Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-05 Public hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 5th day of October, 2005, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance amending Title 14 entitled "Unified Development Code" by repealing chapters 4, 6 and 9 and replacing them with the new Title 14 Zoning Code, amending portions of chapters 1 and 5, renumbering chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and repealing Chapter 12. A Copy of the proposed ordinance is on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration (.~ are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK / / IOWA CITY ALLERGY AND ASTHMA CLINIC John Kammermeyer, M.D. 404 E. Bloomington Allergist Phone (319) 354-7014 Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2800 Fax (319) 354-3196 August 10, 2005 An Open letter to: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission And Iowa City City Council Dear Commissioners and Councilors: Part I I am sending you this letter concerning the new proposed zoning ordinance. A major problem with this proposed ordinance is the significant down-zoning that it creates. There are two types of down-zoning going on here. The most obvious is where a zone is being changed to a zone with less intensive usage allowed. However, there also is a great deal of functional down-zoning. This is where the name of the zone is not being changed, but rules and regulations for the zone are. Examples of this include: 1. Reducing density limits in a zone so less commercial or residential units or building square footage is allowed on a given property, or the density or number of renters allowed in a given building is being reduced. 2. Reducing height of buildings allowed in a given zone. 3. Further restricting where parking lots or buildings can be placed on a lot. 4. Eliminating a given usage, or making it non-conforming, in a zone where it's presently allowed. Either type of down-zoning will be taking away property rights that have been in existence for decades. Also, it will reduce the property value for the owner who, incidentally, has been paying property taxes based on the higher property value for decades. Lastly, either type of down-zoning will adversely impact the economics and retirement plans of the property owner. The result can be the same as suddenly reducing the value of the owner's IRA or 401K. This new proposed zoning ordinance adds 200+ pages to the ordinance, refers to design standards 500+ times, and further restricts what property owners can do with their property. We need less regulation, not more bureaucracy. Most citizens I have talked to recently have no idea of the increased regulations being proposed. City government ideally should be looking out for and paying attention to the needs and wishes of the majority of its citizens. Unfortunately this new proposed zoning ordinance does not. In summary, this new proposed zoning ordinance potentially creates an economic injustice for many citizens, is too complex and detailed, and tries to dictate esthetics. It needs to be greatly pared down and streamlined and every effort should be made to NOT down-zone any citizen's property either directly or functionally. August 10, 2005 Kammermeyer letter - page 2 Pa~ II With the above in mind, I next wish to bring to the attention of the Commission and the Council the injustice that would be imposed on several local businessmen, with properties near my office, by the new proposed zoning ordinance. 1 do not see any good reasons tbr abolishing the CB-2 zone which has been in place for at least 25 years. But if it is eliminated, then none of the old CB-2 area should be down zoned and create financial hardship for the property owners. Mr. Armond Pagliai owns a quarter block of undeveloped land currently zone CB-2 and if it is rezoned CN-1 (R/O or mixed use zone is just out of the question), then due to reduced density regulations, his property value is immediately reduced by at least 1/3. This is unl'air and unjust, and would t,'cat a long standing local businessman in a shabby manner. Next, let us consider John Logan, who bought Russ' Northside Service Ii'om Rosalie Hancock last year. The gas station and garage he now owns has been a con/brining use ibr about 50 years and has been of immense help to many people on the northside. It has been a godsend to have the garage service there tbr patients and their hmilies and/or fiiends at Mercy Hospital with car trouble. It has been a tremendous help to me, my stall} and my patients to have Russ' Northside Service across the street. Now the new zoning plan would try to make Russ' Northside Service non-conforming while the Handimart Station three blocks away would be up zoned to CB-5. Again, this would significantly hurt a local businessman economically. It's unfair and unjust. In summary, about a quarter of the CB-2 zone on the northside is being up zoned to CB-5. If that is done, I feel strongly that the only fair and just thing to do for the local businessmen involved is to up-zone the entire CB-2 zone to CB-5 (or leave the CB-2 zone as is). Part III Also with my initial comments (in Part I) in mind, I will address some isSues concerning the C/O zone, especially the C/O zone around Mercy Hospital. It is my impression that the new proposed zoning code would be mere restrictive as to placement of parking areas, as well as building placement. Specifically, it would be more difficult to have patient parking in front of new medical office buildings. This is a mistake. Most newer medical office buildings have patient parking in front. A good example of an excellent new medical office development is the Surgical Services office building in the 500 block of East Bloomington. For patients who may be ill, elderly, or post-op, you want parking to be as convenient and easily accessible as possible. In the recent past some planning staff have tried to dictate that patient access to parking for new office buildings around Mercy (such as the new Surgical Services building) be through the alleys. This is unwise and unpractical, and it is misguided to think alley access is safe or causes less pedestrian-car conflict. In fact, around Mercy just the opposite is August 10, 2005 Kammermeyer letter - page 3 true. Line of sight is terrible (especially where alleys meet the street). At times vehicles partly block the alleys. The alleys don't have snow removal in the winter. There are t?equently pedestrians (mainly students) walking in the alleys. The alleys are too narrow for good two way traffic flow. Plus, many graveled parking areas and garages abut almost directly on the alleys. Access to parking lots from the street for any new office building around Mercy would be much safer, with much better line of sight and less pedestrian-car conflict. We need to encourage health care office development around Mercy and I am sorry to say that in the recent past some planning staff'policies have actually discouraged this (for example the two-year delay that Surgical Services endured before being allowed to build their new office building). This is one of the reasons we are seeing new health care offices in Coralville and off North Dodge north of Interstate 80. With the above in mind we don't need more regulations and restrictions. Instead we need to be extremely flexible as to any regulations concerning building and/or parking lot placement in the C/O zone, especially around Mercy Hospital. Sincerely, John Kammermeyer, M.D. JK: km Jim Slosiarek photos/The Gazette Bill Hewitt's garage in Cedar Rapids is more than just a place to work on restoring his 1958 Chevy Biscayne. It also serves as a gathering place for his neighbors. Devoted Iowa State Cyclones fan Mike Barf of Marion has improved his garage to make it a hangout. A television set, usually tuned to ESPN, and a stereo are necessities for garage sitting, as is Barr's college refrigerator filled with beer. Todd Gillihan of Coralville had a one- Garages replace porches ~;cSita~llly as the place to hang out his two-stall garage that he uses for By Nicole I~iehl garages with fridges, heaters, "toy" The Gazette cable TV or dartboards, pop M ike Barr has a open a cold one and shoot storage, perfectly nice the breeze with friends and working on home, but he neighbors, his bicycles prefers to hang The appeal of garage sitting, and just out in his garage, say those who do it, is being hanging For big gaines, Barf hauls a dose to the outdoors, enjoying with 31-inch TV out to the garage a laid-back atmosphere and friends. and sets up lawn chairs for having visitors come and go as his buddies. Other nights, his they please. The space neighbor across the street may "Years ago, people used to has a sink, see him tin- hang out on their porches," heater, kering with says Steve Boston, 43, of Cedar beer fridge, his boat Rapids, as he visited co-worker shop area El;Years ago, and swing BEI Hewitt's garage this month, and a people used over for a "Now it's kind of migrated to doggie door Bud Light. the garages." leading to hang out on "There's For guys, garages take on their porches, actually the role of a clubhouse, to the How it's kind kind of a "This is aU my area of the backyard. cow path in house," says Hewitt, 38, an of migrated to his front engineer from Cedar Rapids the garages. II yard from who is restoring a '58 Chevy him wan- Biscayne in his garage. Steve Boston dering For inspiration, Hewitt deco- to help him with the car, when his wife was traveling. through," rated his garage in a '50s theme, neighborhood kids stop to play He painted the wood trim Cedar Rapids says Barr, with vintage magazine ads and with his children and strangers red and gold and tacked up 38, a photographs of his hometown -- pop in for a peek at the car. Iowa State University signs and marketing Butte, Mont. He bought a satel- When Hewitt isn't working a beer flag. He carpeted a manager from Marion. lite radio, which is always set on the car, he's parked in a comer for chairs and dart. Cruise through any Eastern to tunes from the era. padded office chaff next to a playing and buLlt a shed and Iowa town on a fair-weather Hewitt spends most evenings stocked cooler, cupboards to keep tools and evening and you're bound to and weekends in his garage, "That's the throne," says chemicals out of sight. see a couple of "garage sitters" with plenty of company. HewJ~tt's wife, Chris. like Bart. They equip their Friends from work show up Barr created his l~ideaway I~ GAflAGES, PAGE 2L 6ara es/Decor goes beyond wallboard ~ F~OM PAG~ 1L ~hh~g," he says. "aean ~oes~'t even ask what Fm ~oh~g out Soon, Ban' w~l spFuce u~ here." d~e ~oor w~d] a s~ec~al coab Cha~ Sheets, 28, a~ electr~- h~g. Ne'd a~so like ~o a~d a c~an fi'on] ~ar~o~, began ~ull-Mge reflqge~ator a~ loungh~g i~ h~s garage be- bu~]d a cable system to ~ower cause he ha~ flier,s who a s~ot car b'ack fl~om the smoke an~ he ~oesn't a~low ce~mg, smoldng h~ the house. ~e "He gets the basement and and his fl'lends drink beet' the garage," says his wife, and listen to music in the Laura Bart, 30. "This is his garage before a night on the place to decompress, get rid town. of whatever stress he has. It's Sheets has a "kegerator," a a good thing." ffidge with a special tap tbr Mike Ban' keeps his garage pouring keg beer, and an air tidier than some houses. All conditioner, but he kept his beer cans in the fl'idge face garage t;Mt'ly rustic. He found forward, and tools are perfect- old recliners on the curb, and ly ali~md on a red pegboard, his neighbors donated more Still, it's less furniture. fuss than reside a home, he Some folks, however, go all says. "You don't have to worry if out on their garages. anything spills," he says. "If Curt Hayek, who runs Stor- something breaks, no big age hmovations, ~725 Center deal." Point Rd. NE, a company that dresses up garages, says Todd Gillihan, 41, of Coral- some of his clients treat theh' ville, built a third stall onto garages like living rooms. his garage, where he and his They may add screens to buddies work on bicycles and keep the bugs out when the listen to music. When Gillihan, 'a hospital gm-age door is up or install administrator associate, and $1,800 lift systems that raise girffriend Jean Gilpin have lawn mowers or motorcycles friends over, the men and .out of the way. They buy women split: ladies in the top-of-the-line TVs and stereo house and guys in the garage, equipment. where they can toss peanut In extreme cases, people or sunflower-seed shells on have spent $10,000 or more. the floor. "If they do have it fixed up, Once, the guys ran out of it isn't like you're going to beer in the garage, so they someone's garage," Hayek called the women by cell says. "It's tike an extension of phone to request more. the home." "Believe me, we didn't Fancy or not, a garage with get our beet'." Gillihan says, an open door can be viewed "but we sure got a kick out as a welcome si~, Hayek of it." says. Gillihan installed a sink, "It's almost like when painted the floor and built you're a kid," he says. "Cer- storage units to hide clutter, tain houses seem to be the He hung biking posters on spot where guys con~'egate the walls and is putting in a in the neighborhood." run for his new puppy. "Al~y time I have available. ·Cor, tacl the w te~: ~319) 3988310 or ~ t,~ 0~lt here doing some- n,cee~ r¢~.'*4~¢~ze., = .... ecommunicaiionsco, n Memorandum Outline Iowa City City Council Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Ordinance October 5, 2005 I. Introduction a. Prairie Garden IHA Limited Partnership i. Owns 4 lots on Catskill Court (East Hill Subdivision) ii. General parmer = Bums & Bums, L.C., developer of affordable housing, including Iowa's first assisted living affordable housing development, Emerson Point, on Shannon Drive b. Steven E. Ballard and Left Law Firm, L.L.P., counsel II. Neighborhood a. Immediately north of Gay and Ciha Funeral Home on Muscatine Avenue b. Catskill Court is a loop c. Street is completely, developed aside from our 4 lots d. Development is 100% duplex e. Nearly all have 2-car garages (all the newer ones do) f. We want to build 4 duplexes just like the lots next to, across and down the street from, and in between our lots III. Topo~aphy and geometry of our lots - narrow and uphill a. Lots are narrow (55'-75' at curb) b. 2 lots are somewhat pie-shaped (narrower at curb than at back) c. Lots are roughly 120'-130' deep (curb to back) d. Elevation increases at least 16' from curb to back e. Geometry and topography of these lots is different than surrounding lots and quite unusual community-wide IV. Rezoning drives request for consideration, not design changes a. Current zone = RS-8 (medium-density) b. New RS-8 provisions permit duplex construction only on comer lots c. Our lots are mid-block d. So P&Z recommended zoning change to RS-12 (high-density) under new ordinance i. Minutes reflect P&Z considered this a "housekeeping item" needed "to allow the City to keep the trend for what had been planned for that area" ii. Vote was unanimous e. Process negatively impacted marketing f. Moratorium as of 10/4/05 (public hearing on zoning change set for 10/18/05) i. So construction cannot occur until zoning change occurs ii. That change will occur when new zoning code is adopted iii. Thus, design portions of new ordinance will apply g. But for the need to rezone so lots could be developed as duplexes like surrounding neighborhood, lots could have been sold and construction commenced already V. Problems presented by proposed Single-Family Site Development Standards (14-2A-6). a. Market requires 2-car garages, like others in surrounding neighborhood b. 25' garage set back - significant grade limits options and requires extensive retaining walls c. Lot geometry and topography limit options i. Garages can't be located to side or in back 1. Lots aren't wide enough to build driveway 2. Grade wouldn't permit placing garages in back yards - back yard is at least 16' higher than curb a. Enormous amounts of excavation would be required b. Huge retaining walls would be required c. Safety concerns d. Aesthetic concerns e. Dramatic increase in construction cost ii. No alley exists - lots abut cemetery iii. Only street-facing garages are possible 1. Lots aren't wide enough for garage wall to be less than 50% o£the front £a~ade 2. Precludes 2-car garages d. Under proposed ordinance, this land would not have been subdivided like this - lots would be bigger (i.e., development standards weren't proposed with these types o£ lots in mind) e. Lot shape and grade prohibit construction of duplexes consistent with proposed development standards VI. Special circumstances warranting consideration a. Situation is singular - not replicated throughout community b. Our intention is to develop precisely as remaining neighborhood is developed c. Presently, we are prohibited from building what has become the prevailing construction for our neighbors - 31 other Catskill Court lots VII. Our request a. Carve out an exception to the proposed ordinance and site development standards b. Let us construct a residence just like the one between our lots e. Permit these remaining 4 lots to be developed like the others Prairie Garden IHA Limited Partnership Catskill Court Citer of Iowa Cit Council Presentation , ! ! ! ! I If I ! I ~ ! I -.- · ,..,,, .......... .7 zo.h~ ~ ..~ m~ ~ .~Y zo< October 5, 2005 DUPt. EX: TO ~ 1~1-12 IWIdENSl0NAL RE. QU~Eidl;:N~ ~ FRONT 20 FT REaR 20 FI I P~,RK~: 2 PARIQHG SPACES FOR EACH · I [~AY ~PAGE F~ D~3.LING UNIT I I I " I I i i .I \\ II [. ~ I , .o I 20' s~^c,< -- , ' · I · ~ 18,462 SF'. ',.~ -~ 1 -'~ LOT 15 *~:-~4 ~ I ; '%~, 2406/2404 2416/2414 I~ 24313/2434 .... ~ ~./' I ' ,; 'u~ CATS~U_ COUNT , .1~ C^TS~LL COURT';;. i~ C^TS~LL COURT: 12, -/"'-- I' , ,,.., N_ i /W /" ~_ CATSKILL COURT ~_O'UnUT* ~ ~'- ..-< ! ; ......, , / / / / ..~ 'r -~"- ~.,. \ '~ \ , ~ ! i I , I I 32 ; I , I i Ii · I I i I I I i I I ~ I ' ' ' I ' ~ i ~ ~ I , i i ! ROBERTB'OR~$-&: ASSOGIA'I~S. ARCI-II'I'EGTS :ow, aTY, mWA ~ ~ su.o.~ C:~-1 IOWA ~rlYr IOWA 1 Page 11A Iowa City Press-Citizen Michael Judge, editorial page editor Phone: 337-3181 E-mail: opinion@press-citizen,cpm Know your new zoning code The Iowa City Planning Rol rt Brooks mg is that the Commission In addition, & Zoning Commission is trying to dictate the style there is an i. ndication recently completedworkon Guest 0piniofl of homes that some wish to turn a new Zoning Code, the first and require back the clock and elimi- major revision since 1983. It opinions. Public input was expensive design nate or weaken provi- now goes to City Council for extremely valuable in for- elements. This is sions previously adopt- their review and considem- moating a balanced code not tree. The ed to vrotect sensi- lion. that promotes the City's Commission tive environmen- The success of a zoning long-range comprehensive agrees that tal lands; code relies on the vision plan. it should provisions behind it. In 1997, after Unfortunately, there are be up to t h a t extensive public involve- still misperceptions about t h e maintain ment, the City adopted a the proposed code. For h o m e- o u r comprehensive plan, creat- example, there is a percep- buyer or p e d e s- ing Iowa City's vision for the tion that setting even mod- renter to trian- future. That document and est standards for develop- c h o o s e f r i e - the numerous district plans ment of neighborhoods and any style developed since then were commercial areas will be d I y of home the foundation for the new bad for the economy of t h e y zoning code. Iowa City or will increase want. o w n, The Commission, as the cost of housing. To the T~'l~-e b o r - appointed advisors to the contrary, the Commission only new h o o d s City Council on planning has considered new zoning standards and corn- and zoning matters, is standards carefully and cho- added to m e r c i a 1 responsible for representing sen only those we feel are Code applyto areas; provi~ flae broad spectrum of citi- necessary to ensure a mini- new duplexes, sions that pro- zen interests. We must bal- mm level of quality in our townhouses, vide for parks and ance single interest view- neighborhoods and corn- and to single open space in areas points with comprehensive mercial areas, family homes developed with new community-based goals in ~ Good design does not built on small lots. housing; and provisions I necessarily mean high cost. In order to create mendation.arriving at a final recom- lIn fact, we have found that ensure that apart- new opportunities ments are built in a manner The Commission held through our research that in for these affordable that respects surrounding over 28 separate work scs- some communities, non- housing types, the pro- residential entrance, some residences. The sions on the new code. profit affordable housing posed code allows such front yard green space, and Commission feels strongly Early drafts were forwarded developers are leading the developments to be a public sidewalk, that elimination of these to all groups and individuals way on neighborhood approved administratively For duplexes and town- provisions would be detri- that expressed an interest, design. These developers rather than through a houses, we also ask that mental to the community. Input from these groups have discovered thatamini- lengthy "planned develop- developers put trim around The Commission's goal helped the Commission mum amount spent on care- m " ' ent rezonmg process, the windows and doorways was to develop a code that focus on issues of most con- ful design reaps large bene- As part of this stream- and that roof eaves are represents the interests of cern to local residents, busi- fits in increased equity, lined approvalprocess, min- extended beyond the build- all citizens of Iowa City. As nesses, and community pride of ownership, and imum standards are lng wall, to keep these the City Council moves organizations, long-term sustainability, required to ensure that com- bolder buildings from look- toward final consideration A public review draft of In addition, some of the pact neighborhoods have ing out of character and out of this new code we encour- the Zoning Code was Midwest's largest market- the same residential chamc- of scale with surroundb~g age all interested citizens to released in March 2005. rate production home ter as neighborhoods with residences. These are not be heard by attending Since then the Commission builders, responding to con- larger lots. Where houses expensive or onerous upcoming City Council has held a series of public sumer demand for afford- are built on smaller lots, the requirements and the trade- meetings or contacting your open house forums, spoken able homes and quality resi- residential aspect of the off is that developers can council representative. It is to numerous commumty dentialneighborhoods, have front faqade must be build more dwellings per your chance to shape the groups, held three formal incorporated these same emphasized and not the acre and housing con- future of Iowa City. public input meetings and important elements into garage. This allows for a sumers will reap the benefit Robert Brooks is chair of the received countless letters their home plans, more pedestrian-oriented of better designed, lower Iowa City Planning and Zoning expressing a wide variety of Another rumor circulat- building with room for a cost housing. Commission. Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: mcfelling [mcfelling@mcleodusa.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:37 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Zoning Code Amendments Members of the Iowa City Council We hope to make it to the meeting on October 5th but there is a possibility that we will not be there. We wish to communicate our support for the changes in the Zoning Code. We see the changes as a positive step in improving our city. The zoning adjustments address some of the problems we have discussed for several years in our neighborhood meetings and at the meetings of the Iowa City Neighborhood Council. We see the code amendments as offering an avenue to affordable housing, for enhancing pedestrian and vehicular safety and maintaining the desirability of Iowa City as a place to Five and maintain a family. Margaret and Chuck Felling 825 South Seventh Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 319 338-6994 9/29/2005 Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: Mason, Marianne [marianne-mason@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:22 PM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org Subject: Zoning Code Revision Dear Council Members, Please vote "yes" in support of the proposed Zoning Code revision. As a resident homeowner in the 600 block of South Lucas Street I can attest to the detrimental effect that poor planning has on established neighborhoods. Although my house is on the Historic Conservation side of the street, the damage has already been done. Please adopt this more sensitive code to protect the diverse housing character of Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration. Marianne Mason 640 South Lucas Street Iowa City, IA 52240 marianne-mason@uiowa.edu (319) 337-2538 9/28/2005 Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning 'Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and su~esdons regardin§ the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to ~he Commission, THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~mment'~ REGARDING Section/Pageff D~iwr or m~ to: ~r~n Howard, Pbnnin~ & Community D~w~opm~t, ~l ~shin~on SE, Iow~ City, ~A O~ em~il: k~remhow~rd~i°w~-d~y, or~ pp~dm~onlng Code Com,'.ents.lndd Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to you in regards to the formidable task you have in front of you; approving a new zoning code for the City of Iowa City. As a member of the Land Development Council and at the request of several Council Members I have thoroughly reviewed the proposed zoning code and here is my personal and professional feedback. I would like to start with a comment about the process, based on my observations of the work session on Monday evening, September 26, 2005. I believe the highest level of information can be gleamed from a discussion that includes experts from all sides of an issue. While I am sure there was no intentional misinformation from Staff and the P and Z Commission, important information was left out of explanations and the full impact of the code was not made clear. With a well rounded panel for discussion, people are held accountable for their statements and the decision makers become better informed, which leads to better decisions and more importantly reasonable compromise. It is frustrating to feel you have important information to add, or can fill in gaps to statements that are made, but not have the right to do so. I am sure staffwill have the same feeling at the public hearing, S_, s I did ,~'gthe work session. I would like to see 'knowledgeable people from different sides of the issues be allowC~to sit at~t~e table and join the discussion when major issues are brought to the council. In my professional opinion, I offer the following observations: ~-_~. Regarding the proposed zoning code, I think one of the first questions we all need ask ourselves is s all lot and how we want to treat those lots. What I heard staff and the commission say at the w~'-~ee'~;,~"~ they want to encourage the development of small lots for single family housing and more~affordabl~-ffousi we can all agree on these goals. I do, however, disagree that the proposed zoning code will accomplish this. Staff has determined that all lots under 60' wide are small lots. If your lot is 60' wide or larger (70' wide or larger in the RS-5 zone) you can build what you want. If your lot is less than 60' wide you now have building standards to meet. Building standards decrease choices and increase lot costs. Let's take a closer look at these building standards. · All lots less than 60' wide require garage design standards. Garages must be no more than 50% of the front fafade of the home and may not stick out past the front faqade of the home. What is the purpose of this requirement and who is it serving? Mr. Brooks stated that many plans can be found that meet this criteria, which is true, but many nice plans can also be found that do not meet this criteria. Why do we want to eliminate so many fine design choices? Look around at any of the newer subdivisions and you will find many examples of this. Mr. Brooks also stated that people should promote the part of the house they live in, not the garage. This should not be his decision to make. We are putting limitations on the very types of lots we are trying to promote. If you are financially well off and can afford a 70' wide lot, build what you want, but if you need affordability and want a 55' wide lot, you can not build that nice little ranch plan you like so much where the garage sticks out 3' in front of the house. That does not seem right. · The proposed code will restrict the ability to build 2-unit single family attached homes, commonly referred to as 0-lot lines, and increase their cost. The current code allows 0-lot lines to be built both in the RS-8 zone and the RS-12 zone. The proposed code restricts these homes to comer lots only in the RS-8 zone, in addition to adding design standards, the most troublesome being the garage standards. Try to design a 2-unit attached home, with one common lot line, with the front doors and garages each facing a different street, with the garages being no more than 50% of the front facade of the home and also not sticking out beyond the fi'ont faqade of the home. I work with home designs for a living and I can assure you it is very difficult to do. In addition your entry must have either a covered front porch or the door must have a transom and sidelight windows, you must put 3" trim around ali windows and doors and under roof eaves, and no unstained or unpainted lumber can be visible from a street. Even if you can figure out a way to design a comer duplex that meets the garage and placement requirements, there can be no discussion that the design standards will add further cost to the home. For the record, green treated lumber, the standard material used in decks, should not be painted or stained until it weathers for a full season. · 0-lot line homes in the RS-12 zone under the proposed code have the same requirements, except they are not limited to corner lots. 3" trim, alternative decking material, wider entries and limited designs do not come fi'ee. I found it interesting when Mr. Elliott asked if there was another reason besides aesthetics that no unpainted or unstained lumber may be visible from a street. Staff and the commission found this question hard to answer and could not give a simple response. The answer is no, there is no other reason, aesthetics is the only reason for the lumber requirement, along with the requirement for Y' trim, covered porches or transoms and sidelight windows and garage standards· · Townhomes, or 3 or more attached single family homes, is another product that has been presented as being easier to do by right in the proposed code· It may look like this is true on paper, but in reality it is not. Karen Howard said that townhomes are not practical to build on 45' wide lots, which is absolutely true, thus they will also not be practical to build on 55' wide lots. She also said most townhomes are 20' wide, which is also absolutely true, however the proposed code only allows minimum lots wide with an alley· A 30' wide townhome, especially where the garage is behind the _~>it. is als~not practical· A 30' wide unit and the same aesthetic design features as mentioned above,e.~t~eve~r~ others, increase the cost of developing and building townhomes beyond what the ma~'I~t_~willi~ or capable of paying. ©" vo · .. ~ ~ ~1: We also need to make sure when we are companng the cost or affordabihty of standards in the pro~t~code~e ar~--~ comparing those costs against the standards of the current code. In all 3 of the major residential zon~l the lot width has been increased by 10'. We all can agree that this will increase the cost of lots. A "density bonus'~'~has bee~l.~dded that staff says encourages the development of smaller lots. Their analysis compares the cost of a "density bonus" lot with alley to the cost of the larger lots required by the proposed code. I believe we should compare the cost of the "density bonus" lots with alleys to the cost of a standard lot allowed in the current code to get a true sense of the affordability of the proposed plan. I have included in spreadsheet form my complete analysis along with the original staff analysis. You will find this attached to the back of this letter. The narrative follows: · RS-5 currently allows 60' wide minimum lots, the proposed code requires 70' wide minimum lots, clearly more expensive. The proposed code will allow lots to be 60' wide if you meet the garage standards. This is not an encouragement to build smaller lots comparing the current code with the proposed code. Today I can build you the house you want on your 60' lot, tomorrow I have to limit the design choices you have on your lot. This to me is not a step forward. · The proposed RS-5 code "bonus density" will allow a 50' wide lot if alleys are used. Staff has compared the cost of a 50' wide lot with alleys with the cost of a 70' wide lot without alleys and found the alley lots less expensive. This is correct, however, what we should be comparing against is the cost of a 60' wide lot, the current allowed lot size. Using the numbers from the enclosed analysis, the smaller 50' wide lot with alleys will be more expensive to develop and have more concrete per lot than a 60' wide lot without alleys. You can make anything look better if you change the starting or reference point. · RS-8 currently allows 45' wide minimum lots, the proposed code requires 55' wide minimum lots, again clearly more expensive. The proposed code will allow 45' wide lots if the garage standards are met. Since the garage standards are required on all lots less than 60', this is redundant, so what the proposed code really says is that RS-8 allows 45' wide lots. This is same argument as above, the proposed code puts restrictions on 45' lots that are not their today. This to me does not encourage small lot development. · The proposed RS-8 code "bonus density" allows 40' wide lots if an alley is used. Again the staff compared the cost of a 40' wide lot with an alley to the cost ora 55' wide lot with no alley but what they should have compared against is the cost of a 45' wide lot with no alley. The smaller 40' wide lot with alley is more expensive and has more concrete per lot than the 45' wide standard lot. The requirements in the proposed code will make lots in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones larger, more expensive and will restrict building choices for the owners of those lots. · The RS-12 zoning gives us the only true density bonus. The current code allows 45' wide lots and the proposed code allows 30' wide lots with an alley. The large difference in lot sizes does make the 30' wide lot with an alley less expensive to develop. The lots will be smaller, but they will also have a less expensive price tag. The market will ultimately determine if 30' lots with alleys will be developed. Marketability and feasibility are two areas I feel have great importance. Both of these areas can require lengthy discussion so I will not try and put it all in writing. Hopefully I can shed some light on these topics during the public comment process, but I will give you several things to keep in mind. · In the proposed code, smaller single family lots are only made possible with the use of an alley and lots without alleys are required to be made wider. Thus a family that may not want a home on an alley (2 young kids, want a back yard: a senior who wants a privacy fence and a large garden) are forced to purchase a larger, more expensive lot than is possible to provide them at today's cost. · Alleys may also be not feasible in many areas. Level flat clear land is good for alleys, but ravines, steep slopes and wooded areas make alleys difficult or impossible to construct. What if you have a nice area of trees you want your lots to back up to? You would not want to destroy the trees to put an alley in, and thus with the proposed code you are forced to develop a wider, more expensive lot than you can do today. I will conclude with one final thought from the work session before I proceed with my suggestions. The word "rezone" was thrown around by staff and the commission very freely. Several times they mentioned that if someone wants to develop 0-line homes, just zone or rezone the land RS-12. They indicated they were not taking away the ability to build 0-lot line homes, they were just putting it in a different zone, and if you want to develop this type of housing, just get the right zone. Unless I have missed something over the last several years, rezoning land is'~ot an easy task. IfI am wrong I apologize, but my guess is that rezoning RS-8 land to RS-12 is not as s~le as te~ng staff I want to develop 0-lot line homes. Even if the rezoning meets absolutely zero resistance, wl~are,c.~e process takes several months. I hate to say it again, but holding time and delays in the ability to de'yel~'~and 7c~ild are not free -- -:< po ------ In my professional opinion, I offer the following suggestions: When looking at the Proposed code I think we need to ask ourselves; what problems are we trying toy~lve9 1 l~a~rd a lot of concern at the work session about 3-car garages on small lots. Do we have this problem? Do you get complaints from residents that 0-lot line homes don't have trim around their windows and they are offended? Or that they don't like to see green treated lumber on a deck as they drive down a street. I have heard some interesting comments from the public when they address the council, but I have yet to hear someone complain that their neighbors' garage sticks out 2' in front of the rest of their home and it bothers them. It seems to me the issues are creating livable neighborhoods and promoting housing that is affordable for the citizens of Iowa City. · Livability is an opinion that differs from one person to the next, and I have faith that people will create the neighborhoods they want to live in through their buying decisions. · Livability cannot be mandated, it is created and will evolve as a community grows and prospers. · Affordability is affected negatively by the proposed code. The so called smaller lots created through the density bonus will be more expensive than today's standard lots, and the required design elements will eliminate many popular, quality, attractive housing choices and will add mmecessary cost all in the name of aesthetics (aesthetics is not an absolute, it is subjective). In my professional opinion, I propose the following: · The minimum lot sizes remain as they are in the current code: 60' lots in the RS-5 zone and 45' lots in the RS-8 and RS-12 zone. · Continue to allow 0-lot line homes on all lots in the RS-8 and RS-12 zones without the aesthetic requirements. · In the RS-5 zone, allow 0-lot line homes only on corner lots, with the front door of each unit facing a different street, but the eliminate the garage design standards and the aesthetic standards. · To encourage smaller lots, allow lots in the RS-8 zone to go down to 35' with an alley. This will at least make the cost of the narrower lots with alleys essentially the same as the wider lots without and then the market can decide what they consider livable. · In the RS-12 zone, allow lots down to 20' with an alley if4 or more units are attached. This would truly allow townhome development by right. · If 3' trim around the windows is a must, only require it on the fi'ont of the building, requiring it on all windows and doors and under the roof eave around the entire building is overkill. Only have this requirement if4 or more units are attached. · There is nothing wrong with green treated lumber as a decking material. Eliminate the requirement that no unpainted or unstained lumber may be seen from a street. · Eliminate the garage standards. I have lived in this area my whole life and have seen most if not all of Iowa City. I do not believe I have ever seen a 3-car garage on a small lot. Mr. Elliott asked a good question: What is wrong with a 35' wide house, on a 45' wide lot, with a 2-car garage. You have 20' of garage, 15' of house and 25' of green space. I believe nothing is wrong with this house and I believe most residents of Iowa City would agree. I thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely Steve Gordon City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM _ Date: April 19, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Tokey Boswell, Planning Intern RE: Benefit/cost data for alley construction At the request of the Planning and Community Development Department, I have completed a benefit/cost analysis that examines the effects of building alleys into new subdivisions. Using guidelines from the proposed zoning 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 resulting block arrangements have differences in the number of parcels possible for any given 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 emerged from the analysis. The first is that building alleys into residential subdivisions, even on this fairly small scale of just one average block, greatly increases the number of lots possible on a given parcel of land. The expanded number of lots leads to reduced per-lot infrastructure costs, even though gross expenses increase by the cost of alley construction. Lower per-lot infrastructure costs benefit homebuyers because the overall cost of housing 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 gains from the greater 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 doing so. The second point of interest is the relationship among alley provision, lot size, and the amount of paving per lot. In my examples of alley construction for the RS-5 and RS-12 zones, building alleys into the block decreases the amount of paving 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, paving 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. Serving 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 highlights the most important financial aspects of constructing alleys. If I assumed a per-square foot lot sale value, I could calculate the gross 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 determining the profitability of development than the costs of alley provision, on this and larger scales. This is because the cost of building an alley (just over $25,000 in this example) will usually be recouped by selling only one additional lot. September 20, 200'5 Page 2 Table 1. Conventional (without alleys) versus traditional (with alleys) subdivision design RS-5 Comparison Number of Total J Minimum Average lots Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley lot width lot size possible J per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot 550x240 no 70 feet 79x120 14 J $82,940 $5,924 1,580 sq ft " yes 50 feet 55x110 20J $1,256 $108,065 $5,403 1,546 sq ft RS-8 Comparison INumber ofI Total Minimum Averagel lots I Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley lot width lot size I possible I per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 I 20 I $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 40 feet 42x110 [ 26 I $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 September 20, 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 th,_.~t developers will understand how to build the structures in order to make the profit ~ey wan~n 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 tw, o.phenorp,~na. First, the difference between lot size permitted with and without alleys in this zone' - ~r~all&r.~ ~ than those in other zones: _--< ,,-- ~-T'~ RS-8: without 55, with 40, difference =15, relative difference = 15/55 = 27% Fr~ -o RS-5: without 70, with 50, difference=20, relative difference = 20/70 = 29% ~ ~c. ~ 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. Table '1. Conventional (without alleys) versus traditional (with alleys) subdivision design RS-5 Comparison Number of TotalAverage sale Minimum Average lots Alleycost Infrastructure Infrastructure Parcel size Alley lot width lot size possibleII per lot Costs cost per lot Paving perlot prce per et? 550x240 no 70 feet 79x120 14 I $82,940 $5,924 1,580 sq ft " yes 50 feet 55x110 20 $1,256 $108,065 $5,403 1,546 sq ft RS-8 Comparison Number ofI Total I Minimum Averagel lots I Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Average sale Parcel size Alley lot width lot size I possible I per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot price per lot? 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 I 20 I $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 40 feet 42x110 I 26 I $966 $108,065 $4,156 1,189 sq ft RS-12 Comparison Minimum Average lots I Alleycost Infrastructure Infrastructure Average sale Parcel size Alley lot width lot size possible I per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot price per lot? 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 20 I $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 30 feet 31xl 10 36 $698 $108,065 $3,002 859 sq ft "Total infrastructure Costs" includes costs for street and alley construction, and for sewer and water extension, but not driveways. 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 local streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanitary 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" sanitary sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main ~ extensions average $15/foot. For a 550' long block, the costs are $11,550 for sewer and $8,250 for wat~ ~'~ 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 fl = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres 70 .' 90 v.. 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 TO~I numbr of Io~ possible = 14 To~l number of Io~ possible = 20 Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ff Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ff Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16'x550' = 8,800 sq ff Total paving = 22,120 sq ~ Total paving = 30,920 sq ff I Pavins per lot = 1,580 sq ff ~ I Paving per lot = 1,546 sq ff Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street ~st = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,12osq ff *lsq yd/gsq ff = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq ff *lsq yd/gsq ff = 2458 sq yd Alley cost = 0 Alley cost = 978x$25.69 $25,125 8,8oosq ff*lsq yd/gsq ff = 978 sq yd Sewer ~nstruction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line e~ension ~sts = $8,250 Water line e~ension ~sts = $8,250 Electrici~ e~ension ~sts = 0 Ele~rici~ e~ension costs = 0 Natural gas e~ension costs = 0 Natural gas e~ension costs = 0 Cable and media e~ension costs = Cable and media e~ension costs = Total Infrastructure cost = $82,940 Total Infrastructure cost = $108,065 ICost per lot = $5,9241 [Cost per lot = $5,4o3 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 local streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanitaw sewer e~ensions are assumed to by 8". Water main e~ensions are assumed to be 6" PVC. Water and sewer e~ension 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 e~ension prices are averages received from an area engineering company. Non- compacted 8" sanitaw sewer e~ensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main e~ensions average $15/foot. For a 550' long block, the costs 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 55 55 ~© , 55 : ..: 40 ~-<' r~ . : ; 55 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 Tobl number of Io~ possible = 20 Toal number of Io~ possible = 26 Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ~ Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq ff Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16'x550' = 8,800 sq ff Total paving = 22,120 sq ~ Total paving = 30,920 sq ff [Paving per lot = 1,106 sq ~ I I Pavin~ per lot = 1,189 sq ff Street ~st = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street ~st = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,12osq ff *lsq yd/gsq ~ = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq ff *lsq yd/gsq ~ = 2458 sq yd Alley cost = $0 Alley cost = 978x$25.69 $25,125 8,800sq ~*lsq y¢9sq ~ = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line e~ension costs = $8,250 Water line e~ension costs = $8,250 Electrici~ e~ension costs = 0 Electrici~ e~ension ~sts = 0 Natural gas e~ension costs = 0 Natural gas e~ension ~sts = 0 Cable and media extension costs = Cable and media extension costs = Total Infrastructure cost = $82,940 Total Infrastructure cost = $108,065 Icost per lot = $4,147J Icost per lot = ~,~561 Per lot alley cost = $966 Average sale price = Average sale pri~ = Number of lots = 20 Number of lots = 26 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 local 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. Local streets average $25.69/sq yard. Water and sewer extension prices are averages received from an area engineering company. Non- compacted 8" sanitaw sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. Comparison 3:RS-12 zone with and without alleys Without alleys- minimum lot width 55 feet With alleys, minimum lot width 30 feet Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq ft = 3+ acres 55 ~ 55 ~. ~ ss ~ - ~ ~-'~ 55 - ~ ~, 55 .:: ,~;: __ 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 lotal number of Iot~ possible = 20 To~al number of Iot~ possible = ~$ Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq fl Street paving = 28'x(550' +240') = 22,120 sq fl Alley pavin9 = 0 Alley pavin9 = 16'x550' = 8,800 sq ft Total paving = 22,120 sq fl lotal paving = 30,920 sq ft I Paving per lot = 1,106 sq ft I I Paving per lot = 859 sq fl Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,120sq ft *lsq yd/9sq ft = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq ft *lsq yd/9sq ft = 2458 sq yd Alley cost -- $0 Alley cost = 978x$25.69 $25,125 8,800sq ft*lsq yd/9sq ft = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Electricity extension costs = 0 Electricity extension costs = 0 Natural gas extension costs = 0 Natural gas extension costs = 0 Cable and media extension costs = Cable and media extension costs = Total Infrastructure cost = $82,940 Total Infrastructure cost = $108,065 [Cost per lot = $4,1471 ICost per lot = $3,002[ 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 local streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanitary 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" sanitary sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. Memorandum To: Mr. Mayor and Council Members From: Steve Gordon Date: September 28, 2005 RE: Proposed zoning code Here is my analysis of the cost to develop a minimum standard lot under the current code compared to the cost to develop the minimum standard lot with an alley under the proposed code "density bonus" option. I have used the same cost number as city staff did in their analysis. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Steve Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions C)~ Current code vs. proposed code Comparison 1:RS-5 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys Without Alleys - minimum lot width 60' With Alleys - minimum lot width 5 Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ~. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ~ ~ -acre~ 60 55 : 60 55 60 , 60 ~ 55 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 To~l number of lots possible = 18 Total number of lots possible = 20 S~eet paving = 28' x (550'+240') = 22,120 sq. fl. Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') = 22,120 sq. Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16' x 550' 8,800 sq. Total pavin~ = 22,120 sq. fl. Total paving = 30,920 sq. IPavin~ per lot = 1,229 sq. fl. I IPaving per lot = 1,546 sq. Strut cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,120~ ~*lsq y~9sq fl = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq fl*lsq y~9sq fl = 2458 sq yd Alley cost 0 Alley cost = 978 x $25.69 $25,125 8,800sq fl*lsq y~9sq fl = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total infr~tmcture cost ~ $82,940 Total infr~tructure cost = $108,065 Icost p~ ~ot = $4,608 I ~per lot = $5,403 Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions C)~ ~'~ Current code vs. proposed code ~ Comparison 2:RS-8 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys ~--) 46', Without Alleys-minimum lot width 45' With Alleys-minimum lot width Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ft. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. 55 55 45 ~..i 40 ' '.' 45 ~ ~; 40 45 ~L 40 45 40 45 40 45 4o 45 40 28 120 120 28 ,,'~'-,"E:.:'~ 55 28 110 20 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 24 Total number of lots possible = 26 Street paving = 28' x (550%240') = 22,120 sq. fl. Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') - 22,120 sq. Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16' x 550' 8,800 sq. Total paving = 22,120 sq. fl. Total paving = 30,920 sq. IPaving per lot = 922 sq. ~. ] IPaving per lot = 1,189 sq. Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,120sq fl*lsq yd/9sq fl = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq fl*lsq yW9sq fl = 2458 sq yd Alley cost 0 Alley cost = 978 x $25.69 $25,125 8,800sq fl*lsq y~9sq fl = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total infrastructure cost = $82,940 Total infr~tmcture cost = $108,065 ICost per lot= $3,456 [ [Cost per lot= $4,1561 Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions ~' ~ e.~ Current code vs. proposed code Comparison 3:RS-12 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys Without Alleys - minimum lot width 45' With Alleys - minimum lot width 30' Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ~. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ~. ~.:.: 55 35 ' 30 45 30 45 30 45 30 45 30 45 30 45 30 :'~ 45 30 B~2 45 ~ 30 ~ 45 ~,:~2~ 30 28 120 120 28 30 30 30 30 30 .... 35 28 110 20 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 24 Total number of lots possible = 36 Street paving = 28' x (550 240) = 22,120 sq. ~. Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') 22,120 sq. Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16' x 550' 8,800 sq. Total paving = 22,120 sq. fi. Total paving = 30,920 sq. IPaving p~r ~ot ~ 922 ~q. n. [ IP~ving per ~ot = 859 sq. Street cost = 2,458 x 525.69 = 563,140 Street cost = 2,458 x 525.69 = 563,140 22,120sq fi*l sq yWgsq fl = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq fl*lsq y~gsq fl = 2458 sq yd Alley cost 0 Alley cost = 978 x 525.69 $25,125 8,800sq fl*lsq yW9sq fl = 978 sq yd Server construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension costs = 58,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total infrastructure cost ~ 582,940 Total infrastruc~re cost = $108,065 ICost per ~ot ~ $3,4~6 I ICost per ~ot = 53,002 Marian Karr From: the3rdiowa@mchsi.com Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:58 PM To: council@iowa-city.org; steve-atkins@iowa-city.org; karin-franklin@iowa-city, org Subject: Forwarded from seattlepi.com: Study finds what makes a neighborhood foot-friendly Garry Klein (the3rdiowa@mchsi.com) has sent the following story to you from seattlepi.com. Comments from Garry Klein: Interesting Story to consider in connection with zoning code review Study finds what makes a neighborhood foot-friendly A King County study on making city and suburban neighborhoods more walkable finds that people walk more in neighborhoods that provide a wide variety of shops and services. And transit use goes hand in hand with walking. * Read the full article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242396_urban27.html Keep track of what's happening around the Northwest, the nation and the world at http://www.seattlepi.com/ -- updated as news breaks. Study finds what makes a neighborhood foot-friendly Page 1 of 2 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242396_urban27.html Study finds what makes a neighborhood foot-friendly Tuesday, September 27, 2005 By BOB CONDOR SPECIAL TQ THE POST-INTELLIGENCER When Karen Wolf walks in her Bryant neighborhood, she often takes along her "old lady shopping cart'' to wheel her groceries home from the Metropolitan Market. Richard Gelb borrows his daughter's "kid scooter" to run errands on Phinney Ridge. That Wolf and Gelb are in sync about leaving their cars at home for local shopping trips is not surprising. Both are senior urban planning advisers who have been involved for the past two years in a King County study about making city and suburban neighborhoods more walkable. County Executive Ran Sims commissioned the research funded in part by a Federal Transit Administration grant. Sims said Monday that some of his own staff members were "confused" about why King County government would focus on walking as a linchpin to land use and community planning. He asked his staffers to consider cutting-edge research that shows residents in the most walkable neighborhoods are 2.5 times more likely to be physically active than people who live in the least walkable neighborhoods. Physical inactivity has been linked to being overweight. "For every 30 minutes you spend in a car each day, your chances of being obese increase by 3 percent," said Lawrence Frank, lead author of the King County study and a University of British Columbia professor. The results of the study will be released today at a morning news conference, which will feature Frank along with Sims and a number of national and local officials O,;zoom Scott Ekltmd / P-I involved with land use, transportation, air quality and public health. A pedestrian walks past Horowitz Trading, West, in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer obtained an advance copy of the report. Among the Lower Queen Anne. A study commissioned by King County findings is that residents walk more in neighborhoods that provide a wide variety of shows that neighborhoods featuring a variety of shops shops and services, and services tend to be among the most walkable. "Costco or any big-box store isn't the answer," said Wolf, Sims' senior adviser for land use. "It's not about square feet as much as a number of different stores and services." One reason, quipped Wolf, is that people don't necessarily like walking home with a "16-roll tissue package their backs." Frank explained that some neighborhoods and towns feature malls and other stores with "lots of parking out front," but that there are no sidewalks or walkways to get to the stores. What's more, the study indicates that a connected street network encourages more foot traffic and bus use. The cul-de-sac mentality is losing favor with planners. "This study gives us real data sets," said Gelb, who works for the city's Office of Environment and Sustainability. "We can seek improved quality of life in neighborhoods with data rather than making Study finds what makes a neighborhood foot-friendly Page 2 of 2 assumptions." For instance, Gelb said a number of property owners are concerned about the amount of housing in Mayor Greg Nickels' Center City project. This study suggests people who live in the Center City areas will actually drive less and use public transit more -- especially during peak rush hours and weekends when the urban . ~. infrastructure is most stretched. The study showed that transit use and walking are "highly synergistic." Transit use was highest in locations where walking was most prevalent, and the choice to walk was highest where buses and trains were most convenient and efficient. Gelb said this transit-walking combination will only become more important as the city population is increasingly older -- "people worry about how they will get around not being behind the wheel." Similarly, a rising number of immigrants depend on vehicles less. Of course, using vehicles less is all the vogue these days. Even President Bush went on national television Monday to ask Americans to use cars less and urge Department of Transportation workers to show the way by carpooling more. Note to the president: Frank observed that the King County study shows 83 percent of all local trips are hot for work. He said "we're just getting started" weighing how urban planning can lessen dependence on oil and gas.'. His research for the county includes a detailed breakdown of better air quality levels in mixed-use areas with more small shops and services and fewer big stores and malls. The research study focused in depth on three areas: unincorporated White Center (most city gridlike), Redmond and Kent East Hill. Residents there filled out walking diaries and even wore pedometers to record the number of steps covered. Frank said the three communities are "archetypal" of a range of city and suburban neighborhoods. The drill-down quality of the data impressed county and city officials alike. "This is the first study of its kind to be done for a govenm~ent with jurisdiction over the zoning, planning, roads and transit issues in the research," Sims said. "We clearly can put it to good use when aligning our communities." © 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer BIG BOX ORDINANCE COMPARISON MATRIX DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN- FEBRUARY 2004 Madison Ordinance Stoughton Introduced to Sun Prairie Mt. Horeb Provisions Adopted 1/27/04 Common Council Adopted 2000 Draft for Review Only 3/4/03 Size Thresholds and Caps Applicability 20,000 s.f. 50,000 s.f. - 25,000 s.f. 60,000 s.f. considering 40,000 s.f. Absolute Cap 110,000 s.f. None None 50,000 s.f. Application Requirements With Comprehensive With Master Plan and With surrounding area With Comprehensive Planning Plan and other adopted and contributes to Plan and Compatibility Neighborhood Plans ordinances unique character of Neighborhood Plans Sun Prairie Detailed plan required Must be consistent with No requirement Detailed plan required Neighborhood if does not already Neighborhood Plans if does not already Plans exist exist · Community Impact Analysis Impact · Transportation Assessment Impact Analysis Transportation Impact Transpodation Impact Transportation Impact Requirements · Economic and Analysis Analysis Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis Site Design · Direct access to major street required. · Vehicle access Traffic accommodates No requirement No requirement Direct access to major peak traffic street required. volumes. · Connection to adjacent land uses. · Maximum size · No more than 50% · No more than · No more than 50% restrictions located between 50% located located between · Landscaped, faCade and primary between fa(;ade fa~;ade and primary Parking Lots curbed islands and street and primary street. medians · Parking structure street · Maximum size · Separate distinct design requirements restrictions parking areas (120 · Landscaped, stall max.) curbed islands and medians · Separate distinct parking areas (120 stall max.) Big Box Ordinance Matrix February 2004 Page 1 Madison Ordinance Stoughton Introduced to Sun Prairie Mt. Horeb Provisions Adopted 1/27/04 Common Council Adopted 2000 Draft for Review Only 3~4~03 · Safe access · Ped walkways · Ped walkways · Ped walkways from sidewalks to from sidewalks to from sidewalks to entrances entrances entrances · 6 feet sidewalks · 6 feet sidewalks Pedestrian & · 10 feet sidewalks adjacent to alon9 buildings Same as Stoughton Bicycle adjacent to buildings · Landscaping Circulation & buildings · Landscaping requirements Facilities · Landscaping requirements · Weather protection requirements · Weather protection · Distinct pedway · Distinct pedway requirements markings required markings required · Distinct pedway · Bike racks markings required · Ped furniture · Sidewalk transit (interior & exterior) connections Deliberately designed publicly accessible focal point with Central Areas & features such as Similar requirements Similar requirements Same as Stoughton Features patio/seatin9 area required Cart Returns Minimum requirements No requirement No requirement Same as Stoughton Outdoor Location and ped Requirements Requirement Display Areas ~ccess requirements elsewhere in zoning elsewhere in zoning Same as Stoughton ord. ord. Outdoor Restricted by approved Requirements Requirement Storage Uses site plan elsewhere in zoning elsewhere in zoning Same as Stoughton and Areas ord. ord. Requirements for buildin9 foundation, Requires street trees in street and drives, addition to landscaping Landscaping 3arking islands, and requirements in zoning Similar requirements Similar requirements berms separating ordinance. residential areas. Total cut-off luminaries with max. brightness No specific Requirements Lighting requirements; light pole requirement in bi9 box elsewhere in zoning Same as Stoughton design requirements, ordinance (elsewhere ord. _ , _in_c_odes~. ........................ Guidelines for location, No specific No specific Signage size, color, and use of requirement in big box requirement in big box Same as Stoughton Iogos. ordinance, ordinance. No specific No specific Noise Shall not create a requirement in big box requirement in big box Same as Stoughton nuisance, ordinance (elsewhere ordinance. in codes). Big Box Ordinance Matrix February 2004 Page 2 Madison Ordinance Stoughton Introduced to Sun Prairie Mt. Horeb Provisions Adopted 1/27/04 Common Council Adopted 2000 Draft for Review Only 3~4~03 · Shall meet Erosion Control and Stormwater Natural Ordinance (citation) No requirement in big No requirement in big Existing natural Resource · Post development box ordinance box ordinance features integrated into Protection runoff rates shall (elsewhere in codes). (elsewhere in codes), site design as amenity. not exceed pre- settlement rates · Natural features shall be integrated into site design as amenities Building Design Quality materials on all High quality materials Prohibits smooth-faced Materials sides of building, on facades visible from block, tilt-up panels Same as Stoughton street or adjacent and pre-fab metal. properties · Complement other · Min. fa~,ade · Min. fa(;ade Same as Stoughton. buildings in vicinity, protrusions and protrusions and · Varying setbacks, recesses required, recesses required. heights, roof · Min. roof height · Roof slope treatments, variations, requirements. doorways, window · Roof slope · Facade features openings, etc. to requirements, required. reduce apparent · Facade features · Window Design size. required, requirements. · Min. fa(;ade · Window · Facade repeating protrusions and requirements, pattern required. recesses required. · Facade repeating · Min. roof height pattern required. variations. · Roof slope requirements. · Fa§ade features required. · Window requirements. · Facade repeating pattern required. · Clearly defined and highly visible with design Building features. Entrances · Each additional Same Same Same store in the principal building must have separate exterior customer entrance. · Neutral colors required. Neutral Neutral Building Color · Restrictions on colors colors Same as Stoughton. corporate & required, required. trademark colors. Big Box Ordinance Matrix February 2004 Page 3 Madison Ordinance Stoughton Introduced to Sun Prairie Mt. Horeb Provisions Adopted 1/27/04 Common Council Adopted 2000 Draft for Review Only 3~4~03 Requirements for Requirements for Requirements for Requirements for Screening equipment, refuse equipment, refuse equipment, refuse equipment, refuse containers, loading containers, loading containers, loading containers, loading docks, and gates and docks, and gates and docks, and gates and docks, and gates and fencing, fencing, fencing, fencing. Other Vacation of City may prohibit any Existing Sites privately imposed limits on the type or reuse of No requirements. No requirements. No requirements. the previously occupied building. Developer's Agreement Required No requirements. No requirements. No requirements. Buildings on outlots Outlots must be comparable in No requirements. N.o requirements. No requirements. quality to primary buildings. Big Box Ordinance Matrix February 2004 Page 4 Big Box Design Standards Page 1 of 11 back to Special Planning Regulations BIG-BOX DESIGN STANDARDS I. Introduction A growing trend in communities across the country is the development of large retail, or "big-box", design standards. The cities of Fort Collins, Colorado, Tucson, Arizona, Easton, Maryland, and Somerset County, New Jersey have already implemented design standards for large retail establishments. Lexington is currently in the process of adopting design standards. "Big-box" retail can be defined as large-scale retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Kmart, Meijer, Kroger, Target, Circuit City, or Home Depot, that occupy more than 50,000 square feet and derive their profits from high sales volumes. They may operate as stand-alone facilities, or more commonly they are located in a "power center." Power centers will usually have some common characteristic such as large rectangular single-stoW structures, a reliance on auto-borne traffic with large areas of parking, limited mass transit service, and a no frills site plan with little unique community character, mixed-use and pedestrian amenities. Power centers will generally bring together various branches of the "big-box" family, for example, a discount department store, a warehouse club, a supermarket, and smaller outlots. Examples of power centers in Lexington include Hamburg Place, Beaumont Center, and the new Lowe's/Wal- Mart on Nicholasville Road. In Georgetown, Washington Square, Georgetown Center, and Factory Stores of America could be considered examples of power centers. Although these three sites are much smaller in scale, they all contain "big-boxes" in excess of 50,000 square feet (Kroger with approximately 60,000 sq. ft. and Kmart with approximately 96,000 sq. ft., Factory Stores of America contain a total of 176,000 sq. ft.). The three sites also contain retail establishments with less than 50,000 square feet. The recently approved rezoning of Cherry Blossom Properties (A-1 Agricultural to B-5 General Commercial Park), located between 1-75 and 84 Lumber, is designed to be a power center as defined above. The approved conceptual plan shows the site with a "big-box" structure and numerous outlots with a large parking area. The Howard Property, recently rezoned from A-1 to B-5, contains 27.31 acres that is suitable for a "big-box" type of development. Also, the Whitaker Properly (225 acres), located north of 84 Lumber and south of Toyota, was recently rezoned from A-1 to B-5. Although this site is proposed for a mixed use of commercial, professional office, limited light industrial, and residential, there is approximately 43 acres suitable for "big-box" development. The site was approved with the Traditional Neighborhood Design in mind, thus the need exists for design standards to be in place it ensure the entire development is coordinated for an overall community design. The B-5 zone is designed to allow flexibility in the development of compatible mixed-use areas of limited light industrial, professional office, and commercial in a business park or "campus-style" setting. The B-5 zone discourages "strip" commercial development while encouraging internal driveways and pedestrian access in order to minimize traffic movements out of the development. The B-5 is designed to minimize off-site impacts generally associated with standard commercial/B-2 development with increased setbacks and landscape buffers. The B-5 includes higher design standards but does not typically or specifically address "big-box" concerns. As "big-box" development could occur in B-2, B-4, and B-5, these guidelines shall be utilized in any district where "big-box" development may locate. II. Background and Justification The basis for development within our community is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. Article I, Section 1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for Georgetown, Scott County, Sadieville, and Stamping Ground states, "The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the general welfare by establishing and regulating zoning districts... In establishing the zoning districts, this ordinance seeks the general welfare by designating sufficient space for all necessary uses of land, by protecting the permitted uses in each district from the undesirable effects of conflicting uses, and by ensuring the stable value of all permitted development." Article I, Section 105 of the Subdivision & Development Regulations for Georgetown, Scott County, h ttp : / /~vwxv. g sc p lannin g. c om/b i g_bo x._dcsi gn_stand ards.h tn~ 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 2 of 11 Sadieville, and Stamping Ground states, "These regulations are adopted in order to implement the Georgetown- Scott County Comprehensive Plan and to ensure the protection of public health, safety, and welfare." Furthermore, Section I, Subsection B-3 of the Georgetown-Scott County Comprehensive Plan 1996 Update states, "Community identity and integrity should be maintained as we grow, and opportunities for community social life should be increased." Subsection B-4 goes on to state, "Scott County cities should maintain their small town character..." With the tremendous amount of growth occurring in Georgetown and Scott County, it is a matter of time before large retail establishments begin locating in our community and the possibility of existing establishments relocating or expanding. Large retail establishments will locate anywhere, be it a rural town, suburban county, or an urban center. Within a 25 mile radius of Georgetown, there are 7 WaI-Marts (2 superstores) and 7 Kmarts (according to Wal-Mart and Kmart internet store locators). The residents of Georgetown and Scott County are largely defined by small town characteristics and quality of life. As a community, we should not only be concerned about the economic impact of big-box retailers on our traditional downtown merchants but also on how the appearance of such retail establishments fit in with the community. Our community does not have to rely on the dull, rectangular boxes of retail giants, with massive amounts of asphalt and limited landscaping and pedestrian amenities. A growing number of jurisdictions are requiring a much higher level of design standards and implementing procedures that require large retail stores to better relate to the characteristics of the community. In Fort Collins, CO., there were many public hearings with the community playing a large role in defining the retail standards, and it resulted in a nationally acclaimed ordinance. Staff has reviewed this ordinance and an ordinance adopted by Tucson, AZ. Also, staff has contacted the planning depadments in Rockville, MD, Easton, MD, Somerset County, NJ, and Lexington, KY, who are in the process of writing their ordinances. The research indicates that Fort Collins has become the model that communities are basing their design standards and ordinances on. These proposed guidelines are a response to dissatisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy, dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to encourage development that contributes to Georgetown-Scott County as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Large retail developments depend on high visibility from major public streets. In turn, their design determines much of the character and attractiveness of major streetscapes in the city. The marketing interests of many corporations, even strong image-making design by professional designers, can be potentially detrimental to community aspirations and sense of place when they result in massive individual developments that do not contribute to or integrate with the community in a positive way. The purpose of these guidelines is to augment the existing criteria contained in the B-5 General Commercial Park and those contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, with more specific interpretations that apply to the design of large retail developments. These guidelines require a basic level of architectural variety, compatible scale, pedestrian and bicycle access, and mitigation of negative impacts. III. Procedure The following guidelines are intended to be used as a design aid by developers proposing large retail developments and as an evaluation tool by the staff of the Planning Commission in their review processes. These guidelines shall apply to all projects, which are processed according to the criteria for proposed development plans and to all projects for retail establishments of more than 50,000 square feet. These guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the Subdivision & Development Regulations. IV. Definitions · Arcade - an area contiguous to a street or plaza that is open and unobstructed, and that is accessible to the public at all times. Arcades may include building columns, landscaping, statuary and fountains. http://www.