate measurements and dimensions and easements identified; and
b. All information as specified in subsection B of this section, has been submitted.
3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is
incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete, the cCity will inform the applicant and
reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed.
The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date
when a complete application is submitted.
4. The cCity may waive submission of the preliminary plat if the final plat includes all the
requirements of the preliminary plat.
B. Plat Specifications aAnd Accompanying Information:
1. The preliminary plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to fifty feet (1" = 50');
however, if the resultant drawing would be larger than twenty four inches by thirty six inches
(24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to one hundred feet (1" = 100'). In
addition, a digital version of the plat must be submitted as per cCity specifications. Each plat
must include the following information:
a. Legal description, acreage and name of proposed subdivision.
b. Name(s) and address(es) of owner(s) and subdivider.
c. Names of the persons who prepared the plat, owner's attorney, representative or
agent, if any, and date of preparation.
d. North point and graphic scale.
e. Contours at five foot (5') intervals or less.
f. Locations of existing lot lines, streets, public utilities, water mains, sanitary sewers,
storm sewers, drainpipes, culverts, watercourses, bridges, railroads, buildings, stormwater
detention facilities and any other public improvements in the proposed subdivision.
g. The existing streets and cCity utilities on adjoining properties.
h. Layout of proposed blocks (if used) and lots, including the dimensions of each, and the
lot and block number in numerical order. For lots where the lot width is different from the lot
frontage, the lot width must be indicated on the plat.
i. Location of any proposed outlot(s), identified with progressive letter designations, and
the purpose of said outlot(s) clearly specified on the plat.
15-2-2
j. Proposed location of clustered mailboxes.
k. Location and widths, other dimensions and names of the proposed streets, alleys,
roads, utility and other easements, parks and other open spaces or reserved areas.
l. Grades of proposed streets and alleys.
m. A cross section of the proposed streets showing the roadway locations, the type of
curb and gutter, the paving and sidewalks to be installed.
n. The proposed layout and size of water mains and sanitary sewers.
o. Proposal for drainage of the land, including proposed storm sewers, ditches, swales,
bioswales, rain gardens, culverts, bridges, stormwater management facilities and other
structures.
p. A signature block for endorsement by the cCity cClerk certifying the cCity cCouncil's
approval of the plat.
q. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards), the
following shall be identified on the preliminary plat:
(1) Proposed design sites (if used), including the dimensions of each. For design sites
where the design site width is different from the design site frontage, the design site
width must be indicated on the plat.
(2) Proposed thoroughfare types (14-2H-9) and the dimensions for each street, sidewalk,
alley, or passage.
(3) Proposed civic space types (14-2H-5) for each public or private civic space. and
(4) Proposed building types (14-2H-6) for each lot and design site.
(5) Notation that all stubs are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property
and shall be designed to appropriately transition, and that that specified civic space and
building types may be substituted with other civic space and building types in
compliance with Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards) during the site plan or
building permit process.
2. The preliminary plat shall be accompanied by the following information:
a. A location map with north point showing an outline of the area to be subdivided.
b. A grading plan, including proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil
erosion, pursuant to the grading ordinance, title 17, chapter 8 of this code.
c. If access to state routes is proposed, the plat must be submitted to the Iowa
dDepartment of tTransportation for review. Comments from the Iowa dDepartment of
tTransportation must be submitted with the proposed plat.
d. For properties containing regulated sensitive features as specified in title 14, chapter
5, article I of this code, a sensitive areas development plan must be submitted as set forth in
title 14, chapter 5, article I of this code.
C. Fees: A fee shall be paid at the time ofthe preliminary plat application or any combination
of preliminary plats and/or plans are applied for is submitted to the cCity clerk, in the amount
established by resolution of the cCity cCouncil.
15-2-2
D. Review oOf Plat; Approval Or Disapproval:
12. The dDepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and
community development shall distribute said copies to the appropriate cCity departments for
review as designated by the cCity mManager.
23. Said designee(s) shall examine the plat and application to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this title, other relevant provisions of this code, comprehensive plan policies and
with state law. Upon completion of examination, the dDepartment of Neighborhood and
Development Services planning and community development shall forward a written report,
including recommendations, to the pPlanning and zZoning cCommission. No plat shall be
forwarded to the pPlanning and zZoning cCommission with more than six (6) deficiencies.
4. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative must submit ten (10)
revised copies of the plat as requested by the City for distribution to the pPlanning and zZoning
cCommission.
5. The Ccommission shall study the revised preliminary plat, review the application of the
owner and review the report from the dDepartment of planning and community
developmentNeighborhood and Development Services.
56. The cCommission shall recommend approval or disapproval of the plat within forty five
(45) calendar days of the date the cCity receives a complete application, or the preliminary plat
shall be deemed to be approved by the cCommission. The owner or owner's representative
may, however, agree to an extension of time.
6. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative shall submit
copies of the revised preliminary plat as requested by the City with the signatures of the
surveyor and the respective utility companies to the City Clerk.
7. After receipt of the recommendation of the cCommission or after the time of any
extension has passed, the cCity cCouncil shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the
preliminary plat.
