HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-27 TranscriptionSeptember 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 1
Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn
Absent: None
P&Z Commission: Brooks, Smith, Anciaux, Freerks, Koppes, Shannon, Plahutnik
Staff. Atkins, Behr, Howard, Miklo, Karr, Helling, Franklin
Tapes: 05-59, Both Sides
[Continued Review of matrix dated 9/8/05]
14-2A - Single Family Residential Zones (and associated provisions in
14-4B)
Lehman: Tonight, I think, in the interest of time, we need to limit our discussion to
the issues raised in the matrix. We're going to have lots and lots of
general discussion, I'm sure, during the public hearings and whatever, but
I think we need to work our way through this as judiciously as we can.
So, if we can keep our comments to the questions proposed in the matrix, I
think we'll move along a lot better. So, go ahead, Bob.
Brooks: We have about 45 items left in the matrix. (several laughing and talking at
once) No, I didn't do a very good job at keeping everybody.... of those
there are several that were ones that we took action on. So, I think we'll
glance over those, unless somebody has a real issue that they want to bring
up. There are others that are issues that relate to things that are in the
Code now, and that there was a request to change what was already in the
existing Code. So, those are other things as we get to them to keep in
mind, already there and there was a request to take a step back and change
something. I think we got as far as number 10 last night. (several talking
and laughing at once) I guess we did skip through 11; yeah, I did have a
note on that.
# 12 14 -2A -7B (p.21) Historic Preservation Exceptions - Request to change the word
"necessary" within the Board of Adjustment approval criteria. The requestor feels
that this word may be interpreted so strictly that it would make it difficult for most
properties to meet the standard.
Number 12 then related to historic preservation, and that was an item that
we looked at and we agreed to the request, and we took that and voted in
favor of that. Same thing with 13, and that was...
Vanderhoef: Excuse me, on 12 there were two places on page 22 of the new Code that
used the word necessary. Were you removing it in both cases?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Brooks: Just in this one section, 14.2A -7B. Correct?
Lehman: It specifically refers to page 21, 14.2A -7B.
Vanderhoef: Old page numbers and new page numbers.
Lehman: Well, 14.2A -7B should be the same, should it not?
Page 2
Vanderhoef. Yes, but there's two references to it in this ... okay, there's one there; and
then this one ... (several talking at once)
Freerks: There was a reason, I know, we ... I'd have to think back now, but we did
specify between the two.
Franklin: This was single-family and the other was multi -family.
Karr: Karin? I'm not getting you at all.
Franklin: In the single-family, the desire was to have a higher level of scrutiny.
#13 14 -4B -4A -2i (p.170) 14 -4B -4A -3g (p.172); 14 -4B -4A -4a & e. (p.174) -
With regard to maintenance easements required for zero lot line
dwellings, it was suggested that such easements be recorded with the
subdivision rather than with the deed to the property.
Brooks: 13, again, was the same type of issue where we changed some language to
clarify the issue that was brought before us and was voted on and
approved.
14-2B - Multi -Family Residential Zones
#14 14 -2B -6C: Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and
Detached Garages: Remove provision that parking has to be located
behind buildings, but keep the provision that parking may not be
located within the front -yard setbacks.
Brooks: Item 14 was location of design standards for surface parking. They asked
that we remove provisions that parking was to be located behind buildings,
but keep the provision that parking may not be located within the front
yard setbacks. This is something that has been in the existing Code in the
Central District Planning and in the PRM's and the R/O Zones, and as
Commission discussed this, we felt that we had hit what we were looking
for with this and we did not feel we wanted to change language that we
had included.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 3
Vanderhoef: Did you look or talk about even parking in the side yard if it was not next
to single-family or step-down kind of housing? I'm thinking about
corners and so forth, and topography, that might make it a possibility on
some sites.
Howard: Like Bob said, this is provisions in the current Code. There's some
drawings in there that show how you would do it on a corner lot, so a
number of different options for locating your parking. This is for multi-
family buildings.
Miklo: On page 80, the illustration shows (can't hear).
Smith: Page 39 is this section, Bob. 39, I think is ... (several talking at once)
Howard: ... and the recommended Code is on page 80.
Elliott: What page? 8? 80. Thank you.
Miklo: So you can see there, if it is a corner lot, parking could be visible from one
of the streets, but there would be some evergreens or shrubbery...
Vanderhoef: But it still would be behind... everything would be behind the building?
Miklo: Right, it wouldn't be in the front yard.
Howard: On a corner lot, you have two front yards.
Vanderhoef: True.
Howard: You have front yards on both streets. So, technically there's only one side
yard right there. There's typically not enough room in a side yard to put
parking, and that's not been allowed.
Smith: I think the Item number 14 is referenced 14.2B -6C over on page 39. Same
drawing.
#15 14 -2B -4B -3c. Lots with Multiple Buildings: Remove provisions
regarding designing buildings to maintain privacy between dwelling
units.
Brooks: So we left that wording the way it was and did not make any changes or
revisions. We felt we were comfortable with what we had proposed. Any
other questions on that, Item number 14? 15 was to remove provisions
regarding designing buildings to maintain privacy between dwelling units.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 4
Again, this was kind of an issue to help with the functionality and design
of the buildings. Many times buildings on the same lot will have
balconies or windows facing each other and they're so tight that you're
practically living in somebody else's unit if you're not careful.
Howard: Well, the current standard in the Code is the buildings have to be separated
by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building on the site. So,
most cases that would be 35 feet, and so the new Code actually provides
much more flexibility to allow the buildings to go closer together, but if
they get closer together, of course, they have to meet fire code and all
those other provisions that kick in when the buildings get close together.
Vanderhoef: But you're allowing either? So, it leaves the choice to the developer,
which I think is good.
Brooks: Any other questions on 15?
O'Donnell: I always wondered how we came up with these provisions — it has to be
separated by the tallest building and so forth — rather than just state (can't
hear). That's okay. I just .... I've been always curious about that.
Franklin: We were too, that's why we suggested taking it out. (laughter)
O'Donnell: I didn't hear that.
Franklin: I said we were too, that's why we suggested taking it out. It didn't seem
necessary.
#16 14 -2B -6C -3c. (p.40) Remove requirement for S2 screening between
parking areas and building walls that contain ground level windows into
dwelling units.
Brooks: Item 16 then is remove requirement for S2 screening between parking
areas and building walls that contain ground -level windows in dwellings.
Again, this is a standard that is currently in place in the PRM and R/O
Zones, and what we were looking for there is just to provide some help for
those lower -level units that are going to have headlights and that type of
thing. (several talking at once) Since this was in the, in certain zones in
the current Code, we felt comfortable with that.
Howard: I think at the public hearing there was a misunderstanding about what the
screening was. It's not a very tall standard — it's bushes that are two to
four feet tall, which is typical for what people have outside buildings. It
just keeps the headlights from shining into those lower -level windows.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 5
Vanderhoef: But it doesn't totally screen the cars, which I think would create a concern
for safety if they were really tall screens.
Howard: They also would block the light.
Vanderhoef: No, that's good.
#17 14 -2B -6D-6 (p.41) Remove the requirement that access to entrance
doors of any individual dwellings units located above the ground level
must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairwell.
Brooks: 17 then is remove requirement that access to entrance doors of any
individual dwelling unit located above the ground floor must be provided
with an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairwell. Again, this is something
that currently we just felt was a good standard to continue with.
Elliott: Does that mean you cannot have an exposed stairway to a second or third
floor? (several talking at once) What does it mean then?
Vanderhoef: You can have a fire escape, but not...
Elliott: So, it means that you can have that but you must have one that is not
exposed? Okay.
Vanderhoef: Well, for safety I think in our climate, an end -door one is very important.
Elliott: Having gone down head over hills on an icy, exposed about three times
when I was younger, I understand that!
O'Donnell: I had back surgery because of that, so...
Vanderhoef: I just have a question that isn't really implied one way or the other. First
floor apartments, they can have an outdoor entrance to their apartment or
condo, whatever it is. (several talking at once)
#18 14 -4B -6E (p.41-42): Building Scale. Suggests that these standards
are not necessary and lead to increased costs.
Brooks: Any other questions on 17? 18, then, suggested that in building scale,
suggested they standards are not necessary and lead to increased costs.
