HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-10 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: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. This is obviously a continuation of
a public hearing that started last Wednesday. If you wish to address the
Council, please sign in, give your name, and we'll accept your comments.
Boy, there's a lot of people here that don't want to talk. (laughter)
Somebody has to be first. Go!
Kammermeyer: John Kammermeyer, home is 116 Ferson. I just want to make a few
comments and I will be submitting more in the future in a letter to the
Council. FeTM comments concerning - there's been references and
discussion about the focus groups earlier that picked designs that they
liked - I personally believe it's a fallacy that that, that those focus groups
necessarily represent the majority opinion of the community. They were
relatively small groups, with a specific agenda. I don't think they
represent the community as a whole. For example, if you give a person
two pictures and they may prefer one over the other visually, but if they're
told the cost of both and then they're told to pick the one that they would
buy or they would pay for, you might get a difference choice, a different
answer. I don't think, as a summary statement of that, I don't think we
should be doing design standards in this Code. Secondly, some questions
for you folks to think about before approving the new Code. How many
homes and commercial buildings might be made nonconforming by
adopting these new standards and roles? What if one of those structures
bums down - can it be rebuilt as it was or does it have to meet the new
requirements? What if someone wants to add an addition and under the
old Code they could, and the new they couldn't? What about changing or
altering parking? If a building, or the placement of a building on a lot or
anything about the building becomes nonconforming, then this will
increase the cost of insurance coverage on the building. For example, I'm
Director of Building Corporation for Firo-Sigrna Medical Fraternity on
Ferson. That's a nonconforming building and use. Our insurance
coverage is higher. So if you make a lot of structures nonconforming by
this new Code, you will increase their insurance coverage costs. Number
three, I would recommend that before you approve the new Code you have
a side-by-side comparison or chart for every zone and every section within
every zone, comparing the new and old Code for such things as yard
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 2
requirements, parking requirements, density allowance, screening
requirements, building and parking lot placement, and on and on. In other
words, every zone and every section there, you should have a table or tally
or chart comparing old and new because it's very difficult to do that, just
by looking through the proposed ordinance. I personally think this should
have been looked at in that detail at the Planning and Zoning Commission
level. Next point, I am having two lawyers in two firms in Iowa City here,
prominent ones, looking at the new Code, and I will have...I've just
received and will be receiving more input from them, and I plan to submit
this in a letter to the Council in the next week or so, but initially some of
their thoughts or comments are that this is a very complex document, that
it's more complex than the present Code we have. That this new Code
seems to give staff more discretionary authority to impose their wishes as
to design and placement standards and decisions, and as such, one of them
called this new Code a "lawyer's delight" and the other a "lawyer's
dream" for litigation. And my last point, as an overview, if this Code is
adopted as is, then I think you will find that developers will tend to go
elsewhere more, out into the county, to Coralville, to North Liberty, where
there's a little less regulation and restrictions, especially on stringent
design standards. I suspect if you look into the data, percentage-wise are
based on population ratios. We are already seeing more and more
building permits being issued in other communities and in the county than
in town. I can't prove that, but I suspect that. And I think again it's a
term I've used a year or two ago here, if we adopt this complex ordinance
with design standards, I think what I call the "slow hemorrhaging" as a
medical reference to other communities in the area continue and
accelerate, and Iowa City will be left in the dust, if you will, as far as
further development, compared to...if you just drive up 965 or out in
Coralville, you see the development that is occurring there. Thank you.
Bailey: Sir?
Lehman: Thank you.
Bailey: Dr. Kammermeyer? I have a point of specificity that I just want to clarify.
You mentioned design standards. Could you be more specific about what
you're referring to?
Kammermeyer: For instance, the way the garage is placed.
Bailey: So you're calling that a design standard?
Kammermeyer: Yeah, or porch, type of porches, or placement of the building, the way it
appears.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 3
Bailey: You are calling...property placement issues design standards? This is
what you're referring to?
Kammermeyer: Yes, and also the appearance of the buildings.
Bailey: And uh...
Kammermeryer: I think we shouldn't deal with esthetics at all here.
Bailey: Okay, can you tell me what you, what are you specifically referring to?
Duplex...
Kammermeyer: Porch, garage appearance...
Bailey: Right, I got that, but...is there anything else?
Kammermeyer: Well, in the document, which I have not totally gone through in total,
there are references, originally before any amendments have been
submitted to design standards or characteristics. The word "design" is in
there 400 plus times. I don't think we ought to be talking about design of
buildings or features of buildings or appearance of buildings.
Bailey: But when you reference that you're talking about property placement, or
building placement?
Kammermeyer: As a matter of fact, yeah, as a detail, yes.
Bailey: Thank you.
Champion: Karin, can you answer that question about rebuilding, in case of fire, of a
nonconforming building? The percentage of the building?
Dilkes: I think it's going to 70%, or under the new Code it's proposed to be 70.
Lehman: 75%?
Franklin: Is that what you wanted, Connie?
Champion: Yes, yes.
Franklin: Okay, because there's a number of changes that have been made to the
nonconforming provisions, which may get less stringent than it is right
now. That is, it treats a nonconforming building, a nonconforming use,
nonconforming development separately, where as now if one aspect of it is
nonconforming, the whole thing is treated as nonconforming. That's a
This represer~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 4
detail that we can get into later, if you want to, which is why I brought
Karen up in case you want to. (laughter)
Vanderhoefi While you're there, too. This question of insurance had never occurred to
me that nonconformings create an added burden of more costly insurance.
Can we get a little information on that?
Franklin: I can't answer that. I would have to...okay.
Bailey: With the latitude that we approach that with percentage-wise, does that
' also affect, so if you're getting more information on that, does the
' percentage of the, that percentage number, make a difference - that would
be interesting to me.
O'Donnell: What is the percentage now? Did we .... 70 to...50 to 75%?
Bailey: We went up to 75, correct?
Lehman: Right.
Howard: The existing Code is 100% of the assessed value. Anything...if the
building is destroyed at anything less than 100%, then it can be rebuilt.
The new Code, the proposed Code, changes that to 75%, which is more in
line with what typical zoning codes allow.
Bailey: And that was increased from the original draft, I remember there was a
. letter.
Howard: Right, right.
Bailey: Okay.
Howard: What we found was, that the zoning codes tended to range from about
50% to about 75%, so it was changed to 75%.
Bailey: Okay, thanks.
Lehman: I would encourage folks who address Council to be very specific. I don't
think there's any issue that we will not be willing to take a look at, but
general comments are certainly welcome, but specific comments, I think,
will receive specific attention. So if you...the more specific you can be
the easier it's going to be for us.
Coretsopoulos: My name is Chris Coretsopoulos; I live on 1232 E. Davenport Street. I'm
here to ask about the rezoning for duplexing for something that's in an R-8
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 5
zone. Now Goosetown and the areas around there have a unique thing in
which the houses are sort of laid like shotguns on a property. They're
very...the houses are close together, yet the property is deep, and in any
duplexing type of a situation, that sort of aspect ratio often will tip it so
that the property, the size of the property, is sufficient for a duplexing to
occur, yet in reality, anybody that has a house, the next house adjacent to
it isn't all that far away. So one ends up with that type of property, the
areas that have the narrower houses with deep lots and alleys, they're
just...that whole area becomes prime for duplexing. That part of the town
already is one of the maj or parts for rental property, and you already end
up having houses that will have four or more people, even living inside
them, and then if they were to go up for duplexing, that part of town where
there's affordable housing where people can end up buying a lot, relatively
cheaply compared to other parts of town, end up just becoming the prime
area where development would occur and duplexes would be put in, yet
that part of town ends up having a pretty strong congestion, and when you
go up down farther towards campus on Davenport Street, for instance, you
notice what ends up happening with that. You end up having cars parking
on either side, a tremendous amount of congestion, and more unto burden
in that part of town than in other parts of town, which just the lots may lie
differently, the houses are farther apart, the properties aren't as deep back.
So, I think that there should be some aspect ratio or some space between
adjacent property considerations in the R-8 designation. That one with the
R-8 designation, within a certain aspect ratio, but when you have a
property that lies, you know, three times deeper than it is wide, or ·
something like that, it just becomes one of these things.., even though it
seems like a big lot, it's actually from an occupation point of view, not
really useful space. I mean, most people would rather have a wider lot.
It's just the way it is in that part of town.
Lehman: Thank you.