E. Effect Of Approval: Approval of a preliminary plat by the cCity cCouncil does not constitute
approval of the subdivision but merely authorizes the subdivider to proceed with the preparation
of the final plat. In the event the cCity cCouncil approves the preliminary plat and the final plat
submitted does not materially and substantially deviate from the preliminary plat and if
inspection by the cCity reveals that all plans and specifications for construction of
improvements, as required by the Ccity, have been met, the final plat shall be approved by the
cCity cCouncil. Approval of the preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of twenty four (24)
months unless, upon written request of the owner or subdivider, the cCity cCouncil, by
resolution, grants an extension of time. If the final plat is not filed with the cCity cClerk within
twenty four (24) months, all previous actions of the cCity cCouncil with respect to the plat shall
be deemed null and void.
15-2-3
15-2-3: FINAL PLAT:
A. Submission Required:
1. After approval of a preliminary plat or if the requirement for preliminary plat has been
waived by the cCity cCouncil, the owner or owner's representative shall submit to the city clerk
twelve (12) copies of file with the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services an
application for final plat approval on a form provided by the City, along with athe final plat for
reviewand supporting materials set forth below for review on application forms provided by the
City. Said final plat must be submitted to the cCity clerk within twenty four (24) months of
approval of the preliminary plat, unless an extension has been approved by the cCity cCouncil.
This submission must include accurate and complete information as set forth in subsections B
and C of this section.
2. The dDepartment of Neighborhood and Development Services planning and community
development will check the application for accuracy and completeness. A "complete application"
shall mean the following:
a. A final plat with accurate measurements and dimensions, and with easements
correctly identified;
b. An accurate legal description;
c. All required legal documents and accompanying instruments as specified in
subsections B and C of this section;
d. Construction plans according to the specifications of the Ccity eEngineer.
3. The applicant will be notified of deficiencies and/or discrepancies or if an application is
incomplete. If an application is found to be incomplete, the cCity will inform the applicant and
reserves the right to discontinue staff review until a complete and accurate application is filed.
The start date for any applicable time limitations for the application under review will be the date
when a complete application is submitted.
4. Upon approval by the cCity, a final plat may include only a portion of the development
illustrated on the preliminary plat if that portion can function as a separate development,
including access and utilities, and if no essential public infrastructure extensions are delayed.
Whether or not said infrastructure is essential in nature shall be determined by the cCity.
5. The applicant shall note any variations from the approved preliminary plat. Requests for
minor changes that do not constitute substantive changes may be approved administratively
without requiring an amendment to the preliminary plat. Substantive changes, including, but not
limited to, the layout and location of streets, lots, and outlots, changes to the proposed uses of
the various lots and outlots, and other similar changes that would result in a substantive change
to the character of the subdivision may result in the necessity to file an amended preliminary
plat.
B. Specifications: The final plat shall meet the following specifications:
1. The plat shall be drawn to the scale of one inch to fifty feet (1" = 50'); provided, however,
if the resultant drawing would be of larger dimension than twenty four inches by thirty six inches
(24" x 36"), the plat shall be submitted at a scale of one inch to one hundred feet (1" = 100').
2. Twelve (12) prints of Tthe final plat shall be submitted showing the following information:
15-2-3
a. Accurate property boundary lines, with dimensions and bearings or angular
dimensions, which provide a land survey of the tract, closing with an error of not more than one
foot (1') in ten thousand feet (10,000').
b. Accurate references to known permanent monuments, giving the bearing and distance
from some corner of a lot or block in the cCity to some corner of the congressional division of
which the cCity or the addition thereto is a part.
c. Accurate locations of all existing and recorded streets intersecting the property
boundaries of the tract.
d. Accurate legal description of the property boundaries.
e. Street names and street right of way widths.
f. Complete curve notes for all curves included in the plat.
g. Street centerlines with accurate dimensions in feet and one-hundredths of feet with
bearings or angular dimensions to street, alley and lot lines.
h. Lot numbers and lot line dimensions. For lots where the lot width is different from the
lot frontage, the lot width must be indicated on the plat.
i. Block numbers, if used.
j. Accurate dimensions for any property to be dedicated or reserved for public, semipublic
or community use.
k. Location, type, material and size of all markers.
l. Name and street address of the owner and subdivider.
m. Name and street address of owner's or subdivider's attorney, names of persons who
prepared the plat and the date of preparation.
n. North point, scale and date.
o. Certification of the accuracy of the plat by a registered land surveyor of the state.
p. Location and width of easements for utilities.
q. Certification by the utility companies that utility easements are properly placed for the
installation of utilities.
r. A signature block for endorsement by the Ccity cClerk certifying the cCity cCouncil's
approval of the plat.
s. A note on the plat stating:
Notes on this plat are not intended to create any vested private interest in any stated use
restriction or covenant or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use restriction or
covenant.
3. The applicant shall submit a digital version of the final subdivision plat as part of the
application process. Once the final subdivision plat has been approved by the Ccity Ccouncil, a
final copy of the digital version of the plat shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Workscity engineering department. Said final digital copy shall be compatible with the Johnson
County geographic information system and city of Iowa City mapping system. Specific formats,
15-2-3
procedures, and methods needed to meet this requirement will be updated as changes in
technology occur.