Currently in the Central Planning District, again, and the R/O Zones and
PRM Zone, we do have requirements that relate to building scale and
relationship to other buildings, and this is probably a good example of
what we were trying to avoid, is a small structure located next to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 6
something that is ...overshadows it and just takes over, and what we are
proposing then is that there would be a stairstepped effect that would
gradually transition the taller building to the surrounding neighborhood.
Similar, I think, to what we maybe did over on Oak Knoll, where we have
a residential area and requested that the structure kind of stairstep down so
it's not such an abrupt change.
Elliott: What do you use as the height differential necessary to require that?
Howard: No more than two and a half stories, within 15 feet.
Elliott: Well, the little building there is two stories, and the apartment is, what?
Three?
Vanderhoef: At least.
Elliott: So the apartment is not two and a half stories higher.
Howard: No, it cannot exceed two and a half stories, which would be typical of
many of the taller, single-family homes.
Elliott: You mean, you could not have something two and a half stories beside
something that's two stories?
Howard: Just for the first 15 feet. The rest of the building could be taller.
Lehman: It's too close.
Howard: Next to this house, it would be about even, and then it could go up.
Plahutnik: Before this goes on, this isn't about the stairstep. This particular one is
strictly about the fagade.
Vanderhoef: But the stairstep is not ... (several talking at once).
Freerks: This is something most of you voted on five years ago, I think, when...
Elliott: Can you give me an example of what you're talking about,
standards... you're talking about 18, right? 18? (several talking at once)
What are the standards? What ... give me an example? Yeah, but without
having to read it. Obviously, this must be important to you, so...
Howard: Well, these are standards that are already in the Code. These weren't
changed. The Commission didn't change these. They've been adopted
for five years.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 7
Freerks: And they were well researched. There was a group of community people,
including developers who created these and have been, have worked really
well in a lot of the inner-city neighborhoods.
Elliott: So, you're going to make me look it up. You can't tell me.
Freerks: What don't you understand, Bob, I'm sorry for...
Elliott: I.'m asking ... an example of what you're requiring.
Plahutnik: Instead of a very broad ... there it is ... instead of a very broad single,
uniform model structure, broken up into more livable....lookable sections.
Freerks: Kind of like the townhouses...
Plahutnik: You look and you say `Okay here's a section of the building, and then
there's a break' and any one of those are only going to be kind of wide as
the other houses in the neighborhood. So, you're not going to have a
house, a house, and then 75 to 80 feet of structure. You're going to have
some 40 -foot, some 50 foot breaks, just to keep the rhythm, rhythm,
rhythm, rhythm, instead of...
Freerks: Front doors with some type of articulation, so you can tell with the front
door.
Elliott: Yeah, I don't agree with requiring that, but I appreciate giving me the
example. Good ... thanks.
#19 14 -2B -6I (p.45-46) Additional Standards in the Central Planning
District. LDC feels that these standards are too restrictive. Made no
specific suggestion for changes.
Brooks: 19 was one that was a little, a little uncertain on what that one actually
was. Additional standards in the Central Planning District. The requestor
felt that the standards were too restrictive. Again, I think that we just kind
of looked at all the standards that we currently had in the Central Business,
Central Planning District, and the PRM and the R/O Zones. We felt that
what we were...
Lehman: Bob, is that a misnomer where it starts out saying `Additional standards in
the Central Planning District?' Did we add additional standards?
Brooks: No...
Vanderhoef: ...page 45, 46. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 8
Lehman: But they are current.
Franklin: Look at the title of the section.
Lehman: Oh, okay. So there's no change? Right ... okay.
#20 14-2B-6 Multi -Family Site Development Standards. Questioned
whether it was a good idea to substitute the proposed objective
standards for the previous point system that was administered by the
Design Review Committee. Also stated the opinion that there was an
over -emphasis on historic features on a building. No specific changes
were requested.
Brooks: Right. Item 20 then is in (can't hear) standards. The question was
whether it was good ideas to substitute proposed objective standards for
previous point system that was administered by the Design Review
Committee. Also stated the opinion that was an over -emphasis on historic
features on a building. No specific change was requested, so we kind of
went back and revisited that point system. I guess, Karin and Bob and
Karen can address the complications that there seem to be with that point
system and that what we were proposing here, in a way, was a little less
cumbersome.
Vanderhoef: When you read through the point system, it gave you that choice and you
could pick the three cheapest or easiest to do, and they wouldn't
necessarily mesh into a cohesive looking building. So, I can understand
why you pulled that out, but I'm glad that minor modifications are still
possible, depending on the site.
#21 Change the name of the Residential -Office Zone (R/O) to Mixed Use
Zone (MU).
#22 Eliminate the provision in the Code that restricts buildings to 2-1/2
stories in the Residential/Office Zone.
Brooks: Any questions on 20? 21 then was a request to change just the name of a
zone, which the more we discussed we felt was appropriate; we did that;
and 22 then was a provision to eliminate restrictions on buildings to two
and a half stories, and in that case we did do some minor modifications to
that, and approve that recommendation.
Elliott: This is the height step-down you were referring to, Bob?
Brooks: Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 9
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: So we'll get this area when we get to the mapping?
Howard: No, there's no change to the map. It just changes the name on the map.
So there's no rezoning...
Vanderhoef. So you haven't done any...
Howard: ...map changes. It was just...
Vanderhoef: ...cut through...
Howard: Somebody came to the public hearing, Nila Haug came and she said it
seems that it's a misnamed zone because you allow lots of commercial
uses and residential uses, so why are you just calling it residential office
when you also allow restaurants and retail and everything else, and we
thought that was ... why not name it something that most people would
recognize.
Miklo: When we get to the map, there are areas that are currently zoned CB -2 that
are proposed to be zoned, and mixed use as well, so there is a little bit of
overlap.
14-2C - Commercial Zones
#23 14-2C - Table 2C-1 (p.55) Change "Community Service - Shelter"
back to a Special Exception in the CI -1 Zone. Make changes
accordingl,,7 in Article 144B.
Brooks: Now we're moving into commercial zones. In 23 change community
service shelter back to a specific exception in the CI -1 Zone. We received
an avalanche of petitions and letters concerning this, and had quite a bit of
discussion about it, and felt that we would ask that we kind of go back to
where we were, making that a, putting things back the way they were.
Elliott: Does this include the property now in litigation? (several talking at once)
I would certainly be opposed to doing anything with any property that's
involved in litigation.
Lehman: We're not changing anything!
Brooks: Well, yeah, it stays the way that things are in the current Code.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 10
Elliott: Just so we don't..
ry
#24 14 -2C -7E (p.69) CN -1 Zone Build -To Line: Question the need for
the build -to line standard and whether it creates a problem for CN -1
zones that are already developed. They also question whether
establishing a built -to line five feet from the ROW line is a good idea if
the frontage is along an arterial street.
Brooks: What we proposed was changing it, and we weren't comfortable with that
either, and so ... yeah ... (several talking at once) just on that one.
Anything else? Okay, 24 then, again, this is another one that in the CI -1
Zone, questioned the need to build to line standard, whether it creates a
problem in CN -1 Zone, if they're already developed. The question,
whether establishing a build to line, 5 -feet from the right-of-way is a good
idea, if the frontage is along an arterial street. Again, this is something
that is an exception provision for the CN -1 Zone, something that's in the
Code already, and we just felt it was something we didn't recommend
making any changes or adjustments to.
Vanderhoef: The comment you have here, the right-of-way typical now is 100 feet. Do
we have instances of arterials any place in the city where the right-of-way
might not be the 100 feet?
Brooks: On an arterial?
Howard: But those would be already developed area so there wouldn't be a new
CN -1 Zone going in.
Vanderhoef. Well, unless it was a rebuilt (can't hear) plighted area.
Howard: But still, most arterials have at least 80 feet.
Franklin: Yeah, I'm trying to think. I can't think of one off the top of my head, Dee,
but I know the dimension on arterial streets has varied over time, and so
we'd really have to look to see .... I don't know, I can't say. I wouldn't
want to say there is no arterial that has a right-of-way of less than 100 feet.
Vanderhoef: So if the situation comes up, we'll have an exception...