McCallum: · Mark McCallum, 811 College Street in Iowa City here. I'll be very
specific. I gave you a memo today, based on a multi-family housing
model, which specifically, I think, addresses the lack of diversity in the
multi-family zones. It's called a Multi-Family Zoning Model, a plan to
encourage rental housing diversity and development of small one or two-
bedroom, accessible apartments, and what I'm trying to do is to propose a
compromise between what I would describe as Planning's attempt to
downzone many of the multi-family zones and I understand the reason for
that, and...but again, I think the issue at hand is, is for the last 20 years the
Zoning Code has encouraged us to buildout five-bedroom units, especially
in the Central Business District, where land values are high and so
developers just build at their maximum capacity on that, and so you're
dealing with the market place where, now, if you downzone to four...I'11
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 6
use the RNC, or the new RNS -20 zone as proposed, will now reduce that,
the RNC-20 from five to four, well, now we're going to have developers
just building four-bedroom units. I don't...that doesn't address the overall
issue of trying to provide a mix of housing diversity in all of our multi-
family zones, and so the proposal before you is to create a distinction in
the, create a relationship that not only looks at the number of units per acre
of land, but also the number of bedrooms, and when you think about it,
that's actually how the building...I own a multi-family building. Bills me
for my rental permit. It's not based on the number of units, it's based on
the number of bedrooms I have in my building, and the goal of this plan
would be to create a more diverse housing market place. Buildings with
not just all four-bedrooms or three-bedrooms or whatever, but a little bit of
. each. So that people of all different ages and lifestyles and situations can
live together. Actually, I think that's the way it was done in...some of the
buildings that we have that were built in the 20's and that's why those
buildings still work very well for us today. But a lot of these buildings
just aren't being built because the Zoning Code encourages the opposite.
Last week I came and spoke with you about creating a density bonus for
handicap-accessible units. If you adopted the first part of this proposal
that I'm presenting to you tonight, I don't think we would have such a lack
of what I saw in my survey of newer buildings on College Street was that
they're building all the required ADA housing as three or more bedroom
units, and that's, in my mind, not reaching...and most of them are built out
as five-bedroom units, handicap-accessible units. Well, it doesn't seem
like we're meeting the demographic need of the person most likely to be
seeking that type of housing. I don't think it's going to be looking for a
five-bedroom unit, or a four-bedroom unit, and if you're familiar with, I
don't know how many of you guys are renters, but on campus housing
rents for about $400 a bedroom so a four or five-bedroom unit is going to
be $2,000 to, or $1,600 to $2,000 a month, and so all I'm trying to do is to
address what I call an imbalance in the market place, and this may be only
an imbalance that occurs in a college town like Iowa City, but because of
the, you know, the University influence on the market place here, and
again, just fits in with what I think I hear other people talking about, as far
as creating a more diverse, unique downtown area, we're going to have a
grocery store downtown, but a place that is inviting to all people, of all
ages, and in situations, to live close by. The second part of this
proposal...
Lehman: You need to wrap it up.
McCallum: I will. Just simply a search, what you guys were asking me last week, how
do we offer a density bonus. There's two proposals for multi-family -
one's new construction and one's existing, and basically simply, it's just
to offer a density bonus like we do for planned area developments in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 7
which developers design right, it's just to do it for handicap-accessible
housing, as well, and by empowering the Board of Adjustment through
special (can't hear) do just that, and that's all I have. And I would just
solicit any questions that you might have.
Lehman: Thank you, Mark.
O'Donnell: A lot of work.
Bailey: Can I ask Karen...Karin? We talked about this last week...Karen Howard
or, well I think you were still there Karin Franklin, and you said there
were provisions in the current Code and possibility even in this new Code
to get at this? We didn't have a long conversation, so I just want to...
Howard: Yeah, we are looking in to...I mean, part of the factor is what actually is
the mix of multi-family units in the central part of the City. New, of
course, new buildings all have to have accessible units on the first floor.
The buildings Mark's talking about that tend to be four and five-bedroom
apartments tend to be close to downtown and the University, not in the
areas outlying. So, we're having Housing Inspection Services Department
look at the mix of apartments. We did a study a couple years ago on the
mix of apartments close to downtown, and so I think it's a number of
factors you'd have to look at to see what kind of density bonus would be
needed to actually affect the market because there' s a lot of apartments
that were built at a higher density than what currently would be allowed,
and so if you offer a density bonus in the Code, even if it's higher than
what's allowed today, it may not affect the market because apartments
may already be developed at a density that's higher, and so there would be
no incentive for anyone to create any new units, so we really need to look
at the mix of the units that are there today to see if it would be effective.
Bailey: So when will we have a sense of that?
Howard: We're having somebody look into it today, and I don't know how soon
we'll be able to get...that's a lot of apartments.
Bailey: Yes.
Howard: ...in the central part of the City.
Bailey: Okay, thanks.
Lehman; Thank you. There are four or five empty seats in the front rows here,
folks, if you want to sit down.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 8
Spencer: Good evening, my name is Dennis Spencer. I'm a...I live at 1342
Pheasant Valley Street in Iowa City here. I'm also a local builder and
member of the Home Builders Association and actually past President. I
was.., in talking with some of the other members of the Home Builders
Association yesterday and today about this issue, there were a couple
things specifically that we were talking about that I'd like to address. I
have some very recent information on this, and that is the...it's my
understanding that when you, anything under a 70 foot lot, single-family
lot, would have design standards that would require trims around
windows, freeze boards, horizontal trims, that kind of thing, and I've got
four examples. All four of these happen to be in Iowa City, and they were
all built this year, as well, and have specific numbers tied to them.
Unfortunately, I just have one picture of each one. I'd be happy to pass
these around, and it's not a spreadsheet or anything, but it's just numbers
that...actual numbers that I took off invoices between 5:00 P.M. and right
now.
Lehman: Tell us what they are before you pass...
Spencer: Okay... single-family house, this particular one is at 17 Quail Valley Court
and it's...this happens to be on a 70-foot wide lot. Quail Valley Court
runs perpendicular to Rohret Road, so the front and the backs of these
houses are both...there's three of them here on the same street...they're,
the front and the back are both visible to the streets. So in this particular
case I went all four sides with the trims instead of just the front for that
reason. One, it's a 70-foot wide lot so when you drive down the street it's
visible from the sides, it's not close together or obstructed by another
house, and two, you've got a road behind it too that you're seeing it, so all
four sides are done. This particular house, it's approximately $280,000
home. On this house, we had $6,700 worth of trim, just related to trim
around the windows. You'll see there's columns on the front porch, front
porch railings and that kind of thing. So that'll give you an idea of what
you're asking there. The second one, which happens to be right next door
to it, also pretty detailed house. It's a different style of trim, but never the
less, it's still trim. This one was $5,200 for the four sides. The next one is
37 Quail Valley Court. Again, trim around the windows, horizontal
banding, freezeboards under the eaves, and that kind of thing, and as you
can see, the porch is not done yet so this is just the siding detail. It doesn't
include the front porch, and that was $3,500. So, here's one that is in, this
is a fourth one, this is in Galaway Hills. It's on Ireland Drive. The front is
the only thing that's visible from the street. Again, this is a 70-foot lot, at
the building line it's 70 foot. This has exactly the freezeboard that is
referred to, I understand, in the design code, has the horizontal trims, the
garage door trims, two large, or one large garage door and one small with
one window, and then the freezeboards, and just that trim alone was
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 9
almost $4,000 for that. So, I was just wanting to put a number with some
of these design standards, if you will.
Bailey: Well, I have a... go ahead, sir.
wilburn: Before you walk away, all three of your examples, those are lot size 70?
Spencer: I'm sorry. I did say they were...the...this ranch-style house is a 70.
These in Quail Valley Court are 80-foot lots.
Wilburn: And what is the zoning for each of those, are you...?
Spencer: Single-family.
Wilburn: What I'm getting at...just trying to help put your comments about cost in
context, what I have here is in RS-5, the minimum lot is 70-feet. If you
want to go lower, then there's bonus density provisions. In RS-8, the
minimum lot width is 55-feet, but it can be reduced if you, with the
density bonus provisions. So, I guess what my question is, if you're not
building, you know, lower than that, how is that relevant to...
Spencer: Well, it's relevant because the bonus is, you get the bonus by adding this,
okay? Supposedly...
Wilbum: But, if you want to go lower, if you want to reduce the lot further...
Spencer: Exactly.
Wilburn: But you're not talking about doing that.
Spencer: Well, what I'm trying to give you is the cost if you reduce the lot further,
this is what it costs you, in exchange for reducing...okay? So what is the
savings by reducing the...
