Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-26 Correspondence ab6ut the li hing ,. is ttle t s. So is the Abbott. Like the kitchenpantry, giving you the just the eXtra storage you need. Like the abundance of windows that line the spacious great room. Like the optional varmth and coziness to a rOom: The Abbott. It's the little things that count. VERIDIAN HOMES 6801 South Towne Drive Madison,WI 53713 (608) 226-3000 www. veridianhomes.com FIRST FLOOR '! &S. ¥: ¥ §'ame night or c~ktails wi - friends? With flexible space at the front of the home, it s up to you. .............................. ~ .; The kitchen's convenient ~enter island ' ' ~ ' : ' - . mcan~ yOU'll never run'out of counter GARAGE ' - ,:" STORAGE BREAKFAST BEDROOM GREAT ROOM BEDROOM #3 KITCHEN OWNER'S SUITE DEN/DINiNG ROOM ,': ( II / / OPTIONAL TflAY OR CATHEDRAL CEILING x LOT WIDTHS IN RS-5 SUBDIVISIONS (1995-PRESENT) # of lots # of lots Subdivision name Year Total # lots narrower 70'or Average lot than 70' wider width GALWAY HILLS PART 2 1995 24 1 23 85 PELSANG PLACE 1995 3 0 3 88 ROBER 1995 2 0 2 129 WINDSOR RIDGE PART 6 1995 7 0 7 92 WINDSOR RIDGE PART 7 1995 16 I 15 92 1995 Total lots, average width 52 2 50 90 GALWAY HILLS PART 3 1996 53 44 9 64 HUNTERS RUN PART 8 1996 17 0 17 81 MOUNT PROSPECT PART 8 1996 13 10 3 68 1996 Total lots, average width 83 54 29 68 COURT PARK 1997 6 0 6 78 IRWIN SUBDIVISION 1997 4 0 4 103 WINDSOR RIDGE PART 8 1997 25 0 25 87 1997 Total lots, average width 35 0 35 87 BOYD'S FASHIONABLE ACRES 1998 16 0 16 93 GALWAY HILLS PART 5 1998 7 0 7 96 GREEN MOUNTAIN MEADOW 1998 14 0 14 83 WINDSOR RIDGE PART 9 1998 46 1 45 81 1998 Total lots, average width 83 1 82 85 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES - 1ST ADDITION 1999 20 0 20 95 GALWAY HILLS PART 6 1999 13 0 13 88 HOLLYWOOD MANOR PART 6 1999 24 13 11 72 SCO'I-I- BOULEVARD EAST PART 4 1999 15 0 15 91 WILD PRAIRIE ESTATES PART 3 1999 30 0 30 · 100 1999 Total lots, average width 102 13 89 90 HOLLYWOOD MANOR-PART 7 2000 42 22 20 7'2 WINDSOR RIDGE PART 10A 2000 8 0 8 87 2000 Total lots average wdth - 50 22 28 74 STONE BRIDGE ESTATES PART 1 2001 16 9 7 67' WINDSOR RIDGE PART 11A 2001 15 0 15 89 2001 Total !Ol;~s, average width 31 9 22 78 FIRST & ROCHESTER PART 4 2002 36 0 36 94 HICKORY HEIGHTS 2002 20 0 20 95 LINDEMANN PART 1 2002 33 4 29 77 OAKES SIXTH ADDITION 2002 18 0 18 85 STONE BRIDGE ESTATES pART 2 2002 18 14 4 70 STONE BRIDGE ESTATES PART 3 2002 17 12 5 67 STONE BRIDGE ESTATES PART 4 2002 15 14 1 66 VILLAGE GREEN PART 22 2002 23 17 6 70 WILD PRAIRIE ESTATES PART 4 2002 23 0 23 99 ~2T0ta ets averagewdth 203 ,6! 142 82 GALWAy H ILLS PART 7 2003 15 0 15 83 HOLLYWOOD MANOR PART 8 2003 22 10 12 73 HIGHLAND WOODS 2003 10 0 10 91 HEARTHSIDE REFUGE 2003 4 0 4 127 OAKMONT ESTATES 2003 16 0 16 92 2003 T0ta ots average vyidth 67 10 57 85 GALWAY HILLS PART 8 2003 9 2 7 85 GALWAY HILLS PART 9 2003 16 4 12 83 WILD PRAIRIE PART 5 2003 35 0 35 95 MACKINAW VILLAGE 2003 59 3 56 86 2004 Total !0.t~ ,a~e~g~ ~i~tb ! 19 9 ~ 10 88 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 23, 2005 To: City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Zoning Code Work Sessions On Monday September 26 and Tuesday September 27 at 6:30 P.M., the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will meet to review the proposed zoning code. To facilitate the discussion we will follow the matrix that the Commission used to review requested amendments to the~ublic Review Draft (copies of the matrix were provided to the Council on September 19).'~¢ We have also enclosed a memorandum regarding the benefit/cost data for alley construction and a response to the Land Development Council's statements regarding the proposed code. Cc City Manager Karin Franklin The fo/lowing information about the proposed Zoning Code is being widely disseminated by the Land Development Council. We have provided responses to clarify and address the issues they have raised. · How will this code affect future homeowners? Land Development Council: The design mandates affect not only how the homes look, but are intended to influence how people live. Often referred to as "New Urbanism", these design standards are meant to determine how people live by controlling the design of their homes. The smaller the lot (and hence, more affordable) the more limited back yard living space will become by having the garage and possibly the driveway placed in that space instead of patios, gardens and children's play areas. Alley(s) greatly reduce the privacy of the back yard space. In most situations Homeowners Associations will have to be established to provide a mechanism to provide general maintenance for the alleys. Response: We have heard over and over again from citizens that they desire attractive, walkable, and safe neighborhood streets. Such streets are easy to achieve in larger lot neighborhoods. The good news is that safe, walkable neighborhood streets are also possible in small lot neighborhoods, if a few simple rules are fo/lowed. The intent of the changes in the proposed code for Single Family Zones is to allow more opportunities to develop neighborhoods with smaller, more affordable home lots. In the current RS-5 Zone, the minimum lot size is 8000 square feet; the minimum lot width is 60 feet. In the proposed Code, the minimum lot size remains 8000 square feet and the minimum lot width is increased to 70 feet. However, the minimum lot width may be reduced to 60 feet if garages are located flush with or set back from the front of the home and take up no more than 50% of the front facade. In addition, the proposed code allows lot size to be reduced to 6, 000 square feet and lot width to be reduced to 50 feet if garages are located on a rear alley. This would be a similar subdivision design to many existing Iowa City neighborhoods. There are literally hundreds of house plans that have both attached and detached garages that will fit on lots of this size. There are many production homebuilders across the country that have developed home plans that fit on these narrower lots that have all the modern amenities expected by home buyers (attached garages, wa/k-out basements, large family rooms, decks, patios, private rear yards). Adopting these changes will allow greater flexibility than surrounding communities. For comparison, in Coralville's equivalent single family zone (R1), the minimum lot width is 80 feet. Alleys are not required by the ordinance; they are permitted as an option for those wishing very narrow lots, not currently a/lowed in Iowa City except through a planned development rezoning. If developments are built with lots less than 45 feet wide without alleys, most of the front yard would be paved and there would little room for the residential aspects of the home, front yards, street trees, and little space along the street for visitors to park. In the few instances where such development has been a/lowed in Iowa City without an alley, po/ice and enforcement officials regularly receive complaints from home owners about driveways and mai/boxes being blocked by cars being parked illegally. · But I already own a home, why should I care? Land Development Council: You may be the exception to the rule, but most people change residences numerous times as their income, families and age change. If and when you decide to change, your choices could be limited. Response: To the contrary, the new standards in the Code should allow a wider variety of options in Iowa City and certainly a wider variety of options than in surrounding towns. However, it is the developer/builder that decides what choices to offer. It is typical for a production home builder to limit consumer choices to only a smafl number of house plans. Given that there are only a few production homebuilders doing business in Iowa City and surrounding communities, there are currently a very limited number of house styles and types to choose from in the moderate price range (homes <$220, 000). In addition, subdivisions with larger lots (typical lot width in Iowa City over the last 10 years is over 80 feet), there are often private covenants and restrictions that limit homeowner choices and drive up the cost of housing, effectively excluding those with limited incomes. These private covenants include minimum house size requirements, requirements for 3-stall garages, prohibitions on duplexes, accessory apartments, and manufactured homes. In the proposed code, there is only one new standard that applies to single family homes and it only applies to lots narrower than 70 feet. This standard states that garages must be located flush with or set back from the front facade of the home and must take up no more than 50 percent of the length of the front facade. While some current house plans may have to be adjusted to meet these standards, there are literally hundreds of house plans that have front-loaded, attached garages that meet the standard. In addition, there are hundreds of house plans that have rear-loaded, side-loaded, or recessed garages that could be developed on even smaller lots not currently allowed by our zoning code. The proposed code will open up new opportunities for a variety of home plans not currently offered by homebuilders. There are many home plans that have front-loaded and rear-loaded garages that offer afl the private amenities desired by home buyers, but do so in a manner that ensures that neighborhoods will be pedestrian-friendly with room for sidewalks, street trees, a front yard and residential aspects of the home that face the public street. Will this make housing in Iowa City more affordable? Land Development Council: No. Unfortunately, the proposed code will actually make housing in Iowa City, an already expensive place to live, even less affordable for the average working family. Because of mandates on how homes should look on smaller lots, developers will be less likely to build more affordable housing. The costs to construct smaller homes will increase due to design mandates. Additionally, the mandatory alley provisions for smaller lots will make the smaller lots more expensive themselves. Homeowners association fees for alley snow removal and maintenance will be an additional cost not always associated with home ownership. Response: There is no statistical evidence submitted by the Land Development Council to support the statement that housing would be less affordable for the average working family if these standards are adopted. As mentioned previously, the new code allows development of single homes on lots smaller and narrower than what is currently allowed. For these smaller lots, there is only one new standard regarding placement of the garage. There are no standards that dictate style or design of the home and the new standard certainly does not prevent private rear yards, walk-out basements, or any other modern amenity desired by home buyers. A/lowing homes on smaller, narrower lots should substantially reduce the costs of development, even if a rear alley is used. When lot sizes and widths are reduced, not only are there savings in land cost, but it costs less per dwelling to extend water, sewer other utilities, and street pavement. The additional cost per unit for alley pavement is more than offset by savings in land cost, street pavement, water, sewer, and other utilities. In addition, the developer reaps of the benefit of getting to sell more home lots per acre of land. · What are residential design standards? Land Development Council: Residential design standards are laws that specify exactly how a home should or should not look. They can range from requirements on garages, window trim, doorways and a host of other home features. They can be implemented either by mandate, such as the proposed Iowa City code, or they can be made optional. Response: There are n.._qo such design standards for single family homes in the proposed zoning code, other than placement of the garage on lots narrower than 70 feet. Development of townhouses is not feasible under the current zoning regulations without going through a planned development rezoning process. In addition, a rezoning to a higher density zone is often necessary to develop duplexes. In the new Code there are new allowances for duplexes on comer lots in the RS-5 Zone, the most prevalent zoning district in the City and dimensional standards have been adjusted to allow townhouse development by right without the need for a planned development rezoning. With these new allowances, some basic standards have been added to the Code to ensure that these larger, bulkier buildings will fit into neighborhoods with a mix of housing. These standards are similar to the conditions often applied dudng the planned development process. The standards address garage placement, ensure that pedestrian entrances face the street, and require trim around windows and doorways to prevent large blank facades on these larger buildings. When there are four or more townhouse units attached, there is also a requirement that there be some variation in setback or facade between the attached units to prevent monotonous streetscapes. These are not expensive or onerous requirements and are what has typically been required and built in townhouse and duplex developments in Iowa City. For apartment buildings, the current zoning code contains standards that apply in the Central Planning District, which ensure that these larger bulkier buildings fit into neighborhoods that have a mix of housing types. These have been in the code for about five years and have been working well. In the proposed code, some of the basic standards are applied citywide to afl new apartment buildings. · Why does the Land Development Council oppose design mandates on homes? Land Development Council: Fundamentally, we believe a person has the right to determine how they want to live and how they want their homes to appear. We believe this is an inherent property right citizens enjoy. Furthermore, the LDC believes it is wrong for local government to legislate what they judge to be appropriate life styles and aesthetically pleasing design in place of the property owners' choices. Trends and consumer preferences are constantly changing. The law should allow for that natural change - not resist it. Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission agrees that the City should not be dictating the design of homes. Again, the proposed Zoning Code does not dictate home style or design. It does provide a wider variety of higher density, affordable home options than currently allowed in Iowa City or in surrounding communities. The Planning and Zoning Commission does believe that the City has a role in ensuring that neighborhoods are built with functional, safe, and attractive public spaces along neighborhood streets. Citizens have repeatedly confirmed this desire and expectation. · Is it normal for a City to mandate housing designs? Land Development Council: While some cities have codes on residential designs, many are only optional as part of a broader package of incentives or as part of a specifically identified area with specific architectural history or importance. It is rare to find sweeping design mandates on all residential housing. Response: See above. · Does the location of a garage really make a difference? Land Development Council: Yes. As with most housing design, the placement of the garage can fundamentally affect the structural design of the entire home. With the current proposals in the development code, many popular housing designs will now be literally i/legal. Response: The location of the garage can have a significant effect on the quality of our neighborhoods, particularly in neighborhoods with small, narrow home lots. Some of the best information and research on these affects are available from the National Home Builder's Association. That is why some of the nation's largest production home builders, those that are building the more affordable homes on smaller lots, have developed numerous house designs that incorporate all the modern features desired by home buyers and also respect and enhance the public streetscape. Alternative home designs, very similar in every way to the popular designs mentioned by the Land Development Council are currently available from other production homebuilders in the Midwest. These are no more costly to build and have the added benefit of ensuring that new small lot neighborhoods have the same public street amenities enjoyed by neighborhoods with larger lots. · What impact will requiring alleys have on the cost of a home? Land Development Council: While the design standards will allow narrower street pavement in front of lots with alleys, there will still be more square yards of pavement required in the development of the subdivisions. Additionally, if the garage is not detached from the house and placed adjacent to the alley, there will be a significant portion of the back yard covered with pavement thus rendering it marginally useful for private passive or active recreational space. Response: The proposed zoning code does not require alleys. However, developers can take advantage of the bonus density provisions and build on lots smaller and narrower that what is currently allowed. Reducing lot sizes results in cost savings on land, street paving, and the extension of utilities, so that on a per lot basis, homes will be less costly. For the narrowest home lots, these savings more than offset the cost of bu#ding rear alleys and the developer also reaps the benefit of getting to sell more home lots per acre than what would otherwise be allowed. · What i~ I can't afford a home on a larger lot but don't want to live on an alley? Land Development Council: The code mandates that alleys be installed on any developments with lots 45 foot or less in width. So the most affordable entry level homes will be required to have alleys. Not to mention their garages must be located in the rear of the house. Response: The City currently does not allow single family home lots that are less than 45 feet wide (nor does Coralville). In fact, many communities avoid these issues entirely by establishing large minimum lot sizes. Requiring minimum lot sizes of 10,000+ square feet with minimum 100 foot frontages is not an uncommon practice. Duncan Associates confirmed that Iowa City allows smaller lot sizes than many communities. Continuing this progressive trend toward encouraging compact affordable neighborhoods, the proposed zoning code will allow single family homes on lots as narrow as 30 feet wide. Given that each side yard must be at least 5 feet wide to ensure separation from the neighboring house, homes on these lots will be 20 feet or narrower in width. Given that a typical 2- car garage is 20+ feet wide, it is not possible to fit both the house and a front-loaded garage on such a narrow lot, without serious consequences for the public street frontage. There will literally be no room for a front door, a front yard, a public sidewalk, or street trees. The entire frontage along a street built with such homes would be paved. Rather than disallowing such narrow lot development as many communities have done, the Commission is recommending new allowances for narrow lot development, provided that certain minimum standards are met to ensure that the public spaces along neighborhood streets are not compromised. · Will the City at least be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the alley? Land Development Council: No. The proposed code only says the City will be responsible for the "useful life" of the pavement. After that undefined period expires, the property owners will be responsible for repairs and maintenance and assessed property taxes accordingly. Snow removal, general maintenance and cleaning will be the responsibility of the homeowner or homeowners association. Response: It has always been the case that property owners have to share in the cost of City services and infrastructure. If, however, more compact neighborhoods are built, there will be less infrastructure needed per household. If a home buyer chooses to buy a home with a rear alley, they will have to share in the cost of upkeep, just as they have to share in the cost of maintaining the streets and sidewalks in front of their homes. Each homeowner's share of public infrastructure costs is dependent on the size of their home lot. For those with larger lots, their share is larger, since it costs more to extend streets, utilities, and sidewalks along their wider frontage. For those with narrower lots that have alleys, they will spend less on costs for street pavement, utility extensions, and sidewalks, which in most cases will more than offset the cost of alley pavement. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 19, 2005 To: Plannin9 and Zonin§ Commission From: Tokey Boswell, Plannin9 Intern RE: Benefit/cost data for alley construction At the request of the Plannin9 and Community Development Department, I have completed a benefit/cost analysis that examines the effects of buildin§ alleys into new subdivisions. Usin9 ~luidelines from the proposed zonin§ code, I have completed several development comparisons for a theoretical parcel of land in Iowa City. The parcel size has been held constant (550 by 240 feet, approximately one block) for accurate comparison. The resultin9 block arrangements have differences in the number of parcels possible for any 9iven zone, based on the presence of alleys. The difference in the number of lots per block translates into different costs for the provision of infrastructure. Future analyses that use differently sized parcels will result in slightly different numbers, but the trends and overall results will be the same. I believe that two points of interest emer§ed from the analysis. The first is that buildin§ alleys into residential subdivisions, even on this fairly small scale of just one average block, 9reatly increases the number of lots possible on a 9iven parcel of land. The expanded number of lots leads to reduced per-lot infrastructure costs, even though §ross expenses increase by the cost of alley construction. Lower per-lot infrastructure costs benefit homebuyers because the overall cost of housin9 is lower. Alley costs are therefore not prohibitive for homebuyers. Alley costs, on a per-lot basis, are not prohibitive to developers either, because the potential financial 9ains from the 9rearer number of lots permitted make the investment profitable for a developer in every example. In this example, it costs approximately $25,000 to build an alley into the subdivision, and developers are awarded between six and sixteen additional lots for doin9 so. The second point of interest is the relationship amon§ alley provision, lot size, and the amount of pavin9 per lot. In my examples of alley construction for the RS-5 and RS-12 zones, buildin9 alleys into the block decreases the amount of pavin9 per lot - more people are served by the same amount of cement. (The same point can be made for other elements of infrastructure - in blocks with alleys and smaller lots, more people are served by the same amount of water pipe, TV cable, etc). In the RS-8 example, pavin9 per lot increases slightly with alley construction, due to the relatively small difference in lot widths permitted with and without alleys in this zone - the difference is larger in the RS-5 and RS- 12 zones. Servin9 more people with the same amount of infrastructure is a positive measure of efficiency in service provision, and a powerful tool to prevent urban sprawl. The table below hi§blights the most important financial aspects of constructin§ alleys. If I assumed a per-square foot lot sale value, I could calculate the 9ross return expected for developments with and without alleys. I was hesitant to do so, however, as the numbers will vary based on other features of the lot and home. At almost any sale price, the number of lots is more significant in determinin9 the profitability of development than the costs of alley provision, on this and larger scales. This is because the cost of buildin9 an alley dust over $25,000 in this example) will usually be recouped by sellin9 only one additional lot. May 23, 2005 Page 2 Table 1. Conventional (without alleys) versus traditional (with alleys) subdivision design RS-5 Comparison Minimum Average lots Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley lot width lot size possible J per lot Costs cost per lot Paving perlot 550x240 no 70 feet 79x120 14 I $82,940 $5,924 1,580 sq ft " yes 50 feet 55xl 10 20 $1,256 $108,065 $5,403 1,546 sq ft RS-8 Comparison Number °fII Total I Minimum Average lots I Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley Iotwidth lot size possible I perlot Costs cost perlot Pavin~l perlot 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 20 I $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 40 feet 42x110 26 $966 $108,065 $4,156 1,189 sq ft RS-12 Comparison Minimum Average lots Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley lot width lot size possible I per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 20 ] $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 30 feet 31xl 10 36 $698 $108,065 $3,002 859 sq ft To complete the analysis, I had to make several assumptions about street, alley, water, and sewer infrastructure costs. I used the best available data for each category, and documented the assumptions in the attached spreadsheets. It is most important to note that I held my assumptions steady for all comparisons. The only variations are in the provision of alleys and the lot sizes permitted under each zoning designation. In summary, I find that: 1. The alley provisions contained in the proposed zoning code have the potential to decrease the cost of housing in Iowa City (due to lower per-lot infrastructure costs associated with smaller lots). 2. Building alleys into new subdivisions has a positive financial effect for developers (due to the increased number of units possible on a given parcel). 3. Encouraging smaller residential lots through the provision of alleys has the potential to increase the City's service efficiency and to reduce urban sprawl by serving a greater number of citizens with equivalent investments. Attachment: Excel workbook with comparisons May 23, 2005 Page 3 Notes on the alley analysis: 1) "Infrastructure costs" include costs for street construction, alley construction, water line extension, and sewer line extension, as documented in the excel workbook. Estimates for the first two were obtained from the Engineering department, and used the same price per square yard. Estimates for the latter two were obtained from an MMS employee, and were based on averages for several new residential projects. Gas lines, electricity lines, and cable TV extension were not calculated into the costs, as they are usually provided free of charge to the developer. Sidewalks and driveways were not calculated - sidewalks will lower per-lot prices for developments with alleys (same gross price, more units), but driveways will depend upon arrangement. These are the best numbers we have, and should not be subject to debate. Even if these numbers are off significantly, though, the results are the same - more lots equals smaller per-lot costs at any infrastructure price. 2) Some claim that subdivisions with alleys are less attractive and sell for less than do conventional developments. I could not find good data to prove or disprove this idea; there are simply too many variables in determining home prices. In this analysis, the value between with and without could change drastically and it would still be beneficial to provide alleys. For example, in the RS-5 zone: gross revenue from selling 14 lots at $40,000 is $560,000, and for selling 20 lots at $30,000 each it is $600,000. The cost of the alley ($25,000) is the only difference in gross costs. Therefore, at this level, even a 25% reduction in sale price is still profitable to build in alleys. For the RS-12 zone this is true to a much greater extent (up to 40%, eg. 20 lots at $20K=$400K and 36 lots at $12K=$432K), because the bonus in number of lots is so significant. This comparison must be' done with lots, not with homes. Once you start factoring in costs for construction it gets confusing and there are simply too many variables. Instead, assume that developers will understand how to build the structures in order to make the profit they want on each unit regardless of lot size or arrangement. 3) The difference in paving infrastructure costs per lot in the RS-8 zones is due to two phenomena. First, the difference between lot size permitted with and without alleys in this zone is smaller than those in other zones: RS-8: without 55, with 40, difference =15, relative difference = 15/55 = 27% RS-5: without 70, with 50, difference=20, relative difference = 20/70 = 29% RS-12: without 55, with 30, difference =25, relative difference = 25/55 = 45% Second, this example allows for an exact hit on the 55' lots and not on the 40' lots. A more contrived example could have reversed the trend slightly (but would have been ingenuine). In all cases, though, the difference here will be less than the other zones. 4) A note on average parcel sizes: this sample tract has some sizes that fit better than others, and that will be the case for all examples. Nevertheless, it is easier to divide a large tract into smaller units than larger units - that is, it's easier to divide a foot into two-inch long segments than into five-inch long segments. There will almost always be less "waste" or unused space with smaller lot sizes. On large tracts, using alleys allows developers to get ever closer to the absolute minimum lot size. Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions Comparison 1:RS-5 zone with and without alleys Without alleys - minimum lot width 70 feet With Alleys - minimum lot width 50 feet Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres , , : 70 ~'~ 8o 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 ~ 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 14 Total number of lots possible = 20 Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq fi Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ff Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16'x550' = 8,800 sq fl Total paving = 22,120 sq ff Total paving = 30,920 sq fl I Paving per lot = 1,580 sq fl I [Pavin~ per lot = ~,546 sq ~ Street ~st = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,12osq ff *lsq ~/gsq fl = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq ff *lsq ~/gsq fl = 2458 sq ~ Alley cost = 0 Alley cost = 978x$25.69 $25,125 8,8O0sq ff*lsq ~/gsq fl = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction ~sts = $11,550 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total Infrastructure ~st = $82,940 Total Infrastructure ~st = $108,065 ICost per lot = $5,9241 [Cost per lot = $5,403I Per lot alley cost = $1,256 Average sale price = Average sale price = Number of lots = 14 Number of lots = 20 Gross revenue = Gross revenue = Paving per lot is equal to half the width of all streets plus half the width of the alley, multiplied by the width of the lot. It does not incorporate paving for driveways. All streets are 28' wide. All Io~l streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanita~ sewer extensions are assumed to by 8". Water main extensions are assumed to be 6" PVC. Water and sewer extension assumes one line per block. Paving price was obtained from the average bidding contract data for the state of Iowa, 2003. Local streets average $25.69/sq yard. Water and sewer extension prices are averages received from an area engineering company. Non-compacted 8" sanita~ sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. For a 550' long block, the ~sts are $11,550 for sewer and $8,250 for water. Comparison 2:RS-8 zone with and without alleys Without alleys- minimum lot width 55 feet With alleys - minimum lot width 40 feet Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres 55 55 55 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 20 Total number of lots possible = 26 Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22;120 sq ~ Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ~ Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16'x550' = 8,800 sq ft Total paving = 22~120 sq ff To~I paving = 30~920 sq ~ I Paving per lot = 1,106 sq ~ I I Paving per ot = 1,189 sq ~ Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,12osq ff *lsq ~/9sq ff = 2458 sq yd 22,12Osq E *lsq yd/9sq ~ = 2458 sq yd Alley cost = $0 Alley ~st = 978x$25.69 $25,125 8,8o0sq E*lsq yd/gsq fl = 978 sq yd Sewer construction ~sts = $11,550 Sewer consbuction costs = $11,550 Water line extension ~sts = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total Infrastructure ~st = $82,940 Total Infrastructure cost = $108,065 ICost per lot = $4,1471 ~Cost per lot = $4,156 Per lot alley cost = $966 Average sale price = Average sa e price = Number of lots = 20 Number of lots = 26 Gross reveRue = Gross revenue = Paving per lot is equal to half the width of all streets p us half the width of the alley, multiplied by the width of the lot. It does not incorporate paving for driveways. All streets are 28' wide. All Io~1 streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanitaw sewer extensions are assumed to by 8". Water main extensions are assumed to be 6" PVC. Water and sewer extension assumes one line per block. Paving price was obtained from the average bidding contract data for the state of Iowa, 2003. Lo~l streets average $25.69/sq yard. Water and sewer extension prices are averages received from an area engineering company. Non-compacted 8" sanitary sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. Comparison 3:RS-12 zone with and without alleys Without alleys- minimum lot width 55 feet With alleys - minimum lot width 30 feet Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres 55 55 55 55 ~ 55 ~ 55 28 120 120 28 28 110 20- 110 28 Total number of Iot~ po*~iblo ~ 20 Total numbor of lots po~iblo ~ ~ Stroet pavin~ = 28'x{550' +240') = 22,~ 20 sq ~ S~eet pavin~ = 28~x(550' +240') = 22,~ 20 sq ~t Alley pavin~ = 0 Alley pavin~ = ~ ~'x550': 8,g00 sq ft lotal pavin~ = 22,~20 sq ~ Total pavin~ = 30,~20 sq ft I~avin~ per ot = ~,~ 0~ sq ~ ~ I~avin~ per'lot = 85~ sq ~ Street cost = 2,4fi8 x $2fi.~: $~3,~40 Streot cost = 2,458 x $25.~0 = $~3,~40 22,~ 20sq ~ '~sq yd/0sq ~ = 2450 sq ~ 22,~ 20sq fl '~sq yd/~sq ~ = 2458 sq yd ~}loy cost = $0 Alloy ~st = ~78x$25.~0 $25, ~ 25 8,800sq ~*lsq yd/gsq ~ = 978 sq ~ Sewer construction ~sts = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension ~sts = $8,250 - Water line extension ~sts = $8,250 Total Infrastructure ~st = $82 940 Total Infrastructure cost = $108,065 ICost per lot = $4,1471 ICost per lot = $3,002l Per lot alley cost = $698 Average sale price = Average sale price = Number of lots = 20 Number of lots = 36 Gross revenue = Gross Revenue = Paving per lot is equal to half the width of all streets plus half the width of the alley, multiplied by the width of the lot. It does not incorporate paving for driveways. All streets are 28' wide. All Io~1 streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanita~ sewer extensions are assumed to by 8". Water main extensions are assumed to be 6" PVC. Water and sewer extension assumes one line per block. Paving price was obtained from the average bidding contract data for the state of Iowa, 2003. Local streets average $25.69/sq yard. Water and sewer extension prices are averages received from an area engineering ~mpany. Non-compacted 8" sanita~ sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. Lo~tion: Ci~net My Computer/Data/PCD/Interns/Misc Memos/Alley Costs Options Pros Cons No chan.qe: No change to the ordinance would be needed. · Regulations are not flexible. ^ PDH rezoning is needed for any A Minimum lot width: 60 ft. variation from the standards. Minimum setback for both house and garage: 20 ft. · Even though the 60 fl. min. lot width has been on the books for a Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. number of years, it has only been in the last few years that (Any variation from these standards would developers have started platting lots at this min. standard. With require a PDH rezoning) the increasing desire for 3 car garages, neighborhood streets in even Iow density single family neighborhoods may be affected by the prominence of garages. Minimum lot width: 60 ft. · The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly as vehicles have increased in · Regulations are not flexible. A PDH rezoning is needed for any a Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 2._~5 size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, variation from the standards. ft. for the .qara.qe · without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation. · Even though the 60 ft. min. lot width has been on the books for a Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. ' number of years, it has only been in the last few years that (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning) developers have started platting lots at this min. standard. With the increasing desire for 3 car garages, neighborhood streets in even Iow density single family neighborhoods may be affected by the prominence of garages. Minimum lot width: 70 ft. · 70-foot lot width would allow for 3-car garages and still leave enough room for the residential portion · This will still allow house plans where the garage dominates the C Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 2,5 of house to be visible and accessible from the street, front far..ade of the house. ft. for the ,qara,qe · Additional land is not needed for the increase in lot width to 70 ft, because the minimum lot size will · There is no incentive to build subdivisions with alternative garage Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. remain the same at 8,000 s.f. per lot. This is a dimensional change, not an increase in area. access. (Any variation from these standards would · The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly as vehicles have increased in · Any variation from these standards will require a PDH rezoning. require a PDH rezoning.) size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, · Increasing the minimum lot width to 70 feet may result in without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation, additional land being consumed if lot depth is not reduced · Note: This will not require the garage to be setback from the front far..ade of the house, but will allow accordingly. the house to be located closer to the street than the garage, if the owner/builder so chooses. Minimum lot width: 70 ft. · This option will allow all the benefits of option B, above. · This will still allow house plans where the garage dominates the D Minimum setback: 15 ft for the house, 25 ft · It will also provide an option to reduce lot width to 60 feet, if garages are located in a manner that front fa(;:ade of the house. for .qara.qe does not detract from the public street frontage. The additional garage location standards will prevent Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. garages from dominating the frontage along neighborhood streets in these smaller lot subdivisions. Optional Density Bonus: · It will also provide flexibility and a density bonus for subdivision design that includes rear access from an alley or private rear lane. If garages and utilities are located in the rear, the residential portion of Minimum lot width may be reduced to 60 the home can be moved forward on the lot, allowing more rear yard space. feet, if Garages are located flush with or set · Since alley ROW requirement is 20 feet, reducing the lot size requirement will more than offset the back behind front fa(~ade of the house, with land required for the alley. In other words, developers will not be penalized with a loss of density if the garage taking up no more than 50% of they put in an alley. the width of the front fac,,ade. · In fact, allowing reduced lot widths and lot sizes will provide a density bonus for developers that will more than offset the cost of constructing an alleY. If garages are located on an alley, then: · With an alley, more I~ouses can be built in a neighborhood without it feeling crowded. On-street · The minimum lot width may be parking will be more plentiful and sidewalks will be safer, since there will be few driveways directly reduced to 50 feet; from the street. · The minimum setback may be reduced · Additional density and flexibility in subdivision design will be allowed without having to go through a to 10 feet, if utilities are located along PDH rezoning process. the alley; and · The minimum lot size may be reduced to 6,000 s.f. (Density bonus is allowed without a PDH rezoning.) Options Pros Cons .No chan.qe: No change to the ordinance would be needed. · The current regulations are not flexible. A PDH rezoning is needed for any A MinimUm lot width: 45 ft. variation from the standards. Minimum setback for both house and garage: 20 fl. · It is difficult to develop lots that are this narrow with front-loaded garages. A Minimum lot size: 5,000 s.f. 2-car front-loaded garage (typically 20-24 fl. wide) on a lot this narrow, (Any variation from these standards would require a leaves little room for the residential portion of the house. A 3-car front- PDH rezoning) loaded garage (typically 30-33 ft wide) on a lot this narrow would result in the front door being moved to the side of the house with the front fa(;:ade completely consumed by the garage. Minimum lot width: 55 ft. · 55-foot lot width would allow for front-loaded 2-car garages and still · There is no incentive to build subdivisions with alley access. a Minimum setback: 20 fi. for the house, 25 for garage, leave enough room for the residential portion of house to be visible and · Any variation from these standards will require a PDH rezoning. Minimum lot size: 5,000 s.f. accessible from the street. · Some house plans currently being used may have to be re-designed to meet Garages must be located on an alley or must be flush · The additional garage location standards will prevent garages from .the garage location standards. with or setback behind front fae,,ade of the house, with dominating the frontage along neighborhood streets in these smaller lot the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of subdivisions. the front fa(~ade. · Additional land is not needed for the increase in lot width, because the (Any variation from these standards would require a minimum lot size will remain the same at 5,000 s.f. per lot. This is a PDH rezoning.) dimensional change, not an increase in area. · The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly . · as vehicles have increased in size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation. Minimum lot width: 55 ft. · This option will allow all the benefits of option B, above. · Some house plans currently being used may have to be re-designed to meet C Minimum setback: 15 ft for the house, 25 ft for garage. · It will also provide flexibility and a density bonus for subdivision design the garage location standards. Minimum lot size: 5,000 s.f. that includes rear access from an alley or private rear lane. Garages must be located flush with or setback behind · Reducing the lot size requirement will more than offset.the land required the front far, ade of the house, with the garage taking for the alley. In other words, developers will not be penalized with a up no more than 50% of the width of the front fa<;:ade, loss of density if they put in an alley. Optional Density Bonus: · In fact, allowing reduced lot widths and lot sizes will provide a density If garages are located on an alley, then: bonus for developers that will more than offset the cost of constructing · The minimum lot width may be reduced to 40 feet; an alley. · The minimum setback may be reduced to 10 feet, · With an alley, more houses can be built in a neighborhood without it if utilities are located along the alley; and feeling crowded. On-street parking will be more plentiful and sidewalks · The minimum lot size may be reduced to 4,000 will be safer, since' there will be few driveways directly from the street. s.f. · Additional density and flexibility in subdivision design will be allowed (Density bonus is allowed without a PDH rezoning.) without having to go through a PDH rezoning. Options Pros Cons A No change: · No change to the ordinance would be needed. · While this zone allows a mix of housing types, including houses, Minimum lot width: 45 ft. duplexes, and townhouses, the minimum lot size and width effectively Minimum setback for both house and garage: 20 ft. prevent the development of higher density SF units, such as Minimum lot size: 5,000 s.f. townhouses. If well planned, higher density residential developments provide attractive, yet more affordable housing options for young Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,000 s.f. families and seniors, looking to downsize after retirement. (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning) · We currently have very little R$~12 zoning. Developers are instead using the PDH rezoning process in order to develop these types of attached units. While this process often results in a better development, the additional approval time may add to the cost of housing. Minimum lot width: §5 ft. · This option will establish a baseline lot size, width, and garage · While this option will provide better development standards fo~ B Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 25 for garage, location standard at which it is possible to build small lot detached single family dwellings on smaller lots, it still will not allow the Minimum lot size: $,000 s.f. neighborhoods with pedestrian-friendly streets, higher density housing options anticipated for this zone without going Garages must be located on an alley or must be flush with or setback · The advantages of this approach are the same as listed for the through a PDH rezoning process. behind front fa~,,ade of the house, with the garage taking up no more than R$-8 zone, above. · As is currently the case, there would be little difference between R$-8 50% of the width of the front fa~;ade, zoning and R$-~ 2 zoning, because townhouses are effectively (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning.) precluded by the minimum lot width and size requirements. · There would be few downsides to this option, since it is currently C Minimum lot width: 55 ft. · This option has all the advantages of option B, above, but difficult to develop anything other than single family houses and Minimum setback: 15 ft for the house, 25 ft for garage, provides opportunities for a variety of housing types currently duplexes in this zone at the same density as the R$-8 Zone. Minimum lot size: 5,000 $.f. precluded by the development standards of this zone. Garages must be located flush with or setback behind the front fao~ade of · The Density Bonus provisions provide the opportunities for the house, with the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of the development of narrow lot detached SF houses, duplexes, and front fa~;ade, townhouses without having to go through the PDH rezoning Optional Density Bonus: process. This: will streamline the development process for higher If garages are located on an alley, then: density housing types, which may bring the cost down for · The minimum lot width may be reduced to 30 ft for detached SF; 20 consumers. ft. for attached SF; and 50 ft. for duplexes; · Establishing minimum standards in the ordinance for vehicle · The minimum setback may be reduced to 10 feet, if utilities are access, shared lot lines, and building bulk/scale may help to located along the alley; and reduce community resistance to higher density housing.