Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-31 TranscriptionOctober 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 67 Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum UISG Rep: Schreiber Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Davidson, Fowler, Franklin, Helling, Howard, Karr, Knocke, Logsden, Dilkes, Rackis Tapes: 05-71 & 05-72, Both sides (Problem with tape.) AGENDA ITEMS Item 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT WITH TODD HACKETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX HOME UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM. (DEFERRED FROM 10/18) Boothroy: McComas Lacina and Frantz Construction Company were more than eager to look at it and that was also at a downturn in our housing market. Since then we do one or two units every two years. It's really tough to get people to work these into their schedule, particularly those that are not large, commercial contractors. Vanderhoefi I was just wondering if we rebid for spring construction, whether that would help us out in some respects and if we got the costs down then it wouldn't be much different than the marketing during construction and after versus paying more for the units up front...I don't know...it could balance out. Boothroy: You don't know until you do it. Vanderhoef: I know. Boothroy: The thing about it is...I don't think it came in over bid. I didn't have good comparables to go with so the estimate that I gave, as I mentioned in my memorandum, was based on Midwest averages. It's not as if we just built a duplex last year and I can look at those numbers and say, 'this is the per square foot cost that we can go with' and that's why I looked at the Arlington Development units. So, I have no idea what will happen in the spring. We can take our chances and there's no pressure to do it at this point in time. We don't have anybody at this point interested in moving into a unit or pending any kind of interest in one of these units...that I know of. O'Donnell: If that's the case, Doug, I don't know why then it's not prudent to put this out. I think we're...at $220,000 and coming in a $68,000 over that, without a local contractor bidding on that, I would just like to see that whole process gone This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 67 through again. If we're in not hurry, I don't know why we shouldn't do exactly that. Vanderhoef: The other thing that...in the bid... I would just ask bidding on one duplex or bidding on two... Lehman: An alternate bid. Vanderhoef: An alternate bid. Boothroy: Well, I think we'd want to do it that way because it...we don't borrow money on this project so if the bid comes in at a similar price...we'll just use the one we got this time...let's just say it comes in again at $288,000 - then we're out that money on the front side for two units - err, for four units - $288,000 times two and that's over $500,000 that we have to divvy up to get this project rolling and that's one the reasons that I don't try to do more than we can bite off at any particular time and then be holding that. There's interest that we lose while we're stuck with something sitting in the ground. That's part of it. Vanderhoef: But that's after it's completed. Boothroy: Well, you pay as you go...you're right...it takes you ninety days to maybe one- hundred and twenty days to complete the project, so your final bill isn't maybe due until three or four months down the road, but you're still taking money out. Lehman: Doug, is there any...we're going to move on from this? Because I think we... Boothroy: Yeah. Lehman: Is there any opportunity...if we did have...let's say we did bid an alternate with two instead of one...of renting those in the period of time it takes to sell it? Boothroy: It's more difficult to rent one and then try to fix it up to sell it... I just don't want to really do that...I mean, we could...but we'll have costs involved in repainting them and bringing them up to a saleable condition. So, if you have somebody in it for a year, you're going to have to - or six months - you're going to have some degree wear and tear and in order to sell it we'll be spending...you know, we may spend some money to fix it back up to sell it...that we could have saved on the front side. Dilkes: Does the CDBG money allow you to do that? Boothroy: I have no idea whether that's an issue or not with CDBG. Elliott: I have a couple of quick questions...Doug, is it the nature of the land on which this would be built...that's one of the reasons for the high cost, right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 67 Boothroy: Foundation work. Elliott: Right, the other property...would it have similar concems? Boothroy: They're side by side lots... Elliott: Okay. Boothroy: So I would say they would be very similar. Elliott: So, it's the nature of the ground on which it would be built and the disincentive is the bond, which is 1%, is that correct? Boothroy: Approximately 1%, yeah. It just limits your pool of people who are interested and plus Davi~ B~n...a lot of contractors aren't set up to deal with that paperwork and it's a headache that...in this case I talked to Todd Hackett about this and I worked with Todd on the Peninsula Property and he's very credible. He says he has about $10,000 in this for-profit...that's a difficult number to work with for most contractors. Elliott: How expensive is it to make a determination on how much foundation work is needed? Boothroy: We'd have to do some preliminary engineering work. Elliott: It seems to me that this is an illustration that we need to take a little more care the next time we pick a site...that it is not a site that is more expensive than we anticipated. Boothroy: Well, it's not flat land...a slab on grade on flat land would be the ideal site, but it's not that way, so...but the price was good...the land price. Lehman: Connie, go ahead. Champion: Are we being naive to think that bids are going to be lower in the spring? I would think they would be higher. Bailey: I think this is a due diligence matter. Had the estimate been closer to $280,000 or $275,000, I don't think any of us would have had a problem going...but the dramatic amount that this is overbid is part of the concern and if we rebid we can indicate that we are being careful and if it comes in at the same then we move ahead. That's the way that I feel about it. Lehman: One more question and then you can go. Can we use CBDG funds to buy an existing house? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 67 Boothroy: I assume so. I think the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship - Lehman: Then why couldn't we contract to build in a manner that doesn't require compliance with Bacon and the bonding or whatever and then have CDBG buy the house? Boothroy: In other words.., get a contractor to build the house at his risk and turn around it a buy it back from him? Lehman: No, we would contract with him to build it. If we didn't use CDBG money we wouldn't have - Boothroy: No, it's because we're using public money. Lehman: Okay. Boothroy: It has nothing to do with - Lehman: Alright. Vanderhoefi Davis Bacon. Item 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY DIVISION OF THE HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT BY ADDING ONE HALF-TIME HOUSING ASSISTANT POSITION. Boothroy: While I'm here, do you have any questions about the other staffposition...the half-time position that we're asking for in Housing Authority? It's later on in the agenda...but since I'm standing here... Vanderhoef: It's fine. Boothroy: Fine? Lehman: Done, thanks. Item 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST'A CONTRACT WITH TODD HACKETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX HOME UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM. (DEFERRED FROM 10118) Boothroy: So, tomorrow night you'll vote to turn that down and rebid, right? Is that the idea? Is that a consensus? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 67 Lehman: Not until the votes come out. Boothroy: I'm just trying to understand what's happening here. Lehman: Three to four or four to three, it would be close either way, wouldn't it? Boothroy: Let's just hope you have a good meeting. Atkins: Any other agenda things you want to pick up? Champion: I think we ought to do transit before we get into Planning and Zoning. Lehman: We are. Atkins: We are, that is my next...do you want me to start with that? Lehman: Yes. TRANSIT FUNDING Atkins: You have a handout. Joe and Ron are both if any other questions...after lots of years of lobbying the Congress, the Federal Transit Administration has secured approval for something they call Transit Intensive Communities. A special increase in transit funding for communities from 50,000-200,000. Small Urban Transit...they've got a number of names...but based upon a series of performance criteria put forth but the FTA, such as passengers per mile, passengers per capita - the whole litany of those things...In Iowa, Ames and Iowa City now qualify for these monies. We have estimated, and these are reasonably conservative estimates, that Iowa City would receive approximately $300,000 a year for the next five years. By rule from the Iowa DOT, 20% of those monies must be used for capital purposes...used buses, building repairs.., in our case, because our fleet is in reasonably good shape as well as our building, that may be a little difficult for us, but again it's by rule. So, for the purposes of your discussion, I would say that we have $240,000 a year available for the next five years for transit related improvements. Now, just to give you a little sense of what that might buy you, a new route...a new route is about $200,000. They're not cheap. The current transit budget is $4.5 million...so this is about 5% of the transit budget. In addition to the federal monies, the Court Street Transportation Center has now opened and we are estimating that from the parking and other rentals, remember the monies must be used for transit purposes, about $200,000 a year.., so, for a total of $440,000 in new transit related funding, or about a 10% increase in the transit systems available revenue. Now, the questions that we had as a staff is how to address this additional funding, what are the considerations, what are the options, and so we are proposing a plan for you...we're in the midst of budget balancing as we speak and it would be my intent for the budget '07, that's the new budget that you will be working with, it will be balanced without any substantial change. That is, it will establish a baseline. We've initiated a study internally, a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 67 group of folks, who will assess all of our transit services and what kind of options we have available. So, you'd have in front of you, knowing you have a balanced budget, it would not include the new money and it would not include any dramatic changes in service. The study group is intended to look at current routes, trends in ridership...and we're going to add some new elements tot this, trends in development. Where are folks locating within the community? We'd also like to identify some of the future financial issues...for example, do we need a fuel reserve. We budget...obviously it's a labor-intense as well as use of fuel for our transit system. Any kind of proposals we have to be ever-mindful that after five years they could pull the plug and we could be right back where we were. As we look at these markets, new development, unserved development.., go through destinations downtown, the hospitals, employment centers, and so forth...what we'd like to do is, again, have a balanced '07 budget with out dramatic change, we will prepare for you a series of options, which you as Council then can go through that appropriates these monies for the purposes of transit services. We intend during the budget review process to work with you on that. You do have to have a public hearing. It can be part of the budget; it's really whatever you like. That's the plan right now. I was pleased to be able to bring you some good news about budget, but the bad news it that we get a roll- back factor today and it's not good. It's going to drop again by another 2% points...that's about $800,000 a year in lost income. Lehman: I think what I hear you saying is that you're going to do the budget for next year basically the same as we did for this year, which means that the additional funding...probably less subsidy for the bus system from the general fund. Atkins: That's one of the options you could choose... Lehman: Well, that's what you're suggesting here. Atkins: What I'm suggesting to you is that I will balance the budget as is my responsibility. It will be prepared. You can assume that that budget...that the transit system is going to be substantially as you know it today. Not a lot of changes. But we will prepare for you a series of options that in effect appropriate that $440,000 of additional funding that you will have available for you. You would add it to that when budget time comes. Elliott: One of the things that you talked about was an internal group looking into other options. I know there are at least a couple of us who have been wanting to take a look. Maybe all we need to do is a refresher and show that it won't work...but I'd still like to take a look at something east, west, and north, south as opposed to the spoke system. Atkins: That's one of the things...Joe is nodding his head. That's intended to be on the table, Bob. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 67 Elliott: And on the capital expenditures, I'd sure like to look into fuel efficient vehicles. Bailey: They're called bikes. Atkins: We can't buy new busses with this money, if I recall. We can buy used buses but we can not buy new buses. It's an unusual set of rules...and no, we don't make these up. Vanderhoef: One of the capital things that I would like explored by staffis that $300,000 over a five-year period is to look at getting new facilities for the Para transit vehicles and that would be a collaboration kind of activity with the County to look at that. I think we're at the point where certainly they're trying to move and any possibility that we can put all of the transit in one area would certainly be a positive in my mind...out on that comer. Atkins: Joe, is that out of the question? Yes or no? Okay. It appears that that is something that we can pursue, so that will be on the shopping list of issues. Vanderhoef: Get some information and let me know whether it's a possibility. Atkins: Okay, anyone else? Bailey: For the areas of review for Market... are we going to do a current market survey? Atkins: We've already had some market work done. The folks at the University have identified some employment centers and some general information which we would hope to incorporate into our planning. Bailey: I'm talking about current riders. Atkins: I'm sure we've got current ridership numbers. Bailey: The library does a really good job when they do their planning for the year...I think they do a good job of market surveying and I think that this is an area that we should look at. Atkins: I know that Ron and Joe have always been able to provide very accurate ridership numbers by route by portion of the figure eight and I can't imagine why we couldn't be able to do that...and extrapolate that information for you. Bailey: What are we talking about from a regional perspective as so far as transit? Atkins: We have not identified how to take that issue on. These are monies that are intended for Iowa City Transit System, period. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 67 Bailey: Right, but I think that we should be thinking or talking about this regionally because we clearly have a regional transit challenge. Atkins: Coralville does have some eligibility for some of these monies...that would seem to be the best of the options and we'll put that on the list as well. Bailey: Good. Atkins: Joe, Ron, got your notes? Okay. That's the good news. What we'd like to do now is begin our review of the zoning issues. Karin and Karen .... Lehman: Are we going to do the agenda for tomorrow night, first? Atkins: Fine. Lehman: Let's get to that first. We'll clear everything up and then we'll go to zoning issues. Atkins: Good idea...go ahead...oh, other agenda items? Lehman: Right, get through those and then we'll get to the zoning code. Atkins: Now, the important thing after this is that we move into the zoning code. We have a flip chart...I'm making the assumption that today you can give us some direction on zoning code. B. