HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-05 ResolutionItem Number: 6.a.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion d esig n ating the au thorized officers or emp l oyees to con d u ct
b u siness with au thorized ban king institu tions.
Prepared B y:Dennis B ockenstedt, F inance Director
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:No I mpact
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
City Council sets, by resolution, the authorized officers or employees to conduct of f icial banking
business on behalf of the City
Background / Analysis:
T he last update to this authorizing resolution was in F ebruary 2017. T hat resolution set the
authorized individuals to conduct City banking business to be Dennis B ockenstedt, A shley
Monroe, and G eof f F ruin. R edmond J ones is the new D eputy City Manager, and theref ore, the
authorizing resolution needs to be updated.
A new authorizing resolution is being presented f or City Council consideration. T his updated
resolution sets F inance Director, Dennis B ockenstedt, C ity Manager, G eof f Fruin and Deputy City
Manager, R edmond J ones, as the employees that are authorized to conduct the C ity's banking
business.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Prepared by: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director,410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5053
Resolution no. 21-258
Resolution designating the authorized officers or employees to
conduct business with authorized banking institutions.
Whereas, the City is authorized through its investment policy to conduct business with all the
banks listed on the City of Iowa City's resolution naming depositories that offer competitive rates
and satisfactory service; and
Whereas, the City utilizes these authorized banks to conduct its daily financial and investment
banking business.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
The following individuals, listed below, are officers or employees of the City and are hereby
authorized to conduct banking business with the authorized banks including opening accounts,
signing and endorsing checks, transferring funds, maintaining safety deposit boxes,
withdrawals, and all other necessary and ordinary transactions.
List of officers or employees authorized to conduct banking business:
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Redmond Jones, Deputy City Manager
Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance
All prior resolutions authorizing officers or employees to conduct business with authorized
banking institutions on behalf of the City are hereby rescinded.
Passed and approved this 5th day of October , 2021.
(I
-
Approved by
Attest: • V ' -• ca
ity Clerk J City Attor ey s Office-09/29/2021
Resolution No. 21-258
Page 2
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Weiner the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 6.b.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion awardin g con tract and auth orizing the Mayor to sig n an d th e City
Cl erk to attest a con tract for con struction of the Muscatin e Aven u e
Ped estrian Crossing Proj ect.
Prepared B y:Marri VanDyke, Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$216,309 available in the Muscatine Ave P edestrian/Transit A menities
account #T 3065.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project will provide a north-south pedestrian crosswalk in a heavily traveled commercial
corridor in which there are very f ew A D A crosswalks. A n MP O J C study identified this location as
ideal for a mid-block crosswalk coupled with a pedestrian ref uge island. A s part of the project, new
transit shelters will be installed to f urther improve pedestrian saf ety and amenities. W ith help from
I owa State University, the project will implement electrically-conductive concrete pavement. The
Project Manual was approved at the August 17, 2021 Council Meeting, and the engineer’s
estimated cost for construction was $88,000.
T hree (3) bids were submitted prior to the September 14, 2021 deadline:
Bidder Name City Bid
A ll A merican Concrete West L iberty, I A $216,309.00
Tricon General Construction C edar R apids, I A $227,124.00
Midwest Concrete P eosta, I A Non-Responsive
All A merican Concrete, I nc., of West L iberty, I owa submitted the lowest responsive, responsible
bid of $216,309. The I owa Highway Research Board has agreed to provide $120,000 towards
the project, and the C ity will be responsible for the remaining costs. Staff recommends awarding
the Contract for the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing P roject to A ll American Concrete,
I nc.
Background / Analysis:
I owa S tate University researchers are developing electrically-conductive pavement (E C O N) for
the purpose of keeping roadways clear of ice and snow. E C O N is made up of cement, sand, rock,
and one percent carbon fiber. S tainless steel electrodes are spaced evenly within the slab and
connected to a power supply. W hen powered on, the electrodes and carbon fiber conduct
electricity, causing the pavement to heat up. Test slabs have been implemented at the Des
Moines I nternational A irport and at the I owa Department of Transportation headquarter south
parking lot in A mes, I owa. T he C ity of I owa City expressed interest in using E C O N for the
bus stops in the Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project. T he ISU research team assisted in
developing the plans and specifications needed for bidding purposes. Successful implementation is
expected to result in more efficient and cost-effective snow removal, increased pedestrian safety, and a
spurred interest in innovative technology.
T he project will also include ongoing study of construction and implementation of E C ON at this location
to assist the Iowa Highway Research Board with their research work.
Project Time line :
Award Date – October 5, 2021
Construction – October 2021– May 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Location Map
Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project
Project
Location
l9 io
Prepared by:Marri VanDyke,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5044
Resolution No. 21-259
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign
and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the
Muscatine Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Project
Whereas, All American Concrete, Inc. of West Liberty, Iowa has submitted the lowest responsible
bid of$216,309 for construction of the above-named project; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Muscatine Ave Pedestrian(Transit Amenities
account#T3065; and
Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according
to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above-
named project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to All
American Concrete, Inc., subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate
performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program
statements.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for
construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure
adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance
program statements.
Passed and approved this 5th day of October , 2021
May r
Approved b
Attest : ' _ 1 i,. s_ .
City Clerk / City A orney's Office—09/29/2021
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Weiner the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 6.c.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion awardin g con tract and auth orizing the City Engin eer to sign a
contract for constru ction of th e Second Aven u e Brid g e Replacemen t Proj ect
[B R O S-3715-(664)—8J-52].
Prepared B y:Melissa Clow, Special P rojects Administrator
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$1,221,525.93 available in the Second Avenue Bridge Replacement account
#S 3949
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he project generally includes the removal and replacement of the Second Avenue bridge over
Ralston Creek and other associated work.
T he project was bid through the I owa D epartment of Transportation, and three (3) bids were
submitted prior to the S eptember 21, 2021 deadline:
Bidder Name City Base Bid
P eterson C ontractors, I nc.Reinbeck, I A $1,221,525.93
Boomerang Corporation A namosa, I A $1,273,022.75
I owa Bridge & Culvert, L .C.Washington, I A $1,662,409.13
E ngineer ’s Estimate $890,000.00
T he bids received were significantly higher than the E ngineer’s E stimate, likely due to the ongoing
supply shortages and material upcharges that the construction industry has been experiencing this
year. B ased upon the bids received, staff recommends awarding the project to P eterson
Contractors, I nc. of Reinbeck, I owa.
Background / Analysis:
T he project includes the removal of the existing two-lane concrete bridge and replacement with a
new two-lane bridge that meets local and state guidelines for traf f ic and pedestrians. I mproved
aesthetics will enhance the neighborhood views of the creek. T his work will allow for streambank
stabilization upstream and downstream of the new bridge, including channel reconstruction to the
north, allowing for more efficient creek hydraulics and preventing further erosion. A new, five-foot
sidewalk on the east side of Second Avenue will connect to the existing sidewalk south of F S treet
and provide a pedestrian route to the Court Hill Trail on the north side of the bridge. T he bridge
itself will have two travel lanes, a traf f ic barrier rail separating pedestrians from vehicles and five-
foot sidewalks on both sides f or a f uture pedestrian connection on the west. E xisting dead-end
water main to the north and south of the bridge will be connected through the new bridge deck,
storm sewer improvements and abandonment of existing sanitary sewer that is no longer in use
will also be completed with the project.
P roject Timeline:
Award Date – October 5, 2021
Construction – March 2022 – October 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Prepared by:Melissa A.Clow,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5413
Resolution No. 21-260
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the City Engineer
to sign a contract for construction of the Second Avenue Bridge
Replacement Project [BROS-3715-(664)-8J-52].
Whereas, Peterson Construction, Inc. of Reinbeck, Iowa has submitted the lowest responsible bid
of$1,221,525.93 for construction of the above-named project; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Second Avenue Bridge Replacement account
# S3949; and
Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according
to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above-
named project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to
Peterson Construction, Inc., subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate bond
and insurance certificates.
2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign the contract for construction of the above-
named project and the Contractor's Bond, subject to the condition that awardee secure
adequate bond and insurance certificates.
Passed and approved this 5th _day of October , 2021
Ma (�(
1 J Approved by
Attest: Y - _' • ' •t _. i
City lerk City Att ney's Office-09/29/2021
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Weiner the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 6.d.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion accep tin g th e work for the Dig ester Seals Proj ect
Prepared B y:Ben Clark, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:Tim W ilkey, Wastewater Superintendent
J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester S eals Project has been completed by Woodruff
Construction L L C, of Tiffin, I owa in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications
prepared by S tanley Consultants, I nc., of Muscatine, I owa. T he E ngineer’s Report and
Performance, P ayment and Maintenance B ond are on file with the City Engineer.
Project Estimated Cost $50,000.00
Project Bid Received $82,700.00
Project A ctual Cost $82,700.00
Background / Analysis:
T his project replaced the annular seal between the stainless-steel cover and concrete wall on
thermophilic digester tank T 8101A . T he tank was constructed in 2000 and the seal had reached
the end of its useful life. T he seal is necessary to prevent methane from escaping into the
atmosphere.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
In . 8
Prepared by:Ben Clark,Engineering Division,Public Works,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5436
Resolution No. 21-261
Resolution accepting the work for the Digester Seals Project.
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the
Digester Seals Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and Woodruff
Construction LLC, of Tiffin, Iowa, dated October 14, 2019, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Wastewater Digester Seals account # V3150;
and
Whereas, the final contract price is $82,700.00.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 5th day of October , 2021
M tr-er—
Approved by
1/ f
Attest: Y 1 ' • # a A ` / A •
City Clerk City *To .- s a ice
(Sara Gr-enwood Hektoen- 09/29/2021)
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Weiner the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 6.e.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion on Un cl assified Sal ary Compen sation for F iscal Year 2022 for th e
City Man ager an d City Cl erk.
Prepared B y:Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Reviewed By:Eric Goers, City Attorney
F iscal I mpact:No impact. Wages are approved in the annual operating budget.
Recommendations:Staff: No Recommendation
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
By contract each Council appointee's salary is automatically increased by the across the board
(cost of living) adjustment provided to all other administrative/confidential employees, which is
based on that provided to A F S C ME employees. T he increase on J uly 1, 2021 was 2.5%. The
City A ttorney's contract, approved in J une, 2021, calls for the first increase in F iscal year 2023
(J uly 1, 2022).
T he changes made in this resolution are merit increases based on the appointee's annual
performance evaluation by the Council.
Background / Analysis:
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
(19
Prepared by: Kellie Fruehling, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5041
Resolution No. 21-262
Resolution on Unclassified Salary Compensation for Fiscal Year
2022 for the City Manager and City Clerk.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, employs the City Manager and City Clerk
subject solely to the action of the City Council referred to as unclassified personnel;
and
Whereas, it is necessary to establish salary compensation for the said unclassified
personnel.
Now, therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that the following
positions shall receive as salary compensation that amount which is set forth and where said
employee shall receive or collect any fees or other compensation from others for services as such
employee, the same shall be paid to the City Treasury.
Be it further resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that the following
compensation is hereby established effective July 1, 2021:
Salary: City Manager- $215,009.60
City Clerk - $109,304.00
Passed and approved this 5th day of October , 2021.
May k C/
n Approved
•
Attest : 01,
City ' lerk City orney's Office-09/29/2021
u
It was moved by saiihand seconded by Weiner the Resolution
be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 8.a.
October 5, 2021
Resol u tion to amend the South District Plan , a p art of Iowa City's
Compreh ensive Pl an, to facilitate devel opmen t that fol l ows form-based
p rincip l es. (C PA21-0001)
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
C PA 21-0001 Memo to Planning & Z oning Commission, August 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
Resolution
Appendix 1: S outh District Plan
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
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate development that follows
form-based principles in the South District
Introduction
The current South District Plan governs a large amount of undeveloped land. To manage new
development in these areas, the Plan recommends that the City consider a form-based code to
help 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 has determined that amendments to the South District Plan are necessary before
the City could consider adoption of a form-based code.
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
August 19, 2021
Page 2
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. Unlike conventional, use-based codes, form-based zoning
utilizes the intended physical form and character of a context, rather than use as the organizing
framework. Further, form-based codes regulate elements to create a high-quality place, not just
a good individual building. The terminology in form-based codes also reflect 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 previous use-based standards utilized by the City. However, form-based codes do regulate
use secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and
the intended physical form.
Following the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff will seek to adopt form-based
zoning standards to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for context-specific, walkable
development reflective of Iowa City's distinct development patterns and community character.
The intent 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
The form-based code project builds on previous planning work in the neighborhood, beginning in
earnest with the 2015 South District Plan which outlines the vision for this area following months
of work with the community. Subsequently, Opticos Design assisted City staff in assessing the
feasibility of implementing a form-based code for undeveloped areas in the District. 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. Since
beginning the form-based code project, there have been numerous additional opportunities for
public input. A residential market analysis was also completed in 2019 to help inform the plan.
Staff developed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001), shown in
Attachment 1, to facilitate the development of new neighborhoods that follow form-based
principles in the South District. It also supports other goals of City Council, including those related
to equity and climate action. Additional context in the proposed amendment ensures consistency
with those priorities.
Proposed Amendment:
The proposed amendment includes several changes to the South District Plan that lay the
groundwork for form-based zoning for the South District and provide additional context to address
Council’s strategic goals.
First, new contextual information was added, mostly in the plan’s introduction. This includes a
description of recent development in the South District and minor changes to other sections,
such as updating place names (like “The Quarters”, formerly “Rose Oaks”). More notable
additions include a description of native peoples who occupied the area prior to white
settlement, narrative on how land use practices have been used historically to perpetuate racial
segregation, and text describing how the City is striving to overcome these historic injustices.
These changes are intended to provide background and to help advance social justice, equity,
and human rights efforts in the community.
August 19, 2021
Page 3
Other changes to the plan will help guide development in the South District in a way that is
based on form rather than use, the latter of which is the foundation of the City’s current zoning
designations. These include descriptions of the City’s development of form-based standards
and changes throughout the Plan that better reflect intended development outcomes,
specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario, street
layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas. New goals and objectives are
proposed for the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters that explicitly discuss
adoption of a form-based code. Finally, a new section is proposed to describe form-based land
use regulations and how they may be implemented in the South District. This includes proposed
updates to the original future land use map and new form-based future land use and
thoroughfare maps which will guide development over time.
While form-based standards generally align with the existing policies in the South District Plan,
these changes address potential discrepancies in the future land use map between
conventional and form-based zones, and they facilitate the adoption of a form-based code.
Analysis
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. The City Council may consider amendments to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to be approved, evidence must be provided that the request meets the following
two approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D of the City Code.
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to
light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
Since its adoption in 2015, development has continued in the South District. Residential
subdivisions, such as Brookwood Pointe, General Quarters, and Sandhill Estates, have seen
ongoing construction. Archibald Alexander Elementary School was completed in 2016 and now
serves a portion of the South District. In addition, McCollister Boulevard was extended to
Sycamore Street, providing an important east-west connection. For undeveloped land in the
South District Study Area, just over half is inside City limits while the remainder is in
unincorporated Johnson County. The land contains a range of existing land uses including
agricultural, single- and multi-family residential, institutional, and open space. Overall,
development in the area has been aligned with the 2015 South District Plan.
The City has also undertaken extensive work towards the Plan’s 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.” The 2017 feasibility study for form-based zoning in the South District noted the
need to “[b]uild upon [the] existing South District Plan to implement new form-based standards
and incorporate more recent efforts for [an] improved community plan.” This is largely because
the adopted future land use scenario better aligns with the City’s current conventional zoning
standards rather than form-based standards. For example, the future land use map
distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi-family residential uses and provides for
limited neighborhood commercial areas. Staff believes the results of the work towards form-
based standards completed since 2015 have revealed the need for a revised future land use
map, constituting a change in circumstances that makes this amendment in the public interest.
In addition, the City is increasingly emphasizing policies that promote social justice and equity,
especially as it relates to housing diversity and affordability. In June 2020, the City adopted
actions in Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity in the community.
August 19, 2021
Page 4
Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to indirectly support racial and
class segregation. While courts invalided explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones
and large minimum lot sizes were often used across the nation as an exclusionary practice,
along with other public and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of “slums”
where communities of color lived. In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until
they were made illegal, as identified in 2020 Mapping Segregation in Iowa project
(https://dsps.lib.uiowa.edu/mappingsegregationia/). A 2019 Fair Housing Study completed by
the City found that 81% of residential land in the City is zoned for single-family development,
over half of which is low density (RS-5). Facilitating adoption of a form-based code for new
development helps address this by permitting a mix of housing types and price points. While it
does not solve this complex issue, it mitigates one barrier to providing housing options that are
more affordable and allows for a broader range of housing choices for all residents, including
those still recovering from generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment.
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. Higher minimum parking standards also assume
car-ownership and increase the price of housing. Form-based standards can help 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.
The increased focus on climate action, social justice, and equity constitutes another change in
circumstances and further demonstrates that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The proposed changes align well with the existing goals and objectives in the South District and
Comprehensive Plans. The adopted future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan shows the
area as containing residential land uses, primarily at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre but
with some areas being 8-16 dwelling units per acre. It also includes some general commercial
uses. However, the South District Plan uses specific land use categories such as low-medium
density single-family residential, low-medium density mixed residential, multi-family, and mixed
use/neighborhood commercial. These descriptions in the future land use map contrast somewhat
with the text of plan, which speaks towards incorporating “a true mix of housing at a compatible
scale” including missing middle housing types. As such, the proposed amendment refines those
categories to better reflect a range of housing types, including missing middle housing.
The proposed amendment also 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.
August 19, 2021
Page 5
Similarly, many existing 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.
New goals and objectives are proposed to be added as part of the amendment to clarify how
form-based standards further implement the intent of the South District Plan. Other proposed
changes to the plan are relatively minor or simply provide context as to why and how the City
should implement a form-based code.
In addition to being compatible with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan 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. As other District Plans are updated in the future,
incorporating these elements is essential to ensuring consistency in all City documents.
Public Comment
Staff received several comments regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
especially as it relates to the future land use maps. Written comments received are in Attachment
3. In summary, staff has received the following comments:
• Concern expressed from the Sandhill Estates HOA included:
o Lack of transition between the existing neighborhood along McCollister Court and new
development on the future land use map (specifically requesting T3 land uses by the
existing neighborhood before transitioning to T4 land uses).
o Impacts on education
o Access to emergency services
• Members of the South District Neighborhood Association’s Leadership Group noted that they
would like to see more indoor recreation space in the South District.
• Steve Gordon and Aleda Feuerbach requested to remove their property south of Lehman
Avenue from the planning area.
A summary of stakeholder input and staff responses can be found in Attachment 2.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to
facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South District of Iowa City.