~scplanning.com/big box design standards.him 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 3 of 11 Arcades do not include off-street loading/unloading areas, driveways or parking areas. · Adiculate - to give emphasis to or distinctly identify a particular element. An articulated facade would be the emphasis of elements on the face of a wall including a change in setback, materials, roof pitch or height. · "As-of-Right Zoning" - uses and development standards that are determined in advance and specifically authorized by the zoning regulations (e.g., a single-family zone would allow single-family housing as of right so long as site development standards are met). This type of zoning is in contrast to cumulative or "pyramidal" zoning. · Berm - an earthen mound designed to provide visual interest on a site, screen undesirable views, reduce noise or provide a buffer from adjoining uses. · Breezeway - a structure for the principal purpose of connecting a main building or structure on a property with other buildings. · Buffer - see also "screen". An area provided to reduce the conflict between two different land uses. Buffers are intended to mitigate undesired views, noise and glare - effectively providing greater privacy to neighboring land uses. Typical buffers consist of materials that serve this purpose and include, but are not limited to, plant materials, walls, fences and/or significant land area to separate the uses. · Buffer Strip - a podion of a lot or property used to visually separate one use from another through the use of vegetation, distance or other approved method. · Building Face, Front - any building face, which can be touched by a line drawn perpendicular to street (public or private). · Building Face, Public - any building side which is visible from public or private right-of-ways and/or the faces that contain public entry. · Building Mass - the building's expanse or bulk and is typically used in reference to structures of considerable size. · Design Guidelines - statements and graphics intended to direct the planning and development of the built environment in a padicular manner or style so that the end result contributes positively to the overall development. · Dormer - a window set vertically in a gable projecting from a sloping roof. · Facade - the portion of any exterior elevation on the building extending from grade to the top of the parapet, wall or eaves and extending the entire length of the building. · Front Yard - the portion of the front yard extending the full width of the lot and measured between the front lot line and a parallel line across the front of the building. Corner and double lots shall adhere to the front yard setback(s) for each frontage. · Gable - a triangular wall section at the end of a pitched roof, bounded by the two roof slopes. · Hip Roof- roof without gables. · Parapet - the portion of a wall that extends above the roofline. · Pedestrian Oriented Development - development designed with an emphasis primarily on the street sidewalk and on pedestrian access to the site and buildings/structures rather than on auto access. The buildings/structures are generally located close to the public or private right-of-way and the main entrance (s) is oTiented to the street sidewalk. There are generally windows or display cases'along building facades. Although parking is provided, it is generally limited in size and location. · Pedestrian Walkway - a surfaced walkway, separate from the traveled portion of a public or private right- of-way or parking lot/driving aisle. · Portico - a porch or walkway with a roof supported by columns, often leading to the entrance to a building. · Public/Private Right of Way - any public or private road, access easement intended to provide public access to any lot/development, but excluding any service road or internal driving aisles (i.e., within parking lots). · Screen - see also "buffer". The sole purpose of a screen is to block views. A screen should be constructed of opaque materials and whose height will be effective in obstructing unwanted views. · Setback - a prescribed distance or an area between one element and another (i.e., a building and the road right-of-way). Within these guidelines, the term also refers to: o The minimum distance and the area measured from the property line to the interior of a parcel http://www.gscplanning.com/big box_design_standards.htn~ 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 4 of 1 I where buildings may be constructed. o The required distance and the area between the edge of the parking lot pavement/curb and the property line or buildings/structures. o Placing a building face on a line to the rear of another building line. · Streetscape - all elements of a development or area that are in view from other points along a street. V. Design Guidelines ARTICLE I -AESTHETIC CHARACTER 1. Facades and Exterior Walls INTENT: Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity character, and scale. The intent is to encourage a more human scale that residents of Georgetown-Scott County will be able to identify with their community. The resulting scale will ensure a greater likelihood of reuse of structure by subsequent tenants. GUIDELINE: Developments with facade over 100 feet in linear length shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of 3 foot depth and a minimum of 20 contiguous feet within each 100 feet of facade length and shall extend over 20 percent of the facade. Developments shall use animating features such as arcades, display windows, entry areas, or awnings along at least 60 percent of the facade. (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) 2. Smaller Retail Stores INTENT: The presence of smaller retail stores gives a center a "friendlier" appearance by creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities. Windows and window displays of such stores should be used to contribute to the visual interest of exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward those situations where additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer entrances are located in the principal buildings or development site. GUIDELINE: Where principal buildings contain additional, separately owned stores, which occupy less than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area, with separate, exterior customer entrances: http://www.gscplanning.condbig_box design standards.htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 5 of 11 a. The street level facade of such stores shall be transparent between the height of three feet and eight feet above the walkway grade for no less than 60 percent of the horizontal length of the building facade of such additional stores. b. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters, or other such forms of framing. 3. Detail Features INTENT: Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interests, at the scale of the pedestrian, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not superficially applied trim or graphics, or paint. GUIDELINE: Building facades shall include a repeating pattern that shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. o Color change o Texture change o Material module change o Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting rib. S ~.~.% i.'~--'~ projecting ribs rc",'ca Is structural bay layout Expression of Architectural or Structural Bay (Drawing courtesy of Fort Collins, Colorado) 4. Roofs INTENT: Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of large buildings. Roof features should compliment the character of adjoining neighborhoods. GUIDELINE: Roof lines shall be varied with a change in height every 100 linear feet in the building length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, hip roofs, or dormers shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment from public view. Alternating lengths and designs may be acceptable and can be addressed during the preliminary development plan. http://ww~v.gscplanning.com/big_box_design_standards.htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 6 of 11 (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) 5. Materials and Colors INTENT: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a building. Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. GUIDELINE: a. Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials. These include, without limitation: Brick · Wood · Sandstone · Other native stone Tinted, textured, concrete masonry units b. Facade colors shall be Iow reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. c. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptabte feature for building trim or accent areas. d. Predominant exterior building materials as well as accents should not include tile following: · Smooth-faced concrete block http://wwxv.gscplanning.com/big_box, design standards.btm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 7 of 11 · Tilt-up concrete panels · Pre-fabricated steel panels 6. Entryways INTENT: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and aesthetically pleasing character to the building. The standards identify desirable entryway design features. GUIDELINE: Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances featuring no less than three of the following: · canopies or porticos · overhangs · recesses/projections · arcades · raised corniced parapets over the door · peaked roof forms · arches · outdoor patios · display windows · architectural details such as tile work and moldings which are integrated into the building structure and design · integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) ARTICLE II - SITE DESIGN AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY 1. Entrances INTENT: Large retail buildings should feature multiple entrances. Multiple building entrances reduce walking distances from cars, facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access from public sidewalks, and provide convenience where certain entrances offer access to individual stores, or identified departments in a store. Multiple entrances http://www.gscplanning.com/big_box_design_standards-htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 8 of 11 also mitigate the effect of the unbroken walls and neglected areas that often characterize building facades that face bordering land uses. GUIDELINE: All sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public or private right-of-way shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting public or private rights-of-way, this requirement shall apply only to two sides of the building, including the side of the building facing the primary street, and another side of the building facing a secondary street. The number of entrances for the principal building shall be addressed at the preliminary development plan stage. Where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each such store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements. i Customer Entrain:es Stbres-q ',ustomer ntran' e Public Street Example of a development with customer entrances on all sides which face a public street. (Drawing courtesy of Foal Collins, Colorado) 2. Parking Lot Orientation INTENT: Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access for vehicles and pedestrians. They should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks and to reduce the overall scale of the paved surface. If buildings are located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, pedestrian traffic is encouraged, and architectural details take on added importance. GUIDELINE: No more than 60 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire property shall be located between the front facade within the front yard of the principal building(s) and the primary abutting street unless the principal building(s) and/or parking lots are screened from view by outlot development (such as restaurants) and additional tree plantings and/or berms. 3. Back and Sides INTENT: The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive view of blank walls, Ioadin9 areas, stora9e areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features. Architectural and http://www.gscplanning.com/big _box_design_ standards.htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 9 of 11 landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. Any back or side of a building visible from a public or private right-of-way shall be built in accordance with Article I. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement as part of the development plan. GUIDELINE: The minimum setback for any building facade shall be in accordance with the B-5 requirements (Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.484, 1- 4). Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses an earthen berm shall be installed, no less than 6 feet in height, containing at a minimum, a double row of evergreen or deciduous trees planted at intervals of 15 feet on center. Additional landscaping may be required by the Planning O0mmi~i0n to effectively buffer adjacent land use as deemed appropriate. All additional landscape requirements of the Landscape Ordinance shall apply. 4. Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas INTENT: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. These areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed or enclosed. While screens and recesses can effectively mitigate these impacts, the selection of inappropriate screening materials can exacerbate the problem. Appropriate locations for loading and outdoor storage areas include areas between buildings, where more than one building is located on a site and such buildings are not more than 40 feet apart, or on those sides of buildings that do not have customer entrances. GUIDELINE: a. Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from public or private rights-of-way. b. No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public or street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. c. Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction, and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. d. Non-enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with walls and/or fences. Materials, colors, and designs of screening walls and/or fences and the cover shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors of the building. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the buildings. e. Temporary sales/displays, such as Christmas trees, landscape materials, and fireworks, shall follow all outdoor requirements for B-2, B-4, and B-5 districts as described in the Zoning Ordinance. Location and time/duration of such sales/displays shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or appointed designee. 5. Pedestrian Flows INTENT: Pedestrian accessibility opens auto-oriented developments to the neighborhood, thereby reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image. This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal pedestrian circulation systems that can provide user-friendly pedestrian access as well as pedestrian safety, shelter, and convenience within the center grounds. GUIDELINE: a. Sidewalks at least 6 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public or private right-of-way, excluding interstates, Cherry Blossom Way, and McClelland Circle. The Planning Commission may http://www.gscplanning.com/big_box_dcsign_standards.htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 10 of 11 waive this requirement as part of the development plan. b. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than 5 feet in width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the principal customer entrance of all principal buildings on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers, or other such materials for no less than 50 percent of their length. c. Sidewalks, no less than 5 feet in width, shall be provided along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least six (6) feet from the facade of the building to provide planting beds for foundation landscaping, except where features such as arcades or entryways are part of the facade. d. Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with Subsection b above, shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades within 30 feet of all customer entrances, constructed parallel to the facade of the building. This is not intended to extend into the driving aisles or parking areas. e. All internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, Iow maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the walkways. Signs shall be installed to designate pedestrian walkways. 6. Central Features and Community Spaces INTENT: Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied to logical destinations. Bus stops and drop-off/pick-up points should be considered as integral parts of the configuration. Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, pedestrian light fixtures, bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. The features and spaces should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric. GUIDELINE: Each retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following: patio/seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkways, outdoor play area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower, steeple, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a focal feature or amenity that, in the judgement of the Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces. Any such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk network and such features shall not be constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. Although Georgetown does not currently maintain a public bus system, areas should be provided or designed to accommodate possible (future) bus service and the growing number of private bus services (i.e., nursing home/assisted living, Housing Authority, Bluegrass Action Council, etc.) httr)://www.,2sct, hmnin~.com/bi~z box dcsim~ standards.htm 6/27/2005 Big Box Design Standards Page 11 of 11 Example of a center with numerous special features and community spaces (Drawing courtesy of Fort Collins, Colorado) back to Special Planninq R_egulations http://wwxv.escplanning.com/big box design standards.btm 6/27/2005 Karen Howard From: Karin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:22 AM To: Karen Howard Cc: 'robert-brooks@uiowa.edu'; Bob Miklo Subject: FW: Pleas Pass on to Planning and Zoning Commission Karen, please see that this gets to all the Commissioners. Thanks. ..... Original Message ..... From: Garry and Betsy Klein [mailto:the3rdiowa@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:23 AM To: Karin Franklin Subject: Pleas Pass on to Planning and Zoning Commission Karin, I can't seem to find an address to e-mail P&Z. Can you please forward these comments to them? Thank you. Regarding the revised zoning code: With Iowa City growing by 150% over what was planned for in the 1997 conmprehensive plan, land use should be considered in the zoning code that is being reviewed. Commercial Zoning should be trying to minimize land use, such that we do not encourage oversaturation of 100,000 + sq. foot developments. The ordinance should designate that developments over that size should be required to go through a more thorough public process which would be similar as the kind that planned developments go through. It would be to encourage retailing that is in keeping with community standards. Similarly, the cost incurred for adding sidewalks, trails, bus stops, bike racks and other amenities that help people to be able to access commercial zones should be the responsibility of the developer to provide. Incentives should be made to encourage businesses to minimize land use e.g., development credits for developing parking lots that use less than the prescribed size. With respect to good neighbor meetings: these are a great idea and should also be mandatory for commercial and industrial developments as well. With regard to the sale of public property, it should be determined that the land use is the "best land use" based on community defined needs that are derived by the City Steps guidelines or the comprehensive plan. Garry Klein 628 2nd Ave. Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: Marybeth [mbslonn@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:16 PM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: Zoning Changes Council Members: With the Oct 5 meeting coming up soon, I'd like to encourage you to adopt changes to the zoning code that will limit the numbers of homes in our neighborhood that could be changed into duplex properties. As you know, Goosetown is an especially vulnerable neighborhood for such plans. The small houses and lower purchase prices stimulate owner's[]often non-resident owners[]to tack on additions to these historic homes. We as a neighborhood are trying very hard to protect the historical integrity of the area. Our work to design & implement the Goosetown plaques is an example of this. We are in the discussion stage for another idea that could enhance the neighborhood. Our bi-annual social events foster neighborliness. As the oldest, continuing neighborhood in the city, we have alot at stake. The cottages need protection. Too many of them have been despoiled already. We need the City to reach out & make it much harder for someone to double sizes, max-out on renters, and take profits without regard to the people who live here, as my husband and I have done for the last 20 years. I hope you will put the best interests of this historic part of Iowa City at heart. It isn't about profit, it's about community and a sense of the past. Marybeth Slonneger 1109 Davenport St. Goosetown Neighborhood Association Representative Willow Creek Subdivision Owners' Association September 27, 2005 To the City Council of Iowa City: We residents of Jema Court (zoned RS-8) would like to bring to the attention of the City Council our concems about the new zoning code. Specifically, we fear that the "Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards" would increase the number of persons that could legally occupy 4 properties in our neighborhood. These 4 properties have single-car garages and currently can be occupied by only a family (or 2 unrelated individuals) because there is off-street parking for only 2 cars (in the garage and the driveway). The proposed new code would reduce requirements for off-street parking in households that have a roomer from the current 3 spaces (2 for the family and 1 for the roomer) to 2 (1 for the family and I for the roomer). Our conversations with the Housing Inspection office lead us to believe that the proposed change would allow roomers to legally be added to these 4 households. Higher occupancy would have several undesirable effects on our neighborhood, one of which is more cars parked on an already crowded street. Jema Court is a 2-block long street of 20 two-unit condominiums that look like zero-lot-line duplexes. These 40 units are occupied by a mix of owners and renters. Because lots are small and parking is allowed on one side of the street only, on-street parking is in short supply. The available spots are almost always fully occupied, as the enclosed photos show. The on-street parkers are a mixture of visitors; people who drive to Jema, leave their cars there, and use the city bus that stops nearby; and members of households of unrelated persons who have more than 2 cars and choose not to park some of them in the driveway behind garaged cars. This parking situation has led to problems that our condo association continues to struggle with. Snow plowing cannot be done well with so many cars on the street. The Post Office understandably refuses to deliver mail to boxes made inaccessible by cars parked in front of them, leading to conflict between the street-parkers and their mail-less neighbors. It appears that under the proposed change, the 4 units with single-car garages (which currently may not have a roomer, even though they have 3-4 bedrooms) could legally be occupied by 3 unrelated people (a "family" and a roomer). If each person had a car, the third car would necessarily be permanently parked on an already overcrowded street. We applaud the city's efforts to update the zoning code and to provide for a variety of housing options. However, we urge the Council to consider the possible consequences of the proposed parking change on neighborhoods like ours. It would seem to have unintended effects that are at cross-purposes with the city's goal of creating appealing, livable neighborhoods. Sincerely yours, WCSOA Board Rosemary Russell, Am~ Shr'out, (~ecre.~~_/4' wenay Riegel, Trea~___~ ~r~' ett, Representative-At-Large September 27, 2005 City Council Members, Pictured above are two duplexes which we constructed this past year. They are located just seven blocks east on Washington St. from the Civic Center. During the year long construction process there was no less than 50 persons who stopped by and made complimentary and positive comments about these buildings. City staff made positive comments about these buildings. We tried very hard to make these buildings fit into the existing neighborhood. We have lived almost directly across the street from this building site for 27 years. These are state of the art safe and energy-efficient buildings. I have two comments that relate to the proposed zoning ordinance: 1. During the entire year there were two persons claiming to be living in the same neighborhood who scolded me for these buildings. One gripe session occurred in person while this self- proclaimed neighborhood resident was walking his dog. The other gripe session was done over the phone by the wife of the first complainant. Both neighbors were rude, demeaning and condescending (not to mention grossly inaccurate with their facts). My inclination is that at your public hearing you are far more likely to hear from this irritated couple than any of the more than 50 persons who took the time to stop by and compliment me for the project. 2. Why are duplexes being virtually eliminated by the proposed zoning ordinance if the goal is to provide more cost effective (affordable) housing? Sincerely, 1131 E. Washington Iowa City Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~-~"/~p..~ ~--~J NI~W--~LT ~"i'~.,. email: C~,~J~¥KLiNEF-EL~-Fz~)~x...~N Mailing address: J J-,~/ I~ 'x/x/.A~I-~NG-F-L~.~ ?~'~-, ZlPcode: ~2£q~ Phone number: G-~i - ~ ~_ ~ THIS ISA: (5)qUestion (~'uggestion C)comment REGARDING Section/Page# \-2~.~-(~:) '~-~NC Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~iowa-city, org ppd~dm/Zoning Code Comment~ indd Dear Planning and Zoning Commission members, The proposed change to the zoning ordinance regarding the RS-8 zone is troubling. We have just completed a new duplex and have just started building another duplex, both in the 1100 block of E. Washington St. With the adoption of the proposed ordinance change these brand new structures will immediately become non-conforming. This simply is not right or fair. The non-conforming status would have serious and long term ramifications. Here is an example: Currently these new duplexes are three-bedroom condominiums. If one of these units is sold to a family with three children and they seek to obtain a building permit to "finish off" the currently unfinished basement into a bedroom they will be denied a building permit to do so. This is in spite of the fact that these buildings meet current building code and already have escape and rescue windows installed in the basements (which is required by the current building code). This is the interpretation of the building department. I have personal experience with this exact issue. To take brand new buildings and have them become non-conforming by adopting this new ordinance is grossly unfair and unethical. The non-conforming status of a property seldom reveals itself until a property owner attempts to obtain a building permit. The effect of this proposed change will render the vast majority of duplexes in existing RS-8 zones non-conforming. Will the planning department inform all property affected owners that their properties will become non-conforming with this proposed change? The devil is always in the details. The non-conforming issue is the most important issue but I also have four other related issues regarding this proposed ordinance change. 1. Redeveloping a property to its highest and best use is beneficial to the community. In our case we demolished a 100 year old existing duplex and a single family home nearly that old. The duplex was poorly constructed and poorly maintained. The new duplex that is now in its place will quadruple the property tax for this property and it is a much more attractive building. 2. The level of fire safety and occupant safety is significantly improved in new buildings. One cannot make cost effective improvements to an existing building to meet current building code requirements. These code requirements are easily met during the process of new construction. This includes smoke detection, escape and rescue windows, fire separation walls, and electrical issues. 3. Both of these new duplexes have geothermal heating and cooling. Even though these new buildings have over six times the square footage of the razed buildings they will use a fraction of the energy the old buildings used. It is not cost effective to achieve the level of energy efficiency for an old structure that can easily be achieved with new construction. 4. Most people argue against "urban sprawl." Orderly redevelopment can help to reduce urban sprawl by using existing developed land. Increasing the tax base for existing parcels, fire safety, energy efficiency and reducing urban sprawl are good arguments that run counter to the changes that are being proposed in this ordinance regarding the existing RS-8 zone. I have no problem with "design review" for redevelopment of existing properties. Sincerely, Gary Klinefelter 1131 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52245 ~aryklinefelter~aol.com March 22, 2005 Marian Karr From: j ponto@avalon.net Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:24 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: proposed zoning code Dear Councilors, As a resident of old, established, historic-district neighborhood (Brown Street, northside), I love the atmosphere/feel of the neighborhood environment. Although the proposed zoning code is not perfect, I believe that it is much better than existing code, especially regarding protecting and promoting the good atmosphere/feel of neighborhoods. Therefore, I urge you to vote in favor of the proposed zoning cede. Jim Ponto 618 Brown St. Iowa City 338-5802 Karen Howard From: William Buss [william-buss@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 21,2005 9:22 PM To: Karen Howard Subject: Re: zoning code rewrite Ci~CouncZoningCh anges.wpd (6 ... July 21, 2005 To the Mayor and City Council of the City of Iowa City and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed changes in the zoning laws now pending before the Planning and Zoning Commission deserve the support of the Commission and the eventual support of the City Council. I am writing as a long-time resident of Iowa City. One of the most important qualities of Iowa City is the quality of its residential housing and, especially, its residential neighborhoods. This is a feature of the City that requires constant protection. It is a quality long in forming, easily undermined, and very difficult to recreate. A glance around the City reveals the many places where residential housing has been degraded and the many places where it has been preserved; and the difference between degradation and preservation makes a dramatically different city. The Comprehensive Plan, representing substantial public input, is an important means of maintaining stability. The Comprehensive Plan, in turn, depends upon appropriate enforceable zoning laws; and the proposed changes in the zoning laws now before the Planning and Zoning Commission is a important means of translating the vision of the Comprehensive Plan into an operative reality. I have studied the proposals of the Planning and Zoning staff and have considered various objections to those proposals. In my opinion, the staff response to those objections has been measured and thoughtful, including making suggested changes when sufficient reasons were given for doing so and including careful explanation of the reasons for its proposals. In particular, I have considered the concerns expressed by developers and by the advocates of "affordable housing." It is very clear that the staff's proposals are designed to achieve a balance of the interests of development, affordable housing, and the wide range of individual residents of Iowa City. It is very clear that only the staff is concerned with furthering the interests of all of these groups and only the staff has an interest and legal responsibility in preserving the long-term viability of residential neighborhoods. It is very clear that this preservation will not occur through the unregulated pursuit of self-interest. I think the Planning and Zoning staff has offered a set of proposals that 1 Karen Howard From: William Buss [william-buss@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 21,2005 9:22 PM To: Karen Howard Subject: Re: zoning code rewrite ~ anges.wpd(6 21, 2005 To the Mayor nd City Council of the City of ~wa City and Members of the Planning and Commission Proposed changes n the zoning laws now pe: before the Planning and Zoning Commission the support of Commission and the eventual support of the City ]ouncil. I am writing as a lone ime resident City. One of the most important qualities of ~wa City is quality of its residential housing and, especially, its res ential s. This is a feature of the City that requires constan protecti ]. It is a quality long in forming, easily undermined, and very [ifficu to recreate. A glance around the City reveals the many places ?esidential housing has been degraded and the many places where it preserved; and the difference between degradation and preservation ma ~ a dramatically different city. The Comprehensive Plan, repres substantial public input, is an important means of mail .ity. The Comprehensive Plan, in turn, depends upon appropriate e ;oning laws; and the proposed changes in the zoning laws now the PI. ing and ZOning Commission is a important means of trans] the visl. of the Comprehensive Plan into an operative reality. I have studied the pro] of the and Zoning staff and have considered various ob- ions to those als. In my opinion, the staff response to those ob' ~ctions has been measure and thoughtful, including making suggested ch~ es when sufficient ~ were given for doing so and including care explanation of the for its proposals. In particular, I considered the concerns ~ssed by developers and by the advocate of "affordable housing." It is clear that the staff's proposi s are designed to achieve a balance ~f the interests of development, ~ housing, and the wide range individual residents of Iowa City It is very clear that only the staff concerned with furthering interests of all of these groups and the staff has an interest legal responsibility in preserving the lone viability of residentia neighborhoods. It is very clear that this ~re~ervati°n will not occur gh the unregulated pursuit of self-interest. / I think the Planning and Zoning staff has offered a set of proposals that ! go very far in meeting the interests of developers and. the needs for affordable housing while providing some protection for the quality of living in residential neighborhoods that makes Iowa City a special place. Respectfully submitted, William G. Buss 718 S. Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 351 3309 *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** .*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** Page. 1 of 2 Marian Kart From: Buss, William (3 [william-buss@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:08 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Zoning Law Changes Marian Karr, I am both pasting here and attaching my letter to the City Council. Thank you for your patient advice. William Buss October 4, 2005 To the Mayor and City Council of the City of Iowa City The letter set out below was sent to you and the Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission in July of this year at the time the matter (proposed changes in zoning laws) was pending before the Planning and Zoning Commission. This letter continues to state my position and my supporting reasons. Specifically, (1) the quality of residential housing and neighborhoods is extremely important and easily degraded without diligent attention, (2) the staff of the Planning and Zoning Commission has been thorough and balanced in its proposals and responses to various submissions, (3) residential quality in Iowa City will soon be lost if reliance is placed on the self-interest of the free market, evidence of which is all around us. I urge you to support and adopt the proposed changes to the Zoning laws. Respectfully submitted, William G Buss 718 S. Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 351 3309 July 21, 2005 To the Mayor and City Council of the City of Iowa City and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed changes in the zoning laws now pending before the Planning and Zoning Commission deserve the support of the Commission and the eventual support of the City Council. 10/4/2005 Page 2 of 2 I am writing as a long-time resident of Iowa City. One of the most important features of Iowa City is the quality of its residential housing and, especially, its residential neighborhoods. This is an aspect of the City that requires constant protection. It is a quality long in forming, easily undermined, and very difficult to recreate. A glance around the City reveals the many places where residential housing has been degraded and the many places where it has been preserved; and the difference between degradation and preservation makes a dramatically different city. The Comprehensive Plan, representing substantial public input, is an important means of maintaining stability. The Comprehensive Plan, in turn, depends upon appropriate enforceable zoning laws; and the proposed changes in the zoning laws now before the Planning and Zoning Commission is an important means of translating the vision of the Comprehensive Plan into an operative reality. I have studied the proposals of the Planning and Zoning staff and have considered various objections to those proposals. In my opinion, the staff response to those objections has been measured and thoughtful, including making suggested changes when sufficient reasons were given for doing so and including careful explanation of the reasons for its own proposals. In particular, I have considered the concerns expressed by developers and by the advocates of "affordable housing." It is very clear that the staff's proposals are designed to achieve a balance of the interests of development, affordable housing, and the wide range of individual residents of Iowa City.. It is very clear that only the staff is concerned with furthering the interests of all of these groups and only the staff has an interest and legal responsibility in preserving the long-term viability of residential neighborhoods. It is very clear that this preservation will not occur through the unregulated pursuit of self-interest. I think the Planning and Zoning staff has offered a set of proposals that go very far in meeting the interests of developers and the needs for affordable housing while providing some protection for the quality of living in residential neighborhoods that makes Iowa City a special place. Respectfully submitted, William G. Buss 718 S. Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 351 3309 eSafe scanned this email for malicious content IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders 10~/2005 EMMA GOLDMAN CLINIC Women's Health Project (319) 337-2112 227 N. Dubuque Street FAX (319) 337-2754 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 emmagoldman@avalon.net kubby~pobox.com Iowa City Plamfing and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52245 June 27, 2005 Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, As I cannot appear at the public hearing tonight, I wanted to pass on a thought about one section of the proposed new zoning ordinance. The topic is nonconforming use in section 14-4E-5E, Damage or Destruction, on page 221 of the draft. This issue is of great importance to the Emma Goldman Clinic, as the organization owns property in the PRM zone and is considered a commercial enterprise under the zoning ordinance. Current regulations indicate that if there should be damage that is less than 100% of the assessed value, we could rebuild as a commercial enterprise at our current location. The new regulations reduce the amount to damage that is less than 70%. I understand that very few zoning ordinances across the country use the 100% figure. Most are in the 50-75% range. I would like to propose that Iowa City be at the 75% level. This 5% differential could make the difference for us as to whether or not we could rebuild as a long standing community health care facility at this location. I understand that it is not good public policy to create an ordinance or ordinance change for one entity. The 75% is still within the range of best practices nationally and we therefore request that this particular figure be changed in the proposed zoning changes forwarded to the City Council. In peace, Karen Kubby Executive Director Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: GTROUTl(~aol.com Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:30 AM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org ~ubject: zonlng As a long-time resident of Iowa City (Since 1954) and as one of the "Thousand Friends of Iowa" I am hoping that in the updating of Iowa City's zoning regulations you will support those regulations which will work towards the following: a wide variety of housing, including Iow-income, mixed-use buildings (housing with commercial thus creating viable neighborhoods); and adequate public transportation for access to hospitals, churches, the university and other schools,etc. Sincerely yours, Elizabeth Forell 1002 Marcy Street 6/27/2005 To: Karen Howard, Planning From: Mark McCallum 8] 1 East College Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Cell 430-1.461' e-mail mccallum mark@hotmail.com Re: Chapter 2, Article B, Multi-Family Residential. Zones (14-2B) Section 5: Maximum Occupancy for Household Living Uses- City Proposal to reduces Occupancy by One unrelated person in the RR-I., RS-12, RNS-I 2, lLMq2, R/O, RNS-20, RM20, and C0-! Zones. On page 5 of the Reviewer Guide planning outlines all file perceived ills it plans to cure by reducing the number of occupant allowed by one in a majority of the multifarnily ' zones. The problem witl~ the em'rent occupm~ey model is not the total maximum density stated in each zone - the problem with the current model ( and the proposed model) is that it does not make a distinction between 1 bedroom or (4 & 5) bedroom ttnits in calculated number of unrelated people living in an apartment unit. The focus is on tile total number of apartment units per calculated area of lm~d mass ..... when it should, be on the number of bedrooms or actual occupants per area of lm~d mass. I proposed the following model for your review, it uses my building in the cmtent RNC- 20 zoning classification as a case study. The following model assumes curt'cut parking requirements for multifamily buildings stay the same. Proposed. RNC-20(RNS-20) Density Model Case Study 811 East College Street, Iowa City Iowa Current Zoning makes no distinct/ou bet~veen 1 and 5 bedroom apartment units, tt ouly allows l apartment unit for each 1,800 sq. feet of tot area. This encore'ages laud.lords to tear down older historic structm'e for newer buildings that maximize zorLing density. The current zoning model caters only to a" Undergraduate College Student" market place and punishes property owners tt~at want to develop smaller more affordable apartment dwellings for ollaer demographic groups. Single Urban Professionals, Grad Students, the Elderly and Disabled are not likely to seek housing in. file mix of newer 4/5 bedroom apartmen.t buildings that are being built in the cen.trat campus area at this time. By make a distinction in the zoning law between the nun~ber of bedrooms in each unit and the number of units allowed for each unit mix will encourage property developers to utilize exJsth~g housing stock in lieu o:f tearing do~v~ historic structures to maximize zoning density 'and when redevelopment does occur it will encourage development of properties with a broader mix of units attracting a broader mix of tenants. ' 8 i 1 East College Street - Case Study Lot Area 23,630 Square Feet I .Current Zoning A. Cut'rent Mix (- 4 2 bedroom units, 9 efficiency/one bedroom units (17 Bedrooms total) Currently there are 18 tenants including an owner occupied landlord. B. 1.3- 5 bedroom units would be allowed, for an occupancy load of up to 65 people. (*This i.s wlmt the current zoning ordinance is encouraging me to redevelop my property to) C. Fraternity/Sorority Usage (1. person per 545 sq. ft of lot area) would allow occupancy of 43 individuals. D. Transiem Housing (1 person per 200 sq. feet of lot area.) would allow occupancy of 118 people. II. A Proposed Zoning Model would allow a distinctio~ between lot area m~d size of apmm~ent unit ....allowing for a broader and more diverse mix of apamnent sizes. See table A. below: Page 1 of 2 Karen Howard From: Karen Howard Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:37 PM To: 'mccallum_mark@hotmail.com' Cc: Bob Miklo Subject: Zoning Code - occupancy limits Mr. McCallum, Thank you for the fax regarding changes proposed for the Iowa City Zoning Code. Yes, you are correct. It is often not the number of apartment units on a property, but the total number occupants that can create a problem. You also correctly observe that apartments with large numbers of bedrooms are more attractive to students than to singles or families. However, I think that you perhaps do not understand what it is we are proposing to change in the new ordinance. There are several means that are used within both the current and the proposed ordinance to regulate residential density and occupancy: 1. Number of dwelling units per a specified amount of lot area (density); 2. Number of occupants per dwelling unit (maximum occupancy); 3. Lot coverage and building height regulations; 4. Parking requirements. In your memo, you incorrectly equate residential occupancy standards with the number of dwelling units per unit of lot area. The changes discussed on pages 5 & 6 of the Reviewer's Guide are those proposed to the residential occupancy standards and are unrelated to the underlying residential density allowed in any particular zone. For example, in the current code the maximum residential density in the RNC-20 Zone is 1 dwelling unit per 1800 square feet; the occupancy per dwelling unit is limited to a family or up to 5 unrelated persons. In the proposed Code, the number of unrelated persons that are allowed in each dwelling unit is reduced by one in a number of zones, the RNC-20 zone included, thus reducing the incentive to build apartments with a large number of bedrooms. However, the number of apartment units per square foot of lot area is unchanged. You give the example of the RNC-20 Zone, which currently allows up to 5 unrelated persons per dwelling unit. In the proposed code, the maximum occupancy would be reduced by one (for unrelated persons, e.g. students). Since a single apartment could only be rented to 4 unrelated persons, instead of five, there will no longer be any incentive to build 5-bedroom units in this zone. This change will also affect the maximum residential occupancy on the property. For instance, on a 20,000 square foot lot, the maximum density is 1 dwelling unit per 1800 square feet or 11 apartments. Currently, up to 5 unrelated persons can reside in each of those apartments, thus the maximum occupancy for the property is 55 persons. In the proposed Code, the maximum occupancy is reduced by 1 person per dwelling unit, thus reducing the maximum occupancy for the property to 44 persons. It is the same concept in the other zones mentioned (in some zones the change is from 5 to 4 unrelated persons, in others it is from 4 to 3 unrelated persons.) The maximum occupancy, residential density, and mix of apartment sizes will also be influenced by the ability to provide the required number of parking spaces and meet the lot coverage and building height standards. 6/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 As you mention another method to control occupancy and the mix of apartment sizes would be a system that related size of the apartments (# of bedrooms) to the lot area. It is an interesting idea and one that has been tossed around in discussions over the years. However, the difficulty is that implementing such a system at this point would create a large number of nonconforming properties, which would be politically and practically undesirable. As stated in the Reviewer's Guide, existing dwelling units will have the maximum number of occupants recorded on the rental permit and so can be easily be grandfathered at that level and tracked over time, even if changes are made to occupancy standards in the new zoning code. Regulating residential density and controlling over-occupancy and associated nuisance issues are difficult problems to solve in any college town. I don't think that anyone on city staff or on the Planning and Zoning Commission believes that reducing the maximum occupancy will "cure all these ills." However, it is just one of a number of approaches that was recommended by the citizen taskforce charged with resolving such issues. Thank you again for taking the time to review and comment on the proposed changes to the zoning code. Would you like me to forward your suggestion to the Planning and Zoning Commission? Regards, Karen Howard 6/27/2005 To: Karen Howard, Planning Dept From: Mark McCallum ~ mccallum mark~hotmail.com Re: Handicap Rental Housing Analysis - We should consider creating zoning incentives for smaller handicap accessible rental units in our multifamily zones. Handicap Rental Housing Analysis- College Street Sample *From rental permits listed on city website- 303 rental units with in 1 mile of Downtown (Clinton Street to Muscatine Avenue ) 1. One Bedroom Units Available ( One Unit) ( John and Danette Raley ~ 730 College Street. 2. Two Bedroom Units ( 4 Units Available ) 3. Three. Bedroom Units (5 Units Available ) 4. Four Bedroom Units ( 6 Units Available ) 5. Five Bedroom Units (10 Units Available ) Handicap Units as a percentage of the market sample A. Total Handicap Units represent .085 % of this market sample B. Five Bedroom Units represent .033% of this market sample C. Four Bedroom Units represent .019% of this market sample D. Three Bedroom Units represent .016% of this market sample E. Two Bedroom Units represent .013% of this market sample F. One Bedroom Units represent .003% of this market sample ??????? Thru incentive zoning models [br Handicap units and making an incremental distinction between 1,2,3,4 and 5 bedroom units - could we increase the number of smaller Handicap units available in our urban ( Multifamily ) zones. · Zoning Code Public Rewew Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments, to the C~ommission. Name /~Z"~" /~' "" //~ ~L~';~'''~[t ~ ~ ~'~ -~,.J email: Mailing address: ZIP code: Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion Osuggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page# Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~iowa-city, org ppdadm/Zoning Code Comments.indd Mark McCallum 811 East College Street CD Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Cell 319-430-1461 C'.~ October 5, 2005 Dear City Council Members: ,-- I am writing you today to express my disappointment with the new zoning code rewrite and hearing process. During the public hearing process before planning and zoning, I proposed several changes to the code rewrite based on "Smart Growth" principles advocated by the EPA. One of the proposals was to offer a "density" bonus for accessible apartments that have smaller numbers of bedrooms in the multifamily zones. I demonstrated the need for this change by providing planning staff with an analysis of over three hundred rental permits on College Street. This information was obtained from the Housing/Inspections Services website on the internet. Of the 303 rental permits on College Street, only one accessible unit was available as a one bedroom unit. Accessible units in new buildings on College Street that have been built since the adoption the ADA guidelines have been primarily built out as 3 or more bedroom units. Most of them as five bedroom units. I am not an expert in this area .... but I am guessing that those persons seeking accessible housing are not looking for a five bedroom unit with a monthly rent of over two thousand dollars. At the public hearing on August 1 gth, 2005, when this proposal was reviewed, there was no comment or discussion on the merits of this proposal from zoning commissioners, only an assertion of the obvious from planning staff that current ADA regulations require accessible units on the main floor of new buildings. There was no acknowledgement of the issue I presented to them. We deserve better from Our zoning commission and our planning staff. Today, I am asking that you put this on your agenda and instruct planning staff to include this prot~sal into the ne~zoning code rewrite. Perspective When it comes to new zoning code, officials should Think outside the box By Mark McCailum C alls for sensible, for- ward-tiffnking zon- ing and appropriate models to achieve such goals will be the item of tile (lay for membem of the plmnmig and zoning com- ndssion wtdle they revise recommendations made by planning shxff in Mmx:h. Simply put, the need for a "Smart Growth" approach for the Zoning Code Rewrite should be priority one. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Smm~ Growth ini- tiatives identify the rela- tionship between develop- ment patterns ,and qualily of life by hnplementing new policies and practices and promoting better lions- lng, transportation, eco- nondc development and preservation of environ- mental quality. Furthermore, the EPA's l0 guidelines for Snmrt Growth: 1. Mixed land uses. ~(Take l~tvanmge of compact building desig~l. 3. Create housing oppor- tunities and choices for a range of household types, family sizes trod incomes. 4. Create walkable neighborhoods. 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natm*al beauty aJid critical environmental areas. 7. Reinvest in and s~rengthen existing commu- nities and achieve more bal- anced regional development. S. Provide a vm'iety of transpmlation choices. 9. Make development decisions prediclaDle, lmr and cost-effective. 10. Encourage citizen mid stal<eholder pm~icipation in development decisions, meet the need for one- or Peninsula Project. If adopt- resnlted hi an imbalance in In short, the zoning code two-bedroom accessible ~ ed this plan weald bring in the market place mLx. coukl be a tool to encour- units. By not offering "den- a more diverse range of For tiffs reason, I mn age ,all of the thhlgs om' sity bonuses" for ~mcessihle commtmi .W values. With antis, the zoning code ,als() M~llum households anti tinnily sizes advocating a proposal that . to the ~ea. would make a distraction in that in mind, I have made failed people wifl~out dis- the zoning code for the the following recommends- abilities and residents, an~ount of land required for lions to the planning and Offering a density bonus Plan to encourage each type of residential zoning conunission: iii our niultffamily zones for rental housing diversity units be it one-, two-, smaller one- el two-bed- ii)cased on incentives f,)r · A nnfltifanfily zoning three-, four- or fiv~bed- Incenth, es for downtown room handicapped units prupe~ ownem. I fom~d 1)lan that will encourage room units. Tkis will handicap access housing will encourage hmdlords to such a model in Des housing diversity in om* encourage developers to increase the diversity and Moines. It allows for mi xed- rental housing markeks, create housing oppommi- · Use incentive zoning nun~her of accessihte mitts use, owner occupied zoning As we all lalow, Iowa ties and choices for a wide to increase the amount of close to campus and the in all of the city's historic City is co~ksidered a hot range of households, family handicap accessible hous- downtown arcs. districts. I have put forth a rental market, ,'md for that sizes and incomes. ing close to conunuuity proposal that would alh)w reason developers pay a I trust plamxing staff will services or the downtown Allow mixed uses for this in our maltifamily high price to redevelop not rush the adoption of the area. zones, wltich have either a property and land close to new code tmtil it has been On the city govenmlent historic neighborhoods historic district or co~ts~r- and in tile do~mtown area. fitly digested by the citi- Web site, one can search · Allowing ownel~occu- vation dislrict overlay on Tkis property is priced zerks of Iowa City. I look to renlal permits. ()ne item on pied mixed uses to help them. Specifically, the n ml- according to the number of our mlmicipal plannem to the database is the number encourage preservation of tifanffly zones of College bedrooms that can be built have the vision necessm'y of acce~sihle ttrfits on each our urban hislofic neigh- Green Historic District, the oz' developed on each sile. to meld the concerns of property. I searched for borhoods. College ttill and Governor- konically, both the existing today's residents with the accessible property on ,ks a mend)er of the Lucas streets Co~kservat ion and the I)roI)osed codes do needs of our future. College Street to see. how Historic Preservation Districts. An analysis of this not talin tiffs into account. If you would like a copy many traits were available. (~omn~ission, I witnessed area will fred an over- Both codes focus on the of these specific proposals, ()f 303 rental units o~tly 2(3 the failure of [we presem~- whelming percentage of number of residential units please send me an e-mall. I were acce~ihle. Of that lion initiatiw,s this past rental properties, that can be built or devel- will send them to you. Mark McCallum is former mix, only one unit was for a yem; In both situations tile My proposal would sim- oped on a parcel of land owner of the Brown Street lan one bedroom. Preservation Connnission ply encourage creative peo- without making a distinc- and now owns the Historic Brick Approximately 62 new worked diligently to ple, small-business ownem tion in the zoning (:ode apartments in 10wa City. He units were butt in the 300 remove cunccrus of proper- and professionals to locate between a one- hedroom or works in real estate sales for block of College Street in ty owners who were prima- in these neighborhoods and a form or five- bedroom 10wa Rea~ In C0rolville and is 1[)97. These units were built rily landlords att(1 small- create their own "lAve unit. the College Green representative mostly as fern= or five-bed- business people. Work model." It would be For this reason, new for the flistofic Preservation room units. While develop- After tiffs, J~ was con- yew sinfilar to what the development near the Commission. McCallum can be ers met the requirements of vinced om* preservation Planning Departlnent has downtown area is generally reached at mccallum_mark@hot- the ADA law, they failed to model needcd to be more been advocating for the maxed out, and this has mall.com. To: Karen Howard From: Mark McCallum ~ mccallum mark(~_,hotmail.com Re: Handicap Rental Housing Analysis - We should consider creating zoning incentives for smaller handicap accessible rental units in our multifamily zones. Handicap Rental Housing Analysis- College Street Sample *From rental permits listed on city website- 303 rental units with in 1 mile of Downtown (Clinton Street to Muscatine Avenue ) 1. One Bedroom Units Available ( One Unit) ( John and Danette Raley ~ 730 College Street. 2. Two Bedroom Units ( 4 Units Available ) 3. Three Bedroom Units (5 Units Available ) 4. Four Bedroom Units ( 6 Units Available ) 5. Five Bedroom Units (10 Units Available ) Handicap Units as a percentage of the market sample A. Total Handicap Units. represent .085 % of this market sample rr~ '-v !-T'] B. Five Bedroom Units represent .033% of this market sample C. Four Bedroom Units represent .019% of this market sample D. Three Bedroom Units represent .016% of this market sample 4:-- E. Two Bedroom Units represent .013% of this market sample F. One Bedroom Units represent .003% of this market sample ??????? Thru incentive zoning models for Handicap units and making an incremental distinction between 1,2,3,4 and 5 bedroom units - could we increase the number of smaller Handicap units available in our urban ( Multifamily ) zones. · Zoning Code Public Rewew Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name Mailing address: T~IS ISA: Oquestion ~su~estion ~comment Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppdadrn/Zoning Code Comments.lndd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Plannin§ and Zonin§ Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the ZonJn§ Code, Please use ~his form ~o relay comments ~o ~he Commission, THIS ISA: Oquesdon Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Secdon/Page~__ ~' -~, "c-c ...... ~ ( ~c~.~~ ~1~~ ~i~c~o ~ .~ ~., ~..,/,. /.. '' ~ s[,~C~ c,~-~ C,~~-~ oF _)c,~,cr~,~yc~ r ~' '~ . Ii .~,,~ ,~ b,z,a~ ~ib~~c;~ . u~y - .1 , / ~, /Ccc~ ~ X ~,~u ~ ,¥F~' ) t ~ .Z/ . / , /_~ ~,~.;~ 21{(('d' r · - 6~ ~ .... ' ~ ~ O~ ~'o~- - ~ , -- .. ()iVu~'~ ~,b c~~ '~ ~'.-, ~ I 'l .,x,~,f b'~,., ~ ,~o,° tZt.C OR email: karen.howard~iowa-city, or~ ppd~.dr~'7..~nI Code Comment~Jp. dd Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: Karen Howard Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:59 AM To: 'kiara kriener' Subject: RE: proposed revisions in zoning code Kiara, Thank you for sending your comments. I will forward your message to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Central Business Support Zone (CB-5 Zone) is a mixed use, higher intensity commercial zone located in the general vicinity of downtown Iowa City. -Karen From: kiara kriener [mailto:kkriener@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1l:05 PH To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org Subject: proposed revisions in zoning code Karen: I would like to express my support for the the proposed revision #23 to change the community service- shelter to a special exception in the CI-1 zone. I am also curious as to what the CB-5 zone is, and where it is located in Iowa City. Thanks, Kiara Kfiener 6/27/2005 Karen Howard From: diannerash@mchsi.com Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:29 PM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org Subject: FW: planning and zoning (please dicard previous e-mail) Dear Ms. Howard, I received your name from with my water bill for input to planning and zoning. I would like to take this opportunity to share my concerns with this. I live on the west side of Iowa City in a moderate priced single dwelling neighborhood. Over the last ten years, I have seen a lot of changes on the west side. Most of the area around us has been developed with dense housing. When this has happening close to out home, my husband and I went to several Council meeting and shared our concerns. The council often spoke of a "variety of housing" and "affordable housing." This was in reference to some zero-lot line houses built close to us. Our concern was this would be used for rental student housing. The council kept referring to affordable housing for first time buyers. These zero lot houses have been rented by students. We see rental (not for sale) signs in front. Every summer, there is a lot of trash by the curb when the leases turn over. Often this trash will sit by the curb for a few days before trash and there is often more than 2 bags, thus it sits there afterwards. The driveways (and front yards) have vehicles parked over the sidewalks. (First time family buyers do not have 4 to 5 cars.) There is often an overflow of cars that gets backed up into the residential neighborhood creating more traffic and less visibilty. There are several neighborhoods that have no diversity of housing. Walden Ridge, Galaxy Hills and Windsor Ridge (on the east side). In addition, to the west of Highway 218. There is no diversity in housing as these "neighborhoods", all have restrictive covenants that make it impossible to have a house less than $250,000. The attitude of the city government seems such that "diversity in housing" doesn't apply to "rich" neighborhoods. I find this practice unfair. Thank you for taking my comments. Sincerely, Dianne Rash · Zoning Code Public Rewew Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~'V:g,~IA .~ ~-~..~_L___ ,~ ~IL/~ [~q~;~ email: 5~~~.c~ Mailing address: ~ ~[ ~,~-~ I.~. ZIPcode: ~ gg~ Phone number: ~ff' ~. ~~ THIS ISA: Oquestion Osugestion ~omment REGARDING Section/Page~ ~, 2~ ~c~ 7 Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Communi~ Development, 410 E.Washingon St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~iowo-ci'~.org ppdadm/ZonJn8 Code Cornments. indd CITY OF I0 WA CITY MEMO TO: Karen Howard _ FROM: Julie Tallman~'"~,~ DATE: '19 May 2005 '~J_~Z_~.._~?~.