Dilkes: Maybe you should have one of the planners come and explain. (several
talking at once) I think we're off..
Bailey: Our cliffnote version that you all gave us, there's no mention of requiring
trim for these lots, so I need to clarify if this is indeed required, because
it's not mentioned here, and I'm a little...I'm not tracking with this, I
guess.
Franklin: There are no trim requirements on single-family housing.
Bailey: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 10
Franklin: None.
Wilburn: Thank you.
Franklin: The figures are interesting, but they don't apply to single-family housing.
Lehman: In any zone?
Franklin: In any zone.
Lehman: Or on any lot size?
Franklin: It's attached housing. Zero-lot lines, townhouses, multi-family - not
single-family, regular single-family housing. It doesn't apply.
Bailey: So, even with the density bonus, I'm just going to make sure I'm
following...
Franklin: The density bonus...
Bailey: Right, has nothing to do with...
Franklin: ...has to do with the garage placement standard.
Bailey: Got it! Thank you.
Wilburn: Only? Thank you.
O'Donnell: Would you like to further comment on that, Dennis?
Spencer: Well... I guess the point's kinda pointless if it doesn't. Our understanding
was that it, that was required in order to go down to that lot size. (several
talking at once)
Lehman: Dennis...
Spencer: ...okay.
Lehman: But I'm glad you brought it up because I think there's a lot of things in
this new Code that there are misconceptions about that everybody doesn't
understand. That's why we're having the hearings.
Wilburn: It wasn't my intent to put you on the spot, Dennis. For clarity sake,
wanted to make sure we were comparing...talking about the same issue.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 11
Bailey: And yeah, it wasn't my intent either. I'm operating from this matrix and I
just wanted to make sure it covered everything that it included.
Neades: I'll follow up on that. My name's Rebecca Neades, and I live at 3341
Rohret Road, and I'm actually...I think the point there was we're still
talking about a significant dollar amount. I mean, the dollar amounts that
you read out loud were 3,500 and...but we're still talking about a
significant amount of money going into trim for the zero-lot lines.
Actually, I wanted to stand up...I just wanted to clarify that. I wanted to
stand up and really talk about commercial tonight, and I represent the
Chamber of Commerce. We have more than 900 businesses and industries
that belong to our organization, and I've been getting phone calls and
concerns about what this Code means, and so we've looked at it a little bit.
We formed a Task Force and went through the whole process we go
through when we look at issues. ! guess I'd like to start by saying that I
understand that this is a huge process for you guys to go through, that
you're P&Z department did a tremendous job - we're talking about a big,
thick document that I actually did spend my weekends reading. So, and I
appreciate that. That said, I think fundamentally we've got some concerns
with adding design standards, and what the City's role is in development.
I understand "planned zoning," and the need for that in different
neighborhoods, to keep the community cohesive, and to keep value in
your homeownership, but I think that you really...you crossed that line a
bit when you start talking about details in someone's home, and the
affordability that that brings to homeownership, and you know, we
represent businesses and industry that's here in town, but also the workers
that need to live there, and I hear over and over and over again how
expensive Iowa City is, and just in the organization I work for, there's
only one of us that lives in town - that's me. Everyone else commutes
from Coralville and North Liberty because housing is less expensive.
When I talk about commercial and industrial zones, and some specifics,
because I know that's what you want to hear tonight is details, specific
things you can look at, we're looking at the 5-foot build-to line, property
line, where most of your infrastructure goes in in the first 15 feet. So does
that mean that, you know, that businesses that have or allow that
infrastructure in the first 15 feet, do you need to move some of that, or is
that just for new building? And if it's for new, that's a standard place to
put it. So now are you proposing that that goes in the side or in the back,
because I think that's an increased cost. Also, that means you're moving
your parking. So businesses that rely on offering the convenience to their
customers by having ease of parking and want to make a quick stop, are
now suddenly relegated to the back. You know, esthetically, I think that
looks pretty nice, but I'm not sure that's what a business owner would
necessarily think looks nice. I think they might like to look out on the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 12
parking lot and see where all the people are going and so that's one
concern. Parking in the rear lot, the 5-foot build to the property line, I
guess I'm going to stop there because I could ramble a long time, but you
know, I'd appreciate your consideration when you're looking through this.
Affordable housing for residential, that's where our work force comes
from, and we need those people, and also commercial. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Gordon: I'm back. I believe last time...I'm Steve Gordon. I'm here representing
. the Land Development Council. I believe last time we got through
attached housing in the RS-8 and RS-5 zone. So I'll start with attached
housing in the RS-12 zone. The dimensional changes in the RS-12 zone
will allow for townhomes to be built by right without having to go through
a rezoning or a planned development, and we support the changes in the
RS-12 zone as it relates to attached housing. What we are not in favor of
are the design requirements for attached housing, and those start on page
176 of the draft copy of the proposed Zoning Code, and this will get into a
little bit of what Mr. Spencer was discussing, a cost issue.
Champion: What was that page again?
Gordon: Page 176. In the RS-5, in the RS-8 zones, attached housing, and
specifically two units, so a duplex attached housing is limited to comer
lots only, with each unit facing a different street, and the garage standards
also apply, which as I'm sure you're getting tired of hearing, but would
' require the garage be no more than 50% of the width of the house, and not
to sit in front of the front facade of the home. If you look at that and try to
design that structure, it's very difficult to design. There's a picture of a
design like that in the proposed zoning book. One of the homes will not
have a backyard - it'll just have a side yard at the comer of the street, and
there's not a lot of room for windows, and it's just...it's really not
practical or functional to try to design an attached house, or two units
attached, with a common lot line, each facing a different direction with
trying to meet the garage standards, not having the garage sit out - it's not
cost-effective, and it's just pretty much very difficult to do. So we do not
believe you'll see many of those built. Also, part of those requirements is
that all attached housing is required to have three-inch trim around all
windows, all doors, and below the roof eaves around the entire house.
You just heard how much that costs - it's not cheap. In addition, the front
door needs to be covered with a front porch or have a transom and side-
i light windows. All roofings must project 12-inches from the side of the
house, and there can be no unpainted or unstained lumber visible from a
public or private street. Most sides of the house are visible from some
street, maybe not the street you're driving on, but a comer, you know, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 13
street down the comer, the street on the next block over. So we feel these
are purely esthetic standards and serve no functional purpose, except to
increase the cost of housing. In the spirit of encouraging the development
of more affordable housing and also to preserve the rights of individual
homeowners and their design choices, we would like to respectfully
submit the following proposals. In the RS-5 zone, keep the minimum
single-family lot width at 60 feet, as it is in the current Code. If we're
trying to encourage affordable housing, trying to decrease urban sprawl,
we don't feel increasing minimum lot sizes meets that goal. So we would
encourage to keep that at 60 feet. Also, the RS-5 is also our large-lot
subdivision zone. As mentioned previously, the attached housing is
allowed on the comer lots. Whether you would like to allow that on the
corner lots is really up to you. As I mentioned, it's really not practical the
way it's designed. Whether it belongs in that zone or not is...we're not
opposed necessarily to allow that, but it really is hard to accomplish. In
the RS-8 zone, we would request that the minimum single-family lot width
be kept at 45 feet, instead of increased to 55 feet for the reason mentioned
previously. That's how it is in the current Code. I will discuss more in a
minute the limiting of zero-lot lines in that zone. That's something we
talked about last week. In the RS-12 zone, the proposed Code, we believe,
is well-written and does encourage and allow by right the development of
zero-lot line duplexes and townhomes. We would, however, recommend
keeping the minimum single-family lot size at 45 feet instead of increasing
it to 55 feet, and we also feel the attached housing design standards, as
previously discussed, should be removed from the Code. One thing we
feel the Code is trying to do is create a small-lot, single-family
subdivision, which is an RS-8, and a separate duplex or townhome
subdivision, which would be the RS-12, and we've heard that RS-8 has
turned into a duplex and we're trying to separate the two. The challenge
with that is the current, or the proposed Zoning Code, describes the RS-12
zone as a "high density" zone, and if you look at the Comprehensive Plan
and look at some of the maps, there is not a lot of area- very few area-
that allow a high-density zone. So, if you feel you need to limit zero-lot
lines or limit duplexes in an RS-8 zone, I guess, part of that needs to also
be that the RS-12 zone, which allows that type of housing, is a zone that
will be allowed in areas that are designated as medium-density, and not