C. Accompanying Documents: The final plat shall also be accompanied by the following
documents:
1. Owner's Statement: An acknowledged statement from the owner and the owner's
spouse, if any, that the subdivision as it appears on the plat is with their free consent and is in
accordance with the desires of the proprietor and the proprietor's spouse. This statement may
include the dedication to the public.
2. Dedications: Dedication of streets and other public property, including perpetual
easements for the installation, operation and maintenance of cCity utilities.
3. Mortgage Holder's Oor Lien Holder's Statement: An acknowledged statement from
mortgage holders or lien holders that the plat is prepared with their free consent and in
accordance with their desire, as well as a release of mortgage for any areas dedicated to the
public.
4. Encumbrance Certificates: If there is no consent from the mortgage holders or lien
holders as specified in subsection C3 of this section, and if the land being platted is
encumbered in the manner set out in the code of Iowa, as amended, a certificate shall be filed
with the Johnson Ccounty rRecorder showing an encumbrance bond in an amount double the
amount of the encumbrance and approved by the recorder and clerk of the district court. The
bond shall run to the county for the benefit of the purchasers of the land subdivided.
5. Attorney's Opinion: An opinion from an attorney at law showing that the fee title is in the
owner and that the land platted is free from encumbrance or if encumbered, listing the
encumbrances and the bonds securing the encumbrances.
6. Construction Plans: A complete set of construction plans for all public improvements,
meeting Ccity specifications, must be submitted to the Ccity Eengineer's office.
7. County Treasurer's Certificate: A certified statement from the Ccounty tTreasurer that
the land being platted is free from taxes.
8. County Auditor's Certificate: A certified statement from the Ccounty Aauditor approving
of the name or title of the subdivision as succinct and unique to Johnson County.
9. Subdivider's Agreement:
a. An agreement executed by the subdivider which agrees, as a covenant running with
the land, that the Ccity shall not issue a building permit for any lot in the subdivision until the
subdivider installs the public improvements, except sidewalks, according to plans and
specifications approved by the Ccity Eengineer and until the cCity eEngineer approves
subdivision erosion control measures. If the subdivider desires a building permit prior to
installing the improvements, the owner must deposit with the cCity fFinance dDepartment an
escrow equal to the cost of improvements plus ten percent (10%) thereof in cash or an
irrevocable letter of credit payable to the cCity in a form approved by the cCity aAttorney. At the
cCity's discretion, this escrow may be divided by the number of lots in the subdivision and
collected on a per lot basis prior to the issuance of a building permit. Subdivider must further
agree, as a covenant running with the land, that subdivider will install sidewalks abutting each
lot in the subdivision as set forth in this title, that the obligation to install the sidewalks remains a
lien on the lots abutting the sidewalk until released by the cCity and that, in the event subdivider
fails to install the sidewalks, the cCity may install the sidewalks and assess the total cost against
15-2-3
the property without meeting the requirements of notice, benefit or value required by state law
for assessing improvements.
b. The subdivider's agreement shall state that the subdivider, including its grantees,
assignees and successors in interest, agrees that public services, including, but not limited to,
street maintenance, snow and ice removal and solid waste collection, will not be extended to
such subdivision until the pavement is completed and accepted by the cCity cCouncil by
resolution.
c. The subdivider's agreement shall state:
Plat notes and surveyor's notes on plats serve to provide notice of how a subdivision is
expected to develop. Said notes are not intended to create any vested private interest in any
stated use restriction or covenant, or create any third party beneficiaries to any noted use
restriction or covenant. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, subject to any
applicable public notice and approval process required by law, to alter or amend any plat note,
or to sell or vacate any right-of-way, street, alley, park, easement, open area or other land set
apart and dedicated for public use within the plat. The City further reserves the right, upon
request of the owner or successor in interest, to vacate the plat and/or relocate any easement,
alter lot boundaries or allow said land to be replatted subject to any applicable public notice and
approval process required by law.
d. The subdivider's agreement may include other conditions peculiar to the subdivision
as allowed by law.
10. Iowa Department oOf Transportation Permits: Approved IDOT permits must be
submitted, if required.
11. Neighborhood Plan: Where subject to Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and
Standards), a Neighborhood Plan shall be submitted that complies with the standards in
14-2H-1E (Neighborhood Plan) and includes the full geographic scope of the area being
platted.
D. Review; Approval oOr Disapproval:
1. Upon the filing of the final plat as set forth above, the city clerk Department of
Neighborhood and Development Services shall submit eleven (11) copies of the final plat and
the application to the department of planning and community development.
2. The department of planning and community development shall distribute said copies of
the final plat and the application to the appropriate cCity departments for review as designated
by the cCity mManager.
32. Said designee(s) shall examine the application, the plat, the construction plans, and the
legal documents to ensure compliance with the requirements of this code, state law, and the
preliminary plat.
43. The costs of engineering examination of final plat and construction plans shall be paid
by the subdivider and shall be the actual costs of the engineering examination and review as
incurred by the cCity.