- RI:: Larry $¢hnittjer's response to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance Jann shared Larry's assessment of the short¢omin§s in the SAC relative to wetlands and slopes with me. I don't want to enga§e in a dialogue with Larry about these issues but I did want to share with you my opinions regarding the issue of wetland mitigation, and wet[and buffers around constructed or altered wetands. I disagree with Larry's statement that the SAO's use of the word "mitigation" is in conflict with Oorps terminology and the language used by other wetland specialists. There is recognition among professionals working in the field of resource preservation that the word "mitic~ation" is troublesome because of a widespread assumption that "mitigation" means "compensation". Mitigation should be understood as a process that leads to an outcome. Gonfusion understandably arises when the word "mitigation" is used fluidly to describe both a process and an outcome. Guidance from the Oorps/OOE outlines five steps of their permit application review that are related to mitigation. The steps are described intentionally in this order: avoiding; minimizing; rectifying; reducing; or compensating for losses. A guidance letter issued by the GOE in '1985 (RGL 85-8) clarifies this process in paragraph 4., "Glarification of Mitigation Process". In this guidance, the five steps are explained to guide the GOE district engineer in deciding the degree of mitigation requirements. · The first degree of mitigation is avoiding losses. The measures that will be taken on-site to avoid losses become part of the permit issued by the GOE. · The second degree of mitigation is minimizing impacts by placing limits on the permitted action and its implimentation. · The third degree of mitigation is correcting negative impacts through repair, rehabilitation or restoration of the affected environment. · The fourth degree of mitigation is not as obvious to me, but my reading is that a permit issued under these conditions will include designs to preserve or maintain habitat during the life of a project. · And the final degree of mitigation is the actual compensation [orlosses that occur during the implementation of any of the preceding four degrees of mitigation. Glearly, the first degree of mitigation assumes no impact. Progressive degrees assume an increasing impact and it is during design of the fifth stage of mitigation that off-site compensation might be approved. I think the solution to this is to include a workable definition of the concept of "mitigation" within the SAO. The definition can be written to mirror the intent of the COE, and perhaps even educate readers of the ordinance - and designers - about the process of mitigation as opposed to the outcome of compensation. Next, I disagree that buffer requirements should be modified for constructed or altered wetlands. Consider that a constructed wetland might be the result of an approved mitigation plan, where the constructed wetland is substituting functions and values for a wetland that was previously filled. From a pragmatic standpoint, why would a constructed wetland that provides benefits for flood control and water quality be less worthy of protection than a natural wetland that provides the same benefits? Recently, we reviewed a subdivision plat where a wetland area was identified but it was determined by the COE that the wetland would not be considered jurisdictional because it had formed around a sewage lagoon. (I think John Yapp staffed the subdivision platting; he may remember which subdivision I'm recalling). My recollection is that the wetland had the hydrology, vegetation, soils, and connection to a navigable waterway but because it was arguably not a natural feature, the COE declined to call it jurisdictional. I wonder if this is the type of situation Larry is concerned about and, if it is, then I am reassured that the COE staff are capable of distinguishing between an ersatz wetland that originates out of manipulated circumstances and one that is a natural feature of the landscape (or a legitimately reconstructed feature to replace something of value that was previously lost from the landscape). Thanks for your consideration of these responses to Larry's criticism; let me know if you want to talk more about this. Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~,/ ~-'~;//~/7~ct_ ~/'c~ ~.% ~ email: ~ov~,~J'(~o/, C ZIP code: ~.5 ~ Mailing address: ?/~_<j ~z:'~ 5--// Phone number: _ . ~7~z o-~h . THIS ISA: Oquestion Osuggestion x~comment REGARDING Section/Page # ~,~p ~; ~a' ,',or,'~c~,,~. p-~ ,.., ~,..o¢//,',--~ This is a comment in support of the draft. We are 25 - year residents of central Iowa City, first in the Northside and now in Goosetown. We also own a commercial office property at 3~9 Bloomington in a block that is under consideration for rezoning from CB2 to RO. We appreciate the enormous amount of work and consideration that this draft represents and are in agreement with the goals specified in chapter one. The revisions appear to support neighborhood preservation, multi-use neighborhoods, affordable housing, and conservation of natural and historic resources. The sections of the code that relate to central Iowa City focus on supporting a diverse and vibrant small urban environment. We are in agreement with this philosophy and a code that supports making the philosophy real. One specific change that is welcome is the reduction in number of unrelated individuals that can occupy a dwelling. This change is very helpful in encouraging a mix of owner-occupied and rental properties in older neighborhoods. Maintaining that mix and controlling occupancy of rental property is essential to protecting property values. We urge you to stand firm with this revision. Certainly some proposed revisions come at a cost to developers and landlords. Attending the public comment session on April 28 made it clear that developers and city staff are the two groups most knowledgeable about the specific detail of the code. Undoubtedly some of the revisions suggested by developers are reasonable and should be accommodated. However, it is also clear that in general the development community favors as little regulation as possible. Citizens not involved in the building trades will likely not comment on the code with the same level of specificity. As you consider proposed revisions to the draft we hope you will stand firm on achieving the stated goals of the revision. This is an opportunity for our city government to provide leadership in shaping what kind of community we will have in twenty years and beyond. Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410/E/.Waghington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~iowa-city, org ppdadm/Zoning Code Comments,indd Karen Howard r~(,' "' ! From: Tim Weitzel and Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:05 PM To: Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org Cc: willt@aol.corn; willandkurni@rnchsi.corn; wilkrna201@aol.corn; Wendy- Robertson@uiowa,edu; trefz@avalon.net; tirnwendy@avalon.net; teresa- rnangum@uiowa.edu; shellrnac@att.net; sarah-andrews@uiowa.edu; rudolf- kuenzli@uiowa.edu; rrnpersaud@hotrnail.corn; rita_minchk@yahoo.corn; rexford- strottrnan@uiowa.edu; paula-balkenende@uiowa.edu; pam@lastingpiece.com; rnwrnk@avalon.net; rnrnaharry@yahoo.corn; michele507@mchsi.corn; rngunn@wl.k12.ia.us; mcfelling@mcleodusa.net; rnarianne-mason@uiowa.edu; marguerite-rniller@uiowa.edu; lynda.leidiger@act.org; liz-crooks@uiowa.edu; john-cordell@uiowa.edu; jill-srnith@uiowa.edu; jhayes@hlplc.com; jeffry-schabilion@uiowa.edu; james-enloe@uiowa.edu; idea@rnchsi.com; idea@iowadsl.net; hlauritz@icpl.org; harrison@inav.net; grace-katzenrneyer@uiowa.edu; glenn-ehi'stine@uiowa.edu; gfessen@yahoo.corn; emily_c_carter@hotrnail.corn; elmomc2 @yahoo.corn; DellHolland@aol.corn; daywear@rnsn.corn; czshaw@aol.com; carterpatton@rnchsi.corn; bsoglin@earthlink.net; awitte@cr.k12.ia.us; wendyzirnrnerrnann@yahoo.com; rlehman1231 @rnchsh.corn; lance-rniller@uiowa.edu; seth- zirnrnerrnann@uiowa,edu; joyce.thornas@rnercyic.org; Sondra48@aol.com Subject: Code Review Comments from LNA Accesso~Apa~menDevelopmen~ode. ~.doc doc Karen, Please find two attached letters of comment for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The signatories include only those who specifically expressed support for the specific letter in which they are included. I have encouraged each recipient of the neighborhood e-mail list to write their own letter if they so chose and hope they will continue to consider this option. Sincerely, Tim Weitzel, President Longfellow Neighborhood Association *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** April 27, 2005 Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Karen Howard Planning and Community Development, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 522340 The residents and members of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association would like to offer its support for the Planning and Zoning Commission's efforts to draft a code that allows a variety of housing options as well as makes efforts to promote quality neighborhoods. Many of us attended the Visual Preference Survey, and we agree with the results that smaller lots and increased density of housing is something the community will accept if attention is paid to the quality of the resulting streetscape. For higher density to work care must be taken to provide sufficient green space and to avoid paved front yards. When the residential aspects of individual homes are emphasized - the community puts its best face forward rather than turning its back to the public street. Unfortunately this is something that is often lacking in some of our newer neighborhoods. We want to live in a city that does not follow the typical sprawl model, but one where traffic is less congested, where we have multiple options for work, play, and where we make our home. We want alternative transportation, attractive viewscapes, and affordable housing to be a reality for all of Iowa City. Many of the provisions of the Development Code will allow our community to pursue these smart growth goals. In particular, we support: · Standards to make smaller lot and higher density development respect the residential quality of our neighborhoods; · The Good Neighbor Notification Policy; · The new occupancy standards and the adoption ora specific definition for the term "household." Sincerely, Longfellow Neighborhood Association and its several residents including: Tim Weitzel, 523 Grant Street Jeannette Carter, 424 Oakland Avenue Adam Witte 825 Rundell Street Marianne Mason, 640 South Lucas Street Jeannette Carter, 424 Oakland Avenue Mike Wright, 815 Roosevelt Jeff Schabilion, 431 Rundell Street Marianne Wilkening, 812 Longfellow Court Chuck Felling, 845 South 7th Avenue Margaret Felling, 845 South 7th Avenue Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Sumnfit Street Lynda Liedegar, 624 Grant Street Jim Enloe, 1106 East College Street Jim Hayes, 1142 Court Street April 27, 2005 Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Karen Howard Planning and Community Development, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 522340 We the undersigned would like to comment on the proposed new zoning ordinance and how it would potentially affect quality of life issues for the older residential neighborhoods in Iowa City. We feel the allowance for accessory apartments in RS-5 and RS-8 zones is not a good idea and should be removed as a general provision from the proposed new zoning code. The proposed new zoning code provided for the allowance for apartments in accessory structures in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones. The property must be owner-occupied and there must be off- strcct parking for the homeowner and the tenant. These apartments are limited to one bedroom, must be served by a kitchen and bathroo~n, and are limited in their maximum size. However, this means many garages and other outbuildings can be converted to an apartment provided it meets the code. More likely, and more damaging to the neighborhood would be existing historic structures would be tom down to accommodate an apartment. We are opposed to this provision. While we would accept the allowance for any currently extant apartments or new apartments in existing carriage houses and other large historic structures is fine as an exception, we feel this should not become the rule. In evoking this proposal many idealized examples have been ci.ted in allowing large carriage houses that are mostly empty right now to house a single bedroom apartment. Again while this is fine, allowing any property to build an accessory apartment suggests the planning department is in fact asking to increase the density in the near south east side of town. This was echoed in the opinion of one member of the P&Z commission at a Neighborhood Council Meeting last year. Staff has asserted that accessory apartments would not likely become a nuisance due to the provisions that the property be owner-occupied. However, it is known that allegedly owner-occupied homes are in fact, already subject to sub-leasing in our neighborhood pointing out that provisions for apartrnent and housing rentals are not equally enforced. There is the potential for apartments to line the alleys effectively creating a second street through the middle of those blocks that have alleys, which is common in our neighborhood. Extreme though this may sound, this process of review and adoption of a new zoning code is the single best opportunity to predict where certain planning decisions may lead and to forestall potentially negative impacts on the quality of life in our established neighborhoods. The city does not maintain alleys other than perhaps grading it a little as much as one time per year. The city does not plow the alleys unless the residents pay for it to be paved. In many alleys, paving is not possible due to the fact that landowners have been allowed to build fences out into the ally right-of-way making passage of two cars at a time impossible. A single car or utility van can effectively block passage through an alley for the length of time it is parked in that alley. Additional residents along any given alley will only make this problem worse. The density of our neighborhood as it is currently occupied and used has been suggested as the model of efficiency--in terms of lot width and depth, and size of house--in the provisions of the proposed new zoning code. Ironically, this density would likely increase substantially under the proposed ordinance. Traffic, noise, garbage collection, recycling, will all increase as will surface runoff and demands on the city sewer, an issue that has been highly problematic in the past. As a finale note, it should be made clear that we are not opposed to tenants or housing rentals in general nor do we disagree with the main body of the proposed zoning code revisions. Some of the undersigned own and manage rental housing within the neighborhood; others have vocally supported the theory behind many of the provisions in the proposed zoning code. However, the issue of preservation of the existing look and feel of the established neighborhoods and concern for increased nuisances due to an excessive number of alley-accessed apartments raises a host of civil and criminal and issues which will be difficult to enforce. Enforcement of any code violations already represents a burden on adjacent occupants and potential strain in relations between neighbors. Please reconsider the allowance of accessory apartments in RS-5 and RS-8 zones as a general rule. Possible provisions to allow for exceptions may include setting a requirement for a minimum lot size, such as the several properties enjoy along Summit and Governor Streets or the occurrence of unique circumstances--such as the location of the subject lot adjacent to an open field, such as historic Schrader Field at Longfellow School, or along the Iowa Interstate Railway. Sincerely, ~ongflellow Neighborhood Association a,d its several residents including: Michael Maharry, 903 East College Street Tim Weitzel, 523 Grant Street Jim Enloe, 1106 East College Street Jeannette Carter, 424 Oakland Avenue Sarah E. Andrews, 832 Rundell Street Candice Smith 825 Rundell Street Rexford Strottman, 85 IDearbom Street Adam Witte 825 Rundell Street Jim Hayes, 1142 Court Street Marianne Mason, 640 South Lucas Street Grace Katzenmeyer, 607 Oakland Avenue Mike Wright, 815 Roosevelt Teresa Mangum, 1157 East Court Street Jeff Schabilion, 431 Rundell Street Corey Creekmur, 1157 East Court Street Elizabeth A. Crooks, 610 Clark Street Paula Balkenende, 817 Rundell Street Wendy Robertson 523 Grant Street Andrew Martin, 817 Rundell Street Lynda Liedegar, 624 Grant Street Seth Zimmerman, 1409 Sheridan Avenue April 27, 2005 Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Karen Howard Planning and Community Development, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 522340 First, let me state the Sensitive Areas Ordinance has been iii effect for over ten years now and is a landmark in local ordinance procedures. It should not be weakened at this time, and for the most part, it appears the proposed development code goes a long way to enhance the process of making this important body of local oversight efficient while keeping critical habitat, ecology, and cultural heritage at the forefront of its intent. There will be those who will attempt to water this body of procedure down, or do away with it altogether. Those individuals will also prove to be nearsighted in the fullness of time. Second, I want to comment that the code makes frequent use of the term "The State," as in"i~the- State deternfines archaeological work is necessary...". In some places the code does specify either State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) who is located at the State Historical Society of Iowa or the State Archaeologist located at the University of Iowa's Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA). In other locations it does not specify either but simply says "The State" which is ambiguous and leaves the potential for nfistakes, nfisunderstandings, and costly delays. Having worked at Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) I can easily see a situation, in fact I am sure this has already happened, wherein a well-intentioned member of City staff contacts the OSA, gets any random archaeologist on the phone, but not the State Archaeologist or Associate State Archaeologist, and asks a question. The well-intended archaeologist then gives an opinion which is then taken by the City as an official opinion, one that carries the weight of a determination. If I were to suggest a waT~ to clarity_ this issue, I would have the ordinance spell out what is the existing operational procedure--sifis~'-~-~n~n-e~t-~d~n~a~i~--}5i~-~-ighifican~e gO to SHSI, Burial ~,~ Burials Program, and items requiring an opinion of the Stat~ Archaeologist go to the State Archaeologist, who is Elizabeth Pauls, or the Associate State Archaeologist, Stephen Lensink, perhaps, but it should not be deferred to the contract divisions. The contract divisions at the OSA are essentially the same as all the other consultants, enjoying the privileges and responsibilities that all self- supporting contract firms have, so for the opinion to be fair, it should not come from them. Finally, I wanted to make it clear that in previous comments to staff regarding the Sensitive Areas Ordinance I noted problems with the treatment of archaeological sites. In particular, there seems to be little provision for the location of potentially eligible sites that are not yet recorded. In order to comply with the "~ Certified Local Government requirements, I think the code should make clear reference to the need to identify any potentially eligible archaeological site. Napoleon Park was not kno~vn to exist until it was struck by heavy equipment. It can not be know just what was lost due to that damage. Had a survey been conducted ahead of time, it would have saved the city multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars on that project as well as irreplaceable and invaluable information about our local, state, and national history. Sincerely, Tim Weitzel, Registered Professional Archaeologist Member Association of Iowa Archaeologists, Iowa Archeolgoical Society, and Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Mailing address: /0r~ ~. ~~ ~ ZIPcode: fZ~ Phone number: ~ 5~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ THIS ISA: Oquestion ~u~estion ~comment REGARDING Section/Page ff /~~ /~o~-O o ~ Io ~ / , ~ ...~/ d~~'~ ~x~ ' ~ ~ ,." -_ ~ ..... "o~' ~-+~'~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~io~a-city, org ppd~dm/Zoning Code Cornments.indd March 24, 2005 Robert Miklo, Senior Planner 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 Dear Mr. Milko: I have recently read over the newly proposed zoning code for the City of Iowa City and am extremely impressed with each of its components. I have been a resident of Iowa City for four years and am glad to see that the city is taking action to accommodate its residents. I have already experienced the improved standards for pedestrian safety by using the enhanced walk lights such as the ones recently installed at the intersection of Burlington St. and Gilbert St. If there were more of these walk lights with visible timers on them ! think the problem of j-walking on the campus would be minimized resulting in happier walkers and less frustrated drivers. I hope in the future to see changes like this more near the campus at the University of Iowa. I feel that in a college town with a high number of pedestrians it is important to take the extra step to ensure the safety of its residents. Sincerely, Jacob Eilbert University of Iowa Student Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name C/~ J(' email: ~17 ~ t>~.~0~.J ~..~. ~;* i~,~ ~, ~'c:, Mailing address: ~'lq/_ ?. I,'L4~/c~t~' ~7 ZIP code: Phone number: 51~~ THIS ISA: Oquestion ~suggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page ~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppd~dm/Zoning Code Comrnents.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name J/-)~/) /(J¢' ~ email: Mailingaddress: ~ ~0~" //~lt~_ ~£/,.tt. 0/" ZlPcode: Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion ©suggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page# Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 O R email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppcladm/Zoning Code Comments indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this. form to relay comments to the Commission. Mailing address: /'/2OI ¢~/%e,r Cc'~-~'f Cf; ~ ~a~ ~,V,~'~~ ZIP code: 5zv~l Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Pageg Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washingcon Sc., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: koren-howord@iowa-city, org ppdadm/Zoning Code Comments indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~0~ ~ :flX~{~-~Vl41 email: Mailing address: } ('~) ~ q Tr~ve K C~u rt zip code: ~ ~ ~ ~/.~ Phone number: ~ ~ ~ '- ~ ~ ~ THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppd~dn~Zoning Code Comments.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this~ay comments to the Commission. ~ Name C~c.c~j email:~..~/~/qb.X' _(~) ~JJ~/~/'~F1, Y}(~ Mailing address: / ~ / ~ ] ~ ~ ZIP code: ~,~ ~ ~ Phone number: ~) ~ ,~~ THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Pageg Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppd~dm/Zonin§ Code Cornments.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name /~//~,~ Mailing address: Phone number: ~ ~/~ ~'7~'~ THIS ISA~estion ~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page ,:,.t Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, or~ ppdadmJ-Zoning Code CornrnenCs.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Pl~nnin~ and Zonin8 Commission welcomes ),our comments, questions, ~nd suggestions re§~rdin8 the Zonin~ Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. THIS ISA: O question Xugestion O comment REGARDING Section/Page Deliver or m~il to: K~ren Howard, Phnnin[ & Communi~ Development, ~ I 0 E.Washin~on St., Iowa City, IA 522~0 O~ em~il: karen-noward~iowa-ci~.or~ ppda, dn~-Zonlng Code Comments.tndd Karen Howard From: Nila Haug [imahaug@avalon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:34 PM To: Karen Howard Subject: Re: Consideration Hi Karen - Our two main concerns about changing CB-2 to R/O are the height requirement and the name. As I discussed with you, I may want to expand to a Botique Hotel type of business and the height limit change from 100 feet down to 35 feet seems to be too restrictive. We prefer to call the new zone MU for Mixed Use. With the new flexibility of use, it seems to me that the name Mixed Use would be more indicative of what the zone allows and stands for. Thanks for your time this afternoon and your consideration of our concerns. Nila and Denny ..... Original Message ..... From: "Karen Howard" <Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org> To: "'Nila Haug'" <imahaug@avalon.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: RE: Consideration > Ms. Haug, > > I misspoke yesterday. The open house session is not this evening, it is > tomorrow evening Wednesday, May 4 from 5:00 - 6:30 PM in the Council > Chambers. If this time doesn't work for you, please let me know and I would > be happy to meet with you at your convenience. Sorry for the confusion. > -Karen > > > > ..... Original Message ..... > From: Nila Haug [ <mailto:imahaug@avalon.net> mailto:imahaug@avalon.net] > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:19 AM > To: Karen Howard > Subject: Re: Consideration > > > Thanks for your response Karen. I will be there on May 3. > > Nila Haug > ..... Original Message ..... > From: "Karen Howard" <Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org> > To: "'Nila Haug'" <imahaug@avalon.net> > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:02 AM > Subject: RE: Consideration > > > > Thank you for your suggestion. I am uncertain why there is the impression > > that the CB-2 rezonings will result in many nonconformities. Our intent is > > to rezone properties so that they remain conforming. I am interested in > > discussing these concerns with you. Are you planning to come to the open 1 > > house session tomorrow evening - you can stop by City Hall Council > Cha~ers > > any time between 5:00 and 6:30 PM on Tuesday, May 3. If you cannot make > it > > during this time, please let me know and I would be happy to sit down with > > you to discuss the CB-2 rezonings at your convenience. >> > > Regards, > > Karen Howard > > ..... Original Message ..... > > From: Nila Haug [ <mailto:imahaug@avalon.net> mailto:imahaug@avalon.net] > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:12 PM > > To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org > > Subject: Consideration >> >> > > Please scroll down to my comment regarding the rezoning of the CB-2 zoned > > properties. >> > > I would appreciate the consideration of my comment planning and zoning. >> > > Nila Haug > > East Washington Street >> >> > > *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** >> > > *** IMPORT~T: DO not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** >> >> >> >> > > > Page 1 of 1 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Plal;~ t;ng arid Z. om~]g C.o]nmis.qon welcomes yCJUl' cornrmmrs, quesoons, ;md SllggOSl, iolt~ regarding th.a ,,; , ,,I ' "' ' , '/J ,'5~ , ......... ,,', ~ ,( .... 'y :~-: . "? Llrfl,~.<.,~ ct' Iv, ail ::, Iq:,mc kirr.v::,,'d F'l::vn ng& C.~.m',m~]ld.:).' [;',.'v,_'l.::.p. lncnt, .1i(:, F/',",,":~:d n~rc,' 5r It,wa Cit':..IA 52240 Ok. r:~ ,,UI: ko,mr~.h,~,,,.,~,.:j(ili),.::,,.,,.d_,._irLnr~ 0 0 0 file://C:\Documents Yo2Oand Yo20SettingsLKHowar&Loca1¼20Settings\Temp~MPT9034.JPG 5/2/2005 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ,~~/ -~-~, ~o c'~-~' email: Mailing address: Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~ent REGARDING Section/Page~ I Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa<ity, org ppdadm/-Zoning Code Comments.lndd Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: Wright, Michael E [michael-wright@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 4:09 PM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org Subject: Zoning Changes Karen, I won't be able to make the public hearing on Thursday, but I wanted you to know that I very much support the reduction in occupancy in the RS, RN and RNS 12 (etc.) zones as a way to cut down traffic, parked cars, and noise in these and similar areas. I also very much support site development standards to help make new developments more appealing visually as well as pedestrian-friendly. As you may know, I (and many others) find the 'garage-scapes' of some newer developments just plain ugly. The mandatory "good neighbor" guidelines are also welcome; smart developers should have such meetings anyway, but this makes sure they all will. One change I don't support is the accessory apartment provision, which I fear will mean more apartments in all sorts of odd locations, more alley traffic, and perhaps even tear-downs of existing garages to build new 'carriage- house' types of buildings, with apartments attached. I might be willing to go along with it if tear-downs, etc. and alley-traffic concerns could be alleviated. Thanks for all your good work on this (I know this pretty much ate your life) - I think you all came up with some ,really good improvements to the code. Mike Wright 4/26/20O5 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Phone number': ~-~' 7 THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page ~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 4t 0 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen.howard~.iowa-city, org March 30, 2005 This memo is in response to the Board of Adjustments, July 14th lneeting regarding the new homeless shelter relocation. I was shocked and outraged of the idea of relocating the shelter at Waterfront Drive, and the Board's lack of concern ibr our safety and quality of our neighborhood conditions. 1 think that the idea of building a bigger shelter is not the way to go because we do not want more vagrants prowling our neighborhoods in the area. Another concern is that we do not want an increase of panhandling and crimes in Iowa City. We do not need more of this happening; we need less of this than what is already going on in Iowa City. I think that making it a larger building is doing nothing but encouraging even more people to come to Iowa City and end up burdening the tax payers of Iowa. The shelter should stay in the same location and the same size as it is currently. The Waterfront Drive residential and businesses take great pride in the appearance of all of the surrounding areas. The Board of Adjustments needs to make sure that they are thinking of the welfare of the taxpayers and registered voters first in this community instead of the vagrants and the people who choose to be a burden to the tax payers. Life Long Resident of Iowa City Todd Eakes 2018 Waterfront Dr. lowa City, IA 52240 / Wk: 319-335-3050 ./ April 26, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 To Whom It May Concern: The Iowa House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that states "all registered sex offenders cannot reside within 1000 feet of a school or day care center." It is up to the Senate and the Governor to approve it to become law. We have a problem due to the fact that the proposed site of the new homeless shelter located on Waterfront Drive measures approximately sixty feet from HACAP, which has a day care center. Rule #8 of the Towa City Shelter House rules for guardians of dependants states that "Shelter House may have occasions in which clients of Shelter House may be on a state's sex offender list. It is the guardians' responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well being and safety of dependants. Do not assume that anyone you meet while at the shelter house is not on a state sex offender list." It appears quite definite that the homeless shelter is knowingly allowing sex offenders to come to the area for shelter and services. The proposed Shelter House will be built approximately 60 feet from the HACAP day care center. The bottom line is that the Waterfront Drive area has a lot of children. There are 85 at the Hilltop Mobile Home Park and approximately 70 at the HACAP daycare center. One hundred fifty five children plus sex offenders equals major problems. I urge the shelter house board to find an alternate site. Sincerely, Todd Eakes 2018 Waterfront Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 · Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name P ~ .L~_O.~_~,~-~ email: Mailing address: ~ O "~ 3 5'~ ~ ~x ~0 vc~ ~ ~ c , ZIP code: Phone number: ~'~ ~'L ~57 o THIS ISA: Oquestion ~u~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page~ ' Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 41C~ E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppda. dm/Zonin8 Code Comments.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name Gregg Redlin email: Mailing address: 2950 E. Washington St. ZIP code: __52245 Phone number: ___(319) 338-2033 THIS IS A: ( )question (X)suggestion (X)comment REGARDING Section/Page Ct RE: Title 14 Zoning Code, Public Review Draft dated 2/22/05 Page 14-4B, section 5 And Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, page 14-2C I am writing to urge the Commission to reject the proposed changes to the Land Uses Regulations for areas zoned as Intensive Commercial, otherwise known as C1-1. The proposed changes would switch the Community Service Use category in C1-1 from special exemption to provisional. The proposed changes to the C1-1 zoning classification threaten the integrity of land now zoned as CI- 1 because the changes would allow facilities to be built in the C1-1 areas for which the land was never intended. If the proposed changes are adopted, non-Cl-1 facilities would be allowed in C1-1 areas, and this would significantly alter the overall character of the C1-1 zone. Furthermore, it threatens the future of all property zoned as C1-1 and threatens the orderly future development in areas currently zoned as C1-1 because it will inhibit uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The proposed zoning changes take away the C1-1 property owners' ability to challenge any non-el-1 facilities. The proposed changes would eliminate the process and the criteria required for approval or disapproval of non-Cl-1 facilities in such areas. Ultimately, the public would be left without a voice, and citizens would be denied participation in the development and zoning processes for the community in which they work and live. Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: ka'_c p_!o~:~ r,:l'~ ~,..~ ~-,. i:, Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning ~nd Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zonin§ Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. ' :' ~ ~'~ , i'' ~"~ :-. emaiJ: Mailing address: ~/'? ¥~ ~ .... ~' ..,' ..... "' ',;' ~:;, "~. i ZIP code: .. Phone number:' ' THIS ISA: Oque~tion O~b~e~tion oc°m'ment REGARDING Section/Page~ l Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 4t0 E.Washin¢on St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: ko~n.howord~iowo-dty, org Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Mailing address: <.cq~ cc. z~( c¥ ~ ~ /~..:,~.~ ZIP code: THIS ISA: Oquesdon Osu~estion Ocommenr RfiGARDJNG Secdon/Page~_ ~:/~-~-- / Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., iowa City, IA 52,240 OR email: karen-howard@iowo-city, org Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zonin§ Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, Please use this form. to~, relay comments to the Commission. Phone number: ~2 "~75~ THIS ISA: Oquesdon Osu~esdon ~commen[ EEGAEDING Secdon/Pase~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA $2.240 OR email: karen-howard(~.iowo-city, org . Zoning Code Public Rewew Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions re~arding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. THIS IS A: Oquestion Osu~estion ~commenr REGARDING Section/Page ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~- { [~.~ ~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 4t 0 E,Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: korer~howard@iowo-city, org Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regardin§ the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. THISISA: Oquesti0n Osuggestion ~:omment REGARDING Section/Page~_iZ~i Deliver or m~il to: K~ren How~rcl, Pl~nnin~ & Community Development, 4t 0 E.W~shin~:on St., tow~ City, IA $2.240 OR email: k~ren.floward@iowa-city, org Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Plannin§ and Zonin§ Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. H~iling address: G O ~ '~¢:~'~¢,'-':,J:~- ~:'' · ZIP code: Phone number': ~ ~ p - ) c/~-{ O THIS ISA: Oques~ion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 4t0 fi. Washington St., Iowa City, IA $2240 OR email: karen.howard~iowa-city, or~ Page 1 of 1 Karen Howard From: DCYeager(~aol.com Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 4:10 PM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org Subject: C1-1 zone changes Dear Ms. Howard, In reviewing the upcoming zoning changes as proposed by your group or department, I find it OUTRAGEOUS that you have eliminated the special zoning exception requirement for the C1-1 zone. The changes that you propose also allow facilities that were never intended to be placed in such a zone and would greatly affect those of us that are in those zones currently and have paid a premium for our property and development of our businesses based on the promise of current C1-1 zoning. Additionally you have removed any property owner's right to challenge such a modification by law !? These changes proposed for the C1-1 will be devastating to the current and future development of our city....isn't the whole intention of Planning and Community Development supposed to be for a POSATIVE ,safe, orderly and financially sound development of the areas Served and or planned for the whole of the City ? Please DO NOT support these changes and maintain the current C1-1 zoning. Sincerely, Daniel C. Yeager, Ocularist 337-9724 2050 Keokuk Street Iowa City ,IA 52240 3/28/2005 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name J.~ ~--_.~' ~F'~~ e m ail: .~~I~~,~,~ I~ Mailing address: q'l I~'~., ~~.~j, IA- ZIP code: Phone number: ,~,~i~- lq07 THIS ISA: Oquestion/~uggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page # RE: Title 14 Zoning Code, Public Review Draft dated 2/22/05 Page 14-4B, section 5 and Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, page 14-2C In the section of this table entitled Institutional and Civic Uses, the line for Community Service Uses, Community Service - Shelter specifies PR for areas zoned CI-1. Clearly this is not an appropriate designation for this type of use. Currently a shelter requires a special exception in areas zoned CI-1. A residential shelter is certainly not a typical or appropriate use of a CI-1 area. Presence of a shelter in a CI-1 area will undoubtedly alter the character of a CI-1 zone significantly, since this type of use is vastly different from the typical uses for which the CI-1 zone is intended. Any consideration of placing this type of establishment in a CI-1 area most certainly must include opportunities for public comment and public review. The requirement of a special zoning exception for placing a shelter in a CI-1 zone must be maintained. Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org @pdadm/Zoning Code Comrnent~.indd iIOWA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION 1400 Dean Avenue · Des Moines, Iowa 50316-3938. 515-265-1497. 800-416-3318. FAX: 515-265-6480 · Email Address: joekelly@mcleodusa.com March 23, 2005 Karen Howard Planning & Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Karen: It has come to my attention that the city is considering allowing the placement of a local transient housing facility near Dahlen's Hilltop Manufactured Housing Community. The area is zoned commercial; therefore, I can see the reasoning why the area is being considered. The logic is that a commercial zone keeps the facility away from residential neighborhoods. However, Hilltop is a residential neighborhood, with numerous children. For the same reason you are not allowing the placement of the transient housing facility in a residential zone, you should consider an alternate site. I'm aware that many of the commercial property owners in the area are protesting the siting of the facility. I'm not a part of their battle. I think Hilltop has far more serious concerns. I would ask that you reconsider this location decision based on the fact that Hilltop is indeed a neighborhood; and a transient housing facility, although greatly needed, should not be sited in close proximity to a neighborhood with children. erely, Executive Vice President Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Mailing address: , . . THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~omment REGARDING Section/Pageff Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard~iowa-city, org ppd~dm/Zoning Code Comments.indd Zonin~Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The P ann,n~ ~nd ~onin~ Commission wekomes your- comments, questiens, ~nd ~u;~e-:t,ons Zomn.~ Code. Pleae ~se this Corm te re!zy ¢ommen~s te ~he C~mmission. N~me Mailing address: ZIP code: Phone rumber THIS ISA: 9question ©s~ggestion ©comment REGARDING Section/Page ~- Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The P~anning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questicns, and suggestions re~arding Zoning Code, Please use this form to re~ay comments to the Commission, Phone nvmber: THIS~SA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~comment RE~ARDIN~ ~ect:~, ,, Page OR ~.ail: k~ran, howord(~,lowa-city, or~ Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Cod~,Ple~se use t,.h~ f.orm :o relay comments to ;he Commission. ' ~ ~, ~' email: Mailing address'. ~) ~S~ ~-~,,'~~ ~0~.. ....... ~_ ~ ~r u.. ~ IP code: Phone number: ,~ ,.~ t ~ THiSISA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~commen, REGARDING Section/Pase~ Deliver or maii <x Karen Howard, Pbnning & Community Development, 4i 0 E Wasn.n~on St., iowa C,:¥, lA 52240 OR emaH: karen.howord~iowa-city, org Code Comm~ats, ir, dd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~_~-~/,'~ c~ ~¥ '~'/ email: Mailing address: ~/,~- ~ ~~ ~ ~, ZIP code: Phonenumber: ~,~- /,.~ ~ ~ THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page ~ Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, or~ ppd.,dm/Zoning Code Comments.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Plannin§ and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Co.,de, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Mailing address:~~~'~~~ - ZIP code: THIS ISA: Oquestion ~u~estion. ~, .>-,.,, .... DeiiYer or' mail t.o:Karen Howard, Planning & Ccmmumty Development, 4 J 0 E.Washin~on St., Io',~a Ci:y, IA .¢22-40 OR emaiJ: karen.howard~iowa-city, or~ Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~'~f )/ ~ (j J'~t~_ email: ~ailing address: ~C/~ ' .' Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion Osu~estion ~omment REGARDING Section/Page ~ , Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 OR email: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppdadm/Zoning Code Comments.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions reg~rding the Zoning Code, Please use this form to relay comments to the Commissiom N~me /"~~ ~_.~ ~.~J.~Z~-~''' emait: Phone number: ~% ~ _,' THIS ISA: Oques-Uon ~u~esdon Ocomrnent REGARDING Secdon/Page¢ Deliver or mail tv: Karen Howard. Planning & Communi:y Development 4!0 E.V~,shm~o,, St, iowa r~**..,..,, IA 52240 OR email: karen.howord@iowo-city, cr~ Code Comrnent~,.indd Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code, ,,P,!e~se use this, form to relay comments to the Commission. , / , Phone number: '~ [ -(~ l(,!~ THIS ISA: Oquesrion Osug~estJon ~comment REGARDING Section/Page CC -'~ l-,-.' ~ ~ ~h 52240 Deliver or ma~l to: Karen Howard, Planning & Communi[y OR email: karen.howard~iowa-city, org bt ~C& Steven W. Newell 2018 Waterfront Dr Lot 39 Iowa City, towe 52240 United States of America Home Phone 341-0397 March 12, 2005 City Council of City of Iowa City City Hall, Washington and S. Gilbert St Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear City Council and Zoning Commission of Iowa City in Johnson County, After attending the Zoning Hearing last year it is apparent that you are behaving as ffyou are the experts and that the lower economic class will get what you have assigned to thcm. You have assigned yourselves as thc moral experts as well. I heard employees of the City of Iowa City proclaim the rightness of the moral issue of building a three times larger homeless facility in a single location like a Magnet School for the homeless while also proclaiming that they know as a pschiatric fact that most of"the homeless" are people with a condition of mind that is called "mcntat illness" in medicine. So it is no wonder that you will openly discuss what you call a medical history of thc "underlings" you morally assign yourselves to be caretakers of in tax fimded programs you design for yourselves to be paid to administer because you are so moral, and what this does to poorer property owners you do not listen too. But you are to be informed that poor Ix:opic are not your pets. And you arc to bc advised that you should not in the same debate openly display the medical information of any sort of a people you have morally assigned yourselves to take care of even like a pet dog. If you are so moral, why do you not face the facts of your own administrative history? In 1963 you zoned the area of this relatively small remaining unsold property CI-1 for Commercial Industrial intensive business property. It was then on thc edge of Iowa City. Today it is surrounded by residential property and there are over 150 lots in Hilltop Mobile Home park and over 70 children loaded onto the school buses which currently have permission to drive right into the entrance ramping of the streets of the park to hoard those kids. It is the City of Iowa City which can not sell the last remaining relatively small CI-1 property. Why would a small industrial technology business buy such a small property for intensive industrial production when a single leak of chlorine gas or even smoke might irritate 150 homes that are not designed to insulate much against air pollution? The liabilities of such a CI-1 site are huge for business insurance. You left this one location in Iowa City zoned CI-1 of all the places in the City of Iowa City that have grown since 1963. Now you say that it is a good idea not to usc already owned City lots by thc Air Port for thc three story homeless shelter yet you ,vm~t to concentrate poverty in this part of Iowa City even more. With HUD two blocks away, and the drug treatment facility called MECCA next to the secret Battered Womens Shelter and just a lot from the Youth Homes Incorporated shelter for teenaged boys, you want to put the shelter populated by what you call mostly a group of poor who have medical conditions of psychiatric disorder, all ncxt to 150 lower economic class working families who live in aluminum walled homes that would not slow a bullet. Go to sleep in your brick house and don't think about it, all right? The poor have delt with your abuse and lack of sympathy for decades. Do not admit it. This is the one location in Iowa City that is still zoned as ff it was on the edge of town, that you ignored until you needed it. Now you seek to do a budget fix and suddenly you get all moral about taking care of your underlings. This is all your own doing. Like the people you label as mentally ill in the homeless shelter, let it be that you will say that you're just a victim of circumstances. You will see yourseff as good in what you are doing. But the poor are not your pets. And ffyou think they arc going to not take action to physically defend thcrusclves because you do not have the budget to pl~sently care about them, then be prepared for the results you give to your city. ff you build it, they will come. ff ~hey come here, you can not force your underlings to make them feel welcome, ff they can not easily get to North Governor Street and other locations to get further assistance and you have warehoused them in a remote location in a poor economic place where they are unwelcome and if they are mentally ill as you openly discuss, then it will not be heaven on Earth, will it? Chee, this is such a liberal and moral city. Stevcn W. Ncwell Hilltop Neighborhood Association Member and Democrat ~ Mr. Steven W. Ncwcll 308 E Burlington St. Pmb 257 Ioxva City, IP~ 52240 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name '..: ", .: : email: 'ICL:...` Mailing address: 'i: :: : : · :,: :i ~:. :'~ i ~ ? ~ ?: ..~ . i... - ~. :? ( ~ ZIP code: ~__,,~:.~ ~::' ~ .... Phone number: ~-.-'5.. "" / ?' :' THIS ISA: ©question Osuggestion ~omment REGARDING Section/Page# Deliver or mail to: Karen Howard, Planning & Community Development, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa CiTy, IA 52240 OR ernail: karen-howard@iowa-city, org ppdadm/~Zoning Code Comments indcl John Gilbert would be rolling over in his grave, if he were still in his original grave in the part of town he loved so much. He had such a vision for what was then Napoleon and is now the south side of town and we are now at a time when we are starting to accommodate his plan from almost 179 years ago. He envisioned a great community; at his time there were over 300 people that lived in Napoleon. With the new housing that is in process on the way out to the Sycamore extension and the possibility of a new bridge over the river to connect (Gilbert/Sand) and Riverside Dr. businesses were salivating at the prospects of the underdeveloped land. The development of Hwy 6 in the 60's started a boom of development that couldn't have been possible without it. The place I have called home for 16 years which has been a community of it's own since 1963 when started by Archie Kodros is now owned by Mike and Jan Dahlen. The home that stands at the center of it was built in the late 1800's. The address has changed 4 times from a rural route listed as S. Linn street to Sand Lake Road to Gilbert street and finally in the 80's to Waterfront. We have not moved but the world has changed around us. That has never been a problem. Through that time as a neighborhood we have had our good times and bad times, as most working class neighborhoods do. The City of Iowa Cities "Future land use Scenario" proposed in April 2002, has plans for a wonderful residential a~ea, "A beautiful gateway to Iowa C'ty from the south'. .~Eo_.c_._ ~c~c._.C.-x.¢._ cJ ,..,%~,,.Jofr't~'"~,'~-/:~,-','-cj~b ¢'~._¢~ - ~¢,SJ-,n~ /~.~,~'~:~zu,~c,~.~C As the zoning in our area will includes only RFBH, RM, ID-RM, C1-1, CC2 1 will only address these. ~~ In terms of the new zoning changes, these are the things that I found puzzling: I"~.,.,,.~. ~ I don't understand how an Adult Business is allowed in zone C1-1 not even as a special exception when C1-1 is often closer to Residential houses than is CC-2. As a Neighborhood why would we not want to allow medical/dental offices, retail personal sales, eating and drinking establishments, parks and churches? Why under the community service is there a General community listed as special exception (S), but community service SHELTER has been changed to PR? They should both be Special exception (S)in C1-1. Why are Industrial, manufacturing, self service storage, warehouses, freight and wholesale sales allowed in C1-1 but not CC-2 as C1-1 is closer to residential? Given the following statements: In section 14-1A-3, paragraph B4. "Promote the economic stability of existing and future land uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions by incompatible land uses." In section 14-1A-3, paragraph B7. "Avoid undue concentration of population and (8) conserve open space and protect natural, scenic, and historic resources." In section 14-3A-1, Paragraph A 5. "Promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments" In section 14-3C-1, Paragraph 4. "Enhance the social, cultural, economic, environmental and aesthetic development of the community by encouraging both harmonious and innovative design." Paragraph 5. "Promote orderly community growth and protect property values." Paragraph 6. "Recognize that land use regulations aimed at these objectives provide not only for the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens, but also for their comfort and prosperity, and for the beauty and balance of the community." I have the following concerns: 'In the section that addresses General Standards, Paragraph 2 states "The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. Currently our water pressure is lower than 40 psi. To add a large structure where water use will be high before us on the main line would take it well below the acceptable level. I also don't understand why so many things have changed from special exception to provisional. Is it because the zoning commission doesn't want to face the community that they serve? I would like to propose that any uses for C1-1 zoning that would have impact on the community that it surrounds should remain special exceptions so that the neighborhood has a say in its development. Page 1 of 2 ICgov. org ] city services District Planning Home > City Departments > Planning and Community Development > Urban Planning > North District Plan District Planning > South District Plan > Existing/Future Development Northeast District Plan South District Plan District Planning Historic Context Existing/Future Development Environmental Features Planning Guidelines/New South District Plan - Existing/Future DevelOpment Neighborhoods Scenario Implementation Although there may be some redevelopment of the existing commercial and South Central District Plan residential areas south of Highway 6, the character and major infrastructure of Southwest District Plan these developments have already been established and major changes are not anticipated. Community commercial land uses and entryway enhancements are Urban Planning proposed for the Gilbert Street commercial corridor located between the Iowa 410 East Washington Street River and the CRANDIC Railroad south of Highway 6. For the largely Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 undeveloped tracts of land to the south, planning concepts are outlined for the office: 319-356-5240 new neighborhoods, which will be designed to complement and be compatible with existing development. For the new neighborhoods section of the plan, the South District has been divided into four subareas, including the River Corridor Area, the Sycamore West Area, the Sycamore East Area, and the Sioux Avenue Area. ~ South Planning District Map The following section discusses opportunities for redevelopment and development of land in the commercially-zoned Gilbert Street corridor that serves as an entryway to Iowa City. Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor The South Gilbert Street commercial corridor is generally located along Gilbert Street between Highw and the CRANDIC railroad. Increas~ed levels of traffic :iai uses ar : Will entrYwaY into IoWa However, most of the vacant commercial land located along Gilbert Street between Highway 6 and the CRANDIC railroad is presently zoned for intensive commercial uses, permitting outdoor display and storage of merchandise and materials, and near industrial uses such as auto body shops, contractors' yards, lumberyards, and warehousing. Th~gd lalqd Uses are not consistent with us~o~thls, area asian:a~ractive entryway 1fi~6 iOw~ ~i~y and as a re~ail -~ ~] South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor :0 Existing, attractively ~e north end of the corridor, such as the Hills Bank file://C:XDOCUME~ l\barkerX~LOCALS~ I\Temp\KUD6UQXM.htm 3/8/2005 Page 2 of 2 property, can serve as a model for future development in the area, General levels of traffic between Gilbert east of the railroad. Areas to be considered for general commercial zoning are illustrated on Exhibit D. The areas west of Stevens Drive, which are currently developed with intensive commercial uses, would retain Intensive Commercial zoning. A proposed extension of the Iowa River Corridor Trail through this commercial area will be located along the east bank of the river from Highway 6 south to Napoleon Park, and potentially beyond the park into the future residential neighborhoods in the South Area. A trail is also planned to extend along the south side of Highway 6 from the residential areas in the east part of the district to the Gilbert Street commercial area, of this trail ~ ,stem rclal developm{ not only between the. Gilbert Street comme ,qo~ment and the residential development to the south, but a!soa ¢onneeting link to doWntown I0Wa CitY, Sidewalk linkages within the cOmmercial a~ea are also strOngly en~obraged. Existing environmental constraints may preclude the development of portions of the vacant property within the commercially-zoned area. These features include the Iowa River flood plain and potential wetlands. The City is in the process of conducting a floodplain study to determine whether undeveloped properties in the floodplain that were flooded during the flood events of 1993 will have some development limitations. Development may occur in wetlands east of Gilbert Street if the Corps of Engineers allows replacement wetlands to be created/expanded west of Gilbert Street and south of the railway. If portions of the commercial area are unable to be developed, they should be considered for potential use as a trailhead wetland park or passive recreation/observation area to enhance the appearance, Iowa River, and secUre a natural buffer along the ir Trail, South Area New Neighborhoods neighbOrho°d: din the largeh recognizes the manufactured housing parks and medium density single-family residential development planned for the Sycamore Farms area in the southeast portion of the district. Environmental constraints and opportunities, sand mining operations and their eventual reclamation, and existing and potential r~crea~ional and passiv~ Open space are also considered. ~~_ Copyright ~ 200~ City of Iowa City. AH Rights Reserved. Contac~Websi~e Nanag~r WebPolidas ~ Email and other communication sent to the City of Iowa City are subject to the Iowa open C'~'I~' O} IOW/~ C~'[~ records law. fi le ://C :LDOC UME- l\barkerLLOCALS- 1 \Temp\KUD6UQXM. htm 3/8/2005 ICgov. org ~-your link to City Hull search f ....... ~ city services District Planning Home ~ City Departments ~ Planning and Community Development ~ Urban Planning ~ North District Plan District Planning :~ South District Plan ~ Planning Guidelines/New Neighborhoods Scenario Northeast District Plan > Housing So.th District Plan Di i Pi ing str ct ann Environmental Features Planning Guidelines/New Neighborhoods Scenario South DistriCt Plan - Housing - Neighborhood Commercial The predominant land use in the South District new neighborhoods will be - Housing detached, single-family residential. However, the neighborhood will also - Parks/Open Space contain areas where Iow to medium density multi-family, townhouse and - Trails duplex style housing will mix compatibly with single-family housing. The - Elementary School medium density housing options should be carefully designed and located to -Streets/Roads take advantage of major infrastructure investments, such as arterial streets, - Fire Protection and goods and services, which are provided in the neighborhood commercial - Sioux Avenue Area center. Medium density housing should be compatible in scale and density to blend with singlefamily neighborhoods. As housing density increases and lot Implementation sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as South Central District Plan garage and driveway locations, ~ Southwest District Plan Urban Planning 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 s Ensure that all housing types are accessible for persons with disabilities. Office: 319-356-5240 s Detached, single-family housing will be the predominant land use in the South District. Locate this type of housing primarily in the central portions of the neighborhood away from arterial streets. s Use small lot, single-family housing and duplex development to serve as a gradual, density progression between single-family homes located more centrally in the neighborhood and the multi-family or townhouse buildings located near the commercial center or along arterial streets. s Locate Iow to medium density multi-family housing in the form of townhouses and small apartment buildings at the edges of the neighborhood along arterial streets, and near the neighborhood commercial center, trails, major open space areas, and institutional uses, such as a school or religious institutions. Limit the size of individual parcels zoned for such development, so that the scale of buildings is compatible with surrounding uses and the traffic generated from such developments is adequately accommodated. s Provide landscaped front yards and parking in the rear for townhouse and modestsized apartment buildings that face arterial streets. This will provide a boulevard or parklike buffer along the street, and create a more attractive appearance than expanses of paved, parking lots or walls of back yard fences lining such streets. http://www.icgov.org/pcd/urbanplanning/southplan/housing,asp 3/8/2005 ~I,U/Ot Iowa t~lry, Iowa · Design medium density housing to be similar in height and appearance to large, single-family housing. Use design guidelines, such as requirements for the placement of parking behind buildings, and provisions for attractive visible entryways on multi-family buildings, to help assure that such buildings are compatible in design with nearby lower density housing. · Ensure a variety of housing stock and provide controls on scale and density by providing small multi-family lots of approximately 12,000 to 16,000 square feet for Iow density multi-family housing at the intersections of collector and arterial streets. Lots of this size will assure that the resulting apartment buildings will be no more than four to six units per building so that there are no more than 24 units at any one intersection. · Encourage inclusion of accessible apartments in the neighborhood commercial center. Improve the appearance of streetscapes by using alleys for access to garages. This is especially important for residential developments with narrow lots. · Revise the front yard setback requirements of the Zoning Chapter to allow houses with front porches to be built closer to the sidewalk. .,~iu~ Copyright © 2004 City of Iowa City. All Rights Reserved.  Contact Website Manager Web Policies -~ Email and other communication sent to the City of Zowa City ore subject to the Zowa open (.'lT'~' OF Iot%'A C'IT~' records law. http://www.icgov.org/pcd/urbanplanning/southplan/housing.asp 3/8/2005 South District Future Land Use Scenario Revised April 16. 2002 ~.g~ Fnn~il:, ~i _'~;: General C 3lanufaelurod Housing lnstit~:fional ~: Apartnlen~ ~¥ater .-"~ ~ --- . Public Open Spac~ - - - 'lrail~ / . Other Opon Spaco .--~: - Sa ~ /ary Sea-~r R~ule '~10~, ;7~' L_* ~ ~is,uricPrope~ ..... C ..... pt,,alarterlalstr~t,di DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP~NT~ Cl~ OF IOWA I GILBERT STREET COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ! HICHL_AND S11JR61S FERRY ~-~ PARK sou'r,-, m,,,,~ SOU ;'THGA% iMPERIAL EXHIBIT D MARCH 1997 NORTH OEPARTMENT OF' PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF IOWA CITY FILED Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County 1700 South First Avenue, Suite 25B 2Q~5 SEP 2 7 /i}~ !1: 1 9 Iowa City, IA 52240 Email: hrfjc@avalon.na Website: www. htfjc, org Ci'J'¥ (.~Lf:~/( office: 319.358.0212 Fax: 319.358.0053 Housing Trust Fund Iohnsor~~ County [O"/V'/~, ('~ / IOWA Board of Directors STATEMENT TO THE IOWA CITY COUNCIL Sally Stutsman, President The mission of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County is to provide an Johnson County Board innovative and flexible source of funding to support affordable housing options of Supervisors in Johnson County. The fund is overseen by a Board of Directors that Bob Dvorsky, Vice President represents a broad spectrum of community interests. To date, we have State Senator, 15t* District partnered with Iowa City, Johnson County, ECICOG, the Iowa City Area Larry Wilson, Secretary Association of Realtors, area banks and nonprofit agencies, among others, to University of Iowa position ourselves to respond to the need for more affordable housing in this FSG-Campus Planning area. Jake Young, Treasurer McGladrey O Pullen, [ ,~ ,P The Housing Trust Fund is aware that there is considerable disagreement regarding the consequences of a number of provisions in the proposed zoning Jerry Anthony ,University of code. A significant source of the disagreement concerns whether the changes Iowa, Urban (_~RegionalPlanning will assist or hinder the development of more affordable housing in Johnson Dayna Ballantyne, Crisis Center County. Bob Bums,Bums & Bums, Lc.. We are encouraged by the number of civic and community leaders in Iowa City Crissy Canganelli, Shelter Houseand Johnson County that are concerned with the shortage of moderately priced Amy Correia, Iowa Coalition housing in the area. In fact, Johnson County has the distinction of being the Against Domestic Violence most housing cost burdened county in the state of Iowa, meaning that it has the Maryann Dennis, Ex-offido highest percentage of residents paying over 30% of their household income for Greater Iowa City Housing housing and housing related expenses. We applaud the fact that these leaders Fellowship are interested in addressing the reality that many people who work in Johnson Doug Dickel, DickdConsulting County cannot afford to live here as well. Bart Floyd, US Bank We as a community must acknowledge that addressing the shortage of Rebecca Neades, Iowa City affordable housing in Johnson County will require significant effort and Area Chamber of Commerce resources beyond adoption or rejection of the current proposal. The current Steve Long, Iowa City Planning housing situation evolved under the current code and market conditions and we ~ Community Development do not believe that even those who support the proposed revision claim that it Cheryl Nelson, Iowa Cit. yArea would dramatically reverse that trend. Assodation of Realtors Julie Pulkrabek, Pulkrabek Law The Housing Trust Fund is neither a developer nor a builder and, therefore, any Office, PLC position regarding the relative benefits and burdens of the proposed code would Mike Stoffregen, Community be based on information provided by others more closely involved in the Foundation of Johnson County process. Councilors have that same information before them. The board of the Housing Trust Fund, however, feels that it is important for the City Council to Staff consider that: Andy Johnson, Executive Director 1. To promote the development of more affordable housing, code changes should result in a streamlined development process that encourages both nonprofit and for-profit entities to build quality, lower cost, higher density units in neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. 2. One option that has successfully improved the availability of moderately priced housing in some communities is "inclusionary zoning" and we would encourage the council to explore creative ways that this technique could be used in Iowa City. Whatever action is taken on the proposed code, the board of directors of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County looks forward to partnering with Iowa City, other municipalities within Johnson County as well as business and nonprofit organizations to address the housing needs of area residents. IOWA COMMERCIAL ® Cora/vi/lo, IA 52241 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, WORLD. DE. ~-354-098~ Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ! am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the cu~ent code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable Wpes of dwellings. The Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line ho~nes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. lfthe City is going to require developers to construct alleys in ce~ain developments, the City should assume the long te~ maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. ~ Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. - The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of lowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues fuaher with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area votingASS°ciati°non the°fproposedREALTORS~code, and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders~ ,/Ass°ciati°n T~ank you for your tim~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~(Peggy Slaughter ~~ ~ Intornational~ Page 1 of 1 Marian Kart From: Cheryl Nelson [¢heryl@icaar. org] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:57 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Request for input The Land Development Council, an entity of the Home Builders Association and the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®, repectfully requests the opportunity to work with the Council during the work sessions and public sessions regarding the new zoning code draft. We have provided numerous letters from parties of both organizations expressing some of our concerns. We are all consumer advocates in our business activities and want to work inthe best interest of those who would like to live and work in our community. We hope that you will consider our request to be involved as you start the process of reviewing the documents. Cheryl Nelson Association Executive Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® 438 Hwy I West Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6460 9/15/2005 FILED QTY September 14, 2005 IOWA C!T¥ IOWA Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I'm writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®- But as a member of the national Congress on New Urbanism as well, I'm certain to be in the minority of the Realtors group, in that I feel there should be SOME good standards in design in a community like Iowa City if we are to preserve and encourage (perhaps return to) a more pleasant environment where people who want to interact with one another · - can d asily because of the very n. atu[e..of the plam~ ~ed._e~nv~',~r~°,~n~.~el~ed m neighborhoods o.so e . . _c,~.~ ,alohhorhood landscape. ~ am a ............ ve automobiles is not the primary e~emem m m~ .... Neighborhood project, for example, and there again I may be in the minority among Iowa City Realtors. There is natural resistance by developers, Realtors, and many owners, to accepting control (or even guidance) of ANY kind, especially here in Iowa City, but the alternative to at least some control can be a blight and ot~en causes future problems out of short-term rather than long-term thinking. Still, with all of this stated, I have some concerns that the process scale MAY be tipped too far toward City planners, and that in upcoming decisions when exceptions and ,,grandfathering in" decisions may be needed, the City staff may not be as open as they could/should be as we ease into new ways of doing things. Concerns: · Allowances will needed to assure affordable housing can still be built--there is wide concern in the Realtor community that builders will be limited to providing a much higher-priced product. I am in favor of minimizing garage "presence" in communities/developments, and even favor the "alley behind concept," but if the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, I believe the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of such alleys. It seems unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost of repairing and maintaining alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Although I do not personally espouse every concern of the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association, and have chosen to write my own letter to you, I believe these groups have spent enormous effort and are doing their very best to convey to you what the majority of the groups believe and hope for. I personally agree with them that there needs to be more give and take by the City as the new process is issued in, and probably reconsideration of some of the requirements planned to go into effect. I suppose there is a natural (and sometimes good-natured) antagonism between the Developer/Realtor community and the City Planning staff. I wish each could see the good points of the other, and perhaps this will happen over the long term--and none of us should be thinking just for the short term. Alan Swanson BLANK & McCUNE, The Real Estate Company Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr ~ From: ginny rew [ginnyrew@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 9:43 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: RS8 zoning change -- Please vote NO, please. Please please do NOT change the city code for RS8 zoning allowing developers to build duplexes in other tha~~ corner lots. Our neighborhood is struggling to remain and intact neighborhood and getting to know our neighbors and keeping the small singe family dwellings is important to all of us here. I beg you not the change the code in favor of the developers. Thank you Ginny Rew 302 W. Benton St. Iowa City, IA 52246 phone: 319-354-5182 10/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 / '% Marian Karr ?: ~ From: Shannon Bradshaw [shannon-bradshaw@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:26 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: In favor of revised planning and zoning code I'm writing in support of the revised planning and zoning code discussed here: http;//www~icgoy~org/pcd/urbanp!an ning/deve!opmentcod~htm The Northside and surrounding neighborhoods are an important part of what makes Iowa City a great place to live. I am a frequent customer of Pagliai's, Hamburg Inn, Oasis, Guitar Foundation, the Northside book market, and other businesses in the area. The family owned housing in that neighborhood is important to sustaining these businesses and the rest of the downtown as it is in maintaining a thriving Iowa City community. Without this code I am concerned that Mercy Hospital will continue to expand unrestricted and erode the community we all value. In addition, as a member of the University Community I am extremely concerned that if Iowa City becomes a less desirable place to live, we will be unable to attract top-quality faculty who value quality of life together with excellence in research and teaching. Shannon Bradshaw, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Management Sciences Henry B. Tippie College of Business The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52241 Voice: +1 319-621-6475 Fax: +1 319-335-0297 shannon-bradshaw@uiowa, edu http://www, biz. ~iow8 ~ edu/sbrads~aw 10/3/2005 Marian Karr From: Barbara Eckstein [barbara-eckstein@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:59 AM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: changes to zoning code Dear Council Members: As a home owner in Goosetown at the edge of the Northside, I want to lend my support to the new proposals for the zoning code. They strike a reasonable balance regarding parking and rental property and they propose a very significant control over commercial building in the Northside commercial district on Linn Street. I love that commercial district being there and love its scale. It is exactly right economically, aesthetically, and socially. Last year, I lived on Linn Street and was saddened to see an older home torn down on the corner of Linn and Church to be replaced by a parking lot. That this change was possible under the.old zoning code speaks to its limitations. I believe that those who have worked to update the zoning code deserve thanks for their thoughtfulness regarding all the important constituents in Iowa City. I urge you to support the work that they have done. regards, Barbara Eckstein 814 Ronalds St Iowa City IA 52242 Marian Karr From: j ud ith-pascoe@u iowa. ed u Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 11:46 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Dear Council Members, I am writing to state my enthusiastic support for the revised Planning and Zoning Code. I am particularly in favor of those revisions to the Code that will enhance neighborhood life--for example, the stipulation that new duplexes must be built on corners, and the limitation in the number of unrelated occupants in a rental property. These changes will make it more likely that my previous neighborhood (Goosetown) and my current neighborhood (the Northside) will continue to attract a diverse population of residents--students, families, retired people, etc. In short, I support all the provisions to the new Code that will enhance the aesthetic appeal and variety of Iowa City's neighborhoods. Please vote to approve the new Code. Yours sincerely, Judith Pascoe 317 Fairchild Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: David Bullwinkle [DBULLWl@kirkwood.edu] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:41 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: support the new 'zoning code Dear Iowa City Councilors, I am writing to express my strong support for the zoning code changes currently before you. My wife and I have two young children and live on a very tight budget. Despite the fact that real estate prices are much lower in the communities srrounding Iowa City, we decided to buy a home within the city because we loved the Longfellow neighborhood so much. The neighborhood is walkable, with many shade trees, wide sidewalks, and front porches that encourage neighbors to get to know each other. This sense of community creates a feeling of security that cannot be bought with alarm systems, etc. (I need not remind you that such neighborhoods also encourage greater participation in the democratic process.) We are served by two bus routes, which we use frequently. The houses in our neighborhood are unique and graceful, unlike the houses in the virtually unregulated developments of urban sprawl. There is a new bakery in the neighborhood, a commercial enterprise of a kind that would be allowed to exist in residential neighborhoods developed under the proposed changes; the shop is another meeting place for neighbors and a destination for neighborhood children. We had our house painted last year; the painter lives around the corner; I infer that the neighborhood is a mix of different income levels, which we appreciate. But the single most important factor for us is SAFETY. Because garages are set far back and separated from the street by wide sidewalks and grassy verges, we worry much less about our children being involved in a traffic accident than we would if garages were closer to sidewalks and there were fewer obstacles between street and play areas. I hope you will give others the opportunity to live in such neighborhoods, and give us all the opportunity to walk and feel safe in such neighborhoods, by supporting the proposed changes to the zoning regulations. I believe doing so is an important measure to protect the long-term sustainability of Iowa City's high quality of life. Sincerely, David Bullwinkle 1152 E. Court St. Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 337-0521 FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. Box 2001, Iowa City, Iowa $2244 October 3, 2005 City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Members of Council: The revised zoning code that you are to consider represents an exceptional effort on the part of the City and its volunteer commission to respect the history of development in Iowa City while at the same time defining its citizens' vision of the future of the city. We believe the new code wisely provides for a future for Iowa City's older neighborhoods by: -lessening the impact of spillover parking on surrounding streets. Not only has this been a problem in the Northside and other areas surrounding downtown, but also it is fast becoming a problem around the Kirkwood campus. -providing multiple- use zones. Multiple-use zones respect established neighborhoods by limiting structure height to three stories while at the same time allowing or encouraging owner-occupied structures to be used for businesses or professional offices. -protecting the balance of single-family and rental properties in older neighborhoods. The code provides for reducing the density in older neighborhoods and establishing more controls over rooming houses while at allowing the conversion or construction of a duplex structure on a comer lot. In the addition, the code includes much- needed protections for historic properties: -prevention of demolition by neglect -special exceptions for historic properties -certificate of economic hardship -special provisions to promote adaptive reuse of historic properties We urge you to support the revised code by voting in favor of the ordinance. Thank you. Sincerely, C) e.o ?-'- Board of Directors Friends of Historic Preservation " Marian Karr From: Tim Holman [Sewel1254@msn,com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:36 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: cs@icnna.org Subject: FW: Revised Planning & Zoning Code ..... Original Message ..... Subject: FW: Revised Planning & Zoning Code I encourage the Council to support the proposed Planning and Zoning Code. The older neighborhoods of Iowa City need these new regulations as protection from over development and poor stewardship. Over the years many developers and landlords have put their own economic interest above those of neighborhood and community. Your failure to support the Linn-Gilbert Historic designation has already caused one home to become a parking lot and others to migrate from owner occupied to rental. Your support of the proposed Planning and Zoning code will help reduce the on going erosion of the Northside. Below are particular areas of concern. 1. Please support the code's inclusion of parking requirements for apartments in RNC-12 zones. The Northside has become a parking lot to the University and downtown. 2. We need more control over multi-family residential zones. I encourage the city to have more control over rooming houses. 3. Please support restricting duplex construction to corner lots in RS-8 zones. This should reduce the demolition of more wonderful old homes. 4. Support a reduction of unrelated occupants from 4 to 3 in RNC-12 zones. Help reduce overcrowding and parking problems. This is a huge problem in the Northside. 5. Save the charm and character of the Market Square Business District. Construction should be restricted to 3 stories. This area is part of a neighborhood. Keep the tall structures downtown. Do not zone this area as Multi Use, keep it CN-1. Thank you, Meredith Sewell 420 Fairchild Street Iowa City, IA 52245 337-1416 Page 1 o~' Marian Kart From: Tim Shipe and Liz Moon [moonship@ia.net] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:24 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Zoning Code Support Dear Council members, I wish to express my very strong support for the proposed new city zoning code. As a 33-year resident of Iowa City and as a homeowner and property tax payer, I feel that the proposed code would have a very positive impact on the quality of life in our neighborhoods. I regret that I will be out of town when the council meets to discuss the code, but I hope that you will act favorably when it comes to a vote. Sincerely, Timothy Shipe 423 Ronalds St. Iowa City, IA 52245 10/3/2005 Marian Karr From: sfutrell@mchsi.com Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:20 PM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: proposed zoning code Dear Iowa City City Council, I am writing in support of the proposed revisions to the Iowa City Zoning Code. I hope you will vote to approve the proposed new code. I have a particular interest in asking you to support the portions of the code that will affect older neighborhoods. Specifically, the revisions that will increase parking requirements and reduce occupancy density from 4 to 3 unrelated persons in areas zoned RNC-12 are important-- They will help create a balance in older neighborhoods with a mix of rental and owner-occupied multi and single family housing. These mixed neighborhoods are important to Iowa City both in terms of character and in terms of keeping a variety of kinds of housing accessible to both students and long-term residents. Thank you for your consideration of these complex and important revisions, the new code will help to make Iowa City a liveable and desirable community for many years. Sincerely, Susan Futrell Susan Futrell One Backyard 311 Fairchild St. Iowa City, IA 52245 319-337-7770 sfutrell@mchsi.com new Zoning Ordinance Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: Hauserman, Nancy R [nancy-hauserman@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 4:51 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: new Zoning Ordinance I am writing to express my strong support for the new zoning ordinance that would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods. As a long time resident of the Northside of Iowa City, I cannot begin to tell you what it has meant to me and my family to live in a family environment. Moreover, in the last few years, with the expansion of the Northside Market area, the whole area has taken on a wonderful, almost "old-fashioned" feel to it. People stop and talk to each other and they can shop, eat, play, go to school in one area. Of course we have rental units and we have all worked hard to extend the sense of community to the existing renters. Sometimes it is a difficult union but I think the last few years have been really positive in that regard. We have had several northside block parties and are getting to know all of our neighbors. The area is safer than it has been and people talk to each other as we walk dogs, wash cars and bar-b-que. It is a good place to live- a quality of life that most people long for That said, it is a delicate balance this idea of neighborhood and community. If we lose the sense of old - old houses, old communities, old families - we will lose something that other cities are struggling to achieve. If we allow unfettered building and expansion, we will lose the neighborhood. I know that landlords have interests, economic and otherwise and that those interests must be balanced with the interests of others in the area but I would have to weigh in favor of those people who actually live (and work) in the neighborhood. The families in the northside chose the area for a reason - or several reasons - all of them having to do with a sense of neighborhood. Please help all of us - the Northside, and the City of Iowa City, maintain the treasure that we have. Support the zoning changes. Thank you. Nancy Hauserman 729 N. Linn Iowa City, Iowa 52245 10/3/2005 Marian Karr From: Mary Knudson [mary_knudson@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:41 AM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: zoning Hi. I want to extend my strong support for the new zoning rules that will be discussed on Oct.5. I think the rules will help keep the quality of neighborhoods because they will set limits on multiunit housing (ex. duplexes on corner lots). I live in the Miller Orchard neighborhood and we need these rules. Our neighborhood could easily be taken over by such multi-unit housing. We live our neighborhood and would like to see it protected. Thank you, Mary Knudson 725 West Benton St. Marian Karr From: Mark Cannon [mcannon@aea10.k12.ia.us] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 3:08 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Miller-Orchard rezoning I am aware of the council's rezoning plan of our neighborhood to limit duplexes to corner lots. I am in support of this option. I believe it will retain a mixture of housing options in our neighborhood which will contribute to its viability. For those of us who live in sigle-family houses, it is crucial that the neighborhood retain some 'permanent' residents who are committed to the positive atmosphere that has developed and improved over the last few years. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Mark Cannon 706 Miller ave. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.aeal0.kl2.ia.us Marian Karr From: Jeanette Carter [carterpatton@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:23 AM To: karen-howard@iowa-city.org; cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: new code I don't know if this is where we are supposed to send comments about the proposed code, but here is one. My husband and I have noted with alarm the increasing use of putting garages almost directly in front of new homes, both here and in other towns. This is such an unattractive option! We are glad the proposed code reduces the chances of this happening. Surely builders can find room for garages without putting them in front of the attractive homes they build. Iowa City City Council 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52242 September 30, 2005 Dear City Council Members, The revised zoning code that you are about to consider is a wise response to the changes that have taken place in Iowa City since the code was last updated and offers an intelligent vision for the city's future. As a resident of an older neighborhood, I am especially pleased to see that the revised code considers how to lessen the impact of spillover parking on residential streets; maintain the vitality of North Market Square by rezoning from CB-2 to MU or CN-1; protect the balance of owner-occupied and rental properties (through specifications for the placements of duplexes, the siting of garages on small lots, and reduction of occupancy in new rental units); and enhance pedestrian-friendly design. I hope that City Council will endorse the hard work of its Planning and Community Development department and the volunteer efforts of its Planning and Zoning Commission and will vote to adopt this intelligent and reasonable zoning code. Sinc_~et~ ~ 413 N. Gilbert St. lowa City City Council 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52242 September 29, 2005 Dear City Council Members, I am writing in support of the revised zoning code you are about to consider. The revised code offers a set of modest changes, which taken together promise to protect and enhance all the best things about Iowa City's buildings, streetscapes, commercial districts, and neighborhoods. The revised code provides a blueprint the City can be proud of and will sensibly guide growth while protecting the interests of a broad range of the community. The revised code deserves praise for responding to the City's own Comprehensive Plan in a user-friendly and fair way that stands to benefit residents while not impeding development. Much of the revised code proposes modest changes in what is already required. In many cases, the code does not call for new requirements, but just more logically regroups existing specifications. Where new regulations are proposed, they are carefully designed to balance the desires of developers against the good of the community. One of the things I especially appreciate about the revised code is that it recognizes that many peoPle want to live and work in a city that has walkable streets, a diverse range of hqusing, a vibrant downtown, and both old and new neighborhoods. Those things don't happen by chance, but have to be created and maintained by careful stewardship. Changes that will be particularly beneficial for my own Northside neighborhood include the new proposals for the siting of duplexes in the RS-8 zone (which will help preserve the balance of single-family houses and rentals), for the rezoning of CB-2 areas to MU or CN- 1 (which will help protect the flourishing and charming North Market Square district), for the placement of garages on new houses built on small lots (which will maintain the pedestrian-friendly streetscape), for the reduction of unrelated tenants from 4 to 3 for new rental properties in the RNC-12 zone, and for lessening the impact of spill- over parking from new apartment buildings. The revised code gives us a chance to shape our future in a way that balances the needs and desires of a broad range of the community. It guides us in protecting older neighborhoods while encouraging smart growth. I hope that in the interests of serving the whole of the Iowa City community--not just developers and realtors--you will support this sensible code. Sincerely, © ~ ~ Claire Sponsler --q O, ~ 413 N. Gilbert St. ',~ October 4, :2005 FI LED 2:0[15OCT Al411:!,5 Iowa City Council Members c',l'ry" ~- ~ 410E. Washington St. ~, GL=R} Iowa City, IA 522~ t0WA C~ ]0WA Dear Council Members: I am writing to urge you to vote for the proposed development code. Our city staff and other expels have carefully considered needs and goals. Our Planning and Zoning Commission also suppo~s the plan and for good reason -- it allows for development while prese~ing and promoting qualities that make Iowa City desirable and sustainable over the long-run. As one example, an advantage of the code is the new standard for placement of garages on lots less than 60 feet wide. This is the only new standard regarding single-family homes and plenty of plans exist, so developers can easily accommodate the requirement. I live in an older house on a 60-foot wide lot that has a rear-loaded garage (one of the options for under 60-foot wide lots) and can attest that this feature enhances our prope~y and the street as a whole. Another example helps illustrate the lengths to which the new code can meet both developers' and residents' needs: The code allows duplexes to be built on corner lot~ as long as developers ensure that these units fit into the current mix of buildings. In sum, the revised code is about balance. Without it, developers will have too heavy a hand in how we live. With the code, developers and residents and, thus, our town as a whole will mutually benefit. Please use this ample evidence to vote "yes" for the proposed development code. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Becky Soglin Resident of Longfellow Neighborhood bsoglin~yahoo.com cc,Pcp FILED OCT - k AH I1: CITY CLERK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IOWA CiTX IOWA October 4, 2005 Iowa City City Council 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Council Members: The culmination of years of work by City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the revised zoning code that you are now considering provides a thoughtful and fair master plan for Iowa City's future that promises to help our community grow in ways that will lead to continued livability and economic prosperity for all its citizens. As residents of one of Iowa City's oldest neighborhoods, we are grateful for the way the new code carefully shapes a future for older neighborhoods such as the Northside through recommendations to help: · maintain the balance of single-family and rental properties, and prevent teardowns, by regulating the siting of duplexes in RS-8 zones and increasing control over rooming houses · keep older houses affordable for owner-occupants and curb over-occupancy by reducing the number of unrelated tenants permitted in new rentals in RNC-12 zones · diminish the impact of spill-over parking onto surrounding streets by increasing the parking requirements for apartments in several zones, including RNC-12 zones · strengthen the vitality of the North Market Square business distdct and preserve its unique character as part of the Northside neighborhood by rezoning commercial areas from CB2 to CN-1 or MU zoning · encourage a neighborhood-feel by making sure that garages for new houses built on small lots don't dominate the lot We believe that the revised code offers a reasonable and fair vision for the City's future and helps ensure that older neighborhoods will receive the planning needed to help them continue to flourish. We urge you to vote in support of the new code. Thank you for your consideration of these important revisions. Sincerely, The Steering Committee, Northside Neighborhood Association cc : PC'/> October 1, 2005 Dear Council Members: After years of careful analysis, the City Planning staff has come up with a revised zoning code that we believe deserves the Council's full support. Without departing dramatically from the previous code, the proposal reflects the ideals spelled out in the city's Comprehensive Plan. It is also responsive to the express preferences (the "choices") of people from neighborhoods throughout Iowa City -- people who were asked: "What matters to you most when you are looking for a place to live?" We are convinced that the new code will expand the variety of affordable housing, without destroying the integrity of older neighborhoods. We support the recommendation to allow new houses to be built on smaller lots in a way that is sensitive to the citizens' express (and very reasonable) interest in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. And we are very enthusiastic about the recommendation to reduce, by one, the number of unrelated people who can live in new rentals in the RNC-12 zone. (This will, we believe, help preserve the vitality of older neighborhoods by making older houses more affordable for owner-occupiers.) The recommendation to rezone the charming North Market Square business district also makes very good sense: it will preserve the character of this unique area, and thereby help to preserve the vitality of both the downtown and the northside neighborhood. There are other valuable suggestions in the proposed code. Rather than enumerate them all, however, we would like to stress, again, that each of the specific proposals reflects the tireless, conscientious efforts of highly competent professionals whose sole aim was to serve the city and its people. This should make all of us very slow to assume that we can come up with something better ourselves. Sincerely, aulson and Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: McGuire, Linda A [linda-mcguire@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:4@ AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: New Zoning Code Dear Councilors, As a long time Iowa City resident, and having lived for over 25 years in the near north side neighborhood, 20 years as an owner-occupied homeowner, I strongly urge you to adopt the new zoning ordinance. The changes in the code would go far to alleviate many of the chronic problems in our older neighborhoods, most of whir" you must be tired of hearing detailed! The code is also far-sighted in its treatment of potential knockdowns. Quality of life issues should be the concern of both long-time residents as well as tenants and their landlords. This new code addresses many of them. I might add that our own neighborhood is at a critical juncture, with its many houses making up a nice mix of rental and owner occupied units. As you and business investors well know, rental units in houses like these are in competition with newer, larger complexes that offer secured parking, high speed internet, fitness facilities, and the like. Upgrading rental property in our neighborhood, as would be the result of some of these zoning changes, is good for the whole neighborhood and for the whole city as an attractive place for students and young professionals to relocate to. A fine community should offer a good mix of potential housing stock. Thank you for considering my views. Linda McGuire, 618 Ronalds Street. 10/4/2005 Marian Karr From: Niki Neems RSVP [niki@rsvp-asap.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 12:11 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: zoning I have lived in the Morningside neighborhood for seven years. These are some of the things that I appreciate about my neighborhood: *I can walk from my home to the grocery store. *I can walk downtown for entertainment, shopping, church, dinner etc. *My daughter can ride her bike unsupervised on the sidewalks and can play ~independently without safety concerns. *I can sit on my front stoop and without fail visit with a neighbor who is out walki~g a dog or strolling a kid. *It is a short walk for my kid to school. *I can go for a run alone without thinking about safety. *I can borrow sugar from more than one neighbor and there is always someone to ask to feed my dog or water my plants or get my mail. *A recent block party attracted a large number of neighbors. Some had recently moved to the neighborhood, but the majority have lived there for some time, one family for over 50 years. *There is an assortment Of income levels, a variety of family groups (i.e. 2 parent families with kids, young couples with no kids, retired couples, single parents with kids, single people, lesbian gouples with kids, lesbian couples etc.), ethnic diversity and a Systems Unlimited home. *While there are rental properties, many families have stayed in the neighborhood for quite some time. *The structures themselves are different in size and design, allowing for many options in the buying/selling markets. *There is a variety of house and lot sizes allowing for a mix of price ranges. *My neighbors are proud of our community and supportive of each other. Living where I do, I feel connected to my community. I support the new zoning ordinances for Iowa City because they encourage neighborhood community. Niki Neems 1801 Morningside Drive Iowa City niki neems, owner 114 east washington street iowa city, iowa 52240 1 www.rsvp-asap.com 319.337.4400p 319.337.4440f October 2, 2005 Iowa City City Council Civic Center ~owa City, IA 52240 Fellow Citizens: I write to you today as a homeowner and permanent resident of Iowa City. I plan to live in my present home for the rest of my life. I own a very long ranch-style house which takes up most of my 80 foot wide lot. My house was built, in 1986 by my son for his family. Land waJ relatively cheap and consequently, when I purchased this house, I became the owner of one of the largest lots within walking distance of ~down town...185 feet deep. The days of 80 by 185 foot lots within the city are long gone!! Many of us who choose to live in Iowa City, are not pleased with the direction this town is taking...in many cases. There is the perception that land developers and builders have had their own way over the objections of local residents. I believe it is time for the pendulum to swing in the · other direction. Iowa City is our home too and we deserve to be listened to! I participated id the visual preference survey conducted by the Planning and 'Community Development department. It was my understanding that the results were nearly identical...developer~ and individual citizens agreed...visually. My son now owns his own company and has built in the Welsh Village' area of northeast Coraivilie for the past five years. His newest venture is Welsh Village, Part VI, a development of 40 foot wide houses mixed with 24 foot wide multi-level homes with communal gregn~ space. This is the alternative to combat urban sprawl. In September, 2002, Friends of Hickory Hill Park sponsore~ a community conservation symposium, "Sowing Ideas, Growing Consensus". The group's featu~red speaker was Randall Arendt, nationally recognized conservation designer. Though CounCil. members and City Planning Department staff were issued special invitations, none apparently chose to spend their Saturday afternoon and evening learning more about this important subject from a man with a wealth of knowledge. There are vidgotapes of Randall Arendt's presentation at the Iowa City Public Library and perhaps the City's cable television office still has a copy on file since they taped the program for the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. The title of the video is "Conservation Beyond the Boundaries". I also have a copy at home, available for loan. Friends of Hickory Hill Park purchased two of Randall Arendt's books, "Smart Development for Quality communities" an~ "Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town...Design Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhoods, Old and New". I have these two books in my home and they are available for loan. Page 2. It is my hope that the City Council will accept the revised zoning ordinance as developed by the Planning and Community Development department and as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you for doing the right thing for the many older, Permanent residents of Iowa City. I feel an immense sense of loyalt~y to Iowa City, having been employed by the City for over 17 years. I want, once again, to feel a sense of ownership in this town. Go ahead...make me proud once again to call Iowa City home!! Sincerely, Joan Jehle 1167 East Jefferson Street Iowa City, IA '52245 319-338-5331 From: Rudolf E. Kuenzli [rudolf-kuenzli@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:31 PM To: council@dmatch.geo.yahoo.akadns.net Subject: new zoning code adoption Dear City Councilors, I am writing to urge you to adopt the newly revised zoning code for the city. The planning department has bent over backwards to make this an inclusive process, soliciting opinions from all sides, reacting to it, holding hearings, meeting with neighborhood associations and anyone who cares to know abourt the new code. In sum, an admirable effort that is motivated solely by the wish to make Iowa City a better, more attractive place to live and to work. In the last few years, I have had the chance to travel around the country a good deal to attend family events. Everywhere I go, from Seattle to Hartford and Washington D.C. via Chicago, Columbus and Kentucky I am aware of new residential and commercial development projects that are attractive to look at. And every time that I see one of these I ask myself why Iowa City can't do something similar. I have concluded that it is because there is a lack of vision here that the new development code will do much to remedy. Other cities value their historic districts as vehicles for promoting their downtown areas and as a way of preventing inner city decay and restoring vibrancy to inner cities. The new zoning code contains elements which will promote such an effort in Iowa City. Surely there will be much protest from builders and developers about what they perceive as unnecessary regulation. "Let the market decide" they will say. Well, the fact is that there isn't much choice to decide about. We have to buy what they build and much of what they build all looks the same. It is up to you to provide'the market with a choice by adopting the new zoning code. It is up to you to rise above personal profit motives of others and to do what is in the best interest of all of Iowa City's citizens. Sincerely, Cecile Kuenzli 705 South Summit St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Marian Karr From: Leah Klevar [leah-klevar@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:34 PM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: Zoning changes Hello: My name is Leah Klevar, and I am a longtime Iowa City resident who works as a senior writer and editor at The University of Iowa Foundation. I also am a new mother and a member of a wonderful, close-knit, eastside neighborhood of beautiful and historic houses that is full of life--with walkers, runners, dogs, and baby strollers on every block. My love for this neighborhood is what compels me to write to you today to encourage your support of the proposed zoning-code changes that are up for consideration in front of the Iowa City City Council. (I would have loved to attend the council meeting, but its current scheduled meeting time is not convenient for me or other parents with young children.) My small neighborhood community has given me a strong sense of place and belonging; in fact, my husband and I literally meet up with many of our friends and family members on the streets, sidewalks, and front lawns of the blocks surrounding our house on 1709 E. College Street. We value the physical set-up of our neighborhood, which allows us to greet and make friends, to play with children, to attend neighborhood block parties, and to be good neighbors to those around us. We also value the history and integrity of the houses in our neighborhood. For these reasons and more, my husband and I participated in a focus-group study of housing development and building standards at Iowa City High School that the city commissioned from a Madison, Wisconsin, architecture firm last year. We did this because we have a vested interest in how our beloved community will grow and change, and we have been dismayed to witness the ugly, cheap, and isolating tract housing that has multiplied throughout our city in recent years, sprawling ever further each season. I spent three years living in such a zero-lot neighborhood in Coralville, and I experienced, firsthand, the isolation and anonymity that these developments can create. I knew none of my neiqhbors, other than by sight, and we never helped one another with shoveling, mowing, moving, or other tasks. Despite the fact that our homes were literally side by side, we "neighbors" rarely socialized; rather, we spent time in our own back decks and backyards--due to the physical set-up of our houses, yards, and streets. We couldn't sit out on our front porches; there were none. And even if there were, the noise of the Interstate would have drowned out our voices. At the time, I jokingly told my friends that I lived in an "Edward Scissorhands" land of bland, identical houses, with automaton-like neighbors. My husband and I feel strongly that housing development can be done in an aesthetically pleasing, family-friendly, and dynamic way that supports a sense of community and neighborliness in Iowa City. We feel that we owe it to our daughter--and to the generations beyond hers--to make this commitment now. That is why I strongly urge you all to vote in favor of the proposed zoning-code changes that will enforce design standards for builders. Thank you for your time and consideration--and for all that you do on behalf of Iowa Citians. Best, Leah Klevar Leah Klevar Senior Writer University of Iowa Foundation 319-335-3305 800-648-6973 leah-klevar@uiowa.edu Page 1 of 1 Marian Kart From: Barbara Buss [barbybuss@MSN.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:44 PM To: Iowa City City Council Subject: A letter to the Members To the Mayor and members of the Iowa City City Council, Attached is my letter to concerning your response to the new Zoning Code. Barbara Buss *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 10/4/2005 October 4, 2005 To the Mayor and members of the Iowa City City Council: I am writing in support of the new Zoning Code as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I urge you to adopt it. Many of us have come before you in person or by letter to express our opinions on issues addressed by the proposed Zoning Code. It is your responsibility to listen to all of us and then to determine which comments speak to the general welfare of the city and which to private interests. I won't pretend to have read and/or understood the entire code, but I have been involved in its development from the meetings that were held to design the present Comprehensive Plan, the plan on which the revised Zoning Code is based, through most of the public hearings that have followed the writing of the Code itself. In these public discussions, a dichotomy is often set up between the "market place" and "government interference", as though any restrictions on private enterprise should be seen as running counter to the public good. I would agree that the "market place" can be a wonderful model for assessing preferences, but, I would argue, this is true only where there is a truly open market. As was pointed out by a city planner at one of the public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the real estate market in Iowa City is a sellers' market. There are buyers for the houses that exist because there are people who need housing in Iowa City. It does not follow from the fact that people buy the only houses available to them, that these are the houses they would buy if they had a choice to do otherwise. A market place, such as the real estate market in Iowa City is a controlled market, not a free market and should not be credited as a measure of citizen preference. The Planning and Zoning staff, on the other hand, has made every effort to assess the preferences of the citizens of Iowa City. As agents of City government, they have worked to create a free market for ideas as part of the process of revising the zoning code. They have worked with our community for several years through public meetings and a policy of accessibility beyond meetings. At one of the public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, a local group complained that they weren't consulted about the revisions to the code. I think you would agree that it was not the responsibility of the staff to decide which groups to contact directly. Their offer to meet with any and all groups has been part of this process from the beginning, and this offer has been made publicly many times. No group can make a legitimate claim that they had no chance for in-put in this process. In considering the process by which the new Zoning Code has been created, I hope you will realize that here "government interference" has been and will be used in the service of protecting an open "market place" in which the citizens of Iowa City will have a choice as to the homes they own or rent and the character of the neighborhoods in which these homes are located. I urge you to vote for the new Zoning Code as a way of keeping the "market place" open and free of coercion. Sincerely yours, Barbara Buss 718 S. Summit Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Marian Karr From: Tom Carsner [carsner@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 3:33 PM To: , council@iowa-city, org Subject: YES on Proposed Zoning Code Revision To The Council: I urge you to approve the proposed revisions to the City Zoning Code. The incentives offered to developers, not mandates, such as density bonuses, make it a fair balance of free choice by citizens and preferred direction from the City. Tom Carsner 1627 College Court Place Iowa City e-mail: carsner@mchsi.com 319-338-9335 Marian Karr From: Bluford Adams [bluford-adams@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:45 PM To: council@iowa-city, org Subject: new zoning and development code Dear Council, I am writing to endorse the new zoning and development code. Its provisions will help preserve the character of the Northside, protect the charming Market Square district, encourage pedestrian-friendly design, and help keep housing affordable for families. I urge you to listen to many residents of the Northside neighborhood who support the code. It is a step in the right direction for Iowa City! Sincerely, Bluford Adams 4 Heather Ct. Iowa City Page 1 of 1 Marian Kart From: Pam Ehrh,'rdt [pam@lastingpiece.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:41 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: proposed zoning code Dear City Council Members, I strongly urge you all to support the proposed zoning code. · It offers incentives to developers who choose to build more affordable housing by making developments that look more like areas, like Longfellow neighborhood, instead of modern suburbs. Residents enjoy neighborhoods which appear safe, attractive and pedestrian-friendly. Streets lined with garages prominent are not attractive or do not encourage interactions with neighbors. The proposed code will open up new opportunities for a variety of affordable home plans not currently offered by homebuilders. · It will apply the site development standards for apartment buildings citywide. In the past, residents in older neighborhoods, like Longfellow, have watch apartments buildings being built without any sensitivity to the housing ~stock around it. With the proposed code there will be standards to ensure that apartment buildings are built to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. These standards control height and mass o: apartment buildings, the location of balconies, entryways and parking. · It will require developers to meet with neighborhood residents and property owners prior to applying for a change in zoning that would affect residential areas. While on P&Z, I saw how such meetings could result in successful developments by fostering open communication, helping to eliminate mistrust and facilitating development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. Much has been devoted to developing this proposed zoning code, from city budget (planning staff and consultants), volunteers hours (P&Z commissioners) and citizen input. If this code fails, it is back to the drawing board for the entire thing and meanwhile developers will continue, as they have in the past. I know you have and will continue to study this issue critically; I hope you will vote in support of the Proposed Zoning Code. Thank you, Pam Ehrhardt 1029 E Court St Iowa City, IA 52240 319-337-8433 (business) 319-351-6531 (home) 319-339-9971 (fax) 10/4/2005 Marian Karr From: Glenn Ehrstine [glenn-ehrstine@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:24 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: please vote yes on the revised Planning and Zoning Code Dear Iowa City Council Members, I'm writing to express my strong support of the revised Planning and Zoning code. As a resident of the Longfellow neighborhood, I consider it vital for the council to maintain livable older neighborhoods within walking distance of downtown. I believe the "Myth~ and Realities" docuument available on the city website accurately addresses the advantages of the new code, and I wholeheartedly support its passing. Sincerely, Glenn Ehrstine 704 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240-5639 Tel. 351-4985 Consulting Engineers Civil Structural October 3, 2005 Iowa City - City Council 410 E. Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Zoning Changes To Whom It May Concern: Professional en~neers readyto assist you. Included in this package are signed petitions against the proposed zoning of properties located just east of Ralston Creek between Burlington and Iowa Avenue. Pre-Design Planning Feasibility Studies t~ation S~ies The signatures here are from 7 out of the 8 property owners which are affected by Concept Development Bridge.ydra~ics this change in zoning. Schematic Design Cost Estimates Sincerely, Design Services st~ct~l Design Mark Holtkamp, PE Bridge Design Civil Site Design NNW, Inc. Specifications Plan Issue Bid Assistance Construction Mana Coordination Construction Submittal Review Matedals Testing InspeeflonBridges Bridge Sounding Crane Systems Buildings 506 E. College Street 5t..~>a~ /~t/Je/-- 318 S. Broadway Avenue  Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319.351.2166 Phone C7 ,, (~/'4[ 507.281.5188 Phone 319.351.0256 Fax /"-->EL L~ 507.281.5188 Fax ~ t/--~.~' / www.nnw-inc.com ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Nila Haug own the property(ies) at 511, 517 & 521 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property(ies) to Mixed Use. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property(ies) from CB-2 to Mixed Use. Signed Dated STATE OF , CO TV OF ss: On this q~ day of ~, A.D. 20~, before me, the undersigned, a Notaw Public in and for said state, personally appeared ~ [C'~ ~LCO , to me ~o~ to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, ~d ac~owledged thru he (she) executed the sine as his (her) voluntaw act and deed. ("~t~j~~otary Public in and for said stat~~wl~CffililTO~~[ ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Mark Holtkamp own the property(ies) at 506 E. College St, Iowa City, IA 52240-5114 which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB,2 and down zone my property(ies) to Mixed Use. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property(ies) from CB-2 to Mixed Use. STATE OF ~:I~~ , COUNTY OF ~C)['3~OY1 ss: On this ~ day of ~ OoO(L;, A.D. 200 5, before me, the undersigned' a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared lq ~t~._.~k.,[.~m_-~r,.lawv~o , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the l~or~0ing instrument, and a'cknowledged that he (she) executed the same as his (her) voluntary act and deed. ,~tt~{~ .~Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Dr. Jason Bradley own the property(ies) at 505 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property(ies) to Mixed Use. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property(ies) from CB-2 to Mixed Sig O'g- 700~ , ~C) .t:- fi-' STATE OF '-r-o~ , COUNTY OF ,..~V'I~e-I ss: On this ,-~ day of~,..,I]~k~A.D. 20CL_~, before me, the undersigned, a .Notary Pu.bhc. ~n and for said state, personally appeared ~ c', .-~-l.b~ ~ ~:tc{ I-tld , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and ackfrdwledged that he (she) executed the same as his (her) voluntary act and deed. '~-lx~.~. (n~ll~L4k.O.~xNotary Public in and for said state. I~-~.lCornmission Number /025801 I..,~i EVELYN M. CARDENAS I ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Steven Trefz own the property(ies) at 505 & 507 E. College ST, Iowa City, IA 52240-5114 which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property(ies) to Mixed Use. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property(ies) from CB-2 to Mixed Use. Signed 'ff?'-~ (Dg ~ Dated ~ ~~~ ~ -<~ m STATE OF ~ , COUNTY OF ,.~¥~t%~'.'.~Y'h ss: On this .~.P~_ day of OC.,I~E:~f~ A.D. 20 O~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared ~-~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, ~n~ acknowledged that he (she) executed the same as his (her) voluntary act and deed. Io4~1,1 EVELYN M. CARDENAG [ , Not~ Public in and for said state. I'l'l ~0¢¢l~io~plm$ I I~J .... ~q-oS-OO l Marian Karr " From: Bob Sessions [BSESSIO@kirkwood.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:39 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: comment on new zoning code To the members of the council: I am very much in support of the main features of the new zoning code you will begin considering this evening. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend in person, so I am sending my comments electronically. I have lived in Iowa City for 20 years and I plan to retire here. I love Iowa City. Because it is an easy place to live. Because it is a safe place to live. Because it is a friendly place to live. Because it is (relatively) affordable. Most of all because it is a place where I am enmeshed in community: through my boys' schools, through my church, and through my neighborhood (Longfellow). From reading the zoning proposal, I believe it contains several improvements over the current zoning ordinance that will help preserve and create the kind of community I value and benefit from. Key to community, I believe, are neighborhoods that encourage, by their designs, people to meet, greet, and interact with each other. Key to that are small lots and houses, sidewalks, safe and quiet streets, common grounds (especially green spaces), local shops/markets, and housing that does not detract from these features. By limiting sprawl, encouraging smaller homes not dominated by garages, encouraging communication between developers and residents, emphasizing public transportation, and zoning for local, small-scale shops, I think the new ordinance moves us in the right directions. I ride my bicycle most places I go around town, and while I am encouraged to see some bike-path development, I still find Iowa City far too bicycle unfriendly. Please consider serious, major restructuring of our transportation routes that invite biking and uncouple us from the many unfortunate ways we have become addicted to automobiling. Thank you for your consideration, Robert Sessions 222 Fairview Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I, Cele Lubin, General Partner in AMC Investment Co. , own the properties at: 323,325,327,331 E. Market & 127 N. Gilbert ,. which are zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone our properties to CN-1. We want to protest this action. We object to the rezoning of our properties from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed ~ ~ -- Cele Lubin ~'--~ Dated ~ 02 t, o ~ .~ STATE OF ,~OU~Y OF , ss: On,~ia, .... ,~7 ~ day of~ , A.D. 20 ~ ~ , before me, the,~r~o3 Not~ Public in ~d for said state, personally appe~ed ~~~5~'~, to me known to be the person named in and ~h6 exe~te~ ~regoing instrument, and ac~owledged that she executed ~e'qa~~er.vo~nt~y act and deed. ~y c0mmi~i0n ~pir~ ~ay 13, 2009 , Not~ Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I, Arthur Goldberg, General Partner in AMC Investment Co. , own the properties at: 323,325,327, 331 E. Market & 127 N. Gilbert which are zonedCB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone our properties to CN-!. We want to protest this action. We object to the rezoning of our properties from CB-2 to CN-1. (D Signed (}~ c)~,.l~?._~ ~, __-lq u oldber .-< r- Dated ~~. v_cg, ~__e3 r3 ~ ,.o STATE OF ~.0_ l,;~-r/,/~ , COUNTY OF .~dg.P_-F/t~ -po , ss: On this ~5t day of .$~,_ ~/,rl/ogJa_ , A.D. 20~, before me, the undersigned, aNot~ Pub!ie in ~d for said state, person~ly appemed ~ffO~ ~~ , to me ~own to be the person named in ~d who executed the foregoing instrument, ~d acknowledged that he executed the same as his volunt~ act and deed. ~ ' , Not~ Public in and fo~ said state. Attention: Iowa City City Council We have been informed that the city is proposing to eliminate the CB-2 zone and down zone a major portion of the CB-2 zone in the northside commercial area to CN-1. Attached are signed and notarized statements from the majority of commercial property owners in the area of proposed down zoning objecting to the down zoning. These signed and notarized statements represent 22 of 27 private property owners and 85% of privately owned land in the affected area. Submitted by Armond Pagliai Signed and notarized statements from: AMC Investment (Cele Lubin and Arthur Goldberg) John Alberhasky Howard Carroll Benjamin Chait Anthony Christner Mary Ellen Chudacek Thomas Conway Thomas Coreoran Patricia Fisher William Gilpin Daniel Hanrahan Mike Hodge Michael Karr Yuk Wah Lam © -< -'~ --"~ Olin Lloyd John Logan Jay Nelson Armond Pagliai David Panther c~ Vladimir Skarda David Stoddard Naffaly Stramer ?c. 0 ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I John Alberhasky own the properties at 401 E. Market & 120 N. Gilbert which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my properties to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my properties from CB-2 to CN-1 SignedQ~ ~ ~~ _~© John Alberhasky 'r)at d STATE , COUNTY OF ~._J0tT/~ SOT) ss: On this cO 7 day of~?,/)~_~q0/f)~' , A.D. 20 ~ ~, before me, the under6i~ed, a Not~ Publgc in ~d for said state, personally appe~ed x~ ~[ rhas (¢ , to me ~own to be the person named in ~d who execdted the forbgoing hstmmem, ~d ac~owledged that he executed the same as ~s volunt~ act ~d deed. , Notaw Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Howard Carroll own the property at 322 El Bloomington which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed Dated STATE OF -~.O. t Oc~ , COUNTY OF .iO/q r~ ~ ss: On this ~ ~4~-h day of OCqD~.x'- '~, A.D. 20 0~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, ~-~sonally appeared [4ot,2cz~d C_xxr cc~ [ ~_~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Benjamin Chait own the property at 202 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to pro~ I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 t( Signed Dated ~ d>~ ~> ~, STATE OF '~-o~oq , COUNTY OF -J--~s~ ss: On this -zt,-u, day of ffqx~,~,~ , A.D. 20 as , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared 't3oqo.~, CI~.~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Anthony Christner own the property at 207 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed Anthony Christner Dated STATE OF 'TL""" Or,C)~_ ,_COUNTY OF ,.~~ffd~ ss: On this ~ day of ~,og_/Oa,/'~ -, A.D~ 20' , before me, the under§igned, a Notapj Public in and for said state, personally appeared O.h),'/Ts -nzF, to me known to be the person named in and who ex~uted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. BEVERLY KENNY FELL Commissio~ Humber 727458 My Commission ~pires Uarch 16. 200? , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Mary_ Ellen Chudacek own the property at 402 E. Market which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed Mar~ Ellen Dated STATE OF 5F'Ob.)~ , COUNTY OF -~DH M % o tx./ ss: On this c:~rc[ day of ~ ~.~ , A.D. 20 O~, before me, the undersized, a Not~ Public in and for said state, personally appeged Mg~g ~N Eflu DAcmt~ to me ~om to be ~e person named m-~d ~ho execUted the forego~g ~s~ment, ~d ac~owledged ~at she eXecuted the same as her vol~tmy act d deed. Commission'Number 161041 , Hot~ ~.blic i. ~d fo~ said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Thomas Conway own the property at 225 N. Gilbert which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Thomas Conway O 56_ '~-'~ ._ __C)-< ~, -.---T'] STATE OF '~.O , COUNTY OFt /O/~/1 ~tq]Q ss: On this c~.q day of ~-j~J~ e.~v , A.D. 20 Ob", before me, the undersigned, a NotaryaP~blic in/and for said state, personally appeared~-~x0 m a.~ ~'.r) c~ ~ cxx/, to me known to be the person named in and who-executJd the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. [~.l I~IMilEi~LY' KILPATRIGK [ I'l-'l ~_C~nmm~.~ I , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Tom Corcoran own the property at 215 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed '~qf~ ~~~~/~ Tom Corcora~ ©2 .-<r- Dated ~> STATE OF ~[-r'2r,;a , COUNTY OF ._~-~/sa,v/ ss: On this ~:~ day of ~,77~ -,-A:D. 20 ~ before me, the undersigned, a Notary l~'d-blic in'find for said state, personally appeared /~'~Tm ~o~r'~'~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. Commission Number 727458 . . My,~.m_~s,s?~Ex.,p. ires , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Patricia Fisher own the properties at 315 N. Gilbert and 311 N. Gilbert which are zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my properties to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my properties from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed ~O~, Patficia Fisher Dated STATE OF ~'"~ , COUNTY .OF ( J6V~,q K-~9'04--)_ ss: On this ~ & day of , ~ ,~37~b~/~ , A.D. 20 t3 ~-, before me the undersigned, a NoLary Public in~ and for said state, personally appeared ~Dc,+ric~ o~ ~%~e-.e~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I William Gilpin own the properties at 330 E. Market, 213 & 217 N. Gilbert which are zoned CB -2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my properties to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my properties from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed 3,-~ William Gilpin O~'c->_~c~ -o Dated ~' f~ ~ 7, STATE OF f~bO0-., ~ COUNTY OF t~j0/gf/Sb-K~ ss: Onthis c~(,~ dayOf .~tf)'jC/Bb~.~ ,A.D. 20 0~,before me, the undersi~med, a Not_~ Pt~blic in and for said state, personally appeared I,L) i i / i04~ (_~ i [ ?)'i ~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the ~oregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Daniel Hanrahan own the property at 210 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed el Hanrahan Dated /O 3 '-<r~ "~ RTl STATE OF ~Jt'v,,')~-_ , COUNTY OF t-J,o/-;,~z~'~,--/ ss: On ~is _~- day of ~(~ ~ , A.b. 20 ~KZ before me, the underfii~ed, a No~ Public in and for said state, personally appe~ed ~~ ~.~/~, to me ~own to be the person named in ~d who executed the forego~g hs~ment, ~d ac~owledged ~at he executed the same ~ his volunt~ act ~d deed. BEVERLY KENNY FELL ~ssi~ Nu~ 727~ i _ ~ ~arch 16. 2007 , N~t~ Public in ~d for said'stat~. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Mike Hodge (HCB Properties LC) own the property at 203 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Mike H~d' ' _-- Dated ' STATE OF I~ , COUNTY OF .JO~'X..~,cI<gCy},~ ss: On t~is ?A~ day of ~C~ ~~~e~, A.D. 20 0~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary P~lic in and for said state, personally appeared. ~[~e~l ~~_.~ , to me known to be the person named in and who ex¢cut~c~ the'foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Michael Karr own the property at · 312 E. Market which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed Dated STATE OF" I~t~u2c~ , COUNTY OF /0~qlq%45-~ ss: On this ~ day of ~)C-~ok)e_~~_¢', A.D. 20 O~ , before me, the un~er~i~ed, a Not~ublic i~ and for said state, personally appe~ed ~ ~ C[~&~ ~&~ ~ , to me ~own to be the person nmed in and ~ho executed th~ foregoing hs~ment, ~d ac~owledged ~at he executed the same as his volunt~ act ~d deed. KIMBERL¢ KILPATRICK ] ~i~ Nu~r 7~157] I~'i ~ Co~ ~r. I ~ ~ot~ ~ubiJc J~ and ~o~ sa~d state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Yuk Wah Lam own the property at 208 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed v~,t~ ~ ~ Yuk Wah Lam ~., Dated ! ..... OF , country OF SO' On this ~ ~) day of. ~(~~~ ¢r~ , A.D. 20 0~- , before me, the undersigned, a Notary l~ublic in and for said state, personally appeared ~o ~ YqOl'X ~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Olin Lloyd own the property at 318 E. Bloomingon which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I obj~i to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-I.? Signed k_..O1 Dated STATE OF Z2'~coa., , COUNTY OF t_Jo/~nsoD ss: On this o2Q day of ~'e4..~3em 0 er- , A.D. 20 0g , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared Oli t~ L- ~ ~x/d~ , to me known to be the person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I John Logan (Malnick LLC) own the property at 305 N. Gilbert which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN~. Signed ~',~ ~(//~ John gan Dated ~[~-]0 STATE OF %00 Ct_. , COUNTY OF tD ~t ~x ~ ss: On this 2~.~ day of ~h e4~, A.D. 20 ~, before me, the undersized, a Not~u~lic in ahd for said state, personally appe~ed ~0~ kD ~ , to me ~o~ to be ~e person named in ~ who execm~the foregoing hs~ment, ~d ac~owledged that he executed the same as his vol~t~ act ~d deed. Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Jay Nelson own the property at 211 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. STATE OF ~J~0/~Jd. , COUNTY OF ~h n, ~F~3 ss: On this ~,~d..? day of ~pJ~ ~ , A.D. 20 0 .$% before me, the ~d~i~ed, a Not~ Public in and for said state, personally appe~ed ~ ~ffr~ , to me ~own to be ~e person named in ~d ~o ~ex~c~ted the foregoing hs~mem, ~d ac~owledged that he executed the same as his volunt~ act ~d deed.  ~ssi~ Nu~ ~7~ My Commissi~ Expires t ~ Uarch 1~, 20G7 , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Armond Pagliai own the property at 317 E. Bloomington which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property ~, from CB-2 to CN-1. ~ ,~ CD ! r'"' Signed ~ ,.n~ Armond Pagliai ~ ~ ~ Dated (~ J ~_~2--~ 0,~ ,.o STATE OF '~/~Oo , COUNTY OF k_.,,J~/q FI ,~6 ~Q ss: On this c2& day of ~q~rlx~qear , A.D. 20 05, before me, the undersigned, a Ng_t.ary Public itl and for said state, personally appeared ~¥rn~r~c~ ~)~O.d i(~i , to me known to be the person named in ahd Whb executed the3~'b~going instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I David Panther own the property at 214 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to lrotel :his action. /~ct to the rezoning of my property from CBi~d~-I. Signed t~Davi 'Dated ,COL. rr¥OF ss: On this ~7 day of ~~he_,C , A.D. 200~ , before me, the unde~igned_~ a Notary Public in~and for said state; personally appeared ~Vd ~)0, rYYh~v~ , to me known to be the person named in arid who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Vladimir Skarda own the properties at 316 E. Bloomington and 302 E. Bloomington which are zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my properties to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my properties from CB-2 to CN-1. Vladimir Skarda O Dated STATE OF On this ~ ~ day of ~~ he~ 2 A.D. 20~, before me, the undersized, a Not~-?ublic iff hnd for s~d stme, personally appe~ed ~ [~ { ~] C ~xr~ me ~own to be the person nmed in ~d who e~ecuted the ~egoing ~s~mem, ~d ac~owledged · at he executed the same as his volunt~ act and deed. , Notary Public in and for said state. ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I David Stoddard (Stoddard Rentals) own the property at 209 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The. city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Sign ed David STATE OF ~,'z,,&- , COUNTY OF ~_~j)Os,~rv/ ss: On ~s ,ff~ day of ~~~ , A.D. 20 ~ ~, before me, the undersized, a NonPublic in and for said stme, ~nally appe~ed ~/~ ~;d~4& ~ , to me ~own to be the person named in ~d who executed the foregoing hs~ment, ~d ac~owledged that he executed the same as his volunt~ act ~d deed. [ff~ BE~ILY KENNY FELL [ ~(Si~ature) My ~ ~pit~ I . ~arch 16. 2007 , Not~ Public in and for said state. (Stmp) ATTENTION: IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL I Naftaly Stramer (Enterprise LLC) own the property at 206 N. Linn which is zoned CB-2. The city planning staff has recommended and the Planning & Zoning Commission has voted to eliminate CB-2 and down zone my property to CN-1. I want to protest this action. I object to the rezoning of my property from CB-2 to CN-1. Signed ~ ~ Naflaly Stramer (Enterprise LLC) 7-4 ~ Dated ZT_ 05/ ~% -~- OF%~jd 0,~ i _~-.~ STATE , CO .UNTY OF 10~'~J[} ss: On~s ~ dayof ~~~~~ ,before me, the undersized, a Nota~Public i~d for said stae, personally appe~ed ~g~O~l ~ ~ a~ ,tome~o~tobetheperson named ~ ~d who e~ecuted the foregoing ~s~ment, ~d ac~owledged · at he executed the sine as his volunt~ act ~d deed. , Not~ Public in ~d for said stae. Marian Karr From: anne bendixen [a_bendixen@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:04 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: re: zoning and duplexes Please don't allow "holes" of duplexes in our neighborhoods. Keep duplexes confined to corner lots. My Hudson/Benton neighborhood is struggling as it is. Anne Bendixen 902 Hudson Ave Marian Karr From: Alvin Snider [alvin-snider@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:21 PM To: council@iowa-city.'org Subject: new code Dear City Council I'm writing in support of the revised Planning and Zoning Code, and while I don't know all of the suggested provisions, I am especially in favor of two: 1) a restriction on the conversion of structures to duplexes to corner lots. 2) the rezoning of commercial areas in older neighborhoods in order to limit new building in the designated areas to lowrise properties limited to a density compatible with existing structures. In general, the Council needs to prevent the wholesale conversion of older neighborhoods in Iowa City to a cluster of high-rises and parking ramps, which will deprive the place of its distinctive character and history. Let's keep Iowa City liveable and plan future development in a way that takes into consideration the needs of its homeowners and other residents. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Alvin Snider 512 Rundell St. Iowa City Marian Karr From: Tim Barrett [timothy-barrett@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:50 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Please Support New Zoning City Council Members- My wife and I just invested a relatively large amount of money in building a garage that matches our historic home. Not only did we feel it was a wise investment, we felt a commitment to our neighborhood and to the architectural history of Iowa City. We all have an obligation to the individuals who built Iowa City and laid the groundwork for us. Please do whatever you can to help preserve neighborhoods, and especially historical dwellings. Stop, whenever you can, the construction of tasteless apartment buildings and duplexes that spoil an otherwise aesthetically pleasing and historically accurate street. Simple ownership of property must not permit a person to do whatever he or she pleases. I greatly appreciate your attention to and consideration of this appeal. Sincerely, Timothy Barrett 1302 Ginter Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Marian Karr From: Teresa Elise Welsh Galluzzo [teresaewelsh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:34 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: new zoning standards I would like to add my voice in support of the new zoning code. The standards proposed will add to what makes Iowa City a wonderful place to live. From my experience, people move to and stay in Iowa City because of its lovely, walkable neighborhoods. I am extremely happy, especially in light of the current gas prices, to be able to walk to work, to John's and the Coop, to the farmers market, and to restaurants and music downtown. I urge you to support these changes that I believe will help to keep Iowa City a safe, friendly community. Thank you, Teresa Galluzzo 602 N. Dubuque St Marian Karr From: Rebecca Neades [rneades@iowacityarea.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:49 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: correspondence Honorable Mayor and City Councilors, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but please don't take that as a lack of interest from the chamber. We will have many representatives from the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce who will offer their input and concerns with some of the proposed zoning language. I look forward to talking to you about these issues more in the future and will attend future input sessions. I have included the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce position statement: The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce is opposed to development regulations that limit the ability of a commercial property owner or developer to use property for its highest and best use. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce is opposed to commercial development regulations that include: five-foot build-to-line requirements, parking relegated to the rear of the building and architectural requirements such as minimum window area standards. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce is also opposed to residential development regulations that increase the cost of housing in Iowa City and mandate design standards that should be market-driven, not imposed by the government. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce is specifically opposed to the restriction of zero-lot homes to corner lots in RS-8 zones and all architectural standards. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce believes that architectural standards such as width of trim, the relationship of the faGade of the house to the garage and the width of eaves are best left to the homebuilder and the private marketplace, not government regulation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Rebecca Neades Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Marian Karr From: Andy Tinkham [atinkham@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:52 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Revised Zoning Code Dear Councilors, When my wife and I decided to buy a house in Iowa City in addition to looking for a housing style that we liked and a yard where we could garden, we were looking for a few other simple things:~ 1. a neighborhood on a bus route. 2. a location that was close to a grocery stores. 3. a neighborhood that looked friendly, someplace where it would be easy to make friends or to borrow a tool or a cup of sugar if we got in a pinch. 