Franklin: I mean, like Church Street is an arterial and those streets were platted at
80 -foot right-of-ways, I think, but it's in the old grid. So, I...
Howard: But the idea here is that it's like a Main Street type thing, so the buildings
are ... it's to the property line, not to the street. I think there was just
concern that it's right on the street somehow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council wort{ session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 11
#25 14 -2C -7F (p.69) CN -1 Zone location of parking and loading areas.
Questioned provision that states that no more than 35 percent of the
street frontage of a lot may be comprised of off-street parking spaces
that are located between the building and the street.
Brooks: 25 then questioned whether the provision that states that no more than
35% of the street frontage of the lot may be comprised of off-street
parking spaces that are located between the building and the street. Again,
this is something that is in the current Code. It would mean changing that
and the intent was to, you know, again, provide and encourage
neighborhood commercial environment that was pedestrian oriented.
Lehman: And that, this does represent a change from the present Code?
#26 14 -2C -7L - 70 (p.71-72) - CN -1 Zone building standards for street -
level windows, building bulk, building entrances, and balconies. LDC
requests that these be removed.
Brooks: So we did not opt to consider a change in that case. Likewise in 26. In
CN -1 Zone, building standards for street -level windows, building bulk,
building entrances, and balconies. The request was that this be removed.
These are standards, again, that are in the existing Code and that we felt,
again, continued in that CN -1 Zone to promote that neighborhood friendly
environment, and so we just, again, felt that we did not want to make that
change.
Elliott: What page are examples of that on?
Franklin: Page 73
Elliott: 73? (several talking at once)
Brooks: These were revised three.....three, four years ago.
Elliott: And tell me again why the unacceptable is unacceptable.
Vanderhoef: That has to do with windows.
Lehman: Well, store front.
Plahutnik: Someone walking down the street sees block rather than the interior of the
store, or storefront display.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 12
Elliott: You mean you could not have, well whatever, what is it ... U.S. Bank, and
I'm ... you're walking down the street — you would say that would be
unacceptable?
Freerks: No, this is CN -l. (several talking at once)
Plahutnik: Just in the one commercial zone, neighborhood commercial.
Freerks: Like Delux Bakery, like...
Elliott: I don't see why larger windows is more friendly. As a matter of fact, I
don't know... go ahead.
Vanderhoef. There's a later question that, that deals with this windows at some point in
time, but if you want to talk about it, I have a little problem with some of
this on windows that says you must allow views into the interior space by
at least 50%. We have small businesses, we have multiple kinds of
businesses that ... retail space includes the wall space on the interior and so,
and large display windows are... storefront display windows, large ones,
are not conducive for the small items that they're trying to display.
Champion: Well, as a retailer, I disagree with that. But I think you make a valid ... you
can never have enough window space for retail in the finer stores.
Vanderhoef: No, it's not true — opposite in our store.
Champion: Well, opposite in your store.
Vanderhoef. Right. So, you know, blister pack kind of items, whether it be a grocery
store, whether it be hardware store, or what it is, that wall space is very,
very important, and the other thing that I thought about with the windows
that said see-through, well, if we're doing this mix of office and
commercial in our neighborhood centers, there may be cases where they
might want to see out but not see in.
Champion: That's the point I was going to make, Dee. Is that there ... like a lawyer's
office or a physician's office or a dental office.
Franklin: The text has an either/or; `such windows must allow views into the interior
space or the store -front display windows that are set into the wall..' So for
instance, the windows that you have at Iowa Book where you've got just a
little display but it's a wall behind it, that's perfectly acceptable. That
counts towards the 50%. As wood...
Vanderhoef. But, that isn't enough to be 50% is what I'm saying.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 13
Franklin: No, it probably would be.
Howard: Between two and ten feet. It's actually pretty easy to meet 50% if you
calculate all of the wall space between two and ten feet.
Franklin: Yeah, because it can be windows and doors and those windows can be
either see-through windows or the storefront display windows. So all of
that would count. I mean, like Iowa Book would meet it clearly.
Vanderhoe£ That would meet 50% of the storefront?
Franklin: Between two feet and ten feet. (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef: Gotcha! Sorry! Disregard me! (laughter)
Howard: As far as the office goes, offices go, it doesn't mean that you have to have
a window open so that people can, you know, you could have curtains or
drapery or whatever. A lot of times offices will have screening in their...
Elliott: Why would you want windows if you could cover them up with draperies?
Freerks: But if someone else purchased or was using the space later that didn't
want to have drapes, they'd have an option.
Elliott: And here again we're telling a commercial person who has a building to
do a business that we know better than he or she does. And we are more
concerned about what pedestrians think than what the business person
thinks.
Franklin: Well, our role is to look at the public space.
Howard: If we start on comments, we're going to be in the same boat that we were
last night. I mean, I appreciate what you have to say, Bob, but I think...
Wilburn: ...yeah, but you'll have plenty of time to disagree with the Council and the
recommendation beyond this; you will have plenty of time to do that.
Howard: I just want to keep us moving, Bob. I'm interested in hearing what you
have to say, but perhaps just moving through this meeting...
Elliott: Well, I just think it needs to be said over and over and over. Go on.
Wilburn: And you'll have plenty of time beyond tonight to do so.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 14
#27 14-2C: Commercial Zones - Request to establish standards for large
commercial retailers ("big box" retailers) to keep such developments
compatible with the character of the community, to reduce large
parking lots, and to provide better pedestrian amenities.
Brooks: Next item in the commercial zone, dealing with the big -box retailers. This
was something that came to us as a result of one specific situation, but it
was something, I think, that a number of us have been thinking about, and
so we did incorporate those standards that were used in the Wal-Mart
rezoning request, and included those as part of the new Code.
#28 14 -2C -8H. (p. 75) Drive -Through Facilities (in the CB -5 and CB -10
Zones). Allow drive-through facilities by special exception in the CB -10
Zone, particularly for banks.
Brooks: Item 28, drive-through facilities, again, in commercial areas, CB -5 and
CB -10. There was a request to allow drive-through facilities by special
exception in the CB -10 Zone. This is something that is currently not
allowed in the current Code, and after reviewing that, I think we felt
comfortable that the addition of drive-through facilities in CB -10 Zone
and CB -5 would be detrimental to what we were trying to (can't hear) in
those two commercial zones. So we did leave that the way it was.
(several talking at once)
Vanderhoef: Okay, but this is drive-through facility?
Brooks: Right.
Vanderhoef: I was thinking about that today, and wondering in the CB -5, particularly
south of Burlington, east ... or west of Gilbert, whether that had some
possibilities in that area, if we disallowed entrance and exits onto the two
arterials of Burlington and Gilbert. I don't know. It was just something
that I thought might be worth looking at because we're trying to move the
downtown to the south part, and having some services down there, we
already have a credit union that happens to be on the corner of Burlington,
but the in and out, there is an in and out on Clinton rather than onto
Burlington. So would we consider offering that south of Burlington?
Champion: We have it though, I mean, we have several banks that have drive-
throughs.
Lehman: You know, clear back in the 70's, there was a real conscious effort to
remove automobile oriented uses from the downtown, and just because of
conflicts between pedestrians and people, so this isn't really anything new.
There were a lot of automobile oriented businesses downtown, you know,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 15
forty years ago, that have relocated and have done really well, and I think
this is really just kind of a continuation of that philosophy.
Champion: So then what happens with the drive-throughs that we've already got in
those zones? If they do remodeling, can they keep their drive-through?
mean...
O'Donnell: They're grandfathered.
Lehman: But if it ceased to be used for a drive-in, and they went to a shoe store,
then they couldn't return to a drive-in. Right?
Vanderhoe£ I don't want them in the downtown. But I'm just thinking about (several
talking at once)
Elliott: ... if it went to something else then it couldn't go back? Okay, yeah.
Lehman: Couldn't go back, right.
Vanderhoef: It could be sold to another banking institution or use of that drive-through,
or does it have to stay a bank? Or credit union?
Howard: If there's a drive-through there ... (several talking at once)
#29 14-2C: Commercial Zones - Allow stealth cell tower facilities
(towers that look like flag poles, light poles, etc.) in Neighborhood
Commercial Zones.