Attachments
1. Proposed Changes to the South District Plan
2. Staff Summary of Stakeholder Input on Public Review Drafts
3. 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.
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard Stapleton <rich.stapleton73@gmail.com>
Monday, October 4, 2021 3:37 PM
Anne Russett; *City Council
Joleah Shaw
For the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 5th.
Dear Mayor Teague and the members of the Iowa City Council,
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
My wife and I are unable to attend the city council meeting on 10/5 due to our work schedules. However, I do want to
express my feelings regarding the planning and zoning proposal south of our home.
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 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.
4
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
2
0.
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner,410 E.Washington St, Iowa City, IA;319-356-5230(CPA21-0001)
Resolution No. 21-263
Resolution to amend the South District Plan, a part of Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan, to facilitate development that follows form-based
principles (CPA21-0001 )
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 was
adopted in 2015 (Resolution No. 15-335) and 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, in December 2016, the City Council authorized staff to execute a contract with
Opticos Design, Inc (Resolution No. 16-349) to conduct a form-based code analysis for the South
District; and
Whereas, Opticos Design, Inc recommended implementing new form-based zones and
standards for the area based on its analysis and the stakeholder outreach conducted, which
envisioned neighborhood centers with walkable amenities, expanding open space areas, providing
housing options, improving walkability, and increasing street connectivity; and
Whereas, in January 2019, the City Council authorized staff to execute a contract with
Opticos Design, Inc(Resolution 19-14)to develop form-based zones and standards fora portion of
undeveloped land within the South District; and
Whereas, in developing the form-based zones and standards it became apparent that an
amendment to the South District Plan was necessary before adoption of a form-based code; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan has goals that aim 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, circumstances have changed since the South District Plan was adopted, including
the increased focus on policies that promote social justice, equity, and climate action through
Resolution 20-159 and the adoption of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in 2018; and
Whereas, this amendment is in the public interest and compatible with other policies of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment at its meeting on
September 16, 2021 and determined that circumstances changed to the extent that an amendment
to the comprehensive plan is warranted and the proposed amendment is compatible with other
policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
Resolution No. 21-263
Page 2
1. The South District Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as
illustrated and described in Appendix 1, attached hereto.
Passed and approved this 5th day of October , 2021.
Cri")4-j"— ..----
l e-A-y-,-,---
Mayor:
2,
OP
Attest: it • r >rtii.., l
City lerk City At rney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen -09/29/2021)
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
06101sPoh
ol`o
I III
■ ■ 111
010
•
IOWA CITY
South District Plan
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADOPTED OCTOBER 20, 2015
AMENDED October 5, 2021
ii
iii
South District Plan
City of Iowa City, Iowa
City Council
Kingsley Botchway
Rick Dobyns
Terry Dickens
Matthew Hayek
Susan Mims
Michelle Payne
Jim Throgmorton
Planning and Zoning Commission
Carolyn Dyer
Charles Eastham
Ann Freerks
Michael Hensch
Phoebe Martin
Max Parsons
Jodie Theobald
City Manager
Tom Markus
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Doug Boothroy, Director
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
Emily Ambrosy, Mapping
Kay Irelan, Mapping
Bailee McClellan, Intern
Ashley Zitzner, Intern
Kirk Lehmann, Intern
iv
Page intentionally left blank.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Housing 13
Neighborhood Quality 23
Parks, Trails, and Open Space 29
Streets, Trails, and Sidewalks 37
Commercial Areas 47
Form-Based Land Use 54
South District Future Land Use Plan Maps 5357
vi
Page intentionally left blank.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The Comprehensive 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. As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, district plans relate specifically to the histo-
ry and existing conditions at a more local, neighborhood level. The goals and objectives in the dis-
trict plan addresses issues of housing and quality of life; transportation; commercial development;
and parks, trails, and open space particular to specific areas of the community. These plans are advi-
sory documents that are intended to direct and manage change over time. They serve as a guide for
decision-making, deliberation, and investment for both the public and private sector.
Originally adopted in 1997, the South District Plan was Iowa City’s first completed district plan. Fol-
lowing the Iowa City Community School District announcement that a new elementary school, Archi-
bald Alexander, would open in South Iowa City in 2015, City Council directed planning staff to up-
date the existfng district plan. The updated plan would consider new neighborhoods surrounding the
school that would develop in light of the sustainability goals of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and
the prioritfes of the City’s Strategic Plan (November, 2013). The plan was amended again in 2021 to
further facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
The new elementary school and the road extension and infrastructure that serve it represent a sub-
stantfal investment made by the taxpayers of our community. It is therefore in the public interest to
plan proactfvely for the long-term health and stability of new and existfng neighborhoods to ensure
the full benefit of that investment. The update to the South District Plan therefore focuses on cre-
atfng walkable neighborhoods served by a network of interconnected streets that enhance opportu-
nitfes not only for alternatfve transportatfon but for neighborhood cohesion and social interactfon.
The plan calls for the integratfon of a variety of housing optfons to accommodate a range of house-
hold types and to support the extension of transit and support for small neighborhood commercial
nodes. It seeks to strengthen and enhance existfng neighborhoods and improve access to parks,
commercial areas, and employment centers. Finally, the plan recognizes the opening of the new
school as an opportunity to re-envision South Iowa City—to foster a positfve identfty and sense of
community based on its environmental and recreatfonal assets and its culturally diverse populatfon.
The Iowa City Community School District hosted a
groundbreaking for the new Archibald Alexander Elemen-
tary School in June, 2014. The new school is scheduled
open in fall 2015 and will have a capacity of 500 students.
The City of Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department
partnered with the School District, contributing funds to
enlarge the school gymnasium so that it can serve the
community after school hours.
The South District is one of ten planning districts in
Iowa City.
2
Public Participation
Public input is vital to any comprehensive planning effort. Residents, property owners, area busi-
nesses, community organizatfons, public service agencies, and other interested citfzens helped for-
mulate the goals and objectfves for this update to the South District Plan through their partfcipatfon
in one or more planning actfvitfes.
To initfate the process, staff conducted a series of interviews with neighborhood advocates and
representatfves of community groups, realtors, and property owners. Additfonal feedback was
gathered at a series of neighborhood events—Wetherby’s Party in the Park, Natfonal Night Out,
and Grant Wood Elementary School’s back-to-school event. An online survey gathered additfonal
informatfon from 70 respondents. From these interviews and events, a set of common themes
emerged.
A community workshop held at Grant Wood Elementary on October 6, 2014, gathered additfonal
informatfon on what makes the South District attractfve and livable as well as what is challenging
about living, working, or doing business in South Iowa City. Workshop partfcipants discussed how to
build on the assets of the area, including the many environmental and recreatfonal assets and the
new south elementary school.
Other Sources
The South District Plan also draws from outreach and interviews completed by the Broadway
Neighborhood Center, including a set of strategies formulated as a result of community workshops
and surveys conducted by that agency in (2008). Informatfon also came from the Broadway Neigh-
borhood Community Assessment, a 2004 report authored by Julie A. Spears M.S.W., M.A. and Miri-
am J. Landsman, Ph.D., M.S.W. (University of Iowa School of Social Work, Natfonal Resource Center
for Family Centered Practfce). These reports represent substantfal input from minoritfes and
renters, two groups that may have been underrepresented at the community workshop.
Input for Form-Based Standards
Extensive outreach was also conducted during the formulation of form-based standards 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, the City’s consult-
ant on the project. Participants included representatives from the local development community,
local government entities, property owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the
general public.
The public workshop for the South District Plan took
place on October 6 at Grant Wood Elementary. The
workshop was an opportunity for residents, property
owners, developers, and other interested members of
the community to meet face-to-face to discuss the
future of South Iowa City. It was also a chance for
members of the public to engage with City staff to
better understand development processes, provision of
services, extension or improvements to infrastructure,
as well as preservation of open space and zoning.
3
Plan Implementation
The South District Plan will be used as a guide for future development or redevelopment within the
district and for preserving and improving valuable assets of the area. Achieving the goals and objec-
tfves included in this plan will take tfme and the combined effort of the City, area residents, property
owners, businesses, community nonprofits, and neighborhood organizatfons.
• City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and the City Council will
rely on the plan as a guide when reviewing development and rezoning requests and setting
funding prioritfes for public infrastructure, services, or programming.
• Neighborhood groups, nonprofits, and other interested organizatfons within the community
may use the plan to design programming and events and to advocate for investment (including
grants), improvement, and preservatfon.
• Property owners, businesses, real estate professionals, and developers should use the plan as
framework for their own decision-making and investment as they plan to purchase, sell, or de-
velop property.
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan
Any effectfve planning effort must be grounded in reality—it must take into account the existfng lo-
cal conditfons and any community-wide goals and policies that have already been agreed upon. The
Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2013, presents a vision for Iowa City, provides goals
and objectfves for realizing that vision, and sets policies for the development and growth of the City.
This district plan addresses the unique characteristfcs of a specific area within the city, but it must
also meet the goals and policies adopted as a part of the larger Comprehensive Plan.
Neighborhoods are at the heart of what makes Iowa City a great place to live. What follows is a set
of general principles for maintaining and building healthy neighborhoods. New development and
redevelopment should adhere to these principles, as well.
Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Established Neighborhoods: Adoptfng strategies to
assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps to pre-
serve the culture, history, and identfty of Iowa City. Investfng in the neighborhoods that are closest
to major employers preserves opportunitfes for people to live close to work, school, and shopping;
promotes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In additfon, many established
neighborhoods contain affordable housing optfons along walkable, tree-lined streets where City ser-
vices and infrastructure are already in place and elementary schools and parks are the focal point of
neighborhood actfvity and identfty.
MAKE NO SMALL PLANS . . .
The goal to repurpose a retired sand dredging pond as
a natural amenity was drawn from public input during
the original South District Planning effort in 1997. It
would take another 15 years to make the vision reality.
In 2006, the City purchased 158 acres, including “Sand
Lake,” from S & J Materials. An additional 49 acres
were later acquired to extend the park to the river-
front. A master plan was drafted for the park with
community input. The City covered half of the $6.5
million park development with general obligation
bonds; the remainder was covered by private dona-
tions and grants, including a $1.2 million CAT Grant
from Vision IOWA.
The park officially opened in 2013 as Terry Trueblood
Recreation Area, and features bike and pedestrian
trails, water craft rental, fishing, birding, picnicking, and
ice skating as well as a popular lodge for receptions and
other events. The successful process of transforming
this former quarry site into a natural feature is the
result of a collaborative effort with the Parks and Rec-
reation Department, community advocates, business-
es, individual donors, and grant agencies.
4
Compatible Infill Development: Quality infill development plays an important role in neighbor-
hood reinvestment and may include rehabilitatfng existfng structures or encouraging new develop-
ment of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the
diversity of housing optfons without compromising neighborhood character or over-burdening in-
frastructure, including alleys and parking.
Compact Development: Compact development makes efficient use of land and reduces costs asso-
ciated with the provision and maintenance of public improvements, such as streets, sewers and
water lines. This benefits developers and tax payers. Narrower lot frontages combined with smaller
lot sizes reduce the overall cost of new housing constructfon, creatfng opportunitfes for more mod-
erately priced housing.
Diversity of Housing Types: A mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides residentfal op-
portunitfes for a variety of people, including singles, couples, families with children, and elderly per-
sons. Integratfng diverse housing sizes and types throughout the community increases the oppor-
tunity for people to live in the same neighborhood throughout various stages of life. A rich mix of
housing within a neighborhood may include single-family homes on small and large lots, townhous-
es, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and zero-lot-line housing, as well as apartments in mixed-
use buildings located in neighborhood commercial areas.
Affordable Housing: By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced housing can be in-
corporated into a neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two areas of the community.
Small multf-family buildings may be located on corner lots adjacent to arterial streets; townhouses
and duplex units may be mixed with single-family homes within a neighborhood. Apartments locat-
ed above commercial businesses provide needed housing while increasing the local customer base
for commercial establishments.
Neighborhood Schools: Neighborhood schools, partfcularly elementary schools, are integral to
healthy, sustainable neighborhoods. Schools serve not only as centers of educatfon but as focal
points for community gatherings and neighborhood identfty. In additfon, the school grounds pro-
vide opportunitfes for exercise and recreatfon for neighborhood residents throughout the year.
Neighborhood elementary schools have a symbiotfc relatfonship with the surrounding neighbor-
hood where the school is an essentfal element that contributes to the quality of life. This in turn
contributes to the social connectfons, identfty, safety, and well-being of the families whose children
attend the school.
SCHOOL AS THE CENTER
OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
Housing density ensures that a significant portion of a
school’s student population lives near enough to walk
if they choose. It also increases the likelihood that a
neighborhood will sustain a population of young fami-
lies with children to attend the school over time.
Above: there are 428 single-family homes within a
quarter mile of Grant Wood Elementary School (the
area within the yellow circle).
Right: This detail from
ICCSD Student Density
Map shows that ap-
proximately 170 school
age children live within
a quarter mile of Grant
Wood Elementary. This
is comparable to other
eastside elementary
schools.
5
Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Neighborhood commercial areas can provide a focal point and
gathering place for a neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center
should provide shopping opportunitfes within convenient walking distance for the residents in the
immediate area. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orien-
tatfon with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor
cafes and patfos or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores with addi-
tfonal parking on the street. Incorporatfng apartments above shops and preserving public open
space are two ways to foster additfonal actfvity and vitality in a neighborhood commercial area.
Some aspects of commercial development, such as auto-oriented uses, parking lots, bright lights,
and signage, need to be located, screened, or buffered so that they do not detract from nearby resi-
dentfal uses.
Interconnected Street System: Grid street systems help to reduce congestfon by dispersing traffic,
allowing multfple routes to get from point A to point B. In additfon, by providing more direct routes,
interconnected streets can reduce the vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, pro-
vide more direct walking and biking routes to neighborhood destfnatfons, and reduce the cost of
providing City services.
Streets as More than Pavement: Streets and adjacent parkways and sidewalks can be enhanced
and planned to encourage pedestrian actfvity. Trees, benches, sidewalks, and attractfve lightfng
along the street help create pleasant and safe public spaces for walking to neighborhood destfna-
tfons and for socializing with neighbors. Streetscape amenitfes help establish a sense of distfnctfon,
identfty, and security for neighborhoods. In residentfal neighborhoods, narrower street pavement
widths slow traffic, reduce infrastructure costs, and allow for a more complete tree canopy over the
street.
Shallow Front Yard Setbacks: Placing homes closer to the street allows more backyard space and
room for garages and utflitfes if there is also an alley located behind the home. Shallow setbacks (15-
20 feet is the code standard for residentfal uses) combined with narrower street pavement widths,
create a more intfmate pedestrian-scale public space along the street, which encourages walking
and social interactfon.
Use of Alleys: Providing parking and utflitfes from a rear alley or private lane is partfcularly advanta-
geous in neighborhoods with narrower lot frontages. This arrangement reduces driveway paving
and interruptfons to the sidewalk network, allows more room for front yard landscaping, and in-
creases the availability of on-street parking for visitors. In additfon, when garages are accessed from
alleys, vehicular traffic and congestfon on residentfal streets is reduced.
EFFICIENT NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT
URBAN SPRAWL
GETTING FROM HERE . . .
TO EVERYWHERE
An interconnected street system is integral to
making a neighborhood walkable and to en-
suring that all residents have access to the
amenities and services within the neighbor-
hood. An interconnected street system also
reduces travel times, provides alternative
routes, and allows more efficient provision of
services.
6
Pedestrian/Bikeway Connections: Important neighborhood destfnatfons, such as parks, schools,
bus stops, and neighborhood shopping centers, should be readily accessible by pedestrians and bicy-
clists. This requires a contfnuous sidewalk system, strategically located trails, and on-street bicycle
facilitfes. Bike routes that intersect with key neighborhood destfnatfons may be aligned along neigh-
borhood streets or constructed in stream buffer areas or within major sanitary sewer easements. A
pleasant streetscape with trees and appropriate building setbacks and ample driveway separatfon
creates an environment that is safe and appealing for pedestrians and cyclists.
Parks, Trails and Open Space: Neighborhood parks are small, one- to seven-acre open spaces that
provide a focal point for informal gatherings and recreatfon within easy walking distance from most
homes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood parks should be centrally located or situated adjacent to
a school or a neighborhood commercial area and designed as an integral part of an interconnected
system of open space with trails or wide sidewalks to connect with larger community and regional
parks. Preservatfon of sensitfve areas, such as wetlands, woodlands, and stream corridors and their
buffers, provides an opportunity to shape and enhance a neighborhood, while maintaining scenic
and natural resources and wildlife habitat. Wherever possible, natural features, such as waterways
and woodlands, should be incorporated as key amenitfes within parks and along trail systems.
Buffer Residential Development from Incompatible Uses: To help ensure the long-term livability of
neighborhoods, provide sufficient buffers between residentfal uses and actfvitfes, such as the waste
water treatment plant, highways, etc.
Public Safety: Iowa City works to ensure public safety throughout the community. The establish-
ment of Fire Statfon 4, the Police Substatfon at Pepperwood Plaza, and cooperatfve efforts with
neighborhood groups, schools, and the University of Iowa demonstrate this commitment. Resources
are directed toward educatfon, crime preventfon, and enforcement to enhance the quality of life in
Iowa City.
CREATING A SENSE OF PLACE
As new development occurs, small parks or
pocket parks (less than one acre in size) could
help preserve the sense of open space that resi-
dents consider a defining characteristic of South
Iowa City.
Small public or private open space may be used
to preserve environmental features or provide
stormwater features. These spaces may also
provide opportunities for social interaction and
neighborhood identity. Pedestrian or bike con-
nections between residential areas and schools
or parks will help enhance walkability in the
district.
7
The South Planning District includes all
land within the Iowa City growth
boundary south of Highway 6 and east
of the Iowa River. The growth boundary
is drawn to indicate the area of land
that can be served by the south sanitary
sewer facility without need for lift sta-
tions. Thus, the boundary does not
extend further south than the south
wastewater treatment facility.
A large wetland conservation area lo-
cated east of the Sycamore Greenway
and south of a future extension of
McCollister Boulevard cannot be devel-
oped and thereby serves as a natural
boundary for urban development.
The South Planning District contains
approximately 3,000 acres or 4.7 square
miles, including land not currently with-
in City limits. A 2008 Public Works land
inventory indicated approximately
1,695 acres of vacant, developable land
within the district. If built out at an
average of 2.3 dwelling units per acre,
the study estimated that another 3,900
households could be established within
this portion of the community. Most
recently constructed neighborhoods
have developed at a density of 3.0 units
per acre or greater.