4. a neighborhood that felt safe and stable. We had to do all of this on a budget and finding a home in Iowa City for less than $150,000 at that time (2000) was not easy. Houses that we liked in neighborhoods we liked were gone before we even found out about them. But, eventually we found one that met our needs. Buying our home was a great decision and one that has made us even happier now that we have an eighteen-month old son, Mac. Mac loves going for walks and toddles safely around the neighborhood sidewalks with us following him. He finds something to explore in almost every front yard we pass. With his constant exploring we have met many neighbors and made good friends, especially other parents and at least one would-be grandmother who dotes on Mac. We wouldn't feel safe letting him explore in a neighborhood that was designed for cars rather than people. I'm guessing that as City Councilors, most of you have lived in Iowa City for a long time. You probably aren't actively seeking out new friends. But many folks, like us, who have chosen to relocate are looking to meet people. Most of you don't have to think about where it is safe for young child to walk or play on a daily basis. Those of us who are parents of young children do. I don't believe that you can judge people by the shapes of their houses or the relative size of their garages. Good people live everywhere-they are renters and homeowners. But I do believe that there are ways of building neighborhoods that make it EASIER for people to meet and EASIER for parents to raise children and EASIER for people to feel safe and at home. I have met many people who were looking for the same things that my wife and I were when we chose our home. Some people want more space or a bigger garage, but I have never met anyone that was shopping for a home that had on their list: "must have garage that takes up 3/4 of the front house," or "no front yard." People living on a budget have to make compromises all the time, and in Iowa City where homes in a certain price range are in short supply, people on a budget will snap up pretty much any house just to get into a house. Some are willing to compromise neighborhood for more square footage, but that doesn't mean that they like having to make that choice or that they plan to stay in that house long-term. I think many people, especially parents with young children and people who are new to Iowa City wish their options were better. I do not believe that we need to compromise a sense of community and safety for chea~ square footage. I believe that the new zoning code strikes a healthy balance between the need for space and the desire for neighborhood. I hope you will support the proposed zoning changes as so many citizens have through its planning and creation. Thank you. Andy Tinkham 1813 Morningside Drive Iowa City, IA 52245 D. Znte~ive comme~dal Zone ((:2-1) The p~rpose of ~e ~ ~mme~ Z~e (~-1) is to ~ ar~s f~ ~o~ a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~e~ wh~ ~tions a~ ~pi~ c~edz~ ~td~r ~sp~y and ~ ~ m~handl~, ~ repair a~ ~i~ ~ large ~Opr~nt or m~r vehi~. W outd~ ~m~at amuseme~ and re~Uonal actNi~ or by ~fi~ti~ ~ open,ns ~ndu~ ~n ~i~in~ or ~r~ not ~let~y endo~ ~ of mt~l ~ In ~ zone are tlm{~ in ruder to ~ op~u~ities f~ m~ land- [n~n~e ~m~al o~ and a~ ~ pr~e~ ~nffl~ ~hv~n ~al and ind~a ~k ~a~. ~t a~n ~ ~ dlr~ ~rd 5uffe~ng the n~ative ~ all~ u~s ~ adJa~n~ ~l~t~ai ~es. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~e (CC-2) ~e p~ of ~e ~mun[~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC~2) is ~ pm~de for major di~d~ ~ ~e a slgni~nt ~gment of the to~ai ~:muni~ ~lation. In ~d]t]on ~ a vadew ~ re, il g~ a~ se~. ~e~ cent~ mw ~i~ly f~ a num~ of ~c gen~a~m m~rl~ acc~ ~m maim ~omugh~r~. While thee ~nt~ u~aJly c~z~ by tnd~r ~Cl~s. u~ m~ have limited o~oor provided ~t outdoor o~t[o~ arc ~r~P~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain compatib~ wi~ ~rreu~J~ ~. InsfltmlnnaI,And C, !~!~,,,,,Usel B~slc UIilR¥ Uses [ I PRAS ] PR/S I PFL/$ t PR/S I PR/S I PPJS I PR/S Community Service General Community Service ~ S ..L__. I $ ,, P ,I P I P We arc as~ng for Commurdty Service uses, Commuz~t¥ service Shelter under CI-1 zordng be left at "$" w]'fich equals special e×ccption and not changed to thc proposed "PR". / Phone Number: This is a: __Question __Suggestion ~Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. intensive Cornme~dal Zone The purpose of the Intensive Commercial Zone (CM) is to ixovide areas ~ those sales and servi~e functions and businesses whose operations are t~lcally characterized outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by ~epalr and sales of large eq~pment or molar vehicles, 1)y outdoor commercial amusement and rec~eaUcmal acidities or activities c~ operations conducted {n buildings or structures not completely .enclosed. The types of mtatl trade In ~is zone are {}r~ in order to ~ oppertunitJes for more land- intensive commetdal operations and also to p~event conflicts beea~n retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward 13~fffertng the negative aspects of' allowe~ uses ~om acUacent ~esldentla! E. Community Commeecial ZOne The purpose of the Communib/Comme'cial Zone (CC-2) is ~o pm~ide for major business districts to ~e~ve a slgn~cant segment of ~e total commun~ pckoulatlon. In acloqtlo~ tn a variety of retail goods and services, these traffic generators tecl~ring acces~ from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually c~ara~ed by indoor ef3erattons, uses ma,/have limited out~lo~ ac~es, :l:)rovMed that outl::toor oDeratiot'~ are scteen~ or l~Jffefed to remain compatible with surr~Jnding uses. InsUtuUonal And ,C Iv!~,,,.U,~el We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses~ Commu~W se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". :. ~ 7, d ~/r ~ email Name ,, Malting Address: ~ /a ~6 'c~cz~'~7~,~ ~, ~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~.' Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 U. intensive commetda!Zone (CZ-i} The pu,-{x~e or the Imenr,{ve Commercl~ Zone (Cl-1) is m {:,ovide areas {'o~ t:hos~ sa{es ar~t servi=e funcl~r~ and businesses whose otx~ons are typically ch~ract~ze~ by ou~oor dtspla¥ and stooge o~ merchandise, by repair and sales of large e~F~p~ or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and rec~ea~al actNit~s or by activities or operations conduced in I~lldings or s~,uctures na~ ~orr~lete¥ .enclosed. The ~pes ~ ret~dl tra~e in this zone are tlmRed in order to ~ opportunit~s for mo~e land- ir~ensive comrnerdal operations and also to prevent ~onfllcts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention musl: be directed t~ward buffing the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential z~es. E. Communl~ Commercia! ZOne (CC-2) The purpose of the Community Commerdal Zone (CC-2) is l;o provide for ma.tar business ~istrlcl~ to serve a significant segment Of' the total o~mmunity populaMon, in a~ltt~ tn a vaflety of re~a~l goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of ta~je t~affic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While bbese centers are. usually cttaract~edzed by indoor operaUons, uses may have limited outdm~' aCl:tvffJes, provl~od ~ out. or ~perations are screened or bOf~ed to remain compatible w~th Ba~lc,~q!~'yLt~__~_ [ .......... ' IPR/S [PR/S 'PFUS 'PR/S I PR/S IPR/S I PR/$ ~c a~c ~s~ng ~o~ Commu~ Sc~cc uses, Commu~ sc~cc Shc]tc~ undc~ C[-1 zo~ng bc ]cft ~t "S" w~ch equals exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". MaifingAddress: ~OJ~ ~q/Msc~ron~ '~,-, t,r(,- c,q Zip Code Phone Number: ~ ~ ~ - ~. D This is a: Question Suggestion X Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. intensive Commercial Zone The purpose ~ the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (CI-1) ~s to pcovi~ areas for t~ose sales ar~ service f~nctions and businesses who~e operations are typically characterized by outdoor ~splay and s~orage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehictes, by outdoor comme~at amusement and red-armorial actlvrdes or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures nc~ completely enclosed. The ~pes of re~l trade In th~s. zone are limited in order to provkle oppertunil~es for mine land- intense cornme~al operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be direct~ toward buffering the negative aspects of' allowed uses from adjacent residerttfal zo~qes. E, CommunlLy ~merciaJ ~ (CC-2) The purpose of the Commune/Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major bus, ness districts to serve a significant segment of the total o~rnmunlty pof~lation. In m:~ltlo~ t~ a variety of retag goods and sera-es, these centers may typicafl¥ feature a number of ia~e tTaffiC 9enerator. s requtrbag access from major thoroughfares, While b%ese centers are usually ct~ara~zed by indoor opera,ions, us~s may have limited outdoor .provided ~hat outcloor operaUor~ are screem~ or b~ffe~ed to remain compa~ibt~ S~lrr(~LlrtclJr~ Ir!_tm,~onal And Glvl,; Uses C~~I~ G~e~munl~ [ P [ S I S I r I P I P ~c ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ sedco Shelter under CT-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mai~ng Address: 73~ ~,~Z ~L, ~., ~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: Question Suggestion v//Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Gommetdal Zone The purpose of the ~tensive Commercial Zone (C~-I) ~ to ixovt4e ate. as ro~ ti~ose sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typlcalb/c~racterized ~ outdoor d!sp~ay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outcl0or commo~al amusement an(~ reox~atlonal activities or I~y activities c~ operations conducted in buildings or structures not con~letely enclosed. The types of retail trad~ In l;his zone are limt~ed in order to ~ opportunrdes for more land- intensive commen~al operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and ind~al truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering th~ negative aspects of allowed uses from ac~acent residential zones. EL Communlb/commen:ial ZOne The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for maJ~ business districts to serve a significant segment o~ the total community population. ]n ac~ltien tn a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feal~d~e a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor o~=ratlons, uses may have limited outdoor provided that ~or ol3~.ra~t~ are scree~q<~ or bOWered to remain compatible wRh surrounding uses. InsUtuU,'ma! ~ Clv!<~ ~ ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under C[-1 zo~ng be left at "S" e~ception and not changed to the proposed Mai~ng Address: 5 7 ~ ~)¢(~¢ ~~ Phone Number: 5¢~¢q~ ~ ¢~ ~ ¢ T~s is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 zn~ensive Comme~dal Zone The p~pose o~ ~e ~n~ ~mmerc~ Zone (C~4) ~s ~e ~ ar~s f~ ~ho~ ~les and s~i~ ~n~ons and ~es~ wh~ ~ations am ~i~ cha~edz~ by ~td~r ~sp~y and ~o~ d m~hand~, ~ repair a~ sal~ of large ~pm~nt or m~r vehi~. ~ eutd~ ~merda~ ~museme~ and re~ea~o~al actNifi~ or by ~ of m~l ~e in ~ zone am ~imit~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~e la~d- ~n~n~e ~mm~oat o~t~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nffl~ ~een retail and indus~ ~k Va~. 5~1 a~fion m~ ~ dir~ ~ward buffedng ~h8 n~a~i~ ~ all~ u~s rr~ advent msid~tat ~es. Commun i~ ~me~J ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~m:mun~W Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is Lo pm~de for major di~d~ to ~e a slg~nt ~gment ~ ~e ~o~al ~mmun~ ~la[lon. In ~dl~i~ ~ a vadeW of r~il g~ a~ se~, the~ cen~ m~ ~i~ly f~m a numar ~c ge~a~m m~irlng acc~ from maj~ ~omuBhfar~. While ~h~ cent.s u~ally cha~z~ by ind~r ~lons, u~ m~ have limited ouLdo~ pr~ided ~ha~ outdoor o~io~ am ~r~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain com~ib~ ~rr~undi~ ~. InsUtuUonal And Clvl~ U~ Ba~i'~"Ll~iii~y Uses ......... i' * I pR/S I PP,/s '1 PrVS t PRJS I PR/S I PI~'S I PPJS CornmunityService [ Gener-elCommunltySer~ice I P [ s____L___~ 1 P I P __Uses .~, t Communit7 Service-Shelter ~-[- [ PR I PR ] PR I PR ~/e are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not change/d to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address:~l~ ~)~,~Cr~c~;4 ~ ('' Zip Code Phone Number: / This is a: ~Question Suggestion ' / Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zntensive comma'del Zone The purpose of the Inten~ Commen:~l Zone (CZ- 1) ts to prov~ areas for ~ose sales and service functions and b~nesses whose ~ions are typicatfy characterized by outdoor dlspMy and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehictes, t~y outdoor commercial amusement and rec~onal actNittes or by activities c~ operations conducted in buildings or structures not co~le~y en~. 3he types of retail trade in this zone are: limRed in order to pmvk~e opportunities for more land- intensive comme~dal operations and aP~o to prevent: conflicts between retail and industrial truck tra~a:. Spedal attention must be directed toward buffering the negative ~ a~lov&-'~d uses from a~acent residenttat zones. E, Communl~ Commercial Zone (CC,;2) T~le purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is 1:o provide for major business dis~rt~ to serve a significant segment of the t:o~al community population, in edition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically fea~m a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor ~:~eral:lons, uses may have limited outdoor provided t:hat outdoor operations arc screene~ or buffered to rcrnain compatible with ~urrounding uses. InsOt m*qa! And,Clv!~,,Uael Basic Ui!!~y Uses [ ' PR/S ] PRIS" PRIS PR/S PR/S t PR/S [ PR/S ComunityServlcel GeneralCommunltyServtce P ' ]~ ...... ~ I ? I P I P We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question '~,~,~ Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Commerdal Zona and s~i~ ~n~o~ ~nd ~ne~ wh~ o~ions a~ ~ c~z~ by ~td~r ~s~y and ~o~ ~ m~handi~, ~ ~pair a~ ~1~ ~ large eq~pr~nt or mawr vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~t em~me~ and re~onal a~i~ m by ~fiviti~ ~ o~fions ~ndu~ ~n ~ttd[~ or ~ n~ m~let~y end~. ~y~s ~ m~l ~ In ~ zone ~ ?imi~ in ~der to ~ovi~ op~uni~es f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm~al o~t~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nffl~ ~hveen ~aii and ind~ ~k ~a~. S~I a~Uon m~ ~ dir~ ~rd b~ng the n~a~ive afl~ u~s ~ advent r~ldent~l ~nes. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~mmun[~ Comm~cial Zone (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~H~ to ~e a sig~nt ~gment ~ ~e total ~mmun~ ~lation. In ~ltion ~ a vafleW of re~il g~ a~ se~, ~e~ ~t~ may ~i~ly f~ a numar ~c gen~a~m ~e~rl~ ~cc~ ~m maim ~omugh~r~. While th~ cent~ u~ly cha~ by ind~r ~cions, u~ m~ have t~mi~d o~o~ provided ~t o~ffioor o~t[or~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffercd ~ r~maln com~b~ ~rrou~i~ ~. InsUtuflonal And Clvlc~ 8~c u~,,y u~ Community Service General Community SaUce I P I ~ ~ J $ P P P Uses t C°rnmunityservice' s~el~er ~/'e are asking tot Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under C[-1 zoning be ]cft at "S" which equals special e×ccpfion and not ~changcd to thc proposed "PR". Mailing Address: Pno.e Num e : This is a: ~Question ~/Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zn~en.~ive commetcla~ Zone T~e purpose ~ the I~n~ ~mmerc~ Z~e (~-1) ~ to ~ ar~ a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ o~ions a~ ~i~y cham~dz~ ~r ~sp~y a~ ~or~ ~ m~hand~, ~ m~ir a~ ~1~ of large eq~p~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~at amuseme~ an~ re,aUral a~i~ ~ by ~tiviti~ ~ ope~ons ~ndu~ In ~l~d~ or ~r~r~ not ~let~y encY. r~ ~ m~l ~e In th~ zone ~ limt~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- [~n~e ~mm~al o~i~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~n~l~ ~bveen ~tail and ind~ ~k ~a~. S~I a~Uon m~ ~ dir~ ~srd bu~eHng th~ n~aO~ ~ or ail~ u~s rr~ advent r~ld~t~ ~nes. E. ~mmuni~ ~me~l ~ne (CC-2) ~e p~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Comm~dal Zone (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~fl~ ~ ~e a sig~fl~nt ~gment ~ ~e total ~mmuni~ ~la~ion. In ~tti~ ~ a vaHeW of r~il g~ a~ sedco, the~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~re a num~ of ~c ge~a~ re~rl~ a~ ~m maj~ ~omughfar~. While thee centers are o~a~ly c~z~ by tnd~r ~:lons, u~ m~ h~ve }imited e~do~ ~r~id~ that ou~oor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~emd ~ remain compa~b~ ~rou~i~ ~. Insffi~al,~al And C Ivlo U~4~ Sa~cua~y't~ea .................... P~S P~S PR/S P~S I P~ I P~S I P~S Co~uni~ ~t~ I G~e~d ~munl~ L~ I s I P I P I P ~s .. ~Communi~S~-S.~,~ '~~- '1 I ~ I ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ Shelter under C[-] zo~ng be ]eft at "S" w~ch equals exception and not changed to the proposed Name ~-~ ~.'~ email Mailing Address:~ ~ ~<~c.~¥~..c{ ~,. ~}l, Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question ?' Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Xntensive CommerdM Zon~ The ~ a~ s~i~ ~n~o~ and m~r vehi~, ~ti~ ~ ~ m~l ~ In ~ z~e ~ li~ in ~er to ~ov~ op~n~ f~ m~ land- ~n~e ~mm~al o~ and a~ W ~t ~n~ ~n ~1 a~ tnd~a ~ ~. s~l all~ u~ E ~m~l~ ~~ ~ (~-2) ~e ~ of ~c ge~a~ ~rt~ ~ ~ maim ~~. While ~ ~n~ am InsUh m,~al And C Ivl<~ U~tl Corr, rnunity Service General Commu nib/S~rvice 'I~R , Use~ ) Community Service - Sheller _S PR PR PR We arc as]~ng for Community Scl~CC uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: (~3 jcl~ S~0- ~0~© This is a: ~.Question Suggestion ,<. Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Comme~dal Zone The purpose er the Ineenslve Commew~l Zone (Cf-l) is to ~Me areas ro¢ those sales a~ service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by o~tdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipme~ or minor vehicles, by outdoor commex:tal amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in Ixflldlngs or structures not cxmipletety enclosed, The types of retail trade In l:his zone are limited in order to provide oppo~tunit~,s for rno~e land- intense commemal operations and also to prevent confll~ between retail and ind~al truck traffic, Special aRenfion must be direcbed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. EL Community Commercial ZOne (CC-2) The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for maJoc business districts to serve a significant segment o1' the total community population, in addition to a variety of reta~ goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares, While these centers am usually characterized by indoor ef:~erattons, uses may have limited oubdoor ac1~es, ~'ovl{~ed that otdZloor ot~erations are screenecl or b~ffered to remain compatible InsUtutlonal And Clvlo Um Ce~munity Service Gen.ral Commu nlty Servlce P IS I IS P P P Uses .. Community Service - Shelter _S PR PR * PR PR ~IC/c are asking for Community Service uses, Community scr~ce Shelter under C[-1_ zoning be ]eft at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to thc proposed "PR". Name ~ ..... ~~?- email Mailing Address: .) g;~ /$~ j~ ¢ ~7. Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~Question - Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Comme~ial Zone The purpose of the [ntensive C~mmerctat Zone (CIM) is ~o i~ovi~e areas ror those :sales and se~vic~e functions and ~u~i~e~ who?~ ~ions are typically c~racterizecl o~tdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or rno~r vehicles, by ~utclo~ commer~al amusement and recreational ac~vit~es or by activitie~ or operations conducted tn buildings or ~ no~ completely .end~sed. The ~pes of retail trade In th~s zone a~e llmtOed in order to provide oppotun~ fo' mo~e land- irRensive cornmen:ial o~ and also to prevent conflicts between rel~l and lndus~ai ~uck trafffc. Special aUenUon taus/be directed toward bu*ff~rtng b~e negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E. Communlb/Commercial ZOne The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (C~-2) is ~o provide for majo~ business cris~rlcts to serve a significant segment of the total communt~ pc~ulatlon, in acl~tlo~ ~ a variety of re~a~ goods and serv~es, these cenl~rs may typically fea~re a numbe~ of traffic gerre~ators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor opera,ions, uses may have limited outdom' p~ovlded tha~ out, or operations are 5creen~ or b~ffo'ed '¢o remain compatible v~th surrounding use~ Institutional And Clvlo Um ~1~ um'v u~ ............ ~ I ~R~S I~s I PR~S t~ ] P~ I P~S ~ P~S U~ ~ ~mmuni~ Se~ - She~r ~ ~ ~R ~ PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name j L~-~!;~; ~ ~3~% ~ email Mai~ng Address: ~)~~C)c~c;~/~( ~ ~/'~ Zip Code ~:~'~;~ Phone Number: This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. intensive Commerdal Zone (CI-I) The purpose of the Intensive Commercia~ Zone (CI-1) is to provh:ie areas loc r. hose sales and service functions and b~nesses whose opera~ions are typkadly characterized by cx~oor c~splay and storage of merchandise, by repair ~ncJ sales of large eq~ornent or motor vehicles, by outdoor cornmeal amusement and reoz~tlonal actfvit~ or by activities or operations conducted tn b~ltdlngs or structures not ~letely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provkte opportunities for more land- irrten~e commerdal operations and also to prevent conflicts between ~1 and industrial truck tragic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative asaects of allowed uses from adjacent resldefltlal zones. EL Community Commercial ZOne The purpose of the ~unity Commercial Zone (OC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment o[ the total community population. In ad~tton to a variety of retail goods anti services, these centers may t~ically feature a number of traffic generators ~luiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually O~aracterized by indoor of:~,ratlons, uses may have limited outdoo~ actt~l~es, ~rovlded that outdoor operations are screenecl or b~flered to remain compatible sufr~ur~ding uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvl6, U~ _Uses .,~ I Community Se~ce- Shelter ~S ' , , ~ PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name'" ~¢,'~", ()-~i-"] '~'~ ~{ ~, email Mailing Address: ~¢~ 15 Phone Number: TMs is a: ~,Question Suggestion ~omment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Commerdal Zone The I~rpose ot the ~ntensive Commercial Zone (CIM) L~ to provide areas for r.~ose sales a~ service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by o~tdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large ecF~ment or motor vehicles, by outdoor comme~al amusement and reoTaUOnal actlvit~ or by activities ~r operations conducted tn buildings or structures not compietely.enck~ed. 'ilqe ~pes c~ retail trade In ~his zone are liraia~ in order to provide oppertunities for more land- intensive comme~dal operations and also to prevent conflicts ~n retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention rnt~ be direct~ t~ward buffering th~ negative aspects of allowed uses from acLiacent residential zones. EL Community Commercial ZOne (CC<t) The purpose of the ~unity Commercial Zone (CC-2) is 1:o provide for major business districts to sense a significant segment ~ the*total commun~ population. In addlUo~ to a variety of reta~ goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of franc generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While ~ centers are usuatly characl~arized by indoor eperattons, uses may have limited outdoor provided that out~oor operations are screen~ or b~ff~ed ~o remain compaUble v~th ~rroundir~J uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvlo Um C~uni~ ~wl~ G~e~ ~munl~ ~ ",'~ ' ~ PR U~ Communi~ Se~ - ~e~r ~ PR ' We are as~ng for Commuffi~ Se~ce uses, CommuffiW se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". MaiHngAddress: ~[ ~ ~h~ ~~,. ~-O~/~ ~ Zip Cod~ Phone Number: ~ ~(~ ) ~ ~'~ This is a: ~Question Suggestion L/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. intensive Commerdal Zone The purpose of the ~sive Commercial Zone (C~-1) is to IXOVi~te areas for those sates a~ service functions and bL~nesses whose ol:~'~ions are typ~calb/ct~aractedzed outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equtpn'ent or motor vehicles, by outdoor commerdal amusement and recreational activities or I~y activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures not ~letely e~. The types of retail trade In t~is zone am limited in order to provide oppertunities for mere land- intensive comme~dal operations and also to prevent conflicts bebveen retail and industrial ~ruck traffic. Special a~d~nfion must be directed toward buffering th~ negative aspel:~ of allowed uses from acgtac~nt residential zones. E. Communlt~ Commercial ZOne (L'~-2) The purpose of Ule Community Comme'cial Zone (C:C-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a slgnlllcant segment of the'total community population. In a~l~tio~ to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of batfic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor o~ratlons, uses may have limited outcloo~ acttv~, ~rovll;~,d that outctoor oPeratior~ are screened or huffe~ed to remain compatible with ~urrounding uses. InsUtuUo~a.! And Clvi~ U~ ~ .. Communi~ S~- ~e~r ~ ~ PR ' ~ PR ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter unde~ C1-1 zo~g be ]eft at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not cha~ged to the proposed "PR". Name' ~o~'~ ~ig~ email Phone Number: ~}~:/~ :~g'- g&~ TNs is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive CommerclaIZone The ~ ~ ~e ~e ~mme~ Z~e (~4) a~ s~i~ ~n~ and ~ne~ ~ ~p~y a~ ~ ~ m~and~, m~r vehi~, ~ ~ ~1 am~me~ and ~U~al a~ ~ti~ ~ ~ns ~ndu~ ~n t~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ z~e ~ ti~ in ~er to ~v~ ap~un~ f~ m~ land- ~n~e ~al o~ and a~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~n ~1 a~ india ~ ~. s~l a~on ~ ~1~ u~ ~ a~nt ~ld~l ~e ~ of ~e ~un~ Comm=~al di~d~ ~ ~ a slg~nt ~m~t ~ ~e '~1 ~un~ ~latl~. ~n ~tl~ ~ a ~d~ ~ r~H g~ a~ ~, ~c ~ ~r~ ~ ~ m~ ~~. While ~ ~n~ am t ate ~s~ng ~ot Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ Shelter undct CI-1 zo~ng be ]e~t ~t "S' w~ch e~u~ls special ¢xce~fio~ and not changed to the proposed email Mailing Address: ~¢4 ~e_p~le~z~n Lc~o~ Zip CodeoCo~z~l Phone Number: J-5 lq.' 55 ~.S' © ~c9c~ This is a: ~.Question Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. intensive CommerclalT, cm. Tl~e p(,Tm~e ~ the Irtenstve CemmercUd Zone (ti-l) ~s ~ provide a~ ~ ~ ~,les a~ ~ ~n~ .nd ~ne~ m~r ~hi~, ~ ~w ~ti~ ~ ~ns ~ndu~ tn ~ ~ m~l ~ ~n ~ z~e ~ ll~ in ~er to ~ op~n~ f~ m~ land- ~e ~al o~ and a~ ~ ~ ~ ~en ~1 a~ tnd~J ~ ~, ~1 ~Uon & ~m~l~ ~~ ~ (~-2) ~e ~ of ~e ~uni~ ~mm~dal ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ m~m ~~, While ~ ~n~ am u~ly ~~ by tn~r We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address: qD&d~ l~e~',~c~i.~o r,, L,z~,~, Zip Code Phone Number: ~lq. dO fi' o~¢g~/ This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~(~, Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. Znf:easive CommerclaIZo~e The ~ of the Intensive Commercat Zone (¢;-1) is to [xov~ areas fo~ r. hose sales ar~ service functions and b~,inesses whose operations are typically ch~aracterized by outdoor ~sp~ay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or mentor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational actirvi~ or by activities c~ operations conducted tn bullcllngs or structures not complexly end~. The Wpes of retail trade in this zone are limi, ted in o~de~ to ~ov~e opportunities for more land- i~tensi~e commerdal operatiorts and also to prevent (onftlcts ~t~veen retail and indub~riai b'uck traff'~c. Special a~fion must be direL-t~d toward buffering th~ negal:ive aspects allowed uses [rom adjacent residential zones. E, Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) The purpose of the Q3mmunity Commercial Zone (CC-2~ is to provide for major business distric~ to serve a significant segment of the to~al ~mmuniW populaCion. In ad¢ltion to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may b/pica~ly feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access from maim thoroughfares. While ~hese centers are usuatly characterized by indoor c~3eratlons, uses may have limited outdoor aCtjV~eS, provided t;ha~ outdoor Ol~erations are screer~d or b~ffefed b~ mmaln compatib~ with surrounding uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvlo Uae. aas~c ui,ey u~ 'l" I PP~S I PP~s I PPJS t P~JS P~ P~s I P~S Co~uni~ ~t~ ~ Gene~ ~munl~ ~ P S_ S P P P U~S Co=m.ni~ Se~i~- Shel~r ~~ .... ) I PR 'PR ' ~ PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: This is a: Question ~Suggestion .~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensiv~ C~mmer~al Zone The ~dr~ ot' ~e I~n~ ~mme~ Z~e (0-1) ts ~ ~ ar~ ~ ~o~ ~{es a~ s~i~ ~n~o~ and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions a~ ~ ~sD~Y and ~ ~ m~hand~, ~ ~ir a~ ~1~ moor vehi~, ~ ~t~ ~m~al am~me~ and ~U~al a~ ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ z~e ~ li~ in ~er to ~ov~ op~un~ f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~m~a{ o~ and a~ ~ ~ ~nffi~ ~n ~1 a~ india ~k ~, S~I a~aon ~ ~ di~ ~rd ~ng a{l~ u~ ~ a~nt ~ld~t~l ~ ~mm~l~ ~~ ~ (~-2) ~e ~ of ~e ~uni~ ~mm=dal ~ (~-2) is ~ p~de for maJ~ · ~H~ ~ ~e a slg~nt ~m~t ~ ~e'~ ~un~ ~latl~, In ~t{~ ~ a ~d~ ~ r~H g~ a~ ~, ~ ~n~ m~ ~i~{y u~ly ~~ by tn~r ~U~s, u~ m~ have l~i~d ~l~ t~ ouffioor ~fio~ a~ ~r~ or ~d ~ r~n come,bE ~r~i~ ~ InsUtutlonal And Clvlo U~ B~i= Ufi{it¥ Use~ I PRY,9 I PRYS { PRY$ } PR/S I PR/S I PR/,.q I PRY$ Community Service General Community Service P ,5 $ P P P Uses Community Service - Shelter _S , PR PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number:(~/q( X ~6~-?~?'q3 This is a: ~Question Suggestion c/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Znl:ensive Commetclal;Zo.. (CZ-t) The purp,~-~ of the I~nsive C~mme<lat Zone (CI-1) ~s ~o provide areas for those sale~ a~ service functions and businesses who~e chp~ions are b/pical[~ characterized by o*jtdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or mca. or vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and reo-eatlcnal actNit~es or by activities or operations conducted In b~lldlngs or structures not completely enclosed. The t-ypes of retail trade in this zone are limRed in order to provide opportunities for more land- intensive commercial operations and aEso to prevent conflicts bob,yeah retail and indu~qrial truck traffic. Special attention must be direcbed toward buffering the negative aspects or allowed uses ~rorn adjacent resldentta[ zones. E. Community ~mercJal Zone The purpose of the Community Comm~cial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population, In ~¢ltion t~ a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requirlr~ access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor ope~t:lons, us~s may have limited outdoor act~4tie~, ~)rovicted Chat outc~oor operat[or~s arc screerte~ or boffe~cd to remain compatib)e with surrounding use~. Institutional And Clvl= U_~__· Co~uniN ~t~ [ G~e~ ~munl~ ~ P S S P P [ P U~s ~mmuni~Se~i~- She~r ~-- I ) l P~ I PR ' ~ PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Communi~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~ '~' - (_.~ ~/?j~ ~ email MaiUng Address: [~/ ~ .~/ /'~ ~/~.~ ~~' / '~'~ Zip Code ~ Phone Number: .:~q/ ~ ~[ This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znteasive Comme~dat Zoae (C2-1) a~ ~i~ ~n~e~s and ~e~ wh~ ~ions a~ ~p~y ch~e~ W ~oer dlsp~y and stor~ oF me~handi~, ~ ~epair and ~1~ ~ large ~prr~nt or moor yetiS, ~ ou~d~ ~me~at amuseme~ and r~Uonal ac~i~ or by ~tiviti~ ~ opinions ~ndu~ ~n ~lldfn~ or ~r~ not ~mplet~ly endoW. ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~e in ~is zone am timi~ i~ ~der to ~ev~ op~uni~es f~ m~e land- i~n~e ~mm~al o~t~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nfll~ ~veen re{ail and indub~ia ~k ~, S~l a~t~on m~ ~ dir~ ~w~rd buffing the n~a~ve ~ & a]l~ u~s ~ adJa~nt msld~ttai zones. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne (CC-2) ~e p~ of ~e ~mun~W Comm~cial Zone (CC~2) is ~o pm~de for ma]er b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a 51g~fl~nt ~gment ~ the ~al ~mmuni~ ~la~ion. In ~tlon ~ a vafleW of re~it g~ a~ se~, the~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~re a numar of ta~e ~c gen~a~m m~rtng acc~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While ~h~ ce~t~ are u~ly cha~z~ by ind~r ~lons, u~ m~ have limited o~o~ a~dU~, pmvM~ ~t outdoor o~io~ am ~r~ or ~ffe~cd ~ remain compa~ib~ wi~ ~rrou~i~ ~. InsUtuUonal And Clvl; 8~= ui,,y u~ '[ l, Co~uni~ ~wl~ ~ G~e~ ~munl~ Seml~ I P I ~. _~ P I P U~S Communi~Sa~-She~r l~ I - -~R '[ ~ I PR We ~re as~ng fo~ Commu~W Se~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter under CI-I zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~ ~~ ~ :~>/~~ ~ email % / // MaiUng Address: ~ ~-, ~:/d ~&"~/::~.,/- ~. Zip Code / Phone Number: This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Commetdal Zone The p~drpose ot the In:ohs/ye Comme~ Zone (C~-l) is to prov[/~e areas f~ :h~ ~les and s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ o~ions a~ ~i~ ch~am~dz~ by ~r ~sp~y and stor~ ~ m~hand~, ~ repair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~pr~nt or mo~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~al amuseme~ and re,aUral ac~i~ or ~fi~ti~ ~ ope~fions condu~ ~n ~iMIn~ or ~r~ not ~mple[~y end~. ~s ~ m~l ~ in ~is zone am timR~ in ruder :o ~ov~ op~uniues f~ m~e land- [n~n~e ~m~dal o~ti~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nfft~ ~bv~n retail and ind~i~ ~k ~a~m. S~I a~nfion m~ ~ dir~d m~rd buffe~ng the n~a~ive aIlo~ u~s fr~ adJa~nt msident~l ~nes. E. Communl~ ~me~l ~n.e ~e pur~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is to pm~de for major b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a sig~nt ~gment ~ ~e total ~mmuni~ ~laCi~n. [n ~fion ~ a vad~ ~ re, il g~ a~ se~s, th~ cent,s may ~pi~ly ~c gen~a~m fe~trlng a~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While ~h~ ~nt~s u~ally cha~z~ by indoor ~:lons~ u~ m~ have limi~d o~o~ ~mvi~ed :hat o~tdoor o~t[o~ am ~r~ or ~ff~fed ~ mmaln compatib~ wi~ ~rrou~i~ ~. Institutional And G[vlct Uses We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion '~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, intensive Comme:rdal Zml. The ~ ~e ~ ~mme~ Z~e (04) Js to ~v~ ar~s a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions a~ ~l~ cham~dz~ ~ ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand~, ~ ~pair a~ ~lm ~ larg~ eq~pm~nt or m~r ~hi~, W outd~ ~al amuseme~ and regional ac~i~ ~tMti~ ~ opera, ns ~ndu~ tn ~ildl~ or ~r~ not co~le~Y end~. ~ ~ m~l ~ In ~ zone ~ {im[~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~uni~ies f~ m~ land- in~n~e ~mm~al o~[~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nfll~ ~hv~n rc~il and indus~ ~k ~, S~I a~fion ~ ~ dir~ ~w~rd buff~dng the n~a~ive all~ u~s ~ advent r~ldent~i z~es. E. ~mm~i~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~mmun~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is Lo pm~de for major b~n~ di~d~ ~ ~e a sigN~nt ~gment ~ ~e total ~mmun~ ~lation, In ~dlti~ ~ a vade~ of r~it g~ a~ sedco. ~e~ cent~ may ~i~fly f~ff a numar ~f ~c ge~a~m re~rl~ e~ ~m maj~ ~omu~hfar~. While t~ cent.s am u~ally cha~dz~ by ind~r ~6ons, u~ m~ have limi~d ou~oor a~, provided that outdoor o~t[o~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain compatib~ ~[rou~ing ~. IrmUtuUonal And Clvlcr ~lc umy Uses I ~ p~s [,p~s [ p~s t ~s ~ p~ I p~s I P~s Co~uni~ ~l~~ Gene~ ~munl~ ~ ~ P ] $ ~~ ~ P I P ~e ~re ~s~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Communi~ se~ce Shelter under C[-1 zo~ng be lea at "S" w~ch e~uals special e~cepdon and not changed to the proposed Name Mailing Address: ~0/~' co<~ ,;4(~'-.(~J~/.o/¢ -TZ .6'-.~ Zip Code~0 Phone Number: ;g/?,) _~_YV -//- -d ~ This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. intensive Comme~lal Zone (CI-:I.) The purpose o~ the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (CI-1) ~s to p~vide areas ro~ t~3se sales and service funCUons and businesses who~e operations are typically characterized o~door dlspMy and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large ecl~ip~ or mc~r vehicles, by outdoor com~at amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or ~ not completely enclosed. 'fie types of retail trade In thL~ zone are limt~ed in order to provide oppertuniUes for mo~e land- intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts belween retail and industrial ffuck txaffic. Spell attenUon rnt~ be directed howard bLfffeHng tt~e negative aspects of allowed uses from ac~c~nt residential zones. EL Community CommerciaJ Z<me The purpose of the Community Comme'cJal Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business dis~ricts to serve a significant segment c~ the t~tal community population. ~n actoqUo~ t~ a variety of re~a~l goo<ts am:l services, these centers may typically feabJre a number of la~ge traffic generators req~Jiring access from major thoroughfares. While U~se centers are usually cl'.aracl-erized by indoor operations, uses may have limited OLrbdoor provlOed tha~ out, or operations are screenect or b~ffered to remain compaUble w~th ,,s~rrounding uses. InsUtutlonal And Clvlo Um " ' ' ' ' e~.~c umv u,.. I p~s I P~ I P~S t~ I P~ IP~s I P~s C~i~ ~1~ G~e~ ~munl~ ~ P S S P P P ~ . ~mmuni~ Se~ - S~r ~ , ~ PR ' ~ PR We are as~ng for Commuffi~ Se~ce uses, Commuffi~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoffing be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address: ,~20~ ~C/~/c,/,'~,¥~ ~)r~,.~ '~ c.~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, [n~ansive Commerdai Zone The purpose ef the ln~n~ve ~mm~ Zone (CI-1) ~s and ~i~ ~c~s and ~ne~ wh~ o~t~or, s are ~pl~lly ~o~ ~sp~y and ~cr~ ~ m~handl~, ~ ~pair a~ sa~ of large eq~prr~t or moor ~hid~, ~ autd~ ~me~at amuseme~ and regional a~Nifi~ ~ ~y ~iviti~ ~ o~ons condu~ ~n ~tldl~ or ~r~ not ~s ~ m~l ~e In ~ zone am ~Jmi:~ in ruder to prov~ op~u~lUcs f~ m~ land- ~n~r~e ~mm~al o~a~ and a~ ~ prevent ~n~l~ ~een retail and in~ub~ ~'k t~a~c, 5~1 a~fion m~ ~ ~ir~d mw~r~ bu~ng ~e pur~ of~e ~muni~ Comm~dal Zor~ {CC,.2) ts ~ provide for majar b~ di~ ~ ~e a stgi~fl~nt ~gm~t ~ the t~[al ~mmuni'~ ~latian, vadeW ~ re~il g~ a~ ~c~, ~ cent~ may ~i~ty f~m ~ffic ge~a~m m~l~ a~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While thc~e ~pter~ are u~a,y c~m~zed by ind~r ~a~ions, u~ m~ ha~e ~imited pr~i~ ~t o~oor o~ratio~ ~re ~r~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain com~tib~ ~i~ ~rounding ~. We are as~ng for Communit~ Se~ce uses, Commm~ty service Shelter under CI-i zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". ~Maihng Address: j&/~ ?&,-/~~~~ Zip Code Phone This is a: .... Question .... Suggestion .... Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall 'by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA .52240 D. Intensive Commercial Zone The purpose of the Intensive Commerc~a~ Zone (C[*I) is ~o ~v~ areas f~ ~ose ~l~s an~ se~i~ ~n~dons and b~e~ wh~e o~o~s a~e typically ch~edz~ ~doo~ display and .s~or~e o~ me~chand~, by ~epai~ an~ sal~ of large e~d~pn~t or mo~o~ vebid~ by ou~do~ commercial ~musement a~d recfea~ional ac~ivi~ or by ~ctivities ~ ope~or~s condu~ ~n ~i~din,;]~ or ~r'~:tur~ no~ co~plete4y e~cl~d. ~s of ~ta~l tr~ in this zone ar~ ~imi~ ~n order to prov~ op~u~ties ~or mo~ !a~d- ir~ensiVe commc~al o~ions and a~ to prevent con,i~ ~;tween re~ai~ and indusb~! trL~:k [ra~c, S~el a~ention m~t ~ d~rected toward bu~er~ng the neg~bive ~spects a{Io~vc~ u~s from adJa~nt residential zones. Communi~C~me~ial Zo.~ The purpo~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major diorites to se~e a signi~nt segment e¢ ~he ~o~aJ ~mmuni~' ~¢la~ian. in ~Jd'ltia¢~ ~ a vadeel of retai~ go~s arid se~ces, the~ cen~s may typicatly feature a numar af la~e traffic generate~ requiring ~cc~s f~m major thoroughfares. While thee cemer~ are ~suaily charaCtQEJzed by indoor apera(ions, u~ may have ~imited outdoor provided ~ha~ outdoor o~ra$ie~ are ~r~c~ or buffe,'ed to remain compatib~ st~rounding ~. InsUtuUonal ,i~d Clvlo Uses 8~.~c ~,~,~y tJ~ I 1 P~s l ~s ! Pr~,s I P~S ~ P~s ~ P~,S ~ P~S Communi~ Se~J~ ~ General C~munl~ Se~i~ P 1 S ~ / S P P p .... ~.~? ...... ~Comm~.,~S~,~*S~,,e, l~ .............. ] .................. ? ............ F~ ...... l"" ""1 "" ~e are as~ng for Commu~ty Se~ce uses, Community se~ice Shelter under CI-I zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Na~'e ...... ._.~__~/-~ ~>( (~~ ~/~'((L./cc~ email:~ ~C/:c(.'t(:t,~,,(~ j.~', Mainng Address: Zip Code & & Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question ~Suggestion ~Comment Regarding section/page ~ 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. '~Tashington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. ln~ens~ve CommerdalZone (CI-1) ~td~r ~sp~y and ~ ~ ~ha~d~, ~ ~ir a~ ~1~ ~ larg~ eq~pr~nt or moor vehi~, W eo~d~ ~mer~a~ amuse~e~ a~d re~a~al a~M~ or by ~tiviti~ ~ o~m~o~ ~ndu~ ~n ~ttdi~ or ~ n~ ~letel~ end~. ~ ~ m~l ~e in ~ zone ~e ~imi~ in ruder to ~ov~ ep~unities f~ m~ land- in~n~e ~m~al o~ and a~ to pr~ent ~flffl~ ~veen ~ail and ~ t~, S~I a~Uofl m~ ~ dir~ ~rd ~ffedng the n~a~ive ~ all~ u~s ~ advent ~sl~ent~l ~e p~ of ~e ~mun~ Comm~dal Z~e (CC-2) i5 ~ pm~de for major b~in~ di~fl~ to ~e a sig~nt ~gment d the to~ai ~mmuni~ ~lation, ~n ~U~ ~ a vafi~ of r~il g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ m~ ~pi~ly f~ a numar of ~e ~c gen~a~ ~Iri~ acc~ ~m maj~ ~o~ugh~r~. While th~ ce~t~s are u~ly ~a~z~ by tnd~r ~ra~lons, u~ m~ have limited outdo~ a~,t~, Dr~ld~ that outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~~ or ~ffered ~ remain compatib~ ~rrou~ng ~. InsfltuUonal And Clvl~ U~,~ U~s ~mmunJ~S~-She~r I ~ ] ~ ....... ~ ~- I PR ] ~ I PR Wc ~Fc ~s~ng ~oF Commu~ Sc~cc uses, Commu~ so.cc Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mai~ng Address: }o I,~ '~ 4 G. .J~? /)/< /¢7 ,c~ / Zip Code Phone Number: (~/~) ~(3 .~- 7y/3 This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. ZnMflsive CommerctaIZo~e (CZ-Z) The purpose o1' the [r~cens~ve Commerc~ Zone (CZ- 1) is to ixovk~e areas fc~ 1:hose sales an~ service functions and businesses whose o~ions are typically ch~ractedzed~ by outdoor dtsp[ay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commerciat amusement and recreational activities or by activities a' operations conducted in buildings or s~r~ures not completely ended. The ~pes of retail trade in Chis zone are limited in order to provk~ opportunities for more land- i~ns;we commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts behveen retail and industria truck traff'a:. Special attention musl: be dir~ toward bdfe~tng the negal:ive aspects allov,~=~d u~es ~rom adjacent residenttaf zones. Community Commercial Zone The purpose of the Communib/Commercial Zone (CC~2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total comrnunib/population. In ad¢ltion to a variety of retail goods and servfces, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generatxars req~trincj access from major U~oroughfares. While these tearers am usually characterized by indoor c~peral:lons, uses may have limited outdoor aClav~os, provided that outc~oor Ol~eratior, s arc screened or b~ffe~cd ~ remain compa[[ib~e with surrounding ~ InsUtutlonal And Clvl,~ Use/ ~a~icui,eyuse~ "1' p~s l,?~S Pn/S PrvslPR/SlP~VSlP~S CommunityServlce ~ G~e~munl~ I P I ~ ~_, S I P ~ P I P U~s ~mmuni~ Se~-8hef~r 19 I .... q-' I ~ I~R '1 ~ I PR We ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Sheltet undev CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S' w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~ 0L,,c~,- ~4,:~(i~.~,.~ email Mailing Address: ~..~o IL ~c,~-~&,~-~ Ac, 10V IZc~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. Xn~ensive Commerda~ Zene The purpose of the ~ntensive Commerc~ Zone (~*I) is to p~vicle areas for ~ose sales ar~ service functions and b~nesses whose cq:~ations are Lypical[y characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor cornmeal amusement and recreattomal activities or by activities or operations conduCted tn b~t~di.ngs or ~ructures not completely endosed. The ~/pes of retail trade in ~is zone are timRed in order to provide opportuni£tes for more land- intensive comme~'cial operatior~ and a~o to prevent ~;~or~fflcts between retail and indusbdal truck tragic, Spedal attenfi0n musl: be directed toward buffering the negat:ive a~lowed uses ~rorn adjacent resldenUat zones. Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC~2) is to provMe for major business districts to serve a significant segment ~ the to~al community populaCion, In ad~uon to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically real. re a number of large traffic generators requiring access from major t;homughrares, While th~se centers are usually cl~aracterized by indc~r opera:ions, uses may have limited outdoor provided tha: outc~oor opera[ion~ arc ~reened or b~t'fefcd r.o remain cornpatib~ wlb~ ~urrounding uses. InsUtuUonal,,And,C!v,!,~,,,Um BasicUilityUse~ P,R/S ,I p~S I p~s I~S I P~ ~ P~S I P~S Co~uni~t~ G~e~C~munl~Se~ P I S ~~ J P I P U~s ~mmuni~Se~-S~el~r ~ I' ' I I~ IPR '1 ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ty se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ..~c, ~ ~, ~/~c~5 ~ ~ email / Mai~ng Address: ~ d'/c~' ['~ ~' ~c~"~7~ / P'~ Zip Code 5-~ Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zn~ensive Commetdal Zone (CZ-Z) ~e ~ ~ ~e In~n~ ~mme~ Z~e (Cb~) ~s ~o ~v~ ar~ ~ ~o~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~e~ wh~ ~ons a~ ~ ch~z~ by ~oor ~s~y and ~ d m~hand~, ~ ~pair a~ ~1~ ~ large e~p~t m~r vehi~. ~ eutd~ ~me~al amu~me~ and re~a~onal ac~i~ or ~ ~ ~ m~l ~ In ~ zone ~ lim~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~uni~ies f~ m~ land- in'~n~e ~m~al o~[o~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~nfft~ ~hv~n total and indicia ~k ~ffic, 5~1 a~fion m~ ~ dJr~ ~ward buffing ~he n~a~ve ~ all~ u~s ~r~ advent ~ld~t~i ~nes. E. ~mmuni~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~mmun[W Camm~cial Z~ ~-2) is ~o pmdde for major di~H~ to ~e a sig~fi~nt ~gmen~ ~ ~e ~e~at ~muni~ ~la~ion. In ~]~ion ~ a vadeW of r~il g~ a~ sedco, the~ ~nt~ may ~pi~ly f~ a numar ef ~c ge~a~m/e~rt~ a~ ~m maim ~omugh~r~, While ~h~ cent.s u~all~ ~a~iz~ by indoor ~lons, u~ m~ here limited ou~oor pr~id~ ~hat out. or o~Jo~ ~m ~r~ or ~ffefcd ~ remain com~ib~ ~rrou~i~ ~. Institutional And Clvl~ Use~ Co~uniN ~i~ ~ G~e~ ~muni~ ~ J P S S P P ~ P ?~ . Com~u.~ffse~- s~e~r ~ ~ ~ ~ FR '~ ~ I P~ We are as~ng for CommuMW Se~ce uses, CommuMW se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ,777,~./--/c/ ~2 ;/,? ~' -.v email Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Znt~nsive Commefdal Zone The lx~pose of the Ir~nsive Carnmer~tal Zone (CI-1) ts to ixovi0o areas for those sales ar~ service functions and businesses who~ operations are ~io1~ characterized by oatdoor d!splay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or mol~r vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activ~ or by activities or operations ~nducted In butldlncs or structures not completely endosed. The rltpes of rel~l trade in this zone are timtled in order to provkle opportunities for more land- i~tensive oarnmercial operat[o~.s and also to prevent cot~tllcls bcbveen retail and industrial truck traff'm. Spedal attention mt~ be directed toward buffedng the negative aspects of allowed uses from ad]aoent residenttal zones. E. COrrlm~inl~ Commercial Zone (CC,l) The purpose of ~e CtlmmuniW Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major bu.~ness di~rtcts to serve a significant segment cfi the ~tal mmrnun~ty population. In ¢xl(lltlon tea variety of retail goods an<l services, these centers may btl~ica~ly fea~re a number of large traffic generators requlrlncj acce~ from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually c~aract'w, rizc~ by indoor opera:ions, uses may have limited outdoor provided t:hal outdoor operations arc screer,<~ or b~ffercd bo remain compatible with surrounding InsUtuflonal And Clvlq Us~l Basic Ulilit¥ Uses 1" I'PR/$ ) PRt$ ' PR/$ ' PR/S ' PR/S I PR/S IPR/SP S I S-------~PR ~PPR 'P P Cormmunity Service General Communit~ Service , ~ , , Uses Communit,/Service - Shelter PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~ ~] ~/~ ~ ~ ~ c9 ~ l~ '>_ email ~~ d lL~ Zip Codeg'zz~c~ Mailing Address: 2~t ~/t~~ ~ ' ~ Phone Number: ~ f ~ c~d ~ ~- This is a: ~.Question Suggestion //Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Inf:ensive CommerdaIZone (C/4,) The ~ of ~e ~n~ ~mmerc~ Zone (~-1) ~s to ~v~ ar~ f~ ~ho~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~e o~tions are ~t~ cha:~edz~ by ~oor d!sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~handi~, ~ repair a~ ~1~ ~ large eq~pm~nt or moor vehi~. ~ outdo~ ~m~al amuseme~ and re~aUonal actNi~ or by ~fiviti~ ~ ope~onS ~ndu~ tn ~l~l~ or ~r~ nat ~mpletely enclo~ ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone ~ limt:~ ~n ~der to ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- in~n~e ~mm~al o~tio~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~nffi~ ~bveen retail and ~k ~, S~l a~nfion m~t ~ dir~d ~ward bu~edng the n~a:ive ~ allm~ u~s [rom advent ~id~t~al z~es. ~mmuni~ c~me~:l ~ne ~e ~r~ of ~e ~muni~ Commercial Z~e (CC-2] is ~ p~de for major b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a slgnifi~nt ~gmenL ~ ~e :o~al ~mmuni~ ~laCion, in ~tion ~ a vadew of r~il g~s a~ sedco, the~ cent.s m~ ~i~ly f~m a num~ of ~c gen~a~m ~irt~ a~ ~m maj~ Lhomugh~r~, While Lh~ ~t~ u~ally cha~c~z~ by ind~r ~:lons, u~ m~ have limited o~d~r ~r~lded :~t o~t~oor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~fl~cd ~ remain compe:ib~ ~rr~u~ing ~. Instltutlona,I,And C,!~!~,' ,U, sel B~icUlili'~ U~es I I PR/S,, I ,PR/S I PR/S t Pr us I P~s 1 P~S I P~S Community Service I General Community Service P~_L~~!~ J P I P Uses CommunityS~',ice-She~r ~~i~', 't P" I PR t We are asJdng for Commu~ty Service uses, Community set'dee Shelter under C[-] zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed ";PR". email Mailing Address:" '~ ' Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. Zntensive Commewcla! Zone (CZ-I) The purpose of the Intensive Commen:~ Zone (Ci- I) is ~o peovhJe areas fo** t~ose sales and service functions and bc~nesses whose operations are b/ptcaily ch~ractedzcct by eutdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large eq~pment or mawr vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational acflvitf~s or by activities (~ operations o3nducted tn b~lldlngs or ~ructurcs n~ c-om, pie[ely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone am limt[ed in order to provide opp~tunities for more land- irRensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflict, s bebveen retail and indusl~ai truck tra~, Special attention mu~ be direL'b~ t~ward buffedng tho negative aspects allowe~ u~s from adjacent resldent~a! zones. IE Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) The purpose of 1]ie O3mmun[ty Commercial Zone (CC~2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment off the total community population. In a~r~ltion b3 a varie[y of retail goods and sauces, these c~nt~'s may typically fea~re a number of large traffic generators req~rtng access from major ~or~ughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor ~3eratlons, uses may have iimited ou~oor provided t:ha~ outdoor operations arc screer,~fl or b~ffered to remain cornpatib~c with ~urroundJn§ use~. InsUtuUoaal Ami Clvl~ Use, ~c a~c ~s~g ~o~ ~ommu~ So.cc uses, ~ommu~J~ so.cc Shelter under CI-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~(/~ ~(~7~ ~ email Phone Number:(~/:~ ? q ~(~ -- ¥~9 ,? This is a: ~.Question ~Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, zntensive comme~dal Zone The purpose of the :~:ens~ve Commercia~ Zone (~-1) is to peovh~e areas fo~ those sales and servic~ functions and businesses who~e operations are b/pically characterizecii by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales c~ large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational a~b/it~s or by activities ar operations conducted in ~uth:lfngs or s~ructures not completely encl~. The types of retail trade In this zone are ~imRed in order to provkle oppc~tunil:ies for more land- i~tensive commercial operations and also to prevent conffi~,s 13ebveen r~ail and tndub~at buck traffic. ~1 attention must be direL-l~ toward buffering U~e negat:ive aspects of allowed uses ~rom adjacent resldenUal zones. E. Community commercial Zone The purpose of the Comm~lnity Comm~cial Zorte (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to. serve a significant segment c~ the ~oLa! community popula[ion. In ad~tien to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically fea~re a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually cl~aracterized by indoor operaUons, uses may have limited outdoo~ provided I:ha: outc~oor operations are screen~ or b~ffercd t~ remain compatib~ with surrounding uses. hqsU.t ~!t,~al,,And C !y,!,~ Um Ba~I¢ UUIRy ~ ~ [ P~S I P~S ~ P~'S t P~S I P~ ~ P~S 1 Co~uniN~t~ Gene~muni~Se~ ~P S ~ S _. P I P I P U~S ~ Communi~ Se~i~- 8hel~r ~~PR 1 ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ty se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". MaihngAddress:,~O)~ ~.~')5¥~/~4; 4~C Zip CodeS~x)~ Phone Number: This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zni:ensive Conu~es, dal Zone ~e ~r~ the ~n~ve ~mme~ Zone (~q~ ~s ~ ~ ~r~s ~ ~ho~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ o~atio~ ~e ~[y ch~edz~ by ~td~ dtsp~y and ~or~ d m~handJ~, ~ repair a~ sal~ ~ large ~p.mnt or m~r vehi~. ~ outd~ ~me~af amuseme~ and re.aUral a~i~ or by activiti~ ~ open. ns ~ndu~ ~n ~lldjr~ or ~r~ not ~letely ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone a~ timit~ ~n ~der to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~ land- [~n~e ~mm~al o~t[~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nffl~ ~hvcen retail and indus~i~ ~k traffic. S~I a~nfion m~ ~ dir~ ~ward ~ffeflng allo~ u~s ~ adJa~nt resldentia~ z~es. ~ ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~r~ of ~e ~mmun[~ Comm~cial Zone (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for maJer b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a slgnifi~nt ~gment ~ the tota ~mmuni~ ~lation, In ~d]tion ~ a vaA~ of r~il g~ a~ se~ccs, th~ cent~ may ~i~fly f~m a num~ of ta~e ~c gen~a~m m~rl~ acc~ ~m maim ~omugh~r~, While th~ ~nt~s am u~ally cha~Z~ by ind~r ~radons, u~ m~ have limi~d ~id~ ~t outdoor o~tio~ am ~ree~ or ~ffemd ~ remain compatib~ ~rrou~i~ ~. Institutional And Clvlo U~e,t ~e are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under C[-1 zo~ng be ]eft at "~" w~ch exception and not changed to the proposed Mating Address: Z~/~ &.~,/~.:~r¢~/ ~/d~ Zip Code~~) Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion X Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zn~nsive CommerclaIZone The ;xJrpose al~ the zntenstve Cemmerc~ Zone (CZ-]) is to provi~ areas t~or those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are b/~picalty charactedze~ by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large eq~pment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and reo'eattonal activities or by activities (x operat~ns conducted tn buildings or s~ructures nc~ completely endosed. The types of retail trade in this zone am limited in o~der to provkle opportunities for mo~-e land- i~nsive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts beb, veen retail and indusl~r~at ~ruck traff~. Special a~enti0n must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E. Community Commercial Zone {CC,:2) The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (C¢-2) is 1:o provide for major bu~ness districts to ~erve a significant segment ~ the ~otal communib/popula[ion, In a~¢ttion to a variety of retail goods and services, the. se centers may b/~pica~ly feature ,3 number of targe traffic genefa~rs req~ring eccess from major thoroughfares, While these centers are usually ct~arac[edzed by tndo~3r operations, uses may have limited outdoor provi0ed ~ha~ outdoor operations arc screene(~ or b~ffemd b~ remain compatible with ~urrounding uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvl~; U,~ Co~uni~ ~1~ [ G~e~muni~t~ I P I S ~_~ P ~ P I P U~s Communi~Se~i~-She~r I~ ] t ~ P~ 'PR I~ [ PR ~e a~c as~g ~o~ Commu~ Sedco uses, Commu~ sc~cc She]tee u~dc~ C[-1 zo~g be ]eft at "S" w~ch e~cepdon a~d not cha~ged to the proposed MaihngAddress: ~6Y/ff ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ZipCod~~ Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question Suggestion /~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, [nter. sive CommerdaIZone The purpose o~ the Intensive Commorc~ Zone (CI-1) ~s go provue areas for Chose sales and servi~e functions and bus)messes whose ~ions are typically ch~aracterized by o~tUoor al)splay and storage of merchandise, by repair an~ sales of large ecluipme~t or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational acflviU~s or by activities or operations conducted tn buildings or structures not co.lately enclosed. The ~/pes of m~l trade in Chis zone are timk'ed in order to provide opl:x3~tunil:ies for more land- ir~tensive commercial opera~ions and also to prevent conflicts between retail and indusb-lal truck traff'~, Special attenldon mus~ be direcl~ toward buffering tho negal;ive aspect~ of allowed uses ~rom adjacent residential zones. E. Community Commercial Zone The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC~2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In ad~tion to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typicafly feature a number of lan:je tra~c generators requiring access from major t~omughfares. While these centers are usually characL'edzed by indoor ~ra:lons, uses may have )imited outdoor provided that outdoor operations arc screeneci or buffered bo remain compatible with ~urrounding uses. Institutional And Clvlo U~ ~e a~e as~ng fo~ Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter u~de~ CI-I zo~ng be left at "S' w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the p~oposed "PR'. Name ~~ ~~ ¢~~ email Mainng Address: [8 / 5J Zip Code S Phone Number: 3 ~ ~ [/ ~ { This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Cornma~da! Zone ~e ~ ~ ~e I~n~ ~mme~ Zone (~-1) is ~o ~ ar~s f~ t~o~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ns and ~e~ ~ ~ions a~ ~ cham~z~ by ~td~r dis~y and ~o~ d m~handi~, ~ repair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~prr~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~at amuseme~ and re~onal a~i~ or ~tiviti~ ~ ope~6ons condu~ in ~lldlr~ or ~r~ ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone ~ li~{~ in ruder to :~ov~ op~uni:ies f~ mine land- i~n~e ~mm~oal o~:t~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nffl~ ~n ~tail and ind~a ~k t~. S~I a~t~on m~ ~ dir~ ~w~rd buffe~ng all~ u~s ~ adJa~nt ~lden~l ~es, E, ~mmuni~ ~me~.l ~ne (CC-2) ~e p~ of ~e ~uni~ Comm~cial Z~ (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~in~ di~fl~ ~ ~e a sig~nt ~gment of~e ~tai ~mmuni~ ~lation, ~n ~ltion ~ a vadeW ~ re~ii g~s a~ sedco, th~ cent~ may ~i~[ly f~m a num~ ~c gen~a~m ~irl~ a~ ~m maj~ ~omu~r~, While ~h~e ~t~ are u~ly cha~z~ by ind~r ~:lons, ~ m~ have ~imited o~o~ a~,~U~, pr~ld~ that outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffcfcd ~ ~rreu~i~ ~. InsfltL.'Uonal A~d Clvl~ Basic Ulility Uses "t" . PPJ$ [ pR/S I PR/$ t PrVS l PR/S I PR/S I PR/S Community Servtce Gener-~l 'Commu nlty Service P I S ~ S__~L_~__.LP i P I P Uses / C°mmunit7 Service- Shelter [ ~lI ~ ~R II PR I PR t We are aslcing for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~r ~ ~ ~ ~V~ ¢ email / Mailing Address: Zot ~ Coo4-~ ~0xt 6~ ~J / c/~ Zip Code 57 Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zn~er~ive Comma~dat Zola (CZ-Z) The ~of the I~n~ ~mme~c~ Z~e (C~- ~) ts to ~ ar~s ~ Cho~ a~ s~i~ ~n~s ~nd ~ne~ wh~ ~t~ons are ~pJ~[y ch~hz~ ~td~ ~sp~y and ~or~ d m~handi~, ~ ~ir a~ ~i~ ~ large ~pr~nt or m~r vehi~. ~ eutd~ ~m~dal amuseme~ and re.aUral a~Ni~ or by ~fiviti~ ~ o~fions ~nduG~ tn ~tldir~ or ~r~t~ n~ ~letely end~. ~ ~ m~l ~e in ~ zone am timR~ in ~der to ~ovi~ op~uni~es f~ m~ land~ i~ve ~mm~Oal o~t[o~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nffl~ ~n retail and lnd~a ~k ~[, S~l a~on ~ ~ dir~ ~rd buffedng tho negative ~ a~l~ u~s ~r~ adja~nt mslden0al zones. ~e p~ of ~e ~mmun[~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major di~H~ to ~e a signi~nt ~gment o[~e to~al ~mmuni~ ~lation. In ~d]tion ~ a vade~ of re~it g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ may ~pi~ty f~m a numar ~c ge~a~m ~ri~ acc~ ~m maj~ ~omu~r~. While Lh~ ceaters am u~ally cha~z~ by tnd~r ~reUons, u~ m~ have limited o~do~ pr~id~ t~t out. or o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffemd ~ remain compatib~ wi~ Con~nunily~ervlce GeneratCorllmunltyServtce ! p ~ S I I $ I P t P I P ~(/e are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under C[-1 zoning be left at "S" which eclua]s special e×ception and not icha~ged to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: ~/q-~~-/~7,~r Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Znf:ensive Cornme~:ial Zoma The purpose al' the/a-~ensive Cornmetc~ Zone (Cl- 1) ~s to ixovi4e areas fc~ those ami servi~e functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterize~ by oatdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair arid sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor cornrnerciaJ amusement and reo~eatlonal activities or by activities or operations conducted tn ~ttdings or structures not completely enclosed. The ;ypes of retail trade in Chis zone are lJmReci in order to I~OVkle oppartuni:ies for more land- intens~e commercial operations and aim to prevent conflicts between retail and indu~l~ial ~ruck Lraff'~c. Special attention musi: be direct~ toward buffering th~ n~al:ive aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E. Community Commercial Zone The purpose of ~e Community Commercial Zorte (CC-2) is to pro~de for majar business cJistrtcts to serve a significant segment di; the to,al communib/~l~ular:ian. In ad¢ltion to a variety of retail goods and services, these centen may typically feature a number of large tra~c generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While I:hese cen~ers are usually charactedz(~d by indoor opera:ions, uses may have limited outdoor provided :ha: o~t¢oor ol~ratjons are scr~r, ect or b~ff~ed to remain com;~a:ib~ with surrounding uses. InsUtutlonal And Clvl,~ Um B~slc Utility Use~ J PPiS J PR/$ J PRI$ PR/$ PR/~ J P~$ J PR/S Con,a'nunilyServlce General Communlty Service P[...L._.J_L_~ I P t P I P u~. . Comm,,.*tXSe~,~-S~.~,,~ I~ I ! I P, R,, [ pR I Pa I P" We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name J ~$t).~ D i/A 7_ email Mailing Address: 2.0]~ LVA-t ~ 12 f~ ¢ c~ ~) -5 3- 3y" Zip CodeSg'L/7'o Phone Number: This is a: __.Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, znl:e~Jve Commerdai Zone (CIE-t} The ~drpose of the ~ntenstve C~mmen:ia~ Zone (CI*I) ~s to provide areas for :hose ~les a~ service functions and b~ine~ whose operations are b/ptcaliy characterized by o~tdom' display and storage o~ merchandise, by repair and sales Of large equipr~nt or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and reen~atlonal acflvit~s or by activities or opera~ons conducted tn battdl~g~ or ~ructures not comple~y enctosed~ The q/pos of retail trade in Chis zone are )im:i~ed in order to provide opportunities for more land- intensive commercial operations and a~so to prevent conflicts between retail and indubl~riai a~ck tra~:. Special attention mus~ be dir~ toward buffering the negative aspect~ aJlowed uses frorrl adjacent residential zones. E. Community Commercial Zone The pm'pose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major bus, ness districts to. serve a significant segment of the total community population. [n adoqtion to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of ~arg¢ traffic generators reqOrincj access from major thoroughfares, While these centers are usually charact~erized by indoor operaUons, uses may have limited outdoor provided Chat outcJoor operations arc s~reened or b~flered bo remain compatible with surrounding uses. InsUtmlenal And Clvl~a Um BseicUlilEyUse~ '[ tPR/S IPR/$ t PPJ$ 'PRJS I PR/S t PR/S IPR/SP' $ $ P P P Community Service Gen~"al Community Semlce ' ' PR PR PR Uses Communib/Service - Shelter ~ .... . 'P'~ ' ~(/c ate asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ....~-~..~ :~-. ,/ .:,,~, .: (, '~ o email ' Zip ~' ~ ! ~i Code Mailing Address: ~ ,, ~ ,,~ ~ ~,,- ~-,. ~ ,,~, , Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-! page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Znl~flsive CornmerclaJ Zone The purpose et' the Intensive Commen:~ Zone (CM) ~ to prov~ areas fo~ :hose sales ar~ service funct~ns and busMesses whose operations are typlcal~/charactertzec~ by outdoor dtspla¥ and storage of merchandise, by repair a,~ sales of large equipment or mc~r vehicles, by eutcl~ commercial amusement and recreational acflvJ~ or by acfivitie~ c~ operations conductec~ tn ~alMIr~gs or strc~t~es not compiete¥ enclosed. The types of retail trade In this zone are timt~ed in order to provk~e opportuniNes for more land- intens~e commerdal ope~ and also to prevent conflicts bebveen retail and indu~cfial ~ck traffic. Special a~ent~on mus~ be directed t~ward buffedng the negal:ive a~pects allowed uses from adJac=nt msMent~at zones. E. Community Commercial Zone The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) ~s bo provide for major bus]ness districts to serve a significant segment c~the total community population, In ~¢~tion t~ a variety cfi retail goods and se~ces, these centers may typically feature a number of tra~c generab~rs reqt~rlng access from major thoroughfares. While ~hese centers are usually characterized by indoor operaUons, uses may have limitecl outdoor ;)rovic~ed :hat outcroor o~rafions am screenec] or buffered ~ m~ain com~a:ib~e with surmuncling uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvlo Um .... ' I~asJc Uffiy uses l, P~$ ! P~S t P~S ~S I P~ I P~$ I P~S Co~uni~ ~t~ G~e~ ~munl~ Se~ ] P I S ~ .... ~ P I P U~s ~mmuni~ Se~-Shel~r I ~ 1, I I ~ [ PR I ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commuffi~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ty se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~l~c)'~ ~M~?~/~ff ~ ~'~ email Maihng Address:~/~ ~/~ 7~ ~[~ ~ ~ Zip Code~D~'G Phone Number:g'ic/'~' ~L/'~ This is a: Question ~Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 a~ s~i~ ~n~o~ and ~e~ wh~ ~Uons are ~i~y cha~e~z~ ~ ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand;~, ~ ~ir a~ ~1~ ~ la~e ~p~nt or moor vehi~, W outd~ ~me~al amuse~e~ and regional a~i~ or by ~tMti~ ~ o~ns ~nduG~ )n ~lldt~ or ~r~ not ~mplet~y encl~, ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone am ~imt~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~m~dal o~ and a~ ~ pr~ent ~nffi~ ~hveen m~ail and ind~ ~k ~. S~I a~tion m~ ~ dir~ ~ward bu~ertng the n~ative ~ ot all~ u~s ~: advent msid~t~[ zones. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is to pm~de for major b~n~ di~fl~ to ~e a slg~nt ~gment o~ ~e to,at ~mmuni~ ~laUon. In ~tlon ~ a vafieW ~ re~ii g~s a~ se~, ~e~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~m a num~ of [a~e ~c ge~a~m ~irl~ acc~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While thee centers u~ally cha~z~ by indoor ~[Ions, u~ m~ have limited ou~oor ~r~lded tha~ o~t~oor o~tio~ arc ~r~ or ~ffefed ~ remain compatib~ wi~ ~rou~ing ~ InsUtuUonaI.And Clvl~ ,U,m Basic Utility Uses I PPJS I ~S ~ P~S ~S P~ P~S ~ P~S Co~uni~l~ G~e~munl~Se~ P ~ ~ [_S. P P ~ P U~s ~ Communi~Se~-~e~r '~ I I [ PR "~'R ' ~ I PR ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ SaUce uses, Commu~ se~cc Shelter under C[-1 zo~ng be ]eft at "S" w~ch exception and not changed to the proposed MaiUng Address.~gb ~ ~c~ e¢5 <e,~-~,~ &~3¢ Zip Code{329"d Phone Number: (~ ~P~ ~ 5 ~-~ This is a: ~.Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 o. Znteflsive Comme~dal Zone The ~ of the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (C/- 1) ~s to I~OVi~ areas for r. ho~e sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are b/plcatb/characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandLte, by repair and sales of large equlpre~nt or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational acttvitie$ or by activities oc operations conducted tn ~tldlngs or structures not completely endoc, ed. .types of retail trade in thiS zone are limited in order to provMe opportunities for more land- intenc.;we cornma-cial operaUov~ and also to prevent conflicts between retail and indus~ial truck traft',:. Special attention must be directed ~w~rd buffering the negalrive ~pects allowed uses from adjacent resident!ali zones. Communib/Commercial Zone The purpose of the Community Commercial Zooe (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to. ser~e a significant segment of the :total community pop~Jlatian. In ad~tion to a variet, t ~ retail goods and services, these centers may typical~ly feature a number of ~arge traffic generators reqOrlncj accr-..s from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited ouMoor provlOed :hat; outdoor operations are screenecl or b~ffered to remain cornpatib~ with surrounding uses. InsUtutlonal And Clvlo U~,~ Basic UtilE}, L/,se~ I I P~$ I PR/S t PFb'$ t PR/S I PR/S l PPJS I P~S Comcnunity $erdce I Genera C~mmunlty Sar,Ace P S S P P I P Uses CommunityService-She~ter _b.' ~ PR ' PR I PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name -7~T~'~/~i~ 'q~ ~ ~' ' - ' - t)~ Zip Code Mailing Address: ~0/~ ~©cd~C~(C~'~' ~"5;G ~ This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. Intensive CommerclaIZone (C/-:I.) The i~drpose of the Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-! ) ~s to provide areas for :hose ~ales and service ~n~ons and b~nesses whose operations are typically cl~aracterizec~ by outdoor d!sp~ay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large eqc~pment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and rec~'attonal acttvit~e~ or by activities ~r operations condu~ tn b~lldl~gs or structures not corRole~y endosed, The types of retail trade in Ch:is zone am limited in order to provk~e oppertuniCies for more land- [r~ten.~ve commercial operations and aAso to prevent conflicts between retail and indusl~at b-uq:k traffic. Spedal attention must be directed toward buffering the negat;ive aspect5 aJlowed uses frorfl adjacent residential zones. E, Community Commercial Zone The purpose of the Communi~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is t;o provide for major business di~rtcts to serve a significant segment of the to~al community podia[ion. In a~t¢ltion to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of traffic generators reqOring access from major thor~ughfares, While these centers are usually c~aract~i~ed by indoor e~oera[Ions, u~es may have limited outdoor Drovided t:hat; outcioor operations are screert~d or b~ffefcd t:o r~main compatible with surrounding uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvl~ 6as]c Utifity Uses Corr~nunityServtce I GeneralCommunlty~ervice LP I s ~ I ,5 J P [ P I P _Usea .. Community so~. We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address: ~c,/~ ~.~.~~.~&;~??~ . Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~,Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. [nl:eradve Commenda! Zone ((:2-1) T~e ~ d the Inten~v~ Commerc~ Zone (C/- 1) ~s to pmv~ie areas f~ ~o~ and s~i~ ~n~o~ and ~nes~ wh~ ~tions a~ ~i~ c~z~ by ~r ~Sp~y and ~or~ oF m~handi~, ~ repair and ~1~ ~ large ~prc~nt or m~r ~hi~, ~ outd~ ~m~at ~museme~ and re~aUonal a~ or by ~fi~ti~ ~ o~ns ~ndu~ In ~lldlr~ or ~r~ur~ not m~let~y end~ ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~is zone am llm~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~uniLies f~ m~e land~ in~n~e ~mm~al o~i~ a~d a~ ~ pr~enL ~nffl~ ~cen ~ait and ind~el ~k ~. S~l a~tion ~ ~ d~r~ ~ward buEedng ~h~ n~a~i~ ~ ail~ u~s ~ ad]a~n~ ~ldent~l z~es. E, ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Comm~dal Z~ (C~-2) is ~ pm~de for major di~d~ to ~e a slgni~nt s~gment ~ ~e ~otal ~mmuniW ~la~ion, in ~ti~ ~ a vadeW of r~il ~ a~ se~ces, th~ cen~ may ~i~ly f~m a num~ of la~c ~c ge~a~m re~Irln9 a~ ~ majer Lhomugh~r~, While ~h~ ~t~s u~aily c~z~ by ~nd~r ~lons, u~ m~ have limited o~o~ pr~ld~ ~hal outdoor o~tio~ am ~r~ or ~ff~cd ~ remain compatJb~ InsUtuUonal And Clvl; U~ co~u.,~.,~ 1 ~..~n,~,. ~'~ 't ~" IP U~a . ~mmuni~ Se~i~ - She~r PR We are as~ng for CommuMW Se~ce uses, CommuMW se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name .