HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-05 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON 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.
1) PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: Before I open the public hearing, I'd like Bob Brooks...if you'd like to
just bring us up to speed as to where we are.
Brooks: Thank you, Mayor. On August 18th, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to conclude our work on revising and reorganizing the
Planning and Zoning Code and send that to you for your review and
consideration. The Commission has been working in conjunction with
staff for about the past two and a half years on this Code revision process.
The last time a major code revision was undertaken was in 1983. In 1997,
the Council, after considerable input from citizens, adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Iowa City. That plan, along with the
various district plans that have been developed since then, were the
foundation for our work in developing this new proposed Zoning Code.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision of what the citizens of Iowa
City would like their community to be. In order to make that vision
reality, we in Planning and Zoning Commission and you on the Council,
and staff, need certain tools, and one of those tools is the Zoning Code.
During these past two and a half years, the Commission met in about
twenty-eight different work sessions to review and draft the changes that
you, and the Code that you have before you. From the beginning we kept
various groups and individuals apprised of our work by providing them
with written copies of all the draft material that we were working with.
Groups and individuals have been welcome throughout this process to
meet with staff, contribute their ideas, and express their concerns. On
March, in March of 2005, the Commission put forth the first draft of a
Code for public review and comment. Since then, we've had a number of
informal public open house meetings where the public could meet one-on-
one with the staff and the Commission to ask questions and get some
feedback and explanations. We've held a variety of meetings with civic
groups around the community to explain the Code and listen to their
comments. We've had a series of public forums before the Commission
where the public was able to present comments and have input. Through
this, and also we've had any number of written communications, emails,
letters, petitions, that have been submitted to the Commission.
Throughout this public input process, the Commission received about
fifty-five specific requests for revisions or changes. We then worked with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 2
staff and reviewed each one of these. We meet with you in work sessions
and reviewed these fifty-five items that have been requested for us to
review, and of those, about twenty the Commission voted to make
revisions and changes to a Code that we forwarded on for your review.
The Commission has appointed advisors to the City Council on planning
'and zoning matters is responsible for representing a broad spectrum of
citizens' interests. We must balance single interests, viewpoints with a
comprehensive community based goals in arriving at our final
recommendation. Based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and the public
input that we have received throughout this process, we feel confident the
document that we have forwarded to you represents the broad interests of
the citizens of Iowa City and the visions set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Lehman: Thank you, Bob. And now just for purposes of clarity, Karin Franklin?
Somewhere I saw Karin...there you are. Would you explain, tonight's
hearing is on the text of the Zoning Code, not relative to the map, which I
believe the public hearing is on the 18th.
Franklin: You set the public hearing tonight for the text. Last night the Council set
the public hearing for October 18th on the map changes.
Lehman: So comments tonight should be relative to the text. Thank you, Karin.
(pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. We'd like to ask folks, we're
going to meet tonight until 9:00 P.M. We certainly expect that this
hearing will be continued for as long as it needs to be. We expect to take
questions from you folks, have some interaction with you folks, come to
some conclusion...however long it takes. We would ask that you limit
your comments to five minutes or less, and certainly, if you cannot say
what you have to say in five minutes, you can have a second or third or
fourth or fifth opportunity. So, who would like to be first?
Kammermeyer: John Kammermeyer. My office is at 404 E. Bloomington; my home at
116 Ferson. I'd like to base my comments tonight primarily on a letter
that I sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and also to the City
Council, dated August l0th. In case you haven't seen that or it's misplaced
or lost or whatever, here are seven copies. You may wish to throw those
away after, because it may be in your notes already. I will be deferring
my comments on part two on that since that will be on the 18th, from what
I've just been informed. In the first part of that letter, I raised my
concerns about, and don't panic on this potential down-zoning and the
new proposed ordinance, can be of two types; one of which is actually
changing a zone, but I'm concerned that there's a potential in this new
proposed ordinance for what I call "functional down-zoning." Examples
of that would be reduced density limits in a zone, so less commercial/
residential units or building square footage is allowed on a given property,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of-the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 3
or reducing the density or number of renters allowed in a given building.
Secondly, reducing height of buildings allowed in a given zone; thirdly,
restricting where parking lots or buildings can be placed in a lot on a given
zone; and lastly, making a given usage non-conforming, where it presently
might be allowed. I must admit that presently with all the changes that
have been made recently through the Commission in the original proposal,
I'm not certain at this moment how much functional down-zoning is still
present there, but I would urge that steps be taken to try and prevent this
functional-type of down-zoning. It takes away property rights that have
been in existence for decades, reduces the property value for the owner
whose been paying property taxes based on the higher value for decades.
In addition, either type of down-zoning will impact the economic and
retirement plans of the property owner adversely. The end result in some
cases can be the same as suddenly reducing an owner's IRA or 401K.
This proposed zoning ordinance adds hundreds of pages to the ordinance,
refers to design standards on the original format at least five hundred
times. I feel we need less regulation, not more bureaucracy. City
government on ordinances should ideally be looking out for and paying
attention to the needs and wishes of the majority of the citizens, and I'm
afraid this one does not. The proposed zoning ordinance creates economic
injustices for a number of citizens. It is too complex in detail and tries to
dictate esthetics. I would recommend it be pared down and streamlined
and every effort made to not down-zone any citizen's property, either
directly or functionally. On part two there I will skip my comments until '
the 18th. But part three of my letter refers to, with initial comments in
mind, I would like to address a couple of issues concerning the
commercial office zone, especially the CO zone around Mercy Hospital.
It is my distinct impression that the new proposed Zoning Code would be
more restrictive as to placement of parking areas and building placement
in the CO zone, especially in the area around Mercy. This is a mistake
because an excellent example of new office development is the Surgical
Services Building in the 500 block of East Bloomington. For any new
medical office building, you want parking to be convenient and easily
accessible, which means it most likely should be placed in front of the
medical office building. In the recent past, Planning staff have tried to
dictate the patient access for parking for new office buildings at Mercy,
such as the Surgical Services Building, should be through the alleys. I feel
this is unreasonable and misguided to think that alley access is safe or
causes less pedestrian/car conflict. In fact, around Mercy the opposite is
true for the alleys behind the commercial properties. I would encourage
anybody that doubts that to drive through some of those alleys. Line of
sight is terrible, especially where the alley meets the street. Vehicles can
partially block the alley for hours at a time. The alleys do not have snow
removal in the winter. There are frequently pedestrians, especially
students, walking in the alleys. The alleys are too narrow for good two-
way traffic flow, and there are many gravel parking areas and garages
This represeats only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 4
abutting directly on the alley. We need to try and encourage healthcare
office development around Mercy Hospital, and I'm sorry to say that in
the recent past, staff policy, Planning staff policies, have discouraged this.
A good example is the two-year delay that was forced on Surgical
Services before they were allowed to build their new office building
because it was the Planning staffs' position they should not have that
parking lot in front of their building. This is one of...this has had a
chilling effect on medical office development around Mercy, as far as I
can tell. It's one of the reasons we are now seeing new healthcare offices
in Coralville, and off North Dodge Street, north of Interstate 80. My
biggest concern about the CO zone in the new proposed ordinance is that
there is a provision in the new ordinance stating that if commercially
office zoned property is within 50 feet of a residential zone, then more
restrictive requirements are placed on the property for parking lot
placement and building placement. Since almost all of the commercial
office zone around Mercy is within 50 feet of a residential zone, this
would give added restriction to commercial office development around
Mercy. Indeed, the present Surgical Services Building's parking lot,
under the new proposed ordinances as I interpret it, be built the way it
currently is. I'm having a law firm and I'm having an appraisal firm in
town doing more detailed analysis about the CO zone, and I will hopefully
in the next week or two have more detailed information to back up my
comments. With all of this in mind, I'm requesting that the added
restrictions for parking lot placement and building placement on
commercial zone if it is within 50 feet of a residential zone be removed
from this new proposed ordinance. In other words, the parking lot and
building placement requirements should be uniform for commercial office
zone and no added restrictions if it is near to or abutting on a residential
zone. There are also increased screening requirements for the CO zone if
it's near a residential zone. Again, making it harder to develop office
around Mercy.
Lehman: John, you need to wrap this up.
Kammermeyer: Yes. I have two sentences.
Lehman: Good.
Kammermeyer: Indeed...instead we need to be extremely flexible as to regulations
concerning building placement and parking lot placement and screening in
the CO zone, especially around Mercy, so we can try and develop a
healthcare core in the Mercy Hospital area, as was the intent years ago
when it was zoned commercial office in that area. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 5
O'Donnell: Are we finished?
Lehman: Who's next?
Bray: I'm Gayle Bray, and I'm here with Wendy Regal, and we're representing
the Board and the membership of the Willow Creek Subdivision Owners'
Association, which is the condo association governing everyone who lives
on Jema Court. We're concerned about the off-street parking and loading
standards in Article 5, and there's a letter from our Board in your packet.
Now, under the old requirements, our understanding is that in an RS-8
zone like ours, there had to be two off-street parking spaces for a family
dwelling, and if there was to be a roomer living with that family, then
there had to be a third off-street parking space. Now, the proposed Code
apparently reduces required parking spaces for the family, from two to
one. Now, Jema Court is a two-block long cul-de-sac, west of Willow
Creek Park, and there are twenty buildings on it that look like zero-lot line
duplexes, but they are legally condominiums. The lots are very small and
much of the linear footage on the street is taken up by driveways. Wisely,
parking is allowed on only one side of the street, but this means there is
actually very little available on-street parking for the forty households on
Jema Court, and this little parking, little amount of parking, is usually full.
