Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-07 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) 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 (CONTINUED FROM 10/5, 10/10, 10/18 AND 11/1) Lehman: Public hearing is open. Just for information, we had intended to close the public hearing tonight. I visited with Eleanor this afternoon and it is probably necessary that we keep the public hearing open. We'll recess it until the 15th of November. Is that the next regular meeting? We'll continue that to the 15th and then we will try and get through our discussion and whatever changes we think we need to make and close the public hearing after we have made those changes and we have an opportunity to be sure the changes do what we think they are going to do. Okay, who would like to speak? Gordon: Could it be possible I'm the only one? (laughter) Lehman: I doubt it! (laughter) You never know! Gordon: I'm Steve Gordon and I'm here representing the Land Development Council. I won't take a lot of time tonight. I just have a few additional issues from what I've spoken about before, and then a couple of just summary points I want to make. So, I won't take up much time. Quickly, just a couple issues in the multi-family zone that we have some concerns with. First one is on page 29, it's 3.C. in regards to lots with multiple buildings and it states, "Buildings containing residential uses must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. The principle buildings on a lot must be separated by a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet." I guess we feel that's just a little arbitrary. What does direct views mean? You know, in house there can be 10 feet apart and there's, you know, there's no standards there on where the windows can be, and just...we'd like a little more clarification, you know, if you offset the windows five feet is that not a direct view, or if the buildings are 30 feet apart, is that not a direct view. It just seems kind of arbitrary on how that will be... Lehman: You would like to have the word "direct" defined? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 2 Gordon: "Direct" defined, and is there a distance between buildings, I mean, if you have two buildings on a lot, I guess I'd say it's almost impossible not to have windows have, you know, one window have a view into the next building. So is there a distance if the buildings are so far apart that that's okay. I mean, if they're 10 feet apart, what if they're 30 feet apart, and you have a window on each, you know, across from each other - is that far enough apart to...I just don't know what it means, I guess, quite frankly. I don't know what that would mean and it seems to be it could be, you know, something that would be arbitrarily enforced for different developments. Then on page 39, C.1. is talking about parking. It says, "Surface parking, parking within accessory structures and loading areas must be located behind principle buildings and concealed from view of fronting streets." I believe this is new to the code for the RM-12, 20, and 44 zones. I believe it's already in the current code for some of the other multi-family zones, but not for the RM-12, 20, and 44, and essentially, it's moving the building up to the front of the lot and the parking behind. It, you know, it's a standard that on the surface may seem reasonable, but it may not always work, especially on a narrower lot. An example I use is at the top of Benton Street, on the south side of the road at the top of the hill there's a fairly new multi-family development, pretty nice - red brick buildings - I think they look pretty nice. It's a narrow lot, it's in the middle of the street, so there's no side streets. The buildings go down both sides and the entry is in between the buildings and then you got parking there, and clearly if you had to meet this standard, that would have been difficult to do on a lot like that. So I guess we request that it be like...I think the current code doesn't allow any parking in the front yard setback, which is certainly feasible, but to require parking... Champion: Excuse me. The building you're talking about, the parking's in the middle then? Gordon: Yeah, the parking's in the middle and the buildings are on the outside, and then there's a building in the back, too, and the parking goes down in front of the buildings... Bailey: So essentially, the parking is on the side of the building, right? Is that what you're saying? Gordon: No, well...yeah, it's kind of a u-shaped thing. The parking goes right down the middle and the buildings go down either side of the lot line. Bailey: Okay, I got it. Gordon: They don't face Benton Street, the buildings don't. The side of the building faces Benton Street. The front of the building faces the parking that's in between the two buildings. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 3 Bailey: Oh, okay. Gordon: So, you know, again, it's just, certain lots - especially narrow lots - that can be a difficult thing to achieve. Then on page... Wilburn: Excuse me, I'm looking at that page and I'm looking at the photos. There are two, I think, drawings that describe acceptable situations for what you just...I mean, does that not describe what you just did, or... Vanderhoef: No, they've still got them all behind. Gordon: No. Vanderhoef: Well, unacceptable is exactly what he's describing down here, this very bottom one. Gordon: The very bottom one is kind of what's on the top of Benton, except that back building sits even further back. It's a much narrower lot. It's...the buildings go lengthwise, perpendicular to Benton Street, and they go back, and then there's a building way in the back, and the parking's between the buildings. Lehman: Now if you're on a narrow lot, and you try to move that building to the front, you basically have to put a road between the buildings to get to the parking lot. Gordon: Yes. Lehman: Unless you had accessibility from a side street. Gordon: Right, if you have no side street, you're going to have to, I don't know, 20 or 30 feet take away of the frontage of that lot to get the drive over on the side of the building to get to the parking behind, which then also limits...your building's going to have to be deeper or a different design. Wilburn: Your question is, is what is listed as unacceptable, is it even feasible on a smaller lot? You're saying that the first drawing, is that feasible on a smaller lot? Gordon: Well, I...look at the third, like the second picture over might be how you would do it on a narrow lot, but... Wilburn: That's what I was asking. Doesn't that describe how you would do it on a narrow lot? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 4 Gordon: That would be one way to do it on a narrow lot. The project at the top of Benton Street, I don't know how they would have done it. I mean, they would have probably lost some building space or... if you just look at it, certain lots would be more difficult to do that than others. I don't know if that building design, you know...