Areas shaded in red are within
the district boundaries, but out-
side current city limits
City Limits
District Boundary
HOW WE DEFINE THE SO UTH PLANNING DISTRICT
8
Historic Context
Natfve peoples inhabited Iowa around 9,500 BCE, initfally as hunter-gatherers. Over tfme, their socie-
tfes became more sedentary, living in complex settlements and obtaining resources through a mix of
hortfculture, seasonal huntfng and gathering, and large , established trade networks. Their archaeo-
logical record remains an important but often overlooked component of the area’s heritage.
Iowa City’s historic roots may be traced to areas along the river, south of Highway 6. When Europe-
ans arrived in America, they traded goods with natfve peoples, but also caused widespread upheaval
through settlement, conflict, and disease. By the 1800’s, numerous groups occupied Iowa, including
the Baxoje (Ioway) and the Sauk and Meskwaki (Fox) who had been displaced from the east. John
Gilbert (the historic figure for whom Gilbert Street is named) was likely the first white man to make a
home in this part of the state. In 1826 he set up a trading post near the mouth of Snyder Creek, just
south of the planning district boundaries, and began exchange with a Meskwaki Indian Village in the
area, thought to have had a populatfon of around 1,000 people.
The Sauk and Fox peoples formally ceded the area from 1832 to 1837, allowing white settlement. In
1837, Gilbert laid out the town of Napoleon at or near what is now Napoleon Park. A year later there
were 237 white settlers in the area. Napoleon served as the county seat and the locatfon of the first
county courthouse and post office, from March 2, 1839, untfl November 14, 1839, when Iowa City
was declared the new county seat. A log cabin and one frame house were the only buildings ever
erected on the town site. The log cabin that served as the first courthouse stood across from what
later would become the McCollister farmstead. The establishment of Iowa City as the territorial capi-
tal and county seat in 1839 marked the beginning of the end for the fledgling town of Napoleon.
Philip Clark was one of the first individuals persuaded by Gilbert to settle in this area. The McCollister
-Showers farmstead located at 2460 South Gilbert Street is situated on land that was park of Clark’s
original 1837 claim. In 1863, the property was purchased by James McCollister and over the next few
decades grew to be a farm containing about 750 acres. The McCollister-Showers home was con-
structed in 1864 and expanded in 1880. The ten-acre farmstead that remains is listed on the Natfon-
al Register of Historic Places. McCollister Boulevard and bridge commemorate the role the McCollis-
ter family played in early Iowa City history.
Another mid-19th century home, located on property just to the north of the McCollister-Showers
farmstead, sits atop the hill at Friendly Farm at the south terminus of Waterfront Drive. Based on its
Greek Revival architecture and design, it likely predates that constructfon of the McCollister-Showers
home. Although little is known definitfvely about its history, maps suggest the property was possibly
owned by Cyrus Sanders, who came to Johnson County in 1839, purchasing the claim of A.D. Ste-
phens on the edge of Iowa City. Sanders held the positfon of Johnson County Surveyor for nearly
fifteen years (1839/40 untfl 1855). These two farmsteads are the most visible links that remain of
the early white settlement in South Iowa City.
Although few physical signs remain of early human
settlement in South Iowa City, archaeological evi-
dence indicates that South Iowa City has been the site
of human occupation for millennia. A 2,000 year old
dwelling and associated features were excavated at
Napoleon Park—the earliest prehistoric structure
found in the entire Iowa River Valley.
The McCollister-Showers farmstead is one of the few
remaining historic structures in South Iowa City.
9
Environmental Context
Water plays an enduring role in South Iowa City, presentfng both obstacles and opportunitfes. Flood-
ing along the Iowa River and the presence of streams, wetlands, drainage ways, and hydric soils in
other areas of the district limit where and how development may occur. High groundwater levels,
especially in areas east of Sycamore Street, make stormwater management a major focus of devel-
opment plans. In some areas east of the Sycamore Greenway trail, a shallow water table may pre-
clude the constructfon of basements.
Outside of Iowa City limits, South Gilbert Street becomes Sand Road, a testament to the distfnct ge-
ology in this part of our community. Much of South Iowa City consists of sandy soils deposited by the
Iowa River during the last glacial period. A sand dune that formed during the post glacial period is a
prominent geologic feature, now preserved as Sand Prairie Park.
An important industry in South Iowa City during the latter part of the twentfeth century, sand dredg-
ing left a man-made mark upon the landscape. When dredging actfvitfes were discontfnued in the
1990s, the Parks Department purchased the “sand lake” and later developed the site as Terry
Trueblood Recreatfon Area—a regional park. Currently, a smaller dredging pond to the east of Gil-
bert Street is being filled with materials excavated for expansion of the University of Iowa Chil-
dren’s Hospital. While this might otherwise be an ideal locatfon for residentfal development, the
property will require a geotechnical analysis to determine its development potentfal.
Snyder Creek forms the district’s eastern limit, meandering south and west toward the river
through an extensive system of wetlands known as the Snyder Creek Bottoms. This five-square
mile wetland area absorbs and filters stormwater before it reaches the Iowa River, reducing flood-
ing and pollutfon and supportfng wildlife habitat, especially migratory and game birds that rely on
wetlands and isolated ponds. Though outside city limits, a unified strategy for protectfng and re-
storing the functfon of these wetlands would provide an opportunity for an outdoor attractfon
that would benefit county and city residents alike.
While these sensitfve environmental features limit development, they also provide opportunitfes
for public parks and trails as well as private open space, and are defining elements of South Iowa
City’s identfty and sense of place.
THE SYCAMORE GREENWAY
Each time it rains, stormwater passes over roofs, pave-
ment, and other land surfaces, picking up pollutants
such as oil, salt, lawn chemicals, and eroded soil before
flowing untreated through the storm sewer system into
creeks and rivers. This is how most cities handle storm-
water, but a one square mile watershed in South Iowa
City relies on an alternative system.
Designed by University of Iowa geoscience professor
Lon Drake, the Sycamore Greenway is an example of
green infrastructure unlike any other in Iowa. The 52-
acre system consists of a chain of 22 intermittent wet-
lands that flow into a larger series of crescent-shaped
wetland cells, effectively holding and filtering storm
water runoff from hundreds of residential properties.
The Greenway also provides wildlife habitat. More than
130 bird species, including sandhill cranes, may be ob-
served along the Greenway, and hundreds of waterfowl
visit the area each year during migration season. A pop-
ular 2 ½ mile paved trail winds through the Greenway,
connecting surrounding neighborhoods to Kickers Soc-
cer Park.
10
Planning Context
Land use planning helps guide future development to ensure consistency with the characteristfcs,
goals, and objectfves of the community. The City’s goals and objectfves guided the creatfon of the
South District Future Land Use Maps which illustrate where homes, jobs, and services may locate.
Tools that help implement this vision include City Code and other policies and programs.
Conventfonal zoning codes separate land uses into discrete districts with little mixing of uses. Unfor-
tunately, historic goals of land use planning has included enforcing racial segregatfon. Though the
courts invalidated racial zoning in 1917, new instruments were developed to that end. Single-family
zones and large minimum lot sizes promoted exclusionary practfces and class segregatfon.
Federal practfces also reinforced racial segregatfon. The Federal Housing Administratfon redlined ra-
cially diverse areas which made it harder to obtain mortgages or home improvement loans. Housing
benefits from the GI Bill were often unevenly provided to persons of color. Urban renewal projects
helped demolish neighborhoods occupied by persons of color. These policies determined who could
live where, and in what type of housing. It was not untfl 1968 that housing discriminatfon on the ba-
sis of race became illegal. However, segregatfon was already systemically entrenched, which has
shaped the availability of opportunitfes for many residents.
Strictly separatfng land uses meant conventfonal zoning also has contributed to greenhouse gas
emissions. As development occurred, it produced neighborhoods that were difficult to navigate by
anything other than a personal car. Highway constructfon further separated parts of the community
and reinforced an auto-oriented pattern of development. Traffic congestfon and greenhouse gas
emissions increased as a result.
Reminders of explicit racial seg-
regation in Iowa City are im-
portant. “Mapping Segregation
in Iowa City” (shown above)
illustrates race restrictive cove-
nants from 1910 to 1950. The
City has also designated local
historic landmarks like the Tate
Arms house (shown below),
which housed African American
students when they were not
allowed to live on the University
of Iowa Campus. As racial re-
strictions became illegal, other
methods to promote segrega-
tion become more common.
11
Moving Forward
One of Iowa City’s strategic goals is to “advance social justfce, racial equity and human rights”. While
land use decisions can reinforce existfng economic and racial inequitfes, they can also be a tool to
actfvely promote equity. Permitting a variety of housing types and price points by right can create
opportunitfes for all members of the community to live in different neighborhoods. In additfon, in-
volving diverse populatfons in decision-making and evaluatfng equity impacts of new policies are
important to addressing the issue.
Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate actfon. As part of the City’s Climate Actfon & Adapta-
tfon 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 achieving those goals are
improving the City’s building and transportatfon systems. Creatfng neighborhoods that can be easily
traversed by foot, bike, and bus in additfon to cars is a necessary step in that directfon.
To provide a tool which helps address goals related to equity and sustainability, the City should de-
velop form-based zones for greenfield development in the South District. Form-based standards can
reflect a context-specific approach to community character and are based on Iowa City's distfnct
development patterns in the historic downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods developed
prior to World War II. They should also protect natural areas throughout the South District, including
waterways. This can be accomplished by establishing zoning districts which focus less on land use
distfnctfons and more on the form of the built environment and its interactfons with the public
realm. Form-based land use is discussed more on pages 54-56.
Form-based codes can help address a number of related
issues including racial equity, housing affordability and
diversity, protection of the natural environment and habi-
tat (such as at Terry Trueblood Recreational Area shown
above), and sustainable initiatives such as reducing car
dependence.
12
1960
1970
What you can see: Residential development expanded in the 1960s
and 1970s to include the Bon Aire Mobile Home Park and single-family
detached housing that extended east of Sycamore Street as part of the
Hollywood Subdivision and south of Lakeside Drive around Regal Lane.
Lakeside Apartments (now called Rose Oaks) was developed as student
housing. Commercial centers are visible in the location of Pepperwood
Plaza and Sycamore Mall (now Iowa City Marketplace). Outside the
district, industrial uses expanded along Highway 6.
What you can see: Residential development south of Highway 6 began
with the Hilltop Mobile Home Park and the area that is now the Grant
Wood Neighborhood. Development of modest tract housing along Hol-
lywood Boulevard; Western and Union Roads; and Arizona, California,
and Nevada Avenues allowed workers to live near the Proctor and
Gamble plant just to the north via Fairmeadows Blvd.
THE GROWTH OF
SOUTH IOWA CITY
Hilltop Mobile Home Park
Beginning of Grant Wood
Neighborhood.
Bon Aire
Lakeside Apartments
Grant Wood
Elementary
Sand dredging
has not yet begun
13
1990
2014
What you can see: Residential neighborhood develop-
ment was more fully built out during the 1980s and early
1990s along both sides of Sycamore Street, as far south
as Burns and California Avenues and in the Pepperwood
Subdivision. Bon Aire Mobile Home Park expanded.
Wetherby and Napoleon Parks were both established
along with Grant Wood School. Sand Lake was becoming
visible as a sand dredging pond. In this aerial, wetlands
are visible in the area west of Snyder Creek.
Residential development is taking shape in the Sandhill
Estates subdivision off South Gilbert Street. The Pepper-
wood Subdivision is nearly fully built out. New subdivi-
sions are being constructed south of Lakeside and
Wetherby Drives. Multi-family development is completed
south of commercial areas along Keokuk Street and Cross
Park Avenue. The Saddlebrook neighborhood, which be-
gan with manufactured housing around Paddock Circle in
far southeast Iowa City, has expanded to include town-
homes, multi-family units, and duplexes along Heinz
Road. The Sycamore Greenway is established with a trail
connecting south to Kickers Soccer Park. Sand Lake, re-
tired as a dredging area, is transformed into a regional
attraction as Terry Trueblood Recreation Area.
Wetherby Park
Regal and
Amber Lanes
Pepperwood
Plaza
Saddlebook Terry
Trueblood
Recreation
Area
Sandhill Estates
14
2021
Since the plan was initially adopted in 2015, development has contin-
ued in residential subdivisions such as Brookwood Pointe, General
Quarters, and Sandhill Estates. In addition, Archibald Alexander Ele-
mentary was completed and now serves the area. The most recent
investment is the extension of McCollister Boulevard to Sycamore
Street, which improved circulation in the South District. New form-
based code standards should be designed to guide the area as addition-
al development continues. The standards should also help improve
walkability, increase housing diversity and affordability, and provide for
a more sustainable neighborhood pattern.
McCollister Blvd Extension
Alexander
Elementary
15
H o u s i n g
A variety of housing optfons ranging from manufactured housing, townhomes, apartment complex-
es, duplexes, and single-family detached homes provide opportunitfes for people of a variety of in-
come levels, ages, and household types in South Iowa City. This has allowed many residents to start
their adult lives here as renters, own a first home, and transitfon within their neighborhood as their
households grew or changed over tfme.
While more than half of the housing within the South District is detached single-family units, there is
considerable variety in home sizes, prices, and styles. Housing development that slowed during the
economic recession in 2008 has picked up considerably over the past 3 to 4 years. The announce-
ment of the new school locatfon on South Sycamore Street will add to the demand in this area. As
Grant Wood School is relieved of overcrowded conditfons, the surrounding neighborhood should
once again become more attractfve for families with young children.
Single-Family Housing
The development of single-family residentfal neighborhoods in South Iowa City began in the late
1950s with subdivisions south of the Procter and Gamble property. The Fairmeadows and Hollywood
subdivisions featured modest tract housing on small lots, providing an affordable optfon for workers
to live close to the Highway 6 industrial area.
Between 1960 and 1990, single-family neighborhoods extended west of Sycamore and south to Am-
ber and Regal Lanes with housing characteristfc of the period—a mix of split level and ranch homes
with attached garages. By the early 1990s, most of the single-family zone north of Lakeside Drive and
Burns Avenue was platted and developed, including the Pepperwood Neighborhood. Neighborhood
design is typical of the post-war period, with curvilinear or u-shaped streets and long block lengths
or, as in Pepperwood Neighborhood and Whispering Meadows neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs.
By the mid-1990s, development slowed in South Iowa City due to a need for infrastructure improve-
ments. The drafting of the 1997 South District Plan was tfmed to coincide with constructfon of the
South River Corridor Interceptor Sewer that would provide the necessary capacity for new neighbor-
hoods west of Sycamore Street. Meanwhile constructfon of the Sycamore Greenway, a regional
stormwater facility (completed in 2001), made development of neighborhoods east of Sycamore
Street feasible by enhancing drainage in an area that was otherwise susceptfble to flooding.
Newly platted lots in South Iowa City contfnue to be somewhat smaller than those platted in many
Homeownership
Based on data from the 2012 Five-Year American Community Survey.
16
other areas of the city. In part this is due to the flat topography, which allows for more development
per acre. In some areas of the district, primarily east of the Sycamore Greenway, a high water table
limits the constructfon of basements. These factors have made housing in South Iowa City affordable
by reducing land and constructfon costs.
Many single-family homes in the oldest neighborhoods are small by current standards (less than
1,100 square feet) and lack features considered standard on newer homes, such as attached two-car
garages. While these homes provide an affordable optfon for many homebuyers, including young
families and singles, maintenance costs for older homes can be higher. The City’s Housing Rehabilita-
tfon Program provides no-interest and low-interest loan funds are available for maintenance and
rehabilitatfon for homeowners who fall under certain income thresholds. One objectfve of the South
District Plan is for the City to work with neighborhood associatfons to make residents more aware of
these programs and, in partfcular, to encourage upgrades that will increase energy and water effi-
ciency, thereby reducing long-term costs of homeownership.
Manufactured Housing
South Iowa City’s manufactured housing parks are self-contained neighborhoods, so to speak, with
private streets that do not connect to the surrounding public street pattern. There are three manu-
factured housing parks in South Iowa City. Hilltop Mobile Home Park, established in 1957, was one
of the very first residentfal developments south of Highway 6. Situated on a wooded hillside in the
northwest corner of the planning district just south of Southgate Avenue, Hilltop includes 150 lots.
Bon Aire Mobile Home Lodge and Paddock Mobile Home Park in Saddlebrook are located in the far
east portfon of the planning district, along Highway 6. Bon Aire was established in 1967 and includes
more than 350 units. The Paddock, now part of the Saddlebrook neighborhood, was established in
the mid-1990s and includes 146 units.
Manufactured housing is an important source of affordable housing located close to major employ-
ment centers, including the industrial zone just north of the Highway 6. Many residents prefer man-
ufactured housing over multf-family or other rental housing. However, financing for manufactured
homes is complicated because the land is leased rather than owned. Since the banking crisis of 2008,
mortgages for manufactured housing have become quite expensive, driving down the market for
these homes. While it is unknown when the manufactured housing sector will recover, it is in the
City’s interest to ensure that manufactured housing parks remain safe and welcoming places to live.
“If redevelopment of the manufactured housing parks is contemplated in the future, the availability
of comparable housing and the impact on the residents should be considered.”
Flood Replacement Housing
After the flood of 2008, the Single Family New Con-
struction Program awarded downpayment assistance to
57 homes (single-family, duplex, and townhomes). One
third of the homes approved in the program were built
south of Hwy 6 and were limited to owner occu-
pants. The homes built under this program more than
made up the lost property tax revenues from the flood
buy-out program and offered several households an
opportunity for homeownership.
17
Multi-family Housing
As with manufactured housing, most multf-family development in South Iowa City is clustered close
to Highway 6. Apartment complexes on large tracts of land are organized around parking areas and,
in general, are not integrated with the local street network or block configuratfon. While this has
some advantages in terms of buffering single-family uses from the traffic associated with higher den-
sity housing, it also contributes to a feeling of social isolatfon within the neighborhood. Surveys con-
ducted by the Broadway Neighborhood Center indicate that some residents of large apartment com-
plexes feel less of an associatfon with the surrounding residentfal neighborhood. Because a large
proportfon of renters are temporary or new to the area, developing a sense of community, even
with immediate neighbors, takes tfme. For many residents in the multf-family developments, schools
provide a vital sense of connectfon.
Over the years there have been problems associated with some multf-family and rental propertfes in
the South District. These issues have largely arisen due to a combinatfon of poor or inconsistent
management, insufficient maintenance and investment, and in some case, poor constructfon and
site design. Building and site design for multf-family development is partfcularly important for dis-
couraging criminal actfvity. Targeted code enforcement and requirements for tenant background
screening have helped to improve the situatfon in some of the largest complexes.
In 2011, Southgate Development brought all buildings within what was known as the Broadway
Street Condominiums under single ownership. Originally constructed in the 1970s, over the years a
number of buildings within the development had come under the control of separate owners such
that management and maintenance were inconsistent. Within the development large parking areas
and other spaces hidden from view of the street or from apartment windows attracted criminal ac-
tfvity. Conditfons within these complexes became a concern not only for residents, but the larger
neighborhood and adjacent commercial propertfes.
