The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-09-26 TranscriptionSeptember 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 1 Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Absent: None P&Z Commission: Brooks, Smith, Anciaux, Freerks, Koppes, Shannon Absent: Plahutnik Staff: Atkins, Behr, Howard, Miklo, Karr, Helling (7:05), Franklin (7:25) Tapes: 05-58, Side 2; 05-56, Both Sides. Lehman: It looks like we're ready; let's get started. Steve, you want to... Atkins: Yes, just a couple quick comments before you weigh in. First of all, the Planning Director is not here. We suspect she's probably somewhere over Nebraska about now, returning from a trip to California. Hopes to be here yet this evening, so we shall see. In front of you, you should have a copy of the Commission and the Department's preparation of a matrix, which will be the primary work document we will use this evening. I would envision the meeting to be substantially informational and educational, and that is to help you prepare for the heating scheduled, excuse me, for October 5. I would remind you that we call that heating and it's called based upon the Code as submitted to you. If you do wish to make any adjustments, I would encourage you to do that after the hearing on the 5th. Much of what we'll discuss and the elements of the Code are sort of interwoven, so if you talk about one it may influence nine. The staff is prepped to hopefully identify those for you, and with that, Ernie, if it's okay, we'd like to have Bob sort of lead the discussion, Bob Brooks that is, lead the discussion this evening. Anything else? Lehman: No. Brooks: Okay, great. As Steve mentioned, we thought we would use this matrix, which I think you have all gotten a copy of, as at least a point of discussion and kind of going through some of the issues that were brought before the Commission, either in public heating or in a number of other venues, our public open house meetings that we held, and through numerous emails and communications from the public. Each one of these was an issue then that we looked at separately, and you can see going across, what the issue was that brought, that was brought before us. Staff has then prepared a little explanatory note as to how they viewed the request and its impact on what we had considered already. They also provided then a recommendation, and then the final two columns indicate what action the Commission took. This is a rather complicated process to get into and I'm not sure that this is the best way to do it, so ! guess, you know, chime in as you have questions or wish to discuss something in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 2 more detail. Karen and Bob have put together some slides that help, maybe, explain or depict some of the issues that we talked about. Unless we need to bring those up, I don't think we will, but we do have those available and some other documents that are kind of supporting information that we can resurrect if we need to in the discussion. So, with that in mind, I think we'll just go through each one of these. I think we have about twenty that were part of the, twenty-three maybe, part of the, twenty, part of the Residential Zone issues that were brought before us. lReview of matrix dated 9/8/05] 14-2A - Single Family Residential Zones (and associated provisions in 14-4B) # 1 Draft language to keep existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone conforming The first one being draft language to keep existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone conforming, and that was something that we took under advisement and felt that it was an appropriate thing to do. What would have resulted in this case in the RS-8 Zone which has developed over the past years as to be primarily a Duplex Zone that in the new Code, the proposed Code, we were trying to make the RS-8 Zone a small-lot, single- family zone, which was I think the original intent of that zone and we allowed duplexes on comer lots where they could front each unit, front a separate street so as to maintain the appearance of a single-family neighborhood, but provide the opportunity for RS-8 Zones, and there was a fear then that existing RS-8 Zones with predominantly duplexes throughout the zone would be nonconforming, so we did elect to include in the wording some language that would allow existing duplexes in RS-8 Zones to be conforming. Vanderhoef: Do you have page number of where that was included? Brooks: Dee, I can't tell you. Turn to Karen there... Howard: That' s... Lehman: Well, the change has been made, correct? Howard: Um-hm, yes. Page 23, D. Brooks: And I don't want to dominate this discussion. So, any of the other Commissioners... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 3 Freerks: I guess one other note might be that we did look at those areas that were almost completely duplex, and some of those areas have been changed to RS-12. I mean, if it suited them to go RS-12 because they matched up better. There's a few areas that was recommended. Vanderhoef: Okay, so that will show up when we get to the mapping? Freerks: Yes. Vanderhoef: But not at this... Freerks: Yep. Lehman: I have a question. I'm going to probably ask a lot of dumb questions. In the RS-8 Zone where we're going to grandfather in duplexes and so on, do we allow condos and townhouses in that zone? Howard: Uh, two attached. Lehman: Pardon? Howard: . If there's just two attached, zero lot line, so it'd be similar to a duplex, except there'd be... Lehman: What's...I guess I don't understand the restriction on duplexes and not on townhouses. Howard: This would apply to both. Lehman: Oh, so townhouses won't be allowed either? Howard: Well, the townhouses in the sense of the two attached, zero lot line. Miklo: But three or more are not currently allowed... Lehman: Well, what's the distinction between two attached townhouses and a duplex? Howard: Just the lot line. Brooks: Property ownership mainly. Lehman: Appearance, though I mean my suspicion is that this restriction on duplexes is appearance, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about comer This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 4 lots only, and from an appearance standpoint, townhouse is attached, zero lot line. How do they differ? Howard: The same standard would apply to two attached. In other words, one of the two attached would have to be on the comer, and that's... Lehman: Okay, so townhouses have the same restrictions as duplexes, and condos would not be allowed either if there are... Howard: You can't do a condo now unless you do planned development because... Elliott: This would be for only owner-occupied? Howard: No, there's no restriction on ownership. There's... Elliott: Well, you said condos wouldn't be allowed. Howard: Condos are a type of ownership. It's that the only way you can do a condo development is through a planned development because they're not separate lots so there's no subdivision involved in this. Elliott: Well, what if you just rent it? It doesn't have to be owner-occupied then. Howard: Well, none of them have to be owner-occupied. Elliott: Okay, good. Lehman: Okay. Brooks: Any other questions on that Item number one? Smith: So the net result of this is the distinct, established areas have been brought into conformity. Those areas that are partially developed and lots that are not yet fully developed have been reviewed and rezoned such that they can continue to be developed in the fashion in which they were intended, and restrictions (can't hear) those subdivisions going forward, it would be limited to the comer lot development only. Vanderhoef: Okay, you talked about the grandfathering to make these legal. Tell me a little bit about the parking that is associated with those and how that's going to work with grandfathering of parking. Lehman: Work just as it does now, wouldn't it? Vanderhoef: Well, but is it stated anywhere, if we have a table on parking and what's allowed, and we have occupancy permits right now that say you can have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 5 X number of related or unrelated people in that property, then can I assume that we are grandfathering in the parking to go with that same occupancy? Howard: The only thing, if the duplex is conforming now and the parking is conforming now, it will remain conforming with the new Code. If it doesn't have conforming parking now, it won't get new allowances with the new Code. In other words, the parking is treated separately from the conformance of the duplex. So there's nothing that changes with the parking. If you're required to have two or three spaces, you'd still be required to have that same number of spaces. The grandfathering of the occupancy is a different issue. That was taken care of with another provision in here to grandfather the current occupancy as documented on · the current rental permits. Vanderhoef: Okay, we'll talk about it when we get to that point then. Brooks: Any other questions on Item one? Elliott: One down. (laughter) Brooks: The easy one! Elliott: Yes! #2 In the RS-8 Zone allow duplexes on both interior and corner lots. Remove provision that specifies that duplexes are only allowed on corner lots in the RS-8 Zone. Brooks: Item two then was a request in RS-8 Zones to allow duplexes on both interior and comer lots; remove the provision that specifies that duplexes are only allowed on comer lots in RS-8 Zone. Um, again, I kind of explained that RS-8 Zone through the years had evolved into primarily a zone of duplexes, and what its intent was to be a narrow-lot, single-family zone, and that the duplexes would then be in the RS-12 Zone, and so when we looked at this request, we felt that what we were trying to do was re- establish the intent of that original RS-8 Zone as a small-lot, little higher density than the RS-5 Single-Family, but that there was a reason and a need to have some mix of duplexes and that we felt, again, it was advisable to have that within, controlled by using those on the comer lots where we could maintain a continuity, or a feel of continuity throughout the neighborhood. Elliott: Why could you not do the same thing by just mandating that there must be say two or three single-family homes between duplexes? I can think of a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 6 street now that would not be in that zone, but Muscatine for instance, which goes multiple blocks without a corner and therefore you're eliminating perhaps a half mile of area without a zero lot line or a duplex. Why could you not just indicate there must be two or maybe three single- family homes between, as opposed to going on a comer, which would vary greatly in different areas. Anciaux: You will probably get a request from us in the future platting somebody that wants to build a 1,000 foot long street, and... Elliott: Good! Anciaux: ...we don't want those either, because of the cross-traffic and cross- hatching. The way we look at this I think mainly was as a form of single- family, affordable housing. Right now if you want a single-family house, you almost have to build it in an RS-5 because all the RS-8 lots are being taken up by duplexes. Again, you have those mainly as not owner- occupied but rentals. We're trying to make the RS-8 lot, or RS-8 Zone, a single-family, more affordable type house, which I think is in short supply in Iowa City, by doing this. Freerks: This is something that was recommended also...sorry...by Duncan and Associates, and I think that it, the trend has been to kind of erase a lot of the small lot, single-family homes in existing neighborhoods. That's one thing. The second is the development of new neighborhoods, and I think this is one way with the, with what we discussed earlier, of being able to grandfather in those in established neighborhoods, and then allowing this. I mean, as we go in and talk about this, we're talking about RS-5, RS-8, and RS-12. You know, this is all kind of a domino effect. One thing effects the other, and this is one way to again create those affordable small-lot, single-family homes, and I think it's predictable to be able to say these comer lots can identify as being those for duplexes, and I just think this is... I mean, if people have.better ways of dealing with this, but as we talked through this all, I really feel confident that this is the way it's going to help establish that and to really... Anciaux: However, and if somebody wants to come in and develop a lot of duplexes, then they can go to the RS-12 Zone, or have their land zoned to RS-12, and put in as many duplexes as they want. Elliott: Yeah, but I think putting one or two or maybe even three houses between the zero lot lines or duplexes, accomplishes the same thing without the more stringent requirements, and one of the things that Iowa City has indicated over the years it has intended to do is provide more affordable housing, and certainly zero lot lines and duplexes are more affordable than This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 7 single-family, and I think you can do this separation much more equitably than just eliminating it only on comers. Vanderhoefi There's two things about that, and I wondered if you had discussed... Lehman: Let me see if we can move this a little...nope, can't move it. Elliott: Nope, here, Dee. Vanderhoefi I wondered if you had discussed anything about percentages within a plat, and not limit them to comers. I