~~Q~ ~ C~ ~ email Mailing Address: Zip Code Phone Number: ~~ ~_~C/-~./3~- This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zn~ensive Comm~da! Zone a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions are ~ c~m~z~ by ~r ~sp~y and ~or~ d m~han~i~, ~ ~ir an~ ~1~ ~ large ~p~nt or m~r vehi~. ~ outd~ ~m~al am~eme~ and ~al a~i~ or by ~tiviti~ ~ open,ohs condu~ ~n ~ltdln~ or ~r~ur~ n~ ~le~y encl~. W~ ~ m~l ~ ~n ~ zone a~ limR~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~unit~es f~ m~e land* ~n~n~e ~m~dal o~i~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nffi~ ~bveen ~tail and tndub~at ~k ~c, S~t a~on ~ ~ dir~ ~rd bu~edng all~ u~s [t~ adja~nt msident~ ~nes. E, ~mmunl~ ~me~i ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm=dal Zo~ (~-2) is ~ pm~de for ~aJer b~n~ di~H~ to ~.e a sig~nt ~gment of ~e total ~mmuni~ ~la~ion, ~n ~d~U~ ~ a va~e~ o? re~it g~s a~ sedco, ~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~ a numar of la~ ~c ge~a~ ~rlng acc~ from major tho~u~r~. While ~h~ cent.s am u~ly cha~Z~ by ind~r ~lons, u~ ~ have ~imi~d o~ pr~ld~ that outOoor o~=~ a~ ~r~= or ~ff~cd ~ m~a~n compatib~ InsUtuUonal And Clvlc~ Um Co~uni~l~ ~ G~e~munl~Se~l~ I P I S 11 $ P P I P ate as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ty se~ce Shelter under C[-1 zo~ng be lea at exception and not changed to the proposed Name ~_~~., 0g'te~ tko c~o._mc_X~ email Mailing Address: o~k8)/_~_~~Or~+ ~x- ~ I1S Zip Code~9~4D Phone Number: c~ % Co '~'&{ ~ This is a: Question ¢Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Intensive CommerclaIZone The ;xa~pose o1' the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (C;-1) is to provi4e areas for 1:hose sales ar~ service fun~ons and ~nesses whose o~ations are typiodb/charactenzect by outdoor ~splay and storage of me,~:handLse, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehictes, by outdoor commerdal amusement and re~attonal actfvittes or by activities or operations conduct~ in buildings or s~mctures not completely endosecL The ~/pes of re~l trad~ in this zone are limRed in order to provk~e opportunities for mom land- i~tens~ve commercial operations and atso to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial ~ruck traffic. $t~:~ial atten~on mus~ be direcL~ toward buffering the n~lative aspect~ ailowect uses ~rom adjacent resldent~l zones. E. Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) The pur~se of ~e Community Commercial Zone (¢&2) is ~o provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment ol' the :o~at communi~ ~p~la~ion. In ~¢ltion to a variety of retail goo~ and se~ces, these centers may typically fe~re a number of la, ge traffic generators reqOrlng access from major thoroughfares, While these centers are usually characteriz~l by indoor opera:Ions, u~ may have limited outdoor provided :hat out¢oor o~ra~ions are ~:reer~0 or buffe~¢d to remain compatible with surrounding uses. InsUtuUona!.And,G!~(,!~, aa~= um~ ~ t I, P~s I ~s 1 P~S I ~s I P~ I P~s I P~S Co~uni~ ~t~ ~ G~e~ ~munl~ Se~ P S _ _ $ P ~ P I P U~a Communi~Se~-8~el~r IS I ~ [~ IP~ '1 PR I PR ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ S¢~ce uses, Commu~ Shelter under CI-I zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~¥ ~[wxer,~ email Mailing Address: ZOi~ ~oA~',-ov,-~ ~)c.~o Zip Code 5zz~to Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question )<TSuggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive CommerciaIZone The p~rpose of the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (Ct:- 1) L~ to p~ov~ areas l~or t~os~ ~ales and service functions and b~i~esses who~e operations are b/pically ch~ractedze~ by ~Jtdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equ~pm~_nt or motor vehicles, by OU~'CIcK~r commercial amusement and recreational acttvitf~s or by activities ~ operations conducted !n buildings or ~tructurcs not ~letely enclosed. The .~ypes of retail trade in this zone am limited in order to provide opportunities for more land- ir~ten~ve commercial operaUo~ and also to prevent conflicts between retail and tndustria~ ~ruck traff'~c. Special a~Uon must be directed t~ward buffering th~ negat:ive aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E. Community CommerciaJ Zone (CC-2) The purpose of ~e Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major bus, ness distric~ to serve a significant segment of the ~tal oo:mmunKy pop~Jlatlen, in ad¢~tion to a variety of retail goods and servfces, these centers may b/pica~ly feature a number of large traffic generators requIHncj access from major thoroughfares, While these centers are usually characterized by indoor opera~lons, ut, es may hove limited outdoor actrvit~os, Drovi~d Chat outc~oor opera[io~ arc screert~J or b~ffe~cd Lo remain compatible with · u~roundincj use~. InsUtutlonal And Clvl= Uses Basic Utility Usas I PR/$ I PR/$ I PPJS t PPJS I PR/S t PR/S I PR/S Cornmunily Service Gener'-~l Communlt),Service I P ] S I ~ $ I P I P I P _Uses ComrnuniP/Service-S~elter IS. -l'" 1 I PR IPR PR I PR We are asldn~ for Community Service uses, Community Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name i e' :1¢~- email Mailing Aadre :2 ~-o~ o. 0_5% , ~9 ~ Zip Code Phone Number: ~ / ~' 9 & co - E,~ q This is a: ~Question /~ Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. znl:emive Cormnerdal Zone a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions ~ ~IY c~z~ ~ ~s~y and ~or~ ~ m~hand~, ~ ~pair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~prtmnt or m~r vehi~ ~ outd~ ~m~al amuseme~ and regional a~Ni~ or by acfiviti~ ~ ope~fions ~ndu~ in ~t~ or ~ not ~mplet~y en~. ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone am ~imit~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~uni~ies f~ m~ la~d- in~n~e ~m~al o~mti~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~nffl~ ~bveen retail and ind~ ~k ~[, 5~1 a~ti0n m~ ~ dir~ ~ward buffing the n~a~ive ~ ail~ u~s fr~ a~nt msldent~l zones. E, ~mmuni~ ~me~J ~ne (CC-2) ~e p~ of ~e ~un[~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC~2) is ~ pm~de for major di~d~ to ~e a signifi~nt: ~gment o~ ~e to~ai ~mmuni~ ~lation, in ~ltl~ ~ a vad~ of r~it g~ a~ se~, the~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~m a numar of la~e ~c gen~a~m m~Iring a~ ~m maj~ ~omuBh~r~. While th~ ~ters am u~ly cha~z~ by tnd~r ~tl~s, u~ m~ have timi~d o~o~ praised ~ha~ outdoor o~tio~ arc ~r~ or ~ffemd ~ remain compatib~ ~rreu~i~ ~. InsUt~pn.a.!. ~.Clvl=. U~ Co~uni~i~~ G~e~munl~t~ ~ P I S .~ I $ ~ J P I P We are as~ng for Commu~W Se~ce uses, Community se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~~~ ?~3~~ email MaifingAddress:20~4 ~~~ 0~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~,~ ~A Zip Code ~ Phone Number: ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ff c/ This is a: ~Question }<?Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Commercial Zone ((2-1) The ~ Gl' the :[n~ensNe Commerc~ Zone (C:lq) ~s to provf~]e area~ (o~ ~ose sales a~ service functions and businesses who~e operations are b~ical[y characterized by outcloor dlspbl¥ and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large eq~prr-~nt or mol~r vehicles, by eutdeor commerdat amusement and rec~atlonal activities or by activities ~' operations conducted tn b~t~dln~s or s~ructures not completely encloc~:l. The q/Ipes of retail trade in ~his zone are iimt~d in o~der to provide opportunities for more land- i~ensive commercial operat[o~ and also to prevent conflicts be~vcen retail and indusbrial ~ruck traffiC. Spedal attention mus~ be directed toward buffering the negative aspects o1' aJIowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E, Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) The purpose of flhe Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is 1;o provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment ~ the total ~mun~/population, in ~¢ltion to a variety o~ retail goods a~ se~ce$, these centers may typically feature a number nf lan:je traffic genera~rs requirlncj access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor opera~;Ions, ~ses may have limited outdoor ac~,it~es, provided that outdoor operations arc screerted or b~ffemd bo remain compatible with ~urrounding uses. InsfltuUonal And Clvl~ Uses ~e a~c as~ng ~o~ Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shc]tc~ undc~ C[-1 zo~ng be left ~t "S" w~ch equals spec~] exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~(~ ~C email Mailing Address: ~U\0o_ ~g~rt~ T)C :~ 1~_1 Zip Code Phone Number: (,31q5~-~4 This is a: Question V/Suggestion F Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Zfl~nsive Commercial Zono The m ~ ~e I~n~ ~mme~mt ~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~em mt~mr ~sp/y and ~o~ o~ mmhand~, ~ mp~ir a~m 5al~ of la~e q~pmnt or m~r vehi~, ~ eutd~ ~me~i amuseme~ and m~a~onal act~i~ or by ~s ~ m~l B~ In ~iS zone am limi~ in ruder ~o prov~ op~uniLies f~ m~ land- inten~ve ~mm~al o~tions and a~ ~ prevent ~}~i~ ~veen r~ail and tndus~ ~k tra~. S~al a~on m~ all~ u~s ~r~ adJa~nt residential zones. Communi~ ~me~:l ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC~2) is ~ pm~de for ma]or b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a slg~nt ~gment ~ the to~at ~mmuni~ ~lation, In ~tion ~ a vade~/of re~il g~s a~ se~s, ~ cent~ may ~pi~fly f~m e num~ of ia~e ~c gen~a~m ~rlng ~c~ ~m maj~ thomugh~res, While ~h~ ce~t~s u~atly cha~z~ by ind~r ~:lons, u~ m~ have limited o~o~ a~,t~, provided :hat outdoor o~tio~ Co~uni~t~ ~ Gene~munl~Se~tw [P ~ ~ $ P t P I P U~s Communi~Se~i~- 8he~r ~ ~ ~ , PR PR } ~ I PR We are as~ng for Communi~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name~~] ~ email Malting Address: ~ ~~~ ~L ~[ Zip Code ~~0 Phone Number: ~3~3~~~ / T~s is a: ~Question ~ Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Commetdal Zone (C~4.) The purpose of the ~'~tensive Commercia~ Zone (~-1) ~s to Ixovi~ areas l'or those sales a~ service functions and businesses whose operations are tyl~tcal~/cl~aractedzed by outdoor display and s~orage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment ot mator vehicles, by outdoor cornel amusement and recreational activities or by activities (x operations conducted in buildings or sl~'uctures n~ cornple~y enclosed. The ~pes of retail trade in ~his zone are limi;~ in order to provide oppertunities for mom land- i~tens;~e cornmenfial operations and also to prevent confficts between retail and Industrial ~ traffic. Special attention mus'~ be directed toward buffering ~ negative a~pects of allowed uses from ac~ac~nt residential zones. E. Community CommerciaJ ZOne (CC-2) The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2~) is to provide for maJa~ busir~ss districts to serve a sigrfficant segment of the total community population, in ad(tttio~ tn a variety of retail goods and ser~ces, these centers may typically feature a number of targe traffic generators requtrir~ access from major thoroughfares. While U~se centers are usually characterized by indoor ~ereUons, uses may h;n~ limited outdoor acljvi'cies, :~ovlded l;ha~; outfloor operations are screenefl or buffen~d to remain compaldble with surr~un(lincj uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvl¢; Usel · ' ' ' ' Basic Uljlity L[see I I PR/S , PR/S , PR/$ , PR/$ I PR/S I PR/S I PR/$ Co. re.unity Service General Community Service 'PR PR _Uses . Community Service - Shelter _S PR PR t We are asking for Community Service uses, Community servJc¢ Shelter under C[-1 zoning be ]eft at "S" which equals special e×ceptJon and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: -~/(~- '~ 6-q' .-6 ¢(-' ~Sa( This is a: Question Suggestion · Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 C ~e ~ ~ ~e I~ ~mmer~ Z~e (~-l) ~s ~o ~ ar~ ~ ~ho~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions a~ ~ cha~e~z~ by ~td~r ~s~y a~ ~o~ of m~handi~, ~ ~pair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~pw~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~al amuseme~ and regional a~ or ~ acfiviti~ ~ o~ns ~ndu~ ~n ~t~n~ or ~r~t~ n~ ~letely end~. ~ ~ m~l ~e tn ~ 2m~e are timi~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- [n~n~ve ~mm~oal o~tio~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nfli~ ~een ~ii and · ~k Vag~. S~I a~t~on m~ ~ dir~ ~2rd buffering the n~a:ive ~ all~ u~s ~ advent ~siden~21 z~es. E, ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne (CC~2) ~e p~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Comm~dal Z~e (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~fl~ to ~e a slg~fl~nt ~gment c[ ~e to~al ~mmuni~ ~la~ion. ~n ~c~U~ ~ a va~ew ~ r~il g~ a~ sedco, ~e~ cen~ may ~i~[ty f~ a numar of ~c ge~a~ re~lrlng acc~ ~m maj~ :ho~ugh~res. While ~h~ cent~ are ~a~ly cha~c~ by ind~r ~ti~s, ~ m~ have limited o~dc~ pr~lded :ha~ o~tCoor o~io~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain co~patib~ Insffiuflonal And Clvlo U,m Co~uniN~wi~ G~e~munl~ J P I S [ l S .J ~ I P I P ~s .. Communi~So~.S~o~ I P I i - I P~ "IPR 1 ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoffing be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~,~>v:~ ~~ email Phone Number:' This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Znl:easive Comme~dal Zone The lxa'pose o[ the Intensive Cornnmercta~ Zone (C~q) ts ta provide areas ~ ~ho~ a~ s~i~ ~n~ and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions ~e ~pi~ cha~dz~ by ~ ~sp~y and ~a~ of m~handi~, ~ re.ir a~ sal~ of large eq~pr~nt or m~r vehi~. ~ outd~ ~al amu~me~ and re~a~onal ac~i~ or ~ ~vities ~ open. ns condu~ In ~I~l~ or ~r~ur~ n~ ~let~y end~. ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone ~ timi~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~ land~ in~n~e ~m~al o~i~ and a~ to prevent ~nffl~ ~bveon re[alt and · ~k ~, S~l a~en~on m~ ~ dir~ ~ward bu~eNng the n~a:ive ~ a~l~ u~s ~ adJa~n~ resldent~l ~es. E, ~munl~ ~me~l ~ne (CC~2) ~e p~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Comm~cial Zone (CC-2] is to pmMde for major b~n~ di~d~ ~ ~e a slg~fl~nt ~gment ~ the to~al ~mmuni~ ~laUon. In ~lUon ~ a vade~ of r~il g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ mw ~i~ly f~m a numar of ~c ge~a~ ~Jrl~ acc~ ~m maj~ thomugh~r~. While [h~ cent.s are u~ly cha~c~ by ind~r ~:lons, u~ mW have limited outer pr~lded :ha~ outdoor o~mtio~ am scr~r~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain compa~ib~ ~rrou~i~ ~. InsUtuUonal And Glvlo Um ' ' ' ' ' a~lc: Ulil.¥ Use~ I PRtS, I P~S t PR/$ t PR/S I PR/S I PR/$ I PR/S Community Service General Community Service LP I S t ~ $~ J P I P Uses Community Service-Sheller [g I l -----~R 'I PR I PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". M iling Address: \?; Zip Code3 ?c -?? Phone Number: ..~ \cl -~-i t-~c'/~5-- This is a: Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znl:en~ive Commerdal Zone a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ o~ations are ~t~ cham~e~z~ by ~r ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand~, ~ ~pair an~ ~1~ of la~e eq~prt~t or m~r vehi~, ~ eutd~ ~me~a~ amuseme~ and re~onal a~i~ or ~tMti~ ~ open,ohs ~ndu~ in ~l~l~ or ~ n~ ~let~y end~. c~ ~ mt~l ~ in ~ zone ~e limi~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~uniLies f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm~al o~i~ and a~ ~o preven~ ~nffl~ ~,veen m~ail and indus~ ~k ~a~. 5~1 a~nt]on m~ ~ dir~d ~war~ budding the n~aCive ~ of all~ u~s ff~ a~nt ~sldent~l zones. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~:l ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~mmun~ Comm~cial Zone (CC~2) is ~ pm~de for major ei~ to ~e a slg~fi~nt ~gment ~ the ~o~al ~mmuni~ ~lation. ]n ~eltion va~e~ ~ re~il g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ may ~i~[ly f~ a numar ~c gen~a~ m~iring acc~ ~m major thomugh~r~. While Lh~ cent~ are u~ally cha~iz~ by ind~r ~racIons, u~ m~ have limited o~oer Drovid~ Chat outdoor o~tio~ am ~r~r~ or ~ffemd ~ remain compatib~ wi~ ~rrau~ing ~. InsUtuUonal ~knd Clvlo Uaea Bas]c Ulility Use~ 'l: [ P~S I PS I P~'$ IPR/S I PR/S I PI~'$ I PR/S - Communily Service I General Community Service ]_ P $ --- ~ ~- ~,, ,1 P I P _Uses Community Service - Shelter 1~ I I I PR I PR I PR I PR We are asJdng for Community Service uses, Community set. ce Shelter under CT-1 zoning be left at "S' which equals special e×ception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address:..~/;;~ 'z~//q ¢,4 /& 2-~Z~:.?/J?- t~,~ &c~7-¢ _-~' Zip Code Phone Number: ,,~/c;/zJ~ This is a: ~.Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Intensive Commerdal Zon8 (~1) a~d s~i~ ~n~ons and ~e~ wh~ ~ions are ~l~ ch~z~ by ~td~r ~spby and sto~ d m~hand~, ~ ~pair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~pr~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~al amuse~e~ and ~a~onal act~i~ ~y~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone am tim[t~ in ~der to ~i~ op~u~ities f~ m~ land~ in~n~e ~mm~al o~ti~ and a~ to prevent ~n~l~ ~een retail and indicia ~k tra~. S~l a~tion m~ ~ dir~d ~w'ard buff~ing the n~ative all~ u~s ~ adJa~nt msldent~t ~nes. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~n~ ~e p~ of ~e ~mun~ Comm~cial Z~e (~-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~d~ to ~e a signifi~nt ~gment of ~e ~o~ai ~munJ~ ~latlen. In ~d]tion ~ a vadew of re, il g~ a~ se~. the~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~m a num~ ~c ge~a~ m~frlng ~cc~ ~m major ~omugh~r~. Wh~le th~ centers are u~ally cha~Z~ by ind~r ~lons, u~ m~ have limi~d o~o~ pr~id~ that outdoor o~tio~ am scr~ or ~ffe~d ~ remain compatib~ ~rroundi~ ~. InsUtufJonal And Clvl= U~. .. ~ Communi~ Se~i~. 8heRer We are asMng for CommuMW Se~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name~ email ~.. Maihng Address: Phone Number: ~~-~ ~ 7 This is a: ~Question v/' Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, [nt~nsive Common;iai Zone The purpose of the Inten~ve Com~erc~ Z~e (~bl) ~s ~o ~i~ ar~ ~ ~hose ~les an~ s~i~ ~n~ons and b~e~s whose o~at~ons ~e ~pi~t~ chB~e~z~ by ~oo~ display and sto~e o? merchand~, by mpai~ and ~1~ of large eq~pr~nt motor vehi~s~ by outdo~ ~mme~ial amusement and recrea~onal ac~ivi~ or by activRies ~ open,ohs mndu~ ~n ~il-dlngs or ~ruc~ure~ no~ mmplele~y encla~d~ ~y~s of m~l tr~ in this zone are limi~} m o~der to provi~ op~un~ies fcq me~e land- inten~vc ~mmcrcial o~tions a~d a~ ~ prevent conflicts ~bveem re~ai~ and indus~da~ ~k t~fliC. S~ial aAention m~ ~ d~re~d reward bu~enng the negative aflowc~ u~s from adja~nt residen~iat zones. E, CommuniW~me~ial ~ne The purpo~ o~ ~e ~mmuni~ Commercial Zone (CO~) i~ to provide for majo[ dis~ri~ to ser~e a signi~nt segmen~ e~ 1he m~a~ mmmuni~y ~;~la~km. In ~(~iti~n ~o a va~eW o~ re~i~ go~s am~ se~ccs, the~ cem~s raay typicafly ~eatum a numar ~f ~a~e franc genera~s ~e~ring acc~s f~m major thoroughfares. Wh~le ~hese ce~lers are ~sually characmrized by ~ndo~r o~a:ions, u~ m~, have ~imited outdoo~ provided ~hat outdoor o~i~ am scree~ or ~ffemd ~] remain compatib~ surrounding instltuUonal And Clvio U~ = ' ' ' ' Basic~ilityUse~ i I P~S I PR/$ i PI~'$ P~S P~¢S P~S P~S t We are asMng for Community Se~ce uses, Community so,ice Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~ ¢~ ~i ~ ~ ~t ~ email MailingAddress: ~Ol~ UO~~4 DIZ 13 .%~- Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: __.Question _~Suggestion __ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, [nl:ensive Common:iai Zone The purl:rose of ~he ~nten~ve ~mme~:~l Z~n~ (~ i) ~s {0 ~vi~e areas ~ ~ho~ a~d s~i~ ~n~on.s and b~i~es~s who~e o~tio~s a~e ~i~ll'y ch:a~e~ed by ~tdoor dtsp~y and sto~e o? merchand~, ~ ~epak and sal~ of large equ~pm~]t or motor vehi~ ~ ou~d~ ~mmercia~ amusement and re~ea~io~al ac~Ni~¢~ ~r by activities ~ open,ohs condu~ ~n ~i~dings or ~r~ure~ ~o~ comple~e¥ end~d~ t~ of retail tr~e in ~is zone are: ~imi~ ~n o~de~ to prov~e op~u~ties for m~ !and- tru(k traffic. S~al a~en~ion m~t be d~re~ted ~ward humoring the ~egative ~s~cf5 of allo~v~ u~s [rom adJa~nt tesldentia~ zones. E, Communi~Commercial Zone ~e purpo~ c,f ~e ~mmuni~ Commerdal Zone (CC-2) is [o provide for major ~is~ric~ to se~'e a signifi~nt segment e~ ~he ~ofa~ ~mmmun~' pa~,;la[ioa, tn ~J(~itian [o a vadeel of refill go,sand seP~ces, the~ cent~:s m~y typi~tly feature a number ef Ja~e tragic genera~m tequ~r'ing ~ccess f~m major thoroughfares. While thee centers are u~aily chara~enz~ by ~ndogr a~ta:ions, uses may h~ve ~imited o~[doof provided ~hat outdoor ope~tio~s are scree:~ed or ~ffered 1:o remain compa~ib~ surrounding ~. Institutional And Clvlc~ Uses ..... Basic tJtilit¥[]sas ! I P~S J PR/S i P~S J P~S ~ P~'S P~S I P~S Communi~ Se~'i~ Gene~l O~muni~ Se~i~ ~ ~ p p I U~s Communi~ 5e~i~ - Sheller ~ PR PR PR t We are asMng for Communi~ Se~ce uses, Community se~ice Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name~eo~e ~, ~~o~ email Maihng Address: ? D. ~ee ~qV ~ d,~ .~ Zip Code~ Phone Number: 337 6Z4/ This is a: __.Question ~l Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Into.sire ~ommm~cial Zone The ~r~: et the In:en~ve Comme~c~:l Zone (Ct-I) ~s ~o ~vi~ area~ ¢~ tho~ ~les and se~i~ ~n~o~s and b~es~s w~ose ~ations are Cypi~lY cha~enz~ b~ ~tdoar dtsplay and steele o~ merchandise, by ~epair and sales c~f large equipment or motor ve~id~s, by outdo~ commercial amusement and recfea~ona~ ac~ivi~ ~r by acti~iti~ ~ opera,ohS c~ndu~ed ~n ~i~dtn~ or ~ructures ~¢~s of ~tail tr~e in this zone are limi~ ~n 0zder to provide op~u~ties for m~ !a~d- in~en~ve ~mm~cial o~ions and a~ to preven~ co~]fli~s ~t.,veen re~ai~ and indusb~ai trick trafllc, S~ial a~ention mu~t ~ d~re~d toward bu~edng t;he negative aJlo~,¢L~ u~s from adja~nt restdentia~ zones. E. Commu,i~Commercial~e %ne p~r~ of ~e ~mmunib¢ Cammerdal Zone (CC~2) is to provide for major busings dis~ric% to serve a significant segment 0¢ the tg~aJ ~mmunJ~' pop,,¢la~ian, In ~d'itio¢i [o a vade~¢ ¢ retai~ go~s and semces, them: centres may typically feature a number of ia~e ~ic genera~rs requiring access [~m major thoroughfares. Wh~le these ce~ter~ are ,usually cnara~enzed by indoor apefa(ions, us~ may ha~,e limited outdoo¢ provided ~ha~ outdeo¢ o~radomS are scree~ or buffered ~ surrounding ~e~. Institutional And 61vl~ U~ Ba.~ic Utility/lJ~e~ ~ ~ P~ ] P~S ~ P~S I P~S [ P~S P~S I P~S Co~]uni~ Se~i~ ~ Gene~l ~muni~ Se~i~ ~ P I S ~ [ S ~. P ~ p p ~,s ~ Community Semi~- .Shelter ["~"'"'""-"'"] ..................... ; .................. ['"~'"'"~'R I PR PR We are ~sMng for Community So.ice uses, Community so.ice Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left At "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed Phone Number:,_~/9 - 3 q/- ~.5 t~ q This is a: __Question //Suggestion __ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D~ Zntensive Commercial Zone ~e purpose of the Intensive Cornmercta~ Zone (C[~ ~) ~s to ~i~e ar~ f~ ~hose ~les and se~i~ ~n~ons and b~ines~s wh~e o~atJons am ~i~ity cha~edz~ by ~oor display and sto~ ~ merchandise, ~ ~epak and sai~ of large eq~prt~nt motor vehicles, by ou~d~ ~mmerciaJ amuseme~ and re~ea~onal ac~ivi~ or by activities ~ open,ohs condu~ ~n ~ildlngs or ~ruct~rcs r~ot completely encl~d. ~y~s of m~ail tr~e in ~is zone are li'mtt~ ~n ~de~ to provide op~uni~es for m~e land- intensive ~mmercial o~Jons and a~ to prevent C.Ollfli~s ~tweon ~et~i~ and indus~t ~L~k traffic. S~al a~entlon m~ be d~re~d toward buffering the negative ~s~ aJlowc~ u~s from adja~nt residenIia) zones. Comm~.i~ Commercial ~n~ ~Ae p~rpo~ c,¢ ~e ~mmun~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to prov)de for major dis~ric&s to se~e a signi~cant segment of the tota~ ~,mmunJ~ ~¢;~;lation, In ~O'itimi Lo a vafie~t of retail go~s a~ se~ces, the~ con(ms may typi~fly ~eatu~ a number of t~ic genera~ requiring a~ce~ ~m major thoroughfares. Wh)le thee centers am usually cha~cterized by indoor o~t~ions~ us~ may h~ve iJmited outdoo~ provided tha~ OutUoo~ o~ti~ms are screened or bu~e¢~d ~ remain compa~ib~ wit~ s~i~rounding institutional And Clvl= Use~ Community Service i General Community Service l P ] S i [ S [ P P USeS '~ Community Service- Shelter I~"~ .......... l ! /'~ .....[ PR PR I PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~~~x~z~ email Mailing Address:~ (3!9 kI~t4¥r4~4 'J:)~. Zip CodeS'~.Vb Phone Number: This is a: __Question ~ Suggestion __ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 O. Zntensive Commerda~ Zone The purpose of the ~ntensive Commercia~ Zone (C3-1) ~s to lxovicte areas to' those sales and sefvic~ functions and bu~nesses whose options are b/pMally characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipn-m~ or motor vehicles, by outdoor commocial amusement and recreational ac~vities or by activities or operations oonducted tn buildings or structures no~ completely enclosed. The types of retail tra~e In this 2one are {lmi~ed in o~der to provk~e oppotun~ fo' mo'e land- ir~ensive cornm~cial operaUons and also to prevent c~nfllc~s between retail aM indus~at buck traffic. Special attention mus~ be directed toward bdfefln§ th~ negat:ive as~ of allowed uses bom adjacent reslderRial E~ Community/Commercial ZOne The purpose of the O3mmunity Commercial Zone (CC-2) is ~o provide for majo~ business c~ls~rtcls ~ serve a significant segment of the total commun~ population, in acl~tton tn a variety of retail goods amJ services, these cenlr~ may typically feature a number of ~rcje tra~c generators requirh~ access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually ct~aracterized by Indoor opera~ons, us~s may have limited oubdoo~ provided tha~ OC~Ctoor oPeratiOnS are screened or b~ffe~ed t~ remain compaUble with U~ Commun~ S~ - She~r ~ , ~ PR ' ~ PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: ~ '~ ~ ~(t?~ ~)C{ (/ TMs is a: Question SuggestiCn j~ Comment Regarding section/page ~ 14-2C-1 page 35 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, intensive Commef~dal Zone The purpose of the Ir~ensive Comme~tai Zone (ti-l) is to peovAle a~eas f~r those sales and setvic~ functions and b~nes.~ who~e ~ions are typically chsracterized by outdoor d~splay and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment ~r motor vehicles, by outdid' commercial amusement and recyeati0nal aclf/vit~ or activities ~r operations conducted in b~l[dlngs or structures not completely enclosed. Tne types of retail trade in this zone am lira;ed in order to provide oppertun~ f~' m~e land- irtt=nsive ¢=mme~dal operaUons and also to prevent conflicts between re~l and industrial truck traffic. Special attention rmJst be directed t~ward buffering the negative aspec~ of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. E. Community Commercial ZOne The purpose of the C~nrnuni~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the 'total cmnmunity population. In addition tn a variety of retail goods and services, these cer~te~ may typically feature a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers am usually characterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited oubdo~ acUv~es, provided that ocq~oor operations are screene~ or b~Jffered to remain compatible surrounding uses. Ir~Lltutlonal ~ Clv~ U~# Basic tJ~li~y Usee ..... I IP"~s ' PR~s . PR~S t P~ I P"~S I Prvs I P~S Corrlmunity Sewice G,,~ =munl~ ~-- p is i IS P P P U~ ~mmuni~ Se~ - She~r ~ ~ PR ' ~ PR ~c a=c ~s~ng ~o~ Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ sc~ce Shc]te~ undc~ C[-I zo~ng be ]eft ~t "S" ~ch c~ua]s spec~] exception ~nd not changed to thc proposed "PR". Name ~,?,~: ~ ~d-'~, o email Mailing Address: ~ol9 ~oie,--l, c:..,~ 5r&'X ~ / ~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question ~Suggestion _~ oC~mment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Commeeclal Zone T~e ~drtx~e of ~e ln~n~ ~mme~ Zone (~-1) ~ to ~ ar~ ~ ~o~ ~les and s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ions ~e ~ c~edz~ by ~r d!sp~y and ~o~ ~ me~hand~, ~ repair a~ ~1~ ~ large ~pr~nt or moor vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~al amuseme~ and m~U~al ac~i~ or by ~fiviti~ ~ ope~fions condu~ }n ~[din~ or ~r~ur~ n~ ~letely end~. ~g~ ~ m~l ~e In ~ zone ~e limtt~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm~al o~ and a~ ~o prevent ~nffi~ ~bveen retail and tnd~ ~k ~ffic. S~l a~en~on ~ ~ dir~d ~ward bu~ng the n~a~ve ~ a~l~ u~s ~ advent residential ~nes. E. ~mmuni~ ~me~i ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm~cial Z~c (CC-2) is :o pm~de for major di~H~ to ~e a sig~fl~nt ~gmen~ ~ the ~ ~muni~ ~la~ion. ~n ~:i~ ~ a vade~ of r~il g~ a~ se~, the~ cc~ may ~pi~[ly f~ a numar ~c ge~a~m ~rlng a~ from major ~omugh~r~. While ~h~ centers ~ly c~a~c~z~ by ind~r ~:lons, ~ m~ have limi~d o~do~ a~, ~r~ided :ha~ outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffercd ~ remain compeUb~ ~rou~ing ~. InsfltLd_tonal And Clvlo Basic miity Ua. I I P~S [ P~S I P~S I~S I P~ I P~S I P~S U.s ~mmuni~ Smi~- Shel~r ['~ I J p~ PR 1 ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Communi~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~zX e,~o~ ~,~dv email Phone Number: This is a: ~.Question Suggestion '-~Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. ~ntensive Commetdal Zone The purpose c~ the In~sive Commercial Zone (0-1) Is ~0 provide areas for those sales a~ service functions and businesses whose operations are typicalb/characterized by ouMoor display and gtorage of merchandise, by repair anti sales of large equip~ or mc~tor vehicles, by ou~cloor commocial amusement and rec~attonal act~vities or by activities or operations conducted in l~lldlngs or structt~es no~ completely.enclosed. 'rhe t~pes of retail trade In this zone are limited in order to provkle opportun~ for more land- intensive commerdal ope~ and also to prevent conflicts between ret~li and industrial truck traffic. Special attention mus~ be directed toward buffering ~ negative aspects of allowed uses from acl~acent residential zones. E. Community Commercial ZOma The purpose of the Community Commerdal Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a slgnificant segment elf the total community population, in acloqtlo~ to a variety of retail goods and senCces, these centers may h~icaliy featiJre a number of traffic generators req~rtng access from major thoroughfares. While U'eese centers are usually ct~racterized by indoor eoerattons, uses may have limited outdoor ~es, ~rovlcL~d that outCloor operations are screened or bOfered to remain compatible with surrounding uses. Institutional And,~!ylo, ,Um . Uses ~ Community Service - Shelter _S PR, PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name--'3./¢/ ~c~-~ic'~ email Mailing Address: ~ ~ \ ~) L3-)0~(c~ (./o~,.4 [3~ ~ ~ Zip Code 5 ~"~ Phone Number: .3 ~ ~ ~6 '5-5 This is a: ~,QuestionSuggestion L//Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Xn~n$ive Commefdal Zone (till) The ~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~m~e~ Z~e (~4) ~ m ~ ~r~ ~ ~e ~les a~ s~ie ~n~o~ and ~ne~ wh~ ~ns ~ ~ c~a~ ~ ~ ~p~y a~ ~o~ ~ m~and~, ~ ~pir a~ ~i~ ~ large ~ m ma~r vehi~, ~ ~td~ ~at am~me~ and ~U~al a~ ~ ~ ~Mti~ ~ o~ns ~ndu~ in ~1~ or ~ n~ ~le~y en~. ~ ~ ~ m~l b~ In ~ z~e ~ tt~ in ~er to ~ op~un~ f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~m~al o~ and a~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~n ~1 and tnd~a ~ ~. ~1 a~on ~ ~ di~ ~rd ~ng ~ n~ ~ ~ atl~ u~ ~ a~t ~ld~t~l ~. ~e ~ of ~e ~un~ Comm~dal ~ {~-2~ ts ~ p~de for maJm ~ di~H~ ~ ~ a slg~nt ~m~t ~ ~e ~ ~u~ ~latl~, ]n ~tJ~ ~ a ~c ~a~ ~ri~ ~ ~ ma~ ~~, While ~ ~n~ am ~rr~i~ ~ In~Ututlonal Ju~d Clvl~ Um ~a,~c umv u~e~ "[' ' I F'R~S I F'R~S I PFVS t PR/S I PR/S t PR~S I PR/S Uses I Community Service - ~elter _S PR, PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: ~.5- 5/- 7~ 0 ~ This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion _~omment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive Commercial Zone The p~rpose of the Imensive C~mmerc~ Zone (el-l) is to IXOVide areas ~o~ those :sales ar~t service functions and busines.~s whoce operations are typically characterized by o~tdoor dtspMy and storage of merchandise, by napair and sales of large equipment m~or vehicles, by eutdoor com~al amusement and ~eoeat!onal activities or by activities ~r operations conducted in bkdldin~s or stTuctures hdc completely,enclosed. The types of retail trade In Chis zone are lirat~J in e~der to provk~e opportunities for more land- ir~en~ve comme~al operations and also to prevent confllc~s betw~n retedl and tndustflal truck traffic, Special attention rnus~ be directed toward buffeting l:he negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. IE Communlt~f Commer~:ia} ZOn~ (CC-2) The pm'pose of the Cemmuni~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment ~the'total community populaticm, in a~dltlon b~ a variety of reta~ goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large tralflc generators requiring access from major thoroughfares, While ~ centers are usually ct'~aracterized by indoor opera~lons, uses may have limited outdo~ act;ivitie~, ~ovlded I:ha~ out. or operations are screem~ or b~ffered 1:o remain compaldble with surrounding use~ Ll-"e-" I Commun~ Se~ - She~r ~ ~ PR ~ PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ,_~(~_ ~&_ ~ -~~ ' email Mai ng Address: Zip T~s is a: Question Suggestion ,~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Commercial Zone The p~rpose of the Intensive Commercial Zone (Cb1) is ~o Ixovh:le areas For those sales and servi~e functions and bL~esses whose operations are typically cl~aracterized by c~tdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales o~ large equipment or motor vehicles, by ad~ ~al amusement and recreational acl~vi4~es or by activities c~ operations conducted in buildings or s~ructures not con~letely enr..k~. 'iTie types ~ retail trade in thiS zone are timRed in order to ~ide oppertunities for mom land- intensive comrne~al operations and also to prevent conllicts between retail and industrial t~uck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses ~rom adjacent resldcmtlal zones. E. Community Commercta! ZOne The purpose of the (~uniW Commerdal Zone (CC-2) is to provide for majo¢ business districts to serve a significant segment o~ the total con'~unRy pc~ulatio~. In a~fltioe to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typicafly feature a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor o~eratlons, uses may have limited outdoor ~rovlded t;ha[ o~door oDerations are screened or b~ffe~ed to remain compeUble wig surrounding uses. IrtsUtL~onal And Clvl~a U_~-~__ Community Se~vlc~ General Community Service P $ ,5 P P P Uses ! Community Service - Shelter _S ' Pi~... PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Zip C d M iii g Add Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion / Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Intensive CommerclaIZona The purpose et' the Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) ts t0 pmvi~le areas f0~ r. hose sales arid servi~e functions and businesses whose ol:l~-mtions are b/pical[y characterized by outdoor d!sp~ay and storage of men:handise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdm3r o3mrne~al amusement and re<~eatlonal acl~vit~s or by activities or operations conducted in tmltdlngs or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade In this zone are limtl~ in order to provide opportunities for more land- intenr~e cnmmemal operations and also to prevent conflicts be~een retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention rnus~ be directed t~ward bufferlng U,e nogatlve aspet:/s of allowed uses from adjacent reslderltlal zones. EL Communl~ Commercial ZOne The purpose of the Community Comme,dal Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment ~ the'total comanunity po~latlon. In acl~lUon to a variety of retail goods anti services, these centers may typically feature a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers am usually characterized by indoor o~atlons, uses may have limited outdoor ~rovl~L'd tha~ outdoor operations are ~reened or I~ifered to remain compatible with ~urrounding uses. InsUtutlonal And Clvlo BaSic Ll~'lity Use~ ........ [ PR/$ I P.R~S I PR~ t P~S PR~S I PR~S I PR~S Community Service I General Community Service P" ] ~ I ] S I P ] P ] P Use8 } COmmunity Service- Shelter ~v'e are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which eClUaIS special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name .?= ~-c, (, c c~ ~ email · ' /' 4- ~: ¢r;7~ Zip Code Mailing Address: '-~)x 0 i ¥~c.t...-,:r~.;~ ~ _ _ Phone Number: This is a: ~Question v/ Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City ,Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znf:e~ive commetdal Zmle (CZ-Z) The purpose c~ the Intensive Commerc~ Zone (CZ-l) ts to p~ovi41e areas for ~ose ~ale$ a~ service functions and businesses whose op~-ations are b/~icatly characterized by outdoor dispMy and storage of me~,chandise, by repair and sal~s of large equipr~nt or m~tor vehictes, by outdoor commercial amusement and rec~x~atlonal activities or by activities or operations conducted tn b~lldl~gs or structures not co~letely enclosed. The types of re~l trade in this zone are limited in order to provide oppertunities for more land intensive comma'cial opera~ions and also to prevent conflicts be~,veen retail and indus'cfial ~ruck traff~:. Spedal attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects ot allowed uses from adjacent resldent[a~ zones. E. Communlt,/C.m~mercial ZOne The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is b) provide for major business districts to serve a sigraficant segment of the ~al community population, in ad¢3tlon to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers am usually ct~aractedzed by indoor opera:lons, uses may have limited outdoor acidities, provided I:ha~ out¢oor operations are screer'd~ or buffered b3 remain compatible ~.ith surrounding uses. Insflt._..fi~,a! And C!V!~,,,,U-~-- Basic Ulili~y I/see I ' P~$ I pR/S PR,tS PR/S PR/S PR/$ PR/S CornmunityServlce I General Community Servtce P I S .L I S I~ I P I P Uses Community Service-Shelter I~ ] [-- {P,R, PR PR I PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name --~-~ca~_ ~'.. ~'x~,.,~ email Mailing Address:..~g/? gOa~-~ Or '-ffclc ~'[ _ Zip Code6-~/© Phone Number: This is a: ~Question L/Suggesti°n ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Cemmm~ialt Zone a~ s~i~ ~n~s and ~e~ wh~ ~atio~s am ~{~[y c~z~ by ~ ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand~, ~ repair and sal~ ~ large ~pr~nt or moor vehi~, ~ outd~ ~m~al amuseme~ and re~aUonal actNi~ or ~ ~fiviti~ ~ o~ns ~ndu~ {n ~{id{~ or ~r~r~ not ~let~y endoW, cV~$ ~ m~l ~e in ~ zone am {{m~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~e land- in~n~e ~mm~dal o~tio~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~ffl~ ~een retail and ind~i~ ~k ~. s~m a~tion m~ ~ dir~ ~ward b~edng th~ n~aUve ~ of a]l~ u~s fr~ adJa~nt ~id~t~l ~nes. E. ~mmuni~ ~me~=l ~ne ~e ~ of ~e ~un~ Comm~cial Zone {CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major di~H~ to ~e a signifi~nt ~ment ~ ~e total ~mmuni~ ~lation. In ~tion ~ a vade~ of r~il g~ a~ se~, ~e~ ~nt~ may ~i~ly f~m a numar ~c ge~a~m ~irlng a~ from maim ~omugh~r~, While th~ ce~tem u~aily cha~z~ by ind~r ~tl~s, u~ m~ have ]imi~d o~do~ pr~ided that outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffemd ~ mmaln compa~b~ ~rrou~i~ ~. InsUtuUonal And Clvl~ Uses BesicUlilit¥ Uses I PR/S I PR/$ I PRI$ t PR/S I PFUS I PR/$ I PPdS Uses Comrnunit~ Se~tice - Shelter PR X¥'e are asldng for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name 6ec~ ~,,~, /~.~,~,[0 ~ email Mailing Address: 'J~l~ VVgl'7:-/t./-~,LCtcq- OIL ;~_,C/? Zip Code Phone Number: 2/3~ '.y,'~ ~-,?'?- -7'-% This is a: ~Question . Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zntensive Commerdal Zone (CZ-X) The ~ of the Ir~t'~nst~ Comme~ Zone (CI- I) is to p~Ovi(~ areas Fo~ l::hose sales a~ servic~ f~nctions and bus~nesses whose o~ations are typlcaib/cl~ract~i~ I~ outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational act~vith=s or by activities or operations conducted tn t~ulfdtngs or structures not completely enclosed. The Wpes of retail ~rade in bhis zone are limi~cl in order to provide opportuniNes for more land- i~tens~ve commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and indusbriat truck traffic, Special a~t~on must be directed to,.rard b.ffedn§ th~ negative aspects allowed uses horn adjacent resident[ak zones. E, Community Commercial Zone The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major busin~.s districts to serve a significant segment of the total communiW pofx~lation. In ad¢]tlon to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typicafly fea~Jre a number of large traffic genera~rs reqt~rlncj access horn major bhoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor opera:tons, u~s may have limited outdoor provided 1;hat outcloor operations arc screerte~ or b~ffercd bo remain compatible with surrounding uses. InsUtuUonal And Clvla Ut~,t Co~uni~ ~wl~ [ G~e~ ~mu~ Se~i~ ~ [ S I P I P I P U~s Communi~Se~- Shelter [ ~ I ' ' [', , , ~ ~R ~ I PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~n~ be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not chan~ed to the proposed "PR". .,: ~ i;'C~ '~"~ Name .~ / '~ email Maihng Address: Phone Number: ~/~::, c., S'/ This is a: Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. intensive Commefdal Zone The purpose of the Tntensive C~mmerc~ Zone (CZ*l) is ~o prov~cle areas fo~ those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typlcalb/ct~aracterized by ootdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, l~y outcloer comme~al amusement and reo~aU~al activities or acfi~ties er operations conducted in tmiMIngs or ~ n~ complete¥ endosecL The types of retail trade in this zone are limRed in order to provk}e oppertun~ for more land- inten~ve comme~al operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Spedal attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses ~rom ac[lacent residential zones. ii. Community Commercial ZOne (CC-2) The purpose of the Cona~unity Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment cfi the total community population. [n ad~ltlon to a variety of reta~ goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of traffic generators ~equ!ring access from major thoroughfares. While U-~ese centers are usually cY~aracterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited outdoor provided that oce~loor operations are screened or bOfered to remain compatible with InsUtLd_~al And Clvlo Um Uses I Community Semite - Shelter S PR ~/e are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S' which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Address: ~ ~ ~ / ¢ ~ Zip Code Phone Number:~~~:::~~'-~"-'~-::~:~" '- ~'~- / This is a: Question ~Suggestion / Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. zn~ensive Commetda! Zone Ti~e ;~rpose of the ~ten~ Comme~ Zone (C~q) is to prov~ areas for ~hose a~ service functions and ~e~ wh~ ~ions ~ ~d~ ~ ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand~, ~' ~ir a~ ~1~ of la~e eqopm~nt or moor vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~al amuseme~ and re~a~onal a~i~ or by ~tiviti~ ~ open, ns ~ndu~ ~n ~IMI~ or ~r~t~ not ~le~ely ~ ~ m~l ~e in ~ zone ~ timi~ in ~der to ~ov~ op~unit~es f~ m~e land- i~n~e ~mm~al o~i~ and a~ ~ preen: ~nfll~ ~h~n retail and ind~i~ ~k ~. S~I a~fi0n m~ ~ dir~ ~ward buffe~ng all~ u~s ~ advent ~ldenttai zones. E. Comm~l~ ~me~l ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm~cial Z~e (~-2) is to pm~de for major b~n~ di~H~ to ~e a signi~nt: ~gment d ~e :oral ~mmuni~ ~latien. In ~lti~ ~ a vafiew of r~il g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ may ~pi~ly f~m a numar ~ffic ge~a~m ~rt~ acc~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While Lh~ cent,s u~ally ~a~z~ by ind~r ~tl~s. u~ m~ have iimi~d ou~o~ provl~d that outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffe~cd ~ remain compatib~ Insffi~dl*nal ~knd Clvlo Co~uni~l~~ G~e~munl~Se~i~ ~~ S ~ I P I P ~e ate as~ for Commu~ So.ce.uses, Commu~t~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zoMng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Maihng AddreSs: Phone Number: This is a: ~Question c/Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Zn~ensive Comme~da~ Zone The purpose of the ~n~ ~mme~ Zone (~-1) ~s to ~ ar~s a~ s~J~ ~n~ns and ~e~ w~ ~tions a~ ~i~ cha~edz~ by ~ ~s~y and ~o~ ~ m~handi~, ~' repair a~ ~1~ of large ~pr~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~at amuseme~ and regional a~NJ~ ~tMti~ ~ open. ns condu~ ~n ~t~in~ or ~r~ n~ ~letely encl~. ~ ~ m~l ~ in ~ zone ~ l[mi~ in ruder ~o ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm~oal o~io~ and a~ ~ prevent ~nffi~ ~een retail and lnd~ ~ ~. S~I a~on ~ ~ dir~ ~w~rd buffedng the negative ~ o~ afi~ u~s ~ ad]a~nt mslde~t~i ~nes. E. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~uni~ Comm~cial Z~ (CC-2) is :o pm~de for major b~n~ di~fl~ to ~e a slg~nt ~gment o[ ~e ~al ~mmuni~ ~la[ien, In ~l:ion ~ a va~e~ of r~il g~ a~ se~, th~ ~ent~s may ~pica~ly f~ a numar ~c gen~a~m ~irl~ a~ ~m maim ~omugh~r~ While Ch~ ce~t~s ~aJly cha~z~ by ind~r ~Uons, u~ m~ have limited o~o~ ~mvi~ :hat a~tdoor o~tio~ am ~r~ or ~ffemd ~ r~m~in compe:ib~ Ir~Uh~donal And Civic; U~s Communi~ Se~ - Shel~r R ' PR We are as~ng for Commu~ Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~')dK7 (7~z] Df email MaifingAddress: '~otg ~gTcgV~'&:~'7 ~ '~ff~ Zip Code Phone Number: This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~/~omment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. zn~er~iva Commercial Zone (CZ-Z) The purpose ot the Intensive Commenaat Zone {CI-I) ts to provk;ie areas f~o~ those sales anci seedoe functions and b~esses whose ~ions are typically ch~aractedzed by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair an~ sales of large equipment or mm. or vehicles, by eutdoor commerdal amusement and recre~onal activities or by activities or operations conducted tn buildings or s~ructures not completdy enclosed. The ~'ypes of ml~a~l trade in this zone are limited in order to provk~e opportunities for more land- intensive commercial operations and a~so ~o prevent ~nfllcts between retail and industrial thick tra~. Special attenUon mus~ be directed toward buffering the negative aspe~ allowed uses bom adjacent residential zones. Community Commercial Zone (CC~2) The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is I;o provide for major bus, ness district~ to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In 'addition to a variety of retail goods and se~ces, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requirlncj access from major thoroughfares. While th~se centers are usually characterized by indoor opera~;Ions~ uses may have limited outdoor provided :hat outc~oor ol~erations are s~reert~ct or b~ffercd b~ remain ¢ompa~ibJe with .~u[r~3unding uses. I" U~s Communi~ Se~- Shel~r PR We are as~ng for Commu~W Se~ce uses, Commu~ se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" wMch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name /'-' toy, cc /~tc, rc'rtO email -.- ~ v Zip Code Mailing Address: ~ ~6 l~'~ i Phone NumberL~Z3q- c0).-~I I This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion ~/~Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znter~ive commerdal Zone a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~e~ wh~ ~ions are ~t~ ch~z~ by ~oor ~sp~y and ~o~ d m~hand~, ~ m~ir a~ ~1~ ~ la~e ~pr~nt or m~r vehi~. ~ outd~ ~m~al am~me~ and regional ac~ or ~viti~ ~ o~ons ~ndu~ ~n ~l~lngs or ~ur~ not ~letely encl~. ~ ~ m~l ~e tn ~& z~e am {imR~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~uniUes f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm~dal o~i~ and a~ ~ p~event ~nffl~ ~n ~aii and ind~a ~k t~, S~I a~nUon ~ ~ dir~ ~w3rd buffeting the nega:i~ allo~ u~s ~ adja~nt resldent~a~ ~es. ~mmuni~ ~me~l ~ne ~e p~ of ~e ~mmuniW Comm~dal Z~e (~-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~ to ~e a 51g~fi~nt ~gment ~ ~e ~o~a ~mmuni~ ~lation, In ~aon ~ a va~eW o~ re. il g~s a~ sedco, ~ cent~ m~ ~i~y ~c gen~a~m ~rt~ ~c~ ~ maj~ ~omu~r~. While u~atly cha~e~z~ by ind~r ~ra:lons, u~ m~ have limi~d provid~ :ha~ outdoor o~Iio~ a~ ~r~ or ~e~d ~ r~m~n compa~b~ ~roundi~ ~. nsflt~e~al And Clvlo U~I Community Service Gener~l Community ~ '~' '~ ' PR ~ PR U~s ~ Communi~ S~i~- Shel~r ,' We are asMng for Commu~W Se~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter under CI-1 zo~ng be left at "S" w~ch equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". MaiUng Address: ~ ~ Zip Code~'~'~ Phone Number:(-g~lq ~ ~ ~5~(c)~' This is a: ~Question Suggestion Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znten~ive comm~rclaIZone T~e ~of ~e ~ ~mme~ Z~e (~q) ~ to ~,~ ar~s ~ ~o~ a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~s wh~ o~ions a~ ~i~[y cham~edz~ by ~ ~sp~y and ~o~ ~ m~hand~, ~ m~ir a~ ~1~ ~ large ~p~nt or m~r yetiS. ~ outd~ ~m~at amuseme~ and m~aU~al a~i~ or ~ ~fi~ti~ ~ open. ns ~ndu~ M ~t~tn~ or ~r~ not ~let~ly encl~ tF~ ~ m~l ~e in ~.~ zone ~ limR~ in ~fler to ~ov~ op~uni~es f~ m~e land- [~n~e ~mm~al o~i~ and a~ to pr~t ~nffi~ ~n r~ail and ~k ~, 5~1 a~fion ~ ~ dir~ ~ward buffing the n~aUve ~ all~ u~s ~ adJa~nt ~idenUat z~es. ~e p~ of ~e ~un[~ Comm~cial Z~c (CC~2) is to pm~de for major ~i~H~ to ~e a sig~nt ~gmen: ~ ~e ~ai ~mmuni~ ~laUon. In ~:ion ~ a vaHe~ of re~il g~ a~ se~. ~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~ a num~ ~c ge~a~m ~irt~ ~ ~m maj~ ~omugh~r~. While ~h~ ce~t~ am u~ally cha~z~ by tnd~r ~:ions, u~ m~ have limited o~o~ pr~Med C~ o~t~oor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffefcd ~ r~main competib~ nsUbmnaal And Clvlc~ Basic Ulili~y Use~ I P~S I P~S ~ P~S t ~S P~ P~$ I P~S Co~uni~l~ ~ G~e~munl~ ~P'" I $ ) ~ P P U~S ) Commum~ Se~i~ - She~r I~ I )-': LPR IP~ ' ~ PR ~e ate as~ng for Commu~ Sc~ce uses, Commu~W se~ce Shelter under C1-1 zo~ng be ]eft at "S" w~ch equals special e~cepfion and not changed to the proposed "PR". Maihng Address: Z c If ~=&r~r~ 0 [', Zip Code Phone Number: ? This is a: ~,Question ,,/Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 In,endive Commercial Zone The purpose of the InL'ens~ve Comme~ Zone (CZ4) is ~o provide ar~ ~ ~o~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~ ~ations are ~1~1~ c~edz~ by ~td~r ~s~y and ~or~ ~ m~hand~, ~ m~ir a~ ~1~ ~ large ~prt'~nt or moor vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~al amuseme~ and regional actNi~ or ~fiviti~ ~ open,ohs ~ndu~ tn ~ltdin~ or ~r~t~ not ~mpletdy encl~. ~ ~ m~l ~e In ~ zone ~ li~[~ in ~der to ~ov~e op~uni~ies f~ m~ land- [~n~e ~mm~aal o~io~ and a~ ~ pr~en~ ~nffl~ ~hveen r~ail and ind~ ~k ~ffic. S~I a~fion m~ ~ dir~d ~ward buffedng the n~a:ive all~ u~s fr~ adJa~nt msident~l zones. ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne ~e ~ of ~e ~muni~ Comm~cial Z~e (CC-2) is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ di~H~ to ~e a slg~fl~nt ~gment ~ ~e ~o~al ~mmuni~ ~lation. in ~ti~ ~ a vade~ of re~il g~ a~ sedco, th~ cent~ may ~i~[ly f~re a numar ~c ge~a~m ~frtng ~ ~m major thomu~r~. While u~ly c~a~z~ by ind~r ~Uons, ~ m~ have Jimited o~o~ ~r~lded Chat outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffefcd ~ remain compatib~ ~rreund~ng ~. InsUtuUona! And,ql~,!~,,,.Um Basic Ulili~v USea General Community Service LPI pR/S I S ~ ~.t PPJ$ ~tPR/$ IF'PR/S IPI PR/S IPI PR~S Community Service Uses I C°mmunityService'Shelter S.F~-T-~-T- ..... ["" 1~" t ~" I "" ~/e are asking £or Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under C[-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name / ~3~, P'\~ V ~ email Mailing Address: Zip Code~- ~ Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~:~\ Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D. Zntensive Commerda!Zo~e (CZ-X) ~e ~ of ~e Z~n~ ~mme~ Zone (C~-~) ~s m ~v~ ar~ a~ s~i~ ~n~ons and ~ne~ wh~e ~ions are ~i~ cham~z~ ~0~ dasp~y and ~o~ of m~handi~, ~ repair a~ ~1~ ~ la~e ~pr~nt or m~r vehi~, ~ outd~ ~me~lat amuseme~ and re~a~onal a~i~ ~V~ ~ m~l ~e in ~& zone am timR~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~unities f~ m~ land- i~n~e ~mm=~al o~io~ and a~ ~ preven~ ~nffl~ ~bv~n re~il and ind~ =~k ~c. S~l a~n~on m~ ~ dir~ m~rd ~ffedng all~ u~s ~ advent residential ~nes. E. ~mmuni~ ~me~l ~ne (CC~2) ~e p~ of ~e ~un~ Comm=cial Z~c (CC~2~ is ~ pm~de for major b~n~ dl~H~ to ~e a sig~fi~nt ~gment of ~e ~o~al ~muni~ ~lation. In ~lti~ ~ a vaH~ of r~il g~ a~ se~, th~ cc~t~ may ~i~iy f~ a numar ~c ge~a~m ~lrl~ acc~ ~m major ~omugh~r~. While u~ally c~a~z~ by ind~r ~:10ns, u~ m~ have limited o~oor ~mvld~ :hat outQoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffefcd ~ remain compe~b~ ~[r~u~ing ~. InsUtm!o~al And Clvlo Use~ Communi~ S~ - She~r , R ' PR ate as~ng fo~ Commu~ So.ce uses, Commu~ se~ce She]ret under C[-[ zo~ng be ]eft at "S" w~ch e~cepdon and not changed to the proposed Phone Number: This is a: ~Question ~Suggestion v/ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 and semio~ ~n~ions and b~ines~ whose o[:~Bt~o~,,s are typica~iy chara~edzeo by ~tdo~r ~sn~v apd s*ota~e cf merchandise, by tepa rane ~a mct~r vehic~s, ~'¢ outdoor c~mmem~ ~mu~eme~t and i'ecre~na~ ~c:tdt~ ~r by ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ........ ~=--.~E.~_~.~ ~'~ ~cti','ities ¢ operatJ~t'~s c2ndu~ed ;n ~i~Ci~gs or ~'tuct~res ~:a~ [nx:k traffic, 5p~3~1 a~ent~cm m~st be d~rec~ed to.,~a~d bu~fc:r r~g tr~e T:~e p~pO~ c,f the Commun;W Commcrda~ Z;;,r',.~: (~C-2) i~ ~[> We are asMng tbr Commmdty Sen,ice uses, Conmmnity service Shelter under CI-1 zoNng be iefk at "S" which equals spec'iai exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: _ /~__ This is a: Question _~Suggcstion _~Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-I page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City ttall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and. Communit3' Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, intensive Commerda[ Zone The purpose of the Inten~ve Comrne<~al Z~ne (C~4) ~s ~o provK~e areas fo~ those and se,~i~ ~nmion:s and b~i~es~s w~o~ o~at~ons a~e ~'pi~ty cha~ed2ed by ~tdoor disp~y and s~o~ oF merchandJ~, by ~epak and sales of large equipment me,or vebid~s~ by outdo~ ~mmercial amusement and ~ec~eaMofla~ acMvi~ or by activ ties ~ open,ohs c~ndu~ ~n ~iMtng~ or ~r'~Lures no~ complel~y encl~;~d~ ty~ of retail tr~ in this zone are Jim~ ~n ~de~ to prov~e op~umbes for me~e intensr~e ~mmerqal o~tions and a~ to prevent c~nfli~ tr~k traffic, $~al a~enbon m~ be d~r~ted to,,~ard buffenng aflo~v~ u~s from adja~nt residen~ia~ zones. e. Communi~ Commercial~ne T~e p~rpo~ of ~e ~mmun~ Commercial Zo~(: (CC~2) i~ to provide ~or majo~ bu, s~ne~s~ ~i~ric~s 1o serve a significant segment o~ ~he toCaJ ~mmun~ty v~de~ of retai~ go~ and sen~ices, the~ cen~e~s may bFpicaily ~eatu~ a number c~f ~a~ic generators ~e(lu~ring ~ccess f~om major thoroughfares. Wh~le thee center~ usually characterized by ~ndoot o~e~ations, uses may have ~imited outdoo~ provided Chat outdoo~ opora~ior~s are screened or buffered I:o r{'.m~'~Jn compatible *~ith ~u~rounding ~e_g. institutional And Clvio Uses Basic[~ilit¥1.Jse~ I PR,'S I P~S i PR/S PR/$ I PR,~S i PPJS I PR/S General Community Service [ p J S '~, [ S [ P P I P CommunitYuses Se~ice !! Communit~ Service* ,Shelter /'~ .......... J .............. ~ ..... /i5~, ["i~R PR PR ~/e are asking for Community Se~Jce uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~~. ~ ~ ~-v~TL~-~ ~ ~.~ email Mailing Address: ~ ~ -~~'~/~ ~ r~' Zip CodeC%~ Phone Number: 7) ~ - ~ ~- l- ~ 2_~ This is a: __,Question __Suggestion '~m/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. ,., : .,' ,, /~//~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~'~' ,..,-.:,5->~';~ '..~ / O. Intensive Commerdal Zone The purpose ~ the 7~tensive Commercla~ Zone (C~-I) ~s to i:~ovide areas ro~ those sales a~ service functions and businesses whose operations are typicalty cl~aractedzecl~ by o~oor ~sp~ay and storage of men:handise, by repair and sales of large equ~ment or motor vehicles, by outdoor comrne~at amusement and reo~.'at~onal ac~vit~ or by activities or operations conducted in b~lldlngs or str~ not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone a'e limK~ in oeder to provide oppurtun~ for more land- in~nsive comme~dal operation~ and also to prevent conflicts between fetal and industrial ~ruck t. raffk:. Spe~al attenUon must: be direcbed toward buffe~tng t%e negative aspects of allowed uses from a~acent residential zones. F. Communitlf Commercial ZOne The purpose of the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment ~ the'total community population. In ac~t~o~ to a variety of retail goods anti services, these centors may typically feature a number of ta~e traffic generators req~k~ access from major thoroughfares. While these centers am usually c~aracterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited oubdoor ac"Uv~es, provided that out. or operations are screen~ or b~ffefed to remain compaUble with surrounding uses. Institutional And Glvlo Uses Uses Community Service - Shelter _S PR, ............ '~'R 'PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception, ~and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ,~~' email Mailing Address: ~/~? ~;?//r~C~-I d/--~:.0 7 Zip Code Phone Number: y/('~? ~::~ 7::~/ Comment This is ar .Question Suggestion Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Znt~nsive CommerclaIZone (CZ*X) The ~ ar the Intensive Commercla~ Zone (Cb~) ~s ~o ~ ar~s ~ ~ho~ ~les a~ s~i~ ~n~r~ and ~ne~ ~ o~ions a~ ~p[~ cha~edz~ by ~td~ ~sp~y and ~or~ ~ m~handi~, ~ ~ir a~ ~1~ ~ large ~pn~nt or moor vehi~. W outd~ ~m~af amu~me~ and re.aUral a~i~ or W ~tiviti~ ~ open. ns ~ndu~ ~n ~tdln~ or ~r~u~ n~ ~mplet~y encY. ~ ~ m~l ~e in ~ zone ~ Jimtt~ in ruder to ~ov~ op~uni~ies f~ m~e land~ k~n~e ~mm~al o~ and a~ to pr~ent ~nffl~ ~bveen ~tail and E ~mmunl~ ~me~l ~ne (CC~2) ~e pur~ of ~e ~uni~ Comm~dal Zone (CC-2) is ~ p~de for majer ~i~ to ~e a slg~fi~nt ~gment d ~e ~ot~ ~mmuni~ ~lation, in ~U~ ~ a vadeW of r~il g~ a~ se~, th~ cent~ may ~i~ly f~ a numar of ~c gen~a~ ~iring ~ ~m maj~ thomugh~r~. While th~ centers are u~ly cha~z~ by tnd~r ~dons, u~ m~ have limited ou~oor provided Chat outdoor o~tio~ a~ ~r~ or ~ffefed ~ remain compatib~ ~rreunding ~. InsUluUonal ~ Clvkr Um BaslcUlJlityUses I IPR/S 'PR/S 'PFb'S 'PR/S t PR/S 1PR/$ IPPJ'S Community Service Generat Commu nlty Service P ~IS P P P Uses Community Service - Shelter ~ ..... , PR, PR ' PR PR We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Phone Number: This is a: __Question __Suggestion ~/Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 D, Intensive CommerdalZcme (CZ-Z) The purpose of the T~tenstve Commerc~ Zone (C~-I) Is to provide areas fo~ those sale5 and service functions and businesses whose ope~tions are b~l~icaliy ch.aractedzed by oubdoor ~splay and storage of merchand)se, by repair arm sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted tn buildings or structures not completely enclosed. types of m~l trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land- ir~tens;~ve commercial opera~ior~ and also to prevent conflicts bebveen ~etail and indu~iai buck traff'~:. Special attenUon mus~ be directed toward buffering the negaUve aspect~ allowed uses from adjacent resident[a! zones. CommunW/Commercial Zone The purpose of the Communib/Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major business districts to ser~e a slgnitlcant segment of the total communRy p~pulaUon. In ad¢ll:ion bo a variety of retail goods and se~ces, these centers may typically feature a number of large t~afflc generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usuaily characterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited outdoor provided Chat out¢oor operations a~ screened or b~ffe~¢cl Lo rCrnain compaUb~e with ~urreunding uses. InsUtullonal And Clvlo U~ ea~icui~i*V uses [ PR~S I P~S I rR/$ t Pr~S I PR/S l PR/S I PR/$ Community Service / General Community Service P [ ,5 t $ L~ I P J P Uses .. Community service- Shelter ".$ I' t ~ ....IPR I PR I PR ~/e are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under C[4 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Mailing Addressu2~-,,/~ {;~/tA?5t~ck0 o,,~7' VS,, Phone Number: This is a: ~Question Suggestion ~ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, lA 52240 D, Znt~nsive Commerda[ Zone ~e purpose af the ~n,~n~ve ~mme;c~al Zone (C~-t) ~s ~o ~e ~r~s f~ ~hose ~les and se~i~ ~n~o~s and b~es~ wh~e o~rabons a~ ~pica~ly cha.~ed~ by ~tdoar display and sto~e oF merchand~, ~ repair and sales of large equ~prr'~nt or motor vehi~, by outd~ ~mmerda[ ~museme~ and re~a~onat activi~ or by acti~iti~ ~ open'OhS condu~ in ~l[d!ngs or ~ruct~ no; ~y~ of retail tr~e in t~is zone are ~imit~ m ~der to provide op~un~ies f~r m~o !and- inten~ve ~mm~rcial o~tions a~d a~ to p~event ¢onfll~s ~een ~etai] and indus~ ~k traffic, S:~ial a~tion m~t ~ d~re~ed toward buKer;ng the negative a~lm~ u~s from adja~nt residential zones. E, Communi~Commercial ~ne ~e pur~ of ~e ~mmuni~ Commercial Zone (CC-2) is to provide for major busings di~ric~ to se~e a signi~cant ~gment aC the to¢a~ ~mmunt~' ~¢~ula~ion. In ~ditian [o a vade~ ~ retai~ go~ and sep~Jcas, these cent~s m~y tFpi~[ly ~eatu~ a numar of Ja~e traffic gen~a~s ~equ~ring ~c~s horn major thoroughfares. Wh~le thee ¢enter~ are ~sually cha~edzed by ind~r o~ra~ions, u~ m~ have ~imited o~tdoo~ provided tha~ o~taaor o~tio~ are screenc~ or bu~emd ~ remain compadb~ wi~q surrounding InstltuUonal And Clvl~ Us~.s Ba~icUffiityU~e~ i' I P~$ ]PP'J$ PR/$ PRJS I P~¢S CPr~,s [Pl~$ Cormnunily Service ~ General Community Service [ P J 5 j [ $ [ P ~ PI P We are asking for Community Service uses, Community service Shelter under CI-1 zoning be left at "S" which equals special exception and not changed to the proposed "PR". Name ~g~c~; ~0~\ ~-~ email Mailing Address: Zx~ I-~ t~o~ ~ 0e_ 15g' Zip Code5"2-~/46 Phone Number: This is a: __Question ,~. Suggestion __ Comment Regarding section/page # 14-2C-1 page 55 Please drop off at the meeting at City Hall by Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm Or Mail to: Karen Howard, Planning and Community Development 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we win be kicking out the businesses that are down there. The best we can ask for ri ht now is that CI-1 Be left at "S" which equals special exception. Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes )'our comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name /'~-~,~ e ,~,~ ,~/,~o~ email: Mailing address:..?,~/? ~-d/~r.r~,~-/)-~/z' Z~r. ' ~/~'-2_- ZIP code: ~'~.~ ~/0'~/_?z~/~ .... Phone number: .~/~" - ,~ ..~ 7 - ,~ 7.~'~ ~' THIS ISA: Oquestion Osuggestion Ocomment REGAKDING Secdon/Page# Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we will be kicking out the businesses that are down there. The best we can ask for ri6ht now is. tha. t C.I-1 , , co..nunUyme,~ |G~wdC~nmud~r~ IPIS I I_%. l_P_ IP__ IPpn '--'~ /Commun~sm-,,Io.-~ I _s I I I ,Pq.. I P" I ~ I Be left at "S" which equals special exception. Zoning Code Public Review Draft COmment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. THIS ISA: Oquestion @suggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page# Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we will be kicking out the businesses that are down there. um oo~.~vs~do~-~ I S I I I PR I PR ] ~ I ~ Be left at "S" which equals special exception. Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes ),our comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form ~o relaX comments co the Commission. Name ~ [~ Jk~ email: (~LLI~ Nailing address: _~1,~_ %b~~ ~t C~r~ '~ ZIP cod~: Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion ~su~estion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page~ Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we will be kicking out the businesses that are down there. The_b.e. st we can ask for right now is. tha. t C,I-1 .L,~._,--:~_----, A,4Ch~ ~ ....., co...~.;se,.. [ c~..,c~.~_._,~s.~4-I P I s I I um /c~,,,,~.s..~,-~ I _" I I I m I P" I ~ I "~ Be left at "S" which equals special exception. Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your comments, questions, and suggestions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments [o the Commission. Name ~'-/--~,L_~,.~./~ · //~, ~, ~,i_.~ ( / email: Hailing address: ZIP code: Phone number: ~ u//-. ~ J :~ 7 THIS ISA: Oquesdon Osu~esdon ~ommen~ RE~ARDING Section/Pn~e~ Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we will be kicking out the businesses that are down there. The best we can ask for ri ht now is that CI-1 Be left at "S" which equals special exception. Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes )tour commen~, questions, and ~ugge~tions regarding the Zoning Code. Please use this form to relay comments to the Commission. Name ~,~,1'~1'~--~ ',~.~}'cLl'~?('~' email: t' ' ' T' °1 ', ' Mailing address: ~)(~ 'dJ~,~[1Vc ~'~ ZIPcode: 5~27..~"-/~'(~) Phone number: THIS ISA: Oquestion Osuggestion Ocomment REGARDING Section/Page# Saturday, March 12; 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, City Hall & Thursday, March 31; 4:00-7:00 pm, City Hall IF we request that the whole area be changed from CI-1 to a more acceptable zone then we will be kicking out the businesses that are down there. Be le~ at "S' w~eh equals speei~ excepdom 4 Zoning Code Public Review Draft Comment Sheet The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes your commen~, questions, and su~estions regarding the ~o.,ng ~~e ~,,~/o ~e,~ommen. ~o ~e ~omm,,,,o.. THI~IS~: Oquescion Osu~escion Ocomm~nc ~A~DIN~ ~c~ion/Pa~ FILED 20,95 SEP 23 PH 2:25 p.o. .ox aa96 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA ~ ~'' "--'~ Phone: 1319) 351-5333 Oil'( ,,~LcRK Fax: 13191 358-2443 IOWA CITY, IOWA E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and qffordablility Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases/-hK,co s.j,t~.c onsumers · · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that ar~ i'6~red'~6 l~e consiructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and dlscus~'['h[e~e lffgQes further with the Land Development Council, Iowa C~ty Area Associa_t~n of REAI~TORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before v o t i~ 0-~t ~de, d/~d e. ~ Signali~' - ' Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builder.~ Association of Iowa t/ c l ) P.O. Box 3396 Iowa CiW. Iowa 52244 HBA ~,,~ s~ 26 ?~ ~: O~ Fax:Ph°ne: (319)(319) 351.5333358~443 E~il: hba~ic~s.com H~ Bu~ , Advo~t~s for homeown~h~ by promot~g .~ for q~7 and Iowa City Council Membe~ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considcriag adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · Thc City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential constmctiott The design of homes should be thc consumer's decision, not mandated by thc City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new cxxte. Increasing lot widths increases infiastmaure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The prOpOsed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to thc current code. In addition, the density bonus increases thc cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. * Thc proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can bc built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with thc cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already usc neighborhood meetings and are able to respond dircctly to neighbor's concerns without thc necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development OVerlay. · Thc City should automatically refund Open Space fccs to thc residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of thne. Adopting thc proposed development code v~thout making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. AJ~fdiated with National Association o/Home Builders & Home Builder~ Association of Iowa .-'x__.~ pc D-' IOWA REALTY COMMERCIAL COMMERC~ ~ ESTATE SER~CES, WO~D~DE. ~-354-0989~ ~aco~ial. com Iowa City Council Members 410 ~. Washington Street Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the cu~ent code. In addition, the densi~ bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communi~'s abili~ to provide one of the most affordable ~pes of dwellings. The Ci~ should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. - If the Ci~ is going to require developers to construct alleys in ce~ain develop~nents, the Ci~ should assume the long tern maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unhir to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that am required to be constructed by the Ci~. - Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. ~ Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees am not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~voting on the proposed code. Area Home Builders Association before~ ~ T~ank you for your time. ~ ~ ~ OR/cos also in: Cedar Rapids, IA INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIPS ~ . tnternational~ Waterloo, lA ~ ~ of Shopping ~n~rs ..... P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (319, 351-5333 ZOO5 S£P 20 07 F.x: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic~cs.com CiTY CLER lO¢'.d, fftTY, by ~romoting standards for quali~ and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa CiV Council Members 410 E. Washington S~eet Iowa CiV, ~ 52240 Iowa Ci~ Council Members: I am ~ting to you ~s 3 member of the Greater Iowa ~ ~ea Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number ofprohsions in the proposed development coOe mat t~ Civ is considehng adopting and outlined my phma~ concerns below. ~e Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose desi~ standards on residential cons~ction. The desi~ of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the CiV. The Ci~ should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. ~creasing lot widths increases in~astmc~re costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. ~e proposed code contains a "densiV bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when compared to the cu~ent code. ~ addition, the densi~ bonus increases the cost of housing by requihng the developer to comply with desi~ standards. The dmsiV needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. ~e proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our co--unit's abili~ to provide one of the most affordable ~es of dwellings. The Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to be built on intehor lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose desi~ s~ndards on those homes. If the CiV is going to require developers to cons~ct alleys in ce~ain developments, th~' CiV should assume the long te~ maintenance and repair of alleys. It is ~fair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be cons~cted by the Ci~. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive ~eas should not require use of a Pla~ed Development Overlay. ~e Ci~ should automatically refund ~en Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable pehod of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making si~ificant changes regarding these ma~ers would be a poor decision for the fu~re of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider these hctors and discuss these issues ~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW ~ea Association of ~TORS~ and Greater Iowa CiW ~ea Home Builders Association before ~ votiR~n t~e propose{ code. / ~ ~ ~ x ~ Affiliated with National Associa~on of Home BuiMers & Hotne Builders Associa~on o~lowa The Greater Iowaff4t¥Area 2005 SEP 2 0 ?H la: 0 7 ,owa ciw, ,0-. 22.. HBA Phone, ,319] 351-,33, Fax: (319) 358.2443 CITY' CLERK £-ma.: hbaofic@cs.com HOMEBUILD~RsAssOEIATION iOWA CIT?.IOW/ www. io.a¢ityhonl.$.¢oml Advocates for homeownersMp by promoting standards for quality and affordablility Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should pemfit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood raeetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before Voting on the propo~d code. ~. Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home BuilderJ Association of Iowa FILED SEP 20 EH 12:O1 GALLERY REALTY ~O~A/A C[t~, IOWA September 13, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, lA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member oftbe Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in whichzero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Si atu / / Zr 2 FILED "' ~ P.O. Box 3396 Iowa Ci~, Iowa 52244 HBA~~o P~'~;O'~ E-mail:Fmc"h°n' {319)351.5333(319)~a~c.~35..443 CiTY C RK ~.i=~;,,.