Commission begins overhaul of parking and landscaping chapters of zoning code

Commissioners and city staff undertook an extended discussion of proposed updates to Bettendorf’s off-street parking and landscaping regulations, focusing on how the city measures parking demand, whether to adopt or reference the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) manual, and how to handle shared parking and special-location analyses.

Staff told the commission that many of the city’s parking-use categories and required parking ratios trace to guidance used since about 1965 and that inconsistencies in how uses are defined (for example, “medical office” versus specific medical subtypes) make consistent application difficult. Staff said some parking standards rely on different measurement bases—gross floor area, net customer area, number of dwelling units or employee counts—and that relying on employee counts is often unreliable.

Staff presented options: adopt selected sections of SUDAS with local amendments; reference SUDAS as a baseline while writing local exceptions; or create a hybrid code that uses building-occupancy standards, shared-parking matrices and data-driven special-location plans for unique uses. Staff noted that SUDAS and national guidance from the Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association are commonly referenced in local codes but may require local tailoring.

Commissioners raised these specific concerns and concepts:

- Parking counts: Several commissioners said some retail sites appear overparked (large parking lots that sit mostly empty) while restaurants and bars tend to be under-parked; commissioners asked staff for data-driven counts from representative sites. Staff said they are preparing a parking inventory and can run analyses using aerial imagery and on-site counts.

- Measurement basis: Commissioners asked whether occupancy calculations (building code occupancy) or other objective metrics could underlie parking requirements. Staff and commissioners noted occupancy-based approaches can help but do not map cleanly to every use (for example, elementary schools vs. bars). Staff suggested hybrid approaches—for some uses base requirements on occupancy; for others use shared parking matrices or trip/employee measurements.

- Shared parking and special-location plans: Staff recommended updating the code to allow site-specific shared-parking analyses (sometimes called a special-location plan) to be considered in site-plan review rather than routing every study to the board of adjustment. The commission generally supported using shared-use matrices for mixed-use developments.

- Dimension standards and design: Commissioners discussed parking-space widths and drive-aisle standards. One commissioner proposed amending the proposed SUDAS standard for moderate/high turnover spaces to 9 feet; staff noted SUDAS and other sources provide different default dimensions and that the commission can adopt local amendments.

- Overparking and opportunity cost: Staff and commissioners discussed the long-term land use cost of large surface parking lots and considered requiring structured parking or stronger landscaping/amenity offsets where applicants provide parking well in excess of minimums.

Staff also described a handful of recent local cases that illustrate the trade-offs, including large sport/entertainment facilities (BetPlex) and new office headquarters that phased employee counts. Staff said the city already has an exception process but recommended moving much of that site-specific analysis to planning staff and the planning commission to streamline reviews.

Next steps: Staff will return with a parking inventory, draft code language, and examples of shared-parking matrices. The commission scheduled continued discussion of parking and landscaping at a future meeting, and staff said engineering and planning will coordinate on proposed specifications, references to SUDAS, and recommended amendments.