can think of a lot of people who are big gardeners who would like to have the comer lot, and if you only allow duplexes on comer lots, you're going to probably eliminate all comer lots for single families, and when I look at the line drawings in the book, it's very apparent the way you put them on a comer. There's one house that has a very nice back yard. The other one has only the big side yard that is out in the front. So as far as privacy, a patio, that kind of an arrangement, it isn't like you've drawn the line kitty-comer through... Anciaux: No, we're not requiring them .... to be built on comer lots. If you want to have a comer house lot on that bigger lot that's on the comer, then you can... Lehman: Right. It's an option. Vanderhoef: I understand, but if a developer is choosing to perhaps feels that he can get some mixes in there of lower cost housing by putting a duplex in the center of the block and sell the big lot to somebody that really wants it, you have absolutely precluded that. So that was why I was asking if there was any possibility of going...when someone comes in with a plat, is it possible that you can say 'a certain percent of these may be attached, zero?' Freerks: But how do you apply that then to established neighborhoods? You know, I mean, do you talk about percentages then? And, you know... Vanderhoef: Established...I'm talking about the plat. Going forward. Bailey: But, I thought we talked about a percentage for something else at one timel and my memory is sort of failing me, and that was a development challenge because you could go in to a development and say X percentage can be duplexes no matter where they are, and badoom! that's it, and somebody comes along and that's what they want, perhaps on a corner lot, and forget about it. You've maxed out your percentages. I think... (several talking at once) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 8 Vanderhoefi But I still think there is a way that one could do that because that's the way the platting would come in. Freerks: I just feel comfortable with this. I've thought about it a lot, and I, you know, RS-8 the small-lot, single-family hasn't been used to its best in the past few years, and I see formulas and percentages being very difficult to really come through in the end with anything that solid. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and we've thought about all that. Elliott: That's...because I had heard you folks say before that percentages are extremely difficult and almost impossible some times. That's why I think that a compromise, saying single-family between zero lot lines, and I would certainly vote for that. I couldn't vote for this. Freerks: It's the same problem. The same problem, I think, you know, you might have someone who doesn't want, who wants to live in a neighborhood. What's left then? They're going to be mandated to have a duplex or a zero lot next to them? I just think the predictability of what people are going to be able to see, just in terms of the lot, the platting of lots in newer RS-8 neighborhoods is something we really want to achieve here. RS-12 is where we want to look for all those other things beyond that. Elliott: Well, just so you know, I wouldn't vote for this. Bailey: Well, this doesn't preclude a developer asking for an RS-12 Zone if he or she would like to build lots and lots of duplexes. Freerks: Absolutely, or a planned development (several talking at once), and we could do all kinds of creative things there, as well. So I think there are just oodles of options. Vanderhoef: But you're not giving the mix. As I read the Comprehensive Plan, what I'm looking at is the mix in neighborhoods that we keep talking about, that they aren't all the "same price," and the duplex is one way to get that variance of price and mixing the neighborhood, but I don't think comer- only is the place to require it. O'Donnell: And I don't either. You know, one of our biggest complaints that we get is we don't have affordable ground to build affordable housing. Zero lot line and duplex is traditionally more affordable than single-family. This, in my mind, cuts down the number of options that a builder's going to have available to build zero lot lines. Anciaux: What is the size of a standard city block? Just offhand. Miklo: 300 by 300. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 9 Anciaux: 300 by 300? And how many lots can you get on a RS-8 standard block? Any zone. Miklo: You get six per block. Anciaux: So 127 So out of 12 lots there would be four of those lots available for duplexes, and you could get eight duplex units on 12 lots. Lehman: It's be 24 lots...four on each side. (several talking at once) Anciaux: So, I think we've accomplished what we were trying to do, and I think that's diversity. So... Champion: And the other thing about, what I like about this particular thing, is that it allows small lots for single-family, and that's really hard to find. And the duplexes, which I have no objections to, can go in RS-12 and there's a provision for them to be built, but I think we're trying to make affordable single-family housing with this change in the zone, and I think it's good. Anciaux: But again, you can have eight duplexes and 12 lots, and I think that is very, diversity...it allows for cheaper housing, and I think eight out of 12 lots, the other eight are going to be single-family RS-8 so you're going to have eight and eight. Smith: I think the fundamental change that's being made here is it's a restriction on the interior lots where those lots today can be developed with either single-family or duplex dwellings, and this really restricts the development of those interior lots to just the single-family. Elliott: Which also brings up the fact that we always talk about diversity, and yet consistently through here you seem to be avoiding diversity because you want things that will be like all other things, and you get diversity by allowing different types of housing, and I said enough, but I certainly couldn't support this. Lehman: I think what you're saying is you want to do this so you do get diversity, because right now they're all... Anciaux: You're going to have eight duplex units, which are supposedly cheaper... Lehman: I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would... Anciaux: ..and then you're going to have eight more that are going to be RS-8. So you're going to have eight and eight. You're going to have halfofa city block be duplexes and half of it be single-family in an RS-8. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 10 Elliott: But you're limiting it to the comers. Lehman: Right. (several talking at once) Anciaux: .... little bit larger lot .... keeps the single-family thing. Elliott: ... and if I want a duplex there in the middle of that street, and the builder wants to build one, why should you say that I can't? Freerks: Because we haven't been able to achieve that in the RS-8 Zone currently. It's not been used in the way intended. What we want to do... Miklo: Something to consider is that in many RS-8 Zones recently in the past ten years and before that, the Commission and Council had to put restrictions not allowing duplexes in many of the zones. There are a few where those restrictions haven't been put on, Whispering Meadows is one example, but Southpointe, there were restrictions that didn't allow duplexes, Walden Hills, so apparently this has been a concern to previous Councils and Commissions, and... Koppes: I don't think we're explaining anything that's real, you know, it's not anything we haven't been going already. I mean, these lots are bigger; they're going to get more space in a duplex; the interior lots with the RS- 8, I mean, we have lots of duplexes in my neighborhood, and we like them. (laughter) They're fine, they're great, and we have a lot of great people who share them, but their yards are bigger in back anyway, and my house is in a small-lot subdivision. I think it's RS-5. We're adding duplexes to those, which hasn't been there, so we added more diversity. I think it's a good change. Elliott: Well, I think this is a good time, as we go through here, to keep a scorecard. I'd like for you people to know where the Council stands on these. And I'd like for the Council to indicate... Lehman: Well, we're going to have a public hearing, Bob, input...obviously there's an issue here. Anciaux: Now, Bob, you said you'd like a percentage or every third lot, or something like that, now, here you have in a single-family, straight lot. You have twelve lots, you have eight duplex units, and you have eight single-family units. That's fifty/fifty. That's a diversity. Elliott: But I can't have one in the middle, and I probably can't have a single- family home on a comer because if the developer's going to put zero lot This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 11 lines, he's going to put as many as he can, or she can, and they're going to be on a comer, so you're going to take up every comer. Anciaux: Bob, you can have anything you want. Elliott: That's true! ! wish I did. (laughter) Freerks: Again, these are small-lot, single-family. That's the intention of this zone. Vanderhoefi Okay, and in the, if we're saying we're trying to move more of the duplexes into the RS-12, are you basically turning that totally over to zero lot duplexes without any free-stands? (several talking at once) Howard: The high-density RS-12 Zone is the high-density zone intended for duplexes, townhouses, single-family.., so you can do a mix of... Vanderhoef: I know you can, but what I'm saying is will you basically crowd out all singles? Howard: Well, it depends on what the developer wants to do. It's totally up to them how they want to plat their lots. And so, the Zoning Code is a really, a Zoning Code is really a passive tool. There's nothing that requires a developer to do anything. It just allows them to do certain things, so it's really up to them how they want to plat it, how they want to...unless you do inclusionary zoning, there's really no way to insure what gets built. O'Donnell: Did you have this much discussion on this at your meetings? (laughter) Wilburn: I hear some of the things you're saying, Dee, and I think it's a judgment call as to which tool one prefers to use to create the type of housing mixed neighborhoods that we'd like to see listed in the, or that we'd like to see and that's referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. I get a little troubled by comments with 'I can't do what I want to do,' and so you're suggesting we don't do any, we don't have any zones other than a big chunk residential you do whatever you want in? A big chunk commercial you do whatever you want in that? Is that what you're suggesting, Bob? Elliott: I think if you want to know what I think, I think zoning is to separate retail from other commercial; to separate industry from other business; to separate maybe two or three different kinds of residential; and it should be based on safety and health hazards, and I think if I want to build a home and a developer wants to build it for me, I should be able to do it. Wilburn: So you do prefer just one residential zone... Elliott: No, I said maybe up to three residential zones. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 12 Wilburn: Well, I guess, that still gets to be troubling on how you accomplish that because you keep saying 'we'll compromise...' I don't see what we can't compromise. The, I guess what I'm hearing and I might be interpreting it wrong, there's no integrity in any one particular sub-zone. Elliott: One man's integrity is another person's whatever. Wilburn: Not a person's integrity, but the character of what you see laid out. Elliott: And I think the market takes care of that. Wilbum: Okay, I guess... Elliott: Just so we don't have $500,000 homes next to $100,000. Lehman: Why? What's wrong with that? Elliott: I mean, I don't want to live next to a $500,000 home. Lehman: Bob, now you're putting these restrictions on! (several talking at once) Wilbum: If you're going to do zoning, there are going to be certain restrictions, guides, allowances...if you do the sub-zoning, and I'm not hearing a clear definition of what you consider to be a zone and what you don't consider to be a zone. Anciaux: Diversity of housing, I sort of consider that like Ross and my neighborhood, where you have Broadway that is a high-density, multiple- family thing, and then you go a block over and you cut down to RS-12, and then you go another block over and you go into an RS-8, RS-5, and you put a little space in between them so that the houses, but that is a diverse neighborhood right there. You don't build them all right next to each other. Elliott: And I say three or four of those. Anciaux: You don't build an RM-44, which is the highest density, multiple-family thing right next to an RS-5 house, which is your... Elliott: I grew up with that. Didn't seem to have a problem. Anciaux: Oh, okay. Elliott: I grew up in a three-flat right next to a huge apartment building, right next door was a single-family home. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 13 Anciaux: A three-flat is what? Elliott: What do you mean? Freerks: It's a multi-family. Anciaux: It's multi-family and it could be in that zone. Elliott: Yeah, and right in back of us was a huge apartment building, and there were some...you keep saying you want diversity, but you don't. Anciaux: We do. Freerks: We do. Elliott: But you want to separate things. (several talking at once) Let's go on, let's go on. Smith: And the other thing I wanted to point out too, we basically do have three residential zones: RS-5 is kind of large-lot, RS-8 is supposed to be the smaller, denser single-family, and the RS-12 is a higher density, and each one picks up a little bit more mix of options. So, anyway... Anciaux: Actually, aren't the RS-5 and RS-8 now pretty much identical? Smith: Pretty much identical in this (several talking at once) yeah, they can have comer lots, and again, it's all up to the developer how they want to. O'Donnell: You know, this has really been interesting, and my question still remains, I believe it cuts down on the number of lots available for zero lot line duplexes, which are traditionally more affordable housing, which a duplex on a comer is twice the traffic, you have traffic from both ends. So, it does make a difference if you're after affordable housing and you want that duplex in the center of the lots. I'm going to think more about this, but in my mind it does cut down on the lots available for affordable housing. Freerks: I beg to differ there just because I think we have many ways to achieve affordable housing, many ways to achieve. We are cutting down on lot sizes, as an option, not mandatory. This is always an option for developers. We're allowing lots of ways for them to achieve their goals of having these developments and I think this zone, or this Zoning Code, has a tremendous, I just think it works so much better than what we have currently, and I think that the options available for having affordable housing, and I wouldn't say that if I didn't believe it. This represepts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council worl~ session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 14 Miklo: One of the things to keep in mind is this is all kind of intertwined and . while we're making proposed changes to the RS-8 Zone, we're also proposing changes to the RS-12 Zone to make it more useful. It hasn't been a useful zone over the years and there hasn't been any areas built under it. So, for your concerns about duplexes and townhouses and affordability, that's where you can zone more properties RS-12, so you can increase the supply. O'Donnell: How big of a unit can you put in RS-12, Bob? Miklo: (can't hear) lots down to 3,000 square feet, so it's... Freerks: Currently 45 feet, right now, in the RS-12. Howard: The reason that the townhouses haven't been feasible in the RS-12 is because the lot width in the Zoning Code is 45 feet wide. You can't realistically put a series of townhouses that wide. So, the proposal is to make that zone more useful, so supposedly if developers wanted to develop more concentrated, high-density housing and had a development design that they had for townhouses and duplexes and that sort of thing, they would apply for RS-12, which now it's not a useful zone so nobody applies for RS-12. They go through the (can't understand) process. Lehman: Let me ask you. It seems to me in some respects that the RS-8 Zone, or the duplexes or zero lot lines and whatever, we're really going to expect these folks to move into the 12 and we're kind of creating a middle ground where we do have single-family homes on smaller lots that are going to have to be single-family except for comers. Now, my suspicion is for those folks who want to develop duplexes, they're going to zone RS-12 so they can do their duplexes, but there is the possibility of doing the 8 Zone, which would not be rows and rows of duplexes. Freerks: It gives more opportunity for small lot... Lehman: Right, and if the builders, developers really don't want to do the single- family, they can get an RS-12. Freerks: Right, they have that option. Howard: I mean, it would be similar, I mean, Coralville has a similar setup. They have a zone similar to our RS-5, but they have a truly small-lot, single- family zone that doesn't allow any duplexes at all. So their zone is equivalent to the RS-8 Zone in Iowa City; same lot sizes, similar configuration; they just allow single-family. So, we went one step behind that and said 'Well let's allow different housing types in both the RS-5 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 15 and the RS-8 by allowing the duplexes on the comer, but get that middle ground that you talked about, Emie, that we don't have right now. Vanderhoefi Would you expand a little bit on what you just said about you can't do a townhouse on a 45? Freerks: In the current Zoning Code. (several talking at once) Anciaux: You could, but it'd be too wide for a townhouse. (several talking at once) Howard: Most townhouses are 20 feet wide; you need to attach those units, so if you're trying to get an affordable unit, you wouldn't build townhouses that are 45 feet wide, because they go lot line to lot line. Vanderhoef: Okay, so the present code says minimum of 457 Freerks: On the RS-12. Howard: On the RS-12. Vanderhoefi Got it. Howard: So, we separated out the different housing types and came up with different dimensions for the different types. So, townhouses only require 20-foot wide lot. That way you can attach numerous units together. Lehman: Okay? #3 Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in the Single Family Residential Zones (p.16) - In the RS-5 Zone, change the minimum lot width for detached single family dwellings from 70 feet to 60 feet. Brooks: Okay, moving on to Item 3. This was a request in the RS-5 Zone, change the minimum lot width for detached single-family dwellings from 70 to 60 feet, and as you see in the explanatory notes there, current code is at 60. We found that historically over the last ten years the lot width of developments was in the RS-5. Now, we're talking again in the RS-5, large lot developments in town. The average lot width was about 88 feet, and this gives you a breakdown of all of the developments in RS-5 from 1995 to present. Karen maybe can explain this a little better, but you'll have total number of lots, and lots narrower than 70 feet, which I think you said is only about 22% of all the lots. Now this is what the developers have platted; this isn't what we have forced them to do. This is what the market seemed to be bearing and demanding in the RS-5 Zone. The number of lots 70 feet and wider then was the balance of that 100%. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 16 Lehman: Is Lindemann RS-5? Miklo: Portions are RS-5. The western portion; the eastern portion is RS-8. Lehman: Where it goes off of Court Street is 8, RS-8? Miklo: The first street off of Court Street, heading from west to east, is RS-5. The second entrance is RS-8. Lehman: But Lindemann, isn't there a street called Lindemann Street? Miklo: Right, I think that's the RS-5 section. Lehman: Now those are all 50-foot lots, or 55's. Vanderhoefi Now where is this? Lehman: Lindemann Court, it's off of Court Street. Miklo: No, I believe those are at least 60 feet wide. Lehman: Oh, 60, okay. Vanderhoef: You talked about the market and we're seeing market here, but what is to say that market isn't going to change in the next ten years? I don't see that we've had any problem with the 60-foot. So, I would just say leave it there, and if they want 70 foot, they'll use 70 foot, but if the market changes, then that other option is still available. Elliott: That's what this is calling for, isn't it? 60-foot minimum? Lowering from 70 to 60. Anciaux: Oh, it's actually increasing the bar over the current code. The current code for an RS-5, a typical residential lot, is 60 foot and this proposed amendment (can't hear) to 70. Vanderhoef: So leave it at 70. Miklo: It also allows 60 foot lots if you follow the garage placement standards. It actually goes down to 50-foot lots in the RS-5 if there's a rear lane or an alley. Smith: One of the things that we looked at with current homes being built in RS- 5, there is a high demand for three-car garage units. That's, I mean, when I was a kid when my parents built their house in 1957 a single-car garage This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 17 was a luxury. Then it went up to a two-car garage. Now three-car seems to be the standard, and as you can see on this slide here, that a two-car garage on a 70-foot lot with your side yards leaves you with about 40-foot residential component. As you go to a three-car garage, that suddenly is down to a 30-foot residential component on the street. Lehman: Wait a minutes. You're assuming the house sits right next to the garage. Instead of the garage going around, or the house could extend behind the garage, as many of them do. Smith: Oh yeah, no, it could, right. But from the street, this is the impact that these widths have on the residential element of the home. If you go down to 60 feet, your two-car garage gives you 30-foot residential component, and with a three-car garage, you're down to 20 feet. So, suddenly the residential component of the home has been minimized to 20 feet. Elliott: But, what if the person wants it that way? Champion: Then they have to move out in the country! Vanderhoef: I can see... Elliott: I just don't understand the thought process on that. It's my house. (several talking at once) Yeah, well then who else is helping me pay for it then? If I'm paying for it, it is my house, and if the city puts those requirements, I expect the city to pay a portion of the costs. Bailey: No, no, no. What I'm saying is we build a community with the expectations that houseS, excuse me, Bob, I hate to say it, last longer than people (laughter), and so there has to be some marketability, so maybe you would want it that way but that's not to say that it... Elliott: Yeah, but I'm paying for it. Freerks: We're trying to think in terms of vision for the community and long-term, and we're not requiring a great amount of detail in what we're asking for. Elliott: Yes, but you're telling me the design of house I want I can't have. Freerks: No, we are not talking about the design of house at all. Elliott: You just said... Freerks: No, we're talking about lot width and placement of a garage. We talk about placement of different, of structures on lots with many of our zones. That's nothing new. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 18 Elliott: It says here, provided they take up no more than 50% of the... Freerks: And that's the one, if you look... Elliott: ...and you're telling me therefore the design I want I can't have. Freerks: What we're talking about is blending your space with the public space, and doing it in a way that can create sustainable neighborhoods that are long lasting, and that's something that we, as a Planning and Zoning Commission, feel very strongly about. Elliott: But not enough to give up my rights and freedoms. Freerks: Well, we feel very differently, Bob. Elliott: Yeah, I...anyway, I wouldn't be supportive. I would want it to be at least 60 feet minimum, and I certainly wouldn't support the aspect that says the garage can take up no more than 50%. Smith: I think we're really getting into some issues that we'll get into later on the placement of garages and design standards. I think there's issues on that, and I think what Item number 3 is really focusing on is the minimum lot width for an RS-5, where none of these standards would apply, and today that value is 60. This code would change that to 70. Freerks: And in Coralville, their minimum is 80. Vanderhoef: Was there any discussion at leaving it at 60 and just saying 'maximum on a 60 foot lot would be a double garage; to expand to a triple garage you must have a minimum of this size lot?' Therefore, the choice is there when it's being built and we would have, shall we say, the same amount or approximately the same amount of open space and street frontage, without getting into any'other kind of design? Freerks: If that's something that you really feel strongly as a group to take it down to 60, I would feel very strongly about looking back at that, as you have stated, and taking a look at that. Again, this was our large-lot, single- family zone, and we feel that 70 feet... Elliott: When you talk about two or three-car garages, are you talking about what you can see from the front? In other words, in Iowa City there are some two-car garages that are one in back of the other. So you're only talking about what you see from the front. So you could have a two-bay, one behind the other... (several talking at once). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 19 Vanderhoef: Frequently that third garage is a lot of storage of garden equipment, bicycles, snowmobiles ....