Brooks: Okay, Item 29 then related to stealth cell phone towers and this is
something that's coming up in a lot of communities, and we viewed this,
and basically agreed that we needed to make accommodations for those
types of, and again, stealth means that they kind of blend in, they're not
tall, they fit with the highest existing utility element in the area. If there's
a flag pole, a telephone pole, whatever — if there's a way to accommodate
it and not make it stand out...
Elliott: On private property for public, you're saying? Do we have... (several
talking at once)
Howard: This is just in the CN -1 Zone.
Elliott: Right, yeah.
Brooks: So, yeah, wouldn't be residential.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 16
Lehman: ACLU approve this? (laughter)
Freerks: There was one other part of that that I think is important, that they can,
they must be removed at a certain, if they're not used for a certain amount
of time, so we don't have lots of.. .
Lehman: Good!
Plahutnik: They wouldn't allow me to add the addendum that foil helmets would be
issued. (laughter)
14-3A - Planned Development Overlay
#30 14 -3A -4K-2. (p.112) Modifications to Street Standards. Mr. Gordon
stated that he and the Land Development Council assume that alleys
and rear lanes are considered private streets as there is no provision in
the Code for these to be dedicated to the City. They object to this
because when streets or alleys are private, maintenance, garbage and
snow removal is the responsibility of the private owners through a
homeowner's association or similar entity and they feel this increases
costs to the consumer.
Brooks: Protective gear for everybody. 30 then, modifications to street standards.
This one was asking that the Council assume that alleys and rear lanes are
considered private streets, and that there are no provisions in the Code for
them to be dedicated to the City. They objected to this because when
streets and alleys are private, maintenance, garbage and snow removal are
the responsibility of private property owners, through homeowner's
associations or similar entities, and the feeling was that this increased the
cost to the consumers. Again, we felt that there was nothing in the Code
that required alleys, and that any inclusions of an alley was done at the
decision of the developer, and...
Howard: There's no requirement in the Code that requires them to be private versus
public.
Lehman: Right.
Howard: The new language was added into the Planned Development, was put in
there ... Public Works wanted to make sure there was a disincentive to do,
actually to do private streets because of the problems they sometimes
cause in the future. (several talking at once) It was actually...
Miklo: Private streets, but not private alley.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 17
Howard: The provision was a misunderstanding of ... because these standards are
actually in the subdivision code. So they were reading it and saying
`There's nothing in the Zoning Code,' well, that's true, it's not in the
Zoning Code, it's in the subdivision code. So, it was a misunderstanding
about...
Miklo: What our Public Works was concerned about was discouraging private
streets in planned developments. They are concerned if there are private
alleys, or public alleys in planned developments. So it was...
Lehman: Do we not pick up garbage in private alleys from single-family homes?
O'Donnell: I'm sure we do, Ernie.
Lehman: Well it just says, I mean, it says.... garbage is the responsibility of private
owners. I don't think that's true. (several talking at once)
Franklin: Right, if you have a new development now, and they're... for instance, the
Peninsula, which now are private alleys, we will provide garbage pickup
there; snow removal and maintenance; in that particular situation, is done
by the Homeowner's Association.
Lehman: In single-family?
Franklin: Right, we'll pick up single-family garbage off an alley.
Lehman: Right, no, I... you said (several talking at once).
Franklin: Snow removal and pavement maintenance by agreement.
Lehman: But garbage is by right for a single-family? Okay.
Vanderhoef: Didn't we have the ... say it again, Karin.
O'Donnell: I didn't hear that.
Franklin: Ready? I'll tell you that again, Mike! (laughter) We pick up garbage for
all single-family houses, and we will pick it up on an alley, private or
public.
Vanderhoef. If it's built to street standards.
Franklin: We require it to be built to certain standards so the truck can get through,
but even, I mean, I think on Summit Street the garbage is in the back, is it
not, or is it? Oh, you're on the other side. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 18
Champion: ...the other side also, but they take their trash to the curb because that
alley doesn't go all the way through.
Franklin: Okay, okay, okay. It's done through the subdivider's agreement, yeah.
It's not a zoning...
O'Donnell: Okay, and the snow removal, can there also be an agreement reached for
that?
Franklin: Yes.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Franklin: There can be. It's up to you as a Council to decide how you want to treat
those services in any particular subdivision.
Elliott: Am I understanding that you're indicating that in the past we have had
public alleys, but henceforth, all alleys would be private?
Howard: It's done ... it's negotiated with the developer however they chose to do it,
and it's negotiated with the City and the subdivider's agreement. So, if
they want to do private alleys, if they want to do public alleys, it's all
negotiated through that.
Franklin: Right, and it's going to be a matter of policy for the City Council over the
years as to whether you are going to invest in alleys or not, and that will
be reviewed at the time that you do subdivision plats, and we will have
that discussion every single time you do a subdivision plat that includes an
alley. We'll find something yet, Bob.
Vanderhoef: So you have not accepted that responsibility for quite a while?
Franklin: Well, when we started the Peninsula, we were maintaining those public
alleys for the life of the pavement, doing garbage pickup, and the snow
removal was done by the Homeowner's Association. Recently, when it
switched over to private alleys, at the choice of the developer to work with
the utility company, then they agreed to remove the snow, to maintain the
paving, and we would still pick up the garbage.
Vanderhoef: But those were built to the heavier standards of concrete.
Franklin: Yes, yes ... if we're going to pick up garbage, then we're going to have the
pavement required on those alleys that enables us to have trucks on there
and not break up that pavement.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 19
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh...
Franklin: So that's how it's all part of the negotiation when you do the subdivision.
Vanderhoe£ ...and some of those old alleys, the reasons we don't maintain them or
pick up garbage on the alley is because paving won't hold the weight of
the big garbage trucks, and we break them up and then it's costly.
#31 14-3A-4 (starting on p. 104) Approval Criteria
The LDC feels that certain design standards are mandated which takes
away from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed in a
planned development. They refer to the following:
Attached SF uses must comply with the standards for the RS -12 zone,
MF uses and duplexes must comply with MF site development
standards
Commercial development must comply with the CN -1 Zone site
development standards.
Brooks: Okay, we'll move on to 31 then. Is that right? Here the request was that
there was a feeling that certain design standards are mandated, which take
away from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed in a
planned development, and it referred to the following. Attached single-
family must comply with standards for the RS -12 Zone multi -family use
and duplexes must comply with multi -family site development standards,
commercial development must comply with CN -1 Zone's site
development standards. Again, Karen may can explain this a little better,
but I think the overall, the current Code didn't make a good correlation
between in a planned development, the overlay zone didn't make a clear
correlation with the original underlying zone, and that the requirements to
that underlying zone followed through into the overlay.
Howard: All right, this is just a blanket statement now. There's ... the planned
development section doesn't have very clearly worded standards, but they
basically say you have to comply with the underlying zoning, unless you
request a modification. Now some planned developments they don't
really need modifications on everything, they just need certain
modifications to the zoning requirements. So it's up to the developer to
say, you know, I want to develop narrower lots, or adjust the setback
because I have this wetland in the backyards, or you know, it's whatever
the planned development's supposed to be used to create flexibility for the
developer to develop a certain site. But the underlying zoning stays the
same, unless they ask for a modification. So the new standards are just
intended to clarify that process. It wasn't really a change to the current
regulations.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 20
14-4A: Land Use Classification
#32 14 -4A -4B (p.147) Animal -Related Commercial Uses - Request to
add language to this use category definition to make it clear that
overnight sleeping facilities for staff would be allowed as an accessory
use in veterinary establishments.
Brooks: And we decided not to make any changes in what we had originally
proposed. Item 32, again, was a somewhat specific request, but it was a
request to add language in the animal related commercial uses, that would
define or clarify that overnight sleeping facilities for staff would be
allowed as an accessory in a veterinarian establishment. It was a little
vague as to whether you could do that in certain health care settings, but it
wasn't clear that a veterinary clinic was a health-care facility. So we tried
to clear that up and indicate that they could provide for overnight
accommodations. It did not mean it was a residential accommodation; it
was simply an overnight, a place to stay where certain animals and care
for them.
144C: Accessory Uses
#33 14 -4C -2A. (p.198) Accessory Apartments. Disallow accessory
apartments in the RS -5 and RS -8 Zones. Alternatively, change the
provisions to restrict accessory apartments to large lots or lots that back
up to public open space.