(several talking at once). I don't know if that building's as big as the one next to it, you know. Wilbum: I just wanted to have a visual of what you were saying. Gordon: Yeah. Wilburn: Thank you. Gordon: It's certainly doable on lots of lots, and you know, you see it done lots of places where they do it, but to make it a standard that may or may not work in certain lots, just seems.., it's not in the current code anyway that way, and it just seems like it's, to make it far-reaching over every lot, it's a little difficult. Wilburn: You basically disagree with it? Gordon: I disagree with it, yes. Wilbum: Okay, all right. That's fine. Gordon: On page 40, Section 3.C., and again, not a...I mentioned this before at the P&Z meeting, essentially it says that if parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground-level windows, said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S-2 standard, which again on the surface seems like a good idea. Almost all parking will, you know, it's how the code is designed, you're going to have parking next to a building, buildings need to face parking, so essentially you're going to have that S-2 standard in front of all parking between parking and a building. I guess I look at it this way from a safety issue, you know, if you pull up, if I live in an apartment and my wife and kids are coming home, I'd like them to pull up to the parking lot and be able to see kind of the front of the building in both directions quite a ways. You put an S-2 screening there, which is two to four foot bushes, at least 30% of them I believe, have to be four foot bushes. I think that just creates kind of a barrier there that could be a safety issue. If you can't see beyond that barrier, you have a four foot opening in that barrier with a sidewalk leading to the building, but between the parking and the building you're going to have, you know, dark areas and areas that are not visible. Again, if it's a problem I understand that. Maybe blinds or shades in the units, I guess, that's how we solve the problem today. I believe this is a new section of the code. I do not believe it's in the current code. Then to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 5 commercial a little bit, which is just to the CN-1 zone, which is on page 70. It's three or four pages on the site development standards and this is currently in the code so this is not changed. I believe it was added to the code in 2002 to the current code. It essentially says in the CN-1 zone you've got to move the buildings up to the street and put the parking, again, behind the buildings, or at least mostly behind. I think 65% of the building has to be up to the build-to line, which I believe is described as five feet back from the lot line and only 35% can be parking, so it takes the parking and moves it around behind the building. I'm not aware of any CN-1 zones that have been developed since 2002. Again, I'm just looking at the map so I'm sure staff can answer that better than I can, but if you look at some CN-1 zones that were created before that was put into place in 2002, the Mormon Trek development where the Credit Union is and Bob's Your Uncle and the drug store and the video store. Scott Court where Eastside Cafe, I think, and there's some buildings there. The Rochester Avenue Hy-Vee is a CN-1 zone, or it's not a Hy-Vee anymore. The old Hy-Vee where I used to work. I think it's a Drug Town now. And the Dodge Street Hy-Vee, and if you can just envision all those, flipping all those developments, bringing those buildings up to the street and putting the parking behind, especially on Scott Court. I just don't know that that would work real well, especially at the end of the cul-de- sac. I don't know how you would get, like the Eastside Caf6, up to the build-to line and put the parking behind and you know, most businesses like the visibility. They like the building, being able to pull up, see the business, know it's open, know it's there, pull in, park, and walk into the business. Trying to park around behind and, I'm not...you know, ask business owners more than myself, but I'm not sure that would be ideal for what they would want for their business space. Champion: Karin, how would that be addressed? Franklin: In terms of the existing CN-1 zones, is that what you're talking about, Connie? There's an exception. It's provision on page 70 that for existing CN-1 zones, these standards can be waived, and in fact, we have done that on Scott Court, Scott Park, Scott Park Court...the one there at Court and Scott that Steve's referring to. That's just about built-out. There were two lots that Marty Gaffee had a building that he wanted to put up on recently, and so we looked at it in terms of what was possible and what was existing, and he was not required to bring the building up to the build-to line because it just wasn't feasible. Champion: What ifHy-Vee or another grocery store wants to put a supermarket, let's say on the west side, which is really growing. They would have to put the Hy-Vee on the... Franklin: You mean in a new CN-1 zone? That's what would be expected, yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. //2 Page 6 Champion: So how would they, how would customers get into the store? Would they park in back and have to... Franklin: You go in a driveway and park in the parking lot. Champion: And have to walk to the front of the store? Franklin: Well, you have to walk to the front of the store if you park in front of the building too. I guess I don't understand. Vanderhoefi Well, the smaller ones tend to have more of a comer entrance to the building. So I could envision that it would, the building would actually end up facing the parking, or the entrance to the store would face the parking, and we would end up with two blank walls facing the street. Franklin: Well, when we did Hy-Vee on First and Muscatine, one of the issues there was what was the face going to be towards First Avenue, and we worked with them on that project, and they put the restaurant on that side of the building, and so it's all glass along the First Avenue side of the building. Vanderhoef: But that isn't CN-1. Franklin: No, no, I'm just... Vanderhoef: It's got multiple doors. I'm talking about what used to be the Rochester Hy-Vee store with the comer location, a little bit of parking in front, and parking along the side, and I'm trying to envision if that building were moved up, and there's only one entrance instead of two entrances into it, I would presume that that door into the grocery store would be nearest the parking lot, which would be in the back, which would then end up putting two blank walls next to the comer location. Franklin: My point is, is that you don't have to do those blank walls. It's all a matter of designing it for the site. Remember too we're talking about CN- 1 here. We're not talking about CC-2. Hy-Vee, Cub Foods, any of the major grocery stores, do not build at the size that you can build in CN-1. So to really be talking about a Hy-Vee in CN-1 is not practical anymore because they don't build anything less than 80,000 square feet. Vanderhoef: So, the Fareway Store, which the Mormon Trek one, here again, it has parking on two sides and a corner entrance to the building. So, if there's one entrance, because it's very clear that retail space, you can't put windows and stuff along the walls in grocery stores, except near the parking and the checkout area. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 7 Franklin: In many communities throughout the country, they are able to design retail centers, -- commercial, neighborhood retail centers - with standards and specifications very similar to these. It's a matter of taking the time to plan your commercial center so that it fits in with the neighborhood and has that pedestrian accessibility, which is what the Comprehensive Plan talks about in terms of developing our neighborhood centers. You can't use... Vanderhoefi Could you show me some designs? Franklin: Sure, I'd be happy to. Vanderhoef: I would appreciate that. O'Donnell: Karin, it seems to me like if you have a Hy-Vee moved to the front and one entry going in, that every customer at Hy-Vee is going to be coming up to that one entry to get into the store, whether it be on the side or the front, and you're shooting down that traffic down that one entry. Franklin: You don't have to have just one entry. Bailey: Let's remember, Hy-Vee is a bad example. Lehman: Right. Bailey: But we probably won't see grocery stores very much in a CN-1 because they've grown in such size. O'Donnell: I don't know, do you know if Fareway has not gone to the smaller grocery stores? It just