(several talking at once) toys for the kids and the daddies or mommas! Freerks: You could build an extra garage in your backyard if you want. I mean, there's lots of ways to create options for people. Vanderhoef: Personally, I like the option of the 60-foot. Champion: It's there; the option's there. Vanderhoef: No, the new code they're saying (several talking at once). Howard: You can do the 60-foot lot by right, as long as it doesn't take, it essentially gets to the same thing. You can build a two-car garage in 20 feet, and so it would fit any front-loaded house plan with a front-loaded two-car garage could fit on a 60-foot wide lot. The problem is a three-car garage. So, you can do any of the house plans that have the two-car garage, front- loaded will fit easily on a 60-foot wide lot. Bailey: But not in an RS-5, the minimum is 70 feet, right? (TAPE ENDS) Freerks: Only the garage percentage, nothing else in terms of RS-5 and single- family homes. Vanderhoef: And garage is typically 20 to 24 foot, so on a 60-foot lot you've got potentially minimum of 48. Freerks: You have your side yard. Lehman: Got that. Vanderhoef: Well, 24 and 24... Freerks: Six feet on each side. Champion: Let me make sure I understand this. You're saying on a 60-foot lot you can build a house with a two-car garage, but not a three-car garage. You have to do the garage concessions then. Is that what you're saying? But you could do a two-car garage with a third storage thing behind it. On a 70-foot lot, you could put a three-car garage. Okay, great. Freerks: Or you could have a really wide lot, and put a huge wide garage on it. (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 20 Lehman: During your discussions, because I have concern about this as well, did you consider at all what percentage of a front yard is, would be required to be green as opposed to paved? Did you look at that? Freerks: That's something we did talk about, yes, Lehman: I mean that would largely determine the size of the garage. If you required that no more than a certain percent of that front yard could be paved. Brooks: It's in the Code now. Lehman: It is? What is that percentage? Brooks: 50%, no more than 50%. Champion: Only in this zone? Brooks: No. Lehman: In any zone? Miklo: Right, in the single-family residential. Vanderhoef: Finish the sentence, Bob. Brooks: Oh, no more than 50% in the hard surface. Vanderhoef: Impermeable surface? Lehman: Is that lot line to lot line? Brooks: Right. Lot line to lot line. Lehman: Which means you can have an awful lot of concrete. If it were 50% of the width of the house, then you'd have significantly less concrete in the front. Miklo: And that's what this tries to get at. Or I think it does get at. Lehman: But if you use a percent like that, you could make it applicable to all zones, all sizes, everything. Just no more than 50% of the front area of a house can be in concrete in the front yard. Howard: ...that standard only applies to the setback area, to the first 15 to 20 feet of the lot. So, because that's traditionally been the yard, so if you set your house back further from the street, it's only the first 15 feet that are the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 21 front yard. So you can widen it out, so what happens is they come right off the street and then you get that wide pavement. Lehman: The front yard is not from the house, from the property.., oh. Howard: Well, in the new Code that's the way it's defined, but in the old Code, front yard was just considered the first 20 feet in the lot. Lehman: For the new Code, it is from the house to the sidewalk? Howard: But the 50% standard stays the same, it's just referring to that set-back area, and we tried to incorporate it into the yard area, but then the difficulty there was that homes don't have necessarily a flat front facade, so to figure out a percentage when yoU have a jagged, you know, facade on the home with different features set back further than others it's difficult to write a standard where you could have 50%, would be hard for H.I.S. to figure it. You'd have to, you know, plan it out. Freerks: And the other issues that have also been talked about, if you wanted to add a garage in the back and you try to put a driveway in (can't hear) just trying to get to the back. So we had talked like that. Lehman: Okay. Freerks: Well, you talk about rentals and pavement of front yards. We talked about this quite a bit and this seemed like the vest solution. O'Donnell: Well, I understand what you're saying. You can have a 70-foot lot with a three-car garage. I'm also reading here that the garage cannot extend in front of the house. Is that...am I reading that right? Is that what staff recommended? Isn't that staff recommendation? Koppes: It kind of leads that way when you read it. I think...it refers to...and that's where I think it's confusing. If you go back to page six, it talks about alleys. 19...page 20 refers, 21 refers to 19. I think that's where it's getting confused. (several talking at once) Smith: ..."no more than 50% of the front part of the house, and are not located forward of the front faCade of the home." Lehman: Right, which means... Howard: So if you want to reduce it below 70 feet, in other words, then you have those placement standards that apply. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 22 Miklo: If your lot's wider than 70 feet, you can put that garage up in front of the house, and put the house way in the back and the garage up front, as long ' as you have that wider lot. (several talking at once) Anything goes after 70 feet. Smith: A lot of that is handled today in the planned development process, and the fundamental difference with this issue as we're looking at it today is that planned development process begins when we start building below 60 feet today. This implements, pulls that trigger a little sooner, by right process. Champion: So you don't have t° go through all that, is that what you're saying? Smith: You don't have to go through that other step. It raises the bar, so to speak to 70-foot minimum before that process gets implemented. It's spelled out with that process. O'Donnell: I didn't catch this the first time I read through it so I just wanted clarification. Koppes: You can also go down to 50 feet if you want to do that. You can go down to 50 feet if you put an alley in. Page 21 talks about that, right here, by right implemented through planned development. Brooks: Shall we move on to 4? Lehman: Okay. (laughter and several talking at once) #4 Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in the Single Family Residential Zones (p.16) - In the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, change the minimum lot width for detached single family dwellings to from 55 feet to 45 feet. Brooks: Cut down discussion, yeah. (laughter) Item 4, again, related to dimensional requirements in the single-family zones in RS-8 and RS-12 Zone, change the minimum lot width for detached single-family dwellings from 55 to 45 feet. Again, I think our discussions and our reasoning and our decision were somewhat based on the same principles that we just talked about in the RS-5 Zone, in terms of trying to create a lot width that was workable with current standards and also gave us a property that had adequate front yard space for a number of reasons, and again, part of it is the more driveway the less on-street parking we have, the more driveway in the lot the more interference there is with pedestrian traffic on sidewalks; you have less space for residential plantings, front lawn, trees, all those amenities that help make a neighborhood a neighborhood. Yeah, we do have some similar slides here on the 55, and again, a three-car This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council worl~ session of September 26, 2005. September 26; 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 23 garage probably isn't something that you would anticipate in a 55-foot wide lot, but as depicted here, that leaves you with very little residential element of the home facing the street. Lehman: Don't you have in here someplace else that the garage can't be more than 50% of the width of the house? So the three-car garage couldn't happen anyway. O'Donnell: No, there isn't, Emie. Lehman: Well, it's being proposed. O'Donnell: Didn't we address that as a Council? Champion: On lots that are only 55 feet wide. O'Donnell: Yeah. I thought we addressed that as a Council. Elliott: Yeah, we made it clear that the placement of garages is not something we want to screw with. Lehman: I'm not talking about that. Is there a requirement in the new Code that the garages cannot constitute more than 50% of the building? Which means that slide up there couldn't happen anyway. Freerks: On only narrow lots. Garage placement only kicks in on narrow lots, right? Under 70 feet. Lehman: Over 70 feet you can have 80% of your house garage? Freerks: Right, but it would never, it's not going to happen most likely. Lehman: Right. Howard: This is just a slide to illustrate not what would be allowed, but what would do if you didn't have any standards. Brooks: What the impact would be. Howard: If you had a 55-foot wide lot in the RS-8 or RS-12 Zone and put a single- family home on it, there would be no standards that would prevent someone from putting a three-car garage on, and in a lot of the production- home builder neighborhoods, they're producing more than one house so the effect on the street with that much of the lots paved. Could happen if , you didn't have the standard. In other words, if you got rid of the garage standard, but did allow lots of this size. This is what could occur. And if This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 24 you went right now in the RS-8 Zone the lot width is 45 feet. This is what this one's about; they want it kept at 45 feet but not have any garage standard, and this is what could occur if you had no standard for the garage and allowed 45 foot wide lot. Koppes: Then you'd have lots of complaints about no parking. Lehman: If you just had a requirement that on lots of less than 50 feet, the garage can't be more than 50% of the width of the house, doesn't that cover all of it? Regardless of the zone? Howard: That's essentially what we've had there. There's just one paragraph that says on lots, it says less than 60 feet. (several talking at once) Smith: ...now if you get into RS-8, that's a different dimension. And it's 55 currently on RS-8, correct? We're... Howard: 45 feet currently in RS-8. Smith: In the new Code, at 55 feet, something below that, is where the garage placement. O'Donnell: Is there a requirement for the garage not to exceed the front of the house in this one? Koppes: If you go to the 45 feet. O'Donnell: IfI go to 45, and I want a single-car garage, can my garage exceed the front fagade of the house? It can't do that? Howard: No, but on a 55 you could, in RS-8. Smith: But on a 54 you couldn't. 55 is the line of demarcation. So anything less than 55, 54, 54 ½. Howard: On page 19, paragraph six, this applies to all single-family zones. This is a general standard. We have lots listed as 60 feet in width. This is the standard that you have to meet. Elliott: What page is that again? Smith: 19. Howard: 19. Elliott: Paragraph six. This represetxts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 25 Howard: So in RS-8, you could have a lot that was 60 feet or greater, and you could have anything you wanted in the RS-5 zone. You could have 70 feet or greater; it could be anyway you wanted it. Champion: Well, I think what you're trying to do is protect the streetscape in small lots to make more lots more affordable. Freerks: Well, to provide room for landscaping and on-street parking, and everything that people want. So that people have smaller lot, single- family homes have an option to have more streetscape, or at least have equal options. Right now those options tend to be a little...than single- family, small lot. You'd have to go to a larger RS-8 zone in order to see what can be achieved on a much smaller lot, really. Same thing can be achieved. Which I've always felt bad on those narrow lots that are really affordable housing that there's no room to plant even a little tree, I mean, with a large garage or large driveway. Vanderhoef: Well, that leads into the standard of setbacks, and in the new Code you're talking about putting setback as close as 15 feet, where we've been at 20. We did the Sand Prairie development that was small lot and we moved them back to 25 feet because there isn't any way to get any kind of shade tree to grow, and even then with the 25 foot, what the forester informed me was that only columnar, that would be more than an ornamental tree, there isn't enough land there to support the growth of a shade tree. Some colomiers might make it, and that's what I've been looking at all these various zones and how you're moving to smaller and smaller lots, but I don't see anything about how we're going to give a streetscape when we don't have enough places to put a shade tree. Lehman: What we've seen so far though are RS-5 and 8, are they all 25-foot setbacks? Miklo: Well, that's the other, the other thing is that... Lehman: Well, the... (several talking at once) Vanderhoef: However, the first person who comes in, you get into that averaging once you get a few houses in there. That sets the scape for the maximum you could move back, if the first two or three were at 15, and you don't have any choice because the averaging will maybe let you go 17 or 18, depending on the number of lots, but it certainly is a problem. Miklo: Do we have...we had some discussions with the City Forester and what he's suggesting, and what we're proposing to do with the subdivision regulations, is to go to a 60-foot right-of-way so that the street trees, the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26~, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 26 shade trees, can be planted in the right-of-way, as they used to be. So you end up with approximately the same amount of green space between the front of the house and the curb. It's just that more of it is in the right-of- way. Lehman: But, Bob, on those, and ! didn't - if we're going to talk about set-backs which we are - on a 15-foot set-back, if you drive a van or an SUV, park it in your driveway, whoever's walking down the street with their baby carriage or wheelchair has to go around that vehicle. Miklo: ...for the garage the setback is 25 feet. So the house can come forward, but the garage has to be at least 25 feet back to provide room in the driveway to park. Vanderhoef: So then you add more paving to get back to that garage. Lehman: No, 'cause if you were 25 foot back you'd have it anyway. Vanderhoef: No, he's saying that the garage has to be back. Miklo: Right. Vanderhoef: That the front of the house can only be up at the 15... Lehman: Right, you still have the same concrete. (several talking at once) Miklo: We did do a study and we found that whenever there were SUV's on a 25- foot driveway, the bumpers were back over. So, I don't see that there's a way around to moving that back to 25 feet. Lehman: I agree. Vanderhoefi I like 25 foot. Lehman: That is the setback for garages. Elliott: I would like to see 25 foot also, but I also understand that moving it to 15 feet provides more room in the backyard, and many, many more people are much more concerned about their backyard than their front yard. The backyard is where they do things as a family, and so while I would prefer 20, 25 feet, I can understand why you might want to allow 15 feet. Vanderhoefi But if you can't get a shade tree in that front yard, so you've got all the paving out there and never are going to be able to support a shade tree any place along that street. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 27 Howard: It'll go in the public right-of-way. Vanderhoef: That is, if that comes to fruition. Howard: What do you mean if it comes to fruition? If thc tree grows? Vanderhoef: If the zoning is approved with the big... Brooks: We're proposing wider streets. Howard: Right, but that's the package. Brooks: That comes in the subdivision. Elliott: How wide would the...what I always call the parking, mean that grassed area between the street and...how wide would that be? Brooks: Down to, what 12 to 15 feet. Lehman: But that would be a requirement that the right-of-way be enough wider to compensate for a 15-foot setback on a house so you could plant street trees. Elliott: But is it wide enough that you could reasonably put a good-sized tree without having the root booger up the sidewalk? 17 feet? That's a lot of space. Miklo: 17 feet, right. Vanderhoef: Okay, well, and you have utilities to put in there because we don't want to put utilities under the concrete, do we? (laughter) Or under trees. Lehman: Planting trees over sewer then. Champion: I think we should go back to fire places and candles. (laughter) O'Donnell: And horses. Bailey: Tents! Anciaux: Interesting point here: the sewer is in the middle of the street normally right? And the storm sewer is... on each side? Lehman: And the water's on the side, and the gas is on the side, is it not? Vanderhoef: And the cable. And the electric... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 28 Lehman: The electric generally goes behind the house. Elliott: There are problems with roots entering into sewer lines that go from the house to the street. I presume you've looked at that problem, that that's not going to happen, if you have - what'd you say, 15 to 17 feet? Yeah. Miklo: Right, we've had discussions with the City Forester and the Public Works office and this is the direction they would like to go. Lehman: I've been asked for a time-out. (BREAK) Lehman: We continue. Brooks: I'm going to hand out...this is again kind of a matrix that Karin did that goes through the different residential zones, the RS-5, the RS-8, and RS- 12, and this was something we used as we were looking at and talking about those three different zones, and so it's kind of something to take with you. A lot of what we just talked about is kind of explained in here, and look through it, and maybe next time, if there are some specific questions, but this was one thing that we used as we were trying in our minds to put the pieces together and work through kind of the hierarchy of zones that we have, and that we felt we should have, and where things were now and where we wanted them to be. Elliott: If we get another matrix, I'm going to feel like I'm in a movie. #5 14-4B-4A-2 and 14-4B-4A-3 and 14-4B-4A-5 (pp. 168-176) In all the single-family residential zones, remove the "design provisions" for duplexes and attached single family (townhouses). They do not specify which "design standards" they want removed. Brooks: Yes, yes, this is the Code Matrix. (laughter) We'll move on maybe now to the next item, which was Item Five. In all single-family residential zones we removed the design provisions for duplexes and attached, single- family townhouses. They do not, the requestor did not specify which design standards they wanted removed. I'm going to let Karen...number five. More than five, less than 21. (laughter) Well, part of this was design standards, I guess maybe explain where design standards fit into this whole process. Howard: Well, right now there's...townhouses can be built without going through a planned development and so what we tried to look at is what would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 29 typically, what the Commission and Council have typically required to the planned development and negotiated through the planned development for townhouse developments, and those issues where townhouses are typically only 18 to 20 feet wide. They're up to six units, you know, attached to each other. So, in the new Code, in the RS-12, making that RS-12 Zone more useful, allowing, adjusting those lot dimensions so that you'd be allowed to attach up to six units together, without going through a planned development, but then having the same types of standards apply to those very narrow lots that you had typically negotiated through the planned development, so you would be able to do them by right, and those types of things, where if you got that many units that close together on a street, where does the traffic go? Where does the parking go? How do you have traffic circulation throughout the neighborhood. I don't think there's been a townhouse development in Iowa City that has that narrow lot that doesn't have the garages offa rear lane. So that's one of the requirements is that you have to find a way .... it doesn't say you have to have an alley, but it says that you have to figure out a way to deal with the parking so that it's not all affecting the street. Vanderhoef: When you talk about the parking for that, there's at least one set of townhouses that I'm aware of and also some multi-family units, that have all the parking in the rear, including some that have the drop-away lots so that you actually are entering it in the rear at the basement level, and must climb a set of stairs, and there's no parking or driveway that brings anyone to the front door. So, if your guests want to park, they have to park in back, and if it's a center unit of six, then they have to walk around the end of the building and all the way around to the front if they're going to be front-door company or guests. Howard: Why wouldn't they park on the street? Vanderhoef: Because it's on a no-parking street. See, we're asking so many of these buildings to be on arterials or major collectors, and so there's no parking anywhere, and I just can't vision anybody trying to have guests come in, except at the closest spot, and then you ask them to walk so far around that some of the people who might live there some of their guests basically can't get in the house. Miklo: I think those projects were done as planned developments and I think that's a good observation and oversight, or something that we missed, that there wasn't a good place for visitor parking. Under the proposed RS-12 Zone, we're going to likely have a lot more of those that aren't on arterial streets, that they will have a local or collector street in front where there will be on-street parking available. That's more likely what will happen, and those on arterial streets, then we do need to look at a way of accommodating some parking... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 30 Vanderhoef: ...bring in a drive and at least a single row of parking. Miklo: Guest parking. Vanderhoefi ...guest parking, you know, sort of like at West High School, even, or angle parking. Pardon me? Champion: Yeah, parking, where the condominium owner's parking if they're condominiums. I mean, a townhouse can be a condominium also. And some of the nicest condominium units I've seen have been where whole blocks are condominimized, but all the parking's in the middle. Elliott: That's a great word, Connie! (laughter) Condominimized! Champion: Well, I'm from Chicago .... actually, it works out very well and it's quite nice, and most people just enter through the backdoor, which is fine. Those luxury condominiums, their backdoor is nicer than my front door. Vanderhoef: As long as it's grade level. Champion: Oh yeah. Vanderhoef: But if it's on a hill, then you've got trouble. Champion: Well, that's the market bears .... decides that anyway. Elliott: Bob, you said that you would anticipate that any of these townhouses, for instances, that have multiple in a row that had parking in the rear, would require a means of parking in the front then, on the street. Miklo: Right, there would be parking available on the street. Elliott: Either a frontage road, if it is... Miklo: Most likely it'd be the local street in front. Because, again, the whole idea of the RS-12 is replacing the RS-8. So, we're likely to see more of it. That's up to the Council in the end to... Elliott: As with one of the apartment complexes a block or two from where I live, they don't have an alley, but they have a driveway that enters and then the parking in the back, and that would be appropriate. Okay. Howard: I guess having a shared driveway that would be for parking for all the units. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 31 Elliott: Yeah, one driveway, and then it leads to the parking in the back. Howard: That's a good solution. Vanderhoef: But either on the lot or on the street. There has to be parking in the front. So when you use the front door, guest parking can be in front. Champion: I don't' think that has to be a rule. Vanderhoef: Well, I do. Why would you have a front door if nobody could can to it? Champion: You'd never have to unlock it. (laughter, several talking at once) Vanderhoef: Okay, so you put a front door there, but then the way you design the interior of the house is to put the living room or the guest... Champion: It's market driven, I mean, it's...that's a market driven thing. If you want your guests to use the front door, I guess you make them walk. Lehman: Or the paperboy. Champion: Right. I mean, it's...I don't think that's a Council decision on where the parking's going to be. Elliott: You can't have the front of the house without a street in front of it. What would it front? (several talking at once) Smith: I think the item we're on has to do with design standards. (laughter, several talking at once) Wilburn: This particular item, you kind of reiterate three different points. One that, you point out that, the comparison that you made earlier that Coralville in their single zones don't allow duplexes, and we're making that allowance, there's certain conditions; that Coralville does do design standards with their duplexes, and that, I guess, the big thing, another thing that needs to come up, is the setting things up so that folks don't have to go through a certain process, which I...(several talking at once) conditional zoning type of... Howard: If people want to look at the real specific...one thing about the townhouses and the other thing was vary the facades, and that's something that typically the Commission, the Council, has asked to prevent real monotony when you have multiple townhouse units together, and I think that's been quoted in the Press incorrectly several times. There's some standards there to vary it, but there's options so they could do it a lot of different ways. You can either, you know, adjust your setbacks so that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 32 adjacent units would have different setbacks, slight differences, so at least you could distinguish the units from each other. The other option is to keep the safe setback, but then adjust the building materials so you could still distinguish the units from each other. So that's been a real typical... Vanderhoef: The setback part I like that because it allows the interior townhouses to get light from another direction. Howard: And I think this, the illustration - one thing to point out - the illustrations in here are just real schematic. They're not intended to be something you would call a definite plan or...they're just to illustrate certain aspects of what the text is saying. So there's a lot of different creative ways the developers have found to build on small, narrow lots, both to get all the private space you want, but also get the nice public amenities that people expect. So there's different configurations and where you put your garages and where you put your private yard space, where you put your street trees. These schematics are not intended to say 'this is the only way you do it.' This is just, they're very... Elliott: You're saying you want distinctive townhouses, whether it's with setback or material, just so you can tell one from the other? What was it in Ireland they have different colored doors so you don't go in the wrong... Brooks: So the only thing that distinguishes you from your neighbor is something more than your house number. Anciaux: Make sure you don't walk into your neighbor's bedroom. (laughter) Elliott: That's always a good idea! Howard: The other issue that's come up a number of times that's in here is the issue of the overhanging eves and the trim around the doors and the windows. And this is something you typically see in most, if you go around, typically the houses in this part of the country, have overhanging eves, at least 12 inches. So these aren't atypical types of things, but what it does on a larger building when you have so many units attached is it breaks down the scale of the building. It helps to create some shadow lines and cuts down on the bulk of looking... Elliott: Didn't I see some place where you want overhanging eves of a certain minimum? Freerks: At least 12 inches fi'om the building wall. Vanderhoef: On a very large building that's not very much. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 33 Brooks: It's a minimum. Elliott: Can't have a flat roof O'Donnell: Not in Iowa. Lehman: As long at it extends 12 inches or more. Elliott: ...they tell me the only way to fix a flat roof is to put a peak on it. (laughter) Brooks: Okay, as you can see with this request, we felt that what we had built into the Code in terms of some very minimal design standards. I hate to even use those words because they become...taken on such a negative connotation, but that they were very minimal, and that they were issues similar to what we would have addressed in a planned unit development process. And the effort, or the intent, was to end up with something comparable to what we would have received at the end of the planning. Elliott: Yeah, I...though I have differences with that, I never question the intent. Your intent is to do something for the greater good of Iowa City. I understand that. We just differ, and I'll be anxious to hear from the builders what they have to say about these minimum design standards. But, certainly, I never question your intent. Lehman: I have a...just a question. On design features on 177, F3, "Exposed, unpainted, or unstained lumber may not be used." Does that mean you can't use natural cedar? Or natural redwood? Freerks: You can use it, you just have to paint it or stain it. Lehman: But that defeats the purpose of natural redwood or natural cedar, and a lot of people use it, and it's very, very attractive. A lot of homes...pardon me? (several talking at once) Freerks: ...clear stain. Lehman: But there are some...I know a house at 902 Wildgreen Road that (laughter) has siding for 30 years. Elliott: That's a dump, isn't it? Lehman: Yes! Okay! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 34 Elliott: I will say, when we had a deck, which we didn't use until we screened it in, I made the mistake of painting it, and it was the worst mistake I ever made. It was, it just had to be repainted almost every year. Lehman: But does that mean you could not build, for example, a front porch out of treated lumber? Without doing something else with it? Miklo: You could if you stained it. Lehman: In other words, the decks that everybody builds and don't do a thing with because they're treated to withstand the weather, we're going to make them stained? Is that what you're telling me? Miklo: . No, because most of those are in the back. Lehman: You said mostly, but we're talking about front porches along with garages, so you're telling me that if they use the wood, pay extra for wood that is all-weathered, treated when you buy it, we're going to make them paint it or stain it? O'Donnell: I think most of it is stained anyway, Emie. Lehman: No, no, no. It's not stained when you .... treated green lumber. (seVeral talking at once) Now we're saying we have to paint it or stain it. Freerks: Well, I can tell you that the few that are inner-dispersed in some of the Longfellow neighborhood don't have that green treated lumber, it releases (can't hear). Elliott: Well, I agree with you, Ernie. Vanderhoefi It doesn't weather down? Lehman: Sure it does. Freerks: We have a lot of those in our neighborhood too, and it looks unfinished is how it works. It doesn't blend with the rest of the house. Lehman: That's the way they want it to look. (laughter, several talking at once) It looks pretty cool, doesn't it? All right, go ahead. Brooks: Karen, a question for you on these, if it's visible from the front public street, house is on the corner lot and there's a rear deck on the back, then that would apply as well? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 35 Howard: I suppose it might be able to change that language...I think the intent there was that it would be along a street facing faCade. There's probably a better way to word that (can't hear) change can be made. That wasn't the intent. Champion: What are shake shingles? What are they? Are those stained traditionally? (several talking at once) Lehman: The same house at Wildgreen Road's got the same shakes and it has for 30 years. (laughter) And there's no stain or anything on them. They use them on roofs. Does that mean that a shake roof, because you can see it from the street, has to be stained? (laughter) Miklo: This is talking about lumber actually. This would be like the decking on the porch. I don't believe this is referring to siding. So if you wanted to use shakes... Lehman: Ahh, I'm legal again! Okay! (laughter) #6 14-2A-7A-1. (p.20) Single Family Bonus Options in the RS-5 Zone - Change bonus density provision in the RS-5 Zone to allow lot widths to be reduced to 45 feet (instead of 50 feet) if alleys or rear lanes are utilized for vehicular access. Brooks: Shall we move on? Item number six was single-family bonus options in RS-5 Zones, changes bonus density provision in the RS-5 Zone to lot widths to be reduced to 45 instead of 50 feet, if alleys and rear lanes are utilized for vehicular access. This was one of those that, again, I think that the Commission felt we had had, again, in the RS-5 Zone had gone as far in reducing the lot width as we felt we wanted to go, should go, in an RS-5 Zone. RS-8, it was appropriate, but that the RS-5 was the low-density, large lots, and we were going just too far on 45. Elliott: How wide did you say a garage is, typical? 20 feet? Brooks: Twenty would be minimum, 22. Elliott: Well, if you had a single-car garage, it wouldn't take up 50% of the building, so why couldn't they do that? Champion: They're talking about RS-5. Elliott: No, but you say allow lot widths to be 45 feet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 36 Freerks: Those are our large-lot, single-family, and that's what .... (several talking at once). Elliott: No, but it says if it could be 45 feet, you can have a 20 foot wide garage, and it wouldn't take up 50% of the front of the house, so why doesn't that... Freerks: You have 10 feet of side yard you have to account for. There's five feet on either side that you have to separate yourself from your neighbor's property. Elliott: Wouldn't it be nice if I could think of that? (laughter) Brooks: And again, we were looking at the RS-5 Zone, which is our large-lot, low- density, and we just felt that we had collapsed that down as far as we wanted to go and still maintain the integrity of that zone. Anciaux: And if the developer wants to collapse it down some more then they can go to RS-8 and get a smaller... Elliott: And you said how much on either side? Ten? (several talking at once) Five? Okay. So you'd have 35...you could have a 35-foot house. Okay. Vanderhoef: Okay, talking about density. We said on the 70-foot lots we could have 12 per block. Freerks: You can have more than that. (several talking at once) Brooks: In the RS-8, you could have .... Vanderhoef: No, I'm talking just the RS-5. Give me the density...(several talking at once) ...four lots per side. Okay. 300 foot lot, okay, so then divide it out for me. If we went down to 45... Miklo: That would be 6.6, if you went to 50 it's 6...so...there was a memo that we mailed out on Friday that had a more typical block in more of a newer subdivision, maybe 550 feet long and you could, for a 70-foot lot you get 14 lots. If you go to an alley with 50-foot wide lots you get 20 lots. So you get six additional lots by doing the alley in that scenario. Lehman: If you're looking for more lots, why wouldn't you just go RS-8? (several talking at once) Freerks: Or you can always do a planned development. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 37 Lehman: I mean, basically what we're looking at here is RS-5 and RS-8 being single-family zones, period. We're going to allow duplexes on comer lots, but these are single-family zones and they're intended to be used for single-family. (several talking at once) Freerks: But again, we don't take into consideration... Lehman: Well, you can't do that. Vanderhoefi With the alley you're saying then parking will be on the alley? Howard: One of the things that came up at one of the public hearings, somebody said well you can't build neighborhoods like we used to build them. What this bonus provision will do is allow you to build neighborhoods like we have in the older parts of town. It doesn't require you to, it just allows the developer, if they choose to do so, to take advantage of the bonus density provision, and reduce their .... because we have a lot of neighborhoods in the older part of town where the lots are 50 feet wide and the homes are on an alley, and...or the garage is on an alley and they don't feel any more dense than a typical RS-5 Zone. Champion: Well, there aren't a lot of alleys, and sometimes the garages are just in the backyard. Howard: Right, but sometimes they have the driveway that goes to the garage in the back, but this just provides, I guess, the option to... Elliott: I wouldn't see anything wrong with having the garage in front on this. A 20-foot garage, 15-foot frontage beside the garage? I would certainly rather pull into my garage than have to go down an alley and go into a garage in back. Many people in these houses are going to have children and I would think the last thing you'd want is someone coming in with a load of groceries and one or two children, and going from a garage in back up to the front? Champion: Do we all need to be wimps? I had eight, and I never had to .... (can't hear) and when I had one I hated it. Howard: I think there's a lot of ways to attach the garage, both n the front and the back. There's a lot of different house plans that have a lot of different options, so that all can be market driven, and the idea is that in RS-5 Zone, a typical lot would be...if you wanted a front-loaded subdivision that had front-loaded garages, you'd plot your lots at a typical RS-5 width that would accommodate front-loaded garages. If you wanted to do something different and wanted to take advantage of the bonus density provision you could do that too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 38 Elliott: I'm just saying, having 20-foot garage and 15-foot house isn't a bother to me. If you wanted to, then with the front door require some modest things, like it needs to have a roof, it needs to have a railing, it needs to have windows above or beside. Lehman: You're designing the front door. (several talking at once) Elliott: No, but I mean you could put those things...I'm willing to compromise on this, but I just think there are a lot of people who don't want to go around the back, down an alley... Freerks: But this is specifically for our RS-5, and it was a suggestion to narrow the lots, and we didn't make any changes, following number six recommendation. Smith: When you look at RS-5, you'll find that the minimum lot width can go down to 50 feet, with bonus density, with design standards, with garage placement criteria, whatever you want to call it. When you look at RS-8, you can go down to 45 feet. Lehman: 40 feet. (several talking at once) But is it appropriate to have 45-foot lots in an RS-5 Zone where you've got lots all the way from 50 to 80 (several talking at once) right...yeah. Miklo: There are no design standards even with the alley. Vanderhoef: Am I reading this wrong on number six though? They're talking about RS-5 Zone to allow width... Howard: It was a suggestion. Smith: That was the requested change. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef: Okay, but the house then, when you get down to that small a lot, frontage, depending on the depth of the lot, you can have a pretty small house, or you'll hit the 50%. Smith: ' According to the standards that have been proposed here, theoretically you'll never see a house built on a smaller lot than 50 feet and have the garage in the front, because of the criteria we talked about. Take away 10 - five feet on either side - on a 50-foot lot, you're down to 40 feet that's · buildable, frontage, and assuming a standard garage is 20 feet, that's kind of your 50% marker there, and criteria laid out says the garage can't exceed 50% of the front facade. So we get into lot widths below 50 feet, and not likely to have a two-car garage on the front. Single-car garage, as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 39 we discussed earlier, is an option, but (TAPE ENDS) It also limits the three-car garages on the front of those, that if you're looking at a three-car garage, your lot width is going to most likely going to need to be much bigger. Vanderhoef: I don't think that's...but what about the 50% coverage of the lot? If you put the garage at the alley, with the five foot I think it is spacing between the front of the garage and the actual alley, and then you want to connect it to the house, and... Smith: It's totally permissible, and in an RS-5, 50 foot is the minimum lot width. In order to get to the 45-foot lot width as requested here, it had to be an RS-8. Freerks: Which we could do; it'd just be RS-8. Lehman: They're just asking to do something in the wrong zone. Howard: You can actually get a very large house on a small lot if you put the garage in the alley because you can fill up the whole, actually get a very typical, same-size house essentially. You get a large lot... Vanderhoef: Well, I looked at one of your schematics just in general and was trying to figure, 'Okay, so you have your basic house like this and then you put laundry room mud room or something and go all the way back to the garage,' rather than having sidewalk back there to connect you, you go with the house and then that... Howard: ...because those schematics are just schematics, they're not actual house plans. I pulled a house plan off a production-home builder's site from Wisconsin who builds both on alleys and front-loaded garages, and so if you flip that over to the other side, you'll see the actual house plan and you see how that fits on...this builder was doing this particular model was in a neighborhood that had an alley. So all the house plans that they offered on their web site had designs similar to this. So you still have the private space in the rear, you'd have the attached garage; you'd have the breezeway; you'd have the storage space - this was their solution to all of those issues. So this is just one example, but... Vanderhoefi What's the depth of that lot, and what's percent are they covering? Howard: You could set that on a 100-foot lot and still meet the lot coverage. Vanderhoef: And still meet...okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 40 Smith: The code, as it's laid out for RS-5, is set up such that it's 70 feet or larger unrestricted for the type of house and how it will be built. There is a zone between 50 and 70 feet (can't hear) where these standards would apply by right. (can't hear) in that range, and I think this request says to lower that range so that we could go from 45 to 70 by right, and that's what we're not agreeing. Brooks: I hesitate to even pass these out because people are going to start focusing on the design of the house and the layout of the house, and that's not something that we do, nor are we trying to do it. We're setting minimum standards for placement and setbacks and those types of things. Howard: And only on narrow lots, which we did not allow in these zones before. Lehman: This just shows it fits? Brooks: That there are options out there. The creativity of the developer comes into play to, you know, find the plan that fits and they're out there. There are any number of them that are out there. Now maybe we can't pull ones that have been used for the past ten years off of the shelf and keep using them, but there are plenty of options out there for plans that would fit any of the lots, and any of the schemes, and any dimensions and requirements that are proposed in here. Vanderhoefi I appreciate this though, because visualizing what will fit onto a lot is important...I do it visually a lot better than I do with... Brooks: We didn't use these when we were, you know, this is the first time I've seen this one, too. So...(several talking at once) Vanderhoef: To me it is. Smith: There's two fundamental changes, I think, with what's laid out here. One is in the past we got below the minimum plan development process. Now there's rules and criteria set by which we can avoid that, do it by right; and the second fundamental change is they is they increase the trigger at where that process gets initiated, where it used to be at 60-foot was the minimum on RS-5, now it's 70. So ! think those are the two primary differences we see here from what we have... Freerks: But we're seeing more three-stall garages, family homes, and this is just a way to support our (can't hear) personal space, and having sustainable, healthy neighborhoods, long-term. Elliott: It appears we will probably be seeing fewer three-car garages in the future, I would assume. Am I correct in understanding that inter-zones are cross- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 41 zones, you can have a garage entrance from the front if it does not take up more than 50%? Okay. Smith: And does not extend (can't hear) If it's below 60 feet. O'Donnell: But if you had a 70-foot lot, you can have (several talking at once) Freerks: So if 80% of the lots in the last ten years..at over 70 feet wide, clearly, that trend may not change. The market decides how wide people want their lots. So if the market demands smaller lots, developers are probably going to develop smaller lots. If the market still demands a good chunk of the platted lot to be larger to allow three-car garages, that's probably the way they'll be platted. Smith: And we're trying to give them the options to develop those smaller lots without going through the planned development process, by providing those as rights, but taking some of those elements that we would have looked for and included in the planned development and building those into the Code. Elliott: And, you don't want the garage to protrude in front of the front of the house strictly for appearance sake? No, I mean what other reason is there? Anciaux: So you don't have an S.U.V. hanging out over the sidewalk. Lehman: No, the setback is the same. That wouldn't make any difference. Elliott: But, is there another reason, other than other people's appearance consideration that you wouldn't want the garage to protrude in front of the house, in front of the front of the house? Smith: I think that's probably the primary reason. Howard: I can't see the visual aspect .... Elliott: See, I can't understand why you're giving more credence to a passer-by than to me who is paying the house. It doesn't make sense. Howard: It doesn't protrude if your lot is 70 feet wide, right? I mean, as long as your setback is appropriate, you can have the garage, you can have the house...in the backyard, if your lot's 70 feet wide. On a narrow lot, you have limitations and restrictions, as you would have had in a planned development, but now you know if you want to make lots smaller as a developer, you know what you have to 'get yourself into. Freerks: This is because these are things we did not allow previously by right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 42 Elliott: Ahh, I just .... I don't understand. Howard: ...those issues when we had planned development and that's why we're doing this now. Elliott: And it's strictly for appearance sake? Lehman: Did we restrict the placement of garages? In the back? (several talking at once) Elliott: Yeah, see, I thought we covered that with the Sandhill. Lehman: I did too. Okay, let's move along. #7 14-2A-7A-2. (p.20) Single Family Bonus Options in the RS-8 Zone - Change bonus density provision in the RS-8 ZOne to allow lot widths to be reduced to 35 feet (rather than 40 feet) if alley or rear lanes are utilized for vehicular access. Brooks: Okay, Item seven then, again, is similar type of thing where the RS-8 Zone, the request was to reduce to 35 feet instead of what we had proposed at 40 feet, and again, I think we took the same position on this, that we had gone as narrow as we thought we could and held the line on that. Lehman: What's the minimum size presently in an RS-8? How narrow can you go presently? Brooks: 45. Lehman: So, I mean this...this goes to 40, which is smaller than it is now. Okay. Brooks: Again, with those design standards being affected at 60 or less. O'Donnell: I'm curious on both of these. When you change the density bonus on seven, to be reduced to 35, 40 feet if you use a rear alley. I'm curious why they wouldn't agree with that. Freerks: We just felt that 40 feet was the minimum we wanted to go, small; single- family; you can go through a planned development if you want to do something more creative. Anci aux: RS- 12. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 43 #8 Remove provision 14-2A-6 (p.18), which states that "on lots less than 60 feet in width, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape..." Brooks: Item eight then was on lots less than 60 feet in width, garage and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape. We were asked to remove this element, and again, we just kind of had that discussion with Bob here a little bit. You have some examples, do you want to show .... again, a lot of this was based on input that's come through, various district planning processes, there've been a number of opportunities for the community to kind of express their feelings about the environment and the appearance and the esthetics of their neighborhood, and we just felt, again, that...I don't like the way we put the emphasis on the garage placement that we're not putting the emphasis on what the place is - it's your home, and living, and why isn't that the most important part of your home, instead of your garage, and if it's the most important part of your home, shouldn't it be the pan that shines and stands out, but it appears that the garage is the most important thing. Elliott: And it appears that you're giving more emphasis to the people passing by, who have not paid for it, than you are to the person living there who has his or her preference and is paying for it. Howard: The issue, of course again, on the narrow lots is not just how it looks, but how it makes the neighborhood function. It cuts down the off-street parking areas. We have people calling in, complain all the time on neighborhoods that have gotten really small lots. If they haven't made any provision for off-street parking, and don't have any on-street parking, it causes all sons of problems for Public Works; it causes problems - people parking in front of mailboxes, people parking in front of driveways. There's way, I think, the way the standard is written, there's many, many ways to meet the standards. All of these homes meet the standards. In fact, most of the examples in the Code are front-loaded garages, and you still have the same types of features for the private space. You have the backyard; you have the .... you know, there's nothing that says you can't have any of the features that are demanded in the market and still meet these standards. There's homebuilders that have adjusted their house plans so they have both the residential aspect facing the street, plus they have all the private aspects of the home, that everybody expects. So, there's just many, many .... all of these homes meet the standards. Freerks: And again, these are narrow lots, which we previously did not allow (can't hear), except through planned development. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 44 Howard: I think with just a little thought and planning, there's ways to get both things, the public aspects and the private aspects, to work well together. Wilburn: So in aggregate when the entire neighborhood is there...the problems, in terms of the public usage and visual, are less than... Howard: Right, so it's how the neighborhood functions over time and whether it's sustainable, and whether people would want to invest and reinvest in these neighborhoods over the long-term, particularly as you get narrower and narrower, some of the issues become even more pronounced. Champion: I noticed on some of these, you've just .... they just have a little porch that kind of goes to the garage, and that's still acceptable? Howard: Right, so...on this example for example, the garage does protrude in front of the home, but they've put a porch and so that's allowed by the standard to...that's a real typical house plan that's out there. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef: Is that a 6-foot? Smith: If the lot width is less than 60 feet. The fundamental restriction here has always been (can't hear) two-car garage. If you wanted to have a third-car garage, the narrow lot width would not meet the criteria. Howard: Yeah, you'd have to do the tandem garage. You could do three. Vanderhoef: These are all on 60-foot lots, that you're showing us? Howard: Right, or less. Some of these are smaller lots. Miklo: Some of them are 55. Howard: This is on a...what is this one? Miklo: I think this is a 40-foot lot, or 45, excuse me. Howard: And then, of course, you get down to the 30-feet, and you really don't have room in the front for two or three-car garage. Lehman: But your 50% dimensional requirement would prohibit that anyway. Howard: But if you got rid of it, they're asking that this amendment, that they're requesting, is to get rid of that, so if you adjusted the lot width as the Commission has suggested, and allowed the bonus density and that sort of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 45 thing without any standards in the Code, without the garage placement standard, you could do this house with the garage in the front. Lehman: Yeah, but if you kept the 50% in there, just regardless of the placement of the garage, just that you cannot have more than 50% of the frontage, you pretty well control how much the garage is going to be on the street. Whether the lot is 40, 50, 60, or 70 feet... Howard: But just keep part of the standard and not the whole standard? Smith: This request is requesting to remove that 50%, that paragraph that designates the 50% requirement. Lehman: Right, I see that. Smith: That specifically gets at the heart of the issue of what they're requesting be removed. Elliott: See, I could compromise on that too, if we went to 75%. Bailey: Well, I have a question that I always have when we're doing ordinances about enforceability and I think we need to make sure it's worded in a clear way for the developers' sake, and a clearly enforceable way, and so that's something I would be, I mean if we're looking at something different, I would really be curious about that - clarity for the developer, 'cause that's absolutely necessary; that's why we want to do these by right; and then enforceability. Miklo: We did have our Building and Housing Inspection department heavily involved (can't hear). Bailey: So this language is... Howard: And that's why the 50% if you're' on a comer lot only applies to one of the frontages. You can have, that's why that... Anciaux: As far as the 50% goes, too, like this house, your neighbor comes...or you've got company coming over, you've got no... Karr: Mr. Anciaux, I can't hear you at all. Anciaux: When you get that garage that covers the entire front or, as suggested, maybe 75%, all of a sudden you have a little get-together and you have company come over, and you have to ask your neighbors to park in their drive. There's no on-street parking at all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 46 Bailey: That's one of the concerns I've heard about narrower lots is how to provide ample on-street parking. Miklo: So it's not just esthetics, it's also... Lehman: I understand that, but in that case you're looking at right there, if those two cars weren't parked in the drive - you had one car in the drive - you wouldn't have room to put the other car in the street. So, you're not giving up anything with the driveways. If you look at the total number of cars you can park, if you count the driveway and the street space - what you're giving up in the street, you're picking up in the drive. Bailey: But privately...the public is picking up nothing. Anciaux: But if you would have company over, say four or five people that bring four or five cars, you better know your neighbors pretty well to get a parking place for them. Lehman: No, I agree, and that particular house doesn't even have sidewalks, does it? (several talking at once) I don't care where it is, on that one you walk the baby stroller in the street. Elliott: Their parking the cars vertically takes up less space than parking it horizontally on the street. So there goes your argument for on-street parking. (several talking at once) Yeah, in my driveway. I could put, if I had a two-car garage with a driveway, I could put two cars in the driveway, where you could put only one car along the street. Anciaux: But, you've got other neighbors that have other lots up and down the street that you park in. Elliott: One would assume if everyone on our street had neighbors at the same time, we'd use the parking lot up the top of the hill. We couldn't... Anciaux: Okay (can't hear). Elliott: .... yeah, you're always, under some circumstances, you're going to have problems with on-street parking. Smith: There are some examples of these types of neighborhoods in Iowa City now that we would not permit. (can't hear) on the north side. Idewild? (several talking at once) Howard: Well, the point is we don't allow 30-foot wide single-family detached lots in Iowa City right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 47 Miklo: So this is providing a real bonus... Howard: The only way this neighborhood was developed was through a planned development, and this is in another town. (several talking at once) Elliott: A house in another town. We want sidewalks! Brooks: Should we move on? Vanderhoefi Somewhere in the Code I saw...about sidewalks...(several talking at once). Brooks: We're only about halfway through the residential issues. Do we want to keep going? Lehman: Well, why don't we keep going at least for another 20 minutes. I don't see anybody falling asleep or .... we gotta keep going on this thing. There's a lot. #9 14-4B-4A-2 (p.168) and 14-4B-4A-5 (p.175) - In the RS-5 Zone, keep the provision that duplexes and attached SF dwellings are allowed on corner lots with each unit facing a different street, but remove other standards. Requestor did not specify which standards should be removed. Brooks: Okay, we'll move on to Number nine now. In the RS-5 Zone, keep the provision that duplexes and attached single-family dwellings are allowed on comer lots, with each unit facing a different street, but remove other standards. The requestor didn't really specify what those standards would be, but we assumed that they were the same things that we discussed a little earlier. The overhang, the trim, those types of issues, and again, we felt it was important to leave those in because the temptation sometimes is to downscale duplexes, make them more affordable maybe by taking away some of the amenities and things that are part of a single-family, detached residence and that we wanted to make sure we were maintaining the standards that were comparable. So, we didn't recommend changing any of that. Freerks: These are very minimal, I would just say. I mean, we went through a whole myriad of different ideas and thoughts, and these stuck with what was the very least. Miklo: They're on the bottom of page 177. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 48 #10 Remove 14-2A-6C-3 (p. 18) - Parking is not permitted in the front building setback, with a few listed exceptions. Brooks: Item ten was parking is not permitted in the front building setback, with a few listed exceptions. Lehman: You took care of it. Brooks: Yeah. Lehman: Thank you. Let's go (several talking at once) Vanderhoef: ...limit that front-yard parking? #11 Table 2A-2 (p.16) Increase the minimum setback in residential zones to 25 feet. (In the proposed Code, the minimum setback for the principal use is 15 feet. In the current code, the minimum setback is 20 feet.) Brooks: On the ones maybe that we didn't take any action on. Number eleven, increase the minimum setback in residential zones to 25 feet, and the proposed code the minimum setback for a principal unit is 15 feet. Current code, the minimum setback is 20 feet. Again, this is a minimum. They can setback as far as they want. So, because of what we're looking at in terms of the subdivision standards where we would be asking for wider street right-of-ways, the basic...the difference between curb line in front of home isn't changing, but again the developer can set it back to 20 feet. They can go back 25. They can go whatever they want. This is just a minimum, that we don't want them any closer. Howard: One of the ways developers often establish something like that, Connie or Dee, you asked that question about setbacks, if they established them through private covenants. So if they want their whole subdivision to have setbacks at a certain .... I'm sure that's how Summit Street was done. Originally there was probably some standard when the lots were platted... Champion: Some of those houses have been moved over the years, so I don't think there was a standard. Brooks: Private covenants are another issue that the developer .... and many times they are much more restrictive. They get into more detail about design and...then anything we're getting into. The subdivision I'm in, every house is supposed to have a certain percentage of brick on the front and you know, so the developer's are many times setting those design This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 49 standards that are much more costly and have an impact on the affordability than we are. #10 (Re-discussed) Remove 14-2A-6C-3 (p. 18) - Parking is not permitted in the front building setback, with a few listed exceptions. Vanderhoef: Yeah, you go to the (can't hear) and all of those kinds of things. Could we just tip back to number ten...going back to number ten. It's related, and something I would like added to the Code is about additional concrete pads pm into the front yards for additional parking. If it isn't on the driveway right now, if you add additional concrete out there, you can have as many vehicles as you can get onto the concrete. Lehman: Is that addressed anywhere in this Code? The total number of vehicles that can be parked in front of a residence? (several taking at once) Behr: That issue was considered and we looked at it closely and what we concluded was that... Lehman: You need to speak up... Behr: I'm sorry. We looked at that closely, and what we concluded was that type of limitation would be better put in the nuisance provisions within the City Code, as opposed to the zoning. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoefi It's a big nuisance, let me tell you. But just that front yard parking is becoming more and more a request, or has been done because it's allowed as long as you have a hard surface .... Freerks: Or even if you don't, often times. Vanderhoef: You've noticed. (laughter) Freerks: Oh yeah! Brooks: Um... Champion: I'm sorry ..... I've stopped absorbing things. O'Donnell: I have too. I think two hours is enough for these. Somebody like Ernie, at his age, maybe an hour and a hale (laughter) Howard: Don't you have it set for Monday? (several talking at once) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 50 Brooks: I think we probably should start back in with the residential. And you know, maybe we need to focus on those that we feel are going to be...(several talking at once). So, between now and tomorrow night, if we want to make a list of 'these are definite ones we want to spend some time discussing;' get those out of the way and come back... Champion: It probably seems easy to you because you've gone over it and over it and over it and over it. Brooks: Yeah, it's kind of hard even to remember all the discussions that took place and... Lehman: You did very well. Vanderhoef: I have a request. We touched on it earlier about the utilities and the trees and the open space and what you can and can't get in there on different sized lots, and recommendations of the Forester. If you could do just line drawing schematics to show me what can and can't be done, and whether you use the bigger parking area versus front yard area, some of that, I'd appreciate it. Miklo: We might not be able to get it done tomorrow night, but we'll try. Hopefully we'll get it to you before the public hearing. Vanderhoef: Well, it certainly is something that...(several talking at once) Brooks: ... City Forester has a list of ones that...right...the root system does. Howard: We have a memo, actually I can pull that out, from the City Forester when, we talked to him about subdivision code, and so he sent us a memo saying what was the minimum necessary for the big trees you're talking about. Vanderhoefi Okay, but, let's talk about it...what kind we could put in say a 40-foot frontage with a 15-foot setback. O'Donnell: Are you talking like a birch or a pine or an oak? Or...are you talking specific trees or... Vanderhoef: I want shade trees that cool the pavement, cool the house, and the drip lines you know are typically where the root system goes. Okay, so then you have a questimate when you... O'Donnell: then you are talking a birch or an oak or... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005. September 26, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 51 Elliott: Well, yeah, that would my concern that you would have, especially if the house goes east/west, that in the parking area you could have a tree large enough, meaning tall enough, to provide shade that would go, what, 25 feet back or so. Champion: What ifI don't want a shade tree, Robert? Elliott: Then you don't have to have one; cut it down! Shannon: My question, why are you making provisions for shade trees, and if it's not in the ordinance to have one? Vanderhoef: Okay. I'll tell you why. I'm talking about clean air, I'm talking about...no, let me finish, you asked! Since I was asked...okay, you have the shade which is energy used within the house which is cost to the homeowner. You have the clean air, you have the ability to soften the look of a crowded lot. Trees give height and beautification in the area. Lehman: Careful, they're going to be required. (several talking at once) Vanderhoef: I would not object to requiring, you know... Karr: Anybody who wishes to leave their stuff, the room .... it'll be set up for tomorrow night. If you want to leave anything... Lehman: Before we go, I would suggest that we all check our calendars. We're never going to get through this tomorrow night. I'll stay as long as you will, but I can't sleep with my eyes open. Howard: Can we plan to be here until at least 9:00 tomorrow night? Is that .... (several talking at once). Lehman: I do think we're...if we can figure out a night we can all pretty much be here, another night this week, we're going to have to (several talking at once). Yes, because we have the public hearing next Wednesday. Elliott: Let's get it done. (several talking at once) (TAPE OFF) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 26, 2005.