Because this on-street parking gets such heavy use, snow plowing
becomes a problem in the winter because of the cars on the street, and the
Post Office refuses to deliver mail to boxes that are blocked by parked
cars, and so the Association is continuing to struggle with and work on
these issues associated with parking on our street. Now, out of the forty
living units on Jema Court, four have just single-car garages, even though
they have three to four bedrooms. Under the old Code, these units could
not have a roomer because there are only two off-street parking spaces,
that is in the garage and in the driveway. Now, the proposed Code with
the reduced parking requirement would make a roomer legal in these four
units. If the family has two cars, as is often the case, especially if the
family is two unrelated persons, and then the roomer has a car, that third
car will necessarily always be parked on the street. Now, we realize that
in some areas of the city, the reduced parking requirement might make
very good sense, but in densely populated areas like ours and lots are
small and on-street parking is already in short supply, this change would
have some potentially very negative consequences. In effect, it increases
allowable occupancy in certain types of housing, and potentially puts more
cars on the street. We want to raise this issue not only for our own sake,
but we're also wondering where there may be, or whether there may be
other neighborhoods in the city that would face similar problems under the
proposed new Code. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 6
Vanderhoef: Karin? Do we know of any areas that might be similarly impacted?
Franklin: Well, it would be any place else where there were the single-car garage
that Gayle outlined. That...when you have that circumstance. Now,
whether you would have all of the issues come together, that is a number
of duplexes or zero-lot lines and the cul-de-sac and the lack of on-street
parking because of the drives and the cul-de-sac, I can't tell you that. It's
possible. Most units now are built with the two-car garage, but obviously
at Jema they were not all. So, it's kind of that combination of the
duplexes, the restricted on-street parking, and then having a unit with a
single-car garage. That's when it kicks in, because you don't have the
double-car garage and then the two spaces in the driveway.
Vanderhoefi But this is...is this a private street...
Franklin: It's a public street.
Vanderhoef: It is a public street, that is narrow, but it...
Franklin: It's the standard...as far as I know...it's the standard width. I don't think
we narrowed the width on Jema Court, but I'd have to look that up. I just
don't recall narrowing the width on Jema Court, but it is a public street.
Vanderhoef: .... narrowed just because it's only one-side parking.
Franklin: Hmmm .... not necessarily. It may be only one-side parking because of
how the houses are sided on the lot. I don't know. I'd have to look it up.
Vanderhoef: I'd like some feedback on other areas to see whether this is...
Franklin: ...pervasive?
Vanderhoef: ...a big concern throughout the city and...I don't know if we can tie it to
occupancy or not.
Franklin: Well, let us see if we can tell how pervasive it is. I'm not exactly sure off
the top of my head how we'll figure that out, but we'll try.
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
Siders: Good evening, and good luck on your long and arduous journey of
considering a new Development Code. My name is Glenn Siders, and I'm
here representing the Land Development Council. I'm not here solely to
represent Southgate Development, but I'm speaking on behalf of several
hundred citizens and businesses in this area. Many of those businesses
and citizens are present, both in this room and out in the lobby. With that,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 7
I hope you'll be a little bit lenient with your five minutes. You'll hear
from some of us, but hopefully not all of us. It's important that you
understand that these several hundred people have entrusted me and a
select few others to present our case so there won't be a delay in this
process. We have several objections to the proposed Code, but tonight
we'd like to concentrate and focus on the design aspect of it. If time
permits, we will outline some other concerns. It is our position that the
City should not mandate any kind of design element. When design is
talked about, it should come from the consumer, based on that consumer's
affordability and choice. Contrary to what is being said, any time you add
features to a home, the cost of that home will increase. We cannot
understand the argument that this proposed document will allow more
affordability. The proponents of this Code have not documented nor
proven in any way that costs will be decreased or greater opportunity will
be available. I would challenge you to receive such documentation from
anyone who speaks to this Code. We would welcome that opportunity,
but it also needs to come from the proponents. The type of home, and I
emphasize the word home, should be by choice of the consumer and
where the market place is. That is exactly what you're seeing today. The
greater percentages of people today are buying the best deal they can
afford. Times change and markets change. I do not see how anyone can
take it upon themselves to tell somebody else what is in their best interest.
I think this Council should be reminded that we, the crafts people in the
trade, if we thought it was a good idea, we'd not be here this evening. Our
business depends on the salability of a product and we see that product
being jeopardized. The proponents have taken a position that they know
what is best to create a community and an environment that will create
neighborhood interaction and automatically become a wonderful place to
live. We don't believe that is necessarily true and there are others who
share out opinion. I'd like to play about a three-minute segment of a
recent radio program that was aired in mid-August of this year. This is a
public radio program that was done with no particular agenda in mind,
other than education, and was done at no particular request from anyone.
The people involved are professional people that have no financial ties or
stake of any kind to Iowa City. The interviewer is a Dr. Goodwin and the
person being interviewed is Roberta Feldman who is a psychologist and an
architect. She is the Director of the City Design Center for the University
of Illinois in Chicago. Ms. Feldman's particular interest is in how people
relate to their environment and their connection to place, and I apologize
for the poor quality of this tape. (plays tape) And it goes on and on and
continues. I intended to have that transcribed for you, but I ran out of
time. If you would like a copy, I'd be happy to do that and give it to you
later. I'd also like to make you aware of an article that ran in the Sunday,
featured article in the August 24th issue of The Gazette. The article talks
about garages, and I'm going to just mention a couple of things in that
article. It's easy enough to read and understand, but I do want to point out
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 8
a couple things. First thing's a quote. It says, "Years ago, people used to
hang out on their porches. Now it's kind of migrated to the garages."
Further on in the article it talks about a person in Coralville who built a
third stall onto his garage, where he and his buddies can work on bicycles
and listen to music. Lastly, the point I'd like to make in the article talks
about how some people voluntarily take on added expense to fix up their
garages, and it quotes a person to say that if they do fix it up, it isn't like
you're going to someone's garage. It's like an extension of the home.
This is intended to merely show that this is what the consumer, or the
owners of the property, wanted to do. No municipality mandated that they
pursue that particular lifestyle. We are not indicating that there's not a
market for homes the Code is suggesting we build - there is. I am
indicating, however, that you're going to have to pay for that design.
There are several national publications that verify the additional costs, and
we can document that on a local level, there are homes with the very
features this Code would require that cost more per square foot than the
homes you're trying to eliminate. My point is, it should not be the City's
responsibility to mandate how the most expensive purchase of your
lifetime should look like. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Lehman: Thank you, Glenn. Need to remind folks, we have to keep that doorway
clear. If you could....just step around the comer if you would, please.
Thank you.
Gordon: Good evening. I'm Steve Gordon. I'm also here representing the Land
Development Council, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
tonight. I, as Glenn, may have more than five minutes, so I will leave it up
to you to let me know if...when my time is up and I'll get back at the end
of the line, and if I have more to say. I also encourage you to ask
questions during my presentation. I deal with this topic every day, as
others in this room do, and I do 'realize that some of this information may
be a little difficult if you don't deal with it every day. So, I encourage
questions and will be glad to answer them as I can. First of, I'd like to
acknowledge and commend the staff on the difficult task of drafting a new
Zoning Code. A lot of people, including staff, the P & Z Commission, and
yOurselves, have put a lot of hours into this, and we have seen that and
applaud the process and the effort that has gone into this. I will be
addressing the residential sections of the Code this evening. We as the
Land Development Council believe that one of the challenges facing most
communities, including Iowa City, is affordable housing, and I'd like to
define affordable housing a little bit. I define affordable housing as the
ability to provide reasonably priced, market rate housing for the working
citizens of this community -- folks like police officers, firemen, teachers,
City service staff. While subsidized housing does play an important role
in a community being able to provide affordable housing~ we believe that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 9
market rate, quality built housing that is affordable for its citizens is also,
does play a major role in a community being able to service the affordable
housing needs. We also feel that the proposed Code has made it more
difficult to provide affordable housing, and I will explain that as I go
through. We also believe strongly in the rights of property owners and
homeowners in that they should have the freedom to design the type o£
home they want. We feel the proposed Code has limited these rights and
required certain design features that limit choices, especially for those who
need affordable housing. All the design requirements that you will hear us
discuss in the proposed Code are written to effect smaller lots and attached
housing, and that is the very housing that we should be trying to promote
if we're serious about affordable housing. We feel this is a bias toward
those working families who are trying to find decent affordable housing in
Iowa City. Thus, I will be focusing on affordability and design features.
When looking at an issue, I always like to identify a problem and then find
a solution for it. I attended the work session last week and it seemed to
me that that was the approach taken at the work session. As questions
came up about why sections of the Code were written the way they were, a
problem was identified and then reasons were given by staff as to why the
proposed Code was written the way it was and how it solved that problem.