seems like a bad idea to me to have one way in, or two ways in, but still you've got all the people coming up that one drive. Franklin: You wouldn't have to. You wouldn't have to necessarily. Bailey: How about... Franklin: You could have two drives if you needed two drives. You can have two doors if you need two doors. (several people talking at once) Howard: I was just going to mention that not all the parking is required to be behind the buildings. Only 35% of the lot, usually when you're developing a commercial center, it's more than one building. So you have lots of buildings on one common lot and so to design it so that some buildings will be up to the street, but not all the buildings. So you still have a large area, and most commercial centers that are, it's visible parking lots, visible from the street, 35% of that lot can still be parking lots that are up towards the front. So, you still have quite a bit of ability to design parking in front This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 8 and behind. It's just to keep the buildings pedestrian-friendly, and to help fit into the neighborhoods. Lehman: But you wouldn't have parking between the building and the street. Howard: You could. Lehman: Well, not if you're within five feet of the lot line. Howard: Well, it says 35% of the lot. Only 65% of the lot frontage has to be built up to the street. So 35% of that lot frontage can be parking, up to the street. Lehman: But the building itself needs to be, what, five feet - is that what I read? Howard: Only for 65% of the lot frontage. Lehman: Okay. Howard: So a good portion of a commercial center can have parking up towards the front of the lot, but it allows you to place the buildings --- say for example you have a neighborhood commercial zone that has residential zoning right next door to it. That may be the side of your commercial center that you want to pull the buildings towards the street. On the other side, it may be adjacent to some other zone that you don't care as much about, a parking lot right out in front of somebody's house, so that's the area you would have parking up towards the street. So there's some leeway. The code doesn't say that you have to have all the parking behind the buildings. Franklin: I think we need to bring you some illustrations. Vanderhoef: ...the Coralville Town Center, where they have buildings on the back and there's parking right out to the street, basically. (several talking at once) On the north side, but on the south side of that building, between that and Highway 6 is all parking. Franklin: Yeah, except where New Pioneer is, yeah. A lot of it is, yeah. Out to the highway and that's perfectly appropriate. Vanderhoef: But there are small stores that face that parking lot that all their parking is in front of their store, or in an island of parking out near the street. Bailey: Don't a lot of those stores have two entrances? On the north and the south - if you think of those... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 9 Franklin: Some like Terrapin have an entrance on Fifth, as well as off the parking lot. I think other ones, where they want more controlled access, then is just on the inside. For instance, the office buildings on the comer... Vanderhoef: The little bead shop, I don't think it goes all the way through. Franklin: But that's an option for the particular user. That also is not a neighborhood commercial. That's their downtown. Vanderhoef: Right. But I can envision that in a neighborhood commercial, with small stores. Lehman: Okay. Gordon: I think that, to answer the question is your building has to kind of have two entries. You know, if you take Scott Court, one of those buildings Marty Gaffey did, a little strip center. If you move that up to the lot line, you got to have a front entry for the pedestrians and then you have to have a back entry where people are parking, is it doable? It's certainly doable. Is it ideal for a business to have two entries, and you know, not for all businesses, I don't believe. And just to clarify, it's 35% of the frontage can be parking, not 35% of the parking, right? 35% of the frontage can be parking, and 65% has to have a building up to the build-to line. So, again, there's three or four pages there on the CN-1 requirements and just, again, encourage you to get familiar with that and make your decision. Couple just summary items on the planned development overlay. I know we've talked about that, but again, our feeling is the planned development overlay should be for if you want to change something in the underlying zone, that's what a planned development overlay's for. We don't really see any need why a Level 2 sensitive areas has to go through a planned development overlay. Lehman: I...Eleanor, I think this is the thing that you wrote - we got a memo from you on, and I think that it does not require a planned development. Gordon: Our reading of the code is that it does in this... Lehman: It will be clarified. Gordon: Great, perfect. Lehman: So it won't be an issue. Gordon: And then the same with condominiums, again, the way we read it... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 10 Dilkes: But I don't want to get that mixed up with the Land Development Council's issue about wanting all sensitive areas reviews to be an administrative - is that what you're talking about? Gordon: No, I'm talking about that a sensitive area shouldn't necessarily have to also be a planned development overlay. If you're not changing the underlying... Dilkes: Right, yes. That was... Gordon: You're not doing anything with the lot sizes or anything like that. Lehman: Right. Gordon: And then the same with condominiums. If you, you know, if you build an apartment complex within the RM-12 zone and meet all the zoning requirements, but you chose to make it a condominium, we don't feel that needs to go through a planned development overlay. Again, how we read it, it would be required. Elliott: What's the page number for the OPDH sensitive areas? Gordon: Oh, man, I didn't write that one down because it was .... Elliott: You can get that one to me anytime. That's fine. Gordon: It starts on page 111 and page 112, categories of planned developments, it's down there under alternative ownership development. Condominium developments where multiple units are located on the same lot, as a category of planned developments. Maybe it's not required, again, it just may be we're reading it wrong. Dilkes: No, my opinion is in looking at this that there is no requirement that you go through a planned development process, and my memo lays out the language that I rely on for that. I don't think there was any intention to do that, and I don't think the language supports that interpretation. Gordon: Okay, great. And then on the, just quickly, on the two-unit attached housing, or zero-lot lines, I know there's been a lot of discussion on whether they're going to be limited to comer lots in RS-8 or whether they're going to have a percentage limit or something like that, and again, just if we do end up limiting them in the RS-8, that is a zoning now that allows them and has been a popular and stable housing unit built in Iowa City. If we're going to limit it in the RS-8, the RS-12 clearly allows them and is well written. Just to make sure, and I guess more for future Councils, that we have adequate land zoned RS-12. It's been a zone we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 11 have not used in the past because the current RS-12 is really not usable. It's identified as a high-density zoning. If you look at the Comp Plan, there's not a lot of high-density areas. However, if you look at the individual plans for the districts, it does identify areas where zero-lot lines and duplexes can go, and even though the underlying color may be a medium-density, we just need to be careful that we're