54. Upon completion of said review staff shall recommend approval or disapproval of the
plat within forty five (45) calendar days of the date the Ccity received a complete application, or
the final plat shall be deemed to be approved by the staff. The owner or subdivider may,
however, agree in writing, to an extension of time.
15-2-3
65. Following staff evaluation, the owner or owner's representative shall submit a digital
version, a transparent reproducible copy and eight (8) prints of copies of the revised final plat as
requested by the City with the signatures of the surveyor and the respective utility companies to
the cCity cClerk.
76. After receipt of the recommendation of the staff or after the time of any extension, the
Ccity cCouncil shall, by resolution, approve or disapprove the final plat. The cCity cCouncil must
take action on the final plat within sixty (60) calendar days of submission of a complete
application for a final plat to the cCity cClerk. If the cCity cCouncil does not approve or
disapprove the plat within sixty (60) calendar days, the final plat shall be deemed approved. The
owner or subdivider may, however, agree in writing, to an extension of time.
15-3-1
TITLE 15. LAND SUBDIVISION
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS
15-3-1: General Requirements
15-3-2: Streets aAnd Circulation
15-3-3: Sidewalks, Trails, And Pedestrian Connections
15-3-4: Layout oOf Blocks And Lots
15-3-5: Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
15-3-6: Energy aAnd Communications Distribution Systems
15-3-7: Sanitary Sewers
15-3-8: Stormwater Management
15-3-9: Water Systems
15-3-10: Clustered Mailboxes
15-3-11: Markers
15-3-12: Specifications
15-3-13: Inspections
15-3-14: Off Site Costs fFor Public Improvements
15-3-1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. Design of the subdivision shall comply with the standards of this chapter, provide for the
orderly growth and development of the city, demonstrate consistency with the Iowa City
comprehensive plan and any specific adopted district plans, and take into consideration the
natural features of the site and patterns of adjacent development.
B. The subdivider of property shall be responsible for constructing all public improvements
associated with the proposed subdivision according to this code, unless exempted from such
requirements according to the provisions herein.
C. "Public improvements", as defined in this title, shall be constructed and installed according
to the standards established by the city. Copies of said standards are on file in the office of the
city engineer. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008)
15-3-2
15-3-2: STREETS AND CIRCULATION:
A. Connectivity oOf Streets, Sidewalks, And Trails: Subdivisions shall provide for
continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Arterial streets must be located and extended in general accordance with the JCCOG
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County arterial street plan and Iowa City
comprehensive plan.
2. All streets, sidewalks, and trails should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails
within the development, and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent
properties. Each subdivision must contribute to the larger interconnected street pattern of the
city to ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in the
diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to
provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood
destinations.
3. The road system shall be designed to permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic; to meet the needs of the present and future population served;
to have a simple and logical pattern and allow that pattern to continue through adjacent
properties; and to respect natural features and topography.
4. Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided.
Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental
constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual
features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other
streets within or abutting the subdivision.
5. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Zones and Standards), thoroughfares are to
create walkable neighborhoods with redundant routes for vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian circulation. The arrangement of thoroughfares shall provide for the alignment
and continuation of existing or proposed thoroughfares into adjoining lands where the
adjoining lands are undeveloped and intended for future development, or where the
adjoining lands are undeveloped and include opportunities for such connections.
(1) Thoroughfare rights-of-way shall be extended to or along adjoining property
boundaries to provide a roadway connection or thoroughfare stub for development, in
compliance with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots), for each direction (north, south,
east, and west) in which development abuts vacant land.
(2) All stubs for thoroughfares are to connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining
property and be designed to transition appropriately.
B. Minimum Access Standards: Adequate street access to an area or neighborhood is
required as part of subdivision approval or prior to the approval of additional subdivision lots.
The standards in this subsection are intended as minimum standards in areas where
connectivity is limited by topography, previous development patterns, or other unusual features
and shall not be used as a means of circumventing the street connectivity standards set forth in
subsection A of this section. The following guidelines will be used by the city in determining
whether additional street access is a prerequisite to additional lots or developable parcels being
approved by the city.
1. Additional access may be required if a proposed development will result in any portion of
a street that provides a single means of access to an area being overburdened with traffic.
15-3-2
"Overburdened" shall be defined as a projected volume which exceeds the midpoint design
volume as follows:
a. Local street: Five hundred (500) vehicles per day.
b. Collector street: Two thousand five hundred (2,500) vehicles per day.
2. Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by using the most recent average daily
traffic count when available, and adding it to projected traffic generation as determined by the
city. In the absence of a recent traffic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by
using projected traffic generation for both existing and proposed development.