~; Advo~es for homeowne~h~ by promot~g st~da~ for Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastmc~e costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing ~by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. * If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long teim maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. e Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development OVerlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and diSCUss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before VO~ng on the proposed code. ' . Iowa City Council Members ~) ~ ~r~ ~"T] 410 E. Washington Street ___~ ? cr~ [-"' Iowa City, IA 52240 r~ :~, VT] Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed develop~nent code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City oflowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards, The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings Should be optiOnal, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directlY to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development CoUncil, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~:~.O 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~-~ m Iowa City, IA 52240 ('D__ Iowa City Council Members: lq~. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. " I am concerned about a number of provisions in the Proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signa/ture ~'~ 438 Highway 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Multiple Dick Davin Real Estate FILED 914 S. Dubuque Street Fax (319) 351-1337 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Z01]5 SIP 15 ~lq I1:!~6 Bus (319) 338-7549 CITY Iowa City Council Members IOWA CITY,IOWA 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residemial zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the currem code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ -o Iowa City, lA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: co I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 3~9-338-646o phone icaar@icaar.org West e-mail; Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® FILED ~O0~SEPI5 ~HIl:h5 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. W~on S~ 10WA OWA Io~ Ci~,. ~ 52240 Io~ Ci~ Co~cil Mem~rs: I ~ ~ to you ~ a m~ber of~e Iowa Ci~ ~ As~ia~on of ~TO~. I ~ ~n~m~ a~ a n~r of pro~sio~ ~ ~ pro~s~ developm~t ~e ~t ~e Ci~ is ~ide~g ~opt~ ~d ~ve outl~ my p~ ~n~ms below. ~e Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not ~se desi~ ~ds on r~id~ ~~. ~i~ of homes should bc ~e ~er's d~ision, not ~~ by ~e Ci~. ~e Ci~ should n~ ~c~e 1~ ~ ~ ~ide~al zones, as propos~ by ~e new c~e. ~or~ lot ~ ~cr~ ~~re ~ for ~ W ~ns~e~. ~e pro~ ~e ~ a "d~i~ ~nus", but it is n~ a sight ~nus wh~ ~mp~ ~ ~e ~u~t ~e. ~ ad~on, ~e d~i~ ~nus ~cr~ ~e ~ of hous~g by r~ui~ ~e ~velo~r ~ ~mply ~ desi~ ~~. ~ver ~e ~ of ~e ~r~ ~d k~ hous~g ~or~ble. ~e propos~ ~e ~ly r~u~ ~e ~ ~ w~ch zer~lot ~e hom~ ~ be b~12 w~ch I~ our ~~'s abili~ ~ pro,de one of ~e Ci~ sh~ld ~t ~r~l~ ~e ho~s ~ be b~lt on ~dor 1o~ should not ~ desi~ ~~ on ~o~ homes. ff~e Ci~ is gong ~ r~uffe develo~rs to ~ ~leys ~ ~ developm~, ~ CiW shoed ~e ~e long ~ ~insn~ ~d r~r of ~e~. It is ~ to b~den r~id~ or,ese ~ su~sio~ ~ ~e ~ ~ r~r ~d m~in~ ~leys r~ff~ to ~ ~~ by ~e Ci~. Nei~bo~ m~gs should ~ op~o~, not ~to~. A n~r of d~elo~s ~r~y u~ nei~borh~ m~s ~d ~ able to respond ~y to nei~r's ~n~ ~out · e n~s~ of ~e ~o~ m~s ~d ~~ ob~gatio~ ~pos~ by ~e pro~ · ~vel II S~si~ve ~ shoed not ~ui~ use of a PI~ Developer ~lay. ~e Ci~ should auw~y re~d ~ Spa~ f~s to f~s are not u~ ~ a ~o~ble p~ of t~e. Ado~g ~ propos~ development ~e ~ut ~g sight wo~d ~ a p~r d~ision for ~e ~ of Iowa Ci~. I en~u~e y~ · s~ss ~ issues ~er ~ ~e ~d ~velopm~t ~oil, Iowa Ci~ ~ Ass~ia~on of ~TO~ ~ ~er Iowa Ci~ ~ Home Builders ~i~ before vot~g on ~e propos~ Signature Realt ~ 2nd Street, Ste. 200 Coralville, IA 52241 ~-~ ~/~ F (319) 354-0581 Office (319) 354-6432 Fax ~.iowarealty.com Iowa City Council Members _ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~O~, Iowa City Council Membem: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on ir~terior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concems without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Oveday. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. I feel strongly about this. Please give thoughtful consideration to this letter. Sincerely, ~on ~roud, Realtor Iowa Realty Co., Inc. LEPIC.KROEGER, REALTORS® ciTY CLERK 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd.. Iowa City, IA 52246. (319) 3~1~ lC! ,T~' I0,WA Iowa Ci~ Council Members 410 E. Washh~on S~ea Iowa CiW, ~ 52240 Iowa CiW Council Members: I am ~iting to you as a memb~ of the Iowa CiW ~ Ass~iation of ~TORS~. I am tone,ed about a n~ber of provisions in the proposed development code that the CiW is considering adopting and have outlh~ my pr~a~ concerns below. The Ciw of Iowa CiW should not impose d~i~ smn~rds on r~idential cons~ction. The d~i~ of homes should ~ the eonsum~'s d~isio~ not man~t~ by the CiW. The CiW should not hcr~se lot widths h r~idential zone, as proposed by ~e new code. Incr~sing lot widths incr~ses inffas~cture ~sts for the develop~s, which incr~ses the cost to consumers. The proposed c~e con, ins a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificam bonus when compar~ to the cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, the densiW ~nus incr~s~ the co~ of housing by r~uffing the develop~ to comply with d~i~ stan~rds. The densiW ne~ to be ~cr~sed to cov~ the costs of the requ~ements ~d keep hous~g affor~ble. The proposed code drastically reduces the ar~s h which zer~lot line homes can be builL which l~its our co--unit's abiliw to provide one of the most affor~ble ~ of dwell~. ~e CiW should ~'m~ z~lot line hom~ to be built on ~t~ior lots ~ RS-8 zon~ ~d should not ~pose d~i~ s~rds on ~ose homes. If~e CiW is going to r~uffe develop~s to cons~uct alleys in ce~ developmems, the CiW should assume the long term maimainance and r~a~ of alleys. It is u~a~ to burden r~idents of these new subdivisions with ~e cost to repak and ma~min alleys ~at ~e r~uk~ to be co~ct~ by ~e CiW. Nei~borho~ m~ings should be optional, not mandato~. A numb~ of develop~s ak~dy use nei~borh~d m~tings and are able to respond d~tly to neighbor's concerns without the nec~siW of~e mandato~ me~ings and reposing obligations imposed by ~e proposed code. * Level H S~itive ~s should not r~u~e use ofa Pl~ed Development Ov~lay. The CiW should automatically re, nd Open Space fe~ to the r~idems of a subdivision if~e fees are not used within a r~sonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these ma~s would be a p~r d~ision for the ~re of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to eonsid~ ~e factors and discuss thee issu~ ~h~ ~h the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW ~ Ass~iation of ~TORS~ and Grater Iowa CiW ~ Home Builders Association before vot~g on the proposed code. ~i~a~r~ Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature~ ~.)~ .~ r 438 Highway 1 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 West Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr EA !, TORS ® Iowa City Council Members ~ V~2 c~n [-"- 410 E. Washington Street rr'~ -'~ [-r'l Iowa City, IA 52240 ,~ 2E~ :~ rm.~ Iowa City Council Members: -- I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the .long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should nbt require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature//-/ ~/t/~/~ ~T~ 438 Highway ~ ~23 9-338-6460 phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area AssociatiOn of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ C) r.n ["- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~> I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 H~lhwag 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area o f REA oeiation LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ 410 E. Washin~on S~eet ~ ~ ~ Iowa CiW, IA 52240 ~ Iowa CiW Council Members: I am ~iting to you as a member of the Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the CiW is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ oflowa CiW should not impose desi~ standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ciw. ~e Ci~ should not incre~e lot wides in residential runes, ~ proposed by the new code. Incre~ing lot widths incre~es in~as~c~re costs for the developem, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when comped to the cu~ent code. In addition, ~e densiW bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the develo~r m comply wi~ desi~ st~d~ds. ~e densiW needs to be incre~ed to cover the cos~ of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be buiiL which limits our communiW's abiliW m provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e CiW should pemit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the CiW is going to require developers to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the CiW should ~sume the long tern mainminance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residen~ of these new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair and maimain alleys that ~ ~qu~ to ~ cons~cted by the CiW. Neighborho~ meetings should ~ optional, not mandmo~. A numar of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the m~dato~ meetings and repoffing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Are~ should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The CiW should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a m~onable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making si~ific~t ch~ges ~garding ~ese ma~ers would ~ a p~r decision for the ~re of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these hctors ~d discuss these iss~ ~aher wi~ the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTOR~/hnd Greater Iowa CiW Area Home Builders Association before voting on the propos~coffe. Signature ~ '[/[ .~ ~ 48 '~ ~ West 3~9-3~8-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or9 Io~ ~ ~ 5~46 8~9-~8-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 Iowa City Area Association ofR F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members <g: 410 E. Washington Street '~,d3 ~ m Iowa City, IA 52240 _'x~ Iowa City Council Members: --< ~- I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS _~~ ~' I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that ~h';e City considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signa  Highway i 3~9-338-646o phone icaar@icaar.org 438 West e-mail: Iowa City, IA 5£246 $~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® FILED I]115 SEP 15 2:08 CITY CLERK Cl , 10WA IOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be lee to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will~ produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, 'the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ensed to Sel~ F, al Estate 'n the State of Io a ~b, ~z,~~ ~ ~ Premier Propertie. Coral¥ille, Iowa 52241 ~ I Office: (3'lg)354-8044 Iowa City Area Association of REA I, TORS IL S£? 15 P/'l 2:08 Iowa City Council Members Cl '? CLERK 410 E. Washin¢o. Street IOWA C!T!.¢ IOWA Iowa City, lA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which .. increases the cost to consumers. · T~e proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desidn standards on those homes. · If the City is 8oing to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are r~quirod to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should b~ optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use n¢iCtborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if'the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes r~garding thes~ matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of I~ALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the B 488 Highway I West 8~9-888-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Ioma City, IA 52246 8~9-888-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA Iowa City Council Members -~ ~'~ on F--' 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · ' The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. si~n-~urd z ~ j, 438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F. A LTORS® r'rl Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which Zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before votin~ the proposed code. B 438 Highway 1 West 3~9-338-646o e-mail: icaar@icaar.org phone Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F,A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ co 410 E. Washington Street ,j -'o -T'I Iowa City, IA 52240 C')-~' m - _-<r- 7Tt Iowa City Council Members: r-rn -v I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~ ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City iF' considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signatuc~./"' ,~-' ~  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org ~EALTO~® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members . ,-, _<. -o 410 E. Washington Street "~C)., ~ --e,.n ,r-" Iowa City, IA 52240 "~ Iowa City Council Members: .. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. .The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway I West 3~9-338~646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~"- Iowa City Area Association of R F,A LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members '5> -~ ~ '"Fl 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~C~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~' '~' I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to rePair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · NeighborhOod meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City shoUld automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~t~ ~~"  438 Highway ~ West $19-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-358-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street CD Iowa City, IA 52240 -~q Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®?>: I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City oflowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. B 438 Highway I West e-mail: icaar@icaar.org 319-338-646o phone Iowa City, IA 52~46 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® · Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members '~© rn 410 E. Washington Street ~ -~ ---- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.'~ .._"- I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code d.rastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in .RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the propOsed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. SignatuVre~'-- T 438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-64fio phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 52~46 319-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR~  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-maik hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ '--' Iowa City, IA 52240 -'-< Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I arfrn concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature Affiliated with National Association of tlome Builders & ttome Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.cOm www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION N Advocates for homeownership ~ ~ by promoting standards for (~) ~ quality andaffordablility ~ .~'~ coo September 8, 2005 _<~ -o '"[-I Iowa City Council Members ~'<[ ~ '-o ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 _~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers. already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ../ Signature '~'/~ Ot'w ~ 5 t~ r4 r-/-; ~'-- Affiliated with NationaI Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Associatiou of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (315) 351-5333 Fat (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for e~ quality and affordablility ~ ~ ~ September 8, 2005 r~nm ~ Iowa City Council Members L-'~ ~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street --'< ~ -x~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ ~ ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City ~s considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~tr'r ,~ ~ ~t~ d mi Affiliated with NationaI Association of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs,com www. iowacityhomes,com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 ~C~, Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street CD ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 _-~.q (~,. Iowa City Council Members: '-<~ (":'rtl -o I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Asso tion. concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vo~i~/ ng o~h~'~p~rc~osed code. ~ Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 ---- Iowa City Council Members 9> ~ -~ -TI 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associ~l'on. I a~ concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed cgde. S,gnature / ~.~F'/4 d.e_- Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.0. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: ~l.l~aofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION w.J~yw, iowqy:~ yhomes,com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for ..... quality and qffordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature t- ' AJjTliated with National Association of Home Builders' & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility C) September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ C) an 7 Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: '_2.' I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the propose, d code. Signature Affiliated with NationaI Association of Home Builders & Ho~ne Builders Association qf lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOMF BUILDFRS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street 'bT~ ~ ~ -'1-1 Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associ~n. I a~. concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is cn considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Associatiou of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (319,351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS/~SSOClATtON www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality attd affordablility September 8, 2005 ~> ~ --o ..-..-- Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the propos~code. Signature Affiliated with Natioual Associatiou of Home Builders & Ho~ne Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fa~ {319} 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com I Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility -'"'~ c.~ September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ,,. I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vo~. ~he ~~~d Signature Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members ~ '- ['-- 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~r~ --o Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature , l/, Affiliated with National Association of Ho.re Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA phone: (315) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E.mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCiATiON www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for hotneownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associai~n. I and.-- concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Cityqs considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of tile requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drasti6ally reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting--tY~.~propo~ code. ....... ~ Signatg~e~- - ._~.~[~'~rrd~r..,- ~4ffiliated with National Association of Ilome Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www, iowacityhomes,com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members ~, ~ r~ --~ 410 E. Washington Street -"-' Iowa City, IA 52240 --.~C) Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associal~n. I an~ concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on, the proposed code. Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considehng adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Great, J~ Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~oting on thee propo§e~d code. f } S~gnature (~ ~') Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & ttome Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www.iow~'tyhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility ~ ~_ ) O't '~ September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members C~. "~-, 410 E. Washington Street ~.' ' Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. · Signature ~)8/I Affiliated with National Association of tlome Builders & Home Builders Association o. f lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: {319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership .--' ~ by protnoting standards for C~_ c~ quality and affordablility ~; I.n-i September 8, 2005 ~ Iowa City Council Members :'< ~-1 -'o ['TI 410 E. Washington Street :aa ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~.~'- .~, Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Associati0~n of REALTORS(!~and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting o,~i~.the propos?~ code.j Signature ,f-'¥.C-4 dOlq ~l. tq-P Affiliated with Natioual Association of Home Builders & lfome Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (315) 351-533:3 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street >,j ~,. --~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area . Assocpation of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before %' voti on the proposed., de Signature ,,,~Otl rl [~a i m~r Affiliated with NationaI Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: {319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358.2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by protnoting standards for "-" quality and affordablility ~ ~. September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www,io~a~ cityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownershi£ bypromotingstandardsfor quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~- -~- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-tot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before S~gna~ure ~'~ ~d. / Affiliated with National Association of Honte Builders & florae Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www.iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members CD-"' 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ' " I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voti~glon the propoaed code. Affiliated with Natioual Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by protnoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 CD Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. o Signat~lre Affiliated with National Association of Ho.re Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa A 11 South Gilbert P.0. Box 3396 The Greater Iowa City Area Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: {319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates/or homeownership by protnoting standards' for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members --'< 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 " Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be cons~tmcted by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E.mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality attd affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~-~-~ .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the l~roposed code. Signatur , · //'apt Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Phone: (319) 351-5333 HBA E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by protnoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 ~:.C3~. ~_ "1't Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~ -.a I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the Wopose41 code. Affiliated with National Associa~on of Home Builders & Home Builders Associa~on of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA .hone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E.mail: hbaofic@cs.com www.iowacityhomes.corn HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership ..... ~:~ by promoting standards for quality and affordablility ~ ~. ~ ..~ September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members "'<' 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose'design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory.' A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vo '.n~6'n-'t)he proposed c, od;e. '~ignature ~,a tn } ~.- / ,(. Affiliated with Natioual Association of Home Builders & ltotne Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319} 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www.iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members '- 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~' I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the prop sed c e. Signa~t-t~re '(~ z,,/ , Affiliated with National Jssociation of Home Builders & tIotne Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION I Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for r~ quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ C) ~ ,r--- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vot~i~ng on.,the~pr?pose¢l code. · ,~¢-" ~,.u~*~.t''~' l Affiliated w i lt h-N~at i ~t a l A% ~ i ~' ~ o~ ~tl ~el~B u i l ders & Hotn e Builders Association of Iow"  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes,com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for O~ c..ta quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City ~s considering adopting and outlined my primary concems below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those ho~nes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and~rea~Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before votingtgn,the proposed cg~te,,f/'~ Jj S~mature ..-', / ,~ Affiliated with ~tional Association of Home B~ilders & llome B~ilders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P, 0. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs,com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www, iowacityhomes.com I Advocates.for homeownership by promoting standards for quality attd affordablility ~ ~. ~_ ..~ September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street - Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ,~the prop. osed cqde. Affiliated with National Association of Home BuiMers & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 . Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street --~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~'~ .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Si~att~re tbs ; Sr. ,-Po& Affiliated with National Association of Home BuiMers & tlome Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: ,319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION I Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members CD 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~I~ ..~ I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~oti~(~g on the ~os d cod . Signature ~,/v '1 I~X~'A~ , \, Affiliated with Nalibual Association of Home Builders & IYo~ne Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATrON www. iowacityhomes,com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members " 410 E. Washington Street --"4 C~ cn Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~' I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City ~s considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~x{'~ng on tlg,e propose~-~iode. Signature · Af/diated with National A s'~o~iation of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes,com HOME BUILDERS/~SSOClATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility c~ September 8, 2005 ~ ~C3~ e.~ Iowa City Council Members (D '~ '"' ~ 410 E. Washington Street -~1 ~ on ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~-< ~ ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~Tx: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~~o p~s ~~ ~ S~nature ' ~;~114- /'J~OIP~ [A~t~ i,~t~ '~1 Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 --< Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I all~ concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastruCture costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319} 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358.2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 ~ C~ Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street -~I.9 ::~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~.~ .~. Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. atu~'e ~..~/q ~ tl rL~ Affilialed with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA hon : Fax: (319} 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by protnoting standards for quality attd affordablility September 8, 2005 ~ '-:6 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the .requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. S~gna'~Ure _ ~ ~//. A, ffiliated wdh National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Associatiou of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Pholle: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358.2443 E-mail: ~l~baofic@cs.com www. iov~ityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members ~7~ .~. 410 E. Washington Street ~:~ -~' Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association· I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code· Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers· · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code· In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards· The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes· · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code· · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay· · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision · if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on, ol/he proposed ~_o/d~/~ ~ign~re _~[4$qr~, J('P~,5 e...- Affiliated with Natioual Association of tIome Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility ~ September 8, 2005 ~ ~ Iowa City Council Members _~, ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ Q oa '.C~ IowaCity, IA 52240 _~ ~o '0 Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code ~that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Affiliated with A ational Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www.iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility ~ September 8, 2005 ~_ e.n Iowa City Council Members -- ~ 410 E. Washington Street r~D~ an ~ IOwa City, IA 52240 ~ Fr~ ::~ ~ Iowa City Council Members: ?~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Ass~iation of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vo~? o~ pr~sed code. S~gnature ~'~ '~ /Z~ l~1 t~ Affiliated ff, ith NatioYtal Association of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Association of lowa  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www. iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility ~ can September 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vg~osed code. Signature /M' t' ¢/<' F~'on c/1 Affiliated with Natioaal Association of Home Builders & Hotne Builders Association of Iowa Iowa City Area Association orr F,A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org IOwa ~, ~ 52~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr F, ALTORS ® Iowa City Council Members C) ''< 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~-K ~t~-r~ [-~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current cOde. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constrUcted by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development cOde without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with.the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signatur c  438 Highway ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR*; Iowa City Area Association of R F,A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members .~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~CD~. Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that thff~ity is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ~ · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  Highwa~l i $19-$$8-646o phone icaar@icaar.or9 488 West e-mail: Iowa Ci~, IA 52246 $19-888-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR*~ Iowa City Area Association of R EALTORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ar- I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which . increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. * Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before Voting on the proposed code. b'2gnature /Ii B 438 Highway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, ~ 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa Cit Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street -~C~ cn l--- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. -~- I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bOnus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature 438 H~Ihway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fox web site: icaar.org Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~'~'~' I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 t 319-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 West Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org FIE^LTOFIc* Iowa Cit'd Area Association of R F,A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 --< Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ar' I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future oflowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. B 438 Highway ] West $~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F, ALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~C:~ ~ P-- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · ~ The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. S~gnatu~ ~ r 438 Highwag i $29-$38-6460 phone icaar@icaar.org West e-mcliI; IOwa City, IA 5£246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org FIEALTOIR® Iowa Cit'd Area Association orr F, AL TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiting the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ,'ndg ll er  438 Highway ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org ~[aCTOa~ Iowa Ci~, ~ 52246 319-338-6957 fm' web site: icaar.org Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members :~"D r~ 410E. Washington Street ~r~ -o "'FI Iowa city, IA 52240 -~t£D Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concems below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep hOusing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~/ v  Highway ~ West $~9-358-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar, or9 458 Iowa Cit~, IA 52246 $~9-$$8-6957 fax' web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~" .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not.require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making signifiCant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~ ~ 0~4 ~ ,~ t~'-6/q rl ~. l /  438 Highway ~ West 3z9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 5~246 3~9-~38-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa Cit'd Area Association of REA Iowa City Council Members _~ r-' ..~ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~:~/-~ .~. Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. ! encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 3~9-335-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org VIEALTOVI~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members <..0 ~-~ 410 E. Washington Street ¢> --~i "o CD-< --- Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 ~ Iowa Ci~ Council Members: ~ ~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. ~ ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ is ~ considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa CiW should not impose desi~ standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not inc~ase lot wides in residential zones, ~ proposed by ~e new code. Incre~ing lot widths increases in~s~cmre costs for the developem, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when compared to the cu~ent c~e. In addition, the densiW bonus increa~s the cost of housing by requiring the developer m comply with desi~ stand,ds. The densi~ needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communiW's abili~ to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e CiW should pemit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers m cons~ct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should assume the long te~ mainm~an~ ~d repair of alleys. It is unfair m burden residen~ of~ese new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys that a~ required to ~ cons~cted by the CiW. Neighbo~ood meetings should be optional, not mandato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the propo~d code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The Ci~ should autommically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e without making si~ific~t ch~ges tug,ding these maaers would ~ a poor decision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider ~ese factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~ and Gmmer Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature I ~9 ~/ r 1 west 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org 43~way Iowa Ci~, ~ 5~4~ 3~9~338-~957 f~ web site: icaanorg REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association orr F,A L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 CD, ' '- U'-- Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. 2~> x~' I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. S{gnature~ {~ i''-~ ~0~  4s8Highway ~ West S19-SS8-646o phone e-mail: ieaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 5~£46 S19-SS8-6957 fax web site: ieaar, or9 FIE/I, LTOFI® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street -- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~ -o '-t-1 I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®~" I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that t~ ~ty' considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep hOusing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. , , , 77. Signature B 438 Hiyhway i West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr F.A LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -< Iowa City Council Members: ~"~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. :~ 7< ,~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that th~ity is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Si gna urd '' 438 Highway I West -338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fox web site: icaar.org Iowa City Area Association of RF, ALTORS® Iowa City Council Members B-~. __~ r'n 410 E. Washington Street C3-< __ ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 7-~C) cn {'--' Iowa City Council Members: ~_~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.B:; ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concems below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature I~/x~ ~~  438 Highway 2 West 329-338-6460 phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 5~246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association orr F,A LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street .~.-CD ~r~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am ~iting to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that th~i~ is considering adopting ~d have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The CiW of Iowa CiW should not impose design stand,ds on residential cons~uction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The CiW should not inhere lot wides in residential zones, m proposed by ~e new code. Incre~ing lot widths incre~es in~s~cmre costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the cu~ent code. In addition, the densiW bonus increa~s the cost of housing by requiring ~e developer to comply with desi~ st~d~ds. The densiW needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communiW's abiliW to provide one of the most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pemit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to construct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should assume the long te~ mainm~ance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys that ~ ~quired to ~ cons~ucted by the Ci~. Neigh~rhood meetings should be optional, not mandato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandmow meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. * Level II Sensitive Me~ should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. - The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable pehod of time. Adopting the proposed development code wi~out m~ing si~ificant ch~ges reg~ding these ma~ers would ~ a p~r decision for ~e future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider ~ese factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West ~338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~'~, ~ 5~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar, org ~EALTO~® Iowa City Area Association ofR F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: .~ · . "~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® ~O. ,--, --- , "-' · _.~.~ ~, I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that t~ is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. -- The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential consi~ction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. co · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one &the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes· · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar, org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am ~iting to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development c~e that th~ is cons~denng adopting and have outhned my pnma~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose design standards on residential cons~ction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not incrmse lot wides in residential zones, ~ proposed by ~e new code. Incm~ing lot widths increases in~s~cmre costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when comp~ed to ~e cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, the densiW bonus increa~s the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with desi~ st~d~ds. The densi~ needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be builL which limi~ our communiW's abiliW m provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pemit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the CiW is going to require developem to cons~uct alleys in ce~ain developments, the Ci~ should assume the long tern mainminan~ and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of~ese new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys thru m required to ~ cons~cted by ~e Ci~. Neighborh~ meetings should be optional, not m~dato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reining obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees am not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e without making si~ificant ch~ges ~g~ding ~ese maaers would ~ a p~r decision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider ~ese factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Associmion of REALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Sighatu~{~ ~h~ Vo,.~'t}~ ~  438 Highway ~ west 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members "~ C) -< 410 E. Washington Street ' Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ r-- ITl Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signaturff t~?~ '3t~Otlrt t l/  438 Highwa~ ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or9 Iowa ~, ~ 5~246 ~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association orr F, AL TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street CD -(m ~ -----~ lowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. co I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use 0fa Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway ~ West -338- 460 phone e-mail: icaar@icaar, org Iowa City, IA 52246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members oo 410 E. Washington Street -o Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®> I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City isc° considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City oflowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. T 438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org FtEALTOVI® ,,, Iowa Cil!t Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 C3 Iowa Ci~ Council Members: .. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not increase lot wides in residential zones, m proposed by the new code. Increming lot wides incm~es in~mcmre costs for the develope~, which increases the cost to consumers. ~e proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when compmed to the cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, the densi~ bonus increa~s the cost of housing by requiting the developer to comply with desi~ smd~ds. The densi~ needs to be incre~ed to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communi~'s abili~ to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ciw should assume the long tern mainm~ce and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of~ese new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys ~at ~ ~quired to ~ cons~cted by the Ci~. Neighborho~ meetings should ~ optional, not m~dato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by ~e propo~d code. * ~vel II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ora Planed Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code wi~out m~ing si~ific~t ch~ges regarding these ma~ers would ~ a p~r d~ision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider ~ese factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the L~d Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~ ~ 438 Highway st 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or Iowa Ci~d, ~ 5~e46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: Iowa City Area Association of R F,A LTOPS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: co I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers .to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~/'t~tlrl ~. ]~ p~ort-.,  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa Ci~, ~ 52~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 ~EALTO~~' Iowa City Council Members ~7~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street ;19 ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting~e. Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS Iowa City Council Members _~ , ~ 1'"" 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 :~: ~'~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  4,?,8 Highway 1 West $~9-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa Ci~, IA 52.246 $~9-$$8-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association orr EA LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~ P ' cr~ { - - m I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® " I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City isCO considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number &developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. AM,/~ OdT..~l.g~atture Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org IqEALTOFI® Iowa City Area Association ofR F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street CD Iowa City, IA 52240 __~ Iowa City Council Members: ' I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of lowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. B 438 Highway ] West 319-338-d46o phone e-mail: ieaar@ieaar.org Iowa City, ]A 52£4d 319-338-d957 fax web site: ieaar, org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street LD Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ¢ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. 21~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. SignattJre [tr~/d ~. ~ · ~ 'Pot~--~  438 Highway 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar, org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA L TORS ® IoWa City Council Members . w -- 410 E. Washington Street ~ CD on l-- Iowa City, IA 52240 rT', "o Iowa City Council Members: ~; ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automati6ally refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~t~ 438 Hohway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: ieaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washin~on S~et Iowa Ci~ Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development c~e that the Ci~ is considering adopting ~d have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose desi~ stand,ds on residential cons~uction. The desi~ of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The CiW should not incre~e lot wides in ~sidential zones, ~ proposed by ~e new code. Incre~ing lot widths incre~es inSecUre costs for the develo~rs, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a dens~ bonus , but it is not a significant bonus when compared fo the cu~ent c~e. In addition, ~e densi~ bonus increa~s ~e cost of housing by requiring ~e develo~r to comply wi~ desi~ st~d~ds. ~e densi~ n~ds to be incre~ed to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be builL which limi~ our communiW's abiliW to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should assume the long tern mainmin~ce ~d repak of alleys. It is unfair to burden residen~ of these new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys that ~ mqui~d to ~ cons~cted by ~e CiW. Nei~borho~ meetings should ~ optional, not m~dato~. A number ofdeveiope~ already use neighborhood meetings and ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the m~dato~ meetings and re~aing obligations imposed by the proposed ~de. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ora Pla~ed Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e without m~ing si~ific~t ch~ges regarding the~ ma~ers would ~ a p~r decision for ~e ~ture of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider ~ese factors ~d discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on ~e proposed code. signature  438Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa Ci~, ~ 5~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R EAL TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 --~,C3 ~ F-- Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.~> I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is~--~ considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City oflowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated, by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one &the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residentS of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain'alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. S~gn&tur~' ' '  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org RE^LTOR~ Iowa City, IA 5~246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members C~~ r~ 410 E. Washington Street --- ---- Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ C3 o'l ~"" Iowa City Council Members: ~ 7< ~'~' I am writing to yoU as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. co I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential constrUction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs &the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City Should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision ifth.e fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa Ci~ Council Members 410 E. Washin~on S~eet Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Iowa Ci~ Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development c~e that the Ci~ is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose desi~ standards on residential cons~uction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not incre~ lot wides in residential zones, ~ propo~d by the new code. Incre~ing lot widths incre~es in~astmcmre costs for the developem, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the cu~ent c~e. In addition, the densi~ bonus increases ~e cost of housing by requiring the develo~r m comply with desi~ stand,ds. ~e densi~ needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes c~ be buil~ which limits our communiW's abili~ to provide one of the most affordable ~s of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the Ci~ should assume the long tern mainmin~ce ~d repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys thru am r~ui~d to ~ cons~cted by the Ci~. Neigh~rh~d meetings should be optional, not m~dato~. A number ofdevelo~rs already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees am not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without m~ing si~ificant ch~ges regarding these ma~ers would ~ a p~r decision for ~e future of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues fu~her wi~ the L~d Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. nEaLTOa~ Iowa ~'~, ~ 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: Iowa City Area Association orr EA LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members ~> 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: '~ ;~ po I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. po I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the develoPers, which increases the Cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types &dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future &Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. 43 i9 y $19-358-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ..< .__- 410 E. WashingtOn Street ~'D '-' V'- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · NeighbOrhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signa -re~'~~  438 Highwag 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org REALTOR* Iowa CittJ, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org ,, Iowa City Area Association orr F,A L TOILS ® Iowa City Council Members © ~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street :< ~r~ '~ Iowa City, IA 52240 :~: Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus When compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number &developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. S~gnature //jQ [~[qa ~! ~ ~. D.~r~-~  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 5~246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org flEALTOE® Iowa Cit'd Area Association orr F,A LTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~C3 '~'-[-~ IoWa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am ~iting to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose desi~ stand,ds on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The CiW should not increase lot widths in residential zones, ~ pro~sed by ~e new code. Incre~ing lot widths incre~es in'tincture costs for the deveiopem, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when comp~ed to the cu~ent c~e. h addition, the densi~ bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring ~e develo~r to comply with desi~ smd~ds. The densi~ needs to be increased to cover the cosB of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The.proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communiW's abiliW to provide one of~e most affordable ~s of dwellings. ~e CiW should pe~it zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should assume the long te~ mainminance ~d repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of~ese new subdivisions with the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys that m ~quired to ~ cons~cted by the CiW. Neighborhood meetings should ~ optional, not m~dato~. A nmber ofdevelopem already use neighborhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW &the mandato~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ora Pl~ned Development Overlay. The CiW should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e without m~ing si~ificant ch~ges reg~ding these ma~ers would ~ a poor decision for ~e future of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the L~d Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~ and Greater Iowa CiW Area Home Builders Association before voting on ~e pr~osed code. Signature :"  438 Hchwag ~ West // 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or9 Iowa Ci~, ~ 52~46 /~ 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar, or9 ~EALTO~® Iowa Cit!t Area Association orr EA L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members ~ ~ m 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 C) '- [-"' Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature -- /~ . ~  438 Highwag ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members (D ~ 410 E. Washington Street rm Iowa City, IA 52240 CD -<~ m-O Iowa City Council Members: ~ ©r-- ,_n I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. " I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that ~e City iseo considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature .~ ,4.  438 Highway ] West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr F,A LTORS ® Iowa Ci~ Council Members ~ 410 E. Washin~on S~eet O ~ ~ ~ Iowa CiW, IA 52240 ~ ~ ~ Iowa Ci~ Council Members: ~ ~ ~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the CiW is considering adopting and have outlined my prim~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandmed by the Ci~. ~e CiW should not incre~e lot wides in residential zones, ~ proposed by the new code. Incre~ing lot wides incre~es in~as~cmre costs for the developem, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code con,ins a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificam bonus when comp~ed to the' cu~ent c~e. In addition, ~e densi~ bonus incre~s ~e co~ of housing by requi~g ~e develo~r to comply wi~ desi~ s~d~ds. ~e densiW needs to be incre~ed to cover the cos~ of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The pro~sed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be builL which limits our communiW's abili~ to provide one of the most affor~ble ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to ~ built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developers to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should ~sume the long tern mainminance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair and maintain alleys thru ~ ~qui~ to ~ cons~ucted by the CiW. Neighborho~ meetings should ~ optional, not mandato~. A numar of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the mandmo~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Are~ should not require use of a Planed Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residems of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period of time. Adopt~g ~e proposed development c~e without m~ing si~ific~t ch~ges tug,ding ~ese roarers would ~ a p~r decision for the future of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues ~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~ and Greater Iowa CiW Area Home Builders Association before voting on the pro~sed code. Signature / m~ ~, , 438 Highw~.a.~West 3~ 9-338-6460 phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa Ci~, ~ 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of RF. ALTORS® 410 E. Washington Street ~ -o "T'I.__ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~_3i-C) '~ ['~ :< Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association Of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiting the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 5ee46 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City .Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~(D co 410 E. Washington Street --o ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ ~) ca~ 1 .... Iowa CiW Council Members: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I am ~iting to you as a member of the Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~.~ ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development c~e that the CiW is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The CiW of Iowa CiW should not impose desi~ stand,ds on residential cons~uction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the CiW. The CiW should not income lot wides in residential ~nes, ~ proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths incre~s insincere costS for the develo~rs, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when comp~ed to the cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, ~e densiW bonus increa~s ~e cost of housing by requiring the develo~r to comply with desi~ stand,ds. ~e densiW n~ds to be increased to cover the cos~ of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communiW's abiliW to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should ~mit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the CiW is going to require develo~m to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the CiW should ~sume ~e long te~ main~inance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residen~ of these new subdivisions wi~ ~e cost to repair and maintain alleys that ~ required to ~ consffucted by the CiW. Neigh~rh~d meetings should ~ optional, not mandato~. A number ofdevelo~m already use nei~borhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the mandato~ meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ofa Pl~ned Development Overlay. The CiW should autommically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period oft~e. Adopting the proposed development c~e without m~ing si~ificant ch~ges regarding ~ese ma~ers would ~ a p~r d~ision for the furore of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues ~aher with the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ciw Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. [~ 438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar, org Iowa City, IA 5£246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS ® Iowa City Council Members 0 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.~> I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City i~, considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of lowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design Standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the Cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A nUmber of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ~ignature ~ .... ::"~  438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 5ee46 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® embers . 410 E Wash,ng~n Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ._<~? c.q F"" Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.~ '-' I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and I have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should NOT impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, NOT mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, thus limiting THE community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · IF the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, NOT mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should NOT require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ? Signature ' ~ 1006 5th Coralville, IA 522.41 Phone: (319) 354-8644 Each Office Independently Owned and Operated Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street -~ C'; cn I-'- Iowa City, IA 52240 ~'~ "~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ " I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our commUnity's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not reqUire use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed develOpment code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature d~ ~t r I ¢.,q J~. /~; I I [~ 438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax- web site: icaar.org FIEALTOFI*' Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 :~: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org IoWa City, IA 5~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® · Iowa City Council Members C)" -- 410 E. Washington Street ~ C) ran Iowa City, IA 52240 '-< ~ -'o Iowa City Council Members: ,~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of hOusing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. , 438 Highway ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~; Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 'x~ "~ 410 E. Washington Street CD Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ro I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members .~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ -<~ ~ -- Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ .:<r- Iowa City Council Members: ,~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 5e246 $19-$$8-6957 f~ web site: icaar, or9 REALTOR(~ [oma Ar a ss° c at on TORS® Iowa Ci~ Council Membe~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 410 E. Washin~on S~eet ~ ~ ~ Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 ~ ~ ~ Iowa CiW Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the CiW is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The CiW of Iowa CiW should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the CiW. The CiW should not incre~e lot wides in residential ~nes, as propo~d by the new code. Incm~ing lot widths incre~es in,tincture costs for the develo~rs, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the Cu~ent c~e. In addition, the densiW bonus increa~s ~e cost of housing by requiring the develo~r to comply with desi~ smdgds. ~e densiW needs to be incre~ed to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be builh which limits our communiW's abiliW to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e CiW should pemit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the CiW is going to require developem to cons~uct alleys in cemin developments, the CiW should ~sume the long tern ma~inance ~d repair of alleys. It is unfak to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair ~d maintain alleys that am ~quired to ~ cons~ucted by the CiW. Neigh~rho~ meetings should be optional, not man~to~. A numar of developers already use neighborhood meetings and ge able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the mandato~ meet~gs and repoging obligations im~sed by ~e proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Arem should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. The CiW should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees am not used within a reasonable ~riod of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e wi~out m~ing si~ificant ch~ges mgard~g these ma~ers would be a p~r decision for the future of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues fu~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa CiW Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or Iowa ~, ~ 5~246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association orr F,A LTORS ® _ IOwa City Council Members -_~'~ © an ~-' .410 E. Washington Street ~< r- ITl Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ ~ ~ ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~o I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before v°tin;°n/~pr°p°sed c°d'~'/~{~j~~  438 Highwa~t z West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Io~va City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~' Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS Iowa City Council Members --~C,~ rm I~' 410 E. Washington Street lowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council 'Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of . housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can'be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, LA 5e~46 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members . 410 E. Washington Street ©-<- ~ .-__ Iowa City, IA 52240 --~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code, In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types &dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments; the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents &these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature C [lrf.~pt. ete_- ~[x~td/~e/[  Highway ~ West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icoar@icaar.org 438 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® - Iowa City Council Members ~. C3 crt 410 E. Washington Street ~ l'owa City, lA 52240 ~ ED ::~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of IoWa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to. cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · lfthe City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to'be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on th.e proposed code. Signature . '/~-~ ~ . 438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~, Iowa City Area Association orr F,A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members C) -<- m"~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ r-- {-FI Iowa City, IA 52240 - l-iq '~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing aff6rdable. · · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly tO neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~n the proposed code. t/Signaturer"~/.~O~g/rla~. ~e_.P~r,5 ~ ] 438 Highway ~ 3~9-$38-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org West Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® -1-1 Iowa City Council Members ~ -~ ~ __ 410 E. Washington Street -~ C~ cn I-- Iowa City, IA 52240 ..-< r-' I-f3 Iowa City Council Members: ~ 7~ .t27 I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, lowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-$38-6957 fax web site: icaar.org gl/ALIOFI® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTOI ® Iowa City Council Members ~ ~ '-o -T'I 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the lowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ..~? ~ t--'" Iowa City Council Members: ~ ..~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is "" considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-Jot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  · 438 Highway ~ Wes[ 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa Cit-9, IA 52~46 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area A sociation of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street CD Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.2~ ~_~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~  438 Highway 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org FIEALTO[1~ Iowa City Area Association ofR EA L TORS® Iowa City Council Members _-~ ~_~ --o 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one &the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association o f R F, A L TORS® I°wa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 "~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ ? cr~ C-- I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that th~:l~;ity is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes shOuld be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing Jot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents °fthese new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. SiVa(ute ' / _/_  8H' 43 ~gnway ~ West 329-338-6460 phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR'":' Iowa City Area Association orr F, AL TORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: '-- I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to Consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street "~ -'FI Iowa City, IA 52240 .