high-density, and thus I would think we need to change the definition of
the RS-12 to be a medium-density zone. I don't feel we can meet the
demand of duplex and zero-lot line housing if the RS-8 restricts it and the
RS-12 is considered a high-density zone. An additional requirement is
contained in the proposed Code on page 278, page 278, which is Section
B2, titled "Minimum Spacing Between Driveways," and it requires that
there must be at least six feet between curb cuts, which is an added
requirement to the proposed Code, and what we feel it eliminates is having
two garages together. You'll see a lot of zero-lot line plans where the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
//2 Page 14
garages are together. This is a market function. If you can separate the
house part and keep the garages together, they feel a little bit more like
single-family homes, and...but by requiring that the, that the curb cut be
six feet apart, that will eliminate having the garages together on a zero-lot
line, or make it very difficult - drivers will have to angle. We also
understand the concern that has been expressed about garages. We've
talked a lot about that. While we do not feel that there is a problem in this
community, we do understand the reason behind limiting garage-scape on
smaller lots. So, to allow the homeowner design flexibility and to be
sensitive to the garage-placement issue, we would propose that on any lot
less than 60-feet wide, that the garage be limited to 60...60% of the front
faCade of the home. This will allow to continue to do two-car garages on
smaller lots, which is a feature the public demands, but will eliminate the
possibility of a three-car garage dominating these smaller lots, which I
believe should solve the issues that I've heard. The requirement that the
garage be flush with or behind the front faCade of the home should be
eliminated. As far as a density bonus options, these can be useful tools to
encourage a mix of housing and promote more affordable housing. They
must be cost-effective to work, however. In the RS-5 zoning, in the RS-5
if needed, we would propose a density bonus to allow lots to go down to
50 feet. Obviously, then they would fall into the garage standards we just
mentioned, so those would work together. Whether you feel you need a
density bonus in our large-lot zoning, again, that would be a question
you'll have to answer. In the RS-8 zone, in order to make the smaller lots
cost-effective, we need to go down to 35 feet. If we're going to put an
alley behind them, a 40-foot lot just doesn't work. It's not cost-effective if
you cannot develop those lots less ~han you can a 45-foot lot without an
alley. And as mentioned before, the RS-12, we feel is truly, would
encourage a variety and different types of housing, as written. And then
lastly, as part of the density bonus options, one of the challenges of
providing alleys is not only the day-to-day costs of maintaining that alley,
snow removal being a large part of that, but also the long-term costs of
that alley. What happens in 15, 20, 25 years when it needs resurfacing,
and homeowners, if the City does not take over those alleys, that gets
passed on to the homeowners. That will be a big burden to these
homeowners in the future. So we would recommend that if alleys are
used, or allowed in the zones, in the density bonuses, that the City would
be, the City would take over those alleys, just similar to what they do with
public streets. We think that will make them more feasible to develop. As
you consider all you've heard from staff, developers, landlords,
homeowners, and interested citizens, I urge you to look at the proposed
Code and the requested changes and ask yourself, is there a problem in
this area and does the proposed solution solve the problem without
creating additional barriers to housing in Iowa City. Thank you for your
audience, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 15
Champion: Steve, you're saying that if you were allowed to reduce a lot to 45 feet, an
alley would work financially - is that what you're saying?
Gordon: In an RS-8 zone, if the minimum single-family lot width is 45 feet, and
your allowed to do a 35-foot lot with an alley, that those lots will be
similar in cost, and so then it would just be a choice of which kind of
development do you want. If it's a 40-foot lot, it actually becomes more
expensive to develop that lot. You could still do it, but I would see there
wouldn't be much incentive to do a small, the lot's smaller, obviously, it's
only 40-feet wide instead of 45, and it's going to be more expensive.
Bailey: I have a...do you have a question? When you talked about trim, I think
the intent of the trim requirements and those kinds of things on these
larger, these duplexes and these adjoined houses, is to reduce the bulk, or
the sense of bulk, in a single-family neighborhood, to make it look more
like a single...what would you suggest that would be a cost-effective way
of getting at that issue? Because I think we can both agree that those are
bulkier buildings and they may look out of place if they aren't, well, I'm
going to use this dangerous word: design, to blend into a single-family
neighborhood.
Gordon: Yeah, I guess I don't feel a zero-lot line or two units attached is bulky. I
think they look nice in a neighborhood. You start getting large, you know,
you start putting four units or six units together, those certainly are bulkier
and will take up more space in a single-family; however, there is some
standards that apply to those, as far as breaking up each individual unit,
which I have not mentioned here and ! understand that's a good way to
separate those units. So I guess I don't feel that zero-lot line needs those
requirements, and especially if we are truly going to make the RS-12 an
attached-housing zone, and the RS-8 more of a small-lot single-family
zone, so there won't be a lot of mix of those two types of housing, and you
do limit where zero-lot lines can go in an RS-8 zone. I don't feel you need
to do anything to reduce the bulk. I just don't think they're that much
larger than a single-family home.
Bailey: Because we have a duplex, a couple of houses down from us. I live on the
north side. Our houses are typically very small. This is a very large
building, and I would suggest that the bulk is overwhelming to the block
and it is quite noticeable. It doesn't look single-family. It doesn't look
like it belongs in the neighborhood, so you're not going to give me any
options because you just don't see it as a problem?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 16
Gordon: If you go in some newer neighborhoods and areas that I would be more
familiar with, they don't .... I don't feel that they dominate a neighborhood
or a street-scape in that way.
Vanderhoef: I think Regenia is on a line that I've been thinking about too. On these
comer zero-lots or duplexes, whichever they might be, some standards
when you are building new are different, and we've had one speaker this
evening talk about the north side and the deep lots and the ability to do
duplexing, and I'm not sure that P&Z talked about it, but I would like
Council to talk about the north side, the already developed older parts of
town, particularly those that are in the neighborhood conservation or
historic areas, historic gets into another thing, but we've got some
different dynamics working in new versus old sections of town, and I
think we need to have a conversation about that. And the second thing I
would like to ask you to do is to send us an email with your specific
proposals. You rattled them off tonight, and I would like them for
referring back to. My mind sometimes doesn't remember every one of
them. Thank you.
Gordon: No problem.
Champion: It wouldn't be a problem in a historic or conservation overlay, because the
houses have to be designed, or the duplex would have to be designed to fit
into the neighborhood.
Vanderhoefi Right, but the (TAPE ENDS) if you extend these (can't hear) then what
has been a private backyard for a small house next door. I just want some
discussion. I don't have any answers right at the moment.
McLaughlin: My name is Mike McLaughlin. I own and lease some properties in the
near downtown area, primarily in the zones that are proposed to allow one
less non-related occupant with this new Zoning Code. Tonight I wish to
express my opposition to Section 5 of 14-2A, Maximum Occupancy for
Household Living Uses, as defined in 14-9A, under Households. Before I
get started, I brought a copy of my presentation to share with each member
of the Council. If I can approach...included there should be copy of the, I
believe, what is the current map of zoning codes throughout the City, and
also a City chart for required parking, City Acknowledgement and
Disclosure form, and then a copy of my presentation this evening. I'm
going to assume everybody' s... I know everybody's got a copy of the thick
proposal. I do have some comments in regard to the viewer's guide. I'm
not sure if, if the Council's been privy to that, as well. It's about a 30, 35-
page document, which I'd be glad to provide copies of that if that hasn't
been provided to you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 17
Bailey: We have access to it.
McLaughlin: You do have that? Okay, I just want to make sure we're all on the same
page. (reads handout)
Lehman: Thank you. Karin, I have a question for you, and then I think after your
question we'll take a quick break, but in our Code, we refer to the RS-12
as a, I guess it's a, not a medium-density, but a high-density zone? Is that
correct?
Franklin: Let me just double-check that, as to what we call it. High-density single-
family residential, medium-density single-family residential is RS-8.
Lehman: Right. Now if I understand it, and frankly this goes back to some of what
Mr. Gordon presented, if we, it seems that the proposed RS-8 zone is, as I
think the last RS-8 zone was intended to be, a small-lot single-family zone
with few duplexes mainly, and requiring them on comers only or not at
all. Now, if that's the case, we have very, very little RS-12 in the City,
and I think our Comprehensive Plan, if it correlates with this...
Franklin: I can understand Steve's point, yeah.
Lehman: Yeah, I mean if in fact RS-12 is going to be considered high-density zone,
and that's where we're going to, by our own Code, wish to have duplexes
built, then there's very few places in the community we could built them.