Southgate Development invested $5.75 million, with the City of Iowa City contributfng $900,000 in
federal (CDBG) funds, to rehabilitate the apartments. As a conditfon of federal funding, at least fifty-
six of the units must be rented to people making less than 80 percent of the area's median income.
These units also have their rents capped at $802 a month, which is the fair-market value for a two-
bedroom apartment in the area. Dwelling units were updated and safety of the site was improved by
installing secured entrances, improved lightfng, and perimeter fencing. Management also requires
background checks for all residents. In response to neighborhood requests, the City located a police
substatfon in nearby Pepperwood Plaza, and engaged in more actfve patrol of the area, including
foot patrol. These changes have been successful in providing a safer, more attractfve living environ-
ment for residents.
Southgate Development has made substantial invest-
ments in the multi-family housing within South Iowa
tCIty o provide consistent management, maintenance,
and long-term investment in properties that were once
neglected or poorly managed.
18
The story of Lakeside Apartments—now The Quarters, formerly Rose Oaks —is a cautfonary tale of
the community impact when a large-scale multf-family project falls into decline. Originally con-
structed in 1966 to attract University of Iowa students with families, the development did not stand
the test of tfme. By the mid-1980s, tenant complaints about the management of the apartments
had become an issue for the city. Over the subsequent decades, a lack of re-investment and
maintenance led to further deterioratfon in the conditfon of the apartments, which then became
vulnerable to criminal actfvity.
The Iowa City Housing Authority cancelled all contracts (48 in all) and ended Housing Choice Vouch-
er use with Dolphin Lake Point Enclave in October 2012 due to health, safety, and management is-
sues. While the property suffered from poor maintenance, the need for low-income housing in the
metro area is so high that units remained occupied despite their conditfon. The situatfon has result-
ed in a concentratfon of poverty that has implicatfons for the community as a whole as well as the
school district.
In Spring 2015, the property sold to a new management company with plans to upgrade the units,
however the scope of rehabilitatfng and/or redevelopment of 400 units remains complex. The City
contfnues its stepped-up code enforcement, but it will take tfme, attentfon, and extensive resources
to turn the situatfon around. Meanwhile, with a limited supply of low-income housing in the metro
area, many residents have limited optfons for finding replacement housing.
Objectfves of the plan include enhanced code enforcement and well as increased fines or fees as
well as coordinatfon of efforts with the Iowa City Police and Fire Departments to identffy building
issues. The plan also supports rehabilitatfon or redevelopment of problem propertfes. Iowa City’s
Housing Inspectfon Division is working proactfvely with many landlords to ensure effectfve manage-
ment of rental propertfes. Since 2016, these apartments have been successfully upgraded and main-
tained as high-quality rental apartments.
DESIGNING FOR SAFETY
The physical design of a neighborhood or develop-
ment has an impact on safety and livability. The
balanced application of the following three princi-
ples can help to ensure the long-term health and
safety of residential areas:
Natural Surveillance. Design and maintenance that
allow spaces, both inside and outside buildings, to
be observed both by residents and people passing
through a neighborhood. Examples include lighting
of parking areas, entrances, exits, and other com-
mon areas; low or see-through fencing and land-
scaping; windows overlooking parking areas or
entrances.
Territoriality. Creating clear demarcation between
public, private, and semi-private spaces helps to
convey a sense of “ownership” and an awareness
that criminal activity will be noticed by someone.
Examples include signage, see-through screening or
fencing, gateways, and distinctive paving or land-
scaping to mark the transition between areas public
and private spaces.
Access Control. Decreasing access to areas where a
person with criminal intent could hide. Examples
include highly visible entrances or gateways
through which all users of a property must enter, or
the appropriate use of signage, door and window
locks, or fencing to discourage unwanted access
into private spaces or into dark or unmonitored
areas.
Iowa City’s Multi-family Design Standards include
some of these principles, such as requiring visible
building entrances oriented toward the street, land-
scaped setbacks around parking areas, and prohib-
iting sliding glass doors and unenclosed stairways as
primary means of access to an dwelling unit. The
principles were also applied to the Casey’s site
along Highway 6.
The Lakeside Apartments, recently re-
named The Quarters, formerly Rose Oaks ,
were originally constructed to attract UI
students with young families.
The above advertisement appeared the
Daily Iowan in August, 1967.
19
HOUSING —GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives for housing were developed from input gathered during the South
District Planning process. Achieving these goals may require additional dedication of resources,
including staff. Some actions will be implemented by the City. Others will require the effort of
landlords, developers, neighborhood associations, community groups, or other agencies.
GOAL 1: Improve and maintain existing housing stock in South Iowa City in order to ensure a healthy
balance of long-term residents and owner-occupied housing and to bolster neighborhood stability.
• Contfnue to make funds available and increase awareness of existfng programs available
through the City and other agencies that assist with the purchase or rehabilitatfon of homes.
• Work with the neighborhood associatfons and manufactured housing parks in South Iowa City
to raise awareness of housing rehabilitatfon programs.
• Identffy funds or incentfve programs make “green” improvements that conserve water and
energy, thereby reducing the long-term costs of owning a home.
EXAMPLES: Explore cooperative efforts with MidAmerican Energy.
Promote benefits of efficiency upgrades, such as door and window improvements, HVAC,
insulation, etc.
Investigate opportunities to become a Green Iowa AmeriCorps site.
• Support and promote programs or workshops for new or first-tfme homeowners to teach basic
home repair and maintenance skills.
GOAL 2: Encourage professional management and long-term maintenance and investment in all
rental properties for the general safety and welfare of tenants and to preserve property values
and promote neighborhood stability in South Iowa City.
• Encourage the improvement or redevelopment of substandard rental propertfes.
• Contfnue to enhance code enforcement to achieve compliance with rental and building regulatfons
for propertfes that receive a high number of complaints.
• Contfnue to coordinate communicatfon between the ICPD, Neighborhood Services, and non-profits
or neighborhood organizatfons to identffy and address safety and health issues in rental propertfes.
• Consider opportunitfes to recognize good property management within South Iowa City.
GOAL 3: Provide a diversity of housing in the South District, including a range of housing types, densitfes,
and price points, to help improve equity and sustainability .
• Adopt a form-based code for the South District that encourages a diversity of housing types, densi-
tfes, and price points.
Iowa City’s Housing Rehabilitation Programs provide fi-
nancial assistance to help homeowners maintain and
update residential property and ultimately contributes to
the value of Iowa City's housing stock.
CDBG & HOME Housing Rehabilitation Programs and the
Targeted Neighborhood Improvement Program provide
financial assistance to low- and moderate-income home-
owners to make repairs and improvements to their
homes. The programs primarily provide low-interest or no
-interest loans and/or conditional occupancy loans, de-
pending on the homeowner's ability to make monthly
payments on the loans.
The General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
(GRIP) is offered as a complement to the federally funded
CDBG/HOME programs without the same level of income
targeting. GRIP is designed to stabilize and revitalize
neighborhoods through the broader application of Hous-
ing Rehabilitation and Historic Preservation programs.
This program allows the City to offer low-interest loans
that are repayable over a 20-year period, with the money
awarded to qualified homeowners on a first-come, first-
served basis.
20
New Residential Development
The South District contains more than 1,500 acres of undeveloped land within the City’s growth
area, which extends as far south as the wastewater treatment facility. Much of the undeveloped
land remains in agricultural productfon (corn and soybeans).
An important goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to manage urban growth by encouraging
compact and connected neighborhoods. Compact development preserves farmland and sensitfve
environmental areas for future generatfons and saves taxpayer money by reducing transportatfon
and infrastructure costs and allowing efficient provision of snow removal, solid waste and recycling
pick-up, transit service, fire and police protectfon, and mail and other delivery services.
The goal of compact neighborhood design is to create village-like neighborhoods with housing for a
diverse populatfon, a mix of land uses, public space that is the focal point for the neighborhood,
integrated civic or small commercial centers, accessible open space, and streets that are pleasant
and safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
New South District neighborhoods should be built at a density and designed with a level of connec-
tfvity that enables families with children to walk to school and supports the extension of transit
service. Trail sectfons should occur with development in order to provide connectfons between
neighborhoods, new and old, to the many parks in South Iowa City and to provide convenient com-
muter routes for those who wish to bike to school, work, or to the Downtown.
While the predominant land use in South Iowa City’s new neighborhoods will remain detached,
single-family housing, new neighborhoods should provide opportunitfes for townhomes, duplexes,
and accessory apartments, as well as multf-family buildings in order to serve residents throughout
their lifetfmes. Integratfng a variety of housing types that are compatfble in scale throughout a
neighborhood is ideal. For example, single-family homes on lots interior to a block with duplexes
and attached single-family homes on corner lots creates a mix that remains similar in scale while
providing a range of unit sizes and price points within a neighborhood. House-scale multf-family
buildings may also appropriately fit the scale of the neighborhood.
Along busier street frontages, around neighborhood nodes, or where single-loaded streets border
public open space, “Middle Housing”* types such as townhouses, small apartment buildings (3-10
units), or cottage or bungalow courts may be built at a scale and mix that is compatfble with the
single-family neighborhoods. The additfonal density achieved through this mix can improve feasibil-
ity for transit service and enhance market potentfal for commercial uses in the district, including
the small-scale neighborhood commercial corners identffied in the plan.
Participants in the planning workshop pointed to the develop-
ment along Scott Boulevard and Old Towne Village Neighbor-
hood in Northeast Iowa City as a good example of a new neigh-
borhood with an attractive mix of housing. Townhomes face
the arterial street and commercial area, transitioning to duplex
and detached single-family homes in the interior of the neigh-
borhood. Quality building and site design, and ample open
space and landscaping help to make the higher density devel-
opment an attractive entrance to the area.
21
*”Missing Middle” is a term coined by Daniel Parolek of
Opticos Design, Inc., in 2010 to define a range of multi-
unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with
single–family homes that help meet the growing de-
mand for walkable urban living. These include duplexes,
townhouses, triplexes and fourplexes, courtyard apart-
ments, bungalow courts, and small apartment buildings
(5-10 units). To learn more about “missing middle”
housing, see http://missingmiddlehousing.com.
Getting the mix, scale, and parking placement right is essentfal to integratfng a variety of residentfal
types into a neighborhood. Buildings should be designed to be similar in scale (width, depth, height)
to single-family homes. Unit sizes may need to be smaller, but should be designed with similar atten-
tfon to detail and quality constructfon. Parking should be located to the rear with access from alleys,
private rear lanes, or similar shared drive solutfons where possible. Concentratfons of one housing
type in any one area should be avoided as this may create an obstacle to connectfvity and can upset
the balance of long- and short-term residents. Though the Middle Housing concept may currently be
achieved through the planned development process, the City should consider a form-based code to
help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatfble scale can be achieved. For this reason, the
City is working to apply form-based standards for greenfield sites in the area.
Higher density Middle Housing types must be thoughtiully designed so that they maintain an attrac-
tfve residentfal character along streets and provide safe and invitfng living environments for the resi-
dents. Landscaped front yards or courtyards with parking in the rear will provide a boulevard or park
-like setting along streets with uninterrupted sidewalks that encourage walking and biking.
Multf-family developments of a higher density should be considered along major streets, such as
McCollister Avenue, near neighborhood nodes, and along single-loaded streets overlooking open
space. Gilbert Street may also be an opportunity for proposals that provide a unique housing optfon
in South Iowa City, such as senior housing. Proposals should be of exceptfonal design and construc-
tfon quality, meet universal design standards, and high energy efficiency standards, including alter-
natfve energy or sitfng for geothermal or passive solar. The community’s substantfal investment in
Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area as a regional park should result in a sensitfve transitfon between
the man-made and natural environment with appropriate building and site design.
22
Any larger multf-family buildings should be integrated into the neighborhood by extending the es-
tablished street pattern and block size of surrounding residentfal development. Careful attentfon
should be given to site design, landscaping, and parking locatfon as well as opportunitfes for usable
private open space. This will assure that higher density housing does not diminish connectfvity or
detract from the overall quality of the neighborhood. Building and site designs should be evaluated
to ensure that they provide optfmal safety while supportfng social contact among residents. (See
Designing for Safety guidelines on page 16.)
Universal design should be encouraged in most housing types to maximize opportunitfes not only
for people with disabilitfes but to allow people to age in place.
Opportunitfes for increased additfonal density:
Property located along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the railroad, may be appropriate for town-
home or other small lot or duplex development. Multf-family units may be considered throughout the
area with denser housing located along major travel corridors, such as on property directly adjacent to
the intersectfons of Gilbert Street, and McCollister Boulevard, and Gilbert and Sycamore Street (future
Lehman), or near neighborhood nodes as shown on the future land use maps (p. 60). Sites near the
McCollister intersectfon may be attractfve for senior housing with views of surrounding open space (Sand
Prairie and Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area) and access to the trail network and transit routes. Additfon-
al density may be especially appropriate considered for projects that add a unique housing element or
that enhance housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectfvity and
sustainability of the neighborhood, including developments that improve connectfvity within the neigh-
borhood or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space.
As noted elsewhere in the plan, property on the east side of Gilbert Street that formerly served as a sand
dredging pond has recently been filled with excavated material. Before development can occur on this
site, the City will require a geotechnical analysis. If the soil is found to be suitable for development, high-
er density development should be considered along Gilbert Street, transitfoning from multf-family at the
arterial street intersectfons, to townhomes and/or duplexes, to predominantly detached single-family at
the core of the neighborhood.
Propertfes located around the intersectfon of McCollister Boulevard and South Sycamore Street may also
be appropriate for higher density development. A mix of missing middle housing types such as town-
houses, triplexes, fourplexes, and or cottage/bungalow courts may be considered along both sides of the
arterial streets near this intersectfon. Small apartment buildings (5 to 10 units), live-work units, and low-
scale mixed-use buildings may be integrated with the small main street, mixed-use corner identffied on
the plan maps. Density should step down, transitfoning from commercial uses to multf-family to town-
home or duplex toward the interior of the neighborhood where detached single-family housing will pre-
dominate.
The following areas may be candidates for clus-
tered density:
• West of the Pepperwood Subdivision,
wooded slopes make traditfonal develop-
ment impractfcal. In this area, the 2 to 8
dwelling units per acre envisioned on the
land use map on page 58 could be clus-
tered through an overlay planned develop-
ment. Such development would rely on an
extension of Cherry Street, which will pro-
vide improved connectfvity and circulatfon
for the single-family neighborhood to the
east by allowing residents more direct
street access to South Gilbert Street.
• Areas south of Lehman Road and east of
Pleasant Valley Golf Course fall within
1,000 feet of the Wastewater Plant, an
area in which the Iowa Department of Nat-
ural Resources recommends careful scrutf-
ny of residentfal development. As a result,
a buffer adjacent to the wastewater treat-
ment plan is appropriate, and residentfal
units in this area should take its proximity
into consideratfon prior to developmentRe-
ductfons of development potentfal on
these propertfes might be ameliorated by
allowing the 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre
envisioned in the land use map to be clus-
tered along Lehman Road or for density to
be transferred to nearby propertfes. A lim-
ited number of multf-family buildings may
be considered near the Sycamore “L” and
at the intersectfon of Lehman and Soccer
Park Roads.
23
FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIO
One scenario of the future development in the South District is shown in the future land use maps on pages 60-61The
Future Neighborhood Scenario offers an example of one possible way that new neighborhoods could develop in an area
immediately around the new Archibald Alexander Elementary School. The purpose of these maps this exercise is not to
prescribe a precise layout and mix of uses that are required for future development or to preclude development in other
areas of the district. Rather, the scenario is meant to demonstrate how, based on topography and existfng features
(easements, major roads, and established trail or street connectfons) the area could develop in accord with Iowa City’s
subdivision regulatfons and zoning code, including any new form-based code standards, and the goals for walkability and
sense of place included in this district plan. The mapsscenario illustrates a potentfal street network and a mix of housing
types, locatfons of parks, open space, and trails, as well as commercial or mixed use areas.
As development occurs, each subdivision will contribute to the overall quality and sustainability of the entfre district by
enhancing walkability and connectfvity. Preserving opportunitfesy for a small neighborhood commercial or mixed use de-
velopment, including at the intersectfon of McCollister Boulevard and Sycamore Street, may helps to create a community
anchors for the surrounding neighborhoods.
This Neighborhood Scenario illustrates a con-
cept for maximizing connectivity to allow great-
er access to neighborhood assets such as parks,
trails, and schools. Residential areas provide an
attractive and vibrant mix of well-designed
housing types and densities. The neighborhood
concept is anchored by a small, mixed-use com-
mercial area.
24
WHAT MAKES A
SUCCESSFUL PLACE?
Great public spaces are where cele-
brations are held, social and eco-
nomic exchanges take place,
friends run into each other, and
cultures mix. They are the “front
porches” of our public institu-
tions—libraries, parks, houses,
neighborhood schools—where we
interact with each other and the
government. When the spaces
work well, they serve as a stage for
our public lives. (From the Project
for Public Spaces. http://
www.pps.org/reference/
grplacefeat.)
25
Neighborhood Quality
When asked what they like best about living in South Iowa City, partfcipants in the planning work-
shop and on-line survey most frequently noted convenience, affordability, access to open space and
trails, and the diversity of its populatfon and neighborhoods. While work, shopping, and schools
(kindergarten through 12th grade) are just a short car trip away for most residents of the district,
South Iowa City’s neighborhoods feel like a retreat from the hustle and bustle of life in areas closer
to the Downtown and University Campus. Respondents frequently used adjectfves such as quiet,
green, and family-friendly to describe their neighborhoods.
However, the broader public perceptfon of South Iowa City is something altogether different. Resi-
dents point to media reports, real estate agents, and public debates over school district boundaries
and affordable housing as frequently perpetuatfng a misperceptfon about what life is like in this part
of the community. Through a variety of surveys, interviews, and focus groups, the Broadway Neigh-
borhood Center has engaged residents in identffying the partfcular challenges and opportunitfes that
exist in South Iowa City, especially for renters and low-income or minority residents. The results of
their efforts, along with the planning process undertaken for this district planning update, coalesce
around three prioritfes:
• Fostering a stronger sense of community—one that embraces renters and other residents who
are new to the community.
• Expanding organized actfvitfes for the high populatfon of youth and children, including mentor-
ing for low-income and minority teens.
• Projectfng a positfve image of South Iowa City reflectfve of its many assets, especially its many
environmental features.