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 15 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OPDH-8) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON CATSKILL COURT WITH THE EAST HILL SUBDIVISION. (REZ-5-00012) C. REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-12) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON CATSKILL COURT WITHIN THE EAST HILL SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00012) Franklin: Okay, let's start with Item B. This is the public hearing setting for November 15 on the Catskill Court property...rezoning it from RS-8 to OPDH-8. This is the one where Steve Ballard came before you and had an issue. It's gone back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They voted on it two vote in favor of the OPDH-8 on a vote of 4-0. That is related to Item C, which is how it was originally proposed to you as RS-8 to RS-12 and what we would suggest is that you close the public hearing on that one and withdraw the whole thing. Vanderhoef: Or just vote it down? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 67 Lehman: Well, there is a difference. O'Donnell: For any period of time? Champion: Withdraw. Bailey: Withdraw because it's been taken care of. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: You can just withdraw...it was staff submitted. Just close the public hearing and indicate that staff has withdrawn it. Franklin: Okay, just say that we've withdrawn it then. Lehman: Okay, close the hearing and indicate that it has been withdrawn. D. APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 51.9 ACRES LOCATED ON AMERICAN LEGION ROAD (ANN05-00002) Franklin: Item D is the voluntary annexation of 51.9 acres. This is the Fairview Golf Course on American Legion Road. We held that up because we did not have the conditional zoning agreement signed. That is now signed so that annexation public hearing may be closed, resolution adopted. E. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 51.9 ACRES FROM JOHNSON COUNTY RESIDENTIAL (R) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON AMERICAN LEGION ROAD (REZ05-00018) Franklin: Likewise on Item E. You can close the public heating on the rezoning to RS-5 and give first consideration to the rezoning. There's really no sense is expediting the consideration on this for the rezoning because we still have to wait to get the notice back from the State on the annexation. F. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVENPORT STREET AND NORTH OF JEFFERSON STREET. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item F is one of the zoning considerations that's relative to the proposed code and the elimination of the CB-2 Zone. This is the one that is for the property located south of Davenport and north of Jefferson Street for which you had a protest on a portion of the proposed rezoning. What is before you then are two options. The first one the proposal that was sent to you by the Planning and Zoning This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 67 Commission, which is to rezone from CB-2 to a combination of CB-5, CN-1, MU, and public. If you recall, it was in the CN-1 zone in which you had an 85% of the property represented by people who were opposed. There's a letter from the Planning and Zoning Commission in your packet...which, again, makes the Commissions position for this CB-2 - err, the CN-1 zoning - and why they wish to have that but suggest that if the Council does not agree with that that they would like you to consider two options...as far as reinstituting the CB-2 zone in the code. The one being that there be modifications made to that zone, prior to adoption of the full code. The second one being that the CB-2 be placed back in the code as it was but with the full understanding of the Council and everybody who has any interest in this that there would be modifications to that zone being brought forward. Champion: In the future.'? Franklin: Yes, in the near future. I think the Commission would start working on that immediately. Champion: And if we want to keep the code...wasn't there another option? Keep the zoning the same and change the code for future? Franklin: Right, that's what I'm talking about and it's essentially a matter of whether you make modifications. If, in fact, you're going to turn down the proposal by the Planning and Zoning Commission and eliminate that area zoned CN-1, that there be modifications made to the CB-2 zone and it's a matter of whether it's done now, that is that the entire big document is held up while that happens, or that all goes forward with the CB-2 zone put back in just as it is now, with 100 foot height limit, but understood that modifications to that zone are going to be brought forward by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Champion: After we've approved of the whole thing. Franklin: No, Connie, in terms of their position, they would deal with it right now but understanding that there may be some desire on the part of the Council to move forward with this whole thing, that they would pursue those changes but that they would be pursuing those changes one way or another. Elliott: Would you bring us a new motion on which to act tomorrow if we tell you tonight that we would like to stay with CB-2 and then either now or at a point in the near future simply lower the height consideration? Lehman: That's right. Franklin: Item 2...that's not exactly what Bob asked for. Item 2 there your other option in terms of rezoning the property on the North Side at the North Side Market Place and that rezoning is just rezoning the CB-5, MU, and P areas. So, they're now This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 67 zoned CB-2, they would change to CB-5, MU, and P...which means that you've got a portion of that area that's still zoned CB-2. You will need to give us direction, then, as to whether you want to change the CB-2 zone now or not. Lehman: But that would occur...the first proposal, Fl, is as it was originally proposed. If that does not pass and we choose to pass Item 2, that should be with direction to staff that we would like the CB-2 studied and changes made to it so it becomes more compatible with the rest of that neighborhood. Franklin: Correct and then you need to tell us when you want that done, if you want it done right now or after you've done the whole code. Elliott: I would simply say I've talked with key members of the P&Z Commission and with the two most visible opponents of this and both of them.., all of these people have indicated that they would be very comfortable with remaining everything CB-2 and simply lowering the height requirement. That's what I would like to do. Lehman: That's what staff will work on if we do not in fact pass the first one. Franklin: It's just then a matter oftiming...whether we do it right now as part of the code review or right after it's done. Vanderhoefi Bob, you stated that they would be happy to leave everything CB-2? Franklin: No, I don't think that's correct. Elliott: That's my understanding when I talked with the Commission members and that's certainly my understanding when I talked with the two most visible. Leave is CB-2...because I asked the Commission members, 'Are you primarily concerned with the fact that a building might be built that would be ten stories high?', 'Yes', 'If we lowered that to no more than four to six stories, is that a problem for you?', 'No', 'Okay, leave it CB-2 and just lower that... Franklin: The entire area or just the area to be zoned CN-I? Elliott: The CB-2 area. Now, perhaps they misunderstood me. O'Donnell: Leave is all as CB-2, is that what you're saying? Elliott: Yes. Dilkes: Just the protested area? Elliott: This area which we received here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 67 Franklin: I would be a little bit surprised if the Commission's position was that. ElliOtt: They may have misunderstood me, Karin. Franklin: I think they were probably thinking in the context of the protest area. Elliott: Certainly the two most visible people in that area have indicated they have no problem...they don't see a need for anything more than four or five stories there. G. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF JEFFERSON STREET AND EAST OF GILBERT STREET. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item G is similar in that this is for the area that is just east of City Hall here. Again, G1 is the original proposal as sent to the Council by the Commission to rezone it to CB-5, MU, and RM-44. The second option is if that should fail and you keep the CB-2 for the area that was proposed for MU. Okay, is that clear? Lehman: Essentially this is the same scenario as the previous one. Franklin: That's correct. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoef: Because the CB-2 is the area that was protested? Franklin: MU is the area that was protested in G and CN-1 was the area that was protested in F. O'Donnell: But both had been changed from CB-2. Franklin: Correct. Elliott: And just eliminate that protested unit. Franklin: Correct. That's what number 2 gives you. Champion: Good. H. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE AND PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PRM) ZONE FOR THE AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF LINN STREET. (REZ05- 00016) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 67 Franklin: H is the rezoning from CB-2 to CB-5 and PRM south of Burlington Street, for which you've had no protest or input from the public so that would go for second consideration. I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL FACTORY-BUILT HOUSING (RFBH) ZONE, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING-HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (OPDH-12) ZONE (REZ05-00017). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item I is the rezoning from RFBH, again second consideration. J. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (OPDH-8) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON LONGFELLOW PLACE WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW MANOR SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00010) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: J is the rezoning from RS-8 to OPDH-8 for the Longfellow Manor area, again, no protest on that. K. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS- 12) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON DODGE STREET COURT WITHIN THE JACOB RICORD'S SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00011) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: K is RS-8 to RS-12 for the North Dodge Street Court area. L. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS- 12) FOR LOTS LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF WHISPERING MEADOWS DRIVE WITHIN THE WHISPERING MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. (REZ05- 00013) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: L is RS-8 to RS-12 for the Whispering Meadows area. Again, second consideration. M. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF- WAY IN AN ALLEY BLOCK 13, COUNTY SEAT, A PORTION OF SOUTH MADISON STREET AND A PORTION OF DES MOINES STREET IN IOWA CITY COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 1.31 ACRES (VAC05-00007). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: M is the ordinance vacating a portion of the tight of way for the University of Madison Street and Des Moines Street. Just to call your attention to the consent calendar, there is an item setting a public heating on the conveyance that was with This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 67 the memorandum from Steve regarding the compensation. It is being suggested that this be conveyed to the University without compensation from them. N. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN PART XXIII, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00024) (DEFERRED FROM 10/18) O. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN PART XXIV, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00025) (DEFERRED FROM 10/18) Franklin: Item N and O we would ask you to defer indefinitely at the applicant's request. They're having some problems with getting their construction plans and legal plans together. Vanderhoef: They want to leave it on the indefinite, not totally... Franklin: Correct, just indefinitely. Elliott: Long trip. Lehman: Okay. Item 7. DECIDING THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ENCLOSE GUTTERS ON THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 517 GRANT STREET. Champion: Do you have anything to do with the gutters on the house on Grant Street? Franklin: Pardon me? Champion: You don't have anything to do with the Historic Preservation item? Wilburn: Item 7 is what she is talking about. Franklin: Well, I do marginally, yeah. What's your question? Champion: Well, why were they denied? I mean, I guess... Franklin: Not having met the guideline which refers to a change in slope in the roof. The guideline that is cited by...it is in a memorandum from Sunil and Rich Carlson, as vice-chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Champion: But a lot of the houses around there have enclosed gutters. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 67 Franklin: Yes, but the issue was that by enclosing...what was being proposed by this particular applicant to enclose the gutter was going to result in a modification of the roof slope. The guidelines specifically say... Dilkes: They say altering the roof slope - this is prohibited - altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters. O'Donnell: How much will this raise...! understand the roof line would go down and come up slightly, is that right? Franklin: That's correct. Vanderhoef: It looks like about six or seven inches. Elliott: Are we going to hear more from someone about this? I went down and I walked Summit, I walked Court, I walked Grant this morning. I looked at houses...now, perhaps the information in our materials isn't correct...but I looked at houses that have it and houses that don't and I couldn't tell the difference. This is one of the areas where I think people get exercised because we're just too plain picky on things. You can't tell the difference. Champion: But you can tell a difference. Vanderhoefi Uh-hum. The pictures in the packet - Wilburn: Regardless, the issue will be whether the Commission acted arbitrarily or capricious and if they followed the guidelines. Lehman: That's the only question that we can address. Franklin: That's right. Vanderhoef: So, if we don't like the rule that we have in our policy, then we have to go back and change the rule later, but for this one it has to stand. Elliott: That is why I have requested several times that we meet with the Historic Preservation Commission because I think this is... one of the definitions of arbitrary is unreasonable... I think this is unreasonable to ask these people to make this significantly expanded cost to meet some requirement that is barely visible. Bailey: Eleanor, did you review the scope of our decision-making on this item tomorrow? I was going to ask you anyway but since we're talking about it, I might as well. Dilkes: I think its set out clearly in the memo...that I did...which is simply the same memo that we do every time that one of these comes up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 67 Champion: We need to be reminded every time. Bailey: I've never been through one of these before, I don't think. Dilkes: Essentially, the issue is not as Bob was framing it. Is it unreasonable to require that? The issue is whether the Commission followed the guidelines that you enacted for them to follow or they didn't. If a reasonable person could conclude that they did then their decision needs to be upheld. Your recourse then, as Dee suggested, if you don't like that result is to go back and change the guidelines. Elliott: What I was suggesting as a reason for us meeting with the Commission, not a reason for us turning it down, because clearly it is not arbitrary and capricious. The reason I cite it is the reason why I think we need to very much meet with the Historic Preservation Commission to review the guidelines. Bailey: But we did review the guidelines when