Franklin: The only...I understand what Steve said. The thing is that in our District
Plans, instead of using that two to eight dwelling units per acre, we have
areas which are shown specifically for, well not specifically, but generally
for townhouses and higher developments, so if you looked at the
Comprehensive Plan map for the whole City, in the 97 plan, and didn't
look at the District Plans, you would come to that conclusion. If you look
at the District Plans, because they have more specificity, there's more
opportunity for the RS-12 type of zoning, and that's what we use now
when we look at a zoning action. In looking at the areas of the City in
which we have District Plans, the only two that would be pertinent here
would be southeast Iowa City, the one that you raised, Dee, at the last
work session, and then northwest, because those District Plans aren't
done; however, the northwest is mostly Walnut Ridge and the Clear Creek
Master Plan and University property. So, the biggest impact in terms of
not having a District Plan that gets to that level of specificity would be that
southeast.
Lehman: I think what I'm hearing you say is that there would be ample zones to do
what we're proposing in the RS-12.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 18
Franklin: Yes, ample opportunities in terms of new development in the City.
Lehman: And it would be compatible with the District Plans that we...
Franklin: Yes, yes it would.
Wilbum: And then it's a matter of asking for that appropriate zoning.
Franklin: Pardon me?
Wilburn: And then it's just a matter of asking for the appropriate zoning.
Franklin: Right, right. I mean, the RS-12 would be the zone that people would seek
now, as opposed to RS-8.
Lehman: Okay. We're going to take a short break. (TAPE OFF; BREAK) I don't
want to hurry anybody, but I will tell you now, if you don't get an
opportunity to speak this evening, this hearing will not close this evening
- it will be continued. So, we'll start from here. Go ahead.
Crosby: My name is Boyd Crosby. I'm a Johnson County resident, an Iowa City
taxpayer. I am a home builder, but I'm here to represent myself with some
personal opinions. I saw on the television the other day the City Council
meeting, and that's the reason I'm here is that Ernie had asked for some
input and I'm not going to go into a lot of detail concerning...my concerns
are primarily the City of I~)wa City Development Code, those proposed
revisions. Firstly, I haven't been here all evening so some of my
comments may have been mentioned already, but anyway, in reference
to...Ernie's specific comment or question I saw, what little part of the
Council meeting I saw Sunday, the replay, was he'd asked for specific
input as far as what cost items, what would be more costly or any concerns
you might have, and just as a citizen if you will, and that I am a taxpayer
in Iowa City and pay a fair amount of taxes, and having my own business,
I'm very sensitive to cost issues. So I think it would be common sense to
say that when you ask people to put 3-inch trim, 4-inch trim, whatever the
case may be on their homes, that's going to be more money. Now, I step
aside as a home builder - well, for example, I have $400,000 homes that
they don't have 4-inch trim around their windows and doors. Now, that
may be to the extreme. Could they afford it? Maybe, but they didn't want
to. They wanted to put their money somewhere else, and the front
porches, those are not (can't understand). I think I understand what you're
trying to do, but I don't think it's the Board of Directors job or the City's
job to tell the citizens what they're supposed to be doing and how they're
supposed to dress up their houses and what they're supposed to look like,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 19
and where they're supposed to be and how they're, you know, supposed to
be done. It's just, I just cannot believe it. In fact, ifI may, and this is the
honest-to-God truth, I've called several friends, well, relatives, friends,
and a person I built a home for, and I said to them, I said, for example,
what if a city proposed this ordinance, what would you have to say about
that, and most of the common summary would be, they can't believe it
first of all, and secondly, who thinks that stuff up? And I don't know
where that stuff comes from. I gotta believe somebody said somewhere,
whether it's the east coast, west coast, central coast, I don't know, and
somehow this idea filters down and somebody here thinks it's a good idea.
I really don't know where it came from. I don't know how much money
we spent expanding this, exploring it, and at the point here, and it's going
to continue on. Now, if we as the City, and if you folks feel that we have
the privilege to tell me and other people how they're going to make their
homes look, then that's going to be awfully surprising to me. It's going to
be very disappointing to me. So, and the other thing that the
comparison'll make, we all talk about affordable housing, the land costs
are ridiculous in the state of Iowa, Iowa City, and across the nation.
Building costs are ridiculous. I'm the first to agree with that, but they're
not going down, and yet we come through with proposals of ordinances to
add these types of cost, whether it's 5 bucks or 150 bucks, the principle
applies. It's more money to build this house, this duplex, whatever. And
that's all I care to share with you, and thank you for your time.
Lehman: Thank you.
Franklin: I need to make a point of clarification because it has been said so many
times. Front porches are not required by this Code.
Lehman: Thank you.
Franklin: You're welcome.
Buss: My name is William Buss. I live at 718 S. Summit Street, and I think
what I have to say is going to be a little bit different from what you've
been hearing, but I think it should be heard and on the record. Let me just
start with something pretty simple. It's never been the case in the United
States that people have the right to do with their private property whatever
they feel like doing it, without regard to the consequences to others. It's
always been the case. The property is subject to regulation, and let's start
right with the simplest thing. You do not have the right to put your
garbage out in your yard. Now why is that? That's because there's an
interest in the community in the appearance and the effect of your property
on the community, and that's what I think this building Code is about, as
hard as some people find to understand that. I'm no expert on building
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 20
codes and zoning laws, but I've looked at the proposals, and I think they
are really very modest. They are detailed, I admit, and in that sense
they're complex, not totally sorry if they do a little lawyer's work for it,
but they're not basically an ambitious, demanding that people build their
houses in a particular way, to look in a particular way. There are very,
very few things that are required. In connection with all of this discussion,
there's a lot of discussion specifically about affordable housing. As Dee
Vanderhoef observed last week, that's a pretty loose concept, but perhaps
everyone can agree that it does not mean the cheapest possible housing,
and even more clearly, it does not mean maximizing profits for those who
build, develop, and sell houses. Those who develop and build housing are
associated, among other things, in the Land Development Council, and the
Land Development Council does have an interest in maximizing profits,
which of course they do by building at the lowest possible cost and selling
for the highest possible cost. There is nothing wrong with that effort.
Something they have a right to do, but we must understand that that is
what they are interested in doing. They're not a welfare agency, they're
not banded together in the cause of affording, of providing affordable
housing. Mayor Lehman last week implored speakers to be specific.
That's a very understandable, desirable goal, but it carries a risk of
distortion. The staff, having studied the problem and solicited citizen
input, comes up with a set of proposals. Proposals that I think are modest.
Often proposals that, by the time they see the City Council, are the subject
of lots of compromise with groups like the Land Development Council,
but then these proposals become targets, one by one, for negative
comment. It is important in viewing the process to remember that
developers and builders would be happy with no regulation at all, or at
least none of their own making. As Jerry Anthony reminded the City
Council last week, developers in their own self-interest are not against
imposing restrictions, but they do not want to be constrained by anyone
else's view of the public interest. From their perspective, that's a
reasonable position, but we must understand that that is where they're
coming from. Give them a regulation that restricts their discretion, they
will not like it. So they comb the regulations proposed to tell us, and tell
us the things they like the least. Out of 55 objections to the proposed
zoning changes, 32 came from the Land Development Council, and in
fact, 15 of those were actually addressed not to proposed changes, but to
the current Code. Now, again, I'm not saying they're always opposed to
every single thing.., good example tonight from Steve Gordon of a very
flexible, fast moving set of suggestions of things that he wanted and things
that he didn't want that would take a lot of us a bit of time to see how
' they're all sorted out, but when it comes to the judgments in these
alternatives about what's cost effective, what's affordable housing, I have
to say that reasonable people are going to be skeptical when views come
from interested sources. Some views are even a little bit misleading. A
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 21
number of comments in writing and at various public hearings before this
Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as tonight, have indicated or
suggested that this Zoning Code proposed is replete with design standards.
That's just greatly exaggerated. Last week, Glenn Siders entertained the
City Council with a tape of an expert, speaking on National Public Radio,
who commented unfavorably on designs calling for front porches. Well,
as Karin just said, the proposal before the City Council, no where required
building such front porches, leaving you to wonder how that tape was
relevant, other than to suggest kinds of restrictions that do not exist. In
fact, the very same expert, whose words Mr. Siders broadcast to you, did
say something later on, in the that same NPR program that was quite
relevant. I will not play the tape, but I will read you what she said, "When
I work with low-income community groups, we make gigantic models.