3. Additional means of access may also be required if any of the following conditions exist
or will exist if additional lots or developable parcels are approved:
a. There are physical features that may increase the probability of blockages along the
single means of access to the development. These physical features include, but are not limited
to: slopes eight percent (8%) or greater; floodplains as designated by the federal emergency
management agency; a bridged or culverted roadway; trees adjacent to the roadway with trunk
diameter greater than four inches (4"); a grade separated highway; or a railroad.
b. The existing access is insufficient to provide efficient, safe, and/or cost effective routes
for the provision of public and emergency services for the proposed development.
c. The street, which provides a single means of access to the area, is a local or collector
street along which there are existing or proposed facilities that may increase the probability of
pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities include, but are not limited to, schools,
daycare centers and parks.
d. There are land uses located along the subject street that serve special populations,
which may increase the volume of emergency vehicle trips. These uses include, but are not
limited to, adult daycares, facilities serving elderly persons, or persons with disabilities.
4. For a situation requiring additional means of access based on the above criteria, a single
means of access may be permitted as a temporary condition. A temporary condition is one in
which there is secured, written assurance from the private subdivider that the road, which will
provide the necessary access, will be constructed within three (3) years of development or,
alternatively, said access is scheduled for construction no later than the third year of the then
current capital improvements program of the city.
C. Street Types:
1.Table 15-1, "Standards For Street Rights Of Way", of this section provides a summary of
various street types. The information in this table is intended to provide guidance for the design
of the street network within a subdivision, except for those subdivisions regulated by Article
14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards). When designing a subdivision, street types
should be chosen based on the intended function of the street and anticipated level of traffic.
The Ccity will review the proposed streets and determine the appropriate street type based on
the factors set forth in this section.
15-3-2
TABLE 15-1: STANDARDS FOR STREET RIGHTS OF WAY
Minimum Right
oOf Way Width
Pavement
Width
Number
Travel Lanes
Parking Maximum Grade Sidewalk
Width
Residential alley/ rear lane 20 feet 16 feet 2 No 12% n/a
Commercial alley/ rear
lane
20 feet
minimum/ varies
20 feet/varies 2 No 10% n/a
Loop street1 100 feet
minimum/ varies
22 feet 1 shared Yes, on
1 side
10% 4 feet
residential side
of street only
Low volume cul-de-sac2 50 feet 22 feet 1 shared Yes, on
1 side
10% 4 feet both
sides
Cul-de-sac 60 feet 26 or 28 feet 2 Yes3 10% 5 feet both
sides
Local residential street 60 feet 26 or 28 feet 2 Yes3 12% 5 feet both
sides
Local
commercial/industrial
street
60 feet 28 feet 2 Yes 8% 5 feet both
sides
Collector street (all land
uses)
66 feet 31 feet 2 Yes 10% for residential;
8% for commercial
or industrial
5 feet both
sides
Collector street with bike
lanes
66 feet 34 feet 2 No 8 % 5 feet both
sides
2 lane arterial street 100 feet
minimum
31 feet 2 No 8 % 8 feet one
side/5 feet one
side
Arterial street with bike
lanes
100 feet
minimum
34 feet 2 No 8 % 8 feet one
side/5 feet one
side
15-3-2
4 lane arterial street 100 feet
minimum
54 feet/ varies
depending if
median is
included
4 No 8 % 8 feet one
side/5 feet one
side
Arterial street with parking 100 feet
minimum; more
may be required
depending on
parking
configuration
Varies, based
on number of
lanes and
whether parking
is parallel or
angled
2 Yes 8 % 8 feet one
side/5 feet one
side
3 lane arterial street 100 feet
minimum
46 feet/varies
depending if
median is
included
3 No 8 % 8 feet one
side/5 feet one
side
Notes:
1. Loop streets provide access for 12 or fewer dwellings.
2. Low volume cul-de-sacs provide access to 10 or fewer single-family dwellings.
3. For residential streets with less than 28 feet of pavement width, parking is restricted to one side.
15-3-2
2. Where a subdivision is regulated by Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards),
streets shall meet the following thoroughfare standards.
a. Thoroughfares shall conform with allowed thoroughfare types and shall comply with
14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards).
b. Thoroughfares that pass from one Form-Based Zone to another may transition in their
streetscape along the thoroughfare's edges. For example, a thoroughfare in a more
urban zone (e.g.,T4 Main Street) with commercial uses may have wide sidewalks with
trees that transitions to narrower sidewalks with a planting strip in a less urban zone
(e.g., T4 Neighborhood Medium) with residential uses.
c. Thoroughfares shall substantially comply with the Form-Based Code Future Land Use
map in the comprehensive plan. Variations from the future land use map may be
approved for thoroughfares where sensitive areas are present, or where the following
standards are met:
(1) Thoroughfare types may be substituted with other thoroughfare types allowed by the
zone, except for the following streets: South Gilbert Street, Sand Road SE, McCollister
Boulevard, Sycamore Street, Sycamore Street SE, and Lehman Avenue.
(2) The alignment of thoroughfares may change where connections to existing street
stubs are retained, the new alignment complies with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and Lots),
and single-loaded streets continue to abut civic or open space.
(3) A Passage (14-2H-9L) may replace another thoroughfare type shown on the Form-
Based Code Future Land Use map where all affected design sites retain direct street or
alley access. A Passage may be removed or replaced by another thoroughfare type
where all abutting design site(s) retain direct street access.