The opening of Archibald Alexander Elementary is widely regarded as a pivotal event for achieving all
of these goals. The school and the development antfcipated around it provide a catalyst for trans-
forming the image of South Iowa City and strengthening the sense of community for those who live
here. Also, reducing the strain on Grant Wood, which the Iowa City Community School District con-
siders overcrowded, will help make the existfng neighborhood more attractfve to families with
school-age children. The density of single-family development and a well-connected street system
that surrounds Grant Wood Elementary make it one of the most walkable neighborhood schools in
the entfre school district.
WHAT RESIDENTS LIKE
ABOUT SOUTH IOWA CITY:
“Near enough to get
whatever I need, but far
enough away to enjoy my
life.”
“Diverse, affordable,
close to schools.”
“Natural landscapes,
close to downtown, quiet.”
“I like the mix of residents—age,
ethnicity, income, education,
homeowners, renters, singles,
couples, families.”
“Near several parks and close
enough to downtown to
commute by bus, bike, or
walking.”
“Lots of families.
Friendly, inclusive attitude.”
26
NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY —GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives for neighborhood quality were developed from input gathered
during the South District planning process. Achieving these goals will require a cooperative effort.
Some actions may be implemented by the City, however many are more appropriately initiated by
residents, neighborhood associations, community groups, schools, businesses, or other stakehold-
ers in South Iowa City.
GOAL 1: Foster a strong and inclusive sense of community in South Iowa City neighborhoods.
A. Create or support opportunities for residents and neighbors to get to know each other.
• Contfnue support for block partfes, “Party in the Park” events, and other neighborhood gath-
erings—movies, music, art, etc.
• Support Blue Zones efforts to get people actfve by hostfng regular walking and biking events
on the South District trails. Encourage the establishment of festfvals or other special events
that celebrate the unique qualitfes of South Iowa City, including its cultural diversity. For ex-
ample: commercial areas could encourage social actfvity by hostfng special events—farmers
markets, food truck night, live music, dance, roller derby, etc.
• Support special events that reintroduce the larger community to South Iowa City. For exam-
ple: encourage nonprofits to host run, walk, and bike events on South Iowa City’s trails.
B. Reinforce a shared experience of place.
• Identffy areas within the district that can be enhanced with public art, community gardens,
improved bus stops, lightfng, or other features that encourage social gathering or interactfon.
• Reinforce local identfty through the consistent use of identffiable visual elements in street
signs, bus stops, kiosks, streetscape improvements, banners, etc.
• Establish an inventory of names that reflect the unique history and geography of South Iowa
City to be used for future street and place names (e.g. park or trail names) within the district.
• Consider using mailbox clusters as space for neighborly interactfon, working with developers
to include trail maps, bulletfn boards, seatfng, plantfngs or other features that encourage
neighbors to get to know one another. (This may involve PIN grants.) Locate mailbox clusters
in areas that are appropriate and welcoming for neighbors to linger (e.g. pocket parks or ad-
jacent to private open space or trails).
27
C. Welcome new residents and help orient them to their new community. Such an effort
should involve a broad collaboration of neighborhood groups, businesses, realtors, and
developers.
• Consider updatfng the Newcomer’s Guide on the City’s website, and actfvely promote the site
as one-stop-shopping for new residents, including links to neighborhood groups and pro-
gramming.
• Contfnue to improve outreach to minoritfes and non-English speaking residents to encourage
their actfve partfcipatfon in neighborhood events and awareness of City programs and pro-
cesses. This may require translatfon services.
D. Encourage and support residents, neighborhood organizations, and business and property
owners to advocate for the continued improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Provide open and proactfve communicatfon between the City and Southside neighbors
through the tfmely disseminatfon of informatfon on grant opportunitfes, capital improve-
ments, development proposals, and zoning applicatfons.
• Contfnue support for Neighborhood Outreach as an essentfal resource for neighborhood in-
formatfon and organizatfon efforts.
• Contfnue support for community policing and encourage bike and foot patrols to make police
officers a friendly and visible part of the neighborhood.
E. Create and sustain vibrant social gathering spaces.
• Explore the potentfal for a community center as an anchor for neighborhood actfvity/identfty.
This will likely require partnerships (and fundraising) between organizatfons that have a need
for expanded facilitfes—local non-profits, Bike Library, local foods organizatfons, arts organi-
zatfons, etc.
• Consider opportunitfes for community use of the resource center and gymnasium space at
Grant Wood Elementary and the expanded gym at Archibald Alexander.
• Explore opportunitfes for a satellite library or other services or programming.
Participants at the South District planning work-
shop were invited to suggest a tagline or motto to
convey a true sense of what makes living in South
Iowa City great. One group came up with the
phrase “Start here, stay here” to express the
many opportunities that exist in South Iowa City
for people of all ages, especially young families.
28
F. Promote community stewardship and investment by engaging residents in improving their
neighborhood.
• Encourage annual volunteer events to bring neighbors together—park improvement events,
street or yard clean-ups, recycling days, neighborhood garage sale or swap events, etc.
• Engage neighborhood groups in planning for the improvement of the south portfon of
Wetherby Park as development surrounds the park. Design this process as an opportunity to
strengthen community connectfon.
• Involve youth groups in planning for and undertaking improvements and advocacy efforts in
the district. For example: trail/park clean-ups, tree plantfng, public art, special event organiz-
ing, community gardens.
GOAL 2. Expand opportunities for children and youth in South Iowa City.
A. Support the establishment of quality, affordable daycare and preschool in South Iowa City.
• Encourage childcare services as development and redevelopment occurs in both commercial
and residentfal zones, especially in areas near Grant Wood and Archibald Alexander Elemen-
tary Schools.
• Consider incentfves to attract daycare to the area identffied for future neighborhood com-
mercial and promote availability of daycare as an asset to attract new families to the district.
B. Continue support for before- and after-school programming at Grant Wood and Archibald
Alexander and elementary and summer programming at Southside parks and schools.
C. Support efforts to address the needs of children and youth in South Iowa City.
• Identffy and address obstacles to partfcipatfon in existfng programs .
• Identffy potentfal funding sources—public and private—to expand programming or support
partfcipatfon among area youth.
• Pursue partnerships and scholarships with existfng arts, athletfc, and other community pro-
grams to ensure that children can partfcipate in extracurricular actfvitfes.
• Explore feasibility of a Youth Corps program to engage young people, especially low-income
and minority youth, in neighborhood improvement, skill training, etc. For example: a Youth
Green Corps could assist with programs focused on improving the district and create oppor-
tunitfes for young people to meet, learn from, and complete projects for various City divi-
sions as well as neighborhood groups and businesses.
Photo: Anne Duggan
Photo from Diversity Focus
Youth Off-Road Riders is a program focused on competi-
tive and recreational cycling sponsored by the Neighbor-
hood Centers of Johnson County.
Youth Performance Arts Academy is sponsored by The
Dream Center.
Nonprofit organizations like the Neighborhood Centers of
Johnson County, The Dream Center , and The Spot are
providing unique opportunities for children and youth in
South Iowa City, including training, tutoring, mentorship,
and recreational programs.
29
GOAL 3. Focus on South Iowa City as a sustainable district by promoting its many advantages:
housing affordability and choice, access to work and recreation, cultural diversity, neighborhood
connectivity and walkability, alternative transportation, and environmental conservation.
A. Acknowledge and promote the environmental, social, and economic benefits of
walkability for South Iowa City.
• Support the principles of compact, walkable development in all new neighborhoods.
• Actfvely plan for bus service expansion, ensuring a density of development that will sup-
port extension of bus routes along major arterials.
• Extend the Highway 6 trail system and create better pedestrian connectfons to commer-
cial and industrial propertfes along both sides of the highway.
• Complete the circuit of trails that connect South Iowa City’s parks and neighborhoods as
development occurs.
• Ensure that future commercial nodes located south of Highway 6 are pedestrian- and bi-
cycle-friendly and enhance opportunitfes for extension of public transit.
B: Accentuate South Iowa City’s connection to the environment and outdoor recreation.
• Incorporate trees and other landscaping features along major rights-of-way as part of in-
frastructure improvement projects.
• Provide distfnctfve landscaping, including low-maintenance natfve plantfngs at major en-
trances to South Iowa City and at intersectfons of arterial streets.
• Consider unique signage, public art, and other amenitfes such as bus shelters, seatfng, and
wayfinding along major rights-of-way.
• Collaborate with developers and realtors in promotfng South Iowa City’s environmental
and recreatfonal assets.
C. Maximize resource conservation in South Iowa City.
• Consider recycling receptacles at public parks and other public facilitfes, especially high-
use areas such as Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area and Kickers Soccer Park.
• Offer incentfves or assistance for planning “no-waste” events that make use of recyclable/
compostable materials.
• Encourage all City-sponsored events in the district to maximize use of recycling and local
purchasing.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
“Place names are also symbols to which
people attach meaning and from which they
draw identity. . . They are one of the most fun-
damental ways in which people connect with
places.”—Derek Alderman
“Place Names. ” The Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Sage
Publications (2006)
A list of potential street names for South
Iowa City:
Geologic: Sperry, Garwin, Walford, Zook,
Colo, Ely, Ackmore, Houghton, Elvira, Loess,
Lake Calvin, Dune, Swale
Birds: Dowitcher, Sandpiper, Avocet, Pelican,
Plover, Scaup, Grebe, Merganser, Teal, Bittern
Other animals: Bullfrog, Peeper, Chorus Frog,
Sandshell, Heelsplitter, Papershell, Slider, Box
Turtle, Painted Turtle
Plants: Puccoon, Penstemmon, Vervain, Trefoil,
Switchgrass, Bluestem, Lobelia, Sedge, Anemo-
ne, Wild Iris, Arrowwood, Buttonbush
Environmentalists: Ding Darling, Leopold, Car-
son, Pammel, Hayden, Madson, MacBride,
Rhodes, Seiberling
Mesquakie names: Wacochachi, Poweshiek,
Bear, Fox, Thunder, Wolf
Historic: Trading House, Ripple, Trowbridge,
Morford, Felkner, Sanders, Howard, McNeil
30
• Promote energy and water conservatfon features of new development. Identffy buildings
or sites that could benefit from solar arrays, reflectfve rooftops, and other energy/
conservatfon upgrades such as new windows, lightfng, entryway improvements, plug-in
statfons, and improved bike, pedestrian, and bus facilitfes.
• Recognize private sector investment in energy conservatfon efforts.
D. Initiate a multi-year effort to draw visitors to South Iowa City focusing on area parks,
trails, and environmental areas.
• Partner with organizatfons to host seasonal park-to-park bike or running events showcas-
ing the Iowa River Corridor Trail.
• Maximize use of Kickers Soccer Park, including tournaments, club and recreatfonal soccer,
ultfmate Frisbee, etc.
• As part of Blue Zones efforts, organize walking clubs at Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area
for targeted demographics—senior walk days, mommy meet-ups, etc.
• Promote events that focus on South Iowa City’s environmental assets, such as bird watch-
ing, fishing, prairie restoratfon, etc.
F. Incorporate local foods, art, and culture as part of revitalization efforts.
• Extend the City of Literature and other arts programming to South Iowa City.
• Support efforts to celebrate South Iowa City’s unique cultural diversity.
• Consider affordable or under\utflized sites for potentfal indoor or outdoor facilitfes for
arts and cultural programming or local food productfon or distributfon, and encourage
partnerships between such programs to enhance funding opportunitfes and shared re-
sources.
Yellow Velo is a concession stand and bike rental that
operates in City Park during the summer as part of the
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County’s youth em-
ployment program. The program provides employment
and job skill training for neighborhood youth to sell sim-
ple, healthy food (much of it locally produced). A similar
program might be considered for a park in South Iowa
City.
In the City of Literature, access to reading materials is a
priority—one that the Antelope Lending Library takes
seriously. The mobile library was founded (and driven) by
Cassandra Elton, a graduate student in library science
who works at Grant Wood Elementary’s after-school pro-
gram. For many families, getting to the library downtown
is difficult, so Antelope Library brings the books to them,
providing service at area parks in South Iowa City and
other neighborhoods.
31
Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Open space is, perhaps, the defining feature of the South Planning District, which has nearly 380
acres of public land, including eight parks—more than any other planning district in the city. An addi-
tfonal 200 acres of wetlands are preserved in a private conservatfon area just south of the Saddle-
brook development in the far eastern portfon of the planning district. South Iowa City is also home
to Friendly Farm—Johnson County’s only urban organic farm—and Pleasant Valley Golf Course.
Community members, neighborhood groups, nonprofits, and athletic organizations have participat-
ed in shaping and improving South Iowa City’s parks and trails—including advocating for preserva-
tion of environmentally sensitive areas, fundraising for improvements, designing new features, and
sponsoring programming. Many participants in the on-line survey and planning workshop noted that
ready access to parks, trails, and unique natural features is what drew them to the area.
E x i s t i n g P a r k s
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: Developed on the site of a former sand dredging pond just east of
the Iowa River, Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area (TTRA) is one of Johnson County’s premier nature
areas, a birding “hotspot,” and the crown jewel of South Iowa City’s “emerald necklace” of parks.
The idea for developing the former sand dredging pond as park was a goal included in the 1997
South District Plan. The 207-acre recreatfon park, which opened in 2013, encompasses a 95-acre
lake that includes a beach, fishing jetties, and boat ramps. In additfon to operatfng a concession
stand, a private vendor provides canoe, kayak, and paddleboard rental during warm weather and ice
skate rental during the winter. The Park Lodge has become a popular venue for weddings, partfes,
and other events and meetfngs. The two-mile bike/pedestrian trail that circles the lake links to the
Iowa River Trail, providing a safe and pleasant off-road commute to the UI campus and Riverfront
Crossings District. With the purchase of riverfront land to the west of the lake, there are plans to add
camp sites and related facilitfes in the future.
Open space and access to unique natural areas are two
defining characteristics of South Iowa City. Above, a sunset
view of fishing at the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area.
Photo by Cyndi Ambrose
32
Sand Prairie Park: A remnant of a very rare type of prairie, Sand Prairie Park provides and attractfve
entrance to the residentfal neighborhoods south of the Crandic Railroad, and affords impressive
sunset views over the Iowa River. The property was once home to the Ornate Box Turtle, a protect-
ed species in the state of Iowa. In antfcipatfon of development that would reduce the area in which
turtles could forage for food, more than 50 turtles were relocated to another site by the Iowa De-
partment of Natural Resources.
Forty-six acres were preserved, thanks to the cooperatfve effort of neighborhood residents, natural-
ists, the Iowa City Parks Department, and Southgate Development. Concerned Citizens for Sand Prai-
rie Preservation (CCSPP), a local nonprofit formed to preserve the site, and provided detailed re-
search on its ecological significance. Working with Randall Arendt, a nationally renowned conserva-
tion landscape architect, Southgate Development designed a residential subdivision that clustered
housing in order to preserve the prairie, setting aside 18 acres for permanent open space. The re-
maining land was acquired by Iowa Natural Heritage and transferred to City ownership in 2005.
Whispering Meadows: Whispering Meadows Wetland Park is a 17-acre park constructed on property
donated to the City by a local development company. The land was previously used for row crops,
but was poorly drained and contained 3 wetlands. Geoscience professor Lon Drake worked with the
City to develop the park concept. The park was established in 1994 and planted to represent three
botanical communitfes: wetland, wet meadow, and mesic prairie. Beaver are occasional residents of
the park, which contains a pond with a boardwalk and a trail. Due to lack of maintenance, many of
the plants were lost and the park has been overwhelmed by reed canary grass—an invasive species.
Regular maintenance is necessary to ensure the park can functfon as a wetland and to ensure that it
does not become an eyesore for adjacent private property owners.
Napoleon Park: Napoleon Park is a 29-acre softball facility and a trailhead for the Iowa River Corridor
Trail. The park was established in 1978 as the home to Iowa City Girls Softball, an affiliate of the
Parks and Recreatfon Department. This nonprofit organizatfon provides recreatfonal softball oppor-
tunitfes for K-12 girls. The park currently provides 8 ball fields as well as restrooms and a concession
stand.
Kickers Soccer Park: Located on the south edge of the district adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Kickers Soccer Park is a 108-acre sports complex with 20 soccer pitches in additfon to 2 base-
ball fields. The park was established on land that was acquired for the wastewater plant and uses
graywater to irrigate fields. It is home to the Iowa City Kickers recreatfonal league, a nonprofit or-
ganizatfon that provides soccer opportunitfes for youth (k-12th grade) in Iowa City, Coralville, North
Liberty, and surrounding communitfes. The park is connected to neighborhoods to the north by the
Sycamore Greenway Trail.
A view of the pond at Sand Prairie.
Kickers Soccer Park draws hundreds of players from
throughout eastern Iowa to south Iowa City during the play-
ing season. Both recreational and club leagues use the site.
33
Fairmeadows Park: This 5-acre neighborhood park serving the Grant Wood neighborhood, was es-
tablished in 1966 on property adjacent to Grant Wood Elementary School. In many ways, the park
and school playground functfon together, serving both the school and the neighborhood. The park
includes a splash pad, playground, open playing field, picnic shelter, and restrooms. In 2014 the
Public Art Program commissioned a mural at the park. Given its locatfon near the school and high-
density multf-family housing, the park serves as much-needed play space for many neighborhood
children. The lack of supervision at the park has sometfmes created a nuisance for neighbors, but
the splash pad has provided a much-needed neighborhood attractfon. Residents would like to see
additfonal improvements at the park, including lightfng and soccer nets.
Wetherby Park: This 24-acre neighborhood park was established in 1975. In additfon to a splaspad,
picnic shelter, bastketball court, playground, playing fields, and Frisbee golf, the park features com-
munity garden plots and is the home to Backyard Abundance Edible Forest. The Wetherby Friends
Neighborhood Associatfon was instrumental in securing funds for installatfon of the splashpad and
renovatfon of the picnic shelter. Wetherby now is one of Iowa City’s most actfvely used parks and
has helped to foster the sense of community that residents seek. However, limited street access
creates a barrier for park users. Street access is important for visibility—that’s how people know a
park is there. It also allows such a large park to be more actfvely supervised, used, and maintained
by both the City and neighborhood. While the north end of the park is developed for actfve uses,
the south end is isolated and offers few features. Additfonal vehicle parking and pedestrian access
along with improvements to the south end of the park should occur with residentfal development.
Opportunitfes to expand street visibility should be explored.
Sycamore Greenway: Though not technically part of the Iowa City park system, the Sycamore
Greenway is an important public open space feature of the district. The corridor functfons as a
stormwater detentfon and filtratfon area that reduces flooding and improves water quality for the
Iowa River (see page 9). The wetlands are home to a diverse populatfon of woodland, prairie, and
riparian species and are a birding hotspot. The 2.2-mile South Sycamore Greenway Trail is an-
chored at the north by Grant Wood Elementary and Kickers Soccer Park to the south.
Splash pads at Fairmeadows and Wetherby Parks are a sum-
mertime attraction to South Iowa City neighborhoods.