That is very important because for people who have typically been kept
out of making any decisions about their own environment, they don't have
too many choices about where to live. To allow them to make some
decisions about what their new housing is going to be like, and actually
use their hands to make models, is a very empowering experience." Of
course, that was Glenn Siders' expert, and of course, that was the sort of
empowering that the planners used in Iowa City to give people some
decisions about what their new housing is going to be like. Using the
feedback from Iowa City citizens obtained through that Planning effort,
the proposals before the City Council will reduce opportunities for
builders to pave over front yards, to construct parking lots in front of
buildings, and to duplicate some of the uglier buildings dotting Iowa City.
I think that's good. I will end with just one very small but highly
suggestive trade-off between profit maximization and public interest. In
objection #16 to the proposed Zoning Code, it is urged that the currently
existing requirement for screening with shrubs 2 to 4-feet high for the
purpose of keeping lights from automobile headlights in a parking area
from shining into ground-level residential windows should be eliminated.
Two-foot shrubs! Just too expensive. Too bad about the bright light in
your eyes. Thank you.
Houser: Hi, my name is Brad Houser, and I want to represent myself in kind of a
practical sense of some ground that we own, in one of our developments,
and maybe get a sense. We purchased some ground, we've got 100 acres
in the southeast district that is zoned RS-8, which we could do zero-lots in
it today. With the current changes, I guess my question to Council is, how
much trouble do we have to make that into RS-12 so that we could do the
same thing we had the original intent with, with the land, I mean, how
much trouble are we going to have to go through to do that? Is it going to
be a simple process of just coming in and saying 'we want to make 25
acres of that 100 RS-12' or are we going to have to jump through a million
hoops to accomplish that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 22
Lehman: You know, I'm not going to pretend to answer that question, but it seemed
to me the last question we had, just prior to the break, was that the District
Plan, which I think has been completed for that area - is that correct,
Karin, or it's not complete, southeast.
Franklin: (can't hear)
Lehman: All right, his question is, he can build zero-lot lines and so on now cause
it's RS-8. I think I understand that the new Comprehensive...the
Comprehensive Plan probably would, an RS-12 would be compatible with
the present district zone, is that correct? We can't tell you for
sure...pardon? Karin is going to ....you'll get a lot better answers from
her.
Franklin: Well, since I don't have that visual in front of my face I can't tell you
exactly, but I guess I would say to Brad that, yeah, we can talk about it,
particularly if you support the design standards (laughter).
Houser: I guess the other question is then, in regards to the District Plan, what
percentage do we have of that district, is ready for RS-12? I mean, if
we've got 1,000 acres that's out there, is 2% of it for RS-12, that could be
made into RS-12, or is 80% of it ready to be made into RS-12, under the
Comp Plan...or District Plan?
Lehman: Don't have the Plan here - I can't answer that. Karin...
Houser: ...that's something that we need to know.
Lehman: Do you have the Plan?
Houser: Do I?
Lehman: Right.
Houser: No. I'm asking you.
Lehman: No, no, you have the land there. You've invested the money and you
don't have the Plan?
Houser: I don't have the Plan with me when I came up with this question tonight,
but I'm asking you guys...
Lehman: Get a copy of the Plan. You have a much greater vested interest than
anybody else.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 23
Houser: I understand that, but if there's 2% of it, then not much of it is going to be
made into an RS-12 zone, but if90% of it is an RS-12 that I could come in
to you and change, that's great. That's what I'm asking.
Lehman: That's something we're going have to...
Houser: ...that's something I'm asking you to think about.
Lehman: Good question.
Burford: My name is Helen Burford. I live at 528 E. College and I'm, I have very
brief remarks tonight about the quality of Iowa City' s older
neighborhoods, and I think, Dee, you made some reference to this
problem. I have some concerns about what's been said about the RS-8
zone. I think that the plan, as put forward by the City, made quite a bit of
sense of limiting duplexes to comer lots. In many of the older
neighborhoods, if you...by introducing duplexes, the opportunity to have
duplexes within the already established community, it does the opposite of
stabilizing the community, it does the opposite of making it attractive to
have smaller lots, single-family units, and I would like to just give you one
example, what kind of impact it would have today if you did decide to
allow developers to take current lot sizes to become duplexes. In the
Goosetown neighborhood alone, more than 50% of the lots are already
over 8,700 square feet, which is minimum which is required to construct a
duplex, and I think that if you just look at that figure alone you could see
what kind of impact it would have on that community. So, that' s the point
I want to make tonight.
Lehman: Thank you.
Vanderhoef: You may be right on that, Helen, for the older neighborhood. I think it's
in the other neighborhoods it's question marked.
Keune: My name is Chad Keune, and I live at 1018 Foster Road. Many of you
know it as the Peninsula. So I live with some of the standards that you are
talking about. I'm also a builder in the area. I understand where we're
going with some of the design standards for certain areas and certain
housing, and I think it's great. But to make everyone use the same
standards city-wide, at some point does the city start to look the same all
over? Where do we have our diversity in building? If you're going to put
the same trim around the same windows in the same areas all over the city,
everything's going to start to look the same, if that's the way design
standards are set with the freezeboard and the trim around the windows,
why do we have one set way of the way the building's going to look?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 24
Why haven't we come up with more than one design standard? Also, our
affordable housing through some research that I've done on my own.
Over the last couple of years and building some of the affordable housing
in the area between, I guess, more North Liberty area, because of the fact
that I can't find anything here for affordable housing, most of it in Iowa
City has become the duplex or the multi-family style stacked, and when
people tend to buy that unit that you're going to make them, how do those
design standards, if it's 3,000, 4,000, $5,000 per building, if it's a duplex,
you are asking these people to spend $2,500 more on a unit that they a lot
of the time are stretching to afford to begin with because they're first-time
home buyers. So by adding that $2,500 to their unit, they...ask a
homeowner and much of them would rather have it in an upgrade in the
interior of their house, instead of on the exterior of their house. So that's
where, when we come into the multi-family and duplex style, if you're
going to make these design standards be for all of them, I guess, you lose
the affordability - we're starting to lose that affordability again, and I
struggled to build single-family attached the way it is to be under that
$180,000 mark anywhere in this area, between North Liberty, Coralville,
and Iowa City, and I guess that .... I guess; has the City looked at what they
consider affordable housing for everyone? Is it a single-family house, or
is it a multi-family home, or a zero lot? Can people afford to get back into
these places, I don't know. I looked at some of the costs, and like I said,
my neighborhood is fantastic. I love the way it looks. That's why I live
there because of that, but to impose that on everybody, starts to make
everything look the same also, whereas our neighborhood has its own
look. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Elliott: If we're waiting for someone else, Mr. Mayor, I have a question I'd like to
ask of someone from the Development Council. All ready to go now?
Okay. Someone from the Development Council, whoever would like to
respond to it, my question is, to this point to your knowledge, have
attached homes attracted only those people in so-called low-cost housing,
affordable housing? In Chicago this past weekend, big article in the Trib
about attached housing attracting people interested in spending a half,
three-quarters of a million but getting much more for their money, and I
just wondered, do you have anybody ever who is interested, because every
time someone, over the past two nights of hearings, has mentioned
attached housing, zero-lot lines, duplexes, they use it in reference only to
the lowest possible cost housing. Just a question.
Houser: I wasn't even going to speak tonight. (laughter) I guess I'll be the one to
answer that. I know the fact that...I'm with Iowa Realty and I sell real
estate, as well as develop real estate. I think you can look all over the city.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council mee~ lng of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 25
You can look at Coralville. You can look at Iowa City. There's duplexes
to four-plexes that are not just affordable housing. I'll use Coralville in
this example on this particular one, but you look at Country Club Estates,
next to Brown Deer Golf Course, those typically are $350,000 to
$500,000. They're in duplexes, they're in three-plexes, they're in four-
plexes. You can go down Rochester and look at some of the stuff, like
there's some duplexes right along there. Now they're selling in the
$250,000 to $280,000. You can go to Rochester Hills and look at those
units. There're duplexes in there that are anywhere, I think Boyd built
some in there, that are $350,000 to $500,000, to even $600,000. So, no,
it's not just affordable housing.
Elliott: Well, I was just... I just noticed time and again, whenever attached
housing is brought up, it's always in the context of the most housing for
the least amount of money, and I just wanted to point out, I think there are
those who find attached housing providing a great deal of housing that's
rather upscale, and so we shouldn't always assume that every zero-lot line
is going to be low-cost housing.
Houser: Frantz's area is another example, too. Those are all typically duplexes or
three-plexes. They're in the $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 range also, but
yeah, it's not all that, you're correct.