The Land Development Council feels in certain areas of the proposed
Code that either a problem does not really exist, or that the problem was
not solved adequately. I'll start with the dimensional chart on page 16. In
all three major residential zones, which would be the RS-8...the RS-5, the
RS-8, and the RS-12, the minimum lot width has been increased by 10
feet. There can be no question that a wider lot is more expensive to
develop. So, if we were trying to encourage affordable housing, why have
we increased lot widths? I would ask the question, is there a problem with
the current lot widths allowed in our zones? I am not aware of any. At the
work session you were given an analysis showing the average lot widths
of lots developed in the RS-5 zone during the 10-year period from 1995 to
2003. In only one year of that 1 O-year period was the average lot width
under 70 feet, and the overall average was over 70 feet and that is being
used as justification for changing the minimum lot width in the RS-5 zone
from 60 feet, as the current Code says, to 70 feet. We believe this analysis
is flawed. The RS-5 zone is the large lot subdivision zone of Iowa City
and thus, you have a 60-foot minimum lot, but you do not have a
maximum lot width. Therefore, you are taking a lot of large-lot
subdivisions and averaging them in and that can skew the results. It only
takes one 100-foot lot to skew, if you're looking at an average, to skew
several 60-foot lots and make that average over 70 feet. I would like to
look at the actual numbers instead of an average. If you take that chart
and you add up all the lots that were developed in the RS-5 between 1995
and 2003, there were 825 lots. Of those lots, 181 of them were under 70
feet. So if we don't look at an average, but we look at an actual number,
181 is 22% of the total lots developed in the RS-5 zoning. That's a quarter
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 10
of the lots that would not meet the current proposed Zoning Code
requirements. I would again ask the question, is there a problem with
those 181 lots that are under 70 feet? Why do we want to tell 181
homeowners that their lots are not acceptable and they need to buy a
larger, more expensive lot? We believe the answer to this question may
lie in the density bonus options that are now included in the Code, starting
on page 21. In the RS-5 zone, you can develop...the RS-5 zone the
minimum lot size has been increased to 70 feet; however, you can develop
a lot less than 70 feet, down to 60 feet, if you meet certain garage
standards, which I know you all are aware of what those are and I will
discuss those a little later. If you want to develop a lot below 60 feet,
down to 50 feet, you can do that if you build an alley and those houses
have a rear-access garage. Now you have seen a report from staff, I
included in a letter I sent to all of you last week, that was comparing the
cost to develop a 50-foot lot with an alley, with a 70-foot lot without an
alley, and that analysis showed that a 50-foot lot with an alley is indeed
less expensive to develop than a 70-foot lot without an alley, and that is
true. However, the least expensive lot to develop is a 60-foot lot without
an alley, which is the current Code. Therefore, by changing the starting
point or how you look at something, you're encouraging a 50-foot lot with
an alley because you've changed the starting point to a 70-foot lot. If you
want to rank those in the most expensive to the least expensive, the most
expensive lot is a 70-foot lot without an alley, which is the proposed Code
new minimum. The second-most expensive lot is a 50-foot lot with an
alley, which is also in the proposed Code as a density bonus, and the least
expensive lot to develop of those three, is the 60-foot lot, which is the
current standard. The same holds true in the RS-8 zone, and I won't go
into detail, but a 55-foot lot, which is the new minimum standard in the
RS-8 is the most expensive. A 40-foot lot without an alley is the second,
and a 45-foot, which is the current allowed minimum lot size in an RS-8',
is the least expensive lot, and again, I've prepared a chart that illustrated
that. Alleys also increase the monthly costs of the owners that live in
those subdivisions. There would have to be an Association fee to take
care of snow removal, and there would also have to be some sort of fee
collected to take care of long-term maintenance of those alleys. We
believe that in the desire to create certain style of housing, which is
housing that is on alleys with rear-load garages, that the proposed Code
has actually raised the cost of developing lots in Iowa City. The next issue
I want to address is garage standards. It seems to me the problem we are
trying to solve, and what I heard at the work session, was that we don't
want large garages on narrow lots. So the first question we have to ask
ourselves is what we consider a narrow lot. That's the question that you
as Council will have to answer for yourselves. The proposed Code has
identified any lot under 60-feet, and in the case of the RS-5 zone, any lot
under 70-feet as a narrow lot. The garage Code states that any lots that
fall into that category, the garage can be no more than 50% of the width of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 11
the house, and it can stick out no farther than the front faCade of the house.
Again, I ask the question, do we have a problem in this area? At the work
session, it was mentioned that we're trying to avoid a three-car garage on a
45-foot wide lot. There is even a slide that showed how this would look.
I've lived in Iowa City my whole life and I'm sure I've not seen every
house, but I've never seen a three-car garage on a 45-foot lot. I just don't
believe that that is a problem in Iowa City. Telling people how and where
to place their garage on their own property on lots up to 70ofeet wide we
feel is very far-reaching to solve a problem that we believe does not exist.
Attached housing, which is commonly referred to as duplexes, zero-lot
line homes, or town homes, we need to understand that these type of
dwellings are a great tool when trying to provide quality affordable
housing for the citizens of Iowa City. Restricting this type of housing will
also restrict the availability of affordable housing. The proposed Code
limits zero-lot line homes and dwellings to comer lots only in the RS-8
zone, which is a change and a limitation from the current Code. One of
the problems, as stated in the work session, was that recently
developments in the RS-8 zone that all that was being platted and
developed were duplexes, and thus there was a shortage of smaller or
medium-size single-family lots. I did a little research, and again, this is
not scientific research. I just drove around and did some looking,
identified four subdivisions that have recently, or are currently being
developed, that are in an RS-8 zone, Whispering Meadows Part 2 and 3,
which is currently under development, has 27 single-family lots and 34-
zero-lot line lots. I feel that is a pretty good mix. Now, to be honest on
that development, we are the ones developing that. We have turned some
of the single-family lots into duplex-lots and we have done that with the
anticipation or the fear that if this new Code passes we will not be able to
provide that form of housing anymore. So under the current Code we
were allowed, on a few of the single-family lot, to do that and we did that.
In another development that was recently passed, it was an RS-8 zoning, it
was, however, done as an OPDH, but even as an OPDH it was platted with
18 single-family lots, 20-zero-lot line lots, 3 duplexes, and 6 town home
units. Again, the single-family lots are well represented. At Southpointe,
which is on Sycamore Street, there's...I don't know how many lots, but it
seems like there's a 100 lots, RS-8 zoning, all single-family. No zero-lot
lines, and in Lindemann Part 2, a recent subdivision that's currently under
development, again, seems like there's 80 lots or so, all single-family. It
feels like to us that developers are not unwilling to develop small and
medium-size single-family lots in an RS-8 zone.
Lehman: Steve, you need to wrap it up.
Gordon: Okay. Can I finish on the attached housing and then I'11...
Lehman: Why don't you wait and come back...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 12
Bailey: I have a question. I have no memo in front of me and I need a little bit
more information because you indicate that you've done a benefit and cost
analysis, but I only see the cost analysis, and one would assume that if you
have more lots, for example making them smaller lots, you show a higher
cost on your analysis, but one would also assume with more lots there's a
higher benefit because you sell more lots, and I don't have that kind of
information. Can you provide that?
Gordon: I can, yes. We have done that and I will get that to you.
Bailey: That would help, the cost benefit part...thanks.
Champion: And I wanted to ask a question too. In RS-12, you can put duplexes
anytime, by right. Isn't that...am I correct?
Lehman: Right.
Gordon: Both under the current Code and the proposed Code, yes.
Champion: Right, so they'd be limiting actually duplexes, we're just putting them in a
different zone.
Gordon: In the RS-8 zone under the proposed Code, they would be limited to
corner lots only, where in the current Code they're allowed on any lot.
Vanderhoefi Okay, I have a question too. Do you think there is any way that a
developer could take a plat and say a certain percent will be single-family
and a maximum number will be zero-lots, for instance a 60/40 is sort of
what I was thinking, that maximum number of zero-lots would be 40
percent of all the units in that plat, mixed in and around, versus this comer
lot routine, because as I've said, stated before, I'm not fond of what I'm
seeing as possible plans for comer lot, zero-lots for either RS-5 or RS-8.
Gordon: It is possible, you can in your plat, identify which lots would be
designated as zero-lot line lot homes, and which lots would be single-
family lot homes. So it would be possible...
Vanderhoef: Even at 5%?
Gordon: Sure, you could, yes.
Vanderhoef: So, what I'm looking for is a mix of types in the zones, and if we don't
have a preponderance of one or the other, then it seems that we'll get more
stability to a neighborhood, perhaps than what we get when we have too
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 13
many of the zero-lots that are more apt than single-family, shall we say, to
become rentals and turnover potentials.
Gordon: Yeah, if you believe that the RS-8 zone has turned into a duplex-only zone
and that there is not a good mix within the RS-8 zones in the community,
and that's thus the reason for limiting where you can put these zero-lot
lines, doing a percentage would also solve that issue as would the current
Code, which is limiting to comer lots only.
Vanderhoef: Well, I'd like feedback on that from many different builders to see what
they think about it. Okay, and we'll talk about RS-12's later.
Bailey: I have a question, a follow up, but to do the percentage, I mean, we talked
about, doesn't that potentially limit your marketability? You sell all your
single-family lots and nobody wants duplexes in your, I mean...
Gordon: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Bailey: Well, if you set aside certain lots and that's not what people want, doesn't
that limit the market?
