Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 TranscriptionNovember 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page ! of 40 Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum UISG Rep: Schreiber Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Howard, Karr, Miklo Tapes: 05-70 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ZONING CODE Lehman: I think we're going to discuss the zoning code. Franklin: Do you want to proceed from where you left off?. Lehman: We can do that. The last one that we talked about that we didn't come to any conclusion on but we spent a fair amount of time talking about it was the RS-8 zone...but what I thought we'd do today is go around the Council, and each of us, I'm sure, has issues that we want to discuss. Franklin: Okay. Vanderhoef: Well, I think a lot of those will get taken care of if we go through the stuff, though. Champion: Let's do RS-8 first...go around and see if we have a majority with an opinion and be done with it. Franklin: We had three options that were out there. The comer lot option, which is in the proposal .... a proposal from the Council that instead of restricting duplexes to corner lots having some distant requirement between them .... and then the third part of it was to have two different RS-8 zones, one for existing neighborhoods and one for new, although I'm not sure what the new would include or if two of those options go together. So, that's what is kind of floating out there now. Champion: Let's settle it. Lehman: Okay, go. Champion: I'm willing to along with the proposal...mainly because I'd like to have this small lot single-family houses and I don't object to duplexes, but what I think about keeping with the proposals is that it will protect our older neighborhoods and keep people from tearing down two small houses in an RS-8 zone and building a duplex. I'm going to support the proposal. Bailey: I think Steve Gordon made an interesting point last night if we move duplexes and zero-lots into RS-12. We just simply have to make sure that there is enough This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 40 zoning.., and I think that that is something we could accomplish. I would like to see an RS-8...try that small-lot zone, see if we can make it work and keep duplexes on the comers and go with the proposal and see how it works. Champion: Me, too. Bailey: I think we might be able to accomplish something here with small lots. O'Donnell: I'm thinking the distance is a better option for me. One thing you don't want to do is limit the ability to build zero-lot lines and duplexes...but you can with the limit you can protect smaller lots .... if you have a space limit in there. Champion: What about the older neighborhoods? How are you going to protect them? O'Donnell: You have so many feet between duplexes. Champion: How are you going to stop someone from tearing down two smaller single-family dwellings, which we lack, and putting up a duplex? Bailey: Which I think is a danger. Vanderhoefi I'm looking at this in two spaces...I want to protect the older neighborhoods, yes, and I want to create the opportunity for some more mixed because...in the RS- 8...I still have the impression that zero-lots, duplexes can be built cheaper, which would give some mix in price ranges in the RS-8 zone...and how I propose this, and I'll give Emie credit on this...he came up with the idea because I was struggling with how to meet both of those goals.., and we had talked something about the how do you define older neighborhoods and Emie suggested that we go with date specific, so that when the ordinance was enacted, everything that is presently built is older neighborhood. All new RS-8's would be mixed and I understand the thoughts of some who are choosing to have a separation of the zero-lots and I can support that part, too. Bailey: Tell me why you'd want to get mixed and RS-8 instead ofrezoning to RS-12. Vanderhoef: Because I think there are some folks that want...they know to they're going to live here much longer and would like to be in a more stable zone and what I think the impression out there is that all these zero-lot lines.., if you have many of them in one area that those are apt to be turnover or made to be purchased for rental properties.., in other words, investments.., so here again, those will turn over more rapidly and not lead to a stable neighborhood. Lehman: Karin, what sort of difficulties would be involved in...I absolutely agree with Connie and Reginia on comer duplexes in established neighborhoods. I think that the people in the established neighborhoods...what they fear most...whether it happens on comer lots of the middle of the lot, it can really be a problem for those This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 40 neighborhoods...but the corner lots we'd be far less objectionable, I think, that tearing down two houses in the middle of the block and building a duplex with five bedrooms each... Franklin: A corner lot can give the appearance...it can feel very much like those are single- family because the street face is a single-family. Lehman: And I agree with that. I think that's a really good restriction to put in established neighborhoods. Is there a problem with new RS-8 subdivisions being allowed to put in duplexes with a certain separation.., say 15 0 feet...which would mean there would have to be three single-family homes in between? Franklin: There are other provisions that we have in zoning which have distance requirements.., such as adult businesses have to be a certain distances from other schools or other adult businesses. Obviously you can have a distance requirement in zoning and that can work. Lehman: Is that difficult to administer or hard to work with? Franklin: It's...what it means is that when ever anybody comes in with a building permit for a duplex or a zero-lot line, we would have to establish whether there is another one within 150 feet and presumably that would be 150 feet from the lot line in any direction...unless you set 150 feet on the same block face...it depends on what you want.., if you're talking about how the buildings relate to the street.., you could have it in reference to a block face or along the frontage...the frontage would be between two intersecting streets. But then you would have the option of having a duplex right behind a duplex. If your concern is that you have 150 feet everywhere, you would have 150 feet from the lot line, which would mean that you would not have any within the same frontage, you would not have one directly across the street, you would not have one directly behind or at an angle of the one that is in place. Champion: Sounds like a nightmare. Bailey: How is that going to affect that? Franklin: It's just going to take more time because you have to have that additional information and that information either.., well, it would have to be provided by the person seeking the permit, but then would also have to be verified. So... Lehman: It would be kind of neat not having duplexes across the street from each other. Franklin: Well, can it be done? Of course it can be done. I will make a plug that if we had a GIS system it would be easier, Mr. Atkins. (Laughter) Champion: We should have one. It's ridiculous that we don't. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 40 Franklin: I'm with you, Connie. (Laughter) What I've heard so far is...I mean, we haven't heard from all the Council members and I don't have a majority anywhere here... Elliott: I would like frontage, distance and I would like to find a way to have a time so that it would protect exactly the type of situation that Connie and Reginia were talking about. Franklin: So, it wouldn't necessarily require two zones, then. It would be anything existing as of January 1, 2006, or...you know, I'm going to have to think about this and exactly how it would be written because we're talking about areas, we're not talking about property. What you want to distinguish is between existing neighborhoods and new neighborhoods, so it would have to be anything platted after X date. So, then we would have to check the plat as well as whether there was duplex within 150 feet or whatever it was. Elliott: But I'm talking about frontage. Is there a better way that you think would protect the older neighborhoods? Franklin: I would have to say- Elliott: I personally don't see any problem with it but there are those who do so I think they have a point. Bailey: Well, we did hear from people who were concerned. Franklin: The recommendation that Planning and Zoning has made to you, which the staff supports, is that the RS-8 becomes your small lot, single-family zone and that duplexes be allowed on the comers and that was taking in to consideration the issues that you're talking about in terms of protecting the neighborhoods, as well as interjecting that higher-density with the duplex, zero-lot line on the comer, so it still seemed as if it was single-family. So, when you ask me that question, Bob, I have to tell you that the proposal as it has come to you has taken those things into consideration and that's what was determined at our level to be best solution. Elliott: My thought about that is that we keep hearing about the absolute need for affordable housing and we're cutting down the amount of affordable housing in the RS-8 zone. Champion: No, we're not. Franklin: Actually, we're not. When you look at the amount of property that zoned RS-5, RS-8, and RS-12, as Regenia pointed out earlier, the ability to have even smaller lots and more of the attached units...the opportunity is in the RS-12. As we're talking about what comes in the future, the RS-12 zone then is that zone which provides the mix. I think, Dee, in looking at RS-8 as providing that mix, wouldn't This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 40 that make it, then, just as unstable as apparently people perceive the RS-12 to be now? Vanderhoef: I wouldn't think so in that with the separation it would...and not having corners.., they could put them on the corner.., it would be their choice, certainly, if that's the way it platted out for them...there's no problem with it...I think we are cutting down the potential of a lot of duplexes in the RS-8 but still allowing some that can be built in a lesser price range. Champion: But we're allowing it anyway. Howard: ! was just going to add something kind of technical...it may be difficult for developers... I mean, whether it's on the corner or in the mid-block with the separation requirement.., at the platting stage, because duplexes would require a larger lot, at the platting stage they would have to decide at the beginning try to anticipate what the market would be... and say 'Okay, we're deciding to put a duplex in the middle of the block here, but then if the market doesn't respond to that then they've got this really large lot in the middle of the block and so I'm just wondering...the reason the corner lot is nice for that is because it's predictable. You know where the corners are, they tend to be larger lots anyway...because both streets have to have a front yard, so developers tend to plat the corner lots larger because they need more space on that corner. It's also predictable for people moving into