(4) An Alley (14-2H-9K) may be added in compliance with 15-3-4 (Layout of Blocks and
Lots). An Alley may be removed from locations identified on the Form-Based Code
Future Land Use map where the Alley is not in a T4MS zone and all design sites abutting
the Alley have direct street access to a street other than the following: McCollister
Boulevard and South Gilbert Street.
D. Dedication oOf Right Of Way: Land shall be dedicated to the city for all public street rights
of way within the development and for any public street right of way that is needed for streets
that abut or will abut the development.
E. Measurements aAnd Construction Standards:
1. All right of way improvements must be designed and constructed according to the
design and construction standards established by the city. Said standards are on file in the
office of the city engineer.
2. All street widths shall be measured back of curb to back of curb.
3. The minimum outside radius of the pavement of cul-de-sac bulbs and loop streets is
thirty nine feet (39'). A center median is required at the center of the cul-de-sac bulb with a
minimum radius of eleven feet (11'). For loop streets a median is also required with a minimum
width of thirty feet (30'). In residential areas, center medians for cul-de-sacs and loop streets are
required to be landscaped to at least the S1 standard as described in title 14, chapter 5, article
F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this code. The subdivider's agreement shall
designate and set forth procedures for property owners or a homeowners' association to
15-3-2
maintain the landscaped area within the center median of loop streets and cul-de-sacs. Said
instrument shall provide that if said services are not provided as required therein, the city shall
have the right to perform said services, and the cost thereof shall be a lien and charge against
all of the subject lots.
F. Street Intersections:
…
G. Traffic Calming Features:
…
H. Street Names:
…
I. Private Streets:
…
J. Cost Sharing For Pavement Overwidth:
...
K. Cost Sharing For Street Upgrades:
…
15-3-3
15-3-3: SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS:
Public sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed in the public right of
way according to the following standards:
A. Sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian connections shall be constructed according to city
standards. Said standards are on file in the office of the city engineer.
B. Five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalks must be constructed along both sides of all local
and collector streets, except for connections to existing sidewalks as provided in subsection D
of this section. For low volume and loop streets, as described in table 15-1 of section 15-3-2 of
this chapter, the required sidewalk width may be reduced to four feet (4').
C. Along arterial streets, a five foot (5') sidewalk is required on one side of the street and an
eight foot (8') sidewalk on the other side, except as allowed in subsection D of this section. The
city will determine on which side of the street the eight foot (8') sidewalk will be placed. When an
eight foot (8') sidewalk is required, the city, at its discretion, will either pay for the excess
pavement required for the developer to install an eight foot (8') sidewalk rather than a five foot
(5') sidewalk, or collect the estimated cost of the five foot (5') sidewalk from the developer and
apply said cost to construction of an eight foot (8') sidewalk by the city. Any payment of excess
pavement costs by the city shall be pursuant to state law.
D. In cases where the proposed sidewalk provides a connection between existing sidewalks
that are less than the required width, the proposed sidewalk may be constructed to match the
width of the adjacent sidewalks. However, this modification is not allowed in cases where one
end of the proposed sidewalk will provide a connection to future sidewalks for new
development. In such a case, the sidewalk should be tapered to provide a transition between
differing sidewalk widths. The city will determine where along the street the transition should
occur.
E. All sidewalks and trails must connect to other sidewalks and trails within the development
and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent properties.
F. The subdivider will be responsible for the construction of a public sidewalk along the
frontage of private open space, public open space required to be dedicated to the city according
to title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space Requirements", of this code and
along the frontage of other outlots as necessary for a continuous sidewalk system to be created.
G. In residential subdivisions, blocks longer than six hundred feet (600') must have midblock
pedestrian connections between adjacent streets, unless said connection is deemed to be
unnecessary and is waived by the city. At the time of subdivision, these connections must be
platted as minimum fifteen foot (15') wide easements; if the connecting sidewalk is greater than
five feet (5') in width, the easement must be at least twenty feet (20') wide. Within this easement
a sidewalk must be constructed to city standards that is equal in width to the sidewalks to which
it provides a connection. If the midblock sidewalk connects to sidewalks of two (2) different
widths, the midblock sidewalk must be equal in width to the wider sidewalk. The area and
sidewalk within the pedestrian easement must be maintained by adjacent property owners
according to the subdivider's agreement in a manner similar to maintenance requirements for
public sidewalks.
H. Where a trail extension, as identified in the comprehensive plan or an adopted trails plan,
is located on the subject property, the city may require an easement or alternatively, may
require dedication of an outlot for the trail. Construction of the trail or portion of a trail may also
be required in instances where said trail or portion of a trail primarily serves the needs of the
proposed subdivision/development. In this situation, the trail will be treated as a public
15-3-3
improvement. Dedication of land for a trail extension shall count toward the open space
requirement for the development, provided said land is consistent with the standards for open
space as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article K of this code and provided said land dedication
is acceptable to the city. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008)
15-3-4
15-3-4: LAYOUT OF BLOCKS AND LOTS:
A. Blocks:
1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity
of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient
and logical routes between residences and nonresidential destinations and public gathering
places.