[photo courtesy the Daily Iowan]
Wetherby Park is a major neighborhood attraction, but with
street access limited to Taylor Drive, the park lacks visibility
and accessibility for both vehicles and pedestrians. Opportu-
nities for additional access points, including active street
frontage, should be explored to improve overall awareness
of the park and to help foster a sense of ownership by the
broader neighborhood.
WETHERBY PARK
34
A v i s i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e
Broader community awareness of the parks and natural areas in the district could help to improve
the image of South Iowa City. One suggestion that received popular support in the public workshop
was the idea of promoting South Iowa City as a “green” district. This effort could be extended be-
yond park boundaries to include wayfinding and aesthetic enhancements (e.g. trees and landscap-
ing) along major street corridors (Highway 6, McCollister Boulevard, South Gilbert and Sycamore
Street) or at identified “gateways” to South Iowa City. Participants in the planning workshop envi-
sion unique signage, bus stops, bicycle parking, trash and recycling receptacles, and public art to
help to solidify this green image as part of a South Iowa City brand.
While residents are supportive of new neighborhood development, they want developers to take a
sensitive approach to subdivision design—one that improves connectivity and preserves natural
features and a sense of open space. This includes providing logical connections to trails and visible
access to parks; preserving and integrating unique environmental features as central components
in new subdivisions (as was done with the Sand Prairie Preserve); and ensuring long-term mainte-
nance and health of private open space, a responsibility that ultimately falls to homeowners’ asso-
ciations, by educating new homebuyers about the function and value of shared open space.
Creating small pocket parks (1 acre or less) allows residential neighborhoods to develop with a
healthy density while providing opportunities for the kind of social connection that fosters a sense
of community. Providing visible access to public parks and open space, including single-loaded
streets or well-designed pedestrian routes, helps to ensure that parks benefit the entire neighbor-
hood and can have safety benefits as well.
Volunteer projects and educational outreach are seen as useful ways to connect residents to envi-
ronmental and other outdoor resources in the district and to encourage a sense of stewardship for
communal spaces. Participants in the planning process strongly support efforts by the Parks De-
partment, local organizations, and neighborhood associations to engage the public (especially
school-age children) with the natural environment, including South Iowa City’s unique geology and
natural history.
Workshop participants envisioned unique signage to
help solidify the image of South Iowa City as a green
district and a sort of playground for the community
based on its access to parks, open space and trails.
The north trailhead for the Sycamore Greenway is en-
hanced with two artistic pillars that call attention to and
celebrate the trail and the cultural diversity of the Grant
Wood Neighborhood. The public art project was jointly
sponsored by the Iowa City Public Art Program, Grant
Wood Neighborhood Association, and City High School.
35
The Parks and Recreation Department Mas-
ter Plan (completed in 2009) includes com-
munity interest inventory for park and rec-
reation facilities and services. Respondents
indicated a desire for walking and biking
trails (79%), nature center and trails (68%),
small neighborhood parks (68%), large
community parks (66%), and wildlife and
natural areas (64%). The South District is
unique among Iowa City’s 10 planning dis-
tricts in that it provides all of these facili-
ties.
South District Public Parks
1. Napoleon Park (softball)
2. Sand Prairie Park
3. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area
4. Kickers Soccer Park
5. Sycamore Greenway
6. Whispering Meadows Wetland Park
7. Fairmeadows Park
8. Wetherby Park
36
P A R K S , T R A I L S, A N D O P E N S P A C E
G O A L S A N D O B J E C T I V E S
The following goals and objectives were developed from input gathered during the South District
planning process. Some actions will be implemented by the City. Others will require the effort of
residents, neighborhood associations, community groups, or other agencies or interested parties.
Goal 1: Create broad community awareness of South Iowa City’s extensive park and trail system
and its unique environmental areas.
• Support a collaboratfve partnership between neighborhood organizatfons, realtors, and other
interest groups to build a “brand identfty” for South Iowa City based on its parks and natural
features—a “green district.” [See the Neighborhood Quality sectfon of the plan, page 23.]
• Encourage neighborhood associatfons, property owners, developers, and realtors to promote
South Iowa City’s green elements and to ensure the long-term maintenance of its parks and
open spaces. This could be achieved with signage, brochures, educatfonal outreach, web or
other on-line efforts, etc.
• Enhance major street corridors and public rights-of-way to build a unified identfty for South
Iowa City based on its recreatfonal and natural features. For example: trees, natfve landscaping,
unique gateway signs, transit stops, or art reflectfve of the area’s green components.
• Choose street, subdivision, and other place names that refer to natural features of the district,
such a plants, animals, soils, geologic formatfons, local environmentalists, etc.
• As development around Wetherby Park occurs, encourage subdivision designs that maximize
visibility and access to the park.
Goal 2. Preserve environmentally sensitive features and ensure long-term stewardship for the
benefit of the neighborhood and the community.
• Where possible, incorporate environmental features as integral elements of subdivision de-
signs.
• Encourage developers to collaborate with homeowner or neighborhood associatfons and real-
tors to promote these natural elements as integral features of their development.
Management of natural areas, such as the Sand Prairie
and Sycamore Greenway, require controlled burning.
Because the use of fire can raise concerns among neigh-
borhood residents, it is important to engage the public
with the many benefits of fire as well as the precautions
taken to ensure its safe use.
The Edible Forest at Wetherby Park is being established
through a collaboration between the Parks Department
and Backyard Abundance, a nonprofit community group.
37
Goal 3: Plan, create, and improve parks and other open spaces that foster social interaction and a
sense of community within the neighborhoods.
• Encourage small pocket parks (1 acre or less) in new neighborhoods as they develop, especially
in future neighborhoods east of Sycamore Street.
• Include a small open space or a plaza in conjunctfon with neighborhood commercial sites to
serve as a community gathering spot.
• Encourage usable private open space in associatfon with future multf-family and townhome de-
velopments that do not otherwise have direct access to public open space.
• Identffy opportunitfes to establish additfonal community gardens and partner with neighbor-
hood groups and nonprofits to ensure appropriate maintenance of these spaces.
• Engage the neighborhood in planning for improvements at the south end of Wetherby Park as
residentfal neighborhoods develop along its border, and ensure additfonal pedestrian and vehi-
cle access to the park with appropriate and safe transitfons between residentfal propertfes and
public space.
• Consider the feasibility of a small off-leash dog area in South Iowa City.
• Explore development potentfal of the former sand dredging pond on the east side of Gilbert
Street. If soil stability is not appropriate for development, consider potentfal for recreatfonal or
community use of the site (e.g. gardens, urban agriculture, outdoor performance space, etc.).
Goal 4: Pursue partnerships with neighborhood and community organizations, nonprofits, and
schools to promote stewardship and use of existing parks.
• Support efforts by local organizatfons to increase appreciatfon of South Iowa City’s natural fea-
tures among residents, including children and youth, through educatfonal and volunteer pro-
grams.
• Inspire neighborhood/community preservatfon and stewardship of natural areas by promotfng
its functfon as wildlife habitat, stormwater filtratfon, flood control, etc.
Goal 5: Provide appropriate trail links between parks, neighborhoods, and the new school.
• Ensure safe access between the new elementary school and surrounding neighborhoods and
parks.
• Provide a connectfon between Wetherby Park and Sand Prairie Park.
A sand dredging pond located along the east side of Gil-
bert Street, near Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, is cur-
rently being filled. Future development potential will de-
pend on stability of the fill. If it is determined that the site
is not suitable for residential uses, the property could be
adapted for a park, recreation, or another community use.
38
PLANNED MULTI -USE
TRAILS & WIDE SIDWALKS
As development continues in the South Dis-
trict, the accompanying map will help guide
property acquisition for trails that connect
with the existing network of trails and other
bicycle facilities.
Wetherby Park will be at the heart of new
development in the area and trail connections
to Sand Prairie, Trueblood Recreation Area,
and the Sycamore Greenway will provide resi-
dents with unique recreational opportunities,
access to local natural resources, and indirect-
ly encourage physical activity.
The Sycamore Greenway could expand into
the Kickers Soccer Park to improve access for
disabled visitors and provide a loop for walk-
ing and biking. Extending connections to the
Greenway from Paddock Circle or as wide
sidewalks along the future alignment of
McCollister Boulevard will also increase use of
this resource.
Another important addition to the transporta-
tion network is the planned trail extension
along Highway 6, which will connect residen-
tial, commercial, and manufacturing land us-
es, allowing residents to walk and bike be-
tween these destinations.
39
S t r e e t s , Tra i l s , a n d S i d e w a l k s
A r t e r i a l S t r e e t s
Arterial streets are the main travel corridors of the city, the primary function of which is to carry
traffic through and between neighborhoods. In general, maintaining efficient automobile traffic
flow on arterial streets helps to prevent cut-through traffic on local residential streets. Modern
arterial street design is intended to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians as well as motorized
vehicles. Trees and other landscaping in the right-of-way, between the sidewalk and the street,
provide additional separation, creating a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians
and a welcoming entrance into the adjacent neighborhoods.
While the design of any specific arterial street is dependent on its context, the basic principles
remain the same: provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes,
including comfortable and safe environments for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The South District is served by four arterial streets: U.S. Highway 6, McCollister Boulevard, South
Gilbert Street, and South Sycamore Street. Due to a lack of connectivity within the local street
system, South Iowa City’s arterial streets have taken on a heightened role as travel corridors for
all modes of transportation.
U.S. Highway 6, a divided four-lane roadway, crosses the entire Planning District, forming its
northern boundary. As a federal highway, it functions as a regional vehicular corridor connecting
surrounding communities. Because it is the sole east-west travel route for South Iowa City, High-
way 6 is an integral connection between residential neighborhoods and commercial and employ-
ment areas. Many residents of south-side neighborhoods rely on the highway for their daily
trips, even within the district. Much of South Iowa City’s identity, for better or worse, is tied to
the highway. Its significance—both as a connection and a barrier—should not be overlooked.
Though it provides a convenient and efficient corridor for automobiles moving across the dis-
trict, Highway 6 was originally designed and constructed as a federal highway with few accom-
modations for non-motorists. Commercial and industrial properties along the corridor are orien-
tated toward the highway and have little integration with the local streets that serve the adja-
cent neighborhoods.
Iowa City constructed a paved trail along the south side of Highway 6, beginning at the Iowa Riv-
er (where it branches off from the Iowa River Corridor Trail) and traveling along the commercial
corridor, just east of Broadway Street (at Casey’s). Extending the trail will provide better connec-
tion between neighborhoods at the east end of the district, including manufactured housing
“ A body without good bones will fall apart.
. . . Streets are the bones of communities.
A community that lacks good streets will
suffer in its economy, its social well-being,
and its health.”—Robert Steuteville,
Better Cities, Better Towns (2015)
“If there is one class of improvements
which is more necessary, which becomes
more permanent and unalterable, or which
exerts a stronger influence upon the indi-
viduality and general physical aspect of
the city, than any other, it is the layout
of the streets. The street layout deter-
mines, in a very large degree, how the
people shall live, how they shall travel to
and fro, how they shall work and play; it
has a direct influence upon the character
of the home and its surroundings, upon
the safety, comfort and convenience of the
people, and upon the efficiency of govern-
ment and the public service.”
—B. Antrim Haldeman (1914)
40
parks and multi-family and commercial areas to the west. It will also extend the reach of the trail
network for recreational bicyclists. The trail extension is currently on the unfunded Capital Improve-
ments Project (CIP) list.
According to the 2010 Census, South Iowa City is home to nearly 1,800 school-age children. Some of
the highest densities of children live in the multi-family and manufactured housing developments
along the highway corridor and near Pepperwood Plaza. Because the junior and senior high schools
and one of the elementary schools that serves the South District are all located north of the highway
along with the public library, public recreation centers, and most medical and health services, fami-
lies with children often cross the highway on a daily basis.
Crossing Highway 6, particularly east of Sycamore Street, can be challenging. East of Fairmeadows
Drive/Industrial Park Road, there are no sidewalks or trails to serve the industrial uses along the
north side of the highway, which employ many residents of South Iowa City. Without the requisite
sidewalk facilities to connect into, there are no pedestrian crossings along this portion of the high-
way and limited lighting for those who choose to cross in these areas. For residents, especially those
who don’t have cars or with limited access to cars, this creates a considerable impediment. Many
participants in the planning workshop and online survey asked for safer crossings over Highway 6 to
link residents with the rest of Iowa City, especially employment opportunities, shopping, and schools
north of the highway. Many called for a pedestrian bridge—an expensive option that requires a sig-
nificant amount of space given the flat topography of the area. Others requested longer walk signals
to cross the wide roadway.
McCollister Boulevard is a planned and much anticipated east-west arterial street that will eventual-
ly connect across the South Planning District from the Iowa River east to Heinz Road and then on to
Scott Boulevard. An extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard, McCollister Boulevard begins at South
Riverside Drive (Old Highway 218), crossing the river into South Iowa City and intersecting South Gil-
bert Street before entering into the Sand Hill Estates development where it currently terminates at
the city limits.
With Highway 6 serving as the only east-west connection across the district, neighborhoods to the
east of Wetherby Park and Sycamore Street seem distant from neighborhoods immediately to the
west. Neighborhoods east of the Sycamore Greenway are similarly isolated from the larger district,
including the new school. An extension of McCollister Boulevard east to Scott Boulevard is essential
for providing east-west connectivity and provides an alternative commuter route connecting with
Highway 218 and Interstate 380. Work on this extension will likely occur as land is annexed into the
city and developed.
For many, the visual image of South Iowa City is tied to Highway 6 and its commercial and industrial
properties. Residents see the extension of McCollister Boulevard as an important opportunity to
The Highway 6 Trail is an important route for pedestrians
and bicyclists, providing a route along the highway from
Gilbert Street east to Taylor Drive and Hollywood Boule-
vard. Extension of the trail to the east will require engi-
neering to cover the drainage area on the south side of
the roadway.
The extension of McCollister Boulevard between Gilbert
and Sycamore Streets will provide much needed east-
west connectivity for residential areas located south of
Highway 6.
41
draw attention to the diverse and family-friendly neighborhoods that lie south of the highway. Par-
ticipants in the workshop and on-line survey expressed a desire for a pleasant arterial street that
unifies and connects neighborhoods across the district. Because McCollister Boulevard will pass
through the heart of South Iowa City’s residential neighborhoods, it should be a welcoming, pedes-
trian- and bike-friendly street that is easy to cross and that sets the tone for future development.
Buildings on either side of McCollister Boulevard should be oriented toward the street to prevent
the corridor from being lined with residential privacy fences.
South Sycamore Street is the spine that provides a north-south travel route for neighborhoods east
of Wetherby Park. This important roadway enters the northern edge of the district at Highway 6 and
continues south before making a 90-degree turn to the west (the Sycamore “L”) where it currently
intersects with South Gilbert Street. Along with Gilbert Street it provides connectivity to Riverfront
Crossings and Downtown commercial as well as employment areas and schools north of Highway 6.
The northern portion of Sycamore Street was originally constructed as a four-lane road and later re-
striped to provide a center turn lane as well as shared-lane bicycle markings on both north- and
south-bound travel lanes. The reconstruction of the south portion of Sycamore Street will provide an
improved connection to Archibald Alexander Elementary School. South of Langenberg, the paved
roadway will narrow retaining on-street bike lanes but eliminating the continuous center turn lane.
A wide (8-ft.) sidewalk will be provided on the west side of the road and a 5-ft. sidewalk on the east.
The remaining right-of-way width will be dedicated to wider parkways (14 feet on the east and 24
feet on the west), which will allow space for street trees to be planted one year after road construc-
tion. Roundabouts are planned at the future intersection with McCollister Boulevard and where Syc-
amore turns west at the “L.”
Cross section of the South Sycamore St. extension
5ft. 14 ft. 6 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. 6 ft. 24 ft. 8 ft.
Two priorities for South Sycamore Street emerged from
the planning process: slowing vehicle speeds and cre-
ating a more attractive and welcoming entrance to the
neighborhoods. Above: a section of Sycamore near High-
way 6, where street trees have been established. Below:
Further south on Sycamore, subdivisions with rear or
side yards that face the street often result in a street
corridor lined with privacy fences.
42
South Gilbert Street provides access to residential neighborhoods west of Wetherby Park, a river
crossing at the McCollister Boulevard Bridge, the Napoleon Park softball complex, and the newly
developed Terry Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA) before continuing on into the county as Sand
Road. Gilbert Street is an important entry and connection between the South District, Downtown
Iowa City, and the University’s east campus. The City anticipates greater use of the road as develop-
ment occurs around the new south elementary school, including subdivisions that connect into
McCollister and Gilbert Streets. Reconstruction of South Gilbert Street is planned from Benton
Street to Stevens Drive but does not include any improvements to the Highway 6 intersection. How-
ever, it is unlikely these plans will be implemented in the near future.
Long-term anticipated arterial improvements:
420th Street/Scott Boulevard and McCollister Boulevard intersection: 420th Street east of Highway
6 has been converted from a rural road to a collector street with public utilities, turn lanes, curb-and
-gutter, and sidewalks. The new road serves as the main access to the new industrial park east of the
Scott-Six Industrial Park. In the future, intersection improvements for the industrial park will take
place south of Highway 6 at Scott Boulevard and the McCollister Boulevard extension.
South Arterial: A future two-lane, east-west arterial is contemplated within the growth area approx-
imately 2 miles south of U.S. Highway 6. The new arterial would become an integral part of the
city’s major street network, providing a new east-west connectfon between U.S. 218, Old Highway
218, Sand Road, and Sycamore Street.
L o c a l S t r e e t s
The primary function of local streets is to provide access to individual properties and to facilitate
circulation within a neighborhood. Local streets in the northern part of the South District are gener-
ally arranged in a curvilinear pattern with longer block lengths and numerous cul-de-sacs. This type
of street pattern relies on collector streets that “collect” the traffic from the cul-de-sacs and other
local streets in a neighborhood and funnel it to the arterials. This type of street system can result in
an inefficient transportation network that overburdens certain streets with traffic, discourages walk-
ing and biking, and results in inefficiencies for provision of services such as public transit, garbage
collection, snow plowing, mail delivery, and emergency services.
Iowa City’s subdivision regulations (adopted 2008) help to ensure that future neighborhoods will be
designed with better connectivity by establishing a limit on block lengths, discouraging cul-de-sacs,
and requiring streets to be extended (stubbed) to the edge of the subdivision. The subdivision regu-
lations also require each subdivision to “contribute to the larger interconnected street pattern to
ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in diffusion and
STREET LAYOUT & WALKABILTY
Street layout can increase or reduce the opportunity
for children to walk or bicycle to school. In some are-
as, the layout of subdivision streets makes routes to
school much longer than they need to be—so much so
that they become impractical.