- , The minimum lot size may be reduced to 3,200 s.f. per dwelling unit for detached SF and duplexes; 3,000 s.f. per unit for attached SF. · Some additiOnal standards would be required for attached units to address shared property line issues; pedestrian access; building bulk/scale. (Density bonus is allowed without a PDH rezoning.) 14-2A - Single Family Residential Zones (and associated provisions in 14-4B) :Pr°p°sedAmendrnent i!(1)lanatory Notes :~: ~ : ,:~ :: :':'' 5~23;05:~: Draft language to keep existing In the current RNC-12 Zone, there is a provision that grants Staff is in support of this amendment. : :: conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone conforming rights to existing multi-family uses, such that conforming, they can be expanded or torn down and rebuilt provided t0 draft an' ::: they do not exceed the legal density in effect at the time the imb~dme~ Requestor: Gary Klinefelter area was rezoned to RNC-12. t~eir We could draft language similar to what we have in the COnsideratiOn RNC-12 Zone and apply it to existing conforming duplexes ~ '~:~ in the RS-8 Zone. This would grant legal conforming rights to existing conforming duplexes, but would not allow ' development of new duplexes on interior lots in the RS-8 Zone. It is not the intent of the new regulations to create numerous nonconforming uses. The proposed amendment would produce a solution for existing owners of duplexes :: and also allow future development of the RS-8 Zone as a : small lot single family zone, rather than as a duplex zone. In 'addition, RS-8 zoned areas that contain a number of :: existing duplexes will be considered for rezoning to RS-12. 2 In the RS-8 Zone allow duplexes on The intent of rewriting the RS-8 Zone regulations was to Staff does not support this making this Commission No changes both interior and corner lots. Remove create a zone that would encourage the development of change, indicated little made. provision that specifies that duplexes more affordab~le, small lot single family homes. The current interest in are only allowed on corner lots in the regulations encourage whole areas to be developed as making this RS-8 Zone. duplexes, thus reducing the attractiveness of the RS-8 change to the Zone for small, detached single family homes, draft. Requestor: Gary Klinefelter; Steve Gordon/Land Development Council In the draft, new opportunities for duplexes are provided in the RS-5 Zone on corner lots. Duplexes are also allowed in the RS-12 Zone and in all the Multi-family Zones. Keeping existing duplexes in the RS-8 zone conforming and allowing new duplexes on corner lots will create allow a- greater mix of affordable housing types within a neighborhood. 3 Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In the current Code the minimum lot width in the RS-5 Zone Staff recommends establishing the Commission No changes in the Single Family Residential Zones is 60 feet. However, in Iowa City the average lot width in -minimum lot width at 70 feet in the RS- indicated little made. (p. 16) - In the RS-5 Zone, change the RS-5 subdivisions over the last 10 years is 83 feet. In fact, 5 Zone and allowing it to be reduced interest in minimum lot width for detached single only 5 subdivisions out of 42 have an average lot width less through the bonus density provisions making this family dwellings from 70 feet to 60 feet. than 70 feet. provided in the new Code. The bonus change to the density provisions would allow a draft. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land For comparison, in Coralville the minimum lot width in the subdivision with a mixture of lot widths Development Council R-1 Zone (their equivalent zone to RS-5) is 80 feet. With from 50 feet on up, provided that the increasing demand for 3-car garages, a lot width of 70 garages were located on the lot so that feet is the minimum necessary to provide room for a house they do not dominate the street. Front- with a three car garage that doesn't completely dominate loaded garages are allowed provided the front fa(;ade of the home. Even on a 70 foot wide lot, they take up no more than 50% of the subtracting 10 feet for the required side yards, leaves only front fa(;;ade of the home and are not 60 feet of lot width for the home and the garage. Three-car located forward of the front fa<;ade of garages are 30+ feet wide with driveways and front yard the home. paving to match. With only a 60-foot lot wid[h very little space remains for the front fa<;ade of the home, for front yard landscaping and trees, sidewalks, and on-street parking. 4 Table 2A-2: Dimensional In today's new home market it is rare that a detached single Staff recommends establishing the Commission Requirements in the Single Family family home is built without at least a 2-car garage. The width minimum lot width for detached single indicated little Residential Zones (p.16) - In the of a 2-car garage is 20-24 feet wide. Subtracting 10 feet from family homes in the RS-8 and RS-12 interest in RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, change the the lot width for the required side yards would leave only 35 Zones at 55 feet and allowing it to be changing the minimum lot width for detached feet for the building. A front-loaded 2-car garage would take up reduced through the bonus density minimum lot single family dwellings to from 55 about 2/3 of the front fa(;ade of the home. If all the lots along a provisions provided in the new Code. width for feet to 45 feet. street frontage were 45 feet wide, there would be very little The bonus density provisions would detached single space for front entries, landscaping, street trees, sidewalks, allow a subdivision with a mixture of lot family dwellings Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land and on-street parking. If a whole neighborhood is built in such widths from 30 feet on up, provided in the RS-8 and Development Council a manner, it would not be very pleasant or safe for pedestrians that garages were located on the lot so RS-12 Zones to nor would it have the residential character enjoyed by the that they do not dominate the street. 45 feet. majority of the existing neighborhoods in Iowa City. Staff recommends adding a provision CommissiOn Amendment For comparison purposes, in Coralville the minimum lot width to the density bonus provisions for the directed staff to approved 5-0 for detached single family homes in the RI(B) and R-2 Zones, RS-8 and RS-12 Zones that would draft an (Ancizux & which are equivalent to our RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, is 50 feet. allow front-loaded garages on lots less amendment for Shannon than 55 feet wide, provided they take their absent) 55 feet is the minimum necessary to allow a 2-car front-loaded up no more than 50% of the front cOnsideration to garage that doesn't dominate the front fa(;ade of the home. fa(;ade of the home and are not located add a denSitY forward of the front fa(;ade of the bonus provision home. that woUld a Iow fleXibility for This provides far greater flexibility to frOnt;loaded build small lot single family garages on lotS neighborhoods by right than is allowed lesS tha~55 in any community surrounding Iowa feetif they can City. meet the garage placement standards. 5 14-4B-4A-2 and 14-4B-4A-3 and 14- It is not unusual for cities to require certain design provisions for Staff does not recommend making any Commission No changes 4B-4A-5 (pp. 168-176) In all the attached dwellings. With dwellings located so close together, changes to these standards. Changes indicated little 'nade. - single family residential zones, differences in quality or design of the units is more pronounced to the dimensional standards in the interest in remove the "design provisions" for and can detract from the property values in the entire new code will allow the development of making this duplexes and attached single family neighborhood. Iowa City has a much more liberal allowance for more attached units by right, change to the (townhouses). They do not specify duplexes and attached single family dwellings than surrounding Standards should be established to draft. which "design standards" they want communities. The standards proposed are not expensive or ensure that the residential character of removed, difficult to meet. A certain "style" of home is not required, the resulting neighborhoods meet the Expensive building materials are also not required. It should expectations and vision expressed in Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land also be noted that currently townhouses are effectivelY excluded Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan. Development Council from single family zones due to the current lot requirements. Since the lot requirements are being modified to makeit easier to build duplexes, attached single family houses, and townhouses, it is necessary to address issues of design, street access, setbacks, and building entrances; all of which are currently addressed through the planned development rezoning process. For comparison purposes, Coralville does not allow duplexes or townhouses in its single family residential zones. In its Two- Family Residential Zone, attached single family dwellings and detached single family dwellings must meet certain design standards that specify color, roof pitch, and exterior building materials. In Coralville's Mixed Housing Residential Zone townhouses must meet these same design standards. 5,23,105 Decision 6 14-2A-7A-1. (p.20) Single Family Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more Staff is in support of making this Commission No changes Bonus Options in the RS-5 Zone - affordable, small-lot single family homes in Iowa City. change, indicated little made. Change bonus density provision in interest in the RS-5 Zone to allow lot widths to be reduced to 45 feet (instead of 50 making this change to the feet) if alleys or rear lanes are draft. utilized for vehicular access. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land Development Council 7 14~2A-7A-2. (p.20) Single Family Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more Staff is in support of making this Commission No changes Bonus Options in the RS-8 Zone - affordable, small-lot single family homes in Iowa City. However, change, but believes that other indicated little made. Change bonus density provision in 35 feet is very narrow for detached single family homes. Other provisions may be needed to prevent interest in the RS-8 Zone to allow lot widths to design considerations may be necessary to ensure that homes monotony along street frontages, making this be reduced to 35 feet (rather than located so close together are placed on the' lot in a manner that change to the 40 feet) if alley or rear lanes are will maximum privacy and allow for some private open space on draft. utilized for vehicular access, the lot. In addition, given that there will be more dwelling units along a single street frontage, measures to prevent monotony Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land should be considered. Development Council 8 Remove provision 14-2A-6 (p.18), On lots less than 60 feet in width, if front-loaded garages are not Staff is not in support of making Commission No changes which states that "on lots less than carefully located on the lot, they can dominate the front fa(~ade of the this change, indicated little made. 60 feet in width, garages and off- home, cause excessive front yard paving, leave little space for street interest in street parking areas must be located trees and front yard landscaping and on-street parking. Some have making this so that they do not dominate the suggested that increasing the front yard setback will solve this change to the streetscape..." problem. However, homes with 2 and 3-car garages that face the draft. street require wide driveways. Pushing the homes back from the Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land street only makes it necessary to build longer driveways and use more Development Council paving in the front yard. While there may be a few more feet in which to plant a tree, the front yard will still be dominated by paving and blank garage doors. On larger lots, this is not as much of a concern because there is more open space to work with. Since most single family neighborhoods built in the last 10 years in Iowa City were built with lots greater than 70 feet in width, it has not been much of a concern. However, in the last several years the City has received a number of requests to reduce lot sizes and lot widths through the planned development process. If smaller lots are going to be allowed by right in Iowa City without having to go through a planned development process, garage placement should be addressed. 9 14-4B-4A-2 (p.168) and 14-4B-4A-5 Duplexes are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. There has been Staff does not recommend Commission No changes (p.175) - In the RS-5 Zone, keep the concern expressed by neighborhood groups that such an allowance changing the standards, indicated little made. provision that duplexes and will detract from existing and new single family neighborhoods, interest in attached SF dwellings are allowed However, allowing duplexes on large corner lots with certain design making this on corner lots with each unit facing provisions in place will ensure that such dwellings fit into the character change to the a different street, but remove other of single family neighborhoods and will also provide needed affordable draft. standards. RequestOr did not housing options throughout Iowa City neighborhoods. specify which standards should be removed. Requestor: Steve Gordon,~ Land Development Council P'rOp~d~edAmend~eht:- -~ :~i.~xP!~;n'atory Notes .' ~ ' . _ ~:?'?:: ~' ~%:--~?:?"'~' '~::: 2~-?~-:;;:~':'' ~ ' '- ~ "' ' : ." - ~- . 5~23~S~~ ' OommiS~ion~. P~r~ing i~ not permi~ed in the front OUTWENT O~DINANBE. ~he I~ngu~ge to ~llow non- t0dr'~ff:~: building ~etb~ok, with ~ ~ew listed required p~rking to be ~llowed exoeption$. The intent of requiring ~ front building setb~ok i~ to m~int~in ~ome on open space along the front of residential lots. Previous to 1980, n~ driveway. ' th~ir.~,~::~:~ RequeStor: Steve Gordon, Land parking was allowed in the front setback. Around 1978, the current Development Council exceptions were added to the Code allowing some area of the front setback to count toward a prope~y's required parking. patkld~?in The provision in the current ordinance and has never been a problem. ~riveW~y~ ~[ ~; The City does not send enforcement officials out to tell people they reqUe'~t~;~that' cannot park in their driveway. However, if this provision is eliminated the la-6~.~ge..... entirely, entire front setbacks will be allowed to be paved as parking be:d~ffed - ~; lots for both. required and non-required parking. This would have a sUCh~h~a{'it'. deleterious effect padicularly in residential neighborhoods close to the University, where there are many prope~ies rented to groups of enCOurage students. Occupancy for single family rentals and duplexes is directly '~or~ PaVing related to the amount of parking provided on the lot, so there is an the front.:' incentive for landlords to pave over large pa~s of existing lots so that · se{baCk~-. - they can rent to more students. While deleting this provision entirely would be a problem, it may be possible to draft language to clarify that non-required parking may be located on a driveway that provides access to a required parking space. That way, residents could park in their driveway, but would not be allowed to establish a parking lot in the front setback. 