2. Block Lengths
a. Except as required by Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards), Tto provide
multiple travel routes within and between neighborhoods, block faces along local and collector
streets should range between three hundred (300) and six hundred feet (600') in length and for
residential subdivisions have a width sufficient to accommodate two (2) tiers of lots. Longer
block faces may be allowed in cases of large lot commercial, industrial, or rural residential
development, or where topography, water features, or existing development prevents shorter
block lengths, although midblock pedestrian connections may be required (see section 15-3-3 of
this chapter). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline.
b. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Form-Based Zones and Standards), the
block network shall substantially comply with the Form-Based Code Future Land Use
map in the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the following standards:
(1) Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall comply with the standards
in Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Standards). Where a block contains multiple Form-Based
Zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the standards for block size.
Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed length if a compliant Passage (14-2H-9L) is
provided to break up the block.
Table 15-3-4A-1: Block Size Standards
Zone Length (max.) Length (max.) With
Passage1
Perimeter
Length
Perimeter Length
With Passage1
T3 NE 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max.
T3 NG 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max.
T4 NS 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max.
T4 NM 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max.
T4 MS 360' max. 500' max. 1,440' max. 1,750' max.
1 In compliance with the standards for a Passage in Sub-Section 14-2H-9L (Passage).
15-3-4
(2) Blocks shall be a minimum width to result in two halves of developable design sites in
compliance with the minimum design site depth standards of the allowed building types
in the Form-Based Zone. When the zone has a range of minimum design site depths, the
applicant may show the shortest minimum design site depth with an acknowledgement
that the selected depth may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed by
the zone. A single half is allowed when adjoining an existing half-block.
(3) The size, shape, length, location, and design of blocks may vary from the Future
Land Use map where required to accommodate sensitive areas, or where the variation
complies maintains street connectivity, complies with Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size
Standards, minimizes changes to Form-Based Zones on each block, and adjusts all
blocks affected by the proposed change(s). Where this affects the location, shape, or
design of civic space, the variation shall maintain civic space of a similar size in a nearby
location within the subdivision.
3. Block faces along arterial streets should be at least six hundred feet (600') in length.
Intersecting collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adequate connectivity
between neighborhoods, but also maintains the capacity of the street for the safe and efficient
movement of traffic. Longer block faces may be required along high capacity or higher speed
arterial streets where the interests in moving traffic outweigh the connectivity between areas of
development. The city may approve shorter block faces in high density commercial areas or
other areas with high pedestrian counts.
4. Cul-de-sacs may not exceed nine hundred feet (900') in length. The length of a cul-de-
sac is measured from the centerline of the street from which it commences to the center of the
bulb.
B. Lots:
1. Lots must be platted in a manner that will allow development that meets all requirements
of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. Lots and design sites must be of sufficient size to
accommodate an adequate buildable area and area for required setbacks, off street parking,
and service facilities required by the type of use and development anticipated.
2. Lots with multiple frontages must be platted large enough to accommodate front setback
requirements along street side lot lines.
3. If a property with frontage along an arterial street is proposed to be subdivided,
developed or redeveloped for any multi-family, group living, commercial, institutional or
industrial use, a cross access easement must be provided by the property owner to all adjoining
properties that front on the same arterial street that are or may be developed as multi-family,
group living, commercial, institutional use, or industrial uses according to the cross access
standards set forth in section 14-5C-7 of this code.
4. In residential areas, double and triple frontage lots shall be avoided. Where such lots are
necessary to overcome specific disadvantages of topography, land features, or access
restrictions, the following standards apply:
a. Lots with multiple frontages shall be one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the
required lot area for the zone in which the lot is located. The additional required lot area shall be
used to increase the depth of the lot between street frontages. Corner lots with only two (2)
frontages are exempt from this requirement, however, said corner lots should be platted with
enough land area to accommodate the required front setback area along both frontages.
b. Double and triple frontage lots where dwellings will have side or rear building facades
oriented toward an arterial street shall provide a minimum twenty foot (20') wide landscaped
15-3-4
buffer area along the arterial street frontage. The buffer area shall be planted with a mixture of
coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the city forester. The vegetation shall be
required along with other public improvements for the property. Lots where dwellings will have
front building facades oriented toward an arterial street are exempt from this requirement. If a
buffer area was required during subdivision, no solid fences will be allowed within this buffer
area. This restriction must be noted in the subdivider's agreement and on the plat. On corner
lots, the landscaping within the buffer must be planted and maintained to comply with
intersection visibility standards.
5. Side lot lines shall approximate right angles to straight street lines or be approximately
radial to curved street lines, except where a variation will provide a better street and lot layout.
For purposes of this subsection, "approximate right angles" means angles between eighty
degrees (80°) and one hundred degrees (100°).
6. Residential lots shall not be designed with irregular shapes such as a flag or panhandle
shape where the structure on the lot may be hidden from the street behind another structure.
7. In residential subdivisions, lots must be arranged to allow easy access to public open
space. The subdivision layout should be designed so that the location and access to public
open space is readily apparent to the public. Subdivision layouts where public open space is
surrounded by private lots that back up to the public open space are discouraged. Techniques,
such as single loaded streets along park edges or along segments of park edges and well
marked trail easements are to be utilized to satisfy this requirement.