Brooks: 33, accessory apartments. This'll allow accessory apartments in the RS -5
and RS -8 Zone, alternatively change the provision to restrict accessory
apartments to make large lots or lots that back up to public space. This
was, again, something that is in the current Code, and we didn't feel that
we wanted to make any changes in this. Do you want to explain... there's
minor change in that it used to be limited and we really kind of opened up
the uses for those auxiliary apartments.
Miklo: Currently, to have an accessory apartment, the occupant of one of the units
has to be elderly or disabled, and the proposal, that restriction would go
away as long as one of the units is owner -occupied. If you had an
accessory apartment that would count as your roomer or your boarder so
the population density would stay the same as (can't hear) RS -5 or RS -8
Zone.
Champion: They could have an accessory apartment... say my mother moved in with
me, that'd be nice but she's not here anymore, and then if she moved on,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 21
say, then I could rent that apartment to somebody else, as long as the
population density remains the same. Great...
Miklo: ...to someone who was going to convert to rental, they'd have to remove
the accessory apartment...
Freerks: ... couldn't have a duplex.
Champion: Okay, that totally explains it.
Brooks: You get the owner -occupied in one of the units.
Champion: Okay, got it.
#34 14 -4C -2M (p. 206) Home Occupations - Requests that Type B home
occupations be limited so that clients or customers were not allowed to
frequent the site on weekends.
Brooks: 34 then, home occupations, requests that Type B home occupations be
limited so that clients and customers were not allowed to frequent the site
on weekends. Again, there were certain restrictions that were in the Code
that we felt were adequate, that were addressing the issues that we wanted,
and we proposed making no changes to what we had...
Howard: We actually beefed them up some.
Brooks: Right, over what was there originally.
Howard: Right now there's only one type of home occupation you're not required
to get a permit, for those home occupations that have, draw a lot of
customers, to come to the site. They would have to get a permit, it's
basically just for them to come in so they know what the regulations are,
make sure that they comply with them, and don't become a nuisance to the
neighbors.
Elliott: A new restriction was added?
Howard: It's basically a requirement to come in and get a permit, so they know
what the regulations are. So what often happens is, they start up their
business, but they don't know what (TAPE ENDS) so then they become a
nuisance to the neighborhood, the neighbors call the city, the city has to go
out and enforce it. So if they knew up front what the regulations were, the
hope is that they'll be a lot less enforcement initiated.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 22
Franklin: What Bob's question is, it says a new restriction was also added limiting
customer or client visits to ten per day. (several talking at once)
Miklo: ... something to the effect that a home occupation won't generate undue
amounts of traffic. So we put ten a day so that there's an absolute...
Elliott: This ... in some of the places for developers, you have required and it's
debatable whether required is appropriate or not, at neighborhood
meetings. It seems to me that I know of some neighborhood businesses
where it's just an addition and everybody likes the customers wondering
in, and then I've had some complaints about others, that they got people
coming in all the time, so it seems to me that if there's ever a place for a
neighborhood meeting, these neighborhood business type things would be
the appropriate place.
Lehman: How did you come up with ten client visits per day? I mean, that's a
number, basically, if they're open 8 to 5, that's about one an hour.
(several talking at once)
Freerks: Hair salon.
Vanderhoei Single -chair beauty shop.
Howard: I mean, these are businesses that can't have any extra employees, I mean,
they're just home occupations basically. So most home occupations don't
have one ... (several talking at once)
Elliott: A little more than one an hour, for an 8 -hour day.
Champion: No matter what you can have one.
Vanderhoe£ What's the classification on daycare in the home, because I'm thinking ten
per day...
Howard: That's treated differently. They have separate regulations. So it's not
considered a home occupation; they have their own separate regulations.
Vanderhoef: And they're allowed in what zones?
Freerks: They're allowed in any residential zone.
Vanderhoei Any residential zones.
Franklin: Special exception in the lower density.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 23
#35 144C - Accessory Uses - requested that windmill power generators
intended for on-site power generation be allowed as an accessory use.
The requestor did not specify which zones he thinks they should be
allowed in.
Brooks: Shall we move on to 35?
Lehman: Yes, please.
Brooks: This is fairly...
Lehman: Pretty straight forward.
Brooks: ...yeah, windmill power generators, again, I think what the Commission
felt was that there had been some research. It's something that probably
needs further research, and further consideration, but at this point we
weren't ready to venture into that realm, but as each day goes by, it may
be more and more...
Elliott: They are, at this time, noisy, is that correct? I can remember the old wind
chargers, if anybody's old enough to remember those. They were virtually
silent, and just put electric current into batteries. (several talking at once)
But these are the big...
Vanderhoef: Some of the small ones are fairly quiet, I'm told.
14-5A - Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards
#36 14 -5A -3D (p.228) Maximum Parking in the CB -10 Zone - Concern
expressed about the new approval criteria for private, off-street parking
in the CB -10 Zone. Would like to see some allowance made for parking
at grade, either within a parking structure or in surface parking lots.
Brooks: I think it's something we need to keep on the radar, keep an eye out, and
look at evaluating it as we go forward. Number 36 then, maximum
parking in the CB -10 Zone. Concern was expressed that the new approval
criteria for private off-street parking in CB -10 Zone, would like to see
some allowance made with parking at grade, either within a parking
structure or on surface parking lots. We did take a look at this and made
some revisions that I think the person requesting this is aware of and
seemed to be comfortable with what we had come up with.
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 24
14-5I - Sensitive Lands and Features
#37 14 -5I -6C. (p. 311) Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. Rename this
section "Wetland Protection Plan" and reorder provisions sequentially.
Brooks: Okay. 37 — wetland mitigation. We're moving into sensitive lands and
features, Wetland Mitigation Plan, rename the section to Wetland
Protection Plan and reorder provisions sequentially. Again, something we
felt was reasonable and we made that adjustment.
#38 15 -5I -6E-1 (p. 311). Wetland Buffer Requirement. Opening
paragraph should be modified to take into account the consideration
relative to constructed and/or altered wetlands where "natural"
landscapes(s) adjacent to the wetland probably will not exist. No
specific language provided by requestor.
#39 14 -5I -6G. Compensatory Mitigation. The references to specific
replacement ratios should be eliminated and replaced with "as required
by the COE" to avoid conflicts and confusion.
#40 14-5I-7 (p. 315) Stream Corridors - This section should be moved to
the storm water management section of the code and as such the buffers
could be applied to a specific need of a stream corridor and not just
based on where that line is on the map.
#4114-51-8 (p.316) Regulated Slopes - Requestor would like this section
rewritten to correlate slopes with degrees of protection, i.e. the greater
the percentage of slope, the greater the degree of constructed slope
protection to be provided.
#42 14-5I-9 (p.318) Wooded Areas - Requestor questioned the
justification for applying differing levels of protection for different
zones. He also opined that there is more justification for providing
protection for "land mark trees" than there is for woodlands in general.
Brooks: 38, wetland buffer requirement; opening paragraph should be modified to
take into account the consideration relative to constructed and/or altered
wetlands where natural landscapes adjacent to the wetland probably will
not exist. This is something that's in the current Code, and is, with most
of these issues relating to any of the sensitive areas, we really just felt that
any changes or modifications, we were taking a step backward and that we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 25
just didn't want to make that move with ... we have a good sensitive areas
ordinance and that any changes that are proposed, were just putting us
back in time. So, 38, 39, and 40, and 41, and actually 42, were all issues
that we just didn't feel we wanted to give up.
Lehman: Well, that's pretty technical. I don't really understand what he's asking.
Vanderhoef: On what, 39?
Lehman: I mean, on all of these...
Brooks: I think generally it was to weaken the standards and allow alterations and
modifications, like slopes, that, you know, could be done from an
engineering standpoint maybe, but we felt would have a detrimental effect
to preserving the natural slope or sensitive area.
Vanderhoef: I've heard some conversation, not at your public hearing, but what I've
heard is that there's been interest in not having dual coverage here, that the
Corp of Engineers, if they approve it, then they feel some of the
developers feel that it's a duplication of effort then to have to go through
the local process on wetland mitigation.