Gordon: Well, that .... currently if you have an RS-8 zone, you can build single-
family homes or you can build zero-lot line, duplex. So it's up to the
developer to decide...
Bailey: But Dee's idea of percentages, I guess, is I'm overlaying that.
Gordon: Right, so under the current Code it's up to the developer to decide what
mix will work from a marketability standpoint for that certain
development. It may be they want all single-family lots, maybe they want
all zero-lot lines, maybe they want some combination in the middle.
Under the proposed Code, you still have the choice to do all single-family.
You don't have to do zero-lot lines on the comer lots only. My
understanding of Dee's proposal would be the same, you could still do all
single-family homes, you wouldn't have to do any zero-lot lines. My
understanding is she would want to limit, if you wanted to do zero-lot
lines in your development, limit the percentage you could do to say 40
percent or 50 percent of the total lots. Instead of limiting to comer, you're
limiting them. So that would be up to the developer to decide if I want
some zero-lot line lots, where should I put them, and will this, if I do a
mix of zero-lot lines and single-family, will that be marketable? Does that
answer the question?
Bailey: I don't think so, but I'll reframe the question and try to...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 14
Lehman: If I'm not mistaken, I think I understand. Let's say you have a 40%
requirement, not more than 40% duplexes and you build the 40% and
nobody else wants to buy the single-family, you've reached the max. You
cannot sell another one of those lots for a duplex. Does that present a
problem for a builder? (TAPE ENDS) ...the percentage would be very,
very difficult because you would be creating unmarketable lots by your
own choice when you built the duplexes first.
Gordon: Right, and you would be doing the same here because it's not required to
put 40% duplexes in.
Lehman: Right.
Gordon: You've chosen to put 40% duplexes in.
Lehman: No, but it would be the builder's choice.
Gordon: Right.
Lehman: Okay.
Gordon: I think there's a lot of RS-8 zoning developments that have a nice mix of
zeros and single-families, and I think it's worked well just letting the
market figure that out.
Elliott: Steve, I have a follow up on what Dee and Regenia are talking about. If it
were determined that we do want to have a mix of zero-lots, duplexes,
single-family, do you find it easier to achieve that through a percentage of
one or the other? How would it work? Would you have any problem with
saying you cannot have a zero-lot line or a duplex side-by-side, there must
be at least two or perhaps three houses between every zero-lot line. Is that
a problem for you?
Gordon: As a developer, if you choose to, if you felt you needed to limit the zero-
lot lines in an RS-8 zoning, the percentage, I would feel, would be the
easiest to manage. In other words, give the developer the flexibility to
figure out what lots and where in that development they may work as a
product, and where the single-family homes may work, depending on lot
sizes, the topography of the lot, things like that. So, I would think if
you're going to limit them, the percentage...that would be the way that I
would prefer.
Elliott: The problem with us, if we're attempting to find common ground in this,
is one of the concerns is having a number of zero-lot lines or duplexes in a
row. To my understanding, that's what some of the folks are trying to get
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 15
away from. So if you just go percentage, then you could put a half a
dozen or more zero-lot lines or duplexes in a row.
Gordon: Right.
Elliott: As I said, if you want to get away...wouldn't there be perhaps some
common ground by separating those by single-family homes?
Gordon: That would, I think, that would then get into a marketing issue that if you
have several zero-lot lines next to a single-family, would that hurt
marketing, and that, you know, again would be something the market
would determine, but...
Elliott: That would be difficult for you. You would not prefer that.
Gordon: I would prefer the percentage if it had to be limited.
Champion: Now isn't it correct (can't understand) the RS-8, you can't build any
duplexes? Is that correct, am I correct on that?
Gordon: I don't know. I don't know the Coralville Code, and there's a lot of zero-
lot line duplexes in Coralville. Now whether you can do it anymore or
not, I don't know.
Champion: I was going to ask you why, how they do it. Not that I want to be
Coralville, I don't, but I was thinking well this would be one way where
Iowa City is even more permissive than Coralville because they're
allowed on the comers. (can't understand) curious.
Gordon: I mean, they must allow them everywhere because you see them, just like
in Iowa City, you see developments that are zero-lot line, nice
developments, but I don't know under what zoning that falls or how they
mandate that.
Champion: Has the...I'11 save that for later when you come back.
Gordon: All right, I'll come back. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you, Steve.
Light: My name is Marc Light, and I live at 225 E. Davenport Street, which is the
corner of Davenport and Linn, a block from (can't understand), and I
would like to state my support ofrezoning, this is a change of topic to
some extent, of the commercial areas of the north Market Square from
CB-2, which is my understanding is going away so it actually has to be
rezoned, to what's being proposed by the zoning committee to CN-1, or
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 16
MU, and I think that the north Market Square business district is exactly
the sort of area that needs to be nurtured for the economic growth of this
city, and I believe that Iowa City is an attractive place for professionals
and business people alike, and I would ask, ask myself 'why is that, why
do people, why do people want to come here and maybe start a business or
work in one that already exists' and I think one reason becomes clear
when you consider where job...
Dilkes: I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you for just a minute. You were limiting
it to the text earlier so we need to be consistent about this.
O'Donnell: You have to return the 18th.
Lehman: This is relative to the map. We're talking about the text of the Zoning
Code.
Light: So I have to say the page of the...
Lehman: No, well if you...
Bailey: When you use the word rezoning, that refers to the map that we'll talk
about on October 18th.
Light: I see, so...this comment doesn't need to be made now?
Bailey: Rezoning comments need to be made on the 18th.
Light: Okay. All right, I'm sorry.
Lehman: Oh no, it's quite all right. I can understand how you'd do that.
Light: (laughter) Unfortunately, I don't know all this...okay, great. So do you
still want me to put my name here as aborted comment? (laughter)
Champion: And we'll see you on the 18th! (laughter)
Light: Yes, you will.
Vanderhoef: I hope you can come on the 18th.
Light: I hope so too. The content there is in an email that I sent to the Council
SO...
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 17
Baker: Good evening. My name is Ruth Baker. I live at 515 W. Benton Street,
and I wanted to comment on a couple things I've heard tonight. One of
the questions Connie had was by eliminating, or with the new Code, by
keeping duplexes on only comer lots that's going to reduce the number of
duplexes allowed in that zone, and therefore, I don't know if she was
thinking overall within the city would eliminate those numbers. I did want
to point out that it's my understanding that the new Code would provide
an opportunity for duplexes on comer lots in the RS-5 zone. So this will
pick up some of that absence. Another thing I wanted to mention was in a
neighborhood where we're working very hard to try and attract people
who are first-time home buyers to allow many duplexes, which turn into
rentals, really is not a very conducive thing for the neighborhood, and if
you're really wanting affordable neighborhoods, ! think you have to
provide some of those opportunities to have smaller homes for first-time
home buyers, retired people, and something that's close to downtown.
One of the things with the objections I'm hearing from developers and
builders, Mr. Siders mentioned that he thinks this should be the choice of
the consumer on what they want to have. I don't know if everybody
remembers, but I know the City staff has worked very hard, very long in,
before even working on the drafting of the new Code, in trying to
determine the goal of the people in this community and what they want to
see, and I know there were many meetings that were very highly
publicized for anyone to attend. They did visual preference meetings,
district planning meetings, wherein the consumer, the residents, did voice
their opinions and I saw some Council members there, which was great,
and I think that they're trying to head in the right direction, and I really
hope that you will pay attention to things that have brought this new Code
to fruition. There are lots of things that if, there are things the consumer
doesn't have a choice on sometimes because a developer has this idea of
what they're going to build and that's what they will present. So I do
think there needs to be some guidance and some changes made in the
Code, and it appears for the most part that the new Code is headed in that
right direction. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Ruth.
Hayek: Hello. I'm Matt Hayek. I'm here in my own capacity this evening. I
think thanks should be given to everybody who's played a role in this long
process. It looks to have been very thoroughly taken care of for all these
months. I have spent several years on the Housing Commission, and more
recently on the Scattered House Task Force, and through that work I have
seen the importance of affordable housing to Iowa City. I think most, if
not everybody in this room, knows that Iowa City is among the most
expensive places to live in the entire state, and I personally believe it is
one of the biggest issues facing this community. Scattered Site Housing
Task Force at long last will be presenting some recommendations to this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 18
Council in a couple of weeks, regarding both assisted or subsidized
housing and the broader issue of affordable private market housing, and
one thing that struck me through this process was that assisted or
subsidized housing in the aggregate is a drop in the bucket. I think in any
given year we can hope for and expect to see a few dozen new units come
on line, thanks to taxpayer dollars. Whereas in the private market over the
last five years, if my numbers are right, new units coming on line through
the private market have averaged around 500 or more per year. So the
difference is significant. And ! think that from that, I've taken the
following, which is that one thing is clear and that is if teachers, young
professionals, working individuals, and families in this community are to
afford homes in our community, the private market has got to be able to
deliver that. We're just not going to reach that through assisted programs,
and I think government can play a role in that and certainly zoning can
make a huge impact on the ability of the private market to provide
affordable homes for those first-time buyers or those with modest means.