C. Provisions To Minimize The Effect Of Highway Noise: Subdivisions adjacent to or within
three hundred feet (300') of the Interstate 80 and/or the Highway 218 rights of way shall comply
with the following provisions, intended to reduce the effect of highway noise on residential
areas:
1. Any portion of a residential lot that is within three hundred feet (300') of the Interstate 80
or Highway 218 right of way shall be identified as a noise buffer, and no residential structure will
be permitted within this three hundred foot (300') buffer area. The buffer area shall be planted
with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous vegetation approved by the city forester. The
vegetation shall be required along with other public improvements for the property. Existing
trees and vegetation may be used to comply with this requirement as approved by the city
forester. Accessory structures and yards are permitted within the three hundred foot (300')
buffer area provided the required vegetative buffer is maintained.
2. The three hundred foot (300') buffer for residential structures may be reduced with
approval by the city if the subdivider constructs an earthen berm, decorative wall, or other
similar structure and demonstrates that the highway noise just outside the proposed residential
structures will be no more than sixty (60) dB.
3. The three hundred foot (300') buffer for residential structures may also be reduced with
approval by the city if the subdivider demonstrates that existing topography results in highway
noise being no more than sixty (60) dB just outside the proposed residential structures. (Ord.
08-4313, 8-26-2008)
15-3-5 through 15-3-14
15-3-5: NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS:
A. Intent And Purpose: The neighborhood open space requirements are intended to ensure
provision of adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a
manner that is consistent with the neighborhood open space plan, as amended, by using a fair
and reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or
developing land for those purposes. Active, usable neighborhood open space includes
pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, and also includes
neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Portions of community parks may be adapted
for neighborhood use, but this chapter is not intended to fund the acquisition of community
parks or large playing fields for organized sports.
B. Dedication Of Land Or Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Land Required: As a condition of
approval for residential subdivisions and commercial subdivisions containing residential uses,
the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park,
greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the Ccity and in
accordance with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space
Requirements", of this code.
15-3-6: ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS:
…
15-3-7: SANITARY SEWERS:
…
15-3-8: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
A. The developer shall provide the subdivision with adequate drains, ditches, culverts, complete
bridges, storm sewers, intakes and manholes to provide for the collection, management, and
removal of all surface waters as set forth in title 16, chapter 3, article G, "Stormwater Collection,
Discharge And Runoff", of this code. These improvements shall extend to the boundaries of the
subdivision and beyond, as necessary to provide for extension by adjoining properties, as
determined by the cCity.
15-3-9: WATER SYSTEMS:
…
15-3-10: CLUSTERED MAILBOXES:
…
15-3-11: MARKERS:
…
15-3-12: SPECIFICATIONS:
…
15-3-13: INSPECTIONS:
…
15-3-14: OFF SITE COSTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
…
Item Number: 9.
October 5, 2021
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 9, en titled "Motor Veh icles an d Traffic," Ch apter 3,
entitl ed "Rules of the Road," Section 6, en titled "Speed Restriction s,"
Subsection B, en titled "Exception s," to modify the 35 MP H sp eed zon e for
Rochester Avenue. (F irst Con sideration )
Prepared B y:Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner
Reviewed By:Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Devlopment Services Director
F iscal I mpact:None.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Rochester Avenue Speed L imit Ordinance A mendment
Executive S ummary:
T he existing 35 MP H speed zone on R ochester Avenue extends f rom the eastern city limits to the
intersection at 1st Avenue, where the speed limit is reduced to 25 MP H. An established 20 MP H
school speed zone begins at the west leg of the same intersection. Modif ying the extent of the 35
MP H speed zone to a point approximately 100 feet west of Post R oad will provide a more visible
and appropriate transition to the existing 20 MP H School S peed Z one located at 1st Avenue.
Background / Analysis:
T he attached ordinance reflects the speed limit change for a portion of Rochester Avenue from 35
MP H to 25 MP H.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Rochester Speed L imit Ordinance A mendment
Prepared by:Sarah Walz,Acting Traffic Eng. Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5239
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter
3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions,"
Subsection B, entitled "Exceptions," to modify the 35 MPH speed zone for
Rochester Avenue.
Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to define maximum allowable speeds for vehicles
on public streets and highways;
Whereas, the current 35 MPH zone ends at the east leg of the intersection of 1s`Avenue and
Rochester Avenue; and
Whereas, the existing 20 MPH School Speed Zone begins at the west leg of the intersection of
1 s`Avenue and Rochester Avenue; and
Whereas, on the basis of a traffic observation it has been determined that relocating the
terminus of the 35 MPH zone to a point further east of the intersection of 1s`Avenue and
Rochester Avenue will provide a more visible transition in advance of the intersection and the
existing 20 MPH School Speed Zone; and
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendment
1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road,"
Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub-Section B, entitled "Exceptions" is hereby
amended as follows:
Name of Street Where Limit Applies
Rochester From the intersection with First Avenue a point 100 feet
Avenue west of Post Road east to the City limits
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 not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2021.
Page 1 of 2
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen —09/29/2021)
Page 2 of 2
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 10/05/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih,
Taylor, Teague. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published