going to allow some RS-12 zoning, if that's the zone that's going to allow zero-lot lines and they're going to be limited in the RS-8. And then kind of further on that, on page 278, and again, I mentioned this last time but just, it's a small issue that may get lost in the shuffle. If, 278 it talks about, page 278, B.2., it must be at least six feet between curb cuts. If you want to allow zero-lot lines to have the garages together, which again, I believe I explained in a memo is a popular design from the privacy issue for the people in the homes. It's hard to get those, if your garages are together on a zero-lot line, it's hard to get those curb cuts six feet apart out at the street. So if that stays in there it might impact the, you know, greatly impact the designs available for zero-lot lines. Vanderhoef: Steve? Gordon: Yes? Vanderhoef: It just occurred to me that if you have two drives together that it would be potentially smaller curb cut than if you have two separate ones because of the flare that you have to have for the turning radius for two driveways? Gordon: Yes, a lot of times what you'll see if you do a zero-lot line with the garages together they'll be a four to six foot strip between the driveways where you see rock or grass or some landscaping, but then as the driveways come out to the street and the flare...usually those driveways then connect out at the street. So it's, you know, at the street they're together, but then as the flare comes in and then they're actually four to six feet apart going up to the garages. Vanderhoef: So, what I'm saying is you could potentially get another four to six feet of parking along the curb if you didn't have two curb cuts with the flare? Would that be fair to say? Gordon: Well, if you...yes, if you had to go, if you had to separate that flare six feet and you still wanted to design a zero-lot line like that, you would have to angle the drives so that they wouldn't be parallel...or they wouldn't be perpendicular to the house. They'd be angled out so your curb cut was six feet apart. Well, you can't park in six feet so I guess, yes, you're essentially taking six feet of parking out from somewhere else on the street. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 12 Vanderhoef: But... Gordon: Plus your driveways would be angled. Vanderhoef: Yeah, because you'd still have two driveways that were doing this, instead of one wide driveway that did this. So we're eliminating these curves in here by having it... Gordon: You still have some flare. The driveway, like... Vanderhoef: You'd have flare out here, but you wouldn't have it... Gordon: ...you might have a three-foot flare on each one so they meet at the street, and on the other side you might have a three or four foot flare. So... Bailey: So... Lehman: I think Karin wants to say something. She's waving. Bailey: Can I ask one thing about this flare thing? To a certain point, these are shared driveways and then they go into their own garages. Is that... Gordon: No, the only place they touch is out at the street. They are separate driveways. There's usually four to six feet between the driveways, all the way out past the sidewalk and then usually past the sidewalk, they'll start flaring towards the street, and at the street is where they'll connect, but they' re not shared anywhere else. Bailey: How wide is that curb cut? Franklin: And that's just dandy. Gordon: Is that allowed? Am I reading that wrong? Franklin: Yes, you're reading it wrong. Gordon: Okay. Great! Franklin: I just wanted to end this before it went on too long. Bailey: I do not have to understand this flaring concept at all? Good. (several taking at once) Franklin: Municipal design standards - it's in there now. With shared driveway, you'd be having one curb cut, so we're not talking about two different curb cuts here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 13 Gordon: ...one curb cut, you don't have to be six feet apart. Franklin: Right. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Well, that answered that. Lehman: Okay. Took care of that. Champion: Any other complaints you have that we could solve that easily? (laughter) Lehman: We're all ears, folks. McLaughlin: Finally figured out what these stickies are for in the back of the room, after about six trips here. I'll give you a copy of my presentation here for each of you. My name is Mike McLaughlin. Tonight I would like to present my objections to Article E. I guess I'll wait until this gets around. Might help guide through it. Article E, page 213, Nonconforming Situations. I'm going to start with Section 14-4E-2, types of nonconforming situations. Letter E, nonconforming residential occupancy. It is now proposed that the former occupancy you once permitted and now grandfathered in makes this use a nonconforming residential occupancy. This creates an instability in the neighborhood values where you have a significant number of rented homes because any home that does not have that rental permit will experience a suppressed value. This will put a particular homeowner in a difficult situation that lives in a neighborhood that's largely. I'm going off a little bit on my own here - this isn't in writing on there, but in a difficult situation in an owner- occupied home that lives in a neighborhood that's particularly rental in nature. One example I can think of is south Lucas Street between Burlington and Bowery Street, where you have, I think on the east side there might be one owner-occupied house. This is purely an example. And on the west side, I believe there's two owner-occupied residents. The remainder through there, it may be up to probably at least 40 homes, maybe closer to 50, leaves again a significant influence on what the rental income can be generated in those homes. If a current owner wishes to sell his house under this new proposal, he's going to feel a significant value reduction without having a rental permit, and if a, it' s kind of a trick to maybe sell it to another owner-occupied individual that may be knowledgeable of that information because they're going to realize that there's a significant reduction there possibly for what a comparable house next door might be able to attain in value. The values of these neighborhoods is heavily weighted on the potential income that can be generated by its rental. And again, I'm now reading from my This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 14 presentation. The individuals who will feel this loss are current owners of homes they live in. The value lost may reach up to $40,000. Future owners who will buy these homes to live in will possibly feel the same impact of occupancy reduction when they, in turn, look to sell that home. This is due to the current City policy that does not allow an owner- occupant to maintain a rental permit for a formerly permitted residence, at the higher occupancy levels. I request that these former occupancy limits be allowed without making a property nonconforming. Section 14-4E-3, page 214, Letter C, determination of nonconforming status - it is my belief that the burden of proof that a nonconforming use is not legal should rest upon the City. The City has maintained all these records over the years whereas ownership may have changed several times. It would be unconscionable if not impossible to make a current owner produce records from several different owners, some of who may not be living. It is also conflict of interest for the City to have all the records, but not be required to produce these in a determination. This change would bring the City policy into line with the Iowa Code. I also request that the rental permits be expanded to include the defined use, the zone and all the grandfathered items and respective dates to provide clarity for each permitted residence. Move on to Section 14-4E-4, nonconforming single- family