the neighborhood...realtors would know...this is a potential duplex lot...so there's just some reasons why the corner lot thing might be a little more predictable in the market and may be a little easier for the developers to use.., and I don't know if the developers have responded to the separation thing or not...maybe they think that's a viable option...but that would require them to plat that lot larger, before they would know if the market would anticipate it or not. Vanderhoefi It's the same thing, it's their choice. Champion: They didn't object to the corner lot..: as long as there was enough zoning to build the duplexes in. Vanderhoef: What? Franklin: As long as there was enough RS-12. Bailey: As long as we RS-12 enough it sounds like that people understand that as long as rezoning is a possibility. Wilburn: I'm willing to go with the proposed code, corner lots, and a stance at developing more RS- 12. Vanderhoef: And that... I think we need to have a little bit of conversation about this RS- 1 2...in that, certainly developers own properties already and have visions for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 40 those properties and it will take a lot of strength on the Council's part to say, 'No, you can't have RS-8 in here...we're only going to put RS-12 because we need RS-12.' O'Donnell: The reason I support separation is with a comer duplex lot, you each have a front- yard but you share a back yard. I've not seen a reasonable design on how each family can have a back yard on that. You can one family with a dog or... or a bunch of kids and you have another family that doesn't like dogs and they have little children or something. I just don't know how that share back-yard works out. Bailey: Here's where I have confidence in the market. Franklin: We had a couple of layouts, Mike...that we showed. O'Donnell: I saw them. Franklin: You didn't think that was adequate? O'Donnell: No. Champion: I think you will actually end up with two duplexes per block if you go with the recommendation. I don't think you're going to get more than two duplexes on a block anyway. Elliott: But you'd have the opportunity of putting one in the middle of the block. I like the idea of diversity and we keep wanting to put different kinds of residence in different kinds of zones and I would like to see more duplexes mixed with single family and single-family mixed with duplexes. I'm told that maybe the market doesn't really like that but I'd sure like to see us try, because I do like the idea of diversity. Franklin: I've got the proposal supported by Regenia, Connie, and Ross. Mike...distance. I don't know whether you four are together or not. Lehman: I'll go along with the recommendation. I really feel strongly about the North Side neighborhoods. Comer duplexes will allow 25% of all those buildings per lot to be duplexes. That gives you diversity. The intention of this, to me, is to ensure the fact that we have a zone that is protected for small-lot single family, which we don't have now. I think the intention is to move duplexes, or a large numbers of them into RS- 12. Elliott: You're the four? Lehman: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 40 Elliott: Alright, let's go on. Lehman: Okay, next issue. Champion: Did we discuss anything else we didn't settle? Lehman: I don't think so. We kicked that around quite a bit. I have some issues but I just think that that is not going to be something that will be hard to live with. O'Donnell: What is that now? Lehman: The RS-8, the way it's proposed...I think it does a lot more positive things then negative. O'Donnell: When we address the property owners as they stand today... Franklin: Any existing RS-8 duplexes are treated as conforming. They're not grandfathered, they're conforming, which is a higher level of acceptance. Champion: That means that if it bums down they can replace them. Franklin: Right, and they can put additions on or whatever, as long as it's still just a duplex. Lehman: Okay, next. Anybody have any issues, let's just go...or you can defer to the next one and come back. Wilbum: I'm going to defer to the next one and come back. Elliott: Okay, we talked about parking. I think that having parking in the rear of virtually any commercial property, when I say commercial...any property that requires people to come in as customers, whether it's a barber shop or a beauty shop or an insurance office or a grocery store or anything like that, parking needs to be in the front. Franklin: That now is required in CB-10, if you have parking, which you usually don't. CB-5, CB-2 - which you've retained now- CN-1 and that's it. All the other commercial zones, the CI-1, the CC-2, CL-1, CH-l, parking can be anywhere. So, it's the neighborhood commercial and the downtown commercial zones which require the parking to be back behind the building or to be screened in some manner. Sometimes it's just almost impossible to get it behind the building. Miklo: When we looked at the CN-1 zone four years ago when this was proposed...one of the things that we heard in the neighborhood planning meetings is that people wanted to see more things like the Deluxe Bakery on Summit Street. They wanted to see more commercial in residential neighborhoods. The question was how do you do that and make it fit into a residential setting. So, the idea was to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 40 allow more smaller CN-1 zones mixed right in. So, we're looking at it differently than the old CN-1 zone on Mormon Trek, which is more akin to a CC-2 zone. Champion: Okay, can I interrupt for a minute? This neighborhood commercial, like the little bakery on Summit Street, which is ideal, but you wouldn't parking in front of that. But are we differentiating between the little bakery on Summit Street and the Fareway shopping center off of Mormon Trek? Howard: The CN-1 could be a range of those type of uses. The grocery store off Mormon Trek, the Fareway, would be the largest thing you would see in CN-1 zone. You wouldn't see a HyVee because they're typically twice the size. Champion: I don't have objection to the parking regulation for some little independent business like a real estate firm or the bakery that is in a residential neighborhood. Of course, that needs to be street-fronted...so ! don't object to that...but my objection...the little place on First Avenue with the pizza place and the gas station...you know which one I mean...First Avenue and Rochester...that little neighborhood commercial area...are you telling me that that could be built or could not be built the way it is? Howard: Probably not exactly the way it is...but some of the parking could be in front, some could be behind. We've got several examples from...you asked last night, Dee, for some examples...we've got several photos of recent shopping centers being built all across the country based on this type of model and they've been quite successful. Franklin: I think the First and Rochester one...not the HyVee side but the newer part where the medical offic.e is...because the bank, Dan Shorts Stop, the building that has a number of uses, and the medical plaza...the medical plaza is pushed up towards First Avenue... the parking.., in terms of percentages, we'd have to look at it, but it's probably pretty close to what we're talking about...so I think it's important to understand that it does not preclude all parking or all access to parking in the front but what it does it try to push it more behind since these are two fit into neighborhoods. In terms of what we're looking about with this code is looking at new ones as we're building new neighborhoods, because everything that's there is done. O'Donnell: Karin, did I understand, 35% of the new zoning can parking be in front? Franklin: Right. If you look at the front of the lot, 65% is up to the build-to line. Then you can actually have your building go back and wrap around... Champion: You can build a square kind of thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 40 Franklin: Right. But you could have...that 35% could be driveway, could be some parking spaces, and then you know...have the parking continue around in the back. There are a number of things in the code that are excepted from this setback. Lehman: How did you arrive at the 65%? Franklin: That was three years ago...how on earth would I remember? (Laughter) Miklo: That was based on some research that Duncan & Associates did in some Chicago suburbs where they were doing new shopping centers of this sort.., and we have some literature here...we can make this available to you...where there are examples and site plans of how it works. Vanderhoef: I just have a question...and I think the neighborhood commercial on First and Rochester... in that one of them uses access on two streets...the other side...well, I guess they both have access in and out...but what would you do if it were not on a comer and you were requiring 65% coverage of the street side...then you obviously would end up having to have a drive, at least a two-way drive to get back to the back.., you would have almost no front or side parking depending on the shape of the land. Franklin: It depends on the size of the lot, yeah, but I mean it's not to say that...remember, we're talking about whole areas, maybe up to ten acres that would be zoned CN-1 in which you would do this. If you recall the site plan for the Scott and Rochester commercial area when we did the rezoning there...that embodies these principles and when we looked at that whole area to rezone it...now that's zoned CC-2, so it wouldn't...these particular requirements wouldn't even apply there...but the concept is the same and as you look at these new areas freshly, as it comes in, because most of them are going to require some kind ofrezoning. The idea is to lay it out at the beginning to enable you to get all of your access taken care and get your parking in there. The existing CN-1 zones, there's no room for redevelopment. They would have to be obliterated and rebuilt. Vanderhoef: What I'm trying to envision is that if you tuck in a small CN-1 zone and you put all the parking in the rear, and I'm thinking of my street as is, Tudor, one side of the street backs up to a full parking lot so if you put all of the parking in the rear then you've got potentially on the other side of the block, a whole row of housing that those back yards back up to a parking lot. Franklin: You have to, then, when you're doing the site plan for that, that would require that all of that be screened all the way around because there's something in the code now and is in the new one, that if you have a commercial use that is next to a residential, you have to provide screening for that commercial property from the residential and that would have to be built into the site plan just to comply with the code. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 40 Vanderhoefi But those don't sell as well...the homes that back up to there...even if the screening is there.., and I can mention my street again...those houses...we've had two that have sat there...one has sat there for over a year...I don't know what else is wrong with the house...but certainly the location to back up to that... Franklin: Well, if you have the parking in the front, you're going to have the same issue with what's alongside of it. Vanderhoef: But if the building screens it from all the surrounding... O'Donnell: Well, then the parking in the front faces the street...so that's a big difference. Lehman: One of the concerns, I think, that may have some validity, particularly in a neighborhood commercial if there is any size to it at all.., businesses like to look busy...and if all the parking is in the rear, then I think it's going to be a lot tougher to lease the space than if there is some indication as you're driving by that there are people doing business there. Now, I understand an office building or a destination place, I don't have an issue with that because I think people know where they're going.., but if they're driving by and they want... I think a parking facility that shows activity is inviting for people to stop. If we hide most of that parking, I'm not sure it's good for the economic benefit of the... Franklin: If what you need is visibility and that demonstration of auto-access and a lot of people are driving to that business to make it successful then it probably should be zoned CC-2 and not CN-1. Remember, CN-1 is about trying to fit these commercial pieces into neighborhoods.., so that they are easily accessible to people by walking...by coming by the... Lehman: How big can they be? Franklin: Up to ten acres and that's the most it can be. Lehman: But that ten-acre lot is entirely too big. That should be CC-2. If it's ten acres in size then it's big enough that the parking ought to be visible. If we're talking about a small CN-1 neighborhood shopping area, I understand that, but when you get up to ten acres you're looking at a size that ought to be CC-2 anyway. Elliott: What kind of business do you envision... CN-1 is what we're talking about. Franklin: They are to be neighborhood-oriented businesses. I mean, the typical things that you get would be convenience stores...you won't find a small grocery store...it's just not going to happen...the economics just aren't there. You could possibly have the car wash associated with the convenience store, you might have a beauty salon, a small restaurant, a dental office, a doctor's office, a day care is a very good one, a small bakery like Summit...those things that can flourish by serving a small number of rooftops. Now, we usually place them on the edges of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 40 neighborhoods, however, so that they are accessible from a number of different neighborhoods...but...if...the main feature of the CN-1 is that it is for neighborhood oriented business and that it is pedestrian oriented. If you don't have that then there's really no sense in having CN-1 at all...just have CC-2 and open it up...but then you're not going to get commercial zoning within neighborhoods because people will resist it. They don't have the big parking lot with the high lights...but they do want something small that is accessible to them that they can walk to. Elliott: If it's just meant to walk to it...that's something...but if anybody is going to drive a car, they want to see whether there is parking space there or not. If it's limited to pedestrian traffic, I've got no problem. Franklin: Nothing will be limited to pedestrian traffic because that's not practical. Vanderhoef: That isn't what happens because if you live in the neighborhood and you're going out to do errands or go to a meeting...yes, I can walk up to the HyVee Drug Town easily or Dan's Short Stop, but I can on the way home swing in and do whatever it is that I'm going to do. Franklin: And do you have to have the parking out front in order to do that? Vanderhoef: I tell you what...if the parking lot is full, I'll say 'I'11 get it when I go out later this afternoon.' Champion: What about side parking lots...like that Drug Town has a side parking lot. Bailey: That's why I think the 35/65, especially in CN-1 balances it nicely. ! don't think that there is a lot of traffic. If you think of Deluxe... I don't care if it's busy or not...I'm going to stop anyway. I don't need to know that it's a busy, happening place. I just need to know that I can park there. Elliott: But if that alley is full then I drive by because there is no place to park. Wilbum: This is the wrong area and may no be a fair comparison...but the Godfathers on the southwest...but most of the parking is behind it. Elliott: I hate it...but again... Franklin: Maybe it's time to see if there are four Council members who - Vanderhoefi Just a minute. Franklin: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 40 Vanderhoefi You hit on something that I had also been thinking about with parking in the rear and neighborhood safety and lighting. We certainly have our lighting laws and we know how we can shade parking lot lights and we can dim them to a certain extent, but for neighborhood safety, if the parking is out in front, close to the street, it is very visible to our police force as they cruise by and it keeps the lights out of the back yards and the second story bedroom windows.., all of those kinds of things...I don't know if that's what we want to do...tuck them in and hide them and screen them and make that a place to pull in quickly at 2:00am at night and do whatever they're going to do and come back out. Champion: You can have 35% of your parking...it doesn't have to be behind...just if your employees park in there. Lehman: Is Mormon Trek Village CN-1 ? Franklin: Yes, that is CN-1 and that's too big. That's like 15 acres...it's kind of gotten out o f hand. Lehman: To me, I don't consider that strictly neighborhood...people shop there from all over. Franklin: That's much more like CC-2. Lehman: To me, this sort of standard would not be appropriate for an area that large. Franklin: We agree. Elliott: One more...I'm going to be in favor of parking in front or at least if...some of those businesses you indicated would need to have two fronts then...because if you park in the back and go in the door in the back then you have to have something that greets people either both from the front and the back. Franklin: There is a project in Coralville, since I think they've adopted this standard, in their neighborhood commercial on Oakdale Boulevard and 22nd or 23rd, I'm not sure which one it is. Now, there parking is interior to the project and then there is a berm with landscaping and then the buildings are then up to that berm. I wouldn't say that it's a stellar example of how you do this, because it does kind of present a blank faCade to the street, but there are ways that you can do it that you don't have to put two doors in if you don't want to. Again, this is built on the premise that a lot of the people...it gives an opportunity to people to walk to a comer store, to have their kids walk to a comer store and have their kids go in and shop. Bailey: How does that work? If the parking would be in front...how does that work when you're adjacent to a house? Summit Street is an example. How does that work? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 40 Elliott: We are...as human beings we're always contradictions to ourselves... I love the bakery on Summit Street...I love it the way it is...but she can only handle just a very few people at a time...because there's room for only - Bailey: Right, and that's what neighborhood commercial really is. Elliott: That's what I say...if it is truly something that is mainly pedestrian with only a half-a-dozen cars, then I have no problem with that...but if you want to put in something that will attract maybe a dozen cars or so...then I know, for instance, my wife is often hesitant to go into the HyVee, even as large as that is, say, when we come home from some place around 9:00 or 10:00pm and if it were around in back she would not want to even sit in the car while I went in. Howard: I just want to interject something here because I think there's some misconceptions about what the standard does. The standard is that we have the 35/65...but it's only along the street frontage that has the (unclear)...so, I have a picture here that shows a commercial area that has...the idea is that you want the parking to be visible...you want people to know that there is lots of parking available...parking is power...we know that for commercial areas...people will drive to commercial areas. You also, with the neighborhood commercial, then want that pedestrian oriented.., so you want both things.., you want the parking visible and secure and the lighting adequate and all that sort of thing. So, if you have something on the comer or you have something with any size at all, only one of those street frontages, you can have a big gap of 35% that shows everybody that this is where you enter our shopping center...you can see all the parking area, you can see all the buildings. On the other comer you might have quite a bit of parking that is quite accessible from the street. I'll just hand this around because it really shows some different ways you can do it because it's only along one street frontage. Lehman: If you had a corner lot, it's conceivable, you could put the building...let's say it's a thousand foot property...650 feet could be off, for example, to the right, there could be 350 feet to the left that is all parking and then all the way down the other street could be parking. Franklin: Right. Lehman: My suspicion is that most neighborhood commercial would prefer to be on a comer. Howard: Right, and a lot of time they'll build an extra street so you might have part of it on an arterial street but then you might have another intersecting street that comes by... I'll just hand this out to show you what this particular shopping center has done. O'Donnell: What is our number one complaint we hear in downtown? It's parking. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 40 Lehman: Even though we have 3700 parking spots. O'Donnell: Right, but we're talking about a convenience store and the very name in there is convenient. They want to pull up to the front, mn in, get something and leave. There's some very good points brought up about parking behind a building. I think there is a safety factor today. Champion: Can we pass the picture around? O'Donnell: I will. Lehman: But if 35% of it can be beside it... Bailey: CC-2 is completely different in my perspective...but CN-1 is - O'Donnell: But there's a lot of things that could not be built today with this new zoning in CC-1...to have the parking. Convenient parking, Emie, is what I'm talking about. Lehman: If you're located on a corner lot, what couldn't be built? O'Donnell: The purpose, Emie, is to move the building forward and conceal the cars. Lehman: Only 35% of them. Bailey: In a lot of neighborhoods, keep in mind, too, that there is street parking. That's another consideration. Now, Bob would drive by...but I would park a block away and still go in and get my cookie. Vanderhoefi She's going to walk it off. Elliott: Any merchant who has any kind of business for which people might drive to, that merchant is going to want parking in the front. So, when you drive by you see if there is a parking space or not. If you're going to discourage automobile traffic there, then that's up to the merchant to settle that. Bailey: This is CN-1. CN-1, some of those businesses are really small...l'm thinking of that restaurant on Melrose...the parking is in the back and it's a very small restaurant. Champion: But it's also on a comer...so people... Bailey: But the food is good enough that if you had to park a block away then you would. Champion: My confusion with this zone is because I can see what staff is recommending for Taste on Melrose. Look at Market Street... all those little businesses.., like on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 40 Linn Street...people park in a parking lot that is quite a bit away but you know it's a City-owned parking lot. What worries me is are we going to be interfering with what is built on Mormon Trek, because I think that's a very valuable commercial area.., and it's not like downtown where all the buildings should be on the street.., downtown is different, we can't relate the two.., it's totally different. Linn Street and Market Street are ideal for what you're saying. I think Mercy Hospital is a good example...their little clinic on Rochester or First Avenue. That faces the street but parking is readily...you can see the parking. I can't remember where it's all.., it's also in between the commercial area with the bank and stuff and then...you can see the parking and I think that's important that you can see the parking. Franklin: That's why it's only 65% for the building... Vanderhoef: If you were to take that comer lot and you were trying to address the safety issues of anything behind and to make those properties more viable.., you'd push the building next to the lot line between the housing and the commercial and face the commercial out to the center.., so you can vision an L-shape along those lines.., but if the lot is too small on the corner then you have traffic interference because the drives in and out because you have to go 65% on the face then you've pushed the drives right out and conflicting with the comer turn traffic, so it would take quite a large lot to make that happen. Franklin: I haven't followed you, I'm sorry...I don't know where you are. Vanderhoef: If you have an L-shaped lot like this. Howard: But you don't have to...you can put another building behind...there's no standard that says you can't put another building behind...just one of the buildings.., in other words you can have a commercial center where you have a U-shaped... so you'd have one of the buildings pulled up to the street and you'd have the one- street frontage and like the picture shows, there's a lot of street frontage where the parking is up along the street so if you have a comer lot, like Emie said, along one street frontage, you'd have the building pulled up... so you could have the parking between a cluster of buildings and then on a corner lot you'd probably have two access points back from the comer for the safety reasons.., and that's another standard in the CN-1 zone is that you can't have the parking real close to the comer because of those reasons. Vanderhoef: I'm trying to vision it like the K-Mart, Cub Food in a smaller size. That L- shape...but get those two buildings on the lot lines...they don't have happen to have housing behind...but just scale that down to a smaller... Howard: If you scaled that down...K-Mart the idea is that you build some buildings up near the street and you'd have then buildings back from the street, parking in the middle... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 40 Vanderhoef: But that's all connected. Franklin: Is that what you want? Vanderhoef: That's what I'm thinking is that that walls it off from the neighborhood... Howard: You could do that. You'd probably have your zoning...if you're planning a new area you'd, of course, plan your zoning lines, your residential areas, the type of residential that would be next to the commercial, your commercial center...to take all those things into account...the privacy issues, the pedestrian... (TAPE ENDS) Howard: Figure it to fit the site...I think... Vanderhoef: But what it amounts to, if you look at the K-Mart example is that the building closest to the road does not face.., it faces so that the parking is in front and you move in and there are choices there the door is and if you had that same length with five little shops, there could be five little doors in what is the equivalent of the K-Mart...that you would end up with the walled-off area behind so that you don't have this feel of spill-over into the residential area. Howard: Sure, you can plan that that way and still meet this standard. I don't understand how that would not allow you meet the standard that is in the code. Vanderhoef: Because of the depth, I would think...that if you face it to the center of the lot and you have to have sixty-five percent of the frontage, at least on one street, that would make it a very long and potentially very skinny shop. Franklin: Depending upon the size of the lot. Miklo: I guess it's difficult in dealing with hypothetical situations and that's one of the things when Duncan & Associates...these were tested in Chicago suburbs and there are examples out there of shopping centers being built and again here's another illustration. Bailey: No more car-oriented cultures any more. Miklo: This shows that there are examples of shopping centers meeting these principles without us having to design where the door is or... Franklin: We can only have one conversation going on here, sorry. Wilburn: I guess I just have to go back to reading the definition of the zone...unified grouping of small-scale retail, personal services, to blend in with the neighborhood. I keep going back to the Mercy Clinic in your neighborhood. It's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 40 important to people in the neighborhood how that fits in there. That was a major complaint that we had from people about... Bailey: That parking lot is never full...it's in the front...it's very visible but you never, ever see it full... 3 5% of that frontage could have been fronting with additional parking in the back if it was needed...but it's a big white slab of concrete next to somebody's front yard. Wilburn: Staff had worked with the builder on the screening and all that stuff to try and give us something to say to the neighborhood in hopes that it would blend in... so it just seems to make sense to me to proactively try to do some things to make it fit in... again.., the smaller... Champion: Would you read that to me again? Wilbum: Again...promote a unified grouping of small-scaled retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area. Encourage neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located that primarily serve residential neighborhoods, promote pedestrian oriented, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design, allowed use is restricted in size to promote smaller neighborhood-serving businesses and to limit the adverse impact on nearby residential areas. So, it's about trying to blend it in. Bailey: I think it's a nice balance 35/65. Wilburn: I don't think, for me, it's not helpful to think of CC-2 areas and try to squeeze that in because you're not talking about those type of businesses here and they're not going to want to come to a neighborhood commercial area. Elliott: What's the area around Mercy that we looked at? For instance, what is the zone for the surgical services office? Franklin: CL-1...and that's not an issue. Elliott: My only thought is if you're going to have any automobile traffic, you need it visibly from the front. If you want to do something that doesn't have...that has very minimal like the bakery, then I've got no problem with it. Bailey: In listening to Ross' reading of the definition, that seems to be the intent...that it its...it's not like it's closed to automobile traffic...but it's fundamentally pedestrian. Champion: It's not going to be K-Mart or a Fareway shopping area. It's going to be small. Could be a dental office or a bakery or a pizza joint. Elliott: I think everybody's mind is made up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 40 Franklin: At this point, are there four Councilors who - O'Donnell: One thing, ask any business owner where he would like his building and he'd tell you in front. Bailey: Then they should locate it in a zone that's appropriate for that. Elliott: How many are interested in front? Franklin: How many people want to change the CN-1 zone such that there is no restriction in terms of where the parking is cited? I'm seeing three... Lehman: Ross had a very good point. We're all sitting here thinking of Fareway and thinking of a very large area that is not what CN-1 is intended to be. If you've got a barber shop, a beauty shop, a quik-trip, my suspicion is...the 65% frontage...does that include the gas pumps? O'Donnell: Yeah, can you have gas pumps in CN-I? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Well, yeah, because of the convenience stores... O'Donnell: And where do you put those? Franklin: You put them in the 35%. O'Donnell: Offon the side of the building? Franklin: I don't know. Lehman: You're not going to want to put gas pumps where you're having to drive back and forth to the parking lot. Franklin: I think you could fit it in...the flexibility that you have between that 65 & 35%...I don't know why you couldn't do it. Elliott: Especially now, you have to be able to see the gas pumps and all the activity at the pumps. Franklin: At this point I've got three people who want to make a change? Champion: What do you mean who want to make a change? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 40 Franklin: Who want to change the CN-1 zone such that the parking is unrestricted. Okay. Thanks for moving us, Ross. Lehman: Ross, do you have something you want to bring up... seeing as how you passed on the first trip? Wilburn: I want to keep quiet now. ! had said at a work session before...I am willing to adopt this as proposed. There are others that have concerns and I'm just waiting to respond. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: I'll pass for the moment. Lehman: Well, I guess I won't. I guess this is a clarification as much as anything else. On page 381, which is talking about the 2/3rds vote of a commission will be necessary to pass.. Franklin: Can I just - Lehman: Yes. Franklin: We're going to take the 2/3rds out of there and just have it the four votes. That's all it was ever intended to be. Lehman: I thought that...but then if you read the last sentence of 3B, which requires that the Council meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission, which I don't disagree with, but it says 'defer further action until a discussion has taken place between the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission' and I don't disagree with that but I'm not at all sure there shouldn't be some time-frame in there. Dilkes: What page are you on, Ernie? Franklin: 3 81-3 82. Lehman: Top of 382. Dilkes: All that requires is that a discussion take place. Lehman: I realize that, but shouldn't there be a time frame that that discussion needs to be...in no less than two weeks or three weeks or what happens if the two decide they don't want to talk to each other? Dilkes: That would be in Council's control because Council could just schedule a meeting and if they didn't come you could move on, I think. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 40 Wilburn: Your concern is to try to make it timely to keep things moving... Lehman: Right, so that neither of them could block the other. Vanderhoef: The 2/3rds think you said... Lehman: Is to change to four. Champion: Does Jeremy have something? Elliott: Ernie, I got a see a man about a horse, pretty quickly. Lehman: Okay, we need to have a horse break. (BREAK) Schreiber: My moment in the sun. Lehman: Your moment in the sun. Champion: The only moment you're going to get. Schreiber: I guess, the issue that I would like and is most pertinent to myself and students around the City is non-related occupancy issue that we've heard about recently. I would like to hear what the Council thinks about that particular issue.., see if there is any possibly way for negotiation on what is currently going to go into the code.., see if there is any way we can come to a compromise so that it's not so drastic...because I feel the way it's written right now will negatively effect student's living situations and their ability to live in the situations that they should have access to. Champion: Do you have a compromise solution? Schreiber: I don't know...are there other ways such as limiting the occupancy to the number of bedrooms and not allowing people to add on to bedrooms.., looking at other ways so that this doesn't pass the way it is...because the way that this...this is basically limiting the number of students housing available outside of apartments and dorms. I think the students should have just as much opportunity to live in a house because a lot of people don't want to live in an apartment by the time they've come to their senior year. It's not necessarily something...just having the opportunity to go out on your porch and grill. This says that it's not manageable to have this number of students in a place. It says, specifically, groups of unrelated individuals tend to operate less than households living together for convenience and financial reasons. Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to live together for convenience and financial reasons...because This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 40 it's cheaper to live in a house than it is to live in a new apartment and you have certain freedoms of living in a house that you don't have in an apartment. Champion: Like house parties? (Laughter) Schreiber: No...what, apartment parties don't exist? Champion: I'm just teasing you. Franklin: Does everybody understanding that the occupancy that is in place now will continue? Which is a new thing. Schreiber: Unless the house is sold to somebody who uses it for another purpose. Franklin: If the use is abandoned, however, it can be sold and still be under the same rental permit with the same number of occupants. Schreiber: But once somebody sells and uses it at as a single family, that forever is out of the mix as a rental property. Franklin: That is correct. It's not that...ifthey... Schreiber: Well, at that occupancy. Franklin: Possibly. It depends on the particular situation and whether the occupancy that is granted under the rental permit is higher than what would be allowed by the this code. The code does not eliminate the option for roomers. It just diminishes it in some zones. Schreiber: RNS-12 and RNS-20, right, which is primarily student zones. Franklin: They are the older neighborhoods, yeah. Schreiber: In the zones where this will most likely occur...I mean once something goes from a four to a three, if you're only allowed three...unless people are doing illegally, there is no economic reason why anyone would ever want to rent that house again because it's just going to be much more expensive to rent three people in what should be a four-person home. You're splitting it four ways instead of three and obviously basic math shows that it's not going...from this point on we simply go downhill...there's no possible way ever to increase it but there's plenty of ways in which we can decrease the number of students housing. We've basically capped off the number of student houses anywhere close to campus and it will only go down from here. Bailey: In my experience, most of those houses, at least on the north side, would sell to somebody who is interested in continuing the rental permit. In fact, what even This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 40 more frequently happens is that more single-family homes go to be used for rentals, for I'm not sure that it really will diminish those...that ability to rent to that many occupants because the rental permit would continue. Very few people would buy something that has been rental to be used for a single family. At least on the North side, in my experience. Schreiber: So then what is the point of this law at all, then? Champion: The point of it is...places like...we'll use an example by that one man last night... I can't remember his name, but, like South Johnson...which maybe only has two single family houses on it. I doubt very much if that neighborhood, that block, is ever going to turn over to single family and probably those single families will sell that to rental properties. What this protects is not necessarily immediate student...what I call the high-rental areas of those residential neighborhoods. What it does protect is the areas of those neighborhoods that are highly single family dwellings where there's only single families living in them now. The areas that most students live in are high rental areas so those houses probably aren't going to be converted into single family ever, but I like the protection that it gives the neighborhoods that might have.., for instance, my neighborhood, that has probably...just in my block. Schreiber: What are you zoned? Just out of curiosity? Champion: RS-8 are we? The house next to me is a rental. The house down the street is a rental, the duplex across the street is a rental...the house on the comer is a rental and this is just in my block...not the whole Summit Street. What happens is that those houses will probably always remain rental.., although the one next to me may not always remain rental...but the house wouldn't hold more than three people anyway...the reason that I see it as protection...one of the houses on Summit was converted into three apartments. That house is for sale now. That house has been destroyed for single family. You couldn't possibly - a single family is never going to buy that house because the asking price is high, because it's rental, and second thing is that it needs a tremendous amount of work and the third thing is that to rehab that house would probably take a couple of hundred thousand dollars just to get it livable, because they've done things like all the inner stairways are ripped out, with external stairways for the apartments. What it protects is our single-family houses from being turned in to only rental that couldn't possibly be used again for single family because nobody could afford to buy them and rehab them. That's what ! see as the protection, not necessarily getting rid of student rental houses...because I agree with you.., students should have that option. Some of those streets that people were talking about last night are so highly rented that I can't imagine that it's ever going to be a problem. I'm more concerned about the parts of Fairchild, Davenport, Lucas...not necessarily Lucas... Elliott: Lucas is lost. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 40 Champion: Yeah, Lucas is lost. Bailey: And it would have to be East Fairchild because closer to campus is mostly rentals. Schreiber: Do we have a map nearby that shows exactly where those are cut off to the zones? Is there any way that RNS-12 or RNS-20 zone could excluded from this law so that then in those areas that we don't have the risk of losing homes in those highly-rental.., so that the one or two could potentially ever go to rentals if they wanted to? O'Donnell: I think the point is...and the point that Mike was making last night is the one you're speaking of that has been converted into three apartments...that's different than somebody renting a house with three or four bedrooms. If you rent a house to a group of students with three or four bedrooms and share a common kitchen and common living area and so forth...that's easily converted into single family. The rental permit doesn't pass along then... Champion: But they probably wouldn't want to pass it on. O'Donnell: Unless they sell their house. Champion: They won't to pass it along. O'Donnell: It depends upon who wants to buy it. Elliott: Am I to understand, last night at the end of discussion, a house has a rental permit for a maximum.., say.., four students. Franklin: Four unrelated people. Elliott: Four unrelated people, I'm sorry. That would stay that way whether or not it's rented for four. It could be rented to three but next year go back to four? If it is sold it can be sold to someone who will also rent it to four students. It could change only if it sold and turned into a no rental? Is that correct? Franklin: If the use is abandoned...that is, if it is used for another use in our zoning, such as single family, that then that rental permit with the four roomers is abandoned as a use and it can not be retrieved...assuming that is in excess of what is allowed in that zone? Elliott: It would carry this limit in perpetuity as long as it remains in that status? The probability of it being sold for a single family is slight because the cost would be prohibitive. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 40 Howard: That's not quite right. The occupancy is different than the use. So, for example, the rental permit, you can always have four...but say the example of the house that Mike brought up where it's still a single-family house, they rent it one year to four unrelated people. The next time say a family that wants to rent it...it's still...a family of any size can rent it...the restriction is the number of family plus so many roomers or the definition of a household means several things. You can have a household that is a family, you can have a household that is a family plus so many roomers, or you can have a certain number of unrelated that form a household, so that rental permit of four unrelated people or a family or disabled people that meet the definition of a family, all those forms of households all would allow it be rented under that permit. Elliott: But then it could still go back to four unrelated people? Howard: Right. Bailey: As long as it had a rental permit. Howard: It's the permit that gives that, not the change of use. Lehman: Eleanor has something to say. Dilkes: I talked with Doug about this this morning. The hypothetical that was presented last night by Greg Allen was that 'Okay, I've got a rental permit with an occupancy of four that is grandfathered in. And I can't rent it...or I choose one semester to rent it to three...does that mean...' He was arguing that the City would then only allow him three after that. O'Donnell: And that was right? Bailey: No. Dilkes: You start with...no, that really isn't right. The actual use control is not the permit. I mean, if you have a rental permit out there, let's say theoretically you have a rental permit out there but it's not been rented for three years. Just the fact that you had the rental permit doesn't mean that you've got that use. So, theoretically, yes, something like that might happen, but what Doug said is that the rental permits are on a two-to-three year period and so those things don't even come to the attention of the City unless they're brought by complaint...then they might be investigated. Howard: We're talking about apples and oranges here because Doug is talking about something that would be like a non-conforming use. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 40 Dilkes: No, he's not. We talked specifically about the number of roomers. Well, then you might want to get Doug here to talk to you about it because this is how he explained it to me. Lehman: If I have a permit for four and I, in fact, rent to three...the use is three. The permit is four, the use is three. Does the use, then, prohibit me from going back and getting a permit for four after the use has been three? Howard: But it's not the use...it's the occupancy...so we can't mix the use and the occupancy. Franklin: This terminology is what we're getting confused on. I'm going to go get Doug. Dilkes: Good idea. I think you should get Doug. (Laughter) Howard: Thanks a lot, Jeremy. (Laughter) Champion: We need an answer for that. Lehman: Let me just say that I support the recommendation on this.., for a number of reasons. First of all, we do not reduce at all the number of rental units that are available...they are available and they can be kept in perpetuity at the same density and the same number of people who are staying there that are presently allowed. Almost all of the homes in the older par of the city were built as single family homes. Many, many of those homes have been changed into rental units.., certainly that has not been to the benefit of the neighborhoods and I think we have literally changed the character of a lot of the really good old neighborhoods. Those were designed to be and intended to be single-family dwellings. Now, obviously there have been changes over the years. We have a tremendous amount of property in this community that have been built specifically for rental uses. I really feel that it is in the best interest of the community and of the neighborhoods to protect the homes that we have left to see to it that they are not changed into rental units and let rental properties be used for the purposes they were intended. Doug, you're in the hot seat. Boothroy: Whatever I did, I didn't do it. (Laughter) Dilkes: Remember the situation that I talked to you about this morning, that's what they need explanation of. Champion: I also think that what happened in some of those neighborhoods, because of our zoning, was that people added bedrooms. That's why we went to a conservation district on Lucas Street, or whatever street it was that we did a couple of years ago, because of that horrible monstrosity that was added. Elliott: I want to hear the answer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 40 Dilkes: Remember this morning, Doug, you and I talked about, and I gave you the hypothetical that Greg Allen raising about... 'I've got a rental permit for four.., or allows me occupancy of four unrelated people and one semester I chose to only rent it to three...is the next semester the City going to come in and say I can only rent it to three. Boothroy: The answer is no. Atkins: Okay, you can leave now. (Laughter) O'Donnell: Doug, I have one question. The question that I have specifically...if you have a four bedroom home that is rented to four students.., four unrelated people.., and it's sold to a single family, you lose your rental permit? Dilkes: That's a different question. O'Donnell: That's the question I've been trying to get at... Boothroy: That is a different question. Dilkes: That is a different question. O'Donnell: I would like this question answered. Boothroy: Sure, I'll answer it. O'Donnell: If you have a four-bedroom home that is rented to four unrelated, it's sold to a single family, the rental permit does not pass with it, then when you go to sell it, you can only rent to three people. Is that how I understand this? Boothroy: If you change the use, Mike, to a single family owner occupied then you're nonconforming status would disappear because you changed that use. Schreiber: Or for some reason the place is damaged beyond 75% of the appraised value then that loses it's - Boothroy: I don't know necessarily that that is the case...if there was a disaster in you're rebuilding that you would lose it. In the case where you intentionally change the use, then we would treat that as a change of use and it would not be grandfathered any more. Bailey: But, if I bought it and still wanted to have a rental permit and he had a rental permit before, I could still have the rental permit, if I am the new owner. Boothroy: If you're going to rent it, yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 40 Elliott: You can't change to single family and then change back to rental? Boothroy: You could as long as it complies with the code is existence at that time. Vanderhoef: The argument that was being made is that the family who bought the home as a four occupancy home lost the rental permit and had it come back by someone who wanted to buy it and rent it, it would only come back as three occupants and that the value of that home had decreased then by twenty-five percent because then the income from that home... Champion: Maybe. Boothroy: There would be a decrease in value, possibly, but I don't know what that would be. It's apotential... Vanderhoef: Potential income off of the property decreases. Champion: But it might increase in value as a single family residence. Boothroy: Possibly. Bailey: If you put that Viking stove in the kitchen, it might. Boothroy: It depends upon the neighborhood. Champion: Or wood floors? Vanderhoefi There was a whole bunch of talk last night from Mike Laughlin about the various non-conforming sections and I'm trying to get those straightened out. Can somebody give me the different ones or where I can find it? I looked for it briefly this morning but I didn't find it. Howard: The non-conforming section in a zoning code is very important. It's intended to create flexibility as things change over time. If you didn't have a non-conforming section and something changed, you wouldn't have any rights. You would immediately have to come in compliance with the code. So, it's very important to have a non-conforming section of the code. What we try to do is think of all the different ways that we've had problems with all the non-conforming section, to date, and try to create even more flexibility so that people who have existing businesses, existing homes, existing properties, that have made investments in those could have some flexibility to make changes over time. One of the problems in the current code is that we have a non-conforming use, we have non- conforming structures and we have non-conforming lots. The restrictions are different based on those three things. The most restrictive is if it's a non- conforming use. Because we didn't have categories for say, non-conforming This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 40 parking and non-conforming occupancy in these other non-conforming developments, if you had anything but a non-conforming structure or non- conforming lot, and you had a non-conformity, you immediately fell in the most restrictive category which was non-conforming use.., which meant that you couldn't expand it... so it created a lot of potential problems for people where they had something they wanted to do with their property and because that was such a restrictive category...we created these new categories...non-conforming development and created flexibility.., for example, with parking and other site elements that were non-conforming such that you wouldn't have to necessarily, if you had an existing business, and you have non-conforming parking, for example, not enough parking spaces, when you add square footage to your building you don't have to bring your entire lot into compliance, you just have to add the extra parking that you need for your addition.., so it didn't automatically tip you into the non-conforming use category which means you couldn't expand at all. So, we tried to create much more flexibility in our non-conforming use section and what was referred to last night by Mr. McLaughlin, I think they're misunderstanding those regulations. They are some of the more difficult regulations to understand. If, as Mr. Greg Allen said, we got rid of that section on non-conforming occupancy, as soon as your rental permit expired, you would have to comply with the code. Lehman: Under the new non-conformities, you can make changes that do not increase the non-conformity. Isn't that the test? Howard: Right. Lehman: Which is much, much, much better because you could technically be non- conforming for some particular reason and still maintain the property, whereas before you couldn't do that. Howard: We just tried to make the regulations make sense. Wilburn: And over time as you make further changes, the overall building becomes closer to the newer zoning, is that correct? Howard: Right. You can't do anything that extends or increases your non-conforming but you can make changes that don't. Lehman: Which you couldn't do before. Howard: In some cases. Vanderhoefi Where is that located? Wilburn: 227. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 40 Lehman: While they're looking for that...in reference to non-conformity and damage...we are changing the percentage of destruction...it used to be 100% and now we're trying to change it to 75% of the assessed value. I think, in particularly, the older part of the city, where there may very well be homes that have permits to rent to four unrelated people and may have an inflated price when it comes to selling those...to me it's entirely conceivable that if someone were to purchase one of those properties, based on the present rental permit being that of renting to four unrelated to people, and the building were destroyed in excess of 75%, the mortgage could be significantly greater than 75%. In other words...there could be a tremendous amount...now usually assessed value and selling price are rarely the same. In fact they're usually quite a bit different. I can see where the 75% of assessed value could create some significant problems with properties that have mortgages on them. Lending institutions tend to lend more than 75% of appraised value, which is quite a bit more, many times, than assessed values. See what I'm getting at? Maybe we should look at that percentage of appraised value...or insured value. I think we may be creating some real financial difficulties for some folks that we are not trying to do. Franklin: The assessed value has been in there for a number of years and I think probably it's there because there was an ease in getting it. Appraised value then is something that would have to be determined each time. Insured value would be recorded. Let us look at that and see what... Lehman: Insured value usually says replacement. Dilkes: I don't think insured value makes sense but maybe just fair market value. Franklin: That would be appraised value. Dilkes: That's going to make it more cumbersome but it would - Franklin: It doesn't happen that often. Lehman: I think the situation of fair market value of 75% would be much more fair to the property owner and still kind of take care of what we're trying to do. Do folks agree with that? Okay, so that will be changed to fair market value. Champion: Very good point. Franklin: Can you give me a page number? Bailey: 231. Franklin: Thank you. What did you all decide on occupancy? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 40 Schreiber: I guess in response to what Ernie said a little bit earlier...as far as there being places that were built specifically for rental...those are all apartments or what you're eluding to, and the vast majority of those are run by people who I would rather chop my right off than ever to give my money again...but living in an apartment is much different than having the opportunity to live in a house where when living in an apartment you're dealing with the noise of people around you, you're not able to sit in your yard, sit on porch and barbecue when the weather is nice, you're not given afforded options that anybody else in this town would easily be afforded the option to do. I don't like being herded into places that were designated for us. You may as well build a couple more dorms and shove everybody in there for all four years if that's the case. Lehman: But we're not changing the number of dwelling units whatsoever with this code. Schreiber: But it's possible that it will change negatively and it's not possible that they will change positively. Is there any way that we could look at which zones that we've already talked about that you say would never change. If they're never going to change then there's no point in putting a law on it if we can keep the law off of that.., in certain areas that are already lost to the students. Franklin: Jeremy, is this based on a notion that over time what's going to happen is that we're going to lose a lot of opportunity for occupancy? Schreiber: I think there's the possibility there to lose the occupancy but no where to gain it. The only way that it can go from here is down and you can't say for certain that you're not losing the stuff over the years. Franklin: The reduction in the occupancy is in... Schreiber: RNS-12, RNS-20, RS-12, RS-8... Franklin: It's all the existing older neighborhoods and then the stabilization areas where the whole effort in those RNS zones was to stabilize the neighborhood with the mix that was there. Those usually were higher-density zoned neighborhoods that then it was either going to...an option was presented to past City Councils of either down-zoning them because there was neighborhood upheaval, so many apartments coming in and real change-over in the neighborhood and the solution was to develop a zone which was a stabilization zone and what that allowed was everything that was there at the time, in terms of it's density, in terms of apartments, duplexes, whatever...was able to stay but any new development was in RNS-12 single family duplex. The whole idea was just kind of keep the lid on how much was redeveloping for multi-family in those areas. Elliott: Can you do that with what Jeremy is talking about? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 40 Franklin: Well, what I think that Jeremy is asking is that we take away the reduction in occupancy that is proposed in these particular zones. Elliott: Because on one hand you're saying that I can remain the same as kind of non- conforming. I'm not sure what name you put to it. But you say it's never going to change in reality, so can you make it so that they are not non-conforming.., so that it's okay to have that there but you can't have additional ones. Is that what you just said? Franklin: I think so. (Laughter) Lehman: You're saying grandfathered and that's not what we're saying. Elliott: You can't do that then...because I thought I heard you say that you're not saying that if it changes hands you lose the rental capacity...I thought you said you're just holding the lid on...whatever is rental now for unrelated people can stay that way.., it's not non-conforming, you just can't have additional ones. Franklin: Exactly. What is there now, what is on the rental permit now is maintained unless that rental permit is abandoned. Elliott: See, I thought you said that that wouldn't happen...that whether it changes to single family it could stay that way. Franklin: No, that' s a very basic principle throughout the code and that is if you abandoned a right then you have to comply with the law as it is today. Elliott: That's Jeremy's concern, I think, is you're saying what will happen is what he wants to happen but he's saying that if it's going to happen anyway, why don't you quit making the change? O'Donnell: Jeremy is saying over time... Elliott: I just misunderstood you.., so erase it. Vanderhoef: I have a possibility that over time I'm asking you, Jeremy, do you think that what we have in place in the RS-8 and now increasing into the RS-12, that the zero-lot line homes may well become the place where three unrelated or four unrelated students might chose to live if they want a home type situation versus the big apartment houses and dorms and all those things. Lehman: The location and proximity to campus really is the key. Schreiber: The proximity to campus and the ability to have another option of a place to live that is not an apartment run by the same people. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 40 Elliott: Or a dorm. Schreiber: Or a dorm. Vanderhoef: So, what you would be requesting is if that were the solution to having a more home-like residence is to have zoning someplace close to downtown where these new ones could be put in and what we decided today is that in these older neighborhoods those can be put in but only on comers. Schreiber: I'm not necessarily saying that new opportunities need to be constructed all over the place. What I'm saying is that if it can't go up or increase...I would like to see that amount not be able to decrease either because this gives the opportunity for an amount to decrease but at no point is there any ability for the housing to increase. Vanderhoef: I understand that...but what you are anticipating is that some of those houses that are presently rented to three and four will revert back to single family dwellings...which I think around the table we're saying would help stabilize those neighborhoods in many cases and may be a positive...but then to get at this home living for lack of a better term, then where, close-in, can new be built and it would be these zero-lot lines on corners only...in the RS-8 zones that are the older ones both north and south side of campus. Franklin: This occupancy change is in RS-12, RNS-12, RM-12...it goes from four unrelated to three unrelated. In RS-20 and RM-20 it goes from five unrelated to four unrelated. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about five zones and it's decreased by one person. Vanderhoef: But doesn't it change though in zero-lot lines in RS-8? Franklin: No. Vanderhoef: So they could still...a two-bedroom zero-lot line could have a couple and then two more roomers? Franklin: Three unrelated in each side so that would be six people in the whole...or family plus two roomers. Dilkes: The question is...are there four of you who are comfortable with the code as it is...which means that the number of roomers is maintained at the current level unless somebody abandons that use and goes back to single family and whatever. Are there four of you who are comfortable with that situation? If not, we need to talk about what you are comfortable with. Lehman: How many people feel comfortable with the proposal? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 40 Franklin: That's four, we're done. Lehman: Connie, you're up. Champion: I know we talked about design standards on duplexes...and we settled that, right? Did we talk about townhouses? Did that include townhouses? Lehman: Attached single family... Champion: So it included connected townhouses. Lehman: Mike. O'Donnell: I had about fourteen here...I'm only going to mention the design standards that were set and we addressed those with trim width and so forth. I also had a problem with the garage sizes. Champion: I thought we settled that. O'Donnell: But you didn't let me finish. Last night it was brought up that when you pull into a parking lot the lower window they're suggesting a four-foot of foliage there and somebody brought up the idea that that could be a safety hazard. Somebody could hide behind a bush and so forth and I agree with that. That's why we make shades, blinds, and screens, to put on windows. But to require that, I think, is really not prudent. Franklin: This is a standard that has been the code at least twenty to thirty years. Lehman: That's nothing new? Franklin: No. O'Donnell: I would like to see that changed. Franklin: That is so that when you drive into a parking lot...and this is for apartments, remember, that if you've got a basement style apartment where your windows are right flush with grade that when that cars comes into the parking lot those lights do not shine right into your window whether you have blackout shades or not. Like I say, it's something that has been in the code for something like twenty-five to thirty years. O'Donnell: I've disagreed with it for twenty-five years. Lehman: Does anybody share Mike's concerns? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 40 Elliott: Yes, I do, I think we need to...I'm not sure I don't want it in there but I share Mike's concern that I think we need to be increasingly aware of (TAPE ENDS) Lehman: Are there four people who are uncomfortable enough with the screening requirement to want to change it? Okay, Regenia. O'Donnell: That was quick. Bailey: I've suggested this to Karen Howard before...it's on 243...I would like to see bicycle parking increased for community service community shelter...because I live in the neighborhood with the homeless shelter and bicycle parking is a huge challenge there. I think we need some bicycle parking required. Champion: For apartments? Bailey: No, for community service shelters. There's no bicycle parking required and I think that we need it. Lehman: That does need to be hard surfaced? That can be located in a lawn, as I recall? Franklin: No, I think it's got to be on something. Lehman: When we did that for apartment buildings several years ago, it said it did not have to have a hard surface. Is that correct, Karin? Franklin: My recollection is that it has to be on a hard surface, but I'm trying to... Lehman: That's doesn't mean dry grass? Franklin: If it doesn't rain all summer then that would be a hard surface. Do you remember if biking is required to be on a hard surface? Lehman: Rock or gravel... Howard: As long as it has an edging material so that the gravel doesn't spill over... Lehman: So it doesn't have to be hard surfaced. I have no problem with requiring bicycle parking. Bailey: The bikes are always tied up to the little trees. Lehman: It's easier than cutting down the trees, isn't it? Are there four people who concur with Reginia? Wilburn: Is there a certain percentage? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 40 Bailey: I don't know...I would take your judgment. I think 10% probably... Champion: What do you mean 10%? Bailey: 10% based upon...there is a parking requirement...and then ten percent...look at the daycare parking... Elliott: Can't we just assume that they will figure out the right number? Do we have to say how many? Dilkes: All the rest of them have percentages in the chart. Bailey: I think 10% would be adequate. Franklin: Group living has a comparable requirement and then the bike parking is 25%. Lehman: That's really not an owner some requirement as long as you don't have to have a hard surface for it. Okay, Ross, do you have anything you'd like to bring up? Okay, Robert? Elliott: I just wanted to say...confirm what I heard last night, I think, and since I just misunderstood Karin a little bit ago, I thought I'd better check .... when you have a zero-lot line.., if the two driveways come out and meet between the sidewalk and the street... Franklin: If it's a single curb-cut...what we are regulating is the space between curb cuts. Elliott: Are you calling that the driveway? Franklin: Yes. At the curb. Elliott: Between the sidewalk and the street. Lehman: That encourages driveways to be next to each other. Bailey: But there is regulation that the driveways are in fact separate though? Franklin: They can be right next to each other. Bailey: Can they share? Franklin: Yes. Elliott: The reason I asked is that I saw a zero-lot line that, to me, looked really good...it had the garages butting against each other and then off to the side the living space, which to me resolves all the problems with the adjoining walls and privacy and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 36 of 40 then all they need to do is have what you call a curb cut...one for the two driveways. Okay. Lehman: This code encourages that, I believe. Alright, Dee? Vanderhoef: Okay, let's be sure we're clear on the sensitive areas overlay and how it relates to the underlying zone. As I understand it...as long as everything is met with the underlying zone, except the sensitive areas, they do not have to get an OPDH and then start conforming to other activities? Franklin: Right, we're going to clarify that because there was obviously some misunderstanding of it. The intent was to have it as we have now, which is two levels of sensitive areas overlay...when there is a variation in the buffer in the required 3 5% of disruption of critical slopes...there were some benchmarks that we adopted some time ago...right after the Harlocke/Weeber case and if it does not meet one of those thresholds, we look at it administrative. It's called a Sensitive Areas Development Plan. If it meets one of those thresholds where there is a judgment to be made...that judgment is made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. It is a rezoning process. If there are variations to the underlying zone, such as different housing types, street widths, lot sizes...then it is a planned development...otherwise it is not. That's what we all intended. Champion: When they get into a certain percentage of that sensitive area that tums that key. Franklin: Right. And all we did with this is call it Level One and Level Two. That's the only difference. Lehman: Okay. Dilkes: But we will include some clarifying language in that one section because I think it is... Vanderhoef: Then, how about the...I understand that we have worked with developers on the neighborhood open space and when it will be dedicated. I think there are still some questions out there on that issue. Dilkes: That's addressed in my memo. Did you see that, Dee? Lehman: Yes, part of the suddividers agreement, as I recall? Dilkes: I really think it's best addressed in a subdivider's agreement because they are issue specific to a certain property that need to be addressed. Vanderhoef: What I'm thinking of is that we're trying to make code easy to use and to speed up process. This particular thing could, working with a developers agreement, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 37 of 40 then we're slowing down again and talking about all these things and getting them signed. Franklin: No, not necessarily. Dilkes: You have a subdivider's agreement anyway. We're going through that process anyway. Franklin: We're going through that with the platting process...which of course is independent of zoning, but during the platting process is when we look at what it is that's being dedicated or not...but if there is going to be ground dedicated, we know what it is for that project, exactly where it is and how it relates to the development of the site.., because sometimes it may be such that we know that through the infrastructure improvements, through the building of the various lots, say the Hunters Run development is a good example, that there's going to be disturbance to the area that would be the open space such that it makes it extremely difficult for us to take it or it shifts a burden on the general taxpayer to pay for maintaining that property or bringing that property up to some usable condition if it is going to be constantly encroached upon by the development that is happening. So, that's why we deal with it with the subdivision agreement and those agreements...we do those all the time with platting. Dilkes: That's when we say we're waiting for legal papers, that's one of the things we're talking about. Vanderhoef: .That's true, but, the question of whether the City accept the neighborhood open space at the time that we accept the other public works improvements. Franklin: As we look at it...we're handling it in the same way. We would not take those public improvements from a development as dedicated public infrastructure until it is completed...until it meets our standards. Likewise with the open space. We will take that piece of infrastructure when it meets certain minimum requirements. Vanderhoef: The 50%? Franklin: Well, it may not always be 50% but that it's not going to be disrupted by the development of the site. Vanderhoef: So it could be beyond the 50%. Franklin: It's possible depending on how it's configured. As were work with the developer we would try to get ground that is going to enable to take it in a timely manner...but we also don't want to take it when it's a mud hole...that it is ground that is in a usable condition...just as you would not take a street before it was complete. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 38 of 40 Elliott: Eleanor, I don't have your memo in front of me. Did you address one of the requests...the request was that instead of the residents having to apply for the refund the City would give back directly to the owners? Dilkes: What I said in my memo is that I think that's primarily an administrative policy issue and I talked to Steve about that. I think that's something that you could tell us to make a change to. I don't see that as primarily a legal issue. That's up to you all...you need to tell us if you want that changed. Lehman: I think perhaps we all have more than one more...but it's approaching the time when one member has to leave at 3:30pm. We need to schedule another meeting to work more on this. Franklin: Our intention was to put together a matrix of the items that you've presented to us...with how we think it can be handled. We'll have that for you on your meeting on the 14th. Bailey: I talked to Karen about this...including a density bonus for (unclear) even though it's never been used...I still thought that was a great idea. Champion: We asked zoning to look into that after the first of the year. Bailey: We asked them to look into the... Franklin: The McCallum proposal was something to put on the P&Z's pending list. Bailey: But couldn't we simply...I thought density-bonus for (unclear) was already in. You said that nobody has ever used that. Franklin: That's in PRM. It's for accessible apartments. Lehman: Okay, let's set a meeting time. What will work for us? Elliott: How soon? Lehman: I think the sooner, the better. Elliott: I have Thursday. Lehman: I have Thursday. Vanderhoefi I don't. Bailey: I'm out of town. Lehman: Okay, good, we're going to have it Thursday. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 39 of 40 Lehman: Friday is not good...this room is taken up all day, I think. Elliott: I have Tuesday the 15th. Lehman: How does it...is Council willing to spend a couple of hours before the work session on Monday? Bailey: I can in the afternoon. Champion: The only thing I have to say is that I have jury duty. I can't imagine anyone putting me on a jury - but it could happen. Lehman: You say you could meet early on Monday? Bailey: Monday, yeah. Elliott: I have a 2:00pm that which will probably run at least two hours at Med Labs. Lehman: How about 4:00pm? Would that work? We'll spend the first couple of hours working on this? Champion: Could we reverse it? What ifI do get put on a jury? O'Donnell: It's not going to happen. Lehman: Eleanor, is it possible for us to do the work session relative to the Tuesday night's meeting prior to discussing the zoning issues? Alright, if Connie is unable to be here then we'll wait for the discussion on the zoning. Dilkes: You should be done by no later than 4:30. Lehman: 4:00pm on Monday afternoon. Elliott: I will get here as soon as I can. Lehman: Alright, we'll try to be done before you get here, Mike. Elliott: I'm Bob. Lehman: Alright, folks, Monday, 4:00pm. Karr: You were also going to set two special meetings in December in case you needed them before? Lehman: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. November 8, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 40 of 40 Karr: I think it's getting away from us unless you want to talk about that on Monday the 14th, but I think that's a concern that a number of you have things coming up in December. They need not be night meetings. Just to remind you...they can be first in the morning, they can noon, they can be five .... Lehman: Alright, when we meet on Monday, hopefully for a couple of hours on the zoning code...hopefully we will have discussed most things we have issues with. Is it possible in getting a matrix back to us and having something ready for us and having something to act on in December? Franklin: In terms of the actual language? I think there's a number of things we can do...we've got a couple of questions for you as a consequence of some things that you have done...which sort of... Lehman: Can we talk about those on Monday as well? Can we have a memo for the packet on Thursday? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Then Monday we will...bring your calendars because we will set aside a couple of dates. Bailey: So we're looking at setting dates after our meetings on the 12th and 13th, right? Kan': That's what I understand, you wouldn't get a vote before that. Bailey: Okay. Lehman: Okay, but Monday we really do have to set aside those dates for December. Is there anything else Marian that we've forgotten? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the November 8, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.