Franklin: We have .... on our requirements, we had this discussion when number one
there was that court case and the Corp changed the way they addressed
wetlands. Basically we address it the same way, except for the fact that
we have a buffer requirement in our Code, which is not in the Federal
Code, but otherwise the delineation of the wetlands is exactly the same it
is for the federal. I mean, our references to their ... the difference is that we
require the buffer around those wetlands as a protection for them, which is
not required by the Federal Code.
Vanderhoef: So, could our Code say meet all the Corp of Engineer requirements, plus
and only speak about the buffer?
Franklin: That's essentially what it says right now.
Vanderhoef But, do they have to ... I understood that they had to provide
documentation for your things, as well as for the Corps of Engineers, so it
was duplication of paperwork is what I thought it was.
Miklo: What happens if they're not working within the buffer area? Or asking for
reduction of the buffer area? They simply need to submit the paperwork
from the Corps to show that it's been delineated, and they're avoiding it,
and that's a site plan ... right. If they're requesting a buffer reduction, then
it's a sensitive area's rezoning and it comes before the Planning and
Zoning and the City Council.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 26
Vanderhoef: Okay. Basically they're trying to rearrange for the wetlands.... okay.
Lehman: Sounds good. Okay, you want me to...
Brooks: So that kind of takes us through 42. Again, those were all items that are
part of the existing...
Elliott: You're doing great!
#43 14-5I-12 (p.322) Archeological Sites - Request that the language be
clarified to spell out the operational procedure at the State, so that there
is no confusion or mistakes made when determining protections for
archeological sites.
Brooks: And we're into 43, archeological sites. This was just a little confusion
over process more than anything, and who at the State level is receiving
paperwork, and the requestor was asking that we identify a specific office
and person, which we agreed was probably appropriate and we went ahead
and did that.
14-5K - Neighborhood Open Space Requirements
#44 14-5K. (p.333-337) Neighborhood Open Space Requirements. The
Land Development Council requests:
That parks be considered a public improvement and be accepted as a
dedication when all the other public improvements are accepted by the
City.
More objective standards in the code regarding how a site should be
prepared before dedication, e.g. grading, trimming of trees, seeding, etc.
Regarding payment of fees in lieu of dedication, they would like the
period of time for the city to use the funds to be reduced from 5 years to
2 or 3 years. They would also like the funds automatically refunded to
property owners and not require them to apply for a refund. They also
feel that fees should be used for the particular subdivision, not for
neighborhood parks.
Brooks: 44, neighborhood open space requirements. This is a rather complicated
one that may have to have Mitch intervene on because it does relate to
some legal precedent and basically Mitch has advised us that the process
that we are following is appropriate and that there was no reason to make
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 27
any changes or adjustments. We did do some clarification of some
practices and how things are done. I don't know whether ... with a little
more legal.
Behr: I can comment on the changes that we're proposing. The changes that
we're proposing to the neighborhood open space ordinance in response to
the concerns that were raised. Basically two things — first, we are
clarifying the things that must be done to the open space area to be
dedicated, before the City will accept ownership and the maintenance
obligations of it. We're clarifying and stating those things that must be
done to the extent that we can, because those vary a great deal from
subdivision to subdivision. So you have to leave some flexibility to
address a specific aspect of each piece of open space. The second thing
we're doing has to do with when a developer is paying a fee in lieu of
dedicating open space, and what we are doing is codifying, putting into the
Code the current practice of spending those funds within the district in
which that subdivision is located. We have, I believe, 24 districts. I could
be mistaken about the exact number, but the practice is that when they pay
a fee in lieu of dedicating open space, the funds have to be spent within
five years within that district. The premise being that it will indeed benefit
that subdivision by, you know, geographic proximity. So we are codifying
that, putting that into the ordinance, so it's not just a practice or a policy.
It's adopted in a... currently adopted in a plan, but now it will be codified.
Those are the changes we are proposing to the open space ordinance. Bob
referenced the court case and there was discussion when that court case
came down. You have to keep in mind what that court case did was said
that there was a problem with the manner in which West Des Moines was
collecting open space fees. Our ordinance is different from that.
Vanderhoef: The thing I understand on it was when we made those districts, as Mitch
said, we declared the districts and the nexus money has to be used within
that district, and it has worked very well, and we haven't been challenged
on our ordinance, where West Des Moines really took it. So...
Elliott: I like the idea that, I assume, very early on in the process that it is clarified
what needs to be done to the parkland. That's the complaints that I have
heard that quite often they're not informed what really needs to be done. I
would like to see the request that the homeowners not have to request the
funds back, that a tickler file be set up and they would go automatically
back to the homeowners at the end of that time. I don't see why the
homeowners have to request it.
Lehman: We've been asked to take a time out. We've been going so fast that some
of our Council people are getting burned. So we're going to take five.
(TAPE OFF -BREAK)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council wort: session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 28
144E - Nonconforming Situations
#45 14-4E-9 (p. 226) Regulation of Nonconforming Residential
Occupancy.
Make a change so that persons that have been issued a building permit
and made substantial progress on a project based on the current
occupancy standards will be grandfathered in at the current standards,
even if they do not yet have a rental permit.
Brooks: We were on number 45, which regulations on non -conforming residential
occupancy and make a change so that persons that have been issued a
building permit and made substantial progress on the project based on the
current occupancy standards would be grandfathered in. We agreed, we
made that change, so I think we've taken care of that.
14-8 - Review and Approval Procedures
#46 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting Required. Remove this
requirement.
#47 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting Required. Request to re-
write this provision to provide a greater possibility of participation by
people interested in or who would be living in the proposed
development to attend the meeting.
Brooks: Number 46 was a neighborhood meeting requirement, was asked that this
be removed. We had some discussion on this. I think we feel very
strongly that the neighborhood meeting component is very valuable. We
notice quite a difference in the tone of applications that come before us,
when there has been a neighborhood meeting. There's been some
indication that we're asking for unusual documentation. We're only
asking that they do minutes, a list of who's there, any issues that were
talked about and agreed upon. The reporting requirements are really quite
minimal. We think the benefits from having neighborhood meetings far
outweighs any minor additional work that they may do.
Vanderhoef: Okay, you said it made quite a bit of difference at the P&Z. Could you
equate that to whether they were projects that were there by right versus
projects that were there for an OPDH of some description or sensitive
areas overlay? I'm thinking that the neighborhood meeting may not be
needed on projects that are there by right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 29
Howard: There is no requirement for neighborhood meetings for projects that are
there by right. It's only rezoning.
Miklo: Only when it's in a residential zone, or adjacent to a residential zone.
Vanderhoef: Which, frequently are kicked off by OPDH's?
Brooks: Right, or... a recent one was the Fairview one. They had a neighborhood
meeting. We were anticipating some quite significant resistance from the
adjoining neighbors. It wasn't there because they attended the
neighborhood meeting, the developer communicated with them what was
being done, and proposed. I think there was only one minor issue, a
drainage issue, which was taken care of.
Vanderhoef: So, does the Code actually say "for rezoning and OPDH's"?
Howard: Annexation, comprehensive plan development, rezoning to commercial
and industrial research, rezoning any residential zone which would result
in up -zoning, planned development overlay, level two sensitive areas
review.
Vanderhoef: Okay, so maybe what we need in there is a statement that just says all of
that list, none of it is something that is done by right.
Howard: If it went by right, it wouldn't go to the County, the Commission, and the
City Council. (laughter) (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef: But, is that confusing out there? Is that part of this request? I don't know.
Lehman: I would agree that neighborhood meetings are extremely beneficial, you
know, the City, we have meetings when we do construction projects and
neighborhoods, and whatever, but I absolutely do not agree with requiring
them. I think that if you require me to meet with you, there is no
credibility whatsoever to my being there. I'm there because I have to be
there. I think good develops will do that anyway. I think that requirement
is ... I think those folks will do it ... those who don't, those who would not
ordinarily have a public meeting are going to be there because they have
to, not because they want to, and I don't see it's going to serve any
purpose.
O'Donnell: Is this (can't hear; several talking). I don't think you heard my whole
question.
Lehman: All right, next.
#48 14-8B-9 (p. 359) Performance Guarantees. Remove this section.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 30
Brooks: Number 48 then, performance guarantees; remove this section. This is
something that's part of the subdivision site plan review process, and
really we did remove this so it's already taken care of.