uses, page 214 - this discusses the right to establish in the event of a major catastrophic event, however, under A above, the occupancy formerly allowed is accepted from this right. I request that the former occupancy be allowed to avoid financial hardship to the owner. Therefore, I request this exception to be stricken. Section 14-4E-5, regulation of nonconforming uses, page 216, Letter E - damage or destruction. Items one and two limit restoration of a nonconforming use to 75% of assessed value, in the event of a major catastrophic event. Typically assessed values are not values used by insurance companies, even to judge a, you know claim. I request that the former use be allowed to avoid financial hardship to the owner, regardless of the percentage of the loss of the assessment. Therefore, I request this percentage to be stricken. Section 14-4E-6, regulation of nonconforming structures, page 217, Letter C, also under damage or destruction. Items one and two limit restoration of a nonconforming structure to 75% of assessed value in the event of a major catastrophic event. I request that the former type of structure be allowed to avoid financial hardship to the owner. Therefore, I request this item also to be stricken. Section 14-4E-7, regulation of nonconforming lots, page 217, Letter D, limits restoration of a nonconforming uses and structures to 75% of assessed value in the event of a major catastrophic event. I request that the former use and structure be allowed to also avoid financial hardship to the owner. Therefore, I request this item to be stricken. Chapter 9 definitions, page 394, household. I recommend that current occupancy levels be maintained to the existing code to avoid instability and property valuations of neighborhood properties, as mentioned above. This will also allow current This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 15 owner-occupants to maintain the same number of roomers to help them continue to pay for their monthly expense, such as mortgages, property taxes, utilities, etc. This will also allow future homeowners to qualify for more lending, approximately $32,000 per roomer, since the income from a single roomer may provide up to $400 towards monthly expenses. Obviously, loss of a roomer for any owner-occupied home that does rent out rooms could potentially be a significant hardship for the, for losing some of that monthly income. Another memo here I'd like to read, from an individual who couldn't make it this evening. Lehman: You need to wind it up. McLaughlin: Okay, I will do that. There are several provisions in the proposed zoning ordinance which are troublesome as they will create numerous properties with nonconforming residential occupancy, which is an undesirable outcome. In addition, Article E of the proposed code which regulates nonconforming situations is subject to interpretations which may be problematic in the future when applying for building permits for improvements to properties with nonconforming residential occupancies. The specific problems are outlined below. Under Section 5, the number of unrelated persons allowed within a dwelling unit will be reduced by one in RS-12, RNS-12, RM-12, RNS-20 zones. This will create hundreds of properties which will have nonconforming residential occupancy status. The creation of nonconforming properties, whether it is nonconforming occupancy, nonconforming structure, or nonconforming use is not desirable. Future redevelopment of these properties to their present standard of occupancy, structure, or use becomes difficult if not impossible. In certain areas, such as south Lucas Street, south Governor Street, south Dodge Street, and Bowery Street areas, the majority of the structures will now become nonconforming due to the high percentage of rental properties already located in this area. Passage of the new zoning code will transform many of these properties into the status of nonconforming residential occupancy. The proposed code is not clear as to what improvements on structures with nonconforming residential occupancy will be allowed, and some of this will be subject to interpretation by building officials. Structures with nonconforming residential occupancy may therefore likely be allowed to deteriorate, rather than the risk of losing their nonconforming occupancy by applying for building permits for improvements on these structures. The language in Section 14-4E-9 is not clear as to what can be done with properties having nonconforming residential occupancy in the event of partial or total destruction. Although Section 14-4E-9 will allow present occupancy to be continued, this is only so long as the current structure continues to be in use. In the event the structure is destroyed or damaged, it appears that the property would have to be rebuilt to the new occupancy standard. There is no provision in Section 14-4E-9 regulation of nonconforming residential This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 16 occupancy which directly addresses that issue. Such as it is for nonconforming single-family uses, Section 14-4E-4, A, Item 4, which provides that property may be restored to the same degree of nonconformity or as there is a nonconforming uses, Section 14-4E-5, E, 1, which provides that if a structure with nonconforming use is damaged to less than 75%, the structure may be restored for the nonconforming use, or there is a nonconforming structures which provide that if a nonconforming structure is damaged, less than 75% of it may be restored to the same degree of nonconformity. In Section 14-4E-9 which regulates nonconforming residential occupancy provides only at paragraph B that the same occupancy may continue. Without further specific direction or any clarification, the new code could be interpreted by building officials to prohibit any restoration or repair work in the event of partial destruction. If a rental property cannot be restored to its present level of occupancy, this will create a hardship for the owner, as obviously the property would generate less revenue and the property could be economically nonviable as an investment. The language in Section 14-4E-9 regulating nonconforming residential occupancy is subject to the interpretation by building officials as to what future improvements may be made to a property, even if there is not partial destruction. The language in Paragraph B provides the use may not be enlarged, which again will be subject to the interpretation by building officials. Does this mean that a family room cannot be added? Does this mean that a garage cannot be added, or that a dilapidated one cannot be tom down and another one rebuilt? Does this mean that an additional bathroom cannot be added in the future? Although enlargement is defined in the new code, there is still room for interpretation as to whether certain improvements would increase the value of the building or whether there is an increase in the area of land or building occupied by a use. Again, owners of properties with nonconforming residential occupancy may opt to let their properties deteriorate rather than improve them and risk losing the nonconforming residential occupancy status. Section 14-4E-3D provides that incidental repairs and routine maintenance of a nonconforming use or nonconforming structure is permitted. However, this does not include properties with nonconforming residential occupancy, which is a different category altogether. At a minimum, the language in Section 14-4E-3D should be expanded to also allow for incidental repairs and routine maintenance for properties with nonconforming residential occupancy. The language in Section 14-4E-9 which regulates bringing a property with nonconforming residential occupancy into compliance is also not clear... Lehman: How much of this do you have left? McLaughlin: Just a paragraph, Ernie. Lehman: Do you have a copy of it by any chance? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 17 McLaughlin: I'm sorry? Lehman: Do you have a copy of it by any chance? McLaughlin: I'll leave this copy for you. I've got one on my computer at home. Lehman: Thank you. McLaughlin: The language in 14-4E-9, which regulates bringing a property with a nonconforming residential occupancy into compliance is also not clear. In rental properties, owners may unknowingly risk losing the nonconforming residential occupancy status. The language in the last sentence of Paragraph A states that once brought back into compliance with current applicable occupancy standards, a use may not revert back to nonconforming occupancy. This could be interpreted by rental housing officials in the following way: a rental property owner has property with nonconforming residential occupancy status, which is licensed for rental to four unrelated persons, but under the new zoning code, the new applicable occupancy standard would only allow for rental to three unrelated persons. The landlord might, for whatever reason, lease the property to only three unrelated persons for one year. This could be interpreted by building officials to mean that the property has been brought into compliance with the current applicable occupancy standard, and therefore it is possible that the property owner could be prohibited from ever again renting it to four unrelated persons, as this would be interpreted as reverting back to a nonconforming occupancy. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Karin, I have... Bailey: Motion to accept correspondence. Karr: Want to wait and accept it all at once? Bailey: Oh, yeah...you want to do it at the end? Okay. Lehman: Karin, I have a question. If in the situation he just mentioned, if you have an apartment rented to four unrelated folks, we change the rules to three and next year you rent to three, you still get the rental permit even though you have three people, would you still retain the grandfather status for four? Franklin: If you rent it what it's evaluated for now and the number of roomers that you have now, even if you're in an area where the occupancy is decreased by this code, you are able to continue to have that number of roomers. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. //2 Page 18 Lehman: Right, but if you were unable, for example, to get the fourth person and you rent to three for a year, does that change your status? I mean, if you have the permit for four, you only get three... Franklin: If you have the permit for four, but shows on the permits or the records in HIS that you're able to have four there, you can have four. Lehman: Okay, I thought... Franklin: That's that new system that... Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Mr. Mayor, Mike...this is not signed. Is this memorandum from the letterhead, the attorney, Cynthia Parsons? It is from Cindy. McLaughlin: Right, and her comment on that last question about occupancy (can't hear). I was just reading her comment. I think she was a little unclear, you know, it's leeway for interpretation there. She wasn't certain if that possibly would occur. Lehman: I understand. McLaughlin: I think it was just a little vague in language in how it was presented, and she wasn't certain if that would be deemed as bringing it back into compliance, and therefore wouldn't... (several talking at once). Dilkes: I'll talk to Doug tomorrow. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Allen: My name is Greg Allen. I would like to ask Karin, basically, the same question differently because I've actually had this happen. I had a five- bedroom house. I only rented it to four people. It was grandfathered in as four people, and the City told me that since I didn't have five people in there, that this house was now conforming under the new code, but not under the code, and they attempted to remove my fifth roomer. So we need to have something in the code that says that that will withstand, you know, because sometimes...you know, ! have one now. I have a five- bedroom house. These four guys said we love the extra space. They rented it four people at the five-bedroom price. I let them do it. If that, if I don't have that safeguard, I would have to refuse those. The other thing is, this code, the new code, you guys got a lot of work to do. The RNC code is supposed to stabilize this neighborhood. This new code, if it goes through as it's written, is going to shrink the neighborhood, in value, in dollars, in very many ways. If the goal is to maintain the neighborhood, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 19 you cannot over time remove a quarter of the revenue in the rental properties as they become single-family homes or attempt to go back and forth. This new code has many new categories, or zones, or whatever you want to call them. One new category is called nonconforming rental occupancy. The nonconforming rental occupancy is what they're going to give you if you have a house that's now legal for three or two roomers, and is eventually going to become legal for two or one roomers. So those roomers that you got to keep are going to be nonconforming rental occupancy. Okay? If you're going to stabilize the neighborhood, this is a problem because the definition in the reviewer's guide for nonconforming says that over time, it is to eliminate the nonconforming status. It also says that they may be considered a nuisance and then may be brought into compliance more quickly. So there's nothing that says who gets to decide if they're a...how quickly they have to be brought into compliance. ! had several conversations with the rental housing department, and I've been told that if a owner-occupied (TAPE ENDS) rental occupancies. In other words, a four-bedroom house in RNC zone that's rented as a four- bedroom, when the owner-occupied buys it, they will not be able to maintain that rental permit. Now for the past 20 years, that has been the case. You have been able to retain a rental permit. Hardly anyone ever did it because there was no reason to. You could sell it. People could buy it back. You could go down and get a rental permit at the same occupancy. We're talking about over 1,000 homes that are now going to have nonconforming rental occupancy, and if an owner-occupied person buys them, they are going to immediately lose that roomer. There, so we have our new nonconforming rental occupancy, which is only for rental people, not for roomers. So there's a discrimination there. There's no category. They've also come up with two new categories in single-family. Used to be you had a single-family home. It was either a rental or it was a single family living in it, but it was all the same category. They've now created two separate categories, single-family rental and single-family owner-occupied. Under the code, we have owner-occupied, or we have single-family, duplex, multi-family, rooming house, and commercial. Five categories. Now we've got the single category split into two separate categories, the single-family homes, so that they can differentiate between nonconforming rental occupancy and conforming rental occupancy. They have not (can't understand) and they will need if they do this, a category for rental, single-family rental occupancy owner-occupied. There's no such category, which means right now you have a house that has four rooms in it. Single-family person moves in. They want to rent out two rooms. There's no category. So do they maintain the nonconforming rental occupancy, or do they lose it, and if they're renting it, are they considered a rental, and if they're considered a rental, but they're living in it, do they get to have both of the people that they used to have, or do they lose one? There's a very simple solution to this, which I'll get to after I talk about a couple other