Champion: We certainly have them in Iowa City in those kind of luxury condominium
areas. Those are all duplexes and triplexes in there. They're not
affordable housing to a lot of people.
Houser: No, I mean, I think you just have...what everybody's speaking is, when
you start limiting our zeros and duplexes to certain comer lots and then
you have to change and twist them, you're just limiting some of the
affordability that may be out there, and when you add brick and you add
trim and you spend $2,500 to $5,000 more per unit, it takes some of those
buyers away. The buyers in that category are looking for more size in
their house than anything. They're looking for square footage at that
point, because they're just starting out.
Lehman: Thank you, Brad. Anyone else wish to speak?
Champion: I just...well, there's several realtors here, and we got a signed letter with
realtors' signatures. I wonder if one of the realtors here wants to comment
on this Zoning Code? No?
Cram: I'm Don Crum. I live at 512 Manor Drive. I've lived in this community
since 1968. Have seen a lot of changes. And what I have to say is that
yes, we do need rules and regulations. We can't move ahead without it,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 26
and I think Judge Roberts quoted that here a few weeks ago. I ask though
that you use caution as you move ahead. The individuals before you the
past two days are not (can't understand). They're independent workers,
they take chances every day. If they make a mistake, they eat it. They go
behind, or they go broke. The groups you need to keep in close contact
with are the builders. This community is very fortunate that we have
builders that are not large corporate builders from the west coast or the
east coast. They are independent and they bring variety and innovation to
the Board and to this town with their design. Second, are the banks. They
have to go and have a strong product before they go to the bank to borrow
money, and if the bank doesn't feel comfortable with what they're doing,
they aren't going to get it. A good example, I have to say, is the
Peninsula. It's taken a long time to get moving. Money came from out of
town. Builders came from out of town. It's going to happen, but it's
taking a long time. And third, realtors. With the bank support, they need
a realtor to market their property. Who is going to be willing to invest and
be innovated in marketing their property? Without builders, bankers, and
realtors, a community can be in serious trouble. Again, I ask you for
caution and not to move in haste. What you do in the next few weeks will
have a lasting effect on this community. I thank you for your time.
Lehman: Thank you, Don.
Matteson: I wasn't planning on speaking, obviously. Steve came to our office.
Lehman: George, you need to give your name for the record.
Matheson: Oh, George Matteson, I'm sorry. I live in Iowa City. Steve came to our
office and made a presentation recently regarding this subject, and I posed
a question to him, would we want a community without any restrictions
whatsoever, in other words, a free-trade type of community when it comes
to building, and he said, you know, vehemently, 'No, that was not the
case!' I think the suggestion that was made here to the contrary, I think
that was the gist of the suggestion, that builders don't want any restrictions
on them. They live in this community the same as you and I do, and they
understand what a great community it is, and part of that has been this
result of some of the regulations that have been imposed, but he went on
to say, and there are good things that come as a part of the proposals, but
there are also some things that need to be examined and looked at closely,
and I think that's all that people are asking is that...they're not saying you
should throw the whole thing out, that would be stupid. That wouldn't be
in anybody's best interest, but they are asking that you seriously look at
some of the things that they are proposing, and the idea that, the idea of
low-income or affordable housing, I'm not sure, Bob, I'm not sure I pick
up on your analogy, but when they are saying with a lower-cost home that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 27
$3,000 or $4,000 is going to be added to that, maybe more depending on
other features, that's pretty significant, and it may take somebody out of
the housing market. So I think the idea, 'are these absolutely necessary?'
We've gotten along without some of these restrictions in the past, and we
still have a pretty good city, but they're looking for, I think, a serious
negotiation on some of the points they've presented, at least that's my take
on it, and they understand that there are going to have to be restrictions.
Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you, George.
Nelson: Good evening, my name is Cheryl Nelson. I am the Executive Officer of
the Iowa City Association of Realtors, and I appreciate the invitation here
tonight. I'm here just to make a few brief statements. One being that I
think it's very fair to say that builders, realtors in our community serve as
consumer advocates. They deal with the consumer every day. They most
likely would not stay in business if they were not making their consumer
happy, and I think that their presence here, the most important thing that
they bring to the table is that they know what is market-driven and what
drives the market is important for the economy of this city. Most of the
time the consumer can choose their own roofer; they can choose their
lender; they can select their builder; they can select what area of the city
they want to live in. Probably the thing they have the least control over is
the cost, and when we keep bringing to the table the idea that affordable
housing is important for Iowa City, I can't reinforce that enough. I'm here
on, strictly an emotional statement tonight. I'm not bringing facts and
figures to you, but I do want to, in all fairness to builders and realtors, say
if indeed there are mandated features, for instance, in a subdivision, those
are called protective documents. Those covenants and restrictions are
there in order to do what, I think, some people are looking to the zoning to
do, is there to protect the residents of that particular area. The nice part is
when they go to buy in that area and a realtor writes up a purchase
agreement, they make it contingent upon review and approval by that
consumer of those documents. So they're not forced upon them. They
can walk away if they don't like the restrictions put upon them, and I think
that's very important to keep in mind. Again, working for the consumer
as an advocate, and when we come to the table, we ask that you consider
compromise on some of the issues that we feel impact the consumer and
will make a difference on the economy. Just as a side note, and this may
be very unimportant, but before moving to Iowa I lived in Colorado. I
lived in a little neighborhood south of downtown Denver that was built in
the era when there were carriage houses and small bungalows, and we all
had alleys, and I can tell you that by the 1990's, it was no longer the place
you pulled your carriage into the back of the house. It became the place
you put up high 6-foot fences and if you didn't have the money to put up
This represerts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 28
the fences, you put up maybe sheets of plywood and you didn't even have
to decorate it because somebody would (TAPE ENDS) and it was well-lit
many yeas before maybe by, who knows what, but in this day and age it's
no longer as well lit, not well-maintained, the garbage might run over, and
I didn't run into the alley to meet my neighbors. So I think we have to
keep in mind what we're living with today, the society we live in, the way
people have structured their lives, and make sure that we provide the
choices that the consumer wants to make themselves. Thank you.
Vanderhoefi Cheryl?
Nelson: Yes?
Vanderhoef: I hate to put you on the spot, but maybe you could tell me, it was asked of
me recently, what's a median sale cost on housing right now?
Nelson: Well, I actually could give each of you some reports that would show you
the median and average prices. It depends on what you're describing
as... what size house and so on and so forth, number of bedrooms.
Vanderhoef: When they keep talking in this loose term of"affordability," having a few
of those numbers would be helpful. When you think about what's being
built or could be built, and how...
Nelson: ...I think it's fair to say that if you're looking at a median price in Iowa
City of say a three-bedroom, two-bath house of about $170,000, there's a
lot of families who might not be able, in a starter home, start there. But I
would be happy to provide that.
Vanderhoef: Okay. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of statistics, but I would
appreciate it. Thank you.
Nelson: I will. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Hochsteder: Good evening. My name is Kevin Hochsteder. I just wanted to make a
couple comments. In our community here, the builders constantly assess
the real estate market, and they build what sells. I mean, they know from
experience what the general public wants, and if you want to know what
the general public is demanding, go to the fastest growing neighborhoods
and see what housing types are being built, what's mixed - if they're
mixed housing types. To me, those seem to be the fastest growing -
mixed neighborhoods, that's what the general public is demanding. Drive
through and look, and builders don't just build something and the general
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 29
public has to buy it. They know what the general public is demanding.
Developers, we constantly assess the entire county, looking at Iowa City,
North Liberty, Coralville, the county area, how many lots are on the
markets, what sizes, what sizes are selling, what is the public demanding.
So we tend to plat those types of subdivisions that are selling, wherever
we can find land and work with the municipalities. When we put these
developments in, we do have protective covenants, but we're a private
industry, and those covenants are just for our development only. We do
prefer to protect the people moving in. We know we can control a little bit
-- the price level, if we state square footages of houses, percent of brick on
the front, certain type of shingle, etc., but the developer as a private
individual knows the risk he is taking so he doesn't make these covenants
too restrictive. They're just a loose guideline for his development. So, as
a private person, he knows the risk in assessing this. So, just wanted to
comment on that. So, thank you.
Bailey: Do most new developments have restrictive covenants?
Hochsteder: Yes.
Bailey: And how is that affecting affordability in our community?