11 Table ZA-2 (p.16) Increase the The Code establishes a minimum setback, but does not prevent Staff does not recommend increasing Commission No changes minimum setback in residential developers from establishing a greater setback along a given the minimum setback, indicated little made. zones to 25 feet. (In the proposed street or within a particular subdivision. If a developer desires a interest in Code, the minimum setback for the greater setback, a covenant can be established with the making this principal use is 15 feet. In the subdivision. However, establishing a greater minimum setback change to the current code, the minimum setback in the Zoning Code prevents anyone from establishing a draft due to the is 20 feet.) neighborhood with homes located closer to the street. In other fact that a words, the lower the minimum setback the more flexibility there developer can Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land is to establish whatever setback is desired by the developer always Development Council based on the proposed subdivision design and the topography establish a and physical features of the land. setback line further from For instance, if a subdivision is proposed with small lots with the street if vehicular access from an alley and utilities also located in the he/she so alley, allowing homes to be located closer to the street will allow chooses. more space in the rear for yard space, utilities, and the garage. Without utilities and a driveway in the front, 15 feet is enough room for front yard landscaping and street trees. 12 14-2A-7B (p.21) Historic The intent of this special exception option is to make it possible Staff is in support of making this :commiS~ibn Preservation Exceptions - Request for historic properties to be adapted to new uses and preserved change, dire~cted staff approved-5:0 to change the word "necessary" over time. The language can be changed to address this issue. - t°;!~i:~an:-'' '.':' "(Anciaux& within the Board of Adjustment a~n-d~ht'f0r-'-shannon-:'.' feels that this word may be interpreted so strictly that it would '- make it difficult for most properties to meet the standard. ' ' - Requestor: Mark McCalhon nformal- - Pubhc-;.?~ 13 14-4B-4A-2i (p. 170) 14-4B-4A-3g The language can be clarified to address this issue. Staff is in support of this change. CommisSiOn Amendment (p.172); 14-4B-4A-4a & e. (p.174) - directed Staffto approved 5,0 With regard to maintenance easements draft an ' (Ahciaux & required for zero lot line dwellings, it -amendment fOr. · Shannon':. was suggested that such easements be their ,. '" absent)_ recorded with the subdivision rather con-side,ration . than with the deed to the property, that~°uid - ' · ' - ' ::~ii- ~'~'- Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land iSsu'~. ' :,.' * ' 'E-'-_~i Development Council . . . . 14-2B - Multi-Family Residential Zones .... :_~.....~;._-.?~.~-/.~ L~ .... -~" "-~; - · i'- ~- :' ? ~- -~ ? -i-.~.?'i*~!¥~!~,~'~-i~-~~'!~!'?~/''~' . '~'-~:~:~..~:. .' ~ '.~'~ '..-~.~' ~ ~ ' * InfOrmal · Public ~ P~0~dAmendment . . EXPlanato~Ndt~.;-/~,.~...._:~/-~:'-~ . *.. :'-:.: . S~ffRecOmmendation M~'eting . Hearing/ 5:23-05 : Decision 14 14-2B-6C: Location and Design Eliminating this standard would be a change to the current Staff does not recommend making this Commission qo Standards for Sudace Parking and ordinance in many multi-family areas, change, indicated little changes Detached Garages: Remove interest in made provision that parking has to be In the Central Planning District, the PRM, and the ~O Zones making this located behind buildings, but keep parking is currently not allowed be~een the building and the change to the the provision that parking may not be street. This location standard is intended to prevent parking lots draft. located within the front-yard be~een buildings and the public sidewalk. Since most of the setbacks. City's multi-family zones allow a mix of housing types, this standard helps to prevent large parking lots located along the Requestor: Steve Gordon, Lahd street and immediately adjacent to smaller scale homes and Development Council duplexes. 15 14-2B-4B-3c. Lots with Multiple The standard in the current code is that if more than one principal Keep new standard to provide Commission No Buildings: Remove provisions building is located on a single lot, the buildings must be separated maximum flexibility in locating buildings indicated little changes regarding designing buildings to by a horizontal distance equal to the height of the tallest building, on a lot, without compromising privacy interest in made maintain privacy be~een dwelling This means that in most cases buildings have to be at least 25 to and fire safety. Specific suggestions making this units. 35 feet apa~. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt from the LDC on how to make the change to the that this was excessive and if effo~s were made to locate windows, language more clear and objective are draft. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land air conditioning units and balconies in such a way as to prese~e welcome. Development Council privacy between dwelling units, then buildings could be located closer together. This new provision adds flexibility to the Code. Alternatively, leave the standard the same as in the current code: 14-6Q- 2E-2: Where more than one principal building is pertained on a lot the buildings must be separated by a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the highest building. ~ : i i ~ ~ : ~ ~' ~ ~ 5~23~05 Debi~i~h 16 14-2B-6C-3c. (p.40) Remove This standard is currently in place in the PRM and PJO Zones. Staff does not recommend making this Commission No requirement for S2 screening It is intended to keep bright headlines from shining into windows of change, indicated little changes between parking areas and building a ground level apartment. The S2 screening is a Iow level interest in made walls that contain ground level screening of shrubs between 2 and 4 feet in height, which is typical making this windows into dwelling units, of the size of shrubs planted outside many homes, multi-family change to the buildings, and commercial businesses. It is not an onerous draft. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land standard to meet. Development Council 17 14-2B-6D-6 (p.41) Remove the Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are Staff does not recommend making any Commission No requirement that access to entrance currently prohibited in the PRM and R/O Zones. They are changes to this section, indicated little changes doors of any individual dwellings strictly regulated in other MF zones, interest in made units located above the ground level making this must be provided from an enclosed This provision does not preclude exterior stairwells, but states such change to the lobby or corridor and stairwell, stairwells must not be used as the primary means of access to an draft. upper floor dwelling unit. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land Development Council 18 14-4B-6E (p.41-42): Building Scale. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO Staff does not recommend making any Commission No Suggests that these standards are THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING changes to this section, indicated little changes not necessary and lead to increased DISTRICT, THE R/O ZONE, AND THE PRM ZONE. interest in made costs, making this The intent of these building scale standards is to break up the change to the Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land fa(;;ade of multi-family buildings that tend to be larger than draft. Development Council. surrounding residential dwellings, such as single family homes, duplexes, and townhouses. These regulations help buildings to fit into neighborhoods where there is a mix of housing typesl 19 14-2B-61 (p.45-46) Additional THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO Staff does not recommend Commission indicated little No changes Standards in the Central THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. making any changes to this interest in making this made Planning District. LDC feels that section, change to the draft. these standards are too These regulations were adopted about 5 years ago. They have restrictive. Made no specific been quite effective and resulted in more functional and attractive suggestion for changes, multi-family buildings in areas that have a mix of housing types. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land Development Council. · ~i. ~ii::~ ~ :~ 3,05' ' DeCisj0n 14-2B-6 Multi-Family Site Currently, the Multi-Family Design Standards only apply in the Staff feels the new standards Commission indicated little No changes Development Standards. Central Planning District. Certain standards are mandatory and will work better than the interest in making this made. Questioned whether it was a some are administered through a point system. The point system exist ng point system and will change to the draft. good idea to substitute the has proved cumbersome and difficult to administer. It was also be applied more consistently proposed objective difficult for developers to know what was expected, because there over time. Duncan and standards for the previous was no guidance on how the various architectural elements should fit Associates, the consultant that point system that was together. Picking and choosing from the point menu would analyzed the City's zoning administered by the Design sometimes result in a building with a hodge-podge of architectural code, also recommended Review Committee. Also elements that did not work well together. It also requires that each making the standards more stated the opinion that there building be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. objective and easier to was an over-emphasis on administer fairly and historic features on a In the proposed draft of the Code the mandatory standards from the consistently. Staff does not building. No specific current code have been applied citywide. These will be administered recommend going back to a changes were requested, through the site plan review process and will not require approval by point system. the Design Review Committee. In the Central Planning District, the Requestor: Larry Svoboda PRM Zone, and the RIO Zone, all areas that currently have design standards that are administered through the Design Review Committee, Design Review will continue to be required. Except for 14-2B-61 (p.45-46), there are no standards that refer to historical architectural styles. The standards in 14-2B-61 are only applied in the Central Planning District and will replace the previous point system. The vast majority of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards . have nothing to do with history or architectural styles. They address location and screening of parking areas, location and design of building entrances, building bulk and scale, and height, location of balconies and exterior stairways, building materials, location and screening of mechanical equipment, and design of storefront commercial space in mixed-use buildings in the R/O Zone. It should also be noted that exceptions to these standards are allowed through the minor modification process both for sites that are difficult to develop due to the topography and for building ns that are unique or innovative. 21 Change the name of the Residential- In the proposed code the RIO Zone has been The staff supports making this commission direCted staff-Amend~&nt Office Zone (R/O) to Mixed Use Zone amended to allow a wider variety of commercial change, t0 d~:aff an amendment for' app'~:o~'ed!5-0: (MU). uses, not just office uses, as well as a whole variety their consideration that : (,~hciau~'& of residential uses. Changing the name of the zone would.change'the name of Shannp. h Requestor: Nile Haug to Mixed Use may more accurately describe the the R/O.zone to 'Mixed abSent)!:~ ':.: 22 Eliminate the provision in the Code that Since the R/O Zone allows both single family Staff supports making this change, ~m~i~si°ntdire~ted Staff' restricts buildings to 2-1/2 stories in the residential uses and commercial uses to locate side- provided buildings are required to '[o~i~:~ffah-'am~nament:~br' - Residential/Office Zone. by-side, this height limitation is intended to prevent step-down to 2-1/2 stories within 15 th~![ ~o-~sid~tati:gn~ butto large commercial building overshadowing next door feet of a property that contains an e~§b~:e'that the're is a step, Sha~:::_ ._ Requestor: Nile Haug residential dwellings, existing Single Family Use or a dOwn provision {Or -. property that is zoned Single pr°pe~iesil°cated adjacent.:~ ' .: ~ ~.!-'i.-~. . However, in the proposed code there is a height Family Residential. t0 aSF Zone oran exis[iiig step-down requirement in all the multi-family zones Single family usi~.- . . - when buildings are located adjacent to single family dwellings or single family zones. With these '. ' --::' provisions in place, the R/O restriction to 2-1/2 ' stories may not be as necessary. - 14-2C - Commercial Zones ·" '--';.-' -" ' · --i '~: i . ~' ' ' -. · Informal Meeting ' .PUbiiC~i~ PropoSed Amendment ' ExPlanatOry NOtes '- '.. ' StaffRecommendation 5-23~05' : .-, ~, Hearihgi- . . -._ · _ ··DecisiOn 23 14-2C - Table 2C-1 (p.55) Change Transient housing is currently only allowed by Staff supports making the proposed commission d rected staff* Amendment "Community Service - Shelter" back to a special exception in the C1-1 Zone. In the proposed change in the C1-1 Zone and also tO di~aftan.amet~dment for ;ApP~:0~ed5_0 Special Exception in the C1-1 Zone. Code there are a number of zones where transient supports re-examining how shelters th~rb0~n§idei~ati0n, that:_.~'. ~'(~,~Ciabx & Make changes accordingly in Article 14- housing was changed from a use that is allowed by are approved in other zones as wbu'!~;_m~ik·~i~ ~c0m'niuh!,~-:_,: .~, 4B. special exception to a provisional use. If the well. '.S~i(~"~"~hei~er Us-eS,, ~- ..'~ Commission is'going to re-examine the decision in spe.c'ial bxcept onS n ail'_ Requestor: Many requested this the 01-1 Zone, it might be a good idea to re-examine z0~!~ieX%l~tion the ~B~5: :: change, all the zoning districts where a similar change to zone.. They. also - .-~i' i-_t:i 'i !: . . provisional approval is proposed, reqbeSted'that staff !ook: -' intb'~Nhat kinds'of zoning ' standards other . c°mmUnitieshave in plaCe` for shei~er uses. -- '~ ProposedA~endment... :.~i. _ ExplanatOrY Notes - Staff Recommendation : . $.~23.05~ - :-' ' :'_ii~ '~ii'~'~l. '.~ -.:~.i.;i~.i:~::..-~.?~?:-i~. -.~::.-~:~i~.i.i~: .~-~__ ~.~i'.~ ~i: ~ i" ' : ~. ' - ' ~ ' .' ' : '- .:~'' D~i~ion'.- 24 14-2C-7E (p.69) CN-1 Zone Build-To THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission indicated little No changes Line: Question the need for the build-to CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. this change, interest in making this made. line standard and whether it creates a change to the current problem for CN-1 zones that are There is an exemption provision for CN-1 areas built ordinance. already developed. They also question prior to the adoption of these standards. whether establishing a built-to line five feet from the ROW line is a good idea if The current standard for an arterial street ROW is the frontage is along an arterial street. 100 feet. A two-lane arterial would typically have a 34-foot pavement width. A four-lane arterial with a Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land center turn lane would typically have 60 feet of Development Council. pavement. So even with a multiple-lane arterial and a 5-foot build-to line, the buildings would still be a minimum of 25 feet from the street pavement, leaving ample space for street trees and safe pedestrian amenities. Since the sidewalk is located in the public ROW, the separation between vehicles in the street and pedestrians along the sidewalk is not affected by the fact that the buildings are located closer to the ROW. The LDC seems to be advocating for parking lots located close to the ROW instead of buildings, which would leave pedestrians to negotiate between street traffic on one side and parking lot traffic on the other. Since neighborhood commercial areas are intended to serve residents of adjacent neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is likely to be more significant. The build-to line and other building bulk standards are intended to foster more pedestrian-friendly commercial areas. 