issues. There is also, as Mike said, with all these This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 20 new rules and all this very confusing, the old occupancy standards were much more clear. They were much more fair. The new code has a thing in there that says burden of proof to show that these occupancies are conforming or legal or whatever reason you have, is solely on the owners. Now, we've spent the last, since 2002, we've spent diligently property after property, every single one, going through every single rental property and determining the occupancy. Now, there's some, there's variances, easements, there's grandfathered in roomers, spousal exceptions, parking, nonconforming/conforming occupancy, this was a very laborious thing that was done by the Zoning staff, or the rental housing staff, and by the owners, and every single house was given an occupancy. Now they're saying if you have a discrepancy in that occupancy, it all falls on us. They determine the occupancy. They have all the records. Many of the records are missing. When does it end? When do we get to have these occupancies that we can buy and sell these houses and have some kind of confidence, because we've bought many houses and then they come back, even ones that even have the number of rentals come back with one on them, they say 'oh your lots too small, can't be a duplex anymore.' These things have all happened and I have many examples of them. The other argument, the age-old argument that came up again tonight, is there's an ongoing argument about whether a house is more valuable as a rental or as a single-family. This mostly has to do with where it's at in town; what street it's on; what zone it's in; what neighborhood it's in. The City should not be put in a position that forces them to decide whether a rental or an owner-occupied house has the most value and in which zone. This should be done by the market. It's always been done by the market. The new code clearly says that if a house goes over to owner-occupied, it can never go back to the old occupancy. A buyer of a home should have the resale options available to him when he sells it, the same as when he bought it. I've bought houses, not often, but some houses in predominantly owner-occupied neighborhoods. I'm only going to buy the very, very, most run-down ones. I can't buy the nice ones, and even when I go look at them, I tell the people, you know, this house is very nice. The landlords are not going to be interested in it. It needs to be resold as single-family. A lot of times when we get these houses fixed up, they will be bought by single-family people. They would never be bought by single-family people in these zones at that time because you're not going to spend $140,000-$150,000 for that house and spend $60,000 fixing it up. If you had $220,000, you'd go buy a new house. So the market should determine the value of a house as rental or single-family, and not the zoning code. The new, okay, I recommend, this is a new category, nonconforming rental occupancy should be eliminated. There's no need for it. The existing roomers that are conforming under the code we now have should be conforming under the new code. There's no reason that we should have nonconforming status on houses that we've rented and maintained for years. Should be conforming. That would remain This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 21 conforming as long as a rental permit is maintained. The house has to be then kept up, and the permit fees would have to be paid and it would be inspected. And anybody could do that. You don't have separate occupancy zones for rental, nonrental, owner-occupied - all that. You just have anyone can maintain that rental permit. As long as that house has the same use, and that's the way the code's always been. If it has, if they change the use, or if they decide to tear it down, or anything like that, then it would be lost. A good example is a duplex. Right now, the City is maintaining that in a duplex, regardless of occupancy, in a duplex if a single-family person moves into one side, it's still being rented out as a duplex. That should not be a change of use. It's still a duplex. Now, if their family gets big and they take the walls out and turn that into one house, then you have a change of use, and in these instances you would lose those rental permits. Right now the City is taking away the fourth roomer if you move into one side, but I believe that's incorrect. Lehman: You need to wind it up. Allen: Okay. So the three things that I recommend is one, the roomers must be conforming because if you're nonconforming you're going to have a thousand houses with nonconforming occupancies. If you make these conforming, there will be no need for the new nonconforming rental occupancy category. Roomers of the existing permit would be conforming, and any new roomers that were added on new permits, would be conforming because they would have to comply to the new lower density rules. Everything would be stabilized across the board, and you would not have more growth, you would not have loss, and you would not have unfair treatment of owner-occupied people. The differences for single-family and owner-occupied in single-family rental, that needs to be eliminated too because that goes along with your nonconforming rental occupancy. And then the third thing I would recommend is that the burden of proof being on the landlord, solely on the owner or landlord, be stricken because it's unfair and again, as Mike said, it's not in the spirit of the Iowa Code, which says that in the event that something is unclear, it is to be found in the favor that most benefits the land owner. I have copies of all this for you. I don't have any 14-4's or anything in it. It mostly just has to do with the cause and effect of what this will do and what I really think will be the best for the landlords and the owners. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Gordon: Steve Gordon again. I don't know if this pertains to the building code, but just, you know, there was talk of a moratorium early in this process and I don't, you know, I never really heard any other discussions, but just a situation that happened today that I guess didn't feel was fair and just wanted to share it with you. Went down to get a building permit today on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. //2 Page 22 a zero-lot line duplex in the Whispering Meadows Part 3 neighborhood, which is currently, I believe it is being rezoned to RS-12, which is fine. You've had a couple readings on that to allow zero-lot lines in interior lots, but we went down to get a building permit on a zero-lot line we built several times there. We were told that we could not get a permit because it didn't meet the garage standards. The garage is more than 50% of the front facade, and I guess a couple issues there. One is I find it difficult to believe that we're doing permits based on a proposed code that isn't passed, and not...on a house that meets the current code that's laws on the books today, and secondly, you know, I believe the garage standard is going to be, if not eliminated, at least revised over the current, how it's written in the proposed code, and you know, not getting a building permit now means we build it in the spring which means it misses the 06 market, you know. It's a pretty big deal and I guess I just wanted to share that and didn't feel that was...don't know why that's happening but didn't feel it was fair. Lehman: Steve, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you, I think, based on your knowledge having spoken to us on several occasions, were really pretty much aware what was being proposed in the code. The moratorium is 60 days, is that correct? Now there's a 60-day period that you could not get that permit. You could have gotten that