Hochsteder: A developer assesses that. I mean, number one, our community is
becoming more and more competitive, I mean, the lowest price, people
look over the entire county, and the lowest price always sells. People
want the most that they can get in their unit. I think a few builders alluded
to that. Rather than have a lot of design on the outside, buyers would
rather have the extras on the inside, where there's granite counter tops, tile
showers, you know, they want the square footage, the finished lower level,
the screened porch. They want as much square footage on the inside,
more than they want design on the outside. So...
Bailey: But there obviously with restrictive covenants there is some concern in
neighborhoods about how they look and what the design is. I mean, that
seems to be a selling factor, correct?
Hochsteder: There is a concern. I mean, developers care about design, and so we do
want a nice looking neighborhood, something that sells, something that
looks good for the ages basically.
Vanderhoefi Kevin? When you're talking about the developments with protective
covenants, are you talking specifically about Iowa City, or can you give
me a little bit of a generality if that is true in our neighboring
communities, and what's happening in the state of Iowa, for instance?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 30
Hochsteder: Covenants are very similar, whether it's Iowa City, North Liberty,
Coralville. I've built in virtually all of those cities. Most developments
have covenants concerning roof pitch, shingles, percent of brick on the
front, minimum square footage of homes -those are the main ones.
Certain other ones may have tree requirements, lighting in the front yards,
little white fences to screen the front entryways, but they're generally little
touches to try and make each neighborhood unique. They're trying to
look not at spending a large amount of money, but in keeping a
neighborhood somewhat classy, requiring brick on the front so it's not just
all vinyl siding, all sides.
Vanderhoef: So we'll see that in other Iowa communities, as well.
Hochsteder: Every development virtually has this.
Vanderhoef: There was an article recently about this real specifically in a national
magazine about many developments are now becoming homeowner-
directed because of homeowner associations because of green spaces or
whatever and the covenants that are being in there, and the question was
deposed and how does that affect cities.
Hochsteder: I have seen that. Because these covenants are somewhat loosely written,
they do regard like satellite dishes generally asking not to be 18-inches in
diameter. With new technology now, there's different size out that's like
30-inches, and those are a hot item. So covenants are going to have to
look at that, but they regard sheds in backyards, fencing, etc., and I have
had some questions from homeowners, once they buy there, can they take
over the covenants, and in theory, yes they could, and write their own.
Lehman: Kevin, there's nothing new about this. I built a house 40 years ago. There
were covenants where I built my house, and it was a very modest
neighborhood then, more modest now but these sort of things have been
going on as long as I've lived in Iowa City, 45 years, so there's really
nothing new about this.
Hochsteder: You could build a house as a teenager? (laughter)
Lehman: Keep going, keep going! (laughter)
Bailey: Regarding covenants, how specific...what kinds of things you were
talking about, how much do they add, what kind of costs do they add to
the home?
Hochsteder: Developers try to keep it to a minimum. They get some kind of a look...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 31
Bailey: Right, but what's a minimum to a developer because I'm not a developer.
Hochsteder: Obviously, larger lots, you'll have a higher-priced home so they can
probably have a few more stricter requirements in larger subdivisions.
The smaller the lots, the.., generally the less the requirements.
Bailey: So, is it a percentage of the home cost or, I mean, are we talking $5,000?
Are we talking $10,0007
Hochsteder: It would vary...every development...
Bailey: So some of the numbers that we heard tonight would be reflective of some
of the prices, or some of the costs that would be associated with
covenants, is that accurate?
Hochsteder: Could be, yes.
Bailey: Ok, thanks.
Lehman: Thank you, Kevin.
Pugh: Good evening. My name is Mike Pugh and I'm the current President of
the Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association. I know we just
have a few minutes and we have quite a lot of material to present, but I
just wanted to make a comment on this...the issue about restrictive
covenants. I do a fair Share of development work, and one thing you need
to understand about covenants, those are put in place by those who have
the economic interest in the property, that have spent thousands,
sometimes millions of dollars, to buy that property and that's their
investment, and those covenants are put into place in order to protect that
investment, and I've had numerous occasions where, after experience of
going through a first phase and getting feedback from potential
homeowners that if there's a provision in those covenants that is affecting
marketability of those lots and the sale of those lots, those covenants are
amended by the developer, who usually retains the right to do that until the
development is built out 75%, 80%, or whatever it is. That's a marked
difference from what you're talking about city-mandated ordinances. It's
like apples and oranges.
Lehman: Thank you. Well, it's about two minutes to 9:00. I would entertain a
motion to continue. I'm sorry, Mike?
O'Donnell: I would like to ask Cheryl if she could do one more thing. You're going
to get us an average price of a house. If we're comparing these, if it's not
a lot of problem, I'd like to have an average price of a duplex.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 32
Bailey: Before...I would also like to...it's clear to me tonight that we were not
talking about affordable housing in the ways that we refer to affordable
housing, so perhaps we should get some City staff or somebody who's
working on developing affordable housing to get a sense of what...what
effect this has, and talk to people who are in that business, because the
numbers that we're talking tonight are not what I consider affordable, and
I don't think they are for anybody.
Champion: Well, I think there's a difference between affordable housing and low-
income housing. I don't think the two go hand-in-hand at all. I think
affordable housing is what someone who has a full-time job, a teacher, a
policeman, a fireman...
Bailey: And I haven't heard any numbers that seem to reflect that...
Champion: That's what we need to know. Somebody did throw out some number
tonight (can't hear) around $160,000. The nurse can buy...to me low-
income housing always requires some kind of (can't hear) and
governmental agency or private enterprise. It's people who simply can't
afford to buy a house without assistance. To me affordable housing is
what somebody can buy without assistance, who's working downtown,
you know, who's been through that. I think there's a clear difference
between the two.
Bailey: I do too, but I think with the...to be very specific and to have a better
understanding, we probably should have somebody in here who can speak
to that, and then we can use the term across the board...
Champion: That would be good, because what we're talking about on those smaller
lots is affordable housing, but not low-income housing. Isn't that correct,
when you're...
Bailey: Well, that's what we say we're talking about. That's my question, my
concern.
Vanderhoefi Uh-huh, and the houses that we have sold in both the affordable dream
home program and the tenant to ownership program gives you a pretty
good idea of what is affordable by a homeowner with the assistance of the
second mortgage, the no downpayment - those are in that $140,000,
$130,000...
Bailey: And below.
This represe~,ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 33
Lehman: Regenia, would it be fair to say we would really like to know what this
does to the cost of starter homes? Bottom, entry-level homes, what this
Code does to the cost of entry-level homes. I think that's really...we can
call it affordable or whatever, but...
Bailey: And we could use that term even, that might help.
Champion: It might, but I think there's a difference there because starter homes, to
me, are the first home I bought was say for like $15,000. We outgrew it
very quickly, but we could afford to move to a bigger house, and back
then to an even bigger house. So, it' s, to me though, affordable housing
is, I'm not sure there are .... that everybody in this community could do
that, can keep stepping up in the house. Sometimes when you (several
talking at once) they're very different.
Lehman: But entry-level I think is the property we're looking at. What does this do
to entry-level houses...
O'Donnell: Well, I think the question we want to know is does this affect the
affordability of houses? And I really don't know how we would
determine that. But it (several talking at once)
Bailey: ...and I think numbers can be determined and suggested, so I think Matt's
question from last week is a question we need to examine.
O'Donnell: I agree.
Champion: But maybe we could get just some items from one of the builders on what
it would cost to build a simple starter home on one of our smaller lots in
the RS-8, without an alley, three-bedroom minimum.
Vanderhoef: So you're talking 1,200 square feet, roughly. (several talking at once)
Bailey: But ! also think that we need to hear from people who are doing this work,
as well as the builders who are building these homes, but I think we need a
wide range of discussion points about this.
Lehman: Steve, see if we get some of that information by...
Atkins: We'll try something...
Lehman: I'd like a motion to continue the hearing to October...
Elliott: So moved.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.
#2 Page 34
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Lehman: ...and a second; all in favor? If we could have some of that information.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Lehman: We need a motion to accept correspondence.
Vanderhoefi Move to accept correspondence.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Motion carries. This hearing is continued to the 18th of October, which is
a week from next ....
Atkins: And, Emie, before you conclude, Karin? I just want to make sure the
public understands continuing process. On Monday night...
Franklin: On Monday night the 17th we will start at 5:00 with a work session, a joint
meeting with the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to
discuss the rezonings, the map changes, that have been proposed, and then
on Tuesday night you will have the public hearings on each of the map
changes, as well as an item that will be to continue public heating on the
text, as well as everything else.
Lehman: Right. We could last until sometime on that Thursday.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of October 10, 2005.