25 14-2C-7F (p.69) CN-1 Zone location of THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission No changes made parking and Ioadihg areas. Questioned CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. this change, indicated little provision that states that no more than interest in making 35 percent of the street frontage of a lot The intent of these parking location standards is to this change to the may be comprised of off-street parking encourage neighborhood commercial areas that are current ordinance. spaces that are located between the conducive to walking and biking as well as vehicular building and the street, traffic. Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land Development Council. 26 14-2C-7L - 70 (p.71-72) - CN-1 Zone THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission No changes made building standards for street-level CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. this change, indicated little windows, building bulk, building interest in making entrances, and balconies. LDC These are standards to promote pedestrian-friendly this change to the requests that these be removed, retail commercial areas. Many communities across current ordinance. the country have adopted similar standards to Requestor: Steve Gordon, Land promote attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood Development Council. commercial areas. 27 14-2C: Commercial Zones - Request to A number of new standards were added to the Code Staff is not opposed to exploring commiS~i0n '. Amendment establish standards for large for commercial areas: new'screening standards for options for regulating big box dirept~d~_~ff to draft aPProved 5-0 commercial retailers ("big box" retailers) parking lots; new design standards for large parking retailers, but will take direction from am'er~d~eht~fOr- (AnCiaux'8; Shannon to keep such developments compatible lots; standards for outdoor storage and display; new the Commission about whether to thei~'cdn~id'bration.' abseht)-':..~ - with the character of the community, to standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular draft amendments for the new -TheY i~di~ated. reduce large parking lots, and to circulation. However, other than in the CN-1 Zone, zoning code or undertake it as a in~!;~;;a~'opting provide better pedestrian amenities, there are no standards that regulate the size, bulk, separate work project in the future, stah~ai'~ fbr big and fa(;ade articulation of commercial buildings, box stOl:es, similar to Requestor: Garry Klein Standards are currently in place in the CB-5 Zone What is ~r~poSed for and proposed in the CB-10 Zone to prevent ' ' ' the proposed development that would damage the pedestrian- Walma~t~ friendly character of the downtown. 28 14-2C-8H. (p. 75) Drive-Through THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission indicated little No changes Facilities (in the CB-5 and CB-10 CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. this change, interest in making this made. Zones). Allow drive-through facilities by change to the current special exception in the CB-10 Zone, Drive-through facilities are not currently allowed in ordinance. particularly for banks, the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, since they are auto- oriented uses that require curb cuts onto busy Requestor: Marc M°en downtown streets and would require significant areas of a site to be devoted to vehicle maneuvering. Such facilities may erode the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown by creating incentives to replace active building uses with driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas. The downtown currently contains numerous banking establishments that exist without drive-through facilities. Most of these banks have branches in other areas of town that contain drive-through facilities to serve their customers needs. 29 14-2C: Commercial Zones- Allow In the new code, a number of changes were made to Staff is in support of making this cOmmiSsion directed staff : Amendment-' ~ stealth cell tower facilities (towers that clarify the regulations for communication towers change, provided there are to draft an ~mend~nt for: app~d 5,0 look like flag poles, light poles, etc.) in based on recommendations from a joint committee limitations on the height and {heir c°nsiderati0~i making Neighborhood Commercial Zones. of staff and communication providers from Iowa City specific requirements for some ali°wance f°r~s~ch ~: and surrounding communities, camouflaging the facilities, facilities ib the CN'~ amended in the future after some additional research and discussion. 14-3A - Planned Development Overlay '.-'ProPoSed A~endment - .~--r~-!~ EXPlahato~ Notes. :..~!.~-- ~ . ~ ' staff-Recommendation ' 5.23-05: Decision 30 14-3A-4K-2. (p.112) Modifications to There is no provision in the code that requires alleys Staff does not recommend making Commission-indicated little No changes Street Standards. Mr. Gordon stated to be private rather than public. The City Code, any changes to this section, interest in making this made. that he and the Land Development through the planned development process and change to the draft. Council assume that alleys and rear through subdivision regulations provides a means by lanes are considered private streets as which land for public improvements is dedicated to there is no provision in the Code for the City (See 14-3A-4F & G. Dedication of Public these to be dedicated to the City. They Right of Way and Streets. See also the subdivision object to this because when streets or regulations, which are in a separate part of the City alleys are private, maintenance, Code.) garbage and snow removal is the responsibility of the private owners Subsection K, referenced by the LDC, applies when through a homeowner's association or a developer is specifically requesting private streets, similar entity and they feel this including private rear lanes or alleys. In the event increases costs to the consumer, private streets are requested, certain standards must be met in order to provide for maintenance and services. The reason that the ordinance states that private streets are discouraged is because once they are built, residents, not aware that they are private streets, assume that the City is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the streets and will often call to complain when services and maintenance are not properly provided. 31 14-3A-4 (starting on p. 104) In the current planned development regulations, any variations from the requirements and Staff does not Commission No Approval Criteria standards of the underlying zoning designation must be specified on the plan and approved, recommend indicated little changes The LDC feels that certain However, in the current code it is unclear what the underlying zoning requirements are. In making these interest in made. design standards are mandated the proposed code, the provisions make clear what those underlying standards are. changes, making this which takes away from the Standards that might otherwise be difficult to find in other places in the code are listed in this change to the flexibility and creativity that section for clarity and ease of use. If, for example, the underlying zoning is RS-5, the draft. should be allowed in a planned planned development ordinance allows you to build a whole variety of housing types and development. They refer to the commercial uses as well. Since townhouses, duplexes, multi-family buildings, and following: commercial uses are not generally allowed in the RS-5 Zone, it is difficult to determine what · Attached SF uses must zoning standards would apply. The proposed code contains basic standards for duplexes, comply with the standards townhouses, and multi-family buildings that are fairly standard across all the zones. For for the RS-12 zone, clarity and ease of use, the applicable standards are referenced here. Since any commercial · MF uses and duplexes mUst development proposed for property zoned residential must be small-scale in order to fit into a comply with MF site residential planned development, applying the CN-1 zone standards seems the most development standards appropriate. · Commercial developmeht must comply with the CN-1 Note that for planned developments where the underlying zoning is commercial, the ,qeneral Zone site development commercial site development standards apply, not the CN-1 Zone standards. In the current standards, code, planned developments are not allowed on land zoned commercial, so this is a new allowance that creates more opportunities for creative commercial development in the No specific changes to the community. proposed draft were proposed. Keep in mind that through the planned development process, developers have great latitude Requestor: Steve Gordon/Land to request land uses and modifications to the underlying zoning requirements that are not Development Council. allowed in the standard zones, but city officials and decision-makers and developers need to know what the underlying standards are before they can be modified or varied. Subsection 14-3A-4K (p. 109) contains the procedures and standards for requesting modifications to the underlying zoning requirements. In addition, there is also an overarching "exceptions" section that allows modifications to the approval criteria (See 14-3A-7 on p. 115). Unlike the current ordinance, the provisions of Article 14-3A state clearly what standards are applicable to the property, making it much easier to submit a complete application with fewer deficiencies. This should help to streamline the process for all involved. In addition, the Article 14-3A provides maximum flexibility to request modifications to those standards for creative and innovative subdivision designs. 14-4A: Land Use Classification "~ : - : - i', ..* ~..~ !~f~3rmalMeefing Public Hea~ingl ; propOsed'Amendment Explanatory Notes · ' - "! StaffRecommendati°n '. 5~23-05~.~-i~ ~ ' Decision 32 14-4A-4B (p.147) Animal-Related The requester is veterinarian. In discussions at one Staff recommends making this commission' directed Amendment .'. Commercial Uses - Request to add of the Commission's open house sessions, he change, staff to dr~ft an-' approved 5-0 . language to this use category definition mentioned that there is a need for overnight amendrfient, for their (,~nciaUX&: to make it clear that overnight sleeping accommodations within some veterinary facilities in .consideratiOn. ,. ~ shannon abSent) facilities for staff would be allowed as cases where animals need around-the-clock an accessory use in veterinary monitoring and care. establishments. Since the list of accessory uses for each land use .~'~' ~ · '~ .~-' - Requester: Allan Berger category is not intended to be exhaustive of all of the ' - - ' -' ' types of accessory uses that might exist, sleeping '- .."'- -~ ' '- accommodations for vet clinics would not necessarily , '._ . -_ *.i~i:I. be excluded. However, adding the language requested will provide additional information and -' -.-._: . clarification. .... -. :.. 14-4C: Accessory Uses ~ i i i~:' :~ . ii '.~i ~ ~.- .. ~ ~i ~staff · ~. : ~ InfbtmaiMe'efing~ P~blic~ : ~Pro. posed :EXplanatO~NOt~§:: :'' ~ ::. :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' : ~ReCommendation ~5:23:05~ : ~Hearingl 33 14-4C-2A. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not Commission No (p. 198) recommend indicated little changes Accessory Sometimes called "granny flats," accessory apartments provide the opportunity for a homeowner to eliminating the interest in made. Apartments. provide semi-private living quarters for an elderly or disabled relative, a nanny, or other person opportunity for disallowing Disallow seeking affordable housing. Currently, the Zoning Code allows accessory apartments on any single accessory accessory accessory family owner-occupied property, either within the principal structure or in an accessory structure apartments or apartments or apartments in (such as a garage), provided certain conditions are met. While accessory apartments have been creating additional creating new the RS-5 and allowed for a number of years, there are only a handful of property owners that have taken location standards location standards. RS-8 Zones. advantage of these provisions, for such uses. Alternatively, The Commission change the Following is a list of the changes proposed to the accessory apartment regulations: indicated that they provisions to · Accessory apartments would not be allowed in the RNC-12 Zone. (They are currently allowed would like to see restrict in any single family home in any zone.) how the new stricter accessory · Currently, at least one person residing on the property must be disabled or elderly. In the enforcement apartments to proposed code this restriction has been removed, but maximum occupancy on the property is standards proposed large lots or lots still limited to what would be allowed for the property without the accessory unit (see next in the draft work, that back up to bullet) and the property must be owner-occupied, before any public open · Occupancy on the property is limited to what is currently allowed for the principal dwelling additional space. (one "household," as defined in the Code). In other words, no additional unrelated persons restrictions are (roomers) would be allowed beyond what is currently allowed in the particular zone in which considered. Requestors: the property is located. So, the maximum occupancy of the property with or without the Longfellow accessory apartment is exactly the same. The language in the current Code is vague, so it is Neighborhood necessary to clarify this point. The intent is not to double the allowed occupancy, but rather to Association allow a semi-private living arrangement for a member of the "household." · Accessory apartment rental permits must be renewed every 2 years (instead of 3), after completion of a housing inspection. · Size of the accessory unit is limited to 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, 50% of the floor area of the accessory dwelling, or 650 square feet, whichever is least. (In the current and the proposed code accessory apartments are limited to one bedroom). · There are a number of safeguards already built into the regulations to ensure that these units are only allowed on owner-occupied properties. For example, the property has to record on the covenants of the property that their right to an accessory apartment ceases upon transfer of Title. 34 14-4C-2M (p. 206) Home In order to prevent nuisance issues, new definitions and Since there are a number of new Commission indicated No changes Occupations - Requests that restrictions were added the home occupation regulations limitations and regulations little interest in making made. Type B home occupations be requiring that home occupations where customers frequent proposed in the new code for home this change to the draft. limited so that clients or the site on a regular basis (Type B Home Occupations) must occupations, staff does not The Commission customers were not allowed to obtain a home occupation permit from the city, so that they recommend making this change at indicated that they would frequent the site on weekends, are aware of the regulations and can be monitored by the city this time. Instead staff like to see how the new more easily. A new restriction was also added limiting recommends waiting to see how standards proposed in Requestor: Diana Baculis customer or client visits to 10 per day. well the new restrictions are the Code work, before working and making any necessary any additional restrictions As with many regulations that are intended to prevent adjustments in the future if needed, are considered. nuisance issues, these regulations will be enforced on a complaint basis. 