And I'm not going to comment on the specific proposed changes. There
are others in this room who are far better versed on those issues. I have
looked at the proposals. A lot of them I consider very exciting and I think
we should be excited about them, and they certainly reflect considerable
analysis and deliberation. I guess the tone I would strike with you tonight
is that you place the issue of affordable housing front and center as you
take up these proposals, and as you look at the proposals with respect to
each and every one, in particular regarding residential changes, ask
yourselves what, if anything, is the impact of this change on the cost of
housing in Iowa City, and to go beyond that, ask yourselves, what is the
impact - the current status quo. I think it's important to look at what it's
costing us now as a community, as developers, as providers of housing to
bring a house onto the market in such a way that a first-time homebuyer
can actually afford that place. Keep that in mind. I live on the north side,
I'm restoring a house on Brown Street. It's a 1926 Craftsman. Got a front
porch with a swing, and I love it, and that's my ideal place. That's my
ideal residence and I love the near north side, but and that's great, that's
my own personal view, but through my work on the Housing Commission
and the Scattered House Task Force, I think the greater concern is what
are we doing to make housing as affordable as possible in this community,
and I would just ask you to keep that in your minds as you go through this
process. Thanks.
Elliott: Matt, I have a question.
Lehman: Thank you, Matt.
Elliott: You were talking about affordable housing and how much the private
sector is providing of those houses that are affordable by young
professionals and others. Do you have any longitudinal information on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 19
that as how the cost per square foot has gone in relationship to zoning and
other kinds of requirements? Is there any information on that?
Hayek: I'm sure there is, I don't have it.
Elliott: Okay.
Hayek: I don't have it.
Elliott: I think that might be rather interesting. What good...how good a job has
Iowa City done over the past ten years in providing affordable housing?
Of those smaller homes being built, how has the cost per square foot gone,
and does it have a relationship to any zoning requirements?
Lehman: Thank you.
Ballard: My name is Steve Ballard. I'm with the Left Law Firm, and I'm here on
behalf of Prairie Garden Limited Partnership this evening with a real
narrow purpose. I want to thank the Council for the opportunity to be
heard. My client, Prairie Garden, owns four lots that are on a street called
Catskill Court, which you may or may not be familiar with. It is
immediately north of the cemetery off ofMuscatine, P and G business and
property. Catskill Court is a loop. It is completely developed, except for
the four lots that my client presently owns that are fair ground. Every unit
that's developed around this street are duplexes. Nearly all of them have
two-car garages, certainly the more, the newer ones have two-car garages,
and my client has no desire except for to build duplexes on each of these
four lots with a two-car garage, just like the house in between the four lots,
the house across the street from the four lots, down the street, and
everything else. So why are we here to complain? Not to complain, but to
voice a concern. It's this, the topography of these lots, coupled with what
I think are the impacts of the proposed Zoning Code won't permit the
development of the four lots in the way the neighborhood is developed,
the only reasonable way I think for it to be developed, that is these lots. I
don't think I'm going to talk about the zoning map, but I'm going to refer
to it. The zoning map drives the purpose for my appearance here tonight
because this property is zoned RS-8. If the property zoning designation
continues, excuse me, then there isn't any question that duplexes can't be
placed on these lots because they're not comer lots. In light of that, and in
light of the surrounding development that exists, the Planning and Zoning
Commission at its meeting August 18th made note that as a, what it called
a 'housekeeping' item, it recommended that this property be zoned, that
the zoning be changed from RS-8 to RS-12, so that, so that duplexes could
be put on these four lots that I'm here to talk to you about. In fact, the
Planning and Zoning Commission said that that sort of a housekeeping
item needed to be addressed to allow the City to keep the trend for what
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 20
had been planned for the area, and it was unanimously voted. Because of
the zoning changes, then once the public hearing is set for the zoning
change, a moratorium is in place, nothing can be built, nobody's going to
buy the lots. It pretty much puts a freeze on everything, such that
construction on these lots can't occur until the zoning designation is
changed, or at least settled, and that change, presumably, isn't going to be
settled until the Zoning Code is adopted, and therefore, the development
of these four lots is going to have to be pursuant to the terms of the new
Zoning Code, and that's what brings me here tonight. It's not so much to
complain, to comment upon the design standards that are proposed, the
development standards that are suggested, but simply to address this very
narrow issue and these four lots. These four lots, the topography and
geometry are quite unusual. I've given you a handout; two-dimensionally
on the front it looks doable to make duplexes and have detached garages
possibly behind and so forth. The lay of the land simply doesn't permit
that. As you stand at the curb line and look south towards Muscatine
Avenue, it's nearly...it is straight up hill, it's a very steep up-climb,
incline. It's about 16 feet from the curb to the rear lot line. There really
wouldn't be any way to detach a garage. The width of some of the lots
wouldn't permit a driveway to go around. Even if it did, you'd have to
move incredible quantities of dirt, build a retaining wall - I don't know
what that would do to the cost. I have an idea it wouldn't be very safe. I
guess esthetics are a matter of taste, but that's part of what you're looking
at tonight. I don't think it would be very esthetically pleasing for anybody
in that neighborhood to have a huge retaining wall. It's just not doable.
The only way to develop reasonably, given the topography of these lots as
duplexes is to put the garages facing the street and in the front. If you
look at the photographs that I've attached, I think that you begin to get an
idea of the lay of the land and I know this is an ongoing process for you,
and if you have an opportunity, I would strongly encourage you to just
drive by because it won't take much of your time to look up hill and see
exactly what we're talking about and what we've tried to depict here in the
materials we've submitted. The garages, as I said, can't really be located
anywhere except in the front. There isn't any alley. The property abuts
the cemetery. The only place to put the garages are street-facing and the
lots aren't wide enough to permit a two-car garage given the 50% rule,
that being that the garage can't exceed 50% of the total width of the
building that faces the street. So the lot shape and the grade prohibit
construction of the duplexes that are consistent with the proposed
development standards, and for that reason, we would simply ask you to
give some special consideration to one area, four lots, in our community
that are going to be negatively impacted if the zoning changes include this
area within their purview. This isn't a situation that's likely to be
replicated, both in terms of topography, I mean, I'm not going to say
there's not other lots in Iowa City that have sharp inclines or declines.
There probably are. There certainly are, but in terms of having a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 21
neighborhood -- 35 lots, 31 of which are developed just like we want to
develop ours and not being permitted to do that, I don't think you're going
to hear a lot of that, and if you do, I hope that you'll give consideration to
those folks, as well. Our point is that we are presently prohibited from
building what has become the prevailing construction for 31 lots, those
being our neighbors, and as I said, if you have an opportunity to drive by,
these lots are very well...they're the only four that are undeveloped, and if
you stand and look south, in the middle of this area there's a duplex on
either side are two of our lots, on both sides of two of our lots, and all we
want to do is build what's in between them. We can't do that...
Lehman: Steve, you're about through. Let me ask you...are you presently
prohibited from building there?
Champion: (can't hear) public hearing.
Ballard: Well, yeah, yes...because last night there was a public hearing...
Lehman: No, no, but you've known this public hearing's been coming for six or
eight months. You have not been prevented from building there...under
the old Code you could have built, is that correct?
Ballard: That's true.
Lehman: Okay.
Ballard: We aren't...my client isn't interested in developing these himself,
themselves, they're trying to sell them, and the marketability has been
affected because of the ongoing process and the lack of knowledge of
what's going to happen. But you're right, I mean, they have been,
development has been permitted. It would be under the existing Code.
Lehman: Right.
Ballard: And that's what we would ask the Council to do is to carve out some
exceptions to the development of these four lots and proceed as the
prevailing construction in the neighborhood and let us do just exactly what
our neighbors have done, and what the Planning and Zoning Commission
obviously thought was appropriate, given its recommendation to rezone.
Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Wilburn: I... can I just ask a question, just make sure I understand. I think I get a
little bit lost when you were talking. Are you saying under the new Code,
you're saying if it is rezoned to RS-12, that there's something in the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 22
provisions and the lot size that will prevent you from doing the placement
of the garage, is that what you're saying?
Ballard: Yeah, yeah, exactly. There isn't any way, given the lot width, to put a
two-car garage, two two-car garages on a duplex on each of these lots, and
then...a two-car garage is about 22 feet, and two of them is 44 feet.
You'd have to have a building facade that exceeded...my math's not real
good...but 84 feet and the lot size simply wouldn't permit that in any
respect.
Wilburn: Okay, thank you.
Ballard: Thank you.
Lehman: I've been asked to take a quick break. We're only going to...let's...eight
minutes, folks. We'll be right back. (TAPE OFF) Okay, let's resume.
Kuenzli: My name is Cecile Kuenzli and I live at 705 S. Summit Street, and I'm
here this evening to speak for the proposed...
Elliott: Excuse me, I didn't get your name; I'm sorry.
Kuenzli: Cecile Kuenzli.
Elliott: Thank you.
Kuenzli: And I'm here to speak for the proposed Zoning Code. I think that the
Planning Department and the P&Z folks are to be commended for the way
this whole thing has been conducted. It's been an inclusive process.