permit before the hearing was set for this, and you did know the standards that were being set. Gordon: I did know the standards that are being proposed. Yeah, they're not set yet. Lehman: No, no, no, but I mean the rules, we all do - Council as well - that once the moratorium went in place, you could build only if you met the requirements of the proposed code, as well as the old code. Everybody knew that. Gordon: Yeah, I guess I did know what the moratorium was. I guess I was never aware that that was placed... I didn't know where it was placed and where it wasn't, so...just wanted to make you aware of that. Vanderhoef: Excuse me. Was that plat already approved? Gordon: Oh yeah, it's been .... we've been building there for a couple of years, but it is an area, I mean, it's an area that has some changes in the proposed code because it's a zero-lot line and clearly, you know .... Dilkes: There's a memo explaining in some detail the effect of the moratorium provisions in the code, and it's not, it does not hinge on plat approval. Vanderhoef: I thought the plat approval, anything that was approved prior to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 23 Dilkes: No, we have rezone... I mean, we do rezonings all the time when there's been plat approval, and the moratorium still kicks in. It's not based on plat approval. Gordon: So, obviously the moratorium is out there, and just so you know how it does affect things in the real world. So, thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Steve. No one else wishes to speak, I would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to the 15th. Bob? Brooks: Couldn't let you wrap this up so quickly. Lehman: Well, Bob, let me tell .... also, we will continue the public hearing. We will also continue our work session tonight until 9:00 P.M. Brooks: I'm Bob Brooks. I'm Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and when I joined the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2004, there had been a fair amount of work done already on the redrafting of the zoning code. You had engaged the services of a nationally recognized firm to work with the community and develop goals to bring the 27-year- old zoning code into line with current needs and the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1997. Staff had committed countless hours to examining options, searching out the best solutions, and writing draft sections. The Commission had spent considerable time discussing the Comprehensive Plan, the vision for the community, exploring concepts to address the key goals of the Duncan report. One of the most difficult things as a commissioner was to place my personal mindsets aside, and deal with process and focus on what was best for the community as a whole, not one specific neighborhood, not one specific business group, not one specific interest group, but the whole community. A community thrives and grows because its leaders have the vision to push the envelope, to think about the future, and not only about the here and now. We have the ability to look for ways to create quality neighborhoods, affordable housing, quality commercial areas, quality public areas, all the work in harmony to create a unique, vibrant and enduring community. If we are not able. to expand our imagination and envision a community that exceeds our current expectations, we are destined for mediocrity. Iowa City, as with many communities, has been aggressive in protecting its neighborhoods and business areas that make our community unique and desirable. My greatest fear is that 30, 40, 50 years from now the actions we take now will have left neighborhoods and business centers that our future community leaders will not find worthy of preserving or protecting. The proposed code was the culmination of many long hours of work and discussion. It represents our best effort at providing a tool that will facilitate and encourage development of quality neighborhoods, quality This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 24 commercial areas, and a quality of life that is Iowa City. The Commission feels very strongly that if portions of the proposed code are eliminated or significantly modified, there could be a ripple effect through the rest of the code, specifically, let's just look at one item -the single-family attached and detached design standards. These were included because the current code is basically a set of standards for each zone. If the developer does not wish to follow, or wishes to propose a project that moves outside of those standards, they have one option for them, and that's go through the planned unit development process. In the Duncan report, and through many comments that we heard from the public, because that limits the amount of, or the quickness that they can deliver a project, it was deemed that this was a time-consuming, and therefore costly to many projects. In the proposed code, the planned unit development process remains as an alternate. You can follow the standards that exist for each zone. You can go with the planned unit development, or we decided that we would like to include some options by tight for projects. Along with that, went some need to encourage and set some standards for the quality of design. That design in the current situation in the planned development process is done through negotiations with staff and the developer, public hearings before the Commission, public heatings before the Council, before its final approval. In the new code, we looked for ways to take those items that we would look for in a planned unit development and we see a visual impression of what the buildings are going to look like, we see a planting plan for that development - all of that is taken into consideration when we evaluate that planned development process. By giving the option to go to narrower lots, smaller lots, which I think we probably have some of the smallest lots in the whole state in our zoning code, we felt it was necessary to include certain standards that would normally be part of the negotiation process. So, in the final analysis, we hopefully were ending up with two apples and not an apple and an orange. As it has been suggested, these standards might be removed or modified. I think if that takes place, I would like to request and hope that the Commission would have an opportunity to evaluate and consider how this kind of modification affects what we brought for you and the intent of what we were bringing forward to you in our zoning code. I urge you to visualize and consider the City of Iowa City in 2030 or 2055, visualize the neighborhoods that will be created. Visualize the commercial areas we'll be creating. It's not an easy vision to conjure up when confronted with pressures of the here and now, but if we stop short of taking our minds to that time and place, we are shortchanging the future of our community. We should not forsake the future quality and vitality of our community for the here and now profit pressure. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Bob. Do we have a motion to continue the public hearing... O'Donnell: So moved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005. #2 Page 25 Bailey: So moved. Lehman: ...to the 15th; do we have a second? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Do we have a motion to adjourn the special meeting? Bailey: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: And a second? All in favor? Opposed? Special meeting, yeah, do we need a motion to accept correspondence prior to closing the meeting (can't understand) Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Motion carries. Now all in favor of adjournment? Motion carries. (pounds gavel) We are adjourned. We're going to take a short break and then we're coming back for a work session. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 7, 2005.