35 14-4C - Accessory Uses - Some initial research on windmill generators was conducted Without further research on this Commission indicated No changes requested that windmill power several years ago. A general finding of this research was that issue, staff does not recommend little interest in making made. generators intended for on-site such facilities often generate a level of noise that may be a making a change at this time. this change to the draft. power generation be allowed nuisance to surrounding properties. More research is needed as an accessory use. The requestor did not specify which before such a change zones he thinks they should be would be considered. allowed in. Requestor: Allan Berger 14-5A -Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards · ~'roposed Amendment ~ :r EXplanatory. NOtes .~ - · - Staff ReCommendation -5,23.05' r~'~ = '~ '~: 36 14--5A'3D (p'228) Maximum Parking in Private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone is Staff recommends easing the CommissiOn . ~ ~ .Amendment. the CB-lO Zone - Concern expressed currently only allowed by special exception, proposed standards to allow some directed staff to draft` approv~d~'5~oi: with about the new approval criteria for However, the current ordinance does not give the ground level structured parking, an ~mendment fOr. ' private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Board of Adjustment much guidance regarding what provided the first 30 feet of the lot their_~Considei'~iti°h:.-.·'~: ' ;~:~!~-i~{~ ithe Zone. Would like to see some factors should be considered when reviewing these depth is reserved for active building th~Wo~id~ial!~W~'i. -~ i!: ~.:.~ ~ia~Uage~ allowance made for parking at grade, requests. The standards in the proposed code uses, i.e. no structured parking ' some:structured' ¥:- ;~(Anc~au~Shannon either within a parking structure or in would prohibit off-street surface parking and ground along the street front (this is similar pari~in~'--ai~ {~.e"'- surface parking lots. level structured parking, to the current standard in the CB-5 gi:0Q:ndlev~i,'-but fibi Requestor: Marc Moen street surface parking should not be allowed in the CB-10Zone. If it ' Commission_aSked:-~ i-'.--_"':. ;.'' : is, it should only be allowed from stafftOinVestigat~'-: surface parking in .... -:. the CB-lO Zone. .. 14-51 -Sensitive Lands and Features .- .~ ubhc Hea~ng/~'-~ ' Pr°pOs~dAmendment ' Explanatory Notes . .Staff ReCommendation`' -~.-. :$;:j~.:0:5!!--;i: ": -'". 37 14-51-6C. (p. 311) Wetland Mitigation This would not be a substantive change to the Making the suggested changes ' c~mmi§§i'on '~ ApPrOved Plan Required. Rename this section regulations, might clarify the regulations for a directed-~taffto draft amehdm~nt (5;0):to "Wetland Protection Plan" and reorder layperson. However, use of the ana~e~dn~ent for" edda definition~:~:i provisions sequentially, term "mitigation" is well established ~t~ B~r:ati0n, / ~i~'i-g'~i~i'i' ' and understood by wetland ..~¢!-i~d~._~!ti'O :!!.;-~i:::' Larry Schnittjer, Land Development professionals, who are the persons i~{~r~St;'[~!i~ah'~in~:~'ii Council most likely to use the ordinance. "the.substance~'~': ~-~' "-'~'~':" of.' the -"-protecboBplap. Changing the terms used will make :.rb~iati~6'~?" ': - our ordinance less consistent with ' ? ~.:- ' '~bseht) federal regulations. See attached memo from Julie Tallman, '; - ::' Development Regulations -~ ~,. i!~i~ :-'-! - Specialist, regarding this issue. ' - - Perhaps a better means to clarify the regulations would be to add a definitiOncode, of "mitigation" to the i-!!~' -': -~ 38 15-51-6E-1 (p. 311). Wetland Buffer THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A Some cross reference to this Commission No changes made. Requirement. Opening paragraph CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. paragraph 14-51-6F-7 could be indicated little should be modified to take into account added to 15-51-6E-1 if necessary interest in making the consideration relative to constructed Mr. Schnittjer concern is addressed in Paragraph 14- for clarification, this change to the and/or altered wetlands where "natural" 51-6F-7- (p.313). It states, '¥Vhere it is determined current ordinance. landscapes(s) adjacent to the wetland that the area occupied by the required buffer probably will not exist. No specific provides little natural protection to the wetland due to language provided by requestor, previous land disturbance, enhanced vegetative cover must be provided within the buffer area to help Larry Schnittjer, Land Development filter and slow the flow of surface water. The Council enhanced vegetation shall consist of species that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas.'' 39 14-51-6G. Compensatory Mitigation. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission No changes made. The references to specific replacement CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. any changes to this section, indicated little ratios should be eliminated and interest in making replaced with "as required by the COE" The replacement ratios were intentionally included in this change to the to avoid conflicts and confusion, the ordinance by the original committee that crafted current ordinance. the sensitive areas ordinance. Knowing that federal Larry Schnittjer, Land Development regulations might change over time, the committee Council wanted to provide some certainty and consistency with regard to wetland mitigation in Iowa City. The replacement ratios in the current and the proposed code are based on ratios used in model wetland ordinances from other communities around the region. 40 14-51-7 (p. 315) Stream Corridors - THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Commission No changes made. This section should be moved to the CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. any changes to this section of the indicated little storm water management section of the Code. interest in making code and as such the buffers could be It is not clear how moving the regulations to another this change to the applied to a specific need of a stream part of the Code will result in an improvement or any current ordinance. corridor and not just based on where greater protection for regulated stream corridors. that line is on the map. There is already differentiated buffer requirements based on the type of stream and reductiOns are Larry Schnittjer, Land Development based on clearly stated approval criteria. Council propoSed~A~i~:nd~ent. -._,-:,- : ~EXplan, ato~N:otes: .. t.;.~ . .-. ¥:-. '.- - istaff Recommendati6n - .. ;~-!::~:.-: i ::De'Ei~i!6n?:';'-: 41 14-51-8 (p.316) Regulated Slopes - THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A The change suggested is counter Commission No changes made. Requestor would like this section CHANGE TO THE-CURRENT ORDINANCE. to the intent of the sensitive areas indicated little rewritten to correlate slopes with ordinance. Staff is opposed to interest in making degrees of protection, i.e. the greater Mr. Schnittjer would like this section of the code making such a significant reversal this change to the the percentage of slope, the greater the modified to allow any slope to be altered or in policy and regulation without a current ordinance. degree of constructed slope protection engineered so that they are no longer steep. This community-wide debate. to be provided, assumes that any slope no matter how steep can be graded and engineered to prevent erosion and land It is clear from his comments that Larry Schnittjer, Land Development slides on to adjacent properties. Mr. Schnittjer would like the City to Council do a major rewrite of the Sensitive One of the primary reasons the sensitive areas Areas Ordinance. Changes were ordinance was adopted was due to severe erosion made to the ordinance about two problems caused by inappropriate grading and years ago that allow greater use of cutting of slopes. Grading changes the topography, administrative reviews as opposed the hydrology, and the drainage patterns of a site. to the more lengthy overlay Erosion also increases in proportion to the amount of rezoning process. No other lost vegetation. Therefore, controlling clearing and significant changes to the sensitive grading on steeply sloping sites is the first step in areas ordinance were controlling erosion, contemplated during this rewrite. The ordinance already allows "manmade" protected slopes to be altered, but protects naturally formed ravines where the soil is stabilized by existing trees and understory vegetation. In addition, the sensitive areas ordinance was amended recently to allow up to 35% of the critical slopes on a site to be disturbed without the need for a sensitive areas rezoning. 14-51-9 (p.$18) Wooded Areas - THE R£QUEST£D AMENDM£NT$ WOULD BE A Staff does not recommend making Gommission No channes made. Requestor questioned the justification CHANGe: TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. changes to the woodland indicated litUe for applying differing levels of protection The purpose for regulating woodlands as stated in regulations at this time. However, interest in making for different zones. He also opined that the ordinance is to reduce damage to wooded areas, formulating a strategy to protect this change to the there is more justification for providing particularly wooded areas located near wetlands, landmark trees is a worthy goal and Current ordinance. protection for "land mark trees" than along stream corridors, and on steep slopes, could be added to the there is for woodlands in general. Protecting woodlands also helps reduce erosion and Commission's future work program. The Commission siltation; minimizes destruction of wildlife habitat, and indicated that Larry Schnittjer, Land Development encourages subdivision and site plan design that creating new standards for Council incorporates groves and woodlands as amenities, landmark trees is There is a difference in the amount of woodlands that must be retained based on the zoning of the beyond the scope of property. There are two reasons for this. First, this project, the undeveloped residential land, particularly land zoned Commission Rural Residential or Interim Development often indicated interest in contains larger areas covered by woodlands pursuing such undisturbed by development activity. Secondly, it is amendments at a easier to preserve woodlands and other natural future date. features when the density of development is lower. Therefore, the lower density zones are required to retain more woodland area than the higher density zones. The Commission has had some preliminary discussion about providing some protection for "landmark trees." Such an effort would require defining "landmark trees" and formulating a strategy them over time. 43 14-51-12 (p.322) Archeological Sites- The changes suggested are clarifications to existing Staff supports making changes that Request that the language be clarified regulations. However, we should be cautious about help to clarify the regulations -i~ai~a~d [ha~.~Y ..approvbd~0~;- . to spell out the operational procedure at adopting language into the code that describes in without adopting language that w0'UI~~l'ik~:t6;k~~ '(~ciauX &.S~hnon the State, so that there is no confusion detail operational procedures at the State level, describes in unnecessa~ detail '~he.!angaagb;'~airly or mistakes made when determining because these can change over time. operational procedures at the State g~hbri~'~ S'~th~t-~y - protections for archeological sites, level, oPer~atibnal :ch:~nges Requestor: Tim Wei~el, Registered Professional Archeologist .~b~ideratio'n that 14-5K - Neighborhood Open Space Requirements 44 14-5K. (p.333-337) THESE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff recommends Commission Amendment Neighborhood Open Space The City does accept dedicated parkland in the same manner as other public improvements; that is making some direCted-staff apPr°¥ed'' Requirements. The Land when it has been improved as specified in the subdivision's legal papers and as per City Code. changes to the to draft ' 5-0 _ Development Council requests: language in the language (AnCi~Ux & The subdividers agreement typically specifies what improvements, if any, must be made to open space zoning code to make 'that'would ShaA~h0n · That parks be considered a before it is dedicated to the City. Trying to write general standards in the zoning code that would be it clear that any Ci~itify ~'~ abse~t~~' public improvement and be appropriate in all cases would be very difficult. Each piece of land has its own topography and improvements . ~ .... ~ cdrrent . accepted as a dedication characteristics. The subdividers agreement is a much better vehicle for establishing specific required prior to P~"ac{iceS, but - when all the other public' ~mprovements that must be taken care of before the City accepts the land as public parkland, dedication will be .. ~ improvements are accepted specified in the --ate not by the City. Payment of fees in lieu of dedication: subdividers interested 'in , · More objective standards in Rather than require land dedication in subdivisions where there is no open space appropriate for a agreement, making the code regarding how a neighborhood park, the City collects fees equivalent to the cost of the land that otherwise would have s~Jbstantive site should be prepared been dedicated. The funds are then used to purchase more suitable parkland in close proximity to the Staff does not changes to _.. - before dedication, e.g. subdivision or the funds are used to improve an existing park in the area. For example, the fees recommend making the grading, trimming of trees, collected in lieu of open space for the Southpointe subdivision were used for the expansion and any changes to the OrdinanCe. ' seeding, etc. improvement of Wetherby Park, which is approximately 500 feet from Southpointe. current system of . · Regarding payment of fees administering the in lieu of dedication, they Reducing the amount of time the City has to use any funds paid in lieu of dedication would be difficult fees paid in lieu of would like the period of time given that the City has a five-year capital improvements plan. Getting new parkland improvements into dedication. for the city to use the funds the queue in two or three years may not always be possible. In addition, most subdivisions take more ' ' to be reduced from 5 years than 2 or 3 years to build out. Reordering other capital improvement priorities in the community to to 2 or 3 years. They would establish parks in an area where few homes currently exist seems unreasonable. Waiting until more _ also like the funds homes are built out also allows the Parks Department to solicit inpu! from residents about how they - automatically refunded to would like the funds used and what improvements are most desired. ' property owners and not require them to apply for a The City makes every effort to use open space fees within the time allotted in the current ordinance. refund. They also feel that Setting up a system to automatically refund fees to current owners of Property within a subdivision after . fees should be used for the a certain period of time may entail considerable administrative oversight and cost. particular subdivision, not for neighborhood parks. It is unreasonable to require that open space fees be used to establish parkland within the boundaries of the specific subdivision. If there was land suitable for a park within the subdivision, presumably fees Requestor: Mike Pugh, Land would not have been paid in lieu of dedication. The developers, the City, and the future residents of a Development Council subdivision all benefit from this system of parkland creation. If fees can be pooled from several adjacent subdivisions, the resulting parkland is likely to be more attractive and usable for all area residents. The alternative would be for the City to eliminate the option for developers to pay fees in lieu of dedication. 