They've solicited opinions from all sides; reacted to it; revised what
they've proposed, based on what they've heard; held hearings; they've
met with neighborhood associations and anyone in sum who cares to know
more about the Code. In some I think it's an admirable effort that is
motivated solely by the wish to make Iowa City a better, more attractive
place to live and work. In the last few years I've traveled a lot around the
country attending family events, and everywhere I go I look at housing -
that's my thing. From Seattle to Hartford, and Washington D.C. via
Chicago, Toledo, Columbus and Kentucky, I'm aware of new residential
development and commercial development projects that are attractive to
look at, and every time I see one of these, I find myself thinking 'why
can't Iowa City do something like this?' I thought a lot about it and I just
concluded that it's because there's a lack of vision here that the new
development code will do much to remedy. Surely there will be, and
you're hearing it, much protest from builders and developers about what
they perceive as unnecessary regulation. Let the market decide, they will
say. Well the fact is there isn't much to decide about. There isn't much
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 23
choice. We have to buy what they build. I suppose that's the Land
Development Council, what they build, and much of what they build all
looks the same. Garages that dwarf facades, driveways that are bigger
than lawns, invisible main entryways you have to look hard to find. They
say that design costs more. Well, I recalled that there was an excellent
article in the Press-Citizen in the opinion section on September 19th. I
went out to the Press-Citizen today and looked it up, and guess who wrote
it? Robert Brooks, Architect and Chair of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I brought along with me copies for you in case you missed
the article because it sums up so wonderfully a lot of the, what the new
Code is trying to do, and answers a lot of the objections that are being
raised here this evening. I'd like to give you copies. And I'd just like to
quote from one part of the article, concerning the design aspect that Mr.
Siders is so angry about. Mr. Brooks, who is an architect, says, "Good
design does not necessarily mean high cost. In fact, we have found
through out research that in some communities, non-profit, affordable
housing developers are leading the way on neighborhood design. These
developers have discovered that a minimum amount spent on careful
design reaps large benefits in increased equity, pride of ownership, and
long-term sustainability. In addition, some of the midwest's largest
market rate production homebuilders, responding to consumer demand for
affordable homes and quality residential neighborhoods, have incorporated
these same important elements into their home plans. Another rumor
circulating is that the Commission is trying to dictate the style of homes
and require expensive design elements. This is not true. The Commission
agrees that it should be up to the homebuyer or renter to choose any style
of home they want. The only new standards added to the Code apply to
new duplexes, townhouses, and to single-family homes built on small lots.
Because I'm usually up here about Historic Preservation, let me just say
that 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 this effort in Iowa City. I think it is up to you, rather than the
Land Development Council, to rise above personal profit motives of
others and to do what is in the best interest and long-term interest of all
Iowa City's citizens and of Iowa City. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Digrnann: Hi. My name's Kevin Digmann. I don't claim to know a lot about the
Code. I leave that up to Glenn Siders and Steve Gordon to take care of
that, but what I am hearing here, many of you may not know, I work with
Hodge Construction. We do a lot of multi-family homes around here. We
do single-family homes. I bought my first home in 1991 and it was a zero-
lot line. I bought it in Iowa City. When we went out, myself and my wife,
to look for a home, we looked through all kinds of homes. We looked all
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 24
throughout Iowa City and when we looked at the prices that we had to
pay, we felt we got a lot more home for the dollar and a lot newer home
when we found a zero-lot line, a duplex. Currently, we are building...we
have a 67-1ot subdivision in North Liberty. We're building 2,200 square
foot zero-lot lines that have four bedrooms, three and a half baths, and
over 2,200 square feet for under $190,000. Now that is very affordable
housing for a young family who might have two or three kids, who are
both young professionals that are doing that. What I wanted to say is, you
know, by providing and shutting your eyes on what these multi-family
units look like, there's a lot of units people have not been inside. They
drive by them; they don't like to see two duplexes side-by-side. I mean,
we all know there are areas that, you know, don't look very good. There
are single-family homes that are older that do not look very good in this
town, but when you go by new subdivisions that are multi-family, and
anybody really took the time to go through those units and see what they
look like, they would find that they're very nice on the inside, they're
appealing, and they do attract a certain crowd of people that cannot afford
to go out and buy a brand-new home, you know, a single-family house in
this town, and I want to just stress, I like Iowa City. You guys know me;
we've got a lot of commercial property in here, and what I want to stress is
that had I not been able to find my home in Iowa City, an affordable home
that was a zero-lot line that we wanted, we could have very well moved
out of the community and done something else, but because I had my first
starter home in Iowa City, I grew to love Iowa City and that's why we
stayed here, and I just think that everybody needs to realize what's
considered affordable and what people want. Lots of young people want
to have a new home. They want something that's brand new, brand new
carpet that they've had a chance to pick the colors out, and do those
things, and by eliminating and putting these, like we don't want this
anymore amount of development you're allowing, they will go up to the
other communities, but then I want you to remember, also, that some day
those people are going to have more money and where are they going to
build their permanent home at, and as far as people saying people don't
have choices, everybody has a choice. If somebody wants to come to our
office tomorrow and say 'I want to build a spec home and here's how I
want it designed,' you know we would gladly sit down and build that
home for them. So for people to stand up here and say that they can only
buy what the builders build is not correct, because there's a lot of builders,
there's all kinds of them outside, there's a lot of them in here, that would
gladly sit down with anybody and help design their home and build it for
them. So I just hope you guys will consider that when you talk about
down-zoning this, and again, I don't claim to know everything that's
involved in this, but I think everybody needs to realize that everybody's
got to buy a first home sometime, and if you want to keep people in Iowa
City, you got to consider being a little bit more lenient on eliminating a lot
of the multi-family homes that are affordable for a lot of people. Thanks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
//2 Page 25
Lehman: Thank you, Kevin. I don't know about the rest of the Council, but from
my perspective, it will be much easier for me if you specifically indicate
portions of the Code that you feel are particularly good or portions that
don't work, rather than being real general. We're trying to work this
through. I think everybody would agree there's a tremendous amount of
effort gone into this, and I'm sure that most of it is really, really good and
there may be some issues that need to be changed. We need to know what
those are. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Pascoe: I'm Judith Pascoe, and I live, when I moved to Iowa City I first bought a
home in Goosetown and lived there for 11 years with my family, and just
this past summer I moved into the north side so I'm still on the same
street, but five blocks closer in, and I'm speaking here to support the
Code. I think the group of people that has worked on it over these last six
months.., six months, longer than that, has done an excellent job of kind of
surveying the opinions of the city at-large and giving people a lot of
opportunity to weigh in, and I'm afraid to mention something specific
because I'm afraid it's going to be something that I'm supposed to talk
about next week instead of this week. I don't know...I will mention one
thing in terms of affordable housing. When I first moved here, the place I
could find affordable housing, really affordable housing, was Goosetown,
and the kinds of houses that I, the same type of house that I bought, quite
often recently get ripped down and duplexes or larger things are built
instead, thus there are fewer houses for someone like me to be able to
afford when I first moved to town. So, I just would, in general, say that I
think all the people who have worked on the Code have done an excellent
job and I totally support it and I hope you will too. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Anthony: Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is
Jerry Anthony and I am an architect and urban planner and five-year
resident of Iowa City. I thank the Council for initiating the process of
preparing a new Zoning Ordinance. I thank the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City staff for their tremendous amount of work that has
gone into this, and getting us here. I thank you all for the opportunities
provided for citizens of Iowa City to engage in this venture, for the
diligence in responding to questions and concerns about the Code. Thank
you very much. I have three brief comments to make, and I really will be
very brief on this, and unfortunately they're a bit general, and I can get
into specifics if you have questions. First, why do we need a new Zoning
Code? The reason is this, in a progressive city such as Iowa City, the
citizens of the city, through a deliberative, collaborative, and
comprehensive process came up with a vision of what the community
should be, and in the case of Iowa City, this was done in the mid-1990's,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 26
and a Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1997, 1998 contained the vision of
what the citizens of Iowa City want our city to develop into. To make this
vision a reality, the City uses techniques and policies, such as the zoning
ordinance, subdivision regulations, and building by-laws. Of all these
techniques, the zoning ordinance is perhaps the most important. Our
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997. Our current zoning ordinance
was adopted in 1983. 1983 when a PC was a novelty that some faculty
and universities had. Right now there are probably more computers in this
building than trashcans. But in effect then, right now we are using tools of
the early-1980's to implement a vision for Iowa City in the 21st century.
This clearly is problematic. Hence, we need a new zoning ordinance. My
second point is this. A lot of opposition has been voiced of some
provisions of the proposed new Zoning Code. And I think all comments
merit careful attention, and then those that do not advance for the larger
public good need to be rejected. A strong set of opposition, comments and
opposition, have come from area developers, and I think the major
concern of this group is that design regulations in the Code can increase
housing cost and make housing less affordable. And I think that statement
was captured by one of the earlier presenters who said, 'No person should
be forced to live in a house, or forced to live in certain kinds of houses, or
the design of the houses should not be mandated by someone else.' I want
to respond to that specifically, specific statement. Earlier this week, I
procured copies of these restrictions that are imposed by area developers
and builders in some of the developments in Iowa City in the last five
years. These are either members of the LDC or their friends in
subdivisions that they have developed. And they have several design
guidelines, as I found out, from these documents that are available
publicly at the record's office. I'm going to read four brief samples.