Neighborhoods developed with long blocks and nu-
merous cul-de-sacs become barriers to walking and
bicycling to school as they reduce connectivity and
increase travel distance between the home and
school.
Iowa City’s current subdivision regulations (adopted in
2008) limit block lengths along local and collector
streets typically to 300-600 feet and require each
subdivision to contribute to the larger connected
street pattern.
Sidewalks are required along all streets. Cul-de-sacs
are discouraged except in those areas where due to
topography or other conditions, a street connection
would be impractical.
43
distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and
continuous vehicular and pedestrian routes to neighborhood destinations.” This not only ensures
that a street pattern established in one subdivision can be readily extended through the next, but
that the design of one subdivision does not preclude future subdivisions on adjacent property from
developing in an efficient manner such that orientation and configuration of blocks is consistent and
complementary between subdivisions.
On local streets where the speed and/or volume of traffic becomes excessive, the City’s Traffic
Calming Program may be implemented. The program uses one or more approaches to reduce
speeds or discourage cut-through traffic, including increased police enforcement, improved signage
and other driver education techniques, and/or physical changes to the roadway such as speed
humps and traffic circles. Streets in the South District that have been identified over the years as
possible candidates for traffic calming include Hollywood Boulevard, Lakeside Drive, Langenberg
Avenue, Whispering Meadows Drive, and Whispering Prairie Avenue. Some of these neighborhoods
have requested a traffic calming study and did not qualify. It is up to the residents along these
streets to request that a traffic calming study be conducted by the City. If, based on a traffic study,
the subject street is identified as an appropriate candidate for traffic calming, a majority of residents
along the street must be in favor of any proposed traffic calming strategies before they will be con-
sidered.
C o m p l e t e S t r e e t s
The City has adopted a new Complete Streets Policy. This means that all new streets as well as im-
proved streets will be designed and constructed to accommodate all modes of transportation – cars,
bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit, and to provide ADA-compliant curb ramps. South District
workshop participants were overwhelmingly supportive of the effort to improve streets in the South
District to facilitate and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation.
In 2009, the City of Iowa City partnered with the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson
County to draft the Metro Bicycle Master Plan, which outlines new strategies to create an accessible
and coordinated bike network throughout Iowa City and the larger metropolitan area. The Metro
Bicycle Master Plan identifies opportunities for on-street bike routes, including a signed bike route
along Sycamore Street and trail improvements along Gilbert Street. To increase awareness and ac-
cess to the network, the plan also recommends that way-finding signs be installed on area trails. As
mentioned previously, it is an important objective of the South District Plan to provide better way-
finding signage along off-street trails and along area streets that are designated as bike routes.
There are a number of streets in the South District that were constructed at a time when sidewalks
were not required. Unfortunately, this has resulted in gaps in the district’s sidewalk network. In ad-
“The City of Iowa City intends and expects to real-
ize long-term cost savings in improved public
health, reduced fuel consumption, better environ-
mental stewardship, and reduced demand for
motor vehicle infrastructure through the imple-
mentation of its Complete Streets Policy. Com-
plete streets also contribute to walkable neigh-
borhoods, make the community attractive to new
business and employment, create a sense of com-
munity pride, and improve quality of life.”
— from the Iowa City Complete Street Policy
(adopted March 23, 2015)
“Since school zones are locations frequented by
children, making the area safe for children at
any time of day is a sound investment for the
community.”—Safe Routes to School National
Partnership
44
dition, residential areas that were developed outside the city limits were not required by the County
to construct sidewalks. Due to increasing public demand for a complete sidewalk network, the City
Council established a sidewalk infill program, whereby gaps are identified and funds set aside each
year to construct missing pieces of the sidewalk network. Priority is given to main pedestrian routes,
such as routes to school and along arterial and collector streets. Subdivisions located in the county
that are annexed into the city would become eligible for this sidewalk infill program.
Improving pedestrian safety is also a priority. The City will continue to work with the school district
to identify safe routes to schools. To improve pedestrian safety, marked crosswalks are typically
painted at signalized intersections, at official school route crossings, and at other high-volume inter-
sections. Public requests for marked crosswalks in other locations are evaluated carefully. While well
-designed crosswalks are important to pedestrian safety, marking crosswalks at locations where driv-
ers do not expect them or where pedestrian traffic is sporadic can actually reduce pedestrian safety
by giving pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing the street. The City evaluates each pro-
posed crosswalk to determine if it is warranted and safe.
W a l k a b i l i t y
In general, participants in the on-line survey and community workshop find the South District walka-
ble for recreational purposes, and are enthusiastic about the extensive trail system in South Iowa
City. However, walking or biking to meet daily needs or for travel can be more challenging due to the
lack of street connectivity (especially east to west), requiring heavy reliance on Sycamore Street and
Highway 6 by all modes of transportation.
Neighborhoods in the west portion of the district and those east of the Sycamore Greenway, includ-
ing the manufactured housing parks, can feel isolated or cut off from many destinations within the
district, including parks. This can present special challenges for children traveling to school or recrea-
tional opportunities within the district as well as those in areas north of Highway 6. The extension of
McCollister Boulevard and construction of new trail sections, including an extension of the Highway
6 trail, are seen as essential to creating better physical and social connection throughout the district.
PRINCIPLES OF
WALKABILITY
Pleasant factor:
Separation from cars and traffic, shade trees,
things to see along the way . . .
Proximity to home:
How far is it?
Is it practical to walk there?
Physical access
& infrastructure:
Sidewalks and trails to
mark your path along with
crosswalks, traffic signals,
and lighting to make it
safe.
Places to go:
A sensible mix of
destinations, such
as parks, schools,
coffee shops, neigh-
borhood activities.
45
T r a i l s
Trails are critfcal components of the South District’s transportatfon network. In additfon to providing
recreatfonal opportunitfes, the trails offer low-cost, energy-efficient transportatfon to schools, em-
ployment, and commercial destfnatfons. Notably, the South District offers access to two popular
trails in the metro area: the Iowa River Trail and South Sycamore Greenway.
The Iowa River Trail and Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area (TTRA) directly link our community to out-
door actfvitfes and connect Southside residents to the Downtown Business District and University of
Iowa campus. The 2.2-mile South Sycamore Greenway is anchored at the north by Grant Wood Ele-
mentary and Kickers Soccer Park to the south. The Greenway functfons as a stormwater detentfon
area that reduces run-off into the Iowa River. As areas south of the school are annexed into the city,
a trail connectfon or sidewalk will connect the Greenway to TTRA.
P u b l i c T r a n s i t
Public bus transit is a crucial part of the South Iowa City transportation system with more than
500,000 rides annually on routes that serve the area. All south-side routes circulate through the
northern portion of the district and provide access to the commercial and industrial areas along
Highway 6. They include the Lakeside, Eastside Loop (during school), Mall, Cross Park, and Broadway
routes. The Lakeside Route has the highest bus ridership of any route in Iowa City.
Residential development around the new elementary school in addition to weekend activity at Kick-
ers Soccer Complex and Terry Trueblood Recreation Area may prompt changes to current bus
routes. There has long been support for loop routes that do not terminate downtown, but instead
provide residents with direct service to major shopping and employment areas. Commercial devel-
opment along both sides of the river, along Highways 6 and 1 (e.g. Walmart, Aldi’s, Hy-Vee, Pepper-
wood Plaza, and Sycamore Mall), could ideally be served as part of loop route. The absence of a grid
system creates a challenge for extending service further into the residential neighborhoods and, be-
cause there is no east-west connection across the district south of Highway 6 and minimal connec-
tivity to areas east of the Greenway, potential bus routes are limited. The extension of McCollister
Boulevard will make for an efficient loop route and allow transit to reach more areas in the South
District.
Participants in the planning process expressed a desire for improved signage and transit information
at bus stops, expanded hours of transit service, and service on Sundays. There is also a need for ad-
ditional bus shelters in some locations in the South District. Iowa City Transit will be addressing
many of these concerns as part of a comprehensive study of its current service. Bus stops are being
redesigned and “Bongo” software makes route information and accurate arrival times accessible to
the public by computer and smart phone. Wireless service is now available on all buses.
BENEFITS OF
WALKABILITY
Health
• Men and women age 50
–71 who took a brisk
walk nearly every day
had a 27% reduced death
rate compared to non-
exercisers.
• The average resident of
a walkable neighborhood
weighs 6 to 10 pounds
less than someone who
lives in a car-dependent
neighborhood.
Economic
• Save money:
Transportation is
the second largest
expense for Ameri-
can households.
• Make money:
1 walk score point is
worth $700-$3,000 in
home value.
Community Connection
• Studies show that for every 10 minutes a per-
son spends in a daily car commute, time spent
in community activities falls by 10%.
• People living in walkable neighborhoods trust
neighbors more, participate in community pro-
jects, and volunteer more than in non-walkable
areas.
46
STREETS, TRAILS, SIDEWALKS —GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives for streets, trails, and sidewalks were formulated with input from
participants in the planning workshop and on-line survey. Improvements to rights-of-way, including
sidewalks and trails, are the responsibility of the City and developers.
GOAL 1: Improve connections between residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial
properties on both sides of Highway 6 and explore ways to reduce the barrier effect that this ma-
jor traffic corridor has between South Iowa City and areas to the north. These improvements will
require funding by Iowa City and/or grant funds, as well as cooperation from the Iowa Depart-
ment of Transportation.
• Evaluate pedestrian crossings along the length of Highway 6 for safety improvement.
• Construct pedestrian facilitfes that connect to industrial and commercial propertfes north of
Highway 6.
• Review pedestrian signal tfmes and explore improved signage, median design/landscaping, and
lightfng to improve the actual and perceived safety of Highway 6 crossings.
• Extend the Highway 6 trail east to Heinz Road to ensure safety for pedestrian and bicycle access
across the district
• Extend a sidewalk/trail connectfon along Highway 6 and across the bridge to Riverside Drive.
GOAL 2: Prioritize the extension of McCollister Boulevard as an integral element in improving
connectivity and access for South Iowa City and to spur the development of a high-quality neigh-
borhood surrounding the new school.
• The new road should enhance movement between neighborhoods by providing appropriate
crossings, including medians or traffic controls where needed.
• Design and construct McCollister Boulevard as a welcoming and attractfve entrance to the South
Iowa City neighborhoods by including trees, landscaping, lightfng, public art, or other features
that foster a distfnct identfty for the district.
Trees and other landscaping along arterial streets can
help buffer neighboring homes from noise and other
activity and provide a sense of comfort and safety for
pedestrians.
Roundabouts offer an opportunity to enhance the ap-
pearance and identity of public streets. The above
examples are from Holiday Road and 12th Avenue in
Coralville.
47
GOAL 3: Enhance safety and aesthetics along arterial streets.
• Provide safe and accessible street crossings at key locatfons, such as entrances to commercial
centers, parks, and school sites, and where designated trails cross arterial streets.
• Design the extension of South Sycamore Street and McCollister Boulevard to moderate vehicle
speeds and maximize safety for children traveling to and from school. Consider the feasibility of
on-street parking to slow traffic if a neighborhood commercial area develops.
• Where appropriate, include crosswalks, signals, or median islands as well as lighted trail connec-
tfons.
• Enhance aesthetfcs of arterial streets with trees, landscaping, lightfng, public art, or other fea-
tures that support housing and subdivision designs oriented toward the street.
GOAL 4: Maximize walkability and connectivity in all neighborhoods, especially those east of the
Greenway.
• Align collector streets along arterial streets to provide for safe crossing of neighborhood bound-
ary streets, partfcularly for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Fill in gaps in the sidewalk network and ensure ADA-compliant curb ramps throughout the dis-
trict as intersectfons are improved, including connectfons to multf-family developments.
• As residentfal development extends south toward the school, ensure multfple safe and logical
walking routes to the school, including well-marked crosswalks for schools.
• Provide count-down tfmers at high-volume intersectfons.
• As re-development of commercial areas occurs, work to establish improved street, trail, and
sidewalk connectfons to better integrate shopping centers with surrounding neighborhoods.
• Improve lightfng along residentfal streets if needed for safety. Consider lightfng along off-street
trails, such as at trail head areas or connectfons to parks in order to enhance safety.
• Adopt a form-based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of
alternatfve modes of transportatfon and reduces car dependence.
Physical Infrastructure
for Pedestrian Safety
Well maintained sidewalks and trails.
Clearly marked crosswalks.
Good intersection controls where needed.
Reduced vehicle speeds.
Separation between sidewalk and street.
48
GOAL 5: Create an accessible and well-coordinated bike network that allows bicyclists to con-
nect to schools, parks, and commercial areas.
• Construct a wide sidewalk from South Sycamore Street to the Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area.
• Construct a trail along the trunk sewer easement to connect residentfal development in Sand
Hill Estates to Archibald Alexander Elementary.
• Establish a bike trail or on-street route to connect the Sycamore Greenway Trail and Court Hill
Trail.
• Create unique and easily identffiable signage or other wayfinding methods to help cyclists find
bike routes and off-street trails.
• Encourage visible and well-designed bike facilitfes as part of any redevelopment plans in South
Iowa City.
• Wherever street widths permit, consider establishing or improving on-street bike facilitfes, such
as “sharrows,” bike lanes, or bike boulevards.
GOAL 6: Improve and expand transit service.
• Consider the expansion and diversificatfon of bus routes and stops , including loop service, to
connect residentfal neighborhoods with schools, parks, and recreatfonal opportunitfes (e.g.
Kickers Soccer Complex and Terry Trueblood Recreatfon Area), and major commercial areas
along Highways 1 and 6.
• Raise awareness and improve access to transit service by providing well-marked bus stops with
posted schedule and route maps.
• Consider attractfve bus shelters, especially at commercial centers and public parks, and adopt-a
-shelter programs with neighborhood organizatfons and commercial centers to help ensure
shelters are well-maintained.
49
Commercial Areas
The South Planning District is served by commercial areas located along or near the Highway 6 corri-
dor, most notably Pepperwood Plaza and the Waterfront Hy-Vee area. Although it is just outside
the South District boundaries, the Iowa City Marketplace (formerly Sycamore Mall) is commonly
considered an important commercial center serving the South District.
Pepperwood Plaza and Sycamore Mall once offered a wide variety of retail goods and services. In
the late 1990s many of Iowa City’s natfonal retailers moved to the Coral Ridge Mall and in 2013 Von
Maur department store moved to the River Landing in Coralville. This has left South Iowa City and
much of the east side with fewer shopping optfons, especially children’s items, clothing, sportfng
goods, and housewares.
Partfcipants in the on-line survey and community workshop eagerly antfcipate redevelopment and
improvement of commercial areas within and adjacent to the district. Aesthetfc improvements
along the Highway 6 and South Gilbert Street commercial corridor, opportunitfes for local and
neighborhood-serving businesses, and improved pedestrian and bike facilitfes are seen as prioritfes.
The viability of any commercial business—shops, restaurants, and services—depends on the market
demand in the area in which the business is located. Populatfon, residentfal density, and proximity
to customers as they commute to and from work are essentfal for many retail businesses. New resi-
dentfal development around the elementary school and improved connectfvity made possible by the
extension of McCollister Boulevard have the potentfal to strengthen the commercial prospects in
South Iowa City. While this will take tfme, efforts to make the area more attractfve and to raise the
profile of South Iowa City for residentfal development will also enhance prospects for commercial
development.
Highway 6 Commercial Corridor
As stated above, commercial development in the South District is concentrated along and to the
south of Highway 6. While this busy traffic corridor offers the visibility and traffic actfvity that many
businesses desire, competftfon from new commercial centers and big box or discount stores in other
parts of the trade area, along with changes in the retail market due to the rise of on-line shopping
have had an impact on large shopping centers, including Pepperwood Plaza. Designed with large
buildings set back from the road behind ample parking lots, this sort of shopping center is appropri-
ate for large natfonal or regional chain stores. The format is less adaptable for small or unique busi-
nesses that are less able to capture the attentfon of passing motorists.
The Highway 6 Urban Renewal Area was estab-
lished in 2003 with a goal of strengthening com-
mercial activity in existing core areas and neighbor-
hood commercial centers and discouraging the
proliferation of new major commercial areas.
The City makes available tax increment financing as
a means to help finance the construction of some
of the necessary private and/or public infrastruc-
ture improvements within the Highway 6 Commer-
cial Urban Renewal Area. In addition, the City
makes available the use of tax increment financing
(TIF) to provide rebates for qualifying businesses or
development projects within the Urban Renewal
Project Area. This agreement will expire in 2025.
Improvements may include stormwater manage-
ment facilities, public streets and sidewalks, entry-
way enhancements, sanitary sewers, storm sewers,
and open space improvements. Site improvements
may include design and construction of buildings
and building additions; grading for building con-
struction and amenities; adequate paving and park-
ing; adequate landscaping; and on-site utilities.
50
While the nature of Highway 6 commercial corridor will likely remain car-centered, residents in the
surrounding neighborhoods expressed a desire to tame the auto-dominated character of these
shopping areas and improve their aesthetfc appeal. Making these areas accessible and invitfng to
pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users by connectfng into the local street network should be a priori-
ty. Aesthetfc improvements, including landscaping and shade trees to break up large parking areas,
may entfce shoppers to linger and could help foster a sense of place that encourages neighborhoods
to identffy with commercial areas. Such efforts could also help to improve the prospects for small or
local businesses . Façade and parking area improvements made to Waterfront Hy-Vee at the tfme of
its expansion offer an example for future redevelopment in the area. Other models can be found
along Highway 1, west of the river, where landscaping and other parking design requirements have
softened views of very large parking areas. Longer term, any redevelopment of propertfes in the
Highway 6 corridor should emphasize bringing buildings closer to the street, pedestrian accessibility,
more efficient use of land , and introducing mixed use development
South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor:
The South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor is generally located between Highway 6 and the
CRANDIC Railroad. The 1997 South District Plan called for general commercial development in this
area, including along Stevens Drive and Southgate Avenue, with a focus on creatfng a more attrac-
tfve, well-landscaped entrance to the City. At the tfme, most of the undeveloped land was zoned for
Intensive Commercial (CI-1), a classificatfon that provided areas for businesses with operatfons char-
acterized by outdoor storage and display of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or
motor vehicles, or by actfvitfes or operatfons conducted in buildings that are not entfrely enclosed.
In 2006, propertfes along Stevens and Waterfront Drives, east of Gilbert Street, were rezoned to
Community Commercial (CC-2). Propertfes south of Southgate remain in the CI-1 zone. More re-
cently, the CI-1 zone was amended to allow a wider range of commercial uses, including retail and
restaurant uses. Little new development has occurred in the area around the Southgate Avenue and
Gilbert Street intersectfon. This may be due in part to the risk of flooding. During major rainfall
events, the intersectfon of South Gilbert and Stevens Drive is frequently flooded and all but a few
commercial propertfes south of Highway 2 and west of the railroad are in the flood hazard area.