Lehman: Okay.
Howard: It was only put in the Code for clarification purposes.
#49 14 -8D -7E (p.378) Amending Approved OPD Plans or Sensitive
Areas Development Plans. Request clarification of the phrase
"character of development" with regard to requests for changes to an
approved planned development.
Brooks: Number 49 then, amending approved OPD plans or sensitive areas
development plans. They requested clarification of the phrase "character
of development," with regard to requests for changes to an approved
planned development.
Howard: The request actually makes the regulations more restrictive, and I don't
think that's what he was intending, and so once that was explained. I'm
not sure there's any disagreement about it any more, because this
provision actually is something to allow developers to make changes to
their plans so they don't have to go through the whole process again.
#50 Change the maximum allowed density in the multi -family zones, so
that a developer is allowed to develop more apartments per acre if the
apartments have fewer bedrooms.
Brooks: Number 50 is change the maximum allowed density in multi -family zone
so the developer is allowed to develop more apartments per acre if the
apartments have fewer bedrooms. This was a complicated issue and...
Freerks: Too many variables. I think we found (can't hear)
Karr: Ann, could you pull down your mic for me?
Freerks: Sure thing. I think there were way too many variables that we would have
to deal with and how it would be applied across the board when we were
given this, and we did not feel comfortable making that type of change at
all.
Elliott: When you talk about the density, are you talking about the number of
people, or the number of apartments, or the number of buildings?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council worlr session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 31
Champion: So you're saying that somebody could build 10 five -bedroom apartments,
but they couldn't build 20 two-bedroom apartments?
Freerks: Well, not necessarily even building, I think, just particularly was
concerned about perhaps conversions in certain areas. Somebody would
be building (can't hear)
Elliott: That was my question, is to why you count units as opposed to people?
Because it seems to me that people are, create the traffic; people, and
perhaps you've already gone over that and there's a logical reason.
Freerks: Why we count units? There are different, some units have different
numbers of bedrooms, so there are a lot of variables when we look at, and
number of people is usually addressed through the housing inspections, as
far as how they oversee and...
Elliott: So, the number of people is of no concern?
Freerks: Well, it is of concern.
Miklo: It's also difficult to regulate because it can fluctuate over time. There can
be times when a two-bedroom might have three people living in it, they
might have four, they might have one. So, it's a moving target.
Koppes: Then if start trying to move and you get a family of eight trying to move
in, what happens? By people? You start getting into...
Freerks: It had too much impact, we felt at the time, we were given it quite late in
the process and there was just too much we need to look at and how it
would impact all of the areas, in order to make that decision. Now,
doesn't mean we couldn't revisit it at some point later, we do not feel it is
really something we wanted to address.
Miklo: Something to consider also is when the current densities were established
in 1983, most apartments at the time were one and two bedrooms. So the
density was established based on that, and it's been in the recent ten years
that we're seeing four and five bedrooms produced. So, if you increase
the density for one and two bedrooms you're going above and beyond
what we started with in 1983.
Champion: I may have to look at this later. I think there's some validity to it because
a lot of five -bedroom apartments were built and that's... they're not
popular anymore, and so you have big buildings that aren't filling up, and
it doesn't seem to me you could increase the number of people there, if
you reduce the (can't hear) you're actually decreasing some. Because it's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
going to make a five -bedroom apartment into two, two-bedroom
apartments, you're going to have four bedrooms versus five.
Page 32
Howard: I mean, when we talked to the developer, he introduced this at the second
public hearing, was when the first time the Commission heard about this,
and it's a different way of calculating density than the City has done it,
and so to calculate and research how the effects of that would be, it might
end up being, it's a different way to calculate it. So whether it's better or
worse, we don't know at this point. I think the Commission was
uncomfortable making that kind of blanket change without properly...
Lehman: That's a whole different issue and that's something we're going to have to
address at some point. (several talking at once) Not in the Zoning Code.
Vanderhoef: Why don't we just say let's put it on a work list for P&Z to look at later.
Lehman: Well, let's move on for now.
#51 Provide a density bonus for handicapped accessible dwelling units
that contain a small number of bedrooms.
Brooks: Number 51 then was provide a density bonus for handicapped accessible
dwelling units that contain a small number of bedrooms. Again, this was
one that came to us rather late. I think we were all concerned and
supportive of the idea that we need to have as many accessible units as
possible, old and new apartment buildings, that are built with three or
more apartments, must be accessible. So, you know, new
developments ... this related more to existing and the effort to try to, in
some parts of the community where it's predominantly older structures,
trying to force some of those to become accessible.
Elliott: When you say accessible, do you mean universal design? Okay.
Brooks: And while I don't think that we felt that we didn't want to do that, we just
felt that at this point, and like the other issue, to begin to try and open that
issue up in existing zones where units are established, current building
code requires (can't understand) that are five, or three units or more, to
have accessibility.
#52 Incorporate inclusionary zoning provisions into the zoning code
that would require developers to build a certain percentage of units
within each new development that would be affordable to those at or
below area median income.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 33
Brooks: Number 52 then, incorporating inclusionary zoning provisions into the
Zoning Code that would require developers to build a certain percentage
of units within each development that would be affordable to those at or
below area income. Again, it was one of those, we don't disagree with the
need for more affordable housing. I just don't think we were ready at this
point to tackle that issue.
Elliott: I think it's being addressed.
Lehman: I don't think it is. Inclusionary zoning?
Elliott: No, but the concept of whether or not that is one thing, the scattered sites,
may well come in to ... but anyway, that's neither here nor there.
Anciaux: I would be for inclusionary zoning, probably under certain circumstances,
but I want this, I want this unit, this Code done and out ... (several talking
at once)
Lehman: Inclusionary zoning is a political decision. It's not really a zoning
decision. It's got to be politically palatable, right, right. Okay.
#53 Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements (p.231). Reconsider
the proposal in the new code that would increase the parking
requirements in the PRM Zone for apartments with large numbers of
bedrooms.
Brooks: Number 53 then, minimum parking requirements; reconsider the proposal
in the new Code that would increase the parking requirements in the PRM
Zone for apartments with large numbers of apartments. Currently, if three
bedrooms or more ... Karen's going to explain.
Howard: I think this is the same slide we showed at the presentation the other night.
This PRM Zone, the original intent was to, we assumed people wouldn't
bring cars but that hasn't panned out. People bring cars — we only require
one and half parking spaces for a five -bedroom apartment. That hasn't
been adequate so the provision was to increase that.
Elliott: Do you ... would the rule of thumb be that you have at least one space for
every bedroom, plus at least something additional?
Lehman: No, no.
Howard: No, not the requirement, but we increased it from what the current Code
is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 34
Elliott: But certainly makes it difficult when you go to visit some place and
there's no parking on the street, there's no place for visitor parking,
and... (several talking at once) Yeah, but it certainly...
Howard: Just in the PRM Zone which is right near downtown, so...
#54 14 -4E -5E and 14 -4E -6C (pp. 221 & 222) Increase the allowable
damage for nonconforming structures from 70% to 75%. The draft
specifies that nonconforming structures damaged beyond 70% of the
assessed value of the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the
structure and the use into compliance with the Code. The request is to
increase this figure to 75%.
Brooks: Item 54, if you can step back there. Increase the allowable damage for
non -conforming structures from 70% to 75%. The draft specifies that
non -conforming structures damaged beyond 70% of the assessed value of
the structure may not be rebuilt without bringing the structure and the use
into compliance. We had quite a discussion on this. Staff, I think, wanted
us to hold the line. We did decide to follow the 75% that the requestor
was and we bumped that up to 75%. Yeah, I guess, sorry. They said
anything between 50 and 75 would be acceptable, so we made it the 75.
Bailey: And I'm assuming we can change act of God to act of nature? (several
talking at once)
Howard: Gives you a wide latitude depending upon your beliefs then.
Anciaux: If my property gets damaged and it says act of God, then I believe in God.
(laughter and several talking at once)
#55 Make some allowance for cottage -type industries to locate within
retail commercial zones in the city. Clear up any ambiguity in the Code
in this regard.