Sample one, each residential yard will include white picket fence
screening near the entrance and/or side yard, at a precise location, and
offer design approved by (developer's name) or its designee. For one-
story homes, a minimum of 1,500 square feet of finished living space shall
be contained on the first floor. Specification, as I see it. The roof of all
dwellings and garages must have a minimum pitch of 6 by 12, that is a 6-
inch rise for each 12-inch of run. A fourth sample, prior to any
construction of new dwelling structures, plans and specifications for the
proposed structure shall be submitted for approval to the subdivider or its
designee. In addition to plans and specifications, the application will
show the location and type of fences, parking areas, and other relevant
matters, including the exact location on the lot of the proposed
improvement the materials to be used and the exterior color scheme. Now
these developers are imposed by developers, on an arbitrary basis, and are
not based on any standards except the whims and fancies of individual
developers and subdividers. And yet when the City wants to introduce a
few design guidelines after a public and participatory process, suddenly
lots of folks are all up in arms. I find this strange and reprehensible.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 27
Third, this is my third point. I broadly support the zoning ordinance as
proposed, but I fear that it lacks the crucial element that is sorely needed
in our community. This has not been discussed. It has not been objected
to. It has not been pointed out, perhaps by anyone before me, so I feel the
need to point this out. It lacks a mandatory, inclusionary zoning policy.
That would require developers to build a certain percentage of units in all
new developments that can be acquired by low and moderate-income
families. I firmly believe that the new zoning ordinance should include a
mandatory inclusionary policy for two reasons. The first is this, residents
of Johnson County have the greatest difficulty in finding affordable
housing when compared to residents of all other Iowa counties. Johnson
County has the highest proportion of cost-'burden houses in the state, bar
none. Communities that do not have affordable housing and do not care to
resolve the problem, step on the slippery slope of economic decline and
soon become economically stagnant and unattractive places. When every
single school teacher or police officer or fire fighter or nurse cannot afford
to buy or rent at affordable prices in Iowa City. Does the City wish to
continue being a community that has no place for its schoolteachers,
police officers, and fire fighters? And according to the citizens of Iowa
City, the answer to this question contained in the Comprehensive Plan is a
resounding "no." The citizens of the City want their fire fighters and
police officers and school teachers and nurses to be able to stay in Iowa
City, and an inclusionary zoning policy can help make this vision a reality.
There is another reason for incorporating an inclusionary zoning policy.
In the past two years, much debate in Iowa City has happened about the
location of low-income housing. Some of this debate was generated, or
initiated by the School District, and it is certainly true that low-income
housing tends to be found more commonly in certain parts of the city than
others. Why is this so? It is become low-income, moderately priced
rental and ownership housing can only locate in certain parts of the City.
In fact, the City formed a Scattered Site Housing Task Force to explore
ways in which housing that is affordable to low and moderate-income
families can be even more evenly distributed across the city, and one of
the main recommendations of this Task Force, which shall become public
in a few days, is that the City implement a mandatory inclusionary zoning
policy. So the absence of an inclusionary zoning policy in the proposed
zoning ordinance is shocking. Yes, if included it will raise a firestorm.
There will be many strongly worded objections to it. I predict that the
crux of those arguments will be if such a policy is adopted, developers
would boycott Iowa City and development will pass us by. Now, I wasn't
around here in 1961 when the City adopted the first zoning ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. But I'm sure there were many developers and
builders then who said that if the policies were adopted and they were
adopted, they would leave. And perhaps many did leave, but development
in Iowa City continued, guided by a zoning ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan. The City has developed into an excellent place for businesses and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 28
families, far superior to many communities in the neighborhood, the state,
and the country. I believe City Councils in the past have exercised their
wisdom and shown courage in putting forward what is best for the
community, and I believe this Council shall do so too. I hope this Council
will accept the proposed ordinance as is, with the inclusion of a mandatory
inclusionary policy. Thank you very much for your time, and for those
Councilors going up for re-election, I wish you my very best.
Lehman: Thank you.
McCallum: I'm going to get nervous over all the anticipation here. I think I sent a
letter to you earlier today, and so my comments are going to be reflective
of that letter.
Lehman: You need to state your name.
McCallum: My name is Mark McCallum. I live at 811 College Street in Iowa City.
I'm here 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 apartments that have a smaller
number of bedrooms in the multi-family zones. I demonstrated a need for
this need by providing Planning staff with an analysis of over 300 rental
permits on College Street. This information was obtained from the
Housing Inspection website on the internet. Of the 300 rental permits on
College Street, only one accessible unit was available as a one-bedroom
unit, and that was owned by Jeanette and John Railey, I think it's 730
College Street. Accessible units in new buildings on College Street that
have been built since the adoption of the ADA guidelines have been
primarily built-out as three or more bedroom units, most of them as five-
bedroom units. I'm not an expert in this area. I am a landlord though, but
I'm guessing those persons seeking accessible housing are not looking for
a five-bedroom unit at $400 a bedroom at over $2,000 a month rent. At
the public hearing on August 18th, when my proposal was reviewed, there
was no comment or the discussion on the merits of this proposal from
Zoning Commissioners, only an assertion of the obvious from Planning
staff that the current ADA regulations require accessible units on the main
floor of new buildings, and yes, that is true. But there was no
acknowledgement of the issue I presented to them. I think we deserve
better than that, and I hope that you guys will direct staff to look at this a
little bit more closely. I had two other proposals, as well, most of which
are just trying to create more housing diversity as you get closer in on that.
So, does anyone have any questions, I guess, on that?
Vanderhoef: Are you planning to adapt existing?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 29
McCallum: Well, I think there should be some language in the Zoning Code because
what is happening, and there is my editorial from the Press-Citizen that
was published on a Sunday in July, is that we need to recognize the market
place that we're in because land prices are so high, builders will
downtown, and I'm talking about all the multi-family zones in the City,
builders are going to develop out to the max. In fact, I spoke with one of
the landowners who built on College Street, where the old public library
was at. Most of those, if you look at my second page, were built (TAPE
ENDS) but the point being is that the market place is going to dictate,
unless there's a density bonus, that the developers are going to build out
the max of what they're allowed in that particular zone. And so there's no
accommodation for creating smaller units for developers that chose to do
that. And that's all I'm asking for is an incentive. I didn't define that. I
was just hoping that Planning staff would come up with something that
they could incorporate into the language of the Zoning Code.
Vanderhoef: So incentive in the way of financial?
McCallum: More units, more units specifically. So, let's say, in an RM-44 zone you
can build up to five-bedroom units, based on the lot size of that zone. If
you were to build, let's say you can build 10 five-bedroom units. Well,
then write something in the Zoning Code that allows you to build maybe
twenty-two bedroom units. The total number of bedrooms in the building
is going to be the same. The density's going to be the same, but you're
going to have more affordable units and a more mix. One of my proposals
that was also rejected that's in the editorial that you can look at was also to
try to create a more mix of housing types, in all the multi-family zones. I
happen to have a, live and own a building at 811 College that was built in
1920's. I have a lot of smaller units. The Zoning Code is encouraging me
to gut my building and rebuild right now, rebuild it as all thirteen five-
bedroom units. I don't want to do that. I don't want to hurt the historic
nature of my building. I have a mixture of both old and young living in
my building, and I'd like to keep it that way, but I, but my whole point is
that builders should be able to determine, or landlords should be able to
determine, a mix of their building, especially when they're doing new
buildings, and in a building you wish to have one-bedrooms, two-
bedrooms, three-bedrooms, and maybe some five-bedroom units. Now the
new Code, the only remedy that's in the new Code with regard to the
problem that I just addressed, is well RM-44 you still have five-bedroom
units, but in the RNC-20's and some of the other multi-family zones that
I'm going to decrease that by one. So the builders are now going to build
out to four-bedroom units. It really doesn't...the new proposed Zoning
Code, I say, is not creative enough in allowing more mixed uses, or more
different types of density units within those, they punish developers for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 30
developing smaller, more affordable units in the multi-family zones. Am I
being clear?
Vanderhoef: ! see what you're saying. I'm...affordable is sort of a loose term as far as
~' I listen to it, and if you're talking about affordable one-bedroom
apartments which typically are the most expensive because they have to
have the same amenities of a kitchen and complete bath and those kinds of
things, where they can be shared in a multi-unit so it's more affordable for
two people to share.
McCallum: And likewise, more affordable for five people, but many people want to
live alone.
Vanderhoef: But the need...I hear you saying that we need more one-bedroom
apartments and somehow we have to attack the way of getting those to be
affordable for certain adult individuals who need a one-bedroom and
walkability or accessibility.
McCallum: Yeah, and...
Lehman: I think what you're talking about is density based on numbers of
bedrooms, not number of units. That has come up... I think that is an issue
that probably will be dealt with by the City, perhaps not in this Zoning
Code, but that's a, that issue has a lot of ramifications when you look at
new construction, existing homes in existing neighborhoods...
McCallum: But it should be addressed in this new Zoning Code. I mean, I'll cite the
need for the Nuisance Ordinance. When you think about it, when you're
developing five-bedroom, encouraging only the development of five-
bedroom apartments on campus, or anywhere in town for that matter,
you're developing the need for the Nuisance Ordinance, to a certain
degree, because especially in a college town, those are basically party-pod
apartments, is how they describe it. I don't think if you talked with
landlords that have predominantly efficiencies, one or two-bedroom units
in their building, that they're having problems that you are in the buildings
that have the larger apartments, and you know, those comments are
directed more at the campus, but that's where all the new building and
activities go on. I also sell real estate and I have clients from California
calling me all the time. I have a guy who's looking...he has Parkinson's
Disease that wants to live close in to our central business district, and he'll
either buy a house or rent. I don't have anything in my building for him
right now on that. So, I'm looking, and there's just not much in inventory
that's out there, and I think the way, by encouraging mixed, I want to say
scenarios of some sort, maybe it would be simpler just to do (can't
understand) per acre of land, and then let the market place and the
developers determine what the mix is. And, think about this, to do what
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
//2 Page 31
I'm talking about, allowing smaller units, those developers are still
penalized with the parking requirements because as you know, if you
have, build a three-bedroom apartment, you only need two parking spaces.