14-4E - Nonconforming Situations Proposed Amendment :~ Explanato~Notes: ~' = .. ~ , 'staffRecOmmendatiOn · 5:23:05: 45 14-4E-9 (p. 226) Regulation of Changes to the occupancy standards in the Staff recommends making this Commission .... Amend~er~t Nonconforming Residential Occupancy. proposed code are not intended to impact existing change, directed staffto draft 'appr°v~d Make a change so that persons that rental properties or properties where a building an amendment fOr ~ (,~,nCiabX~&;Shannon have been issued a building permit and permit was issued prior to the release of the public their ConSideration: .-~, made substantial progress on a project review draft of the zoning code. based on the current occupancy yet standards current haveStandardS'a willrentalbe permit.grandfathered even if they doin not at the ' ~ . Requestor: Michael McLaughlin 14-8 - Review and Approval Procedures i~'-i-'i'~ '-'~'-~ '~'' : 'i--'-'ii'"'"~':~'-::":!~!!:, .... "~:'~!~ii?~ ::.:-"!"" :~: "!?-":'~??" "': ~---~'? "~"~: ' ~i ~ 'lnformal'M~eting~" PdbiicHearingl proposed Amendment , ' ~-~. EXplanatory Notes '"~ · staff RecOmmendatiOn - 5:23-05 ' -.' ;13~Ci~iOn . ". 46 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting This requirement is intended to supplement the Staff does not recommend making Commission No changes made. Required. Remove this requirement, opportunities for public input into a development this change, indicated little proposal. If information is provided early in the interest in making Requestor: Dan Smith, Land planning stages of a project, it can help to dispel this change to the Development Council misinformation and may help to foster better draft. communication throughout the development review and approval process. The public hearing process is not the best means to foster a dialogue between parties, but is a means to provide input to the Commission and the City Council. 47 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting There is nothing in the regulations that would prevent Staff encourages full participation Commission No changes made. Required. Request to re-write this a developer from inviting prospective tenants or by all those who might be affected indicated little provision to provide a greater possibility home buyers to the neighborhood meeting, by a development, including those interest in making of participation by people interested in who may be future residents of the this change to the or who would be living in the proposed neighborhood. However, it would draft. development to.attend the meeting, be difficult to make this a requirement in the code, since it is Requestor: Charlie Eastham, Greater often unknown who will be living in Iowa City Housing Fellowship. a new development. Therefore, staff does not recommend making a change to the ordinance. 48 14-8B-9 (p. 359) Performance This section was copied from its current location in Staff recommends removing this COmmission · ~-'~ "-i- 'Amendment. · '' Guarantees. Remove this section, the site plan section of the City Code. It was section from the Zoning Code. requeSted that staff ' ' approVed 5-0 r included in the proposed zoning code, so that users remOve this section (Anciaux & shannOn Requestor: Dan Smith, Land of the Code would not have to flip to a different (Note: It will remain in its current from the proposed ·: absent) Development Council section of the City Code to find out the procedures form within the site plan review zoning code, r ' . for a performance guarantee if one was required. No section of the City Code.). .- new requirements were added to the City Code for : performance guarantees. This section merely describes the procedure to be followed if a · performance guarantee is required. ...... ...: . .- .~-:::!- 'Delci~io'n 49 14-SD-7E (p.378) Amending Approved The existing language in the Code is more restrictive If more certainty is desired Commission indicated No changes OPD Plans or Sensitive Areas than the proposed language regarding changes to regarding requests for little interest in making made. Development Plans. Request approved OPD Plans. It only allows minor changes amendments to approved OPD this change to the draft. clarification of the phrase "character of in building arrangements. The existing language in Plans, staff recommends amending development" with regard to requests 14-6J-2D-10a. states: the proposed code using language for changes to an approved planned from the existing zoning code. development. "Minor changes in building arrangements that do not substantially alter the character of the development Requestor: Dan Smith, Land are permissible without further City Council action. Development Council Any other changes, including changes in street locations, land use and buildinga arrangements, shall be considered as material changes to the approved plan. Such changes must be approved as amendments in accordance with the procedures set forth in D2." (Preliminary PDH Plan Approval). The proposed code, while somewhat more ambiguous, provides more flexibility (See 14-SD-7E (p.378) :.:~'~01'~05 ".' '- ' DeCiSi~'n- 50 Change the maximum allowed density Determining residential density using number of bedrooms per Staff is not in support of this Commission No change ~n the multi-family zones, so that a amount of land area is certainly an(~ther way to control amendment without further indicated little made. developer is allowed to develop more occupancy and the mix of apartments. However, without analysis, interest in apartments per acre if the apartments considerable analysis,, it would be difficult to determine how making this have fewer bedrooms, changing the density formulas in the Code would affect current change to the and future development in the multi-family zones, draft. Requestor: Mark McCallum Increasing the allowed density so that more apartments could be built (each with fewer bedrooms than the maximum) may encourage existing older structures in inner neighborhoods to be broken up into more apartments, which may not be the desired outcome. 51 Provide a density bonus for All new apartment buildings that contain more than three Given that new apartment buildings Commission No change handicapped accessible dwelling units apartments must be handicapped accessible. In the proposed must already meet ADA indicated little made. that contain a small number of zoning code the maximum occupancy of each apartment unit requirements and that the interest in bedrooms, has been reduced by one in the RNS-12, RS-12, RM-12, RM- ramifications in the older making this 20, RNC-20, MU, and CO-1 Zones. Any new apartments, neighborhoods are unclear without change to the Requestor: Mark McCallum duplexes or townhouses, built in the RNS-12, RS-12, RM-12, or further study, staff does not support draft. CN-1 Zones will have a maximum occupancy of 3 or fewer this making this change at this unrelated persons, so units with smaller numbers of bedrooms time. should become more prevalent in these zones. According to the Housing and Inspection Services Department all.of the new 12-plexes being built around town have accessible apartments on the first floor and most of these are two-bedroom units. Due to the age of the housing stock near downtown, there are apartments that do not have accessible units. However, given that many of these properties also contain more apartment units than would be allowed today under the current zoning, it woUld be difficult to create an incentive high enough to trigger redevelopment. Such an incentive may also run counter to historic preservation goals in these areas. 52 Incorporate inclusionary zoning Inclusionary zoning is one way to achieve mixed income Staff does not recommend Commission No change provisions into the zoning code that neighborhoods and ensure that new developments contain including inclusionary zoning indicated little made. would require developers to build a some percentage of affordable housing units. A number of provisions in the current revision of interest in certain percentage of units within each questions need to be answered before proceeding with such a the zoning code. Staff supports making this new development that would be program: continued research and analysis of change to the affordable to those at or below area · What income level will be targeted? these techniques for possible draft. median income. · Will the focus be on affordable rental housing or inclusion in the zoning code at affordable owner-occupied housing? apartments? some future date. Requestor: Jerry Anthony and Patty Condos? Single family homes? Santangelo · How will the program be administered? Will there be requirements for continued affordability of these units over time? · Will a density bonus be offered as a means of compensating the developer for building affordable units? How much of a bonus is necessary? · Will there be an option for paying fees in lieu of providing the affordable units? If so, how will this fund be managed and allocated? Given the complexity of designing and implementing an inclusionsary zoning program, the staff recommended and the Commission concurred that such an effort should be considered separately from the zoning code rewrite project. In addition, the City has convened a Scattered Site Housing Taskforce that has been studying affordable housing issues, the dispersal of subsidized housing in the community, and is expected to make recommendations when their work is complete. 53 Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Currently, apartments with more than 3 bedrooms are not Staff supports the changes proposed in Commission No change Requirements (p.231). required the same amount of parking as the same size the new Code for parking in the PRM indicated little made. Reconsider the proposal in the apartments in other zones of the City. In other multi-family Zone and would like to see how these interest in new code that would increase the zones, 3 parking spaces are required for a 4-bedroom new provisions influence the density making this parking requirements in the PRM apartment and 4 parking spaces are required for a 5- and spillover parking issues in change. Zone for apartments with large bedroom, apartment. In the PRM Zone, only 2 parking neighborhoods close to the University numbers of bedrooms, spaces each are required for 4- and 5-bedroom apartments, and downtown. Therefore, staff does not support the amendment proposed Requestor: Larry Svobada The reason that there is a break given on the parking in the by Mr. Svobada. PRM Zone in the current zoning code is that this zone is intended for areas close to downtown and the University. When the PRM Zone was established, the City predicted that fewer parking spaces would need to be provided, because some tenants would choose not to own a car when living close to campus and downtown commercial services. However, the demand for parking was higher than anticipated for these properties despite their proximity to campus and downtown, resulting in spillover parking onto nearby neighborhood streets. This is particularly true for 4 and 5-bedroom apartments. In effect, this allowed more people to live on a property with fewer parking spaces required. In the proposed Code, therefore, the parking requirement is increased to 3 parking spaces for each 4 and 5-bedroom apartment in the PRM Zone. The parking requirement for 2-bedroom apartments is actually decreased to I parking space for each unit. These changes in the parking requirements should encourage the development of apartments with smaller numbers of bedrooms on properties that have limited space for off-street parking. 4 and 5 bedroom units would still be allowed, but will likely occur on larger properties that have space for the off-street parking that is needed for these larger units. The overall effect will likely lessen the impact of spillover parking onto surrounding streets. 54 14-4E-5E and 14-4E-6C (pp. 221 In the current code a nonconforming use is allowed to be Staff believes that any standard Commission Amendment' &222) Increase the allowable rebuilt even if it is almost totally destroyed by fire, explosion, between·50% and 75% Would bee indicated little aPPi:0Ved'~¢2 damage for nonconforming act of God or by a public enemy. Given that the intent of the reasonable standard and an interest in ' structures from 70% to 75%. The nonconforming use provisions is to bring properties into improvement over the existing code. making this draft specifies that nonconforming compliance over time, this standard is overly lenient. Incur change to the structures damaged beyond 70% research, we found no other zoning codes that allow draft. of the assessed value of the reconstruction of nonconforming uSes after they are structure may not be rebuilt completely or almost completely destroyed. Other codes without bringing the structure and had similar provisions, but the percentage of destruction ":'~":':-- the use into compliance with the allowed ranged from 50-75 percent of the assessed value. Code. The request is to increase Previously, Iowa City's Code allowed reconstruction only if a this figure to 75%. structure was damaged less than 50 percent of the assessed value. The proposed code includes a reasonable '" ~-- Requestor: Karen Kubby reduction from 100% to 70%. The requested change is minor - an increase from 70% to 75%. -' R~c°mmendation 55 Make some allowance for cottage- In general commercial zones are intended for commercial uses and Staff is in support of ~T~e- ' type industries to locate within retail industrial zones are intended for industrial uses. Industrial'zones are making this change. ~e~?s. ted-!': commercial zones in the city. Clear often used to create a sanctuary of land available only to industrial users, :ia~'~ri'd~ent up any ambiguity in the Code in this because commercial businesses tend to outbid industrial uses for the .~&¢~:~:~:8~'iV~d regard, available land. On the other hand, commercial zones are crafted to exclude most industrial uses because the associated externalities, such Requestor: Eric Bochner as noise, dust, odor, and semi-truck traffic, may discourage the kind of commercial development desired for a particular area. :i,~iq~e~t ng. -:8'i eS{i However, there are a number of businesses that fall into a gray area combining elements of retail, small-scale manufacturing, and wholesale ~.~bmliiis.sion sales. For lack of a better term, these "cottage-type" industries, such as .at their bakeries, confectioneries, artist's and artisan's studios, may have a difficult time fitting into neat land use categories in the zoning code. With informal these businesses, it is often difficult to determine which is the principal ib'eeting. use and which are accessory uses. In those instances where the retail ~. ~ ~ portion of the operation is significant and thus a retail location is desirable : .... and the manufacturing component is small in scale, the business may fit well into a community commercial or downtown zone. While the current :_':.': --;~'. and the proposed code allows accessory manufacturing uses in commercial zones, City staff is required to make a judgment call on a · case-by-case basis. This often creates frustration on the part of the applicant and the city staff. Creating clear standards in the zoning code for such uses will open up opportunities for small start-up operations that need a retail location. Listing light manufacturing, general manufacturing and wholesale sales as "provisional uses" in the CC-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones will help clear up this gray area in the code. Suggested provisions include making sure there is a significant retail component to the operation and limiting the ~ size of the manufacturing component. Such provisions will help to · prevent externalities such as excessive truck traffic, noise, odor, and dust that are often associated with large industrial operations.