~? oil [--' Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~. - '-- I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design &homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Ill' 438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 $~9-338-6957 fax Web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street .r-FI Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: " I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should nOt impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-$ zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. ! encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Si~natur~ ~;'-~"' . ..John  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 5~246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~, _ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ -' ~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street .--< r- [TI Iowa city, IA 52240 ~ ~ ::~ ~ Iowa City Council Members: .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs . to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. gignature  438 Highway z West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar, org Iowa City, IA 5~246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® ~::EP--1~--2005 10 :~5 AI'I 'CEVITURY21PROPERTYPROF ~19 887 2104 P. Ell Iowa City Council Members © -~ ---~ 410 E. Washington Street .-~ r-- Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ -o Iowa City Council Members: 3:~ " I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. 1 am concerned abouta number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary oonoexns below. * The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by tl~ new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. * The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to he built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long-term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to bo constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Gr.eater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ,,, Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS Iowa City Council Members ~C~ cn F-- 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 r~ "~ Iowa City Council Members: ~. " I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the'costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signp]tu~ .~ t~--  438 H~Thway 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of RF, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members CD 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ rn Iowa City, IA 52240 C~ -<:' -o ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ .~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®~>~ ~ -- ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City i~ considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in reSidential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs t° be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes, · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org IOwa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org VIEALTO[t~; ~=;~k'-is--zo05 10 :~5 A~4 CENTURY21PROPERTYPRO~ 519 887 2104 P. 02 Iowa City Council Members .--< r-" Iowa City, IA 52240 lowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ! am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths in~reases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus wh~ compared to the curr~at code. in addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cove the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should p~rmit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · Iftbe City is going to require d~,elopers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainanc¢ and r~pair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood me~ings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~nd are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory m~tings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require usa of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a r~sonable period oft/me. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for thc future of Iowa City. ! encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Ar~ Association of REALTORS® and Oreater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. i.J~rl'l tULUNbLL BHMK~N MONIH N0.918 P.1/1 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street 0 Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members; 0 ''~ I am writing to you a~ a. member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTOR.q~.-< I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that ~ considering adopting. It appears to be more about curb appeal than about getting~rfi'flies into homes. Thus, I have outlined my prirnm~ concerns below. J~' The City oflowa City should not impose design standards on resident/al construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, xvhmh inereases the cost to consmners. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density will need to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code dra~cally reduces the areas in which zero4ot line homes can be built, which 1units our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable Vypes of dwellings. The City of Iowa City should be more concerned about how to get younger families into these communities. The City should permit zero4ot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain aIleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Note: the City of Iowa City has abandoned all responsibility for alleys in the existing neighborhoods and we all are currently seeing the results of that design standard or flaw (or lack of appeal), Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without thc necessity of thc mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without malting significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with thc Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. We all love Iowa City for its diversity. Let the 'people' decide how they want to design their homes. ' Council Members ' 410 E. Washington Street 14 East Benton Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone 319-358-1004 Iowa City Council Members: Fax 319-358-9309 I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that Shelly Streb-AIberts the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. Cell 319-331-2654 sstrebre@aol.com · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not Mary Jo Streb mandated by the City. Cell 319-331-0575 · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by jo181 l@earthlink.net the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. ·Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the propOsed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Sep 13 05 ll:~2a Shell~ S~eb-Rlbe~ 319-358-9309 City Co uncil Members 410 E. Washington Street 14 East Benton Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone 319-358-1004 Iowa City Council Members: Fax 319-358-9309 I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that Shelly Streb.Alberts the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. Cell 3 ] 9-g:l 1 sstrebrc~aol.com · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential  construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the city. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. ~.~ : :: ' ~:. ~.::,,: ::· Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use cfa Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents cfa subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Prudential .,n,..., .....rs..., Es,.,e FILED ~0 12th Avenue, Suite 150 Coralville, IA 52241 00 SEP 15 PH 2:07 Bus319354-8118 Fax 319 354-0921 CITf CLERK www. pruic.com iowa Ci~ Cou.cil Mcm~ IOWA CI~ IOWA 410 E. Wash~on S~ect Iowa Ci~, ~ 52240 Iowa Ci~ Council Member: I am ~R~g to you ~ a member of thc Iowa Ci~ Mca Ass~iation of ~TORS~. I am concerned a~ut a nm~r of provisions ~ ~e pro~sed development c~e ~t the Ci~ is conside~g adopt~g ~d ~vc outl~ed my pfim~ concerns below. ~e Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not im~se desi~ stands on residential cons~ction. ~e desi~ of homes should be ~e consmer's decision, not m~ted by ~e Ci~. ~e Ci~ should not ~cre~c lot wides ~ residential ~nes, ~ pro~d by ~e new c~e. ~creming lot ~dths ~cre~cs ~cmre co~ for ~c developers, which ~creases ~e cost to consme~. ~e p~d code con~s a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ific~t ~nus when compared to ~e cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, ~e densi~ ~nus incre~es the cost of hous~g by requi~g ~e developer to comply wi~ desi~ s~d~ds. ~e densi~ needs to be ~cre~ed to cover the cos~ of~e r~u~emcn~ ~d keep housing affor&blc. ~e p~d c~e d~tically reduces ~e ~ ~ which zer~lot l~e homes c~ be buil~ which l~i~ o~ co~i~'s abili~ to p~vide one of~c most ~or~ble ~es ofdwcll~gs. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zealot l~e homes to be built on ~tedor lots ~ RS-8 zones ~d should not ~posc dcsi~ stands on &o~ homes. If~e Ci~ is gong to reqube devclope~ to cons~ct alleys ~ ce~in developments, the Ci~ should ~sme thc bng te~ main~ce ~d repab of alleys. It is unfa~ to b~den ~siden~ of~csc new subdivisions wi& ~e coa to rcpa~ ~d main~ alleys ~t ~ ~qu~ed to ~ con~ct~ by ~e Ci~. Nci~rh~ meet~ should ~ optio~l, not m~&to~. A nm~r of develo~ a~ady ~e nei~bo~d meetings and ~e able to res~nd d~tly ~ nei~bor's concerns ~out ~e neccssi~ of ~e m~to~ meet~gs and re~a~g obligations ~posed by ~e proposed ~dc. ~ Level Q Sensitive ~e~ should not requ~e use of a Pl~cd Development ~erlay. ~e Ci~ should automatically re,nd Open Space fees to ~e residen~ of a subdivision if~e f~s ~ not used with~ a re~onable ~fi~ oft~e. Adopt~g ~c proposed development c~e wi~out m~g si~ific~t ch~ges reg~d~g the~ roarers would ~ a ~r decision for ~e ~e of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider ~ese facto~ ~d di~uss ~esc issues ~cr wi~ ~e L~d ~velopmcnt Council, Iowa Ci~ ~ As~iation of ~TORS~ ~d ~catcr Iowa Ci~ ~ea Home Builders Association before voting on the pro~sed code. ~, An independently owned and operated member of The Prudential Real Estate AfbIiates, In¢ 51~551~55 P.O1/Ol LEPIC.KROEGER, REALTORS® 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd. · Iowa City, IA 52246 · (319) 351-8811 ~ ~ ::= Iowa City Council Members m 410 E. Washington Street o Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member ofthe Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design slan~ on residential eonstm~_ The design of homes should be the consumer's doeision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths inereas~ infrastructure ecrus for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep homing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City'should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number ofdevelopev~ already us~ neighborhood meetings and are able to re~pond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity oftl~ mandatory meetings and ~orting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level I! Sensitive Areas should not x~quire use ora PLanned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fe~ to the residents of a subdivision iftbe fees are not used within a reasonable period oftime. Adopting the proposed development code without making signifzant chang~ ragaralnE the~ matters would be a poor decision for the fut'm~ of lown City. I encourage you to consider the~ factors and discuss the~e issoes fu~het with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area ~iation of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders A~ciation before voting on the proposed bu~I~U~ bUININ~UIIU~ K~AL ~ ICAAH Cedar Rapids Iowa City Corridor Connection Realty Iowa Ci~ Council Mem~rs Iowa CiW, IA 52240 Iowa CiW Council Mem~: I ~ ~ting to you m a mem~r of~ Iowa Ciw A~ A~iation of ~ALTORS~. I am c~ a~t a n~r of~visi~ in the p~ development c~e ~at the City is considering ~o~ing a~ ~ve ~ my ~ ~ ~. ~ CiW of iowa CiW ~d ~ im~ d~i~ ~~ on r~idential cons~ction. ~ ~ of~ ~M ~ ~ ~r's d~i~ not m~d by the Ci~. Tho Ci~ ~d ~ ~ ~w~~ ~ ~~ ~~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ t~ ~~ ~ ~r of alleys. It ~ ~fair to ~ ~i~ of~ ~ s~~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ m~in alleys ~ ~c111 ~nsifivc A~ ~uld n~ ~qui~ u~ ora Plann~ ~el~mcnt ~lax. * ~e City ~M ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ of a Ad.rig the ~o~ development ~o without making significant changes ~garding these mrna would ~ a p~r d~ision for the futu~ of Iowa City. 1 encourage you to consider these ~actors a~d discuss (hese issues 'fxtRhor with the ~nd ~velopment Council, Iowa CiW A~a Assnc, lation of REgLTO'RS~ and Grc~te~ Iowa CiW ~oa Home BuiI'dbrs Ass~i~ voting on the propo~ 206 Main Street P.O. Box 38 2721 120th St. NE Suite C Solon, Iowa 52333 www, corridorconnection.com Swisher, Iowa 52338 319-624-9123 fax: 319-624-9120 319-857-9123 fax: 319-857-9126 Cedar Rapids I0wa City Corridor Connection ,., Realty Iowa City Council Mexnbers ~ -< u. Iowa City, IA 52240 - ~ Iowa Ci~ Council Mem~: ~ i am ~g to y~ ~ a mem~r of ~e Iowa Ciw Area A~iation of REALTORS&. I am ~~ a~t a num~ ofpmvisio~ in the pm~ development c~e ~at the City is c~sidcfing ~ ~ ~ve ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. T~ Ci~ og Iowa CiW ~uM n~ ~ d~i~ ~~ on ~idcntial cons~uction. ~ ~ of~ ~M ~ ~ ~~'s ~isi~, n~ ~d by the CiW. ThcCiW ~d~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k~ ~ing ~b~. Ci~ ~a ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of fll~ys. It is ~air to ~ ~ of~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ md ~int~n all~ys - N~~~~~~~. A~of~e~ ~ ~cl H ~i~ve A~ ~ould n~ ~qui~ ~ ufa Pl~ ~vel~ent ~do~ing the pro~d development ~ without making significant chan~s r~rdin~ ~Re~ ~ould ~ a ~r d~islon for the future of Iowa City. Ienc, oura~ you to consider ~-~cto~s oho ~['~u~ th~sc i~so~s fi~h~r wi~h the [,,~nd ~vefopmcnt Council Iowa Ci~ A~oci~tk~n oC RF,~ LTOR~ an~ Cr~s.~t~r Iow~ Ci~ Ar~a Home ~u,il~er~ Associ~ votin~ on the propo~d 206 Main Street EO. Box 38 2721 120th St. NE Suite C Solon, Iowa 52333 ~.corridorconnection,com Swisher, Iowa 52338 319-624-9123 f=: 319-624-9120 319-857-9123 f=: 319-857-9126 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Corridor Connection Realty Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Strut ~ ~~"~ ~-T~ Iowa City, IA 52240 --~ O oq i ..... Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTOR~. " I am concerned about a number of provisions in the propos~! development code that the Cites considering adopting'and have outlirmd my primar~ · Tho City of iowa City should not impos~ design standards on residential construction. Tim design ofhom~s shoukl b~ th~ ~msum~r's d~ision, not mandated by the City. ·The City should ~ i~mm~ i~ ~lhs i~ ~sid~li~ m~s~ ~s I~al~l by lh~ ~.w cod~. in~ lot w~bi~s incn:~scs ~ c~t~ fro- thc ~ wi~ch Tl~ proposed cod~ oamains a "density bonus", l~ it is not a significant bonus when City should assume the long team maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to bmden residems ofthe~ nm~ sulxlivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys already usc ..~ghbod~od meetings and am able to respoml directly lo neighbor's e L~vel H Sensitive Areas should not require use cfa Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refuad Open Space fees to tl~ resid~n~s cfa subdivision if the fees are r,~ used within a reasoaab~ Adopting the proposed development c~le without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage, you to consider those ~c~ors ,:u~.d. d~g,3~.~ss these issues 15.'~rt'her with the Land Development Counci:~, Iowa City Area As~nciation of''Rl-.:,A L'FORS~ and G~e'ater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associ~tiofl before voting on the, proposed 206 Main Street P.O. Box 38 2721 120th St. NE Suite C Solon, Iowa 52333 www. corridorconnection.com Swisher, Iowa 52338 319-624-9123 fax: 319-624-91:.20: 315-857-9123 fax: 319-857-9126 Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ m - ,. 410 E: Washington Street --~ C3 .<r ,r-Fi Iowa City, IA 52240 rrn "~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or9 Iowa Ci~, ~ 52~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~-~ -< ~ ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ c,n ! ..... Iowa City, iA 52240 .-< r--- ~ Iowa City Council Members: .~ 7~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. ~ Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhOod meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area AssOciation of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on .the proposed code. Signature~ ,~-: Il fi~l~ldd ~t/c~r,~,J 458 Highway 1 West 3~9-$38-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa Cit~, IA 52246 $19-$$8-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 LEPIC KROEGER REALTORS® 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd. · Iowa City, IA 52246 · (319) 351-881 ~-' Iowa ~City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ' rr~ --o Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature Sep 14 OS 09: OSa Westminds Real Estate 319 24B 374? p. 1 , ' - -Iowa City Area Association of RF ALTORS® Iowa City Council Members -- r~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ 'x~ -F'] Iowa City, lA 52240 ""n ,-~-, ol ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~ ~ [~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~> ~ I am concemed about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City Should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City. should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa Citzj, IA 52246 319-338-6957.fax' web site: icaar.orq Sep 14 05 09: OSa Westwinds Real Estate 319 248 3747 p. ~ - Iowa City Area Association of R F.A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members -~'~O ~ 410 E. Washington Street 'x~ ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ ''<: ~ Iowa City Council Members: 'J © ~ r-" i am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® " I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Citv isc:> considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ~ · The Ci~ of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the COst to consumers. ' · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards, The density needs to be increased to cover the costs &the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one &the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior Jots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level I1 Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. //S igna/ture *  ' 438 ttighwa~l ~ West $~9-$38~646o phone e-mail: icaar~,icaar..~r!/ REALTOR..~~ IOl. J~a Citzot, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax ~ueb site: icaar.orr.? 09/13/2005 10:06 FAX 3193967664 CEDARRAPIDS ~ I¢ ~002/002 N 5741 C Street SW ' Suite C ' Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 ' Phone: (319) 841-2155 Fax: ~ · (31 215 .~. Iowa City Council Members " 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about'a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infi'astructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increase~ the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should a'ssume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders AssoCiation before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~/~/~ I ~> SEP-08-2005 14:54 LEPIC KROEGER REALTORS 3193518035 P.Oi×B1 -- --"--Iowa City Area Association of R EA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ' ~ -o nfl 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ~; " Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. i am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. * The City o£Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's dec/sion, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in msidgntial zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases th~ cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when comparexl to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the d~veloper to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which z~ro-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of thc most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-g zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhtod me~ngs should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if thc fecs are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. 438 Highway I West 319-358-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-358-6957 fax web site: icaar, org REALTOIq~ TOTAL P.8i FILED 005 SEP 15 PM 2:08 CiTY IOWA CI't , IOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS(ID as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus', but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in Certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thank You, RE/MAX Premier Properties /~~ Licensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa/~~ Premier Properties ,~'~ 1006 5th Street ffice: (319) 354-8644 Iowa City Area A sociation orr EA L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 3:; ~ r~ 410 E. Washington Street C) -< ~-° ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 c~ I-- Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~ __'~' I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 H~Thway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr EA L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ '-< IowaCity, IA 52240 --.__<,1,c¢~ t.n I' .. Iowa City Council Members: ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS:8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway I 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org West Iowa City~ IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR*~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members © _<~'x~ ~'T] 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ c.n ['"" Iowa City, IA 52240 --< Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. ·If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to · burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable' period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature r 438 Highway 1 3~9-338-646o phone icaar@icaar.org West e-mail; Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R EA L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members , -o 'TI 410 E. Washington Street C3 ''< -- - Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ r- ~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~ ,~. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~o I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. . · The proposed code contains a ~'density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. * The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair Of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automaticallY refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future &Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature lJ .A [ t'-hCcro I I r 438 Highway i West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F, A LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~.~ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 © _<__"rJ "T'I Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.~-~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that t~City considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot.widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings shouldbe optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signat'ure" - T 438 Highway I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iou a Cit j _Area Association orr F, AL TORS Iowa City Council Members --~ 410 E. Washington Street --< r-- Iowa City, IA 52240 ~,~, ::~ ~r~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. T 455 Highu~ag 1 West $19-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iou~a CiO, IA 52246 $19-338-6957 fax toeb site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa Cittd Area Association of R F,A LTOP. S® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature - ~10,~0~ ~ ~r~e~~---4~ [T 438 Highway I West $19-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 $19-$$8-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ ~' ""-"v -.--."T'/ 410 E. Washington Street --<, r-- Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: c~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is' not a significant bonus when compared to the Current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. r 438 Highwag West 31p-338-6z~6o e-mail: icaar@ieaar.org phone Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association o f R F, AL TORS® Iowa City Council Members CD -c--."° ~-]-] 410 E. Washington Street .~ ? crt ?-' Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: ~,~ .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City~ · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is nOt a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · lfthe City is going to require develOpers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway I 319-338-646o phone West e-mail; icaar@icaar.org IOwa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ' Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concernedabout a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concems below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keeP housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. r 438 Highway ~ West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa ~, ~ 52246 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTO~® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: -~ cz> I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future oflowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 5e246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R F,A LTORS Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street r'r't Iowa City, IA 52240 /,, Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consUmer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which - increases the cost to consumers. '· The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS~8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to reSpond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  1438 Highwag I West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members C3 410 E. Washington Street ~ -..-° ~._....~ Iowa City, IA 52240 --~ C) eon Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®.? I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · lfthe City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level Il Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the prOposed code. Signature ~f'l ~_.. ~-t~f_~ bO t  Highway I 319-338-646o phone icaar@icaar.org 438 West e-mail: Iowa City, IA 5ee46 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr EA L TORS ® Iowa City Council Members ~ C'~- ran 410 E. Washington Street -~,, r~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ z~ Iowa City Council Members: ~ ~" I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the-costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signat~- - [ - ]  438 H~ihway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org IOwa City, IA 52246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org FIEAI_TOF1® Iowa City Area Association orr EA LTOtLS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 C).. Iowa City Council Members: ~< '~ [']-] I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code thatffhe City~ considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · lfthe City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. B 438 Highway ~' West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa Cit'd Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members _~ rn 410 E. Washington Street ~-- ~"~ ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~r'-- © eon ~--"- Iowa City Council Members: .~ .~x ~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~o I am concemed about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus'', but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduceS the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code /~ Signature , CqJt~  438 Highway ~ 319-338-646o phone icaar@icaar.org West e-mail: Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fox web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R EA LTORS Iowa City Council Members --~ 410 E. Washington Street - "~ -o ['~ Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when comPared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requir6ments and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 Highway 1 West e-mail: icaar@icaar.org 319-338-646o phone Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~~-° -'l'l_. Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ C) cy~ ["- Iowa City Council Members: -- I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. ~ I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is~° considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues furtherwith the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Sign~t~r~- /~/ I B 438 Highway 1 West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area A sociation of RF, ALTORS® IL _D t1 15 S_FP i 5 08 Iowa City Council Members CITY CLERK 410 E. Washington Street 10WA CI]h'7 IOWA Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. · The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents &these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use cfa Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code; I 4:?,8 Highwa~t I West $~9-358-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa Cit!1, IA 52246 $~9-$$8-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® FILED Z005 SEP 1 5 2:08 CI-P( Ct. ERK 'TY IOWA CI,, IOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thank You, . RE/M/~' 15remie~ro~)~r~ies Licensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa ~,,_~ ~ ~ I ~ ,j '1 ,~ Premier Properties '~j~ Li~ ~,,.0,,,..I O ~J 1006 5m Street ~ Coralville, Iowa 52241 FILED SEP ! 5 PH 2.: 08 'L RK IOWA CFY, lOWk August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am wdting to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of RF_ALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. >. Level FI Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Florae Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thank You, RE/MAX Premier Properties Licensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa Premier Properties 1006 $~ Street ¢ Coralville, Iowa $224t .... t Office: ($'19) $54-8644 FILED Zl]O$ SEP ! 5 2:08 OITY CLERK IOWA C!T¥; tOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thank You, ~ ,,, RE/MAX Prem,e, Properties Dc ~.~.r') ri 116r- Licensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa Premier Properties 1006 sth Street ~ i~oralville, Iowa 52241 ffice: (319) 354-8644 FILED CITY ,LER iOWA IOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thaak You, RE/MAX Premier Properties '"" Licensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa Premier Properties 1006 50, Street  Coralville, Iowa 52241 ~ ~lr~.,~.~l.,Office: (319)354-8644 FILED SE? 15 2:08 CITY CLERK · IOWA CITY, iOWA August 30, 2005 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as proposed by this new code. Increasing the width of residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impose design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in our marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This move would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market today. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but this so called "bonus" is very minimal when compared to the current code. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cost of these new requirements so that housing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. i EIMAXr, ,e~, r~)p~rtie s ~.-'~ (' ~.~./ ~/J censed t~Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa Premier Properties 1006 $~ Street [ Coralville, Iowa 52241 ~ Office: (319) 354-8644 LEPIC-KROEGER, REALTORS® 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd. · Iowa City, IA 52246 · (319) 351-8811 t"~-" '-'on ~-'- Iowa City Council Members ~ :~: ~ 410 E. Washington Street .~. Iowa City, IA 52240 >. ~ Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the deYelopers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature Sep 15 2005 ll:OBRM SELLERS&SEEKERS 31~33~8~0~ p. 1 Awnu¢ Iowa City, IA eeke ~al ~tate Com~ny 4:10 E. W~~ S~ l~a Ci~, ~ 52240 lown C~.C~ e~id~ n8~ti~ ~ ~ out~ ~ p~ ~n~ b~ow. ~ Cay ~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~ de~ ~--~ ~ ~~ ~ pr~ ~e ~ a "~ ~', ~t it ~ not ~ si~ b~ n~ use ~~ ~.j,~ ~ ~ nb~ ~ ~ d~fly to * ~1 H $~w ~s ~.~t ~ use ~ a P~ D~el~t ~er~y. ~s ~ dis~ ~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D~lop~ Co~il, Iown C~ ~$~t~ of ~TORS~ ~d G~ ~wn Ci~ ~ Hom~ B~d~ ~s~l~on ~for~ Iowa Ar a Association of REALTOI [ -E ) 1]05 SEP 15 2:08 Iowa Ci~ Council Members OtTY CLERK 410 E. Washin¢on S~eet IOWA IOWA Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Iowa CiW Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa CiW Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the CiW is considering adopting ~d have outlined my prim~ concems below. The CiW of Iowa CiW should not impose design stand,ds on residential cons~uction. The desi~ of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the CiW. The CiW should not incm~e lot widths in residential zones, ~ propo~d by ~e new code. Incre~ing lot widths incr~es in~cmre costs for the develo~m, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when comp~ed to ~e cu~nt c~e. In addition, ~e densiW bonus increa~s the cost of housing by ~quifing the develo~r to comply wi~ desi~ stand,ds. ~e densiW needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements ~d keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes c~ be built, which limits our communiW's abiliW to provide one of ~e most affor~ble ~s of dwellings. ~e CiW should ~it zero-lot line homes m be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose' desi~ standards on those homes. If the CiW is going to require developem to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the CiW should assume ~e long tern mainminance ~d repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residen~ of these new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair and maintain alleys that a~ ~uired to ~ cons~cted by the CiW. Neighborhood meetings should ~ optional, not mandatow. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d are able m respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessiW of the mandatow meethgs and repoaing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The CiW should autommically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development c~e without making si~ificant ch~ges ~garding these maEers would ~ a p~r decision for the future of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider these factom and discuss these issues hdher with the L~d Development Council, Iowa CiW Area Association of ~ALTORS¢ and Greater Iowa CiW Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature ~1~~ ~ - ~  438 Highway i West 3~9-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa Ci~, ~ 52246 319-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of R EALTORS ® 200 SEP ! 5 Pl'f 08 410 E. Washin~on S~eet UWA L,J~ IOWA Iowa CiW, IA 52240 Iowa Ci~ Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Associmion of REALTORS~. I am concerned a~ut a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ is considering adopting ~d have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose desi~ standards on residential cons~uction. The desi~ of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. · The Ci~ should not increase lm wides in residential zones, ~ propo~d by the new code. Incre~ing im wides increases in~cmre co~s for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · ~e proposed code contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a signific~t bonus when ' comped to ~e cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, the densi~ bonus inc~ases the cost of housing by ~quifing the developer to comply wi~ desi~ s~d~ds. The densiW needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requiremen~ and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our communiW's abili~ to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lin line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require develope~ to cons~uct alleys in ce~ain developments, the Ci~ should assume ~e long te~ mainminance ~d repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residen~ of these new subdivisions wi~ the cost to repair ~d maimain alleys thru a~ ~qui~d to ~ cons~cted by the Ci~. Neighborhood meetings should ~ optional, nm m~dato~. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings ~d ~e able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandmo~ meetings and reposing obligations imposed by the propo~d code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should nm require use of a Planned Developmem Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residems cfa subdivision if the fees ~e nm used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development e~e without making si~ificant ch~ges ~garding these ma~ers would ~ a poor d~ision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues ~her with the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~ and Gremer Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before vming on the proposed code. 'Signature ,~..,'Z/.-~_... '~ ...._.., - ' ~T~ West ~1- ~ ~ ~ r -  438 Highway ~ 3~9-338-646o phone mail: icaar~icaar.org Iowa Ci~, ~ 52246 319-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.org ~EALTO~~ Iowa City Area Association of REALTO LED Iowa City Council Members CITY CLERK 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 IOWA uITY, IOWA Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus When compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiting the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new suMivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level I] Sensitive Areas should nOt require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mad: icaar@icaar.org Iowa Cit!l, IA $2£46 3~9-$$8-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS ?Ot 5 $.[p 15 2:08 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street IOWA O/Tv]., IOWA Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concemed about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature -~=~ /-} a[ /'} r-}~_ l 438 Highway I West 329-338-6460 phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 329-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR~ Iowa City Area Association of REA 200,5 SEP 15 PI"I 2:: 0 Iowa City Council Members 0t " '1'' , LEhK 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 IOWA CIT , IOWA Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bOnus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature~ ~~~ B 438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTORc'', Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ 410 E. Washington Street C') Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ ?) em ~" IoWa City Council Members: ?~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types &dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Slgnat  438 Highway I West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaas@icaar.org Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® Iowa City Council Members C) ''< ~ ~, 410 E. Washin~on S~eet Iowa CiW, IA 52240 Iowa CiW Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa Ci~ Area Association of REALTORS~. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the Ci~ is considering adopting and have outlined my prima~ concerns below. The Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ should not impose design standards on residential cons~uction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the Ci~. The Ci~ should not incre~ lot wides in residential zones, ~ pro~sed by the new code. Incre~ing lot wides incre~es in~stmc~re costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed c~e contains a "densi~ bonus", but it is not a si~ificant bonus when compared to the cu~ent c~e. ~ addition, the densi~ bonus increases ~e cost of housing by requi~g ~e developer to comply with desi~ smdards. ~e densi~ needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be buil~ which limits o~ communi~'s abili~ to provide one of~e most affordable ~es of dwellings. ~e Ci~ should pe~it zero-lot line homes to ~ built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose desi~ standards on those homes. If the Ci~ is going to require developem to cons~uct alleys in ce~in developments, the Ci~ should ~sume the long tern ma~in~ce and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that ~ ~quired to be cons~cted by the Ci~. Neigh~rhood meetings should ~ optional, not man~to~. A numar of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessi~ of the mandato~ meet~gs and reposing obligations imposed by the propo~d code. · Level II Sensitive Are~ should not require use ofa Pia~ed Development Overlay. The Ci~ should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a re~onable period of time. Adopting the propo~d development c~e without making si~ificant ch~ges ~g~ding the~ ma~ers would be a p~r decision for the future of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues h~her wi~ the Land Development Council, Iowa Ci~ Area Association of ~ALTORS~ and Greater Iowa Ci~ Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. 488 Highwa~ ~ West 8~9-888-646o phone e-mail: icaar~icaar.or9 Ioma Ci~, ~ 52246 8~9-888-6957 f~ meb site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association o f REAL TORS, ID ZOO5 SiP 15 PH 2:07 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street C[TXf CLERK Iowa City, IA 52240 [OW,~ CITY, iOWA Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code cOntains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future oflowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signatur~--wv - ,  438 Highwa~ West e-maih icaar~icaar.org I 319-338-646o phone Iowa ~, ~ 52~46 3~9-338-6957 f~ web site: icaar.or9 gEALTOg® ~ 2"d Street, Ste. 200 Coralville, IA 52241 ~-~0 ~/[ FILED (319) 354-0581 Office (319) 354-6432 Fax ~.iowarealty.com C1W 410 ~. Was~on Strut Iowa Ci~, ~ 52240 Iowa CiW Council Members: I ~ ~it~g to you as a member of~e Iowa Ci~ ~ Association of ~TORS~. I am Conc~ about a number of provisions ~ the.pro~ developm~t c~e that the CiW is consider~g adopt~g and have outl~ my pr~a~ c~ms below. ~e cie'of Iowa Ci~ ~h0Uld not ~ d~i~ st~rds on residentia!~ns~ction. The d~i~ of hOm~'s~uld ~ ~e ~n~m~'s d~isio~ not m~t~ by ~e CiW. The Ci~ should n~ ~cr~.lot wides ~ r~id~tial ~nes, as propos~ by ~e new c~e. ~cr~s~g lot wi~ ~cr~es ~as~cmre costs for ~e develo~rs, which ~cr~ ~e ~st to co~umers. * Thepropos~ c~e conm~ a "d~si~ ~us", but it is ~t a sight ~us wh~ ~mpar~ to ~e ¢~t-~e. ,.In additio~ ~e d~i~ bonus ~cr~ ~e ~tof hous~g by r~u~g ~ed~eloper to ~mply wi~ d~i~ ~d~. The d~si~ n~s to ~ ~6r~s~ t0 ~v~-~e ~s~ of the r~uk~ts ~d k~ hous~g affordable. The propos~ c~e'&~ti~lly r~uc~'~e ~ ~ which zer~lot l~e hom~ ~ be built, ~ch l'~itS' ~r ~uni~'s :abili~ m p~vi& one of~e most affordable ofdwell~. ~e Ci~ ~ould ~k ~,lot l~e hom~ to ~ bulk on ~terior lots RS-8 zon~ and'should n~ ~se d~i~ s~n~ ~ ~ose hom~. CiW shoed ~e ~e long te~,~~ ~d repot of ~eys. - burd~ resi~n~ of ~e~ n~ sub~sio~ ~ ~e ~ to repair ~d ~at are r~uk~ m ~ ~ct~ by ~ Ci~. . -Nei~borh~ m~gs should be optional not ~ndato~. A n~b~ of'developers ak~dy use nei~borh~ m~t~gs ~d are able m r~pond d~tly to ~i~r's concerns without ~e n~si~ of ~e man~t0~ m~t~ and r~a~g obli~tio~ ~posed by the propos~ c~e. : . Level H Se~itive ~s should not r~uke use of a Pl~ Development Ov~lay.~ * The CiW should automati~lly re,nd O~ Spa~ f~ to the r~idents of a subdivision if the f~ are not us~ wi~ a r~onable ~ri~ of t~e.. Adopt~g the pro~s~ developmenf'c~e.~thout ma~g si~ficant c~nges regard~g these roarers w~ld be a p~r d~ision ~or the-~mre0flowa CiW, I enco~ge you m co~ider ~e · factors ~d discuss th~ issu~ ~ah~.with'the Land ~velopment Council, Iowa C~ Ass~iation of ~TORS~ and'Gr~r Io~ CiW ~ Home Builders Ass~iation before vot~g on the propos~ ~e. Lepic-Kroeger, REALTORS® 2346 Mormon Trek Blvd · Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 319.351.8811 ~ 1.800.736.6556 ~ Fax: 319.351.8035 www.lkrinfo.com Iowa City Council Members ~2)~C)~ ~ "Y'l 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ;.~ © c.n [-'" Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®~ .-..d I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City ~s considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ignatUre - ~/ ~ / - --! - ~. - Tomlinson Cannon "Since 1948" G~nenfl Office. 708 E. 2nd Avenue Co~ville, IA 52241 (319) 337-2225 September 8, 2005 FAX (319) 337-3959 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Council Members 2351 Blahs Ferry Rd #4 410 E. Washington Street Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 362-1747 FAX (319) 378-1622 Iowa City Council Members: Waterloo/Cedar Fails (319) 234-1223 I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is Call Toll Free considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. (80o) 5684265 · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. Seamless · The City should not increase lot xvidths in residential zones, as proposed by the new Aluminum Outt~.~ code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which Basement Wall increases the cost to consumers. Straightening · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of Basement housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs Waterproofing to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. Mudjaehng · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of Fom~ation dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- Footing Repair 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. Concrete Sawing · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the & Core Drillh~g City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. C) · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision "~ if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. ~--~ CD o~ ,F"-' Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City, I encourage you to consider these ~,~ .7. factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, lo~va City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association betbre voting on the proposed code. Signature [¥1.; ~ ~ AJfiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Buihlers Association of Iowa Tomlinson Cannon "Since 1948" General Office 708 E. 2nd Avenue Comlville, IA 52241 (319) 337-2225 September 8, 2005 FAX (319)33%3959 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Council Members 2351 Blairs Ferry Rd #4 410 E. Washington Street Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 362-1747 FAX (319) 378-1622 Iowa City Council Members: Waterloo/Cedar Falls (319) 234-1223 I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is C~ql Toll Fre~ considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. (800) 5684265 · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. Seamless · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new Aluminum Gutters code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which Basement Wall increases the cost to consumers. Stmighmning · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of lrk~semem housing by requiring the developer to comply w/th design standards. The density needs Waterproofin~ to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. Mudjacking · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of Foundation dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- Footing Repair 8 zones and should not impose design standm'ds on those homes. Concrete Sawing · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the & Core Drilling. City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. ~ · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision 0~ ~" if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. ~, m C)-' -- r-~- Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these -- cr~ matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these ~ (9 factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area ~ 2D z~: ~ Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before ~~' -- voting on the p osed code. ~ co Signature ~/' ~ ~H__ T6~ iq ti .~ ~ AJfiliated with National Association of ltome BuiMers & florae BuiMers Association oj lowa Tomlinson Cannon "Since ] 948" General Office 708 E. 2nd Avenue Coralville, IA 52241 (319) 337-2225 September 8, 2005 FAX (319)337-3959 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Council Members 2351 Blairs Ferry Rd #4 410 E. Washington Street Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Iowa CID', IA 52240 (319) 362-1747 FAX (319) 378-1622 Iowa City Council Members: Waterloo/Cedar Falls (319) 234-1223 I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is Call Toll Free considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. (800) 5684265 · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. Seamless · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new Almninum Gutters code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which Base~lxent Wall increases the cost to consumers. Straightening · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of Base~nent housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs Waterproofing to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. Muc~ac, king · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of Foandation dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- Footing Repair 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. Concrete Sawing · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the & Core Drillhlg City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these ,--< r-- matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voti,~,g~on the proposed code. A.[filialed with National Associalion q£ Hom¢ Builder~ & Home Builde~x A.~xociation o. f lowa Tomlinson Cannon "Since 1948" General Office 708 E. 2nd Avenue Coralville, IA 52241 (319) 337-2225 September 8, 2005 FAX (319)33%3959 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Council Members 2351 Blairs Ferry Rd #4 410 E. Washington Street Cedar Rapids.. IA 52402 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 362-1747 FAX (319) 378-1622 Iowa City Council Members: Waterloo/Cedar Falls (319) 234-1223 I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is Call Toll Free considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. (800) 568-4265 · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. Seamless * The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new Aluminum Gutters code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which Bae~ment Wall increases the cost to consumers. Straightening · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of Basement housing by requiring the developer to comply wfth design standards. The~density needs Waterproofing to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. Mudjacking · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of Foundation dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- Footing Repair 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. Con~ Sawin~ · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the & Core Drilling City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdix4sions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that arc required to be constructed by the CID'. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these CD matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area '~ ~n. :~:g: I-Fl Association of REALTORS® and ~reater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before vo o o d ode /× Signature a bt,_.~ £eL{ j(~C{~V Ajfiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa Tomlinson Cannon "Since 194g~' Gener~ Office 708 E. 2nd Avenue Comlville, IA 52241 (319) 337-2225 September 8, 2005 FAX (319) 337-3959 Cedar Rapids Iowa City Council Members 2351 Blairs Fen3' Rd//4 410 E. Washington Street Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 362-1747 FAX (319) 378-1622 Iowa City Council Members: Waterloo/Cedar Falls (319) 234-1223 I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is Call Toll FI~ considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. (8oo) 5684265 · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. Seamless · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new Alumimnn Gutters code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which Basement Wall increases the cost to consumers. Straightening · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of Basement housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs Waterproofm~ to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements m~d keep housing aftbrdable. Mtdjacking · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to pro,~4de one of the most affordable types of Foundation dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- Footing Repair 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. Concrete Sawing · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the & Core Drilling City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional~ not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond &rectly to nme,hbor s concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS~, and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before votin~~osed code.~""~~/~ ~~ ~ ::~: Affiliated with National Associat~on of Home Builders & Home Buihlers Association of lowa Iowa City Council Members --~ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240. Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The Proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainanee and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required td be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. · A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and repotting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents ora subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future oflowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. CLERK co..al IOWA CiT IOWA 4 ]0 ~. W~ki~¢o~ Sheet iowa Ci~, ~ 52240 ~o~ Ci~ Co..oil M~ab~rs: Chuck Bogh Sales Associate I am wfit~g to you ~ a mcm~r of thc Iowa Ci~ ~a Ass~iation of ~TORS~. I am con~med about a nmber of provisions in the pro~sed development e~e ~at ~e Ci~ is considering adopting ~d have outlined my pr~ concerns below. ~e CiW of Iowa CiW should not ~ desi~ sm~& on r~identifl con~ction. ~e desi~ of homes should ~ ~e consumer's decision, not m~dated by ~e CiW. ~e CiW should not ine~e lot wides h residential ~nes, ~ proposed by ~e new c~e. here~hg lot wides incre~es ~e~re eoas for ~e &velo~n, which he~s ~e eo~ to ~nsumen. The pro~sed e~e con,ins a "&nsiW ~nus", but it is not a si~ifieant ~nus when compared to ~e eu~ent c~e. h addition, the densiW ~nus hereams ~e cost of houshg by requ~ng ~e develo~r to comply wi~ &si~ smd~ds. ~e densiW needs to ~ hc~med to cover ~e eos~ of~e r~ukemen~ ~d k~p houshg affordable. The pro~sed e~e d~ti~lly reduces ~e ~ in w~eh ~ro-lot lhe homes can buil~ which limi~ o~ co~uniW's abiliW to provide one of~e most affordable ~s of dwellings. ~e CiW should ~it zero-lot l~e homes to be built on interior lots RS-8 zones ~d should not ~se desi~ smd~& on ~o~ homes. If~e Ci~ is gohg to requke develo~ to cons~et alleys h ~ development, ~e CiW should ~sme the long te~ main~ee and repair of alleys. It is uffak to burden resi&n~ of these new suMivisions wi~ the cost to repak ~d mainta~ alleys ~m ~ ~quked to ~ cons~ct~ by ~e CiW. Nei~rh~ meethgs should ~'optional, not m~dato~. A number of developen already um nei~&~ m~th~ ~d ~ able to ~s~nd d~tly to nei~r's con,ms without ~e neeessi~ of~e mandato~ meethgs ~d re~a~g obligations ~posed by ~e proposed code. * ' ~vel ~ Sensitive ~e~ should not require use of a Pl~ed Development ~erlay. The CiW should automatically rehnd Open Spa~ fees to ~e ~siden~ of a subdivision if~e fees ~e not used wi~in a re~onable ~fi~ oft~e. Adopthg ~e propos~ development c~e wi~out mak~g si~ific~t changes reg~dhg these ma~ers would ~ a ~r decision for the hmre of Iowa CiW. I encourage you to consider ~ese faeton ~d discuss ~ese issues f~er wi~ ~e L~d ~velopment Council, Iowa Ci~ ~a Ass~iafion of ~TORS~ ~d G~er Iowa Ci~ Mca Home Buil&~ Ass~iation ~fore voting~~~ :od~ ~ffiliates 245~ Coral Ct., Suite ~ Cora[ville, I~ $224~ Si~amm C/~ ~ ~ Office: {~ ..... Cell: {3~0} 430-82~7 ........... cbo~h~mchsi.com Each office independentl~ owned and operated Cedar Rapids ~ Iowa City Corridor Connection Realty NO$SEP OITY C,d:RK n,w IOWA of~~ ~ C~ ~d ~t ~ Ci~ ~~ ~ 1~ t~ ~~ ~ ~ of ~lcys. It is ~air to ~ ~~ of~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~t~ alleys * N~~ ~ ~M ~ ~ ~ ~. A n~ of~c~ a~ ~ ~i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ d~ to ~'s ~c Ci~ s~ a~~ ref~d ~ ~ f~ to ffthc fc~ ~ ~ ~ withb a r~ ~ Adoring the pro~ development ~e without making significant changes regarding these m~em w~ld ~ a ~r d~ision for the futu~ of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these '[~ctors a,d d[~uss ~hese issues fi~her wi!h ~hc Land ~velopment Council, Iowa Ci~ ~ca Association of REAL;i'ORS~ and Greater Iowa City ~ea Itomc Btfilders Associ~i~ voting on the propose' c~e, 206 Main Street EO. Box 38 2721 120th St. NE Suite Solon, Iowa 52333 ~.corridorconnection.com Swisher, Iowa 52338 FILED Ed Humpl¢lo¥ SEP i k, I I ~~ Premier Proteins 1006 5~ Street CLERK September 13, 2005 Coralville, ~ 52241 IOWA IOWA Iowa CiW Co~cfl M~b~s 410 E. W~on S~eet Iowa CiW, IA 52240 Iowa Ci~ Co~efl Mem~rs: I ~ ~g to you ~ a memb~ of~e Iowa CiW ~ea Association of ~TORS~. I ~ ~neem~ about a n~b~ ofpro~sions ~ ~e propo~ development code ~at ~e CiW is eonsid~g adop~g ~d I have ouflin~ my p~ ~ncems bdow. ~e Ci~ of Iowa CiW should not ~po~ desi~ st~d~ds on residenfifl ~ns~ion. ~e design of homes sho~d be ~e ~er's decisio~ not m~dat~ by ~e CiW. ~e CiW sho~d not ~ere~e lot ~d~s ~ residenfifl zones, ~ proposed by ~e new ~de. ~cre~g lot wid~ ~ere~s ~a~e ~sts for ~e devdopers, w~ch ~es ~e cost to cons~s. ~e pro~ ~e ~nt~s a "densiW bonus", but it is not a si~fic~t bonus when ~mp~ to ~e c~ent ~de. ~ M~fio~ ~e densiW bonus ~e~es ~e cost of hous~g by r~u~ng ~e devdop~ to comply ~ desi~ st~d~ds. ~e denfiW n~s to ~ ~e~ to eov~ ~e cos~ of~e r~~ts ~d k~p hous~g ~ord~le. ~e propo~ ~e ~ficflly r~uces ~e me~ ~ w~ch z~o-lot l~e homes c~ be builL w~eh l~ts o~ ~~W's ~i~W to pro.de one of~e most after.lc ~es of dwellings. ~e CiW should p~t z~o-lot l~e homes to be built on ~tefior lo~ ~ ~-8 zones ~d sho~d not ~po~ desi~ st~d~ds on ~ose homes. If~e CiW is gong to r~e develops to ~ct ~s ~ c~ developments, ~e CiW should ~s~e ~e long-t~ m~ten~ee ~d rep~ of ~ose ~eys. It is ~ to b~den residen~ of ~e~ new ~bdi~sio~ ~ ~e ~st to rep~ ~d ~~g ~eys · m ~e req~ to be ~ns~cted by ~e CiW. Nei~borh~d m~gs shodd be opfion~ not ~dato~. A n~ber of developers ~eady use neighborhood m~gs ~d ~e able to respond d~e~ly to nei~bor's concerns ~out ~e necessiW of ~e m~dato~ m~t~gs ~d repo~g ob~gafions ~pos~ by ~e propos~ ~de. · Level II Sensitive ~e~ sho~d not req~re use cfa Plied Development Ov~l~. ~e CiW sho~d automati~y re~d ~ Space fees to ~e residents of a sub~sion if~e fees ~e not used ~t~n a re.enable p~od of~e. Adopt~g ~e proposed development ~de ~out m~g sig~fie~t ch~ges reg~d~g ~ese ma~ers would be a p~r a d~ision for ~e ~e of Iowa CiW. I enco~age you to ~nsid~ ~eso factors ~d discuss ~ese issues ~er M~ ~e ~d Development Co. oil, Iowa Ci~ Mca As~eiation of~TORS~ ~d ~eater Iowa CiW ~ea Home B~ders Association before vo~g on ~e proposed ~de. Respect~lly Sub~ Ed Hmpleby, Re~tor FILED 2005 SEP !I1:52 CITY' CLERK Iowa City Council Members IOWA IOWA 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa city should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In additiOn, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiting the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. LEPIC'KR. OEGER, REALT?RS® 2346 Moron Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) IOWA Iowa CiW Council Members 410 E. W~hin~on S~eet Iowa Ci~, ~ 52240 Iowa Ci~ Council Members: I am writhg to you ~ a member of ~e Iowa CiW ~ea Ass~iation of ~ALTORS~. I am concerned about a numar of provisions in the proposed development c~e ~at ~e Ci~ is considering adopting ~d have outlined my prim~ concerns ~low. ~e CiW of Iowa CiW should not im~se desi~ stand,ds on residential cons~ction. ~e desi~ of homes should be ~e consumer's d~ision, not m~dated by the CiW. ~e CiW should not inc~e lot widths in residential ~nes, ~ pro~sed by the new c~e. hcre~ing lot wides incre~es ~a~mcmre cos~ for the developers, which inc~es the cost to consmers. · The proposed c~e contains a "densiW bonus", but it is not a si~ific~t bonus when "~:~ ~-.. comp~ed to ~e cu~ent c~e. h addition, ~e densi~ ~nus incre~es the cost of hoUShg by r~uifihg ~e deVelopS't0 comply with desi~ st~d~ds. The densiW needs to ~ incre~ed to cover the costs of the requkemen~ ~d keep housing affor~ble. · The proposed c~e d~timlly reduces ~e are~ in which zero-lot line homes can be buil~ which l~its our communiW's abili~ to provide one of~e most affor~ble ~s : ':' 'of~dwellings: ~e CiW should ~mit ~ro-lot line homes to ~ built on interior 1o~ in ' ~-8 runes '~d:should not im~se desi.~: smndar~ on ~9se homes.. ........ :,~ . If ~e"CiW, is gohg to r~uke developem~to co~ct, alleys hce~in~,de~elOpments, ~e CiW' should ~sme.~e long te~ma~h~ce.~d repair of alleys. It is ,unfak to~' burden residen~ or,ese'new suMivisions wi~ ~e cost to repak ~d maintain alleys that ~e requked to ~ cons~cted by ~e Ci~. Nei~rh~ meetings should be~optional,.not m~dmo~. A n~ber of developers al~ady use nei~bo~d meetings ~d ~e able to res~nd dk~tly to neigh~r's concerns wi~out ~e necessiW of the m~dato~ meethgs ~d re~ing obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive ~e~ should not require use of a Planned'Development Overlay~ ~e Ci~ should automatically rehnd Open Space fees'to the residen~ ofasubdivision if~e fees are not usedwithin a reasonable~riod oft~e. Adopthg' the pro~sed-development c~e :without. making si~ific~t ch~ges regardhg these ma~ers would ~ a p~r decision for the ~mre ~of Iowa Ci~. I encourage you to consider these hcto~ and discuss these issues :~er wi~ Ihe Land Development Council,. Iowa CiW, Arm Ass~iation of ~TORS~ and Greater Iowa CiW:~ea~Home:Builders. Associmion ~fore voting on the proposed code: ~-, ...... - Si~a~re FILED William Rose RE/MAX Premier Properties ~[}[}~ SIP 114 t~]q Il: 5 ~ PREMIEK PROPERTIES 1006 5th Street 0[~( ' CLERI",,. September 13, 2005 Coralville, IA 52241 IOWA CITY, iOWA Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Arm Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a amber of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and I have outlined my primary concerns below. * The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. * The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs · to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. . The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long-term maintenance and repair of those alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintaining alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. , Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor a decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the p~posed code. Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastmcture costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one &the most affordable types of dwellings, The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. ~!gnatm~ ........... · ..... Highwa91 $19-$$8-646o phone ic ~d~@icaar.org e -2~a i l : 488 West Iowa Citg, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (315) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E-mail: hbaofic@cs.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www.iowacityhomes.com Advocates for homeownership by promoting standards for quality and affordablility September 8, 2005 m "TI Iowa City Council Members -x> -..-- 410 E. Washington Street CD Iowa City, IA 52240 .J~ Iowa City Council Members: :~/'- .~. I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City IS considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. ·The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before v~the propose~. Signatu;~/~" Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa Iowa City Area Association of REA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 --< r-- Iowa City Council Members: ,~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Signature  438 Highway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.orgl Iowa City, IA 52e46 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association of REA LToRs® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  438 H~Thway 1 West 319-338-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 [tEAI_IOF1® Iowa City Area Association of R EALTORS® IoWa City Council Members :< r- ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ "o Iowa City, IA 52:Z40 Iowa City Council Members: r.~ I am writing to you as a member of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivisiOn if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Sign~'~' ~  458 Highwag ~ West $~9-$$8-646o phone e-mail: icaar@icaar.or9 Iowa City, IA 52246 319-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.or9 REALTOR® Iowa City Area Association orr EA LTORS® Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street .~.? Iowa City, IA 52240 ' Iowa City Council Members: 21~ ~" '~' I am writing to you as a member of the IoWa City Area Association of REALTORS®. I am concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and have outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limits our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require developers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintainance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings Should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use ora Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code.  Highway ~ 329-338-6460 phone icaar@icaar.org 438 West e-mail: Iowa City, IA 52246 3~9-338-6957 fax web site: icaar.org REALTOR® FILED IOWA IOWA August 30, 2005 lewa City Council Members 410 E. Washington Street lewa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you not only as a REALTOR® but as a member ef the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® as well. I am greatly cencerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development cede that the City of Iowa City is considering adopting and have outlined the primary concerns below: The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones as propesed by this new code. Increasing the width ef residential lots will thus increase the overall cost for development. This overall increase will as a result be passed on to the consumer causing housing to be less affordable. The City of Iowa City should not be granted the power to impese design standards on residential construction. The design of a home should be left to the customers to determine. Developers and Builders will produce products that sell. Telling consumers what they like by enforcing a design standard would be a mistake in eur marketplace. The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes may be built. This reeve would again limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of housing in our market teday. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots of RS-8 zones and should not impose design standards. The proposed code centain$ a 'density bonus', but this se called 'bonus' is very minimal when compared to the current cede. In addition this bonus will also increase the cost of housing by requiring the develeper te comply with design standards. The density would then have to increase simply to cover the cast of these new requirements so that heusing could remain affordable. If the City is going to require developer's to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term care, maintenance and repair of these alleys. It is unreasonable, not to mention unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required by the City. Neighberhood meetings should be optional, net mandatory. A number ef developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly te neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligatien$ imposed by the propesed code. > Level H Sensitive Areas should not require use of Planned Development Overlay. The City should automatically refund the Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making substantial changes regarding these concerns will be an extremely poor decisien for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to deeply consider all of these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. Thank You,... ~ RE~.M,AX Premier Properties .,.,'[.icensed to Sell Real Estate in the State of Iowa Premier Properties % ~ 1006 5m Street Coralville, Iowa 52241 .... 1 Office: (319) 354-8644  11 Setlth Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa C~ty, lewa 52244 HBA Phone: (3,9,35'1-5333 Fmc (3'19) 358.2443 E-mail: hbaofici~cs,com HOME GUILDERS/~ON www, iowaci~/homes,com I I Advocates for h om eo wn ership by promoting standards for quality and affordablitity Iowa City Council Members C~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 ~.'-. co Iowa City Council Members: I am writing to you as a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Associatio~h concerned about a number of provisions in the proposed development code that the City is considering adopting and outlined my primary concerns below. · The City of Iowa City should not impose design standards on residential construction. The design of homes should be the consumer's decision, not mandated by the City. · The City should not increase lot widths in residential zones, as proposed by the new code. Increasing lot widths increases infrastructure costs for the developers, which increases the cost to consumers. · The proposed code contains a "density bonus", but it is not a significant bonus when compared to the current code. In addition, the density bonus increases the cost of housing by requiring the developer to comply with design standards. The density needs to be increased to cover the costs of the requirements and keep housing affordable. · The proposed code drastically reduces the areas in which zero-lot line homes can be built, which limit our community's ability to provide one of the most affordable types of dwellings. The City should permit zero-lot line homes to be built on interior lots in RS- 8 zones and should not impose design standards on those homes. · If the City is going to require develoPers to construct alleys in certain developments, the City should assume the long term maintenance and repair of alleys. It is unfair to burden residents of these new subdivisions with the cost to repair and maintain alleys that are required to be constructed by the City. · Neighborhood meetings should be optional, not mandatory. A number of developers already use neighborhood meetings and are able to respond directly to neighbor's concerns without the necessity of the mandatory meetings and reporting obligations imposed by the proposed code. · Level II Sensitive Areas should not require use of a Planned Development Overlay. · The City should automatically refund Open Space fees to the residents of a subdivision if the fees are not used within a reasonable period of time. Adopting the proposed development code without making significant changes regarding these matters would be a poor decision for the future of Iowa City. I encourage you to consider these factors and discuss these issues further with the Land Development Council, Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® and Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association before voting on the proposed code. gignature t~)al/e_~ Affiliated with NationaI Association of Home Builders & Home Builder~ Association of lowa