I don't think that changes in the new Code, and so there still is that
incentive to build out larger units, but I think some landlords will develop
the other direction because some of them are sitting on those larger units
right now with vacancies.
Elliott: Marc, you mentioned incentives a couple times. Do you have.., give us,
please, an example, couple examples, what kinds of things represent
incentives?
McCallum: Well, in this case I think density bonuses for handicap accessible. If we
say that is a value that we appreciate in this town, that we should be
offering...with that type of housing, a density bonus. So, create incentive
for the large developers to create additional units.
Elliott: So the density is all you're really talking about...for incentives?
McCallum: Well, for handicap accessible, that would be one way to encourage that
type.
Elliott: I was just wondering if you had anything else in mind.
McCallum: No, I...well that doesn't cost the City anything there. I mean, what are we
talking about, financial assistance I guess or...
Elliott: No, I was just wondering.
McCallum: Bob, I think the incentive he's referring to, you can have four five-
bedroom apartments or ten two-bedroom, the density remains exactly the
same, but the number of units is different.
McCallum: And I agree with you. The total bedrooms, you know, it's sort of how you
count it.
Lehman: We've made a note of that.
McCallum: Yeah, on there, what's the difference between forty occupants with
predominantly four-bedroom apartments or forty occupants with
predominantly two-bedroom apartments? You still have forty occupants
in your building. Appreciate your time. Please call me if you have any
other questions.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 32
Bailey: Can we hear from staff on this? I'm... I read this with a great deal of
interest. I thought it was very interesting. Do you want to...
Lehman: Well, I think...
Champion: We talked about it the other night briefly, didn't we?
McCallum: I would be happy to meet with people and come up with ideas on these
issues.
Bailey: As long as we noted it, I'd like to discuss this.
Lehman: I've made a note of it, too. Okay, we will discuss it.
McCallum: Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Howe: Good evening. My name is Jerry Howe. I'm the current President of the
Iowa City Area Association of Realtors. I live in Coralville, but I do
business in Iowa City. All the stats and information that everybody's been
gathering about the new Zoning Code, I think they can present you that
information. I would just like to speak a little bit about the whole process
in general and what the market does dictate, and the various types of
housing that are available in Iowa City. I have a sister who lives in
Goosetown, and you know she loves the little house that she lives in. You
couldn't build that house today, and you probably could not build that
house even with the new zoning rewrite. The City has attempted to
recreate those neighborhoods in the Peninsula such as the project...or the
Peninsula project, but my sister couldn't afford to buy in the Peninsula and
maintain that kind of a property. The housing in Iowa City and Coralville
and in the area are very diverse and very interesting place to be and to
work and to live. It takes all types of housing and all types of people to
make a community. There are those people who love the historic home
that will always move to the historic home that will love the front porch
that will love that kind of atmosphere, but not everybody will and not
everybody wants that, and the consumer does dictate slightly what that
will be. If you did not want to buy a brand new house and wanted a
historic home, you'd find those options. So, what the City can dictate as
far as a style, as far as a review, I think is very difficult because all of a
sudden, even if you want the front porch and you want that look, not
everybody does and not everybody buys that, and I think you have to be
very careful about dictating style and dictating what a consumer really
wants and what a consumer can afford. I think it's important to have good
and open communications about all this with all parties involved, and I'm
not sure that some times everybody doesn't put the spin on it the way they
This represe~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 33
want it to be spun, so I hope everybody is diligent in taking a very broad
and visionary view of what Iowa City is. It is a historical community with
wonderful historic neighborhoods with wonderful properties. Not every
zero-lot line is purchased to become a rental, and not every zero-lot line is
a horrible place to live, and not every grand home on an acre can
everybody afford, and not can everybody put affordable housing in those
kinds of neighborhoods. So I would hope that you would take a very
diligent, very careful, very broad approach to this whole zoning issue.
The figures and stats everybody can spin to the way they want them, and
everybody will give you their side and their viewpoint, but take your time
and be very diligent in your consideration of what you're going to do to
this community, for now and in years to come. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
O'Donnell: Jerry? Jerry? Could you give me a couple of examples of why your sister
would not be able to build her present home.
Howe: In the Peninsula?
O'Donnell: No..(can't hear).
Howe: She lives on a very small lot. By the current standards, if, you know, I'm
not even sure if something happened to her home if she could replace her
home on that lot unless it was grandfathered in.
O'Donnell: Because of the size...
Howe: Yeah, because of the size of the lot. If you get into any of the older parts
of, you know, Iowa City a 40-foot wide lot is not uncommon on some of
those homes. If you really look at the historical lot sizes in the older parts
of Iowa City, even by today's Code, you probably could not build those
kinds of houses on those kinds of lots.
O'Donnell: Okay, thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Wright: That was my realtor (laughter). Good evening, I'm Michael Wright. I live
at 815 Roosevelt in Iowa City. And I'm sorry I'm going to speak a little
bit generally, a little bit specifically so there's a bit of a blend. I do
support the proposed Zoning Code. As some of you probably know, I'm a
member of thelowa City Board of Adjustment, and we deal with some of
the zoning codes and it's.., special exceptions, the occasional lapses in the
Code, and I appreciate the care that was put into this by the staff in trying
to simplify some parts of the document that were actually quite complex.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 34
It's longer, but I think part of the reasons it's longer is it has some better
explanations and it has some better definitions in it. I appreciate very
much the time that the Planning and Zoning Commission put into this. It's
a volunteer group, like the Board of Adjustment, and it probably ate their
lives for the better part of two years, as well as the City staff. I think it's
an exceptionally well put together document, and it draws a lot of its
inspiration from the Comprehensive Plan of Iowa City. It was, what is it
now, seven or eight years old. That set a lot of the. tone for this new
document, as did the visual preference surveys that were run through the
City last year, and that's what I would like to speak to a little bit more
specifically. I support strongly the design specifications in the new
Zoning Code. When Cecile Kuenzli spoke earlier, I actually wanted to
just get up and say 'ditto,' but I thought I could be a little more specific
than that. These design specifications do not dictate what can be built.
Garages seem to be a particular hot-button issue, as far as that goes, and it
seems to me that basically all this does is avoid the massive front-loaded
garages that the design preference surveys were pretty overwhelmingly
unpopular. Those were also unpopular when the design preference survey
was presented to realtors and developers. They preferred other
developments, as well, from a visual standpoint. That doesn't mean the
interior of these houses isn't fine, that they don't have good layout, but it
does indicate that there's room for more imaginative design and I believe
that's what these design standards would actually implement. They're not
particularly strict, they're not particularly harsh, but they do give some
basic elements from which builders can spring some very good ideas with
just a little bit of creativity and a little bit of imagination. Thank you.
Lehman: Thard~ you. We'll take one more and then we'll continue to public hearing
until next MOnday night. Does someone else wish to speak? Sign in at
the podium, if you would please.
Park: Hi, I'm Lindsay Park and I'm a 27-year resident of Iowa City. I own a
small business near downtown Iowa City, and I purchased my first home,
my only home, in 1992, on Douglass Street. It's a single-family residence
with a detached garage that is set back, as are all the garages in that little
neighborhood, and if I had not purchased that house at that time, I don't
believe that I would be able to afford...that I would have a house at this
point, that I could afford a house in the current market, and just reading
over these proposed changes in the Zoning Code, I like most of what I'm
hearing. They sound like responses to the basic pet peeves of people that
I've been hearing all my life, or all the time I've been living in this town.
Look at that ugly garage staring at us, you know, covering the view of the
house. Look at this row of houses with all these garages sticking out, and
you know, look at this ugly building that was put up with no eaves and no
you know no trim, just the windows are just cut into the plastic siding or
whatever's been put in there. So I don't, they just don't sound to me like
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.
#2 Page 35
really strict, horrible, dictating limits to what developers or people who are
going to design houses can do. They just sound like good guidelines that
would help promote just a better environment for everyone who lives in
the City, and it's not just, I just want to remind you that even though I am
a homeowner, it's...what about everybody else in this town who doesn't
own homes and isn't a developer. They also have to look at these
buildings, and live in these neighborhoods, and you know, I think a lot of
them would benefit from some good planning and some good guidelines
in this town. So, I have to say I like what I read in here and I'm hoping
you will too. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you. Do we have a motion to continue the public hearing to
October 10th.9
Elliott: So moved.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing. All in
favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Karr: Move to accept correspondence.
Vanderhoef: Move to accept.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor?
Opposed? The motion carries. Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Elliott: Steve has a word.
Atkins: Want to announce when the next hearing is?
Lehman: Next Monday night...yeah, I did say that. October 10th, 7:00 P.M. Okay?
We are adjourned.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 5, 2005.