While future residentfal development within the South District, especially in areas along South Gil-
bert Street may improve development prospects in this area, the character of development that can
be antfcipated along this corridor is uncertain. Close proximity to Riverfront Crossings and the Down-
town, and UI Campus, along with ready access to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and future riverfront
park, may make this area attractfve to a variety of uses, including mixed use or residentfal.
It is important to carefully consider the impact of future development on the adjacent residentfal
and commercial neighborhood. The area to the east of the railroad tracks is currently a mix of tradi-
The areas highlighted in yellow indicate vacant commercial
properties that front onto South Gilbert or Southgate Ave-
nue. Redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District to
the north of Highway 6 along with new residential develop-
ment in areas to the south of the Crandic Railroad may gener-
ate new interest in these properties for commercial uses.
51
tfonal CI-1 uses along with a number of social service agencies and the Hilltop Mobile Home Park.
Any proposal for residentfal or mixed use development in the area should be scrutfnized to ensure
that it contributes to the stability of the neighborhood. With any development or street improve-
ments in this area, the attractfve landscaped entryway envisioned in the previous plan should remain
a high priority.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
The future land use maps includes a small area designated as urban main street mixed use at the
intersectfon of McCollister and Sycamore Street and other neighborhood nodes designated as
“open” subareasan existfng Community Commercial (CC-2) property at the intersectfon of McCollis-
ter Boulevard and South Gilbert Street. The goal of these with both areas is to create opportunitfes
for small-scale commercial uses that principally serve the surrounding residentfal neighborhoods. In
additfon to small retail and personal service uses, neighborhood commercial areas may include instf-
tutfonal uses (e.g. daycare, churches or educatfonal facilitfes) as well as neighborhood-serving office
uses (e.g. medical offices). Commercial uses are limited in size to promote a local orientatfon to min-
imize potentfal adverse impacts on nearby residentfal propertfes.
WhereA small neighborhood commercial areas are may be appropriate, on the east side of Gilbert
Street at the intersectfon of McCollister, but careful consideratfon should be given not to detract
from existfng commercial zones along Gilbert, including the existfng zone on the west side of the
street, or the commercial node at McCollister and Sycamore. Such smaller neighborhood commer-
cial an areas should be part of a master plan that shows a thoughtiul transitfon to the surrounding
single-family residentfal area.
Zoning code standards for neighborhood commercial areas ensure that development is compatfble
in scale and intensity to the surrounding residentfal neighborhoods. Building placement and design
requirements help to create an environment that is invitfng to pedestrians and that minimizes the
impact of automobiles.
To functfon as a successful neighborhood center, the design of the mixed-use area should incorpo-
rate pedestrian and bike accessibility as well as a transit stop. Including a small plaza, park, or other
communal space within the development will help to make this corner a neighborhood gathering
place and an anchor for the adjacent neighborhoods.
As noted above, commercial uses depend on surrounding residentfal density and actfve commutfng
routes in order to be successful. It will take tfme for this area to develop enough of a populatfon to
support even a small business, such as a coffee shop. Allowing moderate density housing (10-20
units per acre) in the area immediately around these commercial areas and providing residentfal
units above the commercial ground floor may help to improve the prospects for businesses and may
encourage pedestrian trips and extension of transit services. Ensuring that these higher density uses
are well designed and constructed will help to ensure that density is also an asset to the neighbor-
hood as a whole.
Traditional gas station site design.
A re-oriented site design with the gas station canopy
located behind a storefront at the corner. This could
allow the site to offer more than gas/convenience retail.
This may be an appropriate site design for the commer-
cial corner at McCollister Boulevard and South Gilbert.
52
COMMERCIAL AREAS —GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives for commercial areas were developed with input gathered dur-
ing the South District planning process. Achieving these goals may require collaborative efforts by
business owners, associations, property owners, and developers.
GOAL 1. Improve the aesthetic appearance of commercial areas along Highway 6 and other
commercial streets within the district (e.g. Boyrum, Keokuk).
• Improve the aesthetfc appeal/appearance of the Highway 6 and South Gilbert Street Commer-
cial Corridors—both within the right-of-way and on adjacent commercial property—taking cues
from aesthetfc improvements planned along Riverside Drive as well as landscaping improve-
ments west of the river on Highway One.
• With any proposed redevelopment of Pepperwood Plaza, encourage a reductfon of large parking
areas to create more invitfng social and pedestrian space. Include shade trees, distfnctfve land-
scaping, invitfng pedestrian routes, and amenitfes such as seatfng, bike facilitfes, and art.
• Encourage landscape improvements for other existfng commercial propertfes/neighborhoods
and enforce compliance with landscaping standards as well as maintenance of required land-
scaping.
• Encourage commercial areas to adopt a common design theme—taking cues from Olde Towne
Village at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue—to create a sense of contfnuity
and identfty (e.g. façade design, signage, lightfng, landscaping).
• Ensure that small commercial areas, such as those contemplated or zoned along McCollister
Boulevard, are designed to complement the adjacent residentfal neighborhood and contribute
to an attractfve gateway to the South District by encouraging attractfve landscaping, screened
parking areas and/or parking behind the building, minimal exterior lightfng, bike facilitfes, and
connectfon to pedestrian routes.
Landscaping, shade trees, and pedestrian islands can help
break up large parking areas.
53
GOAL 2: Improve connectivity between commercial areas and adjacent residential.
• As development and redevelopment occur, integrate shopping areas with adjacent residentfal
neighborhoods by providing improved street, sidewalk, or trail connectfons and enhance entry-
ways with art, landscaping, and wayfinding.
• Encourage attractfve and readily identffiable bike parking and transit stops within commercial
development areas.
GOAL 3: Engage the community in re-thinking South Iowa City’s commercial areas by encouraging
(sponsoring) unique events such as food or cultural festivals, roller derby or roller skating, mini-
concerts, farmers market or food trucks nights at Pepperwood Plaza and other commercial areas.
GOAL 4: Support development and redevelopment of areas identified as commercial in the fu-
ture land use plan maps, ensuring that commercial areas and uses contribute to the long-term
vitality and appeal of adjacent neighborhoods.
• As the nearby Riverfront Crossings builds out, re-evaluate the development potentfal and zoning
of propertfes in the South Gilbert/Southgate Avenue area. Explore the potentfal for mixed use/
residentfal or instftutfonal uses. Any proposed rezoning of this area should be scrutfnized to en-
sure that new development contributes to the overall health of the surrounding neighborhood,
including nearby residentfal areas.
• Consider opportunitfes for small neighborhood commercial or mixed use nodes at key intersec-
tfons, such as where McCollister Boulevard intersects with Gilbert and Sycamore Streets and
encourage quality design and constructfon that enhances adjacent residentfal or public open
space areas.
• Support local and independent businesses in South Iowa City through targeted promotfonal
efforts and by encouraging alliances among businesses and property owners.
• Encourage or create incentfves to attract neighborhood-serving businesses—e.g. daycare, coffee
shop, medical office, music or dance studios, salons and other personal services, etc., to com-
mercial areas.
• Adopt a form-based code that provides for a compatfble mix of non-residentfal uses, including
commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood.
A few fun event ideas suggested for making commer-
cial areas—especially large parking areas—more
socially active: outdoor sport demonstrations, such
roller derby or basketball, food truck night with live
music, and art events such as a Chalk the Lot festival.
Photo copyright Greeley Tribune.
54
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR FORM-BASED LAND USE
Generally:
− Promote, preserve, and enhance community design and character
in support of the community's vision of a college town with a vari-
ety of neighborhoods with centers along pleasant and convenient
corridors that connect the City;
− Reinforce the urban pattern of mixed-use walkable districts, resi-
dentfal neighborhoods, and multf-modal corridors with centers
serving as amenitfes and focal points for community actfvity;
− Ensure appropriately-scaled development for a variety of physical
contexts;
− Support a diversity and wide variety of housing choices appropri-
ate to their locatfon;
− Ensure that each building plays a role in creatfng a better whole;
and
− Promote development patterns that support safe, effectfve, and
multf-modal transportatfon optfons for all users and help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Within residentfal neighborhoods:
− Protect the character of established neighborhoods and
build upon and reinforce the unique physical characteris-
tfcs of the City's neighborhoods;
− Support walkable neighborhood patterns through highly
interconnected networks of multf-modal streets that are
safe for pedestrians and bicycles;
− Promote neighborhoods with quality housing and a diver-
sity of context-sensitfve housing choices.
Within districts and employment centers:
− Create new districts and centers that accommodate appropriately scaled
infill housing, mixed-use, and cultural development;
− Facilitate transitfons from single-use employment centers to mixed-use
districts that are compatfble with adjacent residentfal neighborhoods and
public access.
Along corridors:
− Promote a wide variety of housing choices;
− Promote small local businesses as an important part of the
City's economy;
− Promote incremental infill and revitalizatfon;
− Enable neighborhood main streets as centers to become
vibrant social and commercial focal points, with services
and amenitfes for the surrounding neighborhoods located
within a safe, comfortable walking distance of homes;
− Balance pedestrian comfort and place making with traffic
efficiency; and
− Promote and accommodates high-quality community de-
sign.
55
Form -Based Land Use
Zoning through a Form-Based Code (FBC) represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built
environment is regulated. Unlike conventfonal, use-based codes, FBCs utflize the intended
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 build-
ing, 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 tfes 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 utflized 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 compatfbility between uses and the
intended physical form. Use tables are simplified and categorized by use type, and clearly de-
fined, to allow a greater degree of administratfve decision-making related to partfcular uses.
Most FBCs use an organizing principle called the Natural-to-Urban Transect. This enables a cus-
tomized framework of zones for a community that are based on intended physical character
(or form).
The Natural-to-Urban Transect: The Framework for Form-Based Codes:
The Natural-to-Urban Transect is the organizing principle used in most Form-Based Codes (FBC).
It establishes a hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the
most urban. The designatfon of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the phys-
ical 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 entfre
FBC, replacing use as the organizing principle as in conventfonal, use-based zoning. Each transect
is used to reinforce existfng or create new walkable environments.
Form-Based Codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather
than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. These codes are adopted into city or county law
as regulations, not mere guidelines. Form-Based Codes are an alternative to conventional zoning.
- Form-Based Codes Instftute
56
The model transect for American communitfes is divided into six individual transects: Natural (T1),
Rural (T2), Walkable Neighborhood/Sub-Urban (T3), General Urban (T4), Urban Center (T5), and Ur-
ban Core (T6), together with a District (D), designatfon for areas with specialized purposes (e.g.,
heavy industrial, transportatfon, or university districts, among other possibilitfes). Each transect is
given a number. Higher numbers designate progressively more urban environments, and lower
numbers designate less urban and natural environments. These transects were used to help devel-
op the new future land use map shown on page 60. Because the South District is located on the
edge of Iowa City, it includes only designatfons from the T3 Suburban and T4 General Urban tran-
sects.
Implementatfon in the South District:
Form-based standards that are consistent with this plan should be considered for greenfield sites in
the South District. Implementatfon would need to occur through amendments to the City’s Zoning
and Subdivision Codes.
Any form-based standards should include specific approval criteria to determine if rezonings demon-
strate substantfal compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use maps show only
one possible way that the City may develop. Specific approval criteria defining consistency helps pro-
vide more predictability to neighbors, developers, and the community as to what development may
look like compared with previous zoning standards.
Example of Transect 3: Suburban Form
Example of Transect 4: General Urban Form
57
S o u t h D i s t r i c t F u t u r e L a n d U s e P l a n M a p
58
Low to Medium Density Residential:
2-8 dwelling units/acre
Intended primarily for detached single-family
housing. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in
all single-family zones. In some areas attached
housing may be located along arterial streets or
adjacent to permanent open space. The resi-
dentfal density for a property should reflect the
nature of the site and take into account sensi-
tfve environmental features, topographical con-
straints, street connectfvity, and compatfbility
with historical development patterns.
Low to Medium Mixed Residential:
8-13 dwelling units/acre
Intended for medium- to high- density single-
family residentfal development, including small
lot detached single-family units, zero lot line
development, duplexes, and townhouses. Suita-
ble for sites where a single loaded street is de-
sirable to provide visibility and access to public
open space, or where clustering is desirable to
protect sensitfve environmental features. Low-
density multf-family residentfal may also be
considered if buildings are designed in a man-
ner that is compatfble in scale and design to the
lower scale residentfal dwellings in the neigh-
borhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes).
Higher density housing should be located at the
edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas
with good street connectfvity, access to open
space or parks, trails, and transit.
Multi-Family
12-24 dwelling units/acre
Propertfes developed prior to 2015 may have
been established at higher densitfes, partfcular-
ly in neighborhoods close to Highway 6. The
“New Neighborhoods” sectfon of the plan (page
18) includes language describing the density,
locatfon, and design quality that will be part of
any rezoning to allow multf-family housing.
Higher-density zoning designatfons may not be
suitable for areas with topographical con-
straints or limited street connectfvity or access.
Preferred locatfons for new multf-family devel-
opments are along main travel corridors or in-
tersectfons, especially near permanent open
space or adjacent to commercial development.
Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a
large variety of commercial uses, partfcularly
retail commercial uses, which serve a major
segment of the community.
Mixed-Use
An area intended for development that com-
bines commercial and residentfal uses. Individu-
al buildings may be mixed-use or single-use.
Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented, with buildings oriented to the street
with sidewalks, street trees and other pedestri-
an amenitfes. Buildings with residentfal uses
should be designed to ensure a comfortable
and functfonal environment for urban living in
close proximity to commercial uses. The mix of
uses requires special consideratfon of building
and site design.
Public Institutional
Property that is publicly owned and used for a
public purpose, including public schools, and
City, County, State, and Federal offices or facili-
tfes. If the property is proposed to be sold to a
private entfty for a non-public use, then the
land should be rezoned to be compatfble with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Public Parks/Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal public open space
intended for the protectfon of sensitfve natural
features, stormwater management, and/or to
provide for passive, actfve, recreatfonal, or oth-
er public open space needs, and/or to protect
the aesthetfc values of the community.*
Private Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal open space on
private land that is important for the protectfon
of sensitfve natural features and/or provides for
stormwater management, and/or for private,
shared passive or recreatfonal opportunitfes for
adjacent propertfes, and/or to protect the aes-
thetfc values of the community.*
*A public or private open space designatfon on land that is
not currently designated as open space may indicate that
an area is largely unsuitable for development due to envi-
ronmental or topographical constraints or may indicate
that an opportunity to acquire needed open space is pos-
sible if current land uses are discontfnued. While these
areas are best reserved or acquired for open space, devel-
opment may occur on privately held land if a proposal
meets the underlying zoning requirements and the re-
quirements of the Iowa City Sensitfve Areas Ordinance.
S o u t h D i s t r i c t F u t u r e L a n d U s e P l a n M a p D e s i g n a ti o n s
59
S o u t h D i s t r i c t F u t u r e L a n d U s e P l a n M a p
Areas Subject to Form-Based Land Use
(see Map on p. 60)
60
TRANSECT 3: SUBURBAN
Neighborhood Edge:
A walkable neighborhood environment of detached,
small-to-large building footprint, low-intensity hous-
ing choices from House Large, Duplex Side-by-Side
to Cottage Court, supportfng and within short walk-
ing distance of neighborhood-serving retail, food
and service uses. Buildings are house-scale and de-
tached in nature. Both design site widths and build-
ing footprints are small-to-large with medium-to-
large front setbacks and medium side setbacks.
Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types
include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop.
Neighborhood General:
A walkable neighborhood environment of small foot-
print, low-intensity housing choices from House
Small, Duplex Side-by-Side, Duplex Stacked, Cottage
Court, Multfplex Small to Townhouse, supportfng
and within short walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail and services. Buildings are house-scale
and detached in nature. Design site widths are small-
to-medium with a small footprint and medium front
and side setbacks. Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall,
and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and
Stoop.
TRANSECT 4: GENERAL URBAN
Neighborhood Small:
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-
medium-footprint, moderate-intensity housing
choices from Cottage Court, Multfplex Small, Court-
yard Building Small to Townhouse, supportfng and
within short walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail and services. Buildings are primarily
house-scale with both attached and detached vari-
ants. Design site widths, building footprints, and
front and side setbacks are all small-to-medium.
Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types
include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop.
Neighborhood Medium
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-
medium-footprint, moderate-intensity housing
choices from Multfplex Large, Courtyard Building
Small to Townhouse, supportfng and within short
walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail and
services. Buildings are primarily house-scale with
both attached and detached variants. Design site
widths and building footprints are medium, while
front and side setbacks are small. Homes are up to
3.5 stories tall, and frontage types include Porch,
Dooryard Stoop, Forecourt and Terrace.
Main Street
A walkable, vibrant district of medium-to-large-
footprint, moderate-intensity, mixed-use buildings
from Townhouse (in which units may be stacked)
and Courtyard Building Large to Main Street Build-
ing, supportfng neighborhood-serving ground floor
retail, food and services, including indoor and out-
door artfsanal industrial businesses. Buildings are
block-scale and attached in nature. Design site
widths are medium, and building footprints are me-
dium-to-large with front and side setbacks that are
small-to-none. Buildings are up to 3.5 stories tall,
and frontage types include Dooryard, Stoop, Fore-
court, Maker Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace, Gallery
and Arcade.
OTHER DESIGNATIONS
Open Subareas:
Open subarea designatfons may be applied to T3
Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, or
T4 Neighborhood Medium land use designatfons.
The subarea allows more uses than the base land
use designatfon but maintains the same form and
character. As such, open subareas provides additfon-
al flexibility at or near intersectfons that functfon or
can functfon as a neighborhood node of non-
residentfal uses.
Public or Private Civic/Park/Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal civic or open space on
public or private land that is important for the pro-
tectfon of sensitfve natural features and/or provides
for stormwater management, and/or for private,
shared passive or recreatfonal opportunitfes for ad-
jacent propertfes, and/or to protect the aesthetfc
values of the community. This designatfon may indi-
cate that an area is unsuitable for development due
to environmental or topographical constraints. De-
velopment may occur if a proposal meets the under-
lying zoning and Sensitfve Areas requirements.
Existfng & Potentfal Wetlands/Lagoons
Indicates existfng or potentfal wetlands or lagoons.
F o r m -B a s e d F u t u r e L a n d U s e D e s i g n a ti o n s
61
F o r m -B a s e d F u t u r e L a n d U s e M a p
Form-Based Land Use Designatfons
Existfng & Potentfal Wetlands/Lagoons
62
F u t u r e T h o r o u g h f a r e M a p
Passage: 20’ ROW
Pedestrian access only
Alley: 20’ ROW
Neighborhood Street: 70’ ROW
Utility Easement Area: 10’ min.
63