Brooks: Last but not least, make some allowance for cottage -type industry to locate
within retail commercial zones in the City; clear up any ambiguities in the
Code in this regard and we reviewed this. Again, it was something we felt
pretty strongly we wanted to support.
Elliott: I like it. Maybe you better reconsider this one! (laughter and several
talking at once)
Smith: We do have one issue that we haven't talked about that we absolutely
should, that being the elimination of the CB -2 Zone. I know we've had a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 35
number of supplemental rezoning issues that would be a part of this, and
perhaps we should spend a little time discussing that one.
Miklo: Well, the elimination of CB -2 is part of the Code. The actual rezonings
would be October 18th
Brooks: Again, eliminate the CB -2 Zone in this. I think Karen kind of explained it
at her presentation on the 19th. Some of the reasons and rationale....
Elliott: Will that be coming up as a separate issue? Okay.
Miklo: The elimination of the CB -2 Zone is part of the Code. To substitute
zoning on those current CB -2 Zonings would be coming up on your
October 18th agenda. Before you vote, you'll vote as a package though.
Elliott: So, as a part of the proposed changes, we ... if we don't want that
eliminated, we've got to find out where it is and ... yeah, okay.
Franklin: You'll be getting a memo in your packets Thursday proposing a schedule
of how to get through this by the end of the year, or closely to the end of
the year, and it suggests that on October 0', you set the public hearing on
the map for October 18th, yeah. Anyway, when you get that memo we'll
then talk about it at your next work session.
Lehman: Is that a public hearing that we should perhaps schedule for a non -Council
night, as well? I mean, is that a big enough issue that we should address
that map only?
Franklin: It'll be like most any of your rezoning issues that have some controversy
surrounding them, yet... oh, it's up to you.
Lehman: I mean this one obviously we're dealing with in a very unique fashion.
Franklin: I guess what I would suggest is why don't we get the memo out to you,
you look at your calendars once you get that memo, and be prepared on
Monday, the 3ra, to talk about schedule for that, and if you want to have a
special meeting. Obviously, we can have a special meeting.
Elliott: Is it the map that triggers the moratorium?
Franklin: Yes, it's the setting of the public hearing on October 4th that will trigger
the moratorium only on those areas that are subject to a map change, only.
Champion: I'd like to talk about next week a little bit, I'd like to talk about
Wednesday night and Monday night. We don't need to schedule another
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
appointment now, do we? Do we meet with you when you do the
mapping again, about those zones? Do we meet with you again?
Page 36
Franklin: Well, there might be some merit in .... I'm trying to remember, I just wrote
this before I came here but I don't quite have it in my brain. I think it was
October I Ohwe had a work session planned that that was when there
would be the potential to talk about these map changes. I think it would
be good for you to hear the rationale of the Commission, specifically on
the CB -2 areas. That's where the controversy rests in two of those CB -2
areas. I think otherwise there isn't controversy. And just east (several
talking at once) Yeah...
Brooks: ... some controversy and it would be helpful to be able to explain the
process that we went through in looking at these.
Elliott: Ernie, before we go home tonight, can we do a little housekeeping and
make sure our schedules are ... (several talking at once).
O'Donnell: I didn't bring mine either. Bring it Monday night.
Champion: What I'm hoping is that we don't meet Monday night. Because we're
meeting Tuesday and Wednesday night, if we do our work session before
the Council meeting on Tuesday...
Bailey: We have other items on that work session though.
Franklin: Yeah, you've got budget, and your cute little gas station. (laughter)
Champion: The other thing is about Wednesday night. I'm hoping, Ernie, that we can
have, we're going to have a lot of people here. We're going to have a lot
of people from the, you know, the group.
Lehman: Land Development Council, Home Builders, lots of people.
Champion: You know, I don't know why you want to do that, but I'm hoping we can
have some interchange with them, and it's not just...
Elliott: Yes, absolutely.
Lehman: Bob and I talked about this. That public hearing is going to resemble a
work session. I would hope there's give and take between Council and the
public. We have to do that, for as long as it takes.
O'Donnell: I agree. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 37
Lehman: And I think it's really important at that public hearing, if we start getting
tired, or contentious, or nasty that we continue the hearing at that point
before we make everybody ... (several people talking at once) It'll have to
be the regular forum, but I do expect that we will interact and ask
questions, agree, disagree, discuss, argue, whatever, with the public, which
is not generally what we do at a public hearing.
Vanderhoef: Request more information or whatever.
Lehman: I'm not going to ask for any more information. (laughter)
Bailey: Also assume at a public hearing it's more of a chance to have a dialogue
with people and ask questions and clarify and say if you agree or disagree,
but it's not yet the discussion that we'll have among ourselves.
Lehman: Oh, no, we'll have that. I do think, however, if at... whatever time there
seems to be a consensus among Council members, that there's agreement
about something, that we leave that and move on.
Plahutnik: Ernie, do you want any of us here also...
Lehman: I realize this is terribly, terribly time-consuming, but I also think it would
be very, very important and very helpful. Staff people are going to be
there, but somebody from Planning and Zoning, or somebodies, if you
want more than one, would be very good to have you folks there because
we may certainly want to say.....you know, Connie says `what were you
thinking when you did thisT And then, no, no, you can go to Karin, and
say `Karin, what were you thinking when you told us to do thisT and
Karin can look at Bob and say `Bob, where'd you get that ideal No, no, I
think it's really important, resource people there, and I think that will help
a lot when it comes to information. Next Wednesday.
Elliott: Now, Council has no meetings until Monday, but can we bring out
calendars Monday and schedule out the...
Lehman: Yes! (several talking at once)
Brooks: Questions about trees, and we don't want to get into a lot of this tonight,
but Bob and Karin did put together a little map, a little plan that shows
how the new proposed dimensions, and what we're talking about in the
subdivision regulations would affect the ability to have more space for tree
plantings. As you'll see, this side, on the left-hand side is existing. The
red dimension there, 31 feet, is basically what you would have from the
front of house with current 20 -foot setback. On the other side, we have 32
'/2 feet from curb to front of house, with the 15 foot setback, which is only
a minimum. The develop can go back farther than that. So, we're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z
Page 38
basically comparable, but we're also giving, we're going from 6 feet of
planting strip between the curb and sidewalk to 11 feet, which is a world
of difference when it comes to planting overstory trees. So, that along
with it there's an email here from Terry, which I really haven't had a
chance to digest, but he's explaining things relating to trees. So, it's just
information for you to take with you and look at and digest.
Champion: I have another question. I was trying to figure out ... I looked in my book
for a picture, but when you talk about duplexes on corners, how do you do
that? I can visualize the street side, I don't have any problem with that,
but who has the backyard, and how is that...
Elliott: Connie, I'll drive you out to look at one.
Champion: Can I drive? (laughter) Just teasing. (several talking at once)
Brooks: You know, I think there are ways to do it. I've seen plans and buildings
that you end up with, it's not your normal typical backyard, but each unit
has their own area that's theirs, and again, the things that we were really
trying to illustrate with those drawings was just the relationship of the
fronts of the units to the separate streets. (several talking at once) Right,
but with ... in the backyard, there are designs and configurations that would
give everybody a portion of the private yard space.
Elliott: Connie, I did have a friend that lived in one, and I know where it is. We
could drive out there anytime. (several talking at once)
Karr: 6:30 Monday, regular time.
Lehman: Right.
Brooks: On behalf of the Commission, we're appreciative of you taking the time to
try and understand this. It's been a long process and to try to bring you up
to speed in this short, two night session is impossible. (several talking at
once) As we move into the public hearings and the dialogue starts to take
place, where we have the opportunity...
Elliott: As I said when we started, there are going to be many things with which I
disagree. I certainly respect the work that you have done, the time you
have put in, and especially, we all want the same thing, it's just difference
in where and how you do it.
Brooks: And the staff has been incredible with their support and coming up with
things as we need them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005 Council Work Session/Joint P&Z Page 39
Lehman: Well, I think we just have to play it by ear, and see what happens at the
public hearings, however long they take. We may certainly find ourselves
visiting again.
Bailey: You've spent two and a half years....I don't see any point in rushing this
through if there's a need for continued discussion with the public
so ... because there's no point in us messing up when you've spent so much
time on it. (several talking at once—TAPE ENDS)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session of September 27, 2005.