we first came on Council. Elliott: No. Champion: Oh yes you did. Bailey: We voted on new guidelines. Elliott: Well, they need to be changed...because this is unreasonable. Dilkes: Let me say this. Until you hear what the woman, who is appealing this, has to say tomorrow, you shouldn't make a decision about the arbitrary and capriciousness...you should just take the information you have, listen to what she has to say, apply the rules, and make a decision. But, if the decision...if you conclude that they acted reasonably and followed their guidelines, then, if you want to change that result then you need the change the guidelines. Lehman: I think if we're not comfortable in making a decision tomorrow night we certainly can continue that. Okay. Franklin: Are you doing other agenda items now? YOUTH ADVISORY APPLICATION PROCESS Lehman: Well, actually, we need to do the Youth Advisory Application Process. I think Eleanor had some issues with that. Dilkes: I put a memo in our packet...as we were working through the application...as Marian and I were...we identified the issue and just wanted to raise it with you about these applicants will be identifying themselves as under-age youth. That's a public record. I just wanted you to know that. The person filling out the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 67 application will be advised that it is public record because it says so on the application. I think the concern...our concern is that we just wanted to alert you to it because I can see that there would be parents, for instance, that would be concerned about their fifteen-year-old applying with name, address, phone number, etc., when that was going to be a public record. School record, that kind of information maintained by a school is explicitly a confidential record under the State code. We don't have that protection so I just wanted to alert you to it and see if you wanted to do, if anything? Champion: The reason that I'm not comfortable with it is that every school in the district has a school directory that is given out to everybody. Wilburn: But the parents can say 'Do not include mine'. Champion: That's true. Dilkes: I think that's the issue is that it's parent-driven. Elliott: You're saying is that your way around it is to have the student declare what his or her age situation was at the time of the appointment. Dilkes: That's really a different issue. We're not going to...we have to know the age in order to meet the qualifications. We're not going to use birth date because that has identity issues and that kind of thing. They will still identify themselves as being between 15-17 years old. We think it should be on the date of the application...which I'm assuming you don't have any problem with that. The real issue is just...the one we wanted to alert you to is that these would be public records, there would be, as we have it set up right now, no parental involvement. Lehman: Okay, other questions? Bailey: It's hard for me to speak to this because I'm not a parent...so I would like to hear other opinions. Wilburn: My initial thought was that it's a Youth Commission, we're trying to empower.., however, on some way, shape, or form it needs to be communicated to the parent that somebody from the public may be contacting my son or daughter about who knows whatever issue we may have in front of them, so I guess it's kind of a...do we ensure an awareness piece by requiring a parental signature. My guess my gut would say, 'Yeah'. Lehman: I don't have a problem with that. Bailey: I tend to agree with that. Lehman: Under eighteen would require permission from a parent or guardian. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 67 Champion: Can we do that? Dilkes: Sure. Lehman: Do we all agree with that? Wilburn: Again, I'm cautious about it, but... Champion: I'm not cautious about doing it at all. Bailey: I think involves parents in a positive way and they're aware of what it is and they'll become more familiar with the concept. Lehman: Okay, we'll do it. Wilburn: We know some of the phone calls we get, so... Lehman: Okay, Council Appointments. COUNCIL APPPOINTMENTS Lehman: We have one vacancy, we have one applicant. Michelle. Elliott: Fine. Lehman: Would somebody tell me what her last name is? Elliott: Shelangouski. Lehman: Shelangouski? Champion: Michelle S. Bailey: That's a pretty steep learning curve for somebody who has only been here for a short time. I a little bit concerned about the positive experience on...I don't know. Elliott: Well, that could be a bonus, too, a fresh a look. Bailey: I'm not suggesting a look or not...I'm suggesting that that is probably one of the more challenging learning curve boards.., and it might not be the positive experience of engaging of the community that she seemed to indicate that she was seeking in applying for Board and Commission. She also did apply for another one. That was my concern. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 67 Champion: It's a question that I have also written down...that she's only been here for five months, which isn't very long. Bailey: She's looking to get involved in the community and that's a tough...what I'm saying is that it's a tough learning curve and is that going to achieve her goal because she was really clear about why she was applying. Lehman: I tell you what, the other one that she's applying for is a tough one, too. The Human Rights Commission. Bailey: A little bit more active, though. Elliott: I'm in favor of approving Michelle. Lehman: Do we have four for Michelle? Vanderhoef: I'm fine. Wilbum: Yes. Lehman: Alright we do. Moving on to the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment. We have no applications. Airport Zoning Commission, no applications. We don't have any animal lovers. Board of Appeals has one vacancy. Champion: I like Alan Gerard. He's very qualified, I think. Vanderhoef: I do, too. Elliott: I think Wayne Maas is also finishing his tenth year. Lehman: Oh, I agree. Vanderhoef: I would like to express thanks to him for his long and dedicated service. Bailey: Do we thank them as they go out? Do you send them a note? Lehman: I think they do get something. O'Donnell: What's the term on this? Elliott: Five. O'Donnell: So he's had two terms. Lehman: Ten years, a long time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 67 O'Donnell: He's willing to do it, I like the experience...I don't have any problem with him doing it again. Vanderhoef: One of the things that I was interested in with Mr. Gerard was the fact that he has gotten the certification for the Fire Suppression Systems, which is a new kind of certification that...he would be helpful in helping the building process with understanding that part. Lehman: Do we have...how many people would support Mr. Gerard? Okay, Mr. Gerard will be appointed. The Human Rights Commission. Three vacancies - Elliott: Foss, Cooper and Lubaroff. Atkins: Before you do that... Vanderhoef: One is not in the City. Elliott: Is that a problem? Atkins: Yes, one is not in the City and Mary Copper is part of our Housing Authority staff. I called Mary. Although I don't normally like to get involved in these things, I do have some concern.., she does on occasion refer.., she's our family service.., she does occasionally refer people to the Human Rights Commission. She could recuse herself, it's just that I was not comfortable with .... when we have City employees interested in one of these boards or commissions... I don't want a firm policy but would prefer to look case by case. I'm just concerned about Mary. Champion: I'm concerned about her for that reason, too. Atkins: Please, it's no reflection upon Mary's performance, which is excellent. Champion: Absolutely not, but I have problems with that. She's not a City employee...she's not a maintenance person or a library worker... Atkins: She's in a very high-profile position. Champion: She's involved with people who might be referred to the Human Rights Commission... so I really can't support her. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: I talked to Mary this morning, too. She indicated on her application...we had talked just generally about employees being on boards and commissions...we hadn't talked specifically about this commission but I called her this morning and I think it's her ongoing relationship with the clients.., she makes a referral to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 67 Human Rights and then continues to have a relationship with the person in the Housing Authority Office, so I think that's what creates the issues. Lehman: It sounds like it would be best - Dilkes: It would be possible for her to probably recuse herself if the client was...but it would be an issue. Lehman: Well, I hear Foss and Lubaroff as being recommended. Do we have four for that? Champion: Isn't Lubaroff a City employee? Is that correct? Bailey: She just retired. Elliott: She just retired. Bailey: Last week. Lehman: Do we have consensus on those two? Elliott: Foss and Lubaroff, yes. Champion: I have one more question. Lehman: I'm sorry, go ahead Connie. Atkins: Doesn't that one person live in the County? Karr: No, Steve, it's a different one... Senior Center...they're not there yet. Champion: But the other two people I can support. Lehman: We should ask that we readvertise. Okay... Vanderhoef: Parks and Rec. Elliott: Parks and Rec. O'Donnell: Ryan O'Leary. Elliott: Ryan O'Leary and Westefeld. Champion: Serving an unexpired term...O'Leary is? And Westefeld is serving the first - Lehman: First term, so it would be... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 3 I, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 67 O'Donnell: Those two are really good. Elliott: Yes. Lehman: Are we in agreement with that? Wilbum: Yes. Vanderhoef: Yes. Lehman: Okay... Vanderhoef: Public Art. Elliott: Chuck Felling. Karr: Mr. Mayor, on public art we advertised inadvertently for an art or design professional, which may have affected our pool. So, I asked, certainly you have two appointments and you're going to have to readvertise the one anyone, it's up to you whether you want to readvertise both...I would encourage you to do so given that there was some discrepancy between the ad in the paper and what was advertised. Lehman: Can we notify Mr. Felling of that...because my suspicion is that we would be more than willing to appoint him if he reapplies under a correct application. So, we will just readvertise Public Art. Karr: We will keep Mr. Felling's... Elliott: Will he be contacted on this? Karr: Yes. Elliott: Okay, good...thanks. Lehman: Okay, Senior Center Commission. Karr: This is the one that you have a County application. 7 Fairview Knoll, Brian Kaskie, is outside of the City limits. Vanderhoef: He has very nice credentials and I didn't speak with him...but he sort of implied that he uses the Senior Center. Champion: Do we... Bailey: Brian is quite qualified... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 67 Champion: Well, I think its fine... (TAPE ENDS) Champion: ... Commission for a county person? Karr: Through the County...the County makes those appointments. Lehman: Oh, the County makes an appointment. Champion: So, how many County people do we want on there? Karr: You don't appoint County people... County appoints... Elliott: Yes, she's saying 'What if this...how many on the Commission?' Dilkes: The question is whether there's a residency requirement for our appointments and my guess would be that there is. Vanderhoef: That's what I'm sure we have...a residency requirement. Elliott: So we are constrained from.., oh, I see. Champion: They must reside in Iowa City. Vanderhoef: We checked and he wasn't. Karr: We can not turn down an application.., so we receive all of them...but we wanted you to be aware...we neglected to put that on your cover sheet. So you still would have received the application, but you can not consider him under the present policy. Champion: I guess that takes care of that. Lehman: Are we willing to appoint David? Champion: Yes. Lehman: And then we'll readvertise for the other. Vanderhoef: Maybe you could make a comment that he could apply through the County. Lehman: That would be nice. We're going to have to return his...can we return his application? Karr: No, we don't return...we can certainly alert him to a County appointment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 67 Vanderhoef: That would be my preference...is when we notify him that he was not chosen because of his residency that the proper place for him will be the County. Lehman: Agenda Items? Vanderhoefi Deer Management, number 11. Item 11 DEER MANAGEMENT Vanderhoefi Where are we on the University...using or doing any shooting on any University property? Atkins: I made an official request to them but have not heard back from them. I expected to hear from them a month ago...I'11 need to follow up. Vanderhoefi Okay, because I'm a little concerned about this January 11th to February 28th...we ran into this - Atkins: That's the DNR. Vanderhoef: I know that's DNR, but... Atkins: I gave the University plenty of notice... I wrote the University several months ago about this. Schreiber: Should I speak to someone at the University? Champion: Sure, tell them that we need an answer. Lehman: Get out some rubber bands and paper clips and go out and get them deer. Elliott: When is semester break? Schreiber: Around December 17th or so. Elliott: So this would be too late. I think the University has made it clear that we could perhaps do it on semester break...but... Bailey: They'll be coming back about a week after this. Lehman: Well, we've written the letter and we're apparently waiting for a response. Okay. Vanderhoef: Jeremy, I would appreciate you making a call to the University and find out whether... Karr: Dee, could you...we can't hear you at all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 67 Vanderhoefi Sorry, I requested that Jeremy make a phone call also to the University... Schreiber: I'll get back to you soon. Vanderhoefi I thought it was interesting...the contract...but I wasn't really clear what the $49,000 for the contract with White Buffalo...having read the contract and it was so much per hour and all of that. Is that $49,100 a maximum? Elliott: It says not to exceed. Vanderhoef: Not to exceed, okay. Elliott: I like especially the fact that they are going to be financially penalized for antlered deer. Last year they got quite a few. Atkins: I wasn't aware of that. Vanderhoef: The other thing...what is the processing cost now? Atkins: It's being bid as we speak. The meat processing portion of it? Yes, we should have that very shortly. Vanderhoefi Because that's where we get up into those upper numbers...because I'm still interested in putting some CDBG money into the processing because this is a direct benefit to our low and moderate income. Champion: Anyone can claim the deer meat; you don't have to be low income. Vanderhoef: I understand that, but most of that meat is going to the food programs. Champion: Well, I think that's terrific. Vanderhoef: I do, too...it's just that this is a general fund item if it's not done with CDBG. Champion: I'm not willing to use CDBG monies on that. Vanderhoef: Well, I would. Lehman: Other agenda items? Alright, Council Time. Good. Discussion? COUNCIL TIME IP16. KENNEDY PARKWAY TRAFFIC CALMING This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 67 Vanderhoefi I have one more thing...excuse me...that's in the info packet .... uh .... the traffic calming for Kennedy Parkway. I thought that this map was very interesting, which leads me to certainly the idea of why one street became a collector for that large of an area as far as the planning. It's not a reflection on you or anybody around the table, but I think what we've designed here has created problems and we should keep this in mind when we are designing again for street and traffic...it becomes a major collector and we can't spread out the traffic if we don't have another thru street, it's as simple as that. My question is...what is the cost per speed hump? Because as I see it, they're talking about fourteen of them... Davidson: There's even more than that. We estimate the total expense to be about $25,000 and there is a traffic-calming section of the CIP that you adopt every year...it's an ongoing annual one of $30,000...so the money is there to do it. Vanderhoef: If we have no other neighborhoods...but $25,000 on one street is... Davidson: Typically these things are more in the range of $2,000-$3,000... for example, the alley that you just approved a few weeks ago...I think that's about $2,000...the 4th and 8th speed humps were $2,000 because it was literally two speed humps. Because of the length of this street and also the bifurcations...which means that you have them on either side of the bifurcated streets...that's the extreme expense. We would not anticipate, typically, to have nearly this expense. It just happens to be that you're on a large lot development, as Dee has appointed out - it's a very long collector street - and that is the reason for the much higher expense in this one. By the way, we're not trying to hide that...that will be in the information you receive prior to your decision making...that estimate expense. Dilkes: This will be in front of the Council at a later date, right? Davidson: Next City Council meeting. Lehman: These locations were ones that were determined by staff, correct? Davidson: Yes, you have to look at where driveways are, sight distances and such. Lehman: I also recall, after we put in the first speed humps - which incidentally still seem to be working marvelously well - and we talked about evaluating those and we were told that the police department - err, the fire department - and the bus folks really, really didn't like them...and we really didn't do speed humps for years until very recently. Davidson: Well, actually...Teg Drive...I think there was a gap after the initial ones on Teg Drive... Lehman: Right, but there was also reported back to us that the transit and fire did not like those. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 67 Dilkes: I'm sorry, but maybe we should talk about this one when it's on the agenda...so the neighbors have notice that you're going to be talking about. Lehman: Okay, you have time to prepare your answer. Wilburn: I was in Phoenix this last week and I was amazed at the number of speed humps on their collector...I mean long stretches of collector street...just the volume of folks there...they clearly work, but it was... Vanderhoef: They are a total grid...the way it's laid out...it's beautiful. Elliott: Are we still on agenda items? Lehman: Yes. Elliott: I have a question...the Airport Commission...the Manager's position. Lehman: What's the number? ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED POSITIONS AT THE AIRPORT BY DELETING THE FULL-TIME AIRPORT MANAGER POSITION AND ADDING A PART-TIME (.60) POSITION OF AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST AND AMENDING THE CONFIDENTIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE PAY PLAN BY DELETING THE POSITION OF AIRPORT MANAGER AND ADDING THE POSITION OF AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST. Elliott: Item 12. There's no financial information here. I'm always interested in what's the financial impact. Champion: Well, they don't have a manager now. Elliott: Yeah, but there's a budget, I'm assuming. What's the budgetary financial impact of this? Lehman: My assumption is that this comes out of their budget. Elliott: I just think for things like this... I'd always like to have the finances there for the public. Hartwig: I don't know ifI can give you an exact number but the budget that we're in now still reflects a full-time manager as it did in the past year...and what we want to do is put a full-time position with part-time hours, basically. 60%. Elliott: What's the savings? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 67 Hartwig: If I did the quick math...between $40,000-$50,000. Bailey: Because it changes the pay grade...it goes down. Hartwig: Yes, it's a lower pay grade. Lehman: So the financial impact is negative. Elliott: Or, positive. (Laughter) Lehman: We're spending less than we budgeted. We're making this clear that this actually saves us money, right? Elliott: Yes. Yeah, I just like to see the financial aspects of things. Lehman: Alright, are there any others? Item 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION OF THE ANGEL OF HOPE STATUE AND APPROVING PLACEMENT OF THE STATUE IN CITY PARK. Schreiber: Where are we at with the angel? Champion: Are we going to have a discussion about that angel before it goes in the park? Bailey: Tomorrow night at our meeting. Lehman: Tomorrow night. Item 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND PLAZA TOWERS L.L.C. Wilburn: Eleanor, I presume that I will be conflicted on Item 13, the Moen Amendment to the Development Agreement. I think I was out on the original agreement. Can you check for me? Lehman: Oh yes, I remember...because the property...the money that goes from the sale of the property goes to CDBG monies? Dilkes: Yeah, there's that issue but I think we determined that you're okay. Wilbum: Could you check for me? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 67 Dilkes: Yes, we'll check. Lehman: Alright, we're done with that. O'Donnell: Short agenda. Lehman: We've been asked to do a break...we got a break. PLANNING & ZONING Item 6a. 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, 10AND 11, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12. Lehman: Are we ready to start on the Zoning Code? I suppose we should have Karen Howard, Karin Franklin or both...or Bob Brooks... Franklin: Okay, it's going to be me first. What I thought I would do first...there's some issues that I wanted to run through with you. There are questions that the Council has raised as various points during the public hearings that we said we would get back to you on. You do have a memo dated October 17 from Karen Howard that addresses some of these. First of all, the Jema Court issue. That was raised by Gail Bray and it was relative to the reduction in single-family and duplex parking requirements and its impact on occupancy and on-street parking. The question that was posed to us was 'How many other areas are there like this in the City?'. Well, there's 97 other duplexes in town with single-car garages...because, remember, that would be the way in which this had some impact. The circumstance is that we've reduced the parking requirement to one per unit. If you have a roomer, then you must have an additional parking space. As it was previously, if you had a duplex with a single car garage, your two parking spaces - because the old requirement was two - you would have one in the garage and one in the driveway and there would not be room to provide a parking space for a roomer. Therefore, the most you could have would be two unrelated people living in that duplex. That's the Jema Court situation. By reducing the parking requirement to one...one parking space is in the garage, then you could have a roomer and have one parking space in the driveway.., in terms of legally meeting your off-street parking requirements. Gail's concern had to do with the change in occupancy, that is more roomers, and the consequence of then possibly having three unrelated people living in the unit and one of the spaces being in fact on the street...and because Jema Court is a cul-de-sac which has a number of the duplexes with the front-loading garages, there is very little on street parking there. So, that was her issue. That was the concern. We have 97 other duplexes with single-car garages, which would have similar circumstances, 75 are on cul-de-sacs and 22 are on a local street. The reason that the parking requirement was reduced.., one of the reasons was that as we fulfilled the direction of the Council This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 67 and the enforcement of occupancy in rental units...when HIS would, with every rental permit, have the number of people that could be in that unit, those places in which occupancy had not been meeting the parking requirements were in a situation of which where they then had to pave parking in their back yards or side yards or wherever they could fit it on the lot. So, the trade off becomes one of requiring that parking in certain circumstances in which it's going to mean more paving of back yards...the Commission was concerned about the paving of back yards, particular in the older parts of town. There's also a sentiment that single family will provide as much parking as they wish to provide. We did not need to require it as a government. So, there's some trade-off's with everything. That's the Jema Court issue. Questions about that? Vanderhoef: Can we just talk about it while it's here? Champion: I think that's fine. I like the explanation. Vanderhoef: The concern is very real. I don't know about these others units, but Jema Court doesn't have any other spill-over area, really, because it's tucked in there by an arterial and a park...and is there anyway that we can get at it that says unless you have off-street parking for the number of unrelated people in the unit... Franklin: That would be changing the parking requirement such that you needed to have a space for every unrelated person, which would mean the consequence of that would be in many places...you would be paving the total back yard. Bailey: Which is something that doesn't go backwards as easily as people making adjustments of parking.., as different configurations of people live in a duplex. Paving a back yard is pretty much paving a back yard forever. Vanderhoef: Well, I don't know how you would even get to the back yard to pave. I think it would be front yard paving. Franklin: Yeah...that would be an issue, too. Vanderhoefi I understand that. Franklin: It's a trade-off of wanting paving or not in those fairly...when you look at it overall, it's fairly isolated circumstances.., so that's just a judgment call that you have to make. Champion: I'm fine with the reduced parking. Vanderhoef: Are there other areas that are similar to Jema Court that there's not a spill-over neighborhood even to go park? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 67 Franklin: The one where it's twenty-two on a local street is Catskill Court, where you have...oh, I can't remember the name of the street...but it's not real close. I mean, Catskill Court is a street which goes around and forms kind of a square loop. There's much more on-street parking there then there is on Jema Court because it's not a cul-de-sac. It's that shape. But you have Dover...I don't know if you can park on Dover here. Elliott: You can park on one side of the street on the 100 block of Dover. Franklin: So, there's more opportunity here for on-street parking than there is on Jema Court. The other cul-de-sacs are in Whispering Meadows. It's these dark areas here, which have the single-car garage. Now, the question, too, is how much transition you're going to have from two unrelated or a family living in that unit. I think Jema Court is going to feel the pressure a little bit more of the unrelated because of its greater proximity to the University. So, Catskill and Whispering Meadows are probably not going to feel the same pressure as Jema Court feels. Vanderhoef: That pretty much takes care of the cul-de-sacs for where these 97 are? Franklin: Yes, where the single-car garages are. So, maybe that answers it? Vanderhoefi I guess I feel badly about Jema Court and the pressures they're already having, but then it brings to me the question of what is going to happen when a new project comes in to us and they are requesting single garages? Franklin: Well, typically we do not see the...unless we are looking at a planned development...well, it depends upon what happens with the code. The code is going to enable more opportunities for duplexes and zero-lot lines without going through a plan development process. So, we won't be seeing single-car, double- car garage, and triple-car garage, which is one of the reasons which is one reason to look at the garage-placement standards. Typically, in like say an RS-8 zone, we do not, that is, in Planning we do not see the garage, the size of the garage that is going to be built...whether it's a single or a double. I frankly was surprised to see that we had so many with single-car garages.., especially in areas like Catskill which is relatively new. I would imagine, and that's pure speculation, that the single-car garage is not going to be a popular option.., although, as we talk about affordability, it's probably something that you would find more in your affordable ranges. It just really raises the issue of whether we insure through our subdivision and platting process the opportunity for on-street parking in those particular situations where those might come up. Probably the areas with the proposed code where it would be most an issue would be in the RS-12 areas. It's all a puzzle that fits together. Okay...I guess I'm not hearing that there is a majority that are concerned about this enough to change the parking requirement? The other issue was insurance cost for non-conformities. An assertion was made by someone from the public that with the number of conformities that there would be with the new code, which I will address in a second, that insurance costs would go up. We This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 67 talked with some insurance agents. Standard policies include a 10-15% additional cost or an allowance to cover changes to codes.., generally, changes to codes, whether it's zoning or building or whatever kind of code.., electrical code.., owners can purchase an additional endorsement if they so chose, but most policies have this provision in them that already covers changes to code. One thing that I will point out is that it is likely that we're going to have fewer non- conformities as opposed to more with some of the changes that have been made. Remember, first of all, and I'm referring here to the October 17th memo from Karen, 'Single-family uses are never considered non-conforming uses'. You can build a single-family house most anywhere we've got a lot. All existing conforming duplexes will remain conforming under the new code. That is a provision that was made at the Commission level when we had input from someone who built duplexes, had already had them, and was concerned they would become non-conforming. They will not be grandfathered. They will be conforming. Reducing the lot size and minimum set backs will make a lot of the buildings that are in our older neighborhoods conforming as opposed to non- conforming...or it will bring them closer to conforming. It will not increase their degree of non-conformity. Reduction in the number of parking spaces required for commercial uses will allow some of those commercial uses that are in existence to be conforming. The other thing is that we've changed the non- conforming provisions to separate it out from non-conforming use versus non- conforming structure versus non-conforming development. As it is in the code now, if your parking is not conforming, then the whole thing is non-conforming and you can't make changes to that property as a consequence. By breaking it out and treating it separately, you may have a property in which it is non-conforming for parking but you want to put an addition on the structure, which is not going to change the occupancy...or, let's take a commercial development...it's non- conforming as to parking...this commercial development right now...we've reduced the parking that is required, so it may come into conformity.., secondly, if you want to put an addition on that is not going to change the ratio of parking needed, you can put that addition on. Currently under the code you can not change the structure if it is considered a non-conforming property.., so we think that will help out with some of these issues to enable people to go forward with some of their projects. Okay... so, I don't know if that answers the question...but you can get a rider on your policy if you think that you're going to need it over and above but it's usually standard in a policy. Mr. McCallum's proposal...his letter of October 10th. AS we read this letter, what he is requesting is that we determine density by bedroom instead of by dwelling unit, that we increase the parking requirement in multi-family zones proportionate to the number of bedrooms, and that we give density bonuses for one and two-bedroom accessible units by special exception. Now it seemed that there was some interest on the part of the Council to approach this. Lehman: Karin, my sense was that there was an interest as part of the Council but not as part of this code. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 67 Franklin: Okay. Lehman: Is that correct? I think it's a much bigger issue... Bailey: Because you indicated that there had to be a much greater...this is like pulling a string and we don't know what...so...we do want Planning and Zoning to investigate it. Vanderhoefi Put it on the work list. Franklin: Now, affordability issue. Does the code, as proposed, enable the market to provide affordable housing or entry-level housing? Champion: I'm sorry, start over. Franklin: The question here is.. :and the words that I use here are important. Does the code, as proposed, enable the market.., and that is an important concept.., enabling the market to provide affordable housing or entry-level housing. I'm using those two terms.., affordable and entry-level interchangeably. We're not talking here in zoning about subsidizing housing.., so we're not talking about housing for people who are making 50% of median or less than 50% of median. We're talking about people who could potentially get into the housing market. The way we address this through zoning is two ways. To address the issue of land and then the time for approvals.., because the timing of what it takes to go through the process if part of the cost. The effort is to try to enable smaller lot development without going through the plan development. That is to enable it by having the RS-8 small lot zone, the RS-12 zone in which you can have the duplexes and zero-lot lines and the town-houses. At this point in time, with our current code, in many of those instances, the way that you get is through the plan development. When you guys see a plan development, it is after it has gone through a long negotiation process. It's gone through that at the staff level, it's been at the Planning and Zoning Commissikon, and then it comes to you. By the time it comes to you, nine out of ten times, everything has been worked through and that is what you get, that is what you see. The advice from Duncan, which a previous Council endorsed, was to try to move away from having so many planned developments and enable stuff by right. As part of that, there would be standards that would be used to evaluate those development projects...to get the same types of thins that we were getting through the negotiations of the PDH. That was the direction we had. That's one way to try to address the issue of affordability is to cut down on time to be able to do it as a matter of right. What that's going to take to, after this code is adopted - assuming that it is - is then is rezone properties. Assertively rezone properties...which means looking at our district plans, looking at those areas where it shows for a little bit higher density and going out and doing those before you've got a development project before you. That's going to take some fortitude. The other way was to enable the smaller lot widths that are intended to allow for more efficient use of the land. In your packet, with the October 17th This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 67 memo, was a summary of zoning regulations in the greater Iowa City area. I would just point out that in the metro area, Iowa City/Coralville/North Liberty, current and proposed...we have the smallest lot widths enabled, the smallest lot sizes, the most opportunity for duplexes and zero-lot lines. That's assuming that you all want it to go in that direction...that that was a way to address affordability...to allow the development community to use the land more efficiently to get more lots out of the ground that they purchased. One of the issues that has come up has been the cost of the standards...the design standards. Now, I'm assuming that when people say design standards, what they're talking about the garage-placement standards which are a building-layout standard and the trim issue. As far as I can tell...the garage placement will not determine if there is a garage or not, it's just about where it's going to be...so there should be no extra cost in terms of the actually building materials. The difference would be in plans for development projects that builders and developers will need to potentially get new house plans. In checking with... O'Donnell: No, there would be a difference in cost...based on whether the garage is under the house or detached from the house... I believe. Franklin: If you want to have detached you can have detached, but there is nothing in the code that requires you to have detached. O'Donnell: But isn't that how you get your density bonus? Franklin: No, it does not need to be detached. There are a multitude of house plans...these are a couple that you can buy for ten bucks a piece at Barnes & Noble that have attached front-loaded garages that meet the standards that are in the code. O'Donnell: On the narrow lots. Franklin: Yes. Now, obviously the smaller down that you go...because there is a point at which...there is no way on twenty feet with a twenty-two foot garage that you're going to get a house and a garage. O'Donnell: There's no way with thirty-five feet that you're going to put a double garage in front, either. Franklin: Well, there is a way...but not meeting the standards. My point is that you would have to get new plans. Plans cost between $1500 and $3000 a piece. They're used on average one-hundred times...this is for a single-family house. So, that's $15 to $30 a unit for a new plan. Townhouses is costs around $4,000 for a plan. Elliott: Cost would not be the reason that I would oppose... Franklin: I'm addressing now, Bob, the issue of affordability and cost has been one of those things that has been put forward repeatedly as the issue here...so that's what I'm This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 67 trying to address. The other thing was the trim cost. That the three-inch trim on the eaves was going to cost an exhorbitant about of money and as we looked at the analysis of the Longfellow Manor project, it was .73% of the cost of that project and that was in excess of the minimal requirements for trim. I just needed to get that out there. Vanderhoef: Do you feel better? Franklin: Not really. Okay, what I think we'd all like to focus on is what are the issues that the Council wants to talk about with this thing? If we can get those down we'll see what we can get through. Lehman: Let me suggest as a starting point...we did get a small volume from the home builders. I would like to address those one at a time. Up, down, yeah, or nay. I also think Council needs to decide this. I believe that we need to work on this thing until we get through it. I think we need to get done with this before the first of the year. Champion: I agree. Lehman: I would anticipate...we're having a public hearing tomorrow night and we have a meeting scheduled for next Monday. I would suggest that that be a public hearing and that we close that public hearing.., a week from tonight... Elliott: Next Monday is TBA at the present time on my calendar. Franklin: You've got a public hearing tomorrow night...what about closing the public hearing tomorrow night? Lehman: I don't know if we're comfortable...I'd rather see us...for two reasons...first of all, it's a regular meeting and we may have some time constraints. I do think it would be important, from my perspective, that we tell the public that the 7th will be the last day for input and then we close the public hearing one week from tonight and hopefully schedule a meeting, if at all possible, later next week where we can continue the discussion that we're having today so that staff can get to work on whatever changes we may choose to do so that we can get this thing done and acted on before the end of the year. Karr: So, November 7th would be a 7:00pm formal meeting? Lehman: Is that okay with Council? O'Donnell: I think we're going to have to see how the hearings go, Ernie? Lehman: Well, I think we've done pretty well and I think the hearings have come...we've heard most of what we're going to hear. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 36 of 67 Bailey: I think so, too. I think we're going to get into a lot of repetition, I think, especially if we give notice. People can come and introduce new concepts...but it serves no one hear ideas over and over again...and it serves no one to continue a public hearing. They want a decision. Champion: On the 7th, would we make that a formal meeting or is that going to be a work session? Lehman: It would be a formal public hearing...the last hearing...close that hearing that night and then set... Karr: Do you want it listed as a work session as well? Vanderhoef: That's what I'm thinking as well. If we only have a couple of people who want to speak to us, we're already there at that point and we should start our discussions at that point. Lehman: That's fine. ! think that's certainly fair. Karr: Then you want another meeting later that same week? Is that what you're thinking? O'Donnell: If necessary, I think we should. Lehman: I think we have to get...if we're going to make changes to the proposal, staff has got to be able to have time to incorporate those changes before we vote. Franklin: If you want to vote your first vote on November 15th, we have to have them in the packet by November 10th. That's three days after you close your public hearing. Lehman: I don't think we're going to make November 15th. I think the first vote is going to be in December and the second and third vote will probably in December. I was told that the last time we had a vote it was on Christmas Eve...the last code revision. Can we work from the.., at least for now.., from the recommendations that we got from the home builders? I think we can go through those. Franklin: Are you talking about the document from Steve Gordon or from Mike Pugh? Lehman: I think it was from Mike Pugh because it was about forty-pages. Bailey: Nothing new. Vanderhoef: He had promised to send us written of what he had... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 37 of 67 Dilkes: Speaking from my office, he raises a number of what I characterize as legal issues and I'm going to make a written response to those...so in that...I was planning on putting out in your packet this week. Maybe if you want to talk more about...whatever... Lehman: Well, the last pages of his thesis...addendum number three...where it says 'requested amendments to the proposed zoning code', which is at the end .... he lists eight items. I think... Franklin: Isn't that the same thing that Steve Gordon gave you? Lehman: Perhaps it is. Franklin: Is that where you're going? Lehman: We need a place to start. Dilkes: I think that's a good place to start. Instead of the Pugh's letter. Franklin: So they requested amendments on October 11. Lehman: Yeah, the first one is asking that we do not increase the minimum lot size by ten feet and leave them as they were, which would be 60 foot in an RS-5, 55 and 45 in an RS-8 and RS-12. What does Council think? Champion: I agree. I think by increasing the lot size to 70 feet is a way to get design standards that are on lots that are under 70. I would be in support of leaving the lot size at 60. Elliott: Here. Vanderhoef: Likewise. O'Donnell: I agree. Wilburn: If one of the ways to encourage a more compact design is allowing a smaller lot to happen, regardless of whether you want to put any constraints on that, then What's the reason for not doing so if you want to encourage a chance for a greater number of entry-level or affordable housing to occur? I'm just curious, why wouldn't you want to allow the smaller lot size? Lehman: That's what we're saying. Elliott: They want 70, we're saying 'No, 60.' Vanderhoefi The proposed code is 70 so they have increased the frontage. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 38 of 67 Lehman: Minimum lot size was increased by ten feet, which seems to be opposite of the direction that cities are going in relative to city sprawl and this sort of thing. Vanderhoef: There isn't anything that precludes them in going up to 180 if they want...it'sjust wherever that minimum is set. Franklin: The minimum in RS-5 was to reflect what was being built. Dilkes: Are there four on the first one? Lehman: There are five who would leave the minimum lot size the way it was. Franklin: To 60/45/45? Lehman: Right. Franklin: Just for...Bob Brooks is here, who is Chair of the Commission, presumably there will be an opportunity, either in writing or verbally, that the Commission can respond to any of these. Elliott: You bet. Vanderhoef: I think there certainly was some question about whether 70 is truly the right number and I don't have an answer for that...but if you averaged all of the recent buildings and you had some sixties and you had a bunch of them that were at 200 foot lots, then the average may well come out at 70, instead of at 60. But I didn't ever see any numbers about the number of new units that actually had been built on 60-foot lots. Franklin: Steve Gordon gave you the figure that 78% of the lots were 70 feet or larger. I thought he gave that number. Vanderhoef: His question was, if you averaged it with these very large lots then... Franklin: Okay, fine, we got the point. I think there is a majority that wants to look at this reduction. Lehman: Right. Elliott: Yes, we would like to hear from P&Z and staff. Lehman: Item 2 is in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones...the duplexes are allowed but required to be on comer lots only. They're saying that there is some difficulty in designing those properties so that they have back yards. It was also said that certain members of the Council, although according to the this doesn't seem to be the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 39 of 67 majority, would be interested in having duplexes as a percentage of the total in RS-8 zones. What's the Council's thoughts Franklin: Let's talk about the comer lot first. I just want you to have this information. These are outlines of how you could do with RS-5 and RS-8 that you could have a duplex on a comer lot. In this particular one in RS-5, this would be the patio for this unit here so presumably there's the likelihood that there would be a fence here so that the back yard for this one would be here and this one would have a larger one. In RS-8, it's a little bit different...that it's this space here...this is the patio for this unit and so it could be broken up that way. Those illustrations are this building but with a double car garage included. That's a little bit closer up on the comer lot. This is a design from...actually, it's one of the Steve's design from Saddlebrook for a comer lot duplex. That shows it a little bit closer up in the RS- 8, too, so the concern evidently had been one...well, it seems like there were too concerns. One was could you get any back yard if you did this with the orientation that has been suggested in the code and secondly, what would (TAPE ENDS) .... that are comer lot duplexes. Vanderhoefi Put them back... Franklin: You want the two together? These are dimensioned. Vanderhoefi Yeah. Okay. One of things that...well, there are two things going through my mind on these activities. One is the fact that typically the duplex is still considered a less expensive option because of common walls and a comer unit has very little common wall.., so I would wonder whether we are achieving a lesser-expensive unit by this kind of design. Franklin: I don't know that this particular comer-lot duplex is getting you a less-expensive design. I mean, every thing that we do...although it would be nice to have it all be affordable, it's not possible. This is to allow you or enable you to have duplexes in the RS-5 zone, to enable you to have in the small lot RS-8 single family zone and have them fit in to the neighborhood, provide another option, but they're not necessarily going to be those entry-level units. They're going to be less than the neighbor, possibly, but it's just another option. Elliott: I do not favor restricting to comer lots. I favor a percentage. Obviously I favored something other than percentage, but I was told but I'm told that marketing will not go for that. I would favor a percentage. Vanderhoefi I could with the corner lot...obviously it's still the builder's choice in the RS-5, but in the RS-8 I would like to go to a percentage of each subdivision and not give credit that you know...if I don't build some in my first subdivision then I'm not going to give them credit to put the twenty percent left over from subdivision one into subdivision two so that they end up collecting enough to have a whole bunch. I want to have the option of a duplex, side-by-side on the street in RS-8. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 40 of 67 Franklin: So, there's two of you that want to consider a percentage for duplexes in RS-8 as opposed to restricting them to corner lots, is that what you're saying? Vanderhoef: That's what I'm'saying. Lehman: I think the rationale...as I hear this...there were to things I think I heard. First of all, we have RS-8 zones now that are nothing but rows and rows of duplexes. That's not what a RS-8 zone was designed to do. I think the rewriting wants to encourage and in fact ensure that there be small lots, single family lots available for people to buy. At the same time we didn't want to totally remove the possibility of duplexes from being in this small-lot single family zone. Is that pretty much the case? Franklin: Correct. Yep. Lehman: It would seem.., and I understand the difficulties.., or I think I understand at least partially the difficulties with locating them on comer lots.., although I really like the idea that they don't appear to be duplexes when they're on comer lots...and I think there's a lot to be said for that. But I think I could probably live with a percentage if duplexes were required to be separated by 150 feet.., so you could not.., so you could have a duplex but you would have to have three single families before you have another duplex. You would not have the rows of duplexes. Bailey: But I like the distinction that Dee made...RS-5 comer and RS-8 percentage. Lehman: If you had a twenty-five percent, for example, of the buildings...not the units...but twenty-five percent of the buildings you'd essentially have the same number of duplexes as is being proposed now, I believe. Champion: No, you'd have twice as many. Lehman: No, you'd have the number of units, as it's proposed, living units would be fifty- fifty. The number of structures would be 25/75...because a duplex being one structure holds as two living units. O'Donnell: You know though, Emie, RS-8 land is more expensive than RS-5 land. Lehman: Whoa...whoa... O'Donnell: It's less expensive because it's multi-family. Franklin: No, it's not multi-family, it's single family. O'Donnell: RS-8 you can build zero-lot lines and duplexes. Okay, were you going to make more money building a small single family home on a bigger lot or are you going This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 41 of 67 to build a duplex or zero-lot lines there? The point is that you're putting a very small house on large lot. The only way to make that work is to put a duplex on there. Lehman: I think you have...I think the Commission and staff is right in trying to reserve...we have RS-12 for all kinds of buildings...but we don't have a lot of small lot single family subdivisions. They're building duplexes on them. Bailey: I would like to see more of that. Champion: We could consider not having any duplexes at all. Lehman: I don't think that's what we want to do either. Franklin: Okay, let's just for moment...if you could all suspend your thoughts for a moment and look at this map because this is just another piece of information for you. You've got black and white copies there, so the delineation is a little bit different. On the overhead the purple is the RS-5, the green is RS-8...and just note where it is and how much it is or is not. RS-12 is kind of the hatched...that is on the color one as well as the one that you have before you. Just so you know where some of this zoning is now because as you're thinking about this, there's...what we have in place now in terms of what is zoned RS-5, what's RS-8, what's RS-12...but there's also then how you will look at zoning things in the future. So...ifyou want to provide a small lot, single family zone and you want to enable some of these duplexes and zero lot lines and townhouses to happen by right rather than going through the PDH, then what you're going to need to do is have the distinction between these two zones for the future...as you zone for the future. What we have right now is pretty much set. Now, Saddlebrook, which is down in this lower area here, is the one that Steve Gordon is, of course, concerned about. We've talked about whether maybe a portion of this would be zoned RS-12, because he's got a development plan, as I'm sure some of you have seen, that's already put together that's townhouses and duplexes and a mix...which would now have to go through the plan development process...if we zone it RS-12 then under the code would enable it to fit into that zone. So, when you're thinking about it, don't think about just in terms of what's there now. It's what will happen in the future and what your opportunities and the developer's opportunities will be in the future to zone land for these different kinds of uses. When it's zoned and it's there ahead of time, we'll know, the developer will know, the neighborhood will know more concretely than now what's going to be there. Because as we do things by plan development, nobody really knows until that end product comes out of exactly what's going to be there. Elliott: I like that concept. I've said to a couple of builders, 'I don't know why you even go through the PDH concept because it's just a mess of talking and time consuming,' - so I like your concept...having things laid out so they can look at the zone, they know what they can do and do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 42 of 67 Franklin: But part of that, too, Bob, is the part that you don't like and that is having standards for those buildings as they're building. Elliott: Standards, yes, design, no. Wilbum: You said distinctions. I believe you used the word distinctions...so that people will know...I mean...why bother with the zoning if there's not going to be a distinction in what the area consists oF Elliott: I think we're talking about some with more single-family, some with a mix of single-family and zero-lot lines, some with more zero-lot lines and townhouses...I have no problem with that. That's the way it should be. I'm simply saying in that one that you have zero-lot lines, I don't want them...or I would prefer that they not be confined to comers. I would prefer a percentage. Now, Emie or Dee, I forget which one, mentioned as I did earlier, that I would prefer that you have zero-lot lines interrupted by two or three single families. I'm told, that marketing wise, that doesn't go very well...that you need to have two or three zero-lot lines in a row. Now, I don't know...but I'm for a percentage. Bailey: I'm trying to recall the concerns by the Goosetown Neighborhood about some of these standards or some of these zone definitions... Vanderhoefi Their problem is in the older, established neighborhoods...their concern is that in interior lots, where we've got some older, small houses, that the two small houses will come down and it will create a big enough thing to build maybe an eight- plex... Bailey: Or a large zero-lot or something. I think we should talk about that because I think that's a legitimate concern. Goosetown is a reasonably affordable neighborhood. How can we address that concern if we have this opportunity to have duplexes in midblock? Franklin: That's one of the things, when you're looking at these codes, is that it effects what we've got right now, the older neighborhoods, as well as the new. Vanderhoef: Yeah. Franklin: It's what your vision is. Bailey: Can you approach new and established differently? Franklin: Not without creating a different zone. Which we have... Vanderhoef: I've been thinking about this. Anything that is in a conservation or a historic district could have rules for that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 43 of 67 Franklin: For design. Conservation and historic districts are about the building design. They do not impact the density...the underlying density remains the same. What you're talking about with duplex versus single-family is a density question. Bailey: You're also talking a mass question. Franklin: Yes. Vanderhoefi And appropriateness. Bailey: And that does effect...I think that relates to design to a certain degree, but I think it's something that we have to talk about. I liked your... Lehman: We did have a restriction in RS-8 that said...and all of Goosetown is RS-8, I believe... Franklin: No, there's some RS-5...when it's over by the park. Lehman: But there's no zone that's higher than RS-8. If you had a restriction that no more than twenty-five percent of that RS-8 could be in duplexes and that duplexes must be separated by a minimum of 150 feet, you're going to address a lot of the issues that Goosetown has. Bailey: But you're going to address the possibility of plowing down two small houses and putting up a duplex and I think that's the primary concern. Franklin: There's an enforcement issue, too, in how we manage that...we need to think about that...the only other time that we've used percentages was in the CN-1 zone and we got rid of those because it was just impossible to enforce it because as soon as someone was in, they got the percentage. It's just really difficult unless you've got covenants on that property that says 'This is a duplex. This is a single family house.' That's maybe getting a little overbearing. O'Donnell: Ernie, am I hearing four of us say 'Let's go to percentage in RS-8.'? Lehman: No, no...I think what Karin... Dilkes: I really have a...the percentage thing just raises all these flags...that I can't even figure out what all of them are yet. I just think...percentage of what, where...I mean, there are a lot of issues. Lehman: You don't need a percentage. Duplexes can not be located within a 150 feet of each other in an RS-8 zone. That takes care of everything? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 44 of 67 O'Donnell: If you have a square block and a duplex on each comer, how is that not a percentage? Champion: But then you can tear down two small houses and put a duplex in there. Lehman: I know that, but if there is a duplex within 150 feet they can't do it. Champion: That's the problem. They would tear down the two small houses, the two affordable houses and build a duplex. Bailey: The mass and the scale would be out of sync with the rest of the small houses around. Champion: If it's a conservation district. Bailey: That isn't yet, is it? Champion: No. Lehman: But if you had a restriction on proximity to each other you can forget the percentage. Champion: No, it wouldn't help Goosetown. Franklin: Okay, maybe what we should do is...I've got this down as...with the RS-8 zone that some of you are interested in a percent, some of you are interested in distance between, some of you are interested in the comer lot as it is proposed. Lehman: Separation could handle the percentage issue without having to deal with percentage. Franklin: Does everybody agree with that? Should we take percentage off the table? Lehman: Absolutely. Dilkes: Let's first ask...are there less than four of you who want to do the comer lot? Franklin: I don't think they know yet. Champion: I was against the comer lot...now I think we need to protect some of our older neighborhoods. We may have to go back to comer lots...because actually I just prefer RS-8 with just single-family. Bailey: I would prefer that as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 45 of 67 Champion: If our idea is to get affordable, single-family houses then not having any duplexes in RS-8 solves that whole problem. Elliott: What's the difference between five and eight? Lehman: Three. (Laughter) Franklin: In what respect, Bob? Elliott: Single-family... Franklin: 5,000 square feet and 8,000 square feet. Elliott: They're basically single-family. Franklin: Yes, they're single-family zones and remember that we enable these things to happen. It doesn't mean that an RS-8 you couldn't have a 10,000 square foot lot with 100 feet of frontage if that's what, whoever owned the property, wanted to do. It's just that you can't get any smaller than that. Elliott: I'm sitting here thinking that I can remember years ago when the Council said our single, number-one priority is affordable housing. Every time it comes up we keep coming up with reasons why it's not appropriate. Champion: That's not true. Elliott: Somehow, that a zero-lot line in the middle of a block will ruin a block. If we want affordable housing, we're going to have to... Franklin: Isn't it a matter of options? Because you want to have...there are some people who do not want to live in an attached unit. So, to have an opportunity for single- family, detached, small lots, relatively small houses, although you can put a 2,000 square foot house on some of these small lots, but small lot as an opportunity and that you know that around you that's what it's going to be...because otherwise the demand often is going to be for the attached units. You've got to have options and what's out there. Lehman: We can satisfy that demand by adding RS-12 zones. That's how you do it. You don't stick them in RS-8, where we've been putting them for years. Franklin: Yeah. But if you have RS-8...and a lot of the RS-8 that we have is in our older neighborhoods, as you can see by the map. The two newest ones are Southpointe and Saddlebrook. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 46 of 67 Bailey: So it seems to me by allowing them on comer lots in RS-5 and RS-8, it is an allowance but not an encouragement and it seems like itwas a balancing sort of way to get these in and encouraging them more in RS-12. Wilbum: You're creating some opportunity but you're controlling it so that you still keep the... Lehman: The single-family character of RS-8 is what we're trying to protect. Bailey: Right, and you're balancing interests if you allow it on the comers...so you have that choice but it's not really encouraged. That seems to be the message here. I don't think it's a bad message. O'Donnell: I like the 150 feet more than I do requiting the comers. Lehman: It doesn't help the older part of town. O'Donnell: Well, it does because if you build one duplex you're not going to build another... Champion: It doesn't stop two affordable houses from being tom down and a duplex being put in. Elliott: Then you have two affordable houses. Champion: No, but most of them are single-family now. Dilkes: Connie, comer lot won't either, though. Champion: I know. Lehman: Can I understand that you're going to get back to us a little bit with some of what we just talked about in RS-8? We're going in circles. Bailey: I think we need to decide what message we want to send in these zones. Lehman: I think we need to send a message that RS-8 is first and foremost a small lot, single-family zone... Bailey: And duplexes on comers sends that message. Lehman: If there is some way of incorporating them in that zone, on a very limited nature, then that's wonderful. Bailey: That's what the corners...I think that's what they were trying to do. Franklin: And still enabling it to look like single-family. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 47 of 67 Bailey: I bet they had this very same discussion. Vanderhoef: I think we can do two different approaches to this...because I still think we could do either the percentage or the 150 feet or whatever in new subdivisions. Franklin: Well, in the new subdivision I think you do an RS-12. If you want to have... Vanderhoef: You can. Franklin: You can, yeah. Vanderhoefi But if you want to do a .... Franklin: A small lot, single-family... Vanderhoef: You could do the mixing. The mixing is what I'm trying to get in the RS-8 in the new subdivisions. Franklin: There's two different messages then. There's either you want to have a small lot, single-family zone or you want to have a mixed zone. What do you want RS-8 to be? Bailey: I think RS-8 is single-family - Champion: and RS-12 is mixed. Elliott: What's in RS-8 now? What is allowed in RS-8? Franklin: Single family and duplex. Elliott: How many of the duplexes are being bought? Lehman: Tons of them. Vanderhoef: Big time. Elliott: Why are we trying to discourage that then? Lehman: We're not. We're encouraging them to do it in a RS-12 zone. Franklin: Remember, what we're going to be talking about most often is new zoning. As you look at new zoning and you look at new areas, you will look at those areas and decide. Do I want those...do you as a group want to be large lot single- family, push it towards RS-5? Do we want it to have some small lot, single- family in that same area? Do you want that same area to have some part of it that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 48 of 67 is RS-12, where you can, by right, put single-family, duplex, zero-lot lines, townhouses? As you look at a whole area there will be different parts of if that you want different zones. Elliott: How many eight to be a mix? How many want eight to be virtually single family? I want it to be a mix. It is a mix now and I don't see why it doesn't stay that way. Lehman: Well, it really isn't a mix now. It's almost all duplexes. That's the problem. Bailey: Right. Elliott: You'd be encouraging more single-family then. Champion: By doing RS-8 as a single-family...you'd be encouraging more single families. Elliott: You're cutting out the duplexes. Champion: No, they can still build, by right, in RS-5. Bailey: If they want to do the mix they have the option of doing RS-12 and I think that there is more clarity in the distinct zones. We just talked about assertively rezoning property because we don't have a lot of...it looks like... Lehman: We have very little RS-12. Bailey: Yeah, from what I can tell, we have very little RS-12... Franklin: Very little RS-8 for that matter. We can come back to you with how we would deal with the distance thing. Lehman: Let me just ask another...and I think ! heard you say this...but I didn't really like what you said...but that's okay...what I think I hear you say is that we really, really can not...it would be very difficult to distinguish between established areas of the community...for example, RS-8 on the north side and east side of town...both long established neighborhoods...is absolutely a different situation than an RS-8 down in Whispering Meadows. Is it possible to have an RS-8 E established and have different rules for an RS-8 new? Franklin: You can make as many zones as you want to make? Lehman: No, I'm just asking you... Franklin: Yes, you can. The question is...what do you want as an opportunity for the future for zoning? Lehman: I want to see us protect the north side and the east side. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 49 of 67 Franklin: Okay, do you want, for the future, a small lot, single-family zone or not? Lehman: Absolutely. Franklin: Then, if you want a small lot, single-family zone you make such a thing and maybe you don't have any duplexes at all, you have duplexes at the comer or you have your distancing thing with the duplexes. Lehman: Couldn't you have a different set of rules for the established part of the town? Franklin: We could make two different zones. Vanderhoef: Because what I still would like is the new development and have a percentage by subdivision so that it becomes a mix of duplexes and single-families. Bailey: She said percentage is difficult to enforce. Lehman: Separation is easier. Bailey: I also think we need to make ordinances that are enforceable. Franklin: What are you saying? Bailey: We need ordinances that enforceable and good. Lehman: Easy to enforce. Franklin: A percentage you would probably have to have a plan development in which you said this lot is this, this lot is this and this lot is this. Lehman: But isn't separation an easier way of doing it? Dilkes: Yes. Lehman: And separation accomplishes exactly the same thing as a percentage does. Dilkes: I don't see much difference. Lehman: I don't either except that one is much easier to enforce. Dilkes: So can we talk comer lots and proximity? Those are the two options we have left? Bailey: Well, then RS-8 established and RS-8 new. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 50 of 67 Lehman: Thank you, because I have no problem with comer-lot duplexes in established neighborhoods. In new construction I would not have a problem with allowing them anywhere as long as there is separation. Franklin: So, we'll add a zone is your proposal? Elliott: Oh, no. Dilkes: That's going to require rezoning. Lehman: Pardon? Dilkes: Then we're going to have to go through those rezonings in established neighborhoods. Champion: Oh, wow. Vanderhoef: But the whole point is...we already have identified a need in those established neighborhoods...many of which are either in conservation or historic districts...so it's very plain what direction this Council has gone to to protect those neighborhoods. Franklin: It does not affect density. Dilkes: Those are completely different issues. Vanderhoef: They are, but we're recognizing that...therefore to have the zone of the established neighborhoods... Champion: So, Dee, what do you say...If the neighborhood was built before 1990 or is it 19307 How do you determine what is an established neighborhood? Elliott: Can we have them bring us something? Comer and proximity? Franklin: What I've got is the distance between 150 or something...there's a comer lot option... Champion: Is there support for that? Elliott: Yes. Lehman: Well, I think one or the other is probably what we'll end up doing. Champion: What is one or the other? O'Donnell: Comer or proximity. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 51 of 67 Bailey: But if we don't have some level of protection for established neighborhoods then I would leave it as is on comers. I'd have to go that way because there are too many concerns about this devastating our old housing stock for duplexes in mid block. Vanderhoef: Well, that's exactly what I said to person who... Bailey: So it has to be a package deal. It's going to become more complicated. Lehman: Now, well, just for a second...if we do allow duplexes on comer lots only in RS- 8...which is what is being proposed...my suspicion is that most of our duplexes are going to be built in RS-12, which means we're going to have a lot more RS-12 zoning...if comer lots are significantly more difficult and more expensive to build in RS-8 zones then we're not going to find them there...we're going to find them in RS-12 zones...which is kind of where we're trying to put them anyway. Bailey: And I'm okay with that. Vanderhoefi I'm not okay with at. Bailey: I know. Vanderhoef: I'm not okay with a whole big zone that is nothing but duplexes. Bailey: Well, it doesn't have to be duplexes. Vanderhoef: It doesn't have to but that's what is going to happen. Lehman: We have a whole bunch of duplexes right now in RS-8 zones and we're not complaining about that. Vanderhoef: I am too...because I like the mix. Champion: You say you like the mix but you don't live in a neighborhood with any mix. Vanderhoef: They were not all that common when I moved here thirty-five years ago. Lehman: Let's put this one on the back burner and let it simmer for a little bit. We're not going to solve it right now. It sounds like it's going to be comer lots or separation, one or the other. O'Donnell: Now we're on to garage doors. Lehman: Going in to what? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 52 of 67 O'Donnell: Garage doors. Lehman: We're at number 3. ' Elliott: No. Lehman: Which includes garage standards. Elliott: So does number two. Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry. Franklin: What is number two? Elliott: Garage door no more than fifty feet of the front facade. Franklin: Number two is the garage placement or front door placement standards for comer lot duplexes. Let's resolve the comer lot first before we get to this. Lehman: Let's go to number four. Champion: I think you can get into trouble some times with garage standards...although I think we need some kind of garage standard...I don't want to deprive people who are living on a small lot from having a double garage. Lehman: Number four is suggesting that lots below sixty-feet have a limitation of sixty percent of the building facade...no more than 60%. O'Donnell: I can live with that. Elliott: I would rather not have the restriction, but ! am certainly willing to compromise on that. Bailey: So that's a thirty-six foot wide...let's picture that for a moment. Lehman: A sixty-foot lot could have a fifty-foot house which could have a thirty-foot garage and twenty-foot... Bailey: I'm also concerned about curb cuts...with parking and all...so what would be the curb cut? Lehman: It could be thirty-feet, it could be twenty-feet and flare out. With a twenty-five foot set back...a garage is typically twenty to twenty-one feet... Franklin: Twenty-two feet for two car and thirty-two feet for a three car. That's what's being built...sometimes they're bigger. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 53 of 67 Bailey: So what they're saying is that on this lot you could build a three-car garage, right? No, you couldn't...that would be thirty-two feet. You could build a two-car garage. Got it. Champion: I think small lots should be allowed a two-car garage. Lehman: Sixty percent would do that. Elliott: I'd like to go over sixty percent but I will go with sixty percent if the rest of... Lehman: If the building community has said that sixty percent is something they can - Elliott: Sixty feet with sixty percent garage is fine with them, as far as I know. Champion: Well, they don't attached garages? Vanderhoefi You can still have a three car on a sixty-foot lot. No... O'Donnell: No, you can't. Vanderhoef: You've got five foot setbacks on either side so you've got... Franklin: You could put thirty-foot in there. Lehman: You could put a thirty-foot garage on a fifty-foot house. O'Donnell: You eliminate three-car garages with the sixty foot. Elliott: Did I say sixty foot? I mean sixty percent. Lehman: No you don't. You don't have to have thirty two. If you have a single-large garage door and one small one, you can do it in thirty feet. O'Donnell: I'm reading what their request is, Ernie. It says 'This will eliminate three-car garages on lots less than sixty-feet wide.' Lehman: But on sixty feet they can do it. Champion: But it would allow them two-door garages on small lots. O'Donnell: I'm fine with that. Lehman: They can do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 54 of 67 Vanderhoefi But with that caveat, if we go sixty-forty and they choose to do a three-car garage... Champion: On lots over sixty feet. Vanderhoefi No. Bailey: You can't do it. Not with this. Vanderhoef: They can do it with sixty...that the curb cut is only for two car and then the normal little flair. Lehman: Think about that. If you have a twenty-five foot setback for garages, which I believe it is, you can not park three...I'm not sure it will work...geometrically if it's possible to get a twenty-foot curb cut into a thirty-foot garage. Vanderhoef: Then they can move the house back. Franklin: There are access standards on page 2-A. "For properties with a single-access point, the maximum driveway width is twenty-four feet measured at the property line and thirty feet measured at the curb line." Lehman: That takes care of it...it's already in there, Dee. Bailey: Yep, it's already there. Champion: Are three car garages really used for three cars? Lehman: A lot of them are. Champion: Really. Lehman: Is the sixty-percent garage restriction one that we are interested in? Elliott: Regenia and I are compromising up and down on that. Bailey: I'm not interested in it but if there's four...as long as the curb cuts are covered. Vanderhoef: Curb cut is important. Lehman: That's elsewhere in the code. Alright. That's number four. Number three is the garage standards. Franklin: That, I'm assuming, as distinguished from the percentage is the placement, the flush, the recessed... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 55 of 67 Bailey: Can I just say that I feel very strongly about unstained and unpainted lumber? Lehman: Does that belong in a zoning code? Elliott: No. Dilkes: I can't hear you Regenia. Franklin: It's in there right now. Champion: Let's just leave that in there. Lehman: Is my house totally illegal because I have not stained or - Franklin: Is it in the multi-family, exterior stairway guidelines? I'm looking at Karen, past you. The unpainted, unstained lumber is now a provision is the multi-family guidelines. Dilkes: Karen, why don't you come up next to Steve because you're going to have to... Lehman: Is there anything in the code that would require...wood, once it's painted or stained, that it be maintained? Franklin: Peeling paint, I think, is a nuisance...we have cited...we really need HIS for this. I think people have been cited for peeling paint. Lehman: In single family? Franklin: I don't know. Vanderhoef: In rentals they do it all the time. In single-family I don't think so. Franklin: It would be under nuisance anyway...it wouldn't be under zoning. That's another issue from the garage standards. O'Donnell: This addresses affordability. If you just read the whole thing they're talking about garage standards, the main entrance must be covered by a porch or transom, sidelight windows, three-inch trim is required around all windows, doors and below all roof eaves - roofs much project twelve inches. All of that effects affordability. That's design. Bailey: But on attached housing, I think that trim reduces the bulk content. I will continue to say that. O'Donnell: Can you tell the difference between three inch and two inch? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 56 of 67 Bailey: Well, yes, I can. Elliott: I just don't see why the width of trim around doors is in the zoning code. O'Donnell: I can't figure it out either. Franklin: Because the reason it's there is because of the trade off. Remember, going back to what we're trying to accomplish with this and this is that the attached units, which now go through a plan development process, they go through a lot of negotiations in which these are minimal standards and what we did is looked at the plan developments that had been approved, that had gone through the Commission and the Council over the last few years and what were the things that were looked at, and those were translated into standards .... so that this could happen by right rather than having to go through the plan development process. Bailey: If these are going to happen by right then people will then, with these kinds of standards, will have an expectation of what will be next to them or across from them. Elliott: My right is for the City not to say what the trim is. That's personal preference. Bailey: It is personal preference until you live across the street from a massive attached house with no trim and no distinction on where the door is, where the entrance is. Elliott: If you're across the street and you're not paying for it...it's none of your business. Bailey: Bob, I very much resent that remark because that's what causes people to move out of neighborhoods. That's what causes neighborhood destabilization. Elliott: It's what causes people not' to move into some neighborhoods when you have restrictions like that. Bailey: No, when you move into a neighborhood, you want to know what you can expect. Elliott: ' No, I'm tired of being concerned about what people see when they drive down the street or walk down the street. Bailey: I'm talking about living across the street from something. I'm not talking about walking down a street. I'm talking about owning property and being able to expect something in a neighborhood. I think people have a right to expectations. Elliott: Not unless you pay for it. Bailey: We all pay for, we're all taxpayers...we all pay for it, Bob. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 57 of 67 O'Donnell: You guys are going to end up going at each other here in a minute. I'm getting a little nervous. Let's talk trim. I don't like three-inch trim...I prefer an inch and a half... Bailey: How about trim? Let's just say trim. O'Donnell: Well, everybody puts trim on their house. Lehman: No, apparently that's not true. Bailey: That's not true. O'Donnell: Drive me around Iowa City and show me a house that doesn't have trim on it. Elliott: No, Regenia, I could say trim...that's fine...but don't designate what it has to be. Bailey: It has to be also in...it has to be related to the bulk. If three inch trim doesn't relate to the bulk of the mass of the structure... Elliott: That's personal preference. Bailey: No, it's personal esthetic. It's what you can expect. It's neighborhood standards which you talk about community standards all the time...this is the same thing, Bob. Elliott: Well, that's how I feel about it. I've seen some very nice houses on Kirkwood, etc that don't have overhang on the side. I don't think that anybody builds houses without overhangs any more, but I don't see why we have to require it...and I don't see why, if you like the look of unpainted or unstained lumber on the front of your house as some people near us do...you ought to be able to have it. Bailey: It's cheap. Elliott: I think we quieted them. O'Donnell: I think we're all scared to death. Bailey: You should be. Lehman: Let's take these maybe one at a time. Champion: Start with the unstained wood. Lehman: Wait a minute...before we do that, we also have... Bailey: These are attached housing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 58 of 67 Lehman: Let's finish the garage standards. One of them we said we could live with sixty percent. The other standards that I thought we addressed on Sand Hill Estates was that we would not require that...we would not prevent garages from extending in front of the house and require porches and covered entrances and so forth and it's been put back in and I have no interest in that garage placement requirement. Franklin: I think the Commission would not have provided the reduction in lot size Without these standards. Lehman: I don't question that for a minute...but that's one of the reasons, as Connie mentioned, that we objected to the lot increase in size because it became apparent that that was a way of imposing the garage standards. Franklin: These are forty-five foot lots without any standards. Forty-foot lots with no standards. This would be the consequence. Champion: Tell me that again, now. Franklin: This is for a thirty-foot lot width. What I'm saying... Champion: But we're not going to do a thirty-foot minimum lot width. Franklin: But that's what you're talking about doing. You're talking about eliminating the garage standard with the lot widths...you haven't talked about taking away any of the lot width variations that are allowed. You've just talked about taking away the standards. If you take away the standards and allow a thirty-foot lot, this is what you will have...a forty-foot lot, this is what you will have...a forty-five foot lot, that's what you'll have. Lehman: But in those cases that you're showing right there...if you had a sixty-percent restriction you could not have as big a driveway as you're showing there. Franklin: On? O'Donnell: You're right, it's below sixty feet. Franklin: That one? Lehman: Right. Franklin: ! don't know. I mean, all of these things go together...that's what I'm saying...so as you talk about these things...this is what will come back to you if you take out x, y, and z and leave in a, b, c...what is you'll be left with. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 59 of 67 Bailey: I think that's what we have to see if we start pulling threads what we're left with. Franklin: Okay, so what's the consensus? Champion: Forty-five minimum lot size, forty-five foot on the lot. Franklin: That's a thirty-five foot building. Champion: A thirty-five foot...on a thirty-five foot you could only have - Bailey: Twenty one feet of garage. Franklin: A single-car garage. Champion: Right. Lehman: That's okay. O'Donnell: That's what we were saying. Champion: It's not going to look like that at all. Those are all double-car garages or driveways. Dilkes: I don't think these are all illustrating the sixty-percent requirement that you all arrived at. Lehman: What is that illustration? Franklin: This is with no standards whatsoever. Lehman: I think we're going to have some standards. Dilkes: We got the sixty percent. Let's move to the front/back... Lehman: Whether the garage can extend in front of the house and if so, if there's any restrictions in how the front of the house is designed. I thought we addressed that with Sand Hill. Elliott: I did, too. Vanderhoef: I did. It wasn't the same way. Lehman: Is there any interest in changing the decision we made with Sand Hill. Elliott: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 60 of 67 Vanderhoef: No. Bailey: Would you all reiterate the decision that you all made with Sand Hill? Lehman: With Sand Hill there was a requirement that if the garage extended beyond the front facade of the house that there had to be a certain...as I recall and I may not be exactly right...but a porch or a different treatment of the front entry-way and whatever. Franklin: What, say that again, Emie? Lehman: You could have a garage extend in front of the house but then it needed it to have a porch or a roof or something over the front door. Franklin: No. O'Donnell: That was my understanding. Franklin: No. Lehman: What was the restriction? Franklin: All you did was require a twenty-five foot setback. Lehman: No, I know. But the proposal that we changed would have required that there be. Franklin: Oh, yeah...I thought you were saying that that's what you finally approved. Vanderhoef: That's what we sent the message to begin with. Franklin: So, what you're saying as a majority is that you do not want any garage placement standards in terms of needing to be flush, recessed or any kind ofporch...that the front loading garages wherever that comes on the lot is not a concern to you. Lehman: As long as there is a twenty-five foot setback. Champion: It's a concern to me. Bailey: It's a concern to me. Franklin: But I'm talking about a majority. Champion: But I can't make an ordinance to do that. I can't inflict my personal taste on everybody in town. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 61 of 67 Wilbum: I support the zoning code as presented by the Commission and staff...but one of the things, too, to keep in mind...we received information...what was it...seventy- five percent of the developments wouldn't be affected by these anyway...historically...so we're not talking about... Franklin: Twenty-two percent of the single-family would even be affected by anything we're talking about. Most of this impacts (TAPE ENDS) Wilburn: Trying to look at it as a package deal...if you're trying to make an exception to allow some smaller lot size, etc, etc., it's an exchange. You're allowed to do this, here are the requirements. I don't see that as being overregulating. Champion: My problem with it Ross...is..the builders...if they don't want to meet our standards...they'll simply go build bigger lots. They won't build small lot, affordable housing. Wilburn: But in seventy-five percent of the cases they're doing that anyway. Bailey: Yeah, they're not doing it anyway. I don't think anything that we're going to do is going to motivate affordable housing. O'Donnell: It's important, also, for consistency. We've set specific guidelines down at Sand Hill Pointe and I think we need to be consistent in the rest of our opinions and votes. Wilburn: I'm attempting to be consistent with what I believe will be beneficial with the zoning code. I would continue to vote in accordance with this. I don't see that as being inconsistent. O'Donnell: No, my point is that the majority of this Council made one point down at Sand Hill Estates and that consistency has to follow through to the next development. Bailey: I disagree. O'Donnell: You should be able to expect some amount of consistency...if we impose different standards in a different area...that's my only point. Elliott: How many favor that? Lehman: Favor? Elliott: Doing the standards the same way we said we wanted done at Sand Hill? Lehman: We just...there were four of us.. Elliott: Why are we still talking? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 62 of 67 Lehman: I didn't know we were. O'Donnell: Because it's almost five. Lehman: Okay...we never have decided on number three. Number three is the...the main entrance must be covered by a porch or transom, sidelights, windows, three inch trim required around all window and doors... Bailey: This is on attached housing. Lehman: Right, attached housing. Lehman: And roofing must project twelve inches from the building wall. Bailey: Give me trim and no unstained lumber and I'll concede the rest. Champion: No unstained lumber and what else did you say? Bailey: Trim. Champion: And some trim. Elliott: Trim...just trim...not three inches, six inches... Bailey: I'm conceding porches and transoms and windows... Lehman: Don't take away my unstained because there's a lot of people who like natural looking cedar and it's very pretty. Bailey: I'll concede shingles...but I just don't like...I think if we reword it...shake shingles are fine. What they're referring to are these porches that are on the facade. Lehman: Green treated lumber. Bailey: Yeah .... decks are fine...but it's not visible. Champion: It's getting later...it's my tired time of the day. The problem is that what I consider really attractive and what you consider attractive might be the same...but I can't inflict that on everybody...one of the most...sometimes I think we get way too overzealous about separating housing when it's in a chain. Bailey: Townhouses? Champion: Yeah, in a chain. Some of the nicest condominium units that I have seen are all attached and they all look alike and they're beautifully done. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 63 of 67 Elliott: That's what you think of when you think of beautiful San Francisco. Champion: Exactly. Bailey: I think the two things that I'm picking out are the things that make things look finished, regardless of your esthetic .... and that's something painted and something trimmed. O'Donnell: I think everybody could live with that. Champion: It doesn't have to be painted...it could all be brick. Bailey: Or it could be stained. Elliott: Well, you can stain it with water. Champion: Come on, Bob. Bailey: Come on, Bob, we are only... O'Donnell: You can use a natural stain in a natural color. Bailey: Finished is all I'm asking, finished. Lehman: But if you buy, for example, green treated lumber for your deck... O'Donnell: You don't have to stain it. Lehman: It is treated when you buy it. Elliott: Yes. Lehman: And if somebody puts a natural color stain on it...it's exactly the way it will look before they put the stain on it. Bailey: No visible from the public or private street. Champion: We're talking about steps and railings. We're talking about trim. We're not talking about o Lehman: Front porches or front steps...they put them up with green treated lumber so they won't rot...then they put clear stain on them and they're now stained...and they comply. Elliott: That's stained. Yeah. If we say we want it stained, put a clear stain on them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 64 of 67 Franklin: The purpose of these standards was to try to build neighborhoods that had value, that would sustain that value over time. Lehman: I can't imagine that green lumber on a deck would effect that. Franklin: I'm not arguing with you...I'm just telling you the reason why. If you have that vision how would you enable that vision? If you don't think it's our business, you don't think it's our business. Elliott: I don't. O'Donnell: Regenia brought up a point here...trim, stain or paint...I really...it is finished...I don't like the covered porch or transom... Bailey: I conceded all that. O'Donnell: I know...I'm just making my point. I don't like the twelve inch roof eaves...that specifically deals with design. Franklin: Would you please go to page 177 and tell me what it is that you are taking out of the code...that you are proposing? So I know exactly what it is that we're supposed to look at. Elliott: Are you talking about today's materials? Franklin: No, I'm talking about the code itself. Elliott: We're just talking about number three. Franklin: I need to know the language that you wish to take out of the code...it's been kind of a scattered conversation. Champion: The truth of the matter is that a lot of the subdivisions that are being built have these standards. Franklin: Item D on page 177. Entrances. Garages. Those are to be eliminated? Bailey: I wouldn't eliminate any of it. O'Donnell: I wouldn't eliminate all ofit...but the trim...and I want to specifically say trim, not three,inch trim, and painting or staining is finishing to me...and something I don't have a problem with...but I think...the main thing...all you hear in this City is affordability. I can't not imagine any of this not affecting the affordability of the home. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 65 of 67 Bailey: We're not building affordable houses here. I think that was a red herring. I don't think anybody cares about affordability. Vanderhoefi I like the statement...the main entrance to each dwelling must be demarcated, period. Champion: I'm sorry. Bailey: Demarcated with trim. Vanderhoef: Everyone has to have some identification that this is the entryway to the home. They can choose however they want to make that... Lehman: That's fine...except then it must be demarcated...what constitutes demarcated? Elliott: Then you're 'back to subjectivity. Lehman: It tells you how you could do it...I think you need to be a little more specific than that. Vanderhoef: You could do it as examples. Lehman: So I paint one door green and one door red? O'Donnell: I love it. Champion: I hate it. I hate rainbows. Dilkes: We need to start counting to four if we're going to make any progress here. Let's look at D3... Franklin: Is D 1 still there? Elliott: You're looking in this thing...I don't have that. Champion: I don't either. Dilkes: Karin, you don't want to use what we were previously working off of...you want to move to the code? Franklin: I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is that you wish to take out. Dilkes: Then we need to start working through each item so we can make some progress. Champion: I think we've made a lot of progress. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 66 of 67 Franklin: Are there four of you who wish to eliminate any standards for the entrance? Champion: Yes, there are. Franklin: Are there for of you who wish to eliminate any standards for garages? O'Donnell: As far as setback, yes. Dilkes: We already went through the garages. Franklin: Are there four of you who wish to eliminate the design features, which has to do with trim? Champion: No, we want trim. Franklin: Okay. Roof eaves? Elliott: Trim, but no specific size. Champion: What about roof eaves? Vanderhoefi It makes them look smaller or shorter... Champion: I think it's okay to leave eaves in there. Elliott: Except that I've seen a few relatively square houses in town that do not have overhangs. Bailey: These are not houses...these are attached dwellings...these are duplexes. Elliott: They're houses. Vanderhoef: They're big. Champion: They're big. Bailey: These are attached. Champion: There are housing designs...for example, Italian Renaissance design doesn't have any eaves. Elliott: As a matter of fact, the brick zero-lot line at the end of your street I think has a relatively flat roof with no overhang. Lehman: Let's do this...does everybody have F? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. October 31, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 67 of 67 Vanderhoef: Yes. Lehman: Let's get through this and then we're going to quit for the day. Franklin: Okay, the design features, since some of you don't have your codes .... all windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be demarcated with trim. The trim must be at least three inches wide. Elliott: I say just cut her off at trim. Franklin: How many want to eliminate the three inches? Lehman: I don't have a problem. O'Donnell: That's fine. Vanderhoef: Just leave it at trim. Franklin: F2, all roof eaves must project at least twelve inches from the building wall. Champion: That's fine. Lehman: That's alright. Franklin: Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that is visible from a public or private street. Champion: That's perfect. That means you can still put it on a deck and that kind of stuff. Lehman: Unless you can see the deck from the street. Bailey: I don't think anybody is going to complain. Elliott: Our neighbor has a deck in front of his house. Lehman: Are there four people who want to keep the painted and unstained in? Champion: Yes. Lehman: One, two, three, four...yes, it stays. Franklin: So the design features we're just taking the three inches off of the trim. Okay, we're donel This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the October 31, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.