The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-23-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Informal Work Session Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:00 PM Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Discussion of draft code. C. Other D. Consideration of the April 28, 2005 Meeting Minutes E. Adjournment Informal Formal ** Informal Meeting is cancelled due to holiday. Tentative meeting Tuesday, May 31. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM May 20, 2005 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard - Associate Planner Re: Work session - Monday, May 23 - 6:00 PM On Monday, May 23, the Commission will hold an informal work session at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall to discuss the various requested amendments received so far regarding the public review draft of the zoning code. This will be an informal work session for the Commission and not an opportunity for public input. Staff would like some direction from the Commission if there are amendments for which you would like us to draft new language to propose at the next formal public hearing. Attached is a table that summarizes the various requests we have received to date. Since one of the major issues for discussion is small lot single family development, I have also included the decision matrix the Commission used about a year ago to give staff direction regarding the single family residential development standards. I've also enclosed an article you may find interesting about affordable housing design issues. At the meeting the Commission may also wish to discuss a setting a date for your next formal public hearing on the zoning code. Once the Commission has settled on a date, we will publish and send out notice to the public. 1 t is not the intent of the new regulations to create numerous nonconforming uses. The proposed amendment would produce a solution for existing owners of duplexes and also allow future development of the RS-8 Zone as a small lot single family zone, rather than as a duplex zone. In addition, RS-8 zoned areas that contain a number of existing duplexes will be considered for rezoning to RS-12. We could draft language similar to what we have in the RNC-12 Zone and apply it to existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone This would grant legal conforming rights to existing conforming duplexes, but would not allow development of new duplexes on interior lots in the RS-8 Zone. Requestor: Draft language to keep existing conforming duplexes in the RS-8 Zone conforming Gary Klinefelter In the current RNC-12 Zone, there is a provision that grants conforming rights to existing multi-family uses, such that they can be expanded or torn down and rebuilt provided they do not exceed the legal density in effect at the time the area was rezoned to RNC- 12. 1 Proposed Amendment Ex~lanato_ry Notes Staff is In support of this amendment. Staff Recommendation Commission Action Single Fam ily Residenti (and associated provisions in 14-48) 14-2A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE ZONING CODE - a I Zones Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council For comparison, in Coralville the minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone (their equivalent zone to RS-5) is 80 feet. With the increasing demand for 3-car garages, a lot width of 70 feet is the minimum necessary to provide room for a house with a three car garage that doesn't completely dominate the front façade of the home. Even on a 70 foot wide lot, subtracting 10 feet for the required side yards, leaves only 60 feet of lot width for the home and the garage. Three- car garages are 30+ feet wide with driveways and front yard paving to match. With only a 60-foot lot width very little space remains for the front façade of the home, for front yard landscaping and trees, sidewalks, and on-street Qarking. Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in the Single Family Residential Zones (p.16) - In the RS-5 Zone, change the minimum lot width for detached single family dwellings from 70 feet to 60 feet. In the current Code the minimum lot width in the RS-5 Zone feet. However, in Iowa City the average lot width in RS-5 subdivisions over the last 10 years is 83 feet. In fact, only 5 subdivisions out of 42 have an average lot width less than 70 feet. Staff recommends establishing the minimum lot width at 70 feet in the RS- 5 Zone and allowing it to be reduced through the bonus density provisions provided in the new Code. The bonus density provisions would allow a subdivision with a mixture of lot widths from 50 feet on up, provided that garages were located on the lot so that they do not dominate the street. Front- loaded garages are allowed provided they take up no more than 50% of the front façade of the home and are not located forward of the front façade of the home. 3 is 60 In the draft, new opportunities for duplexes are provided in the RS-5 Zone on corner lots. Duplexes are also allowed in the RS-12 Zone and in all the Multi-family Zones. Keeping existing duplexes in the RS-8 zone conforming and allowing new duplexes on corner lots will create allow a greater mix of affordable housing types within a neighborhood. 2 Requestor: Gary Klinefelter; Gordon/ Land Development In the RS-8 Zone allow duplexes on both interior and corner lots. Remove provision that specifies that duplexes are only allowed on corner lots in the RS-8 Zone. Steve Counci I The intent of rewriting the RS-8 Zone regulations was to create a zone that would encourage the development of more affordable, small lot single family homes. The current regulations encourage whole areas to be developed as duplexes, thus reducing the attractiveness of the RS-8 Zone for small, detached single family homes. Staff does not support change this making this Staff recommends establishing the minimum lot width for detached single family homes in the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones at 55 feet and allowing it to be reduced through the bonus density provisions provided in the new Code. The bonus density provisions would allow a subdivision with a mixture of lot widths from 30 feet on up, provided that garages were located on the lot so that they do not dominate the street. It is exceedingly rare that a detached single family home is built without at least a 2-car garage. The width of a 2-car garage is 20- 24 feet wide. Subtracting 10 feet from the lot width for the required side yards would leave only 35 feet for the building. A front-loaded 2-car garage would take up about 2/3 of the front façade of the home. If all the lots along a street frontage were 45 feet wide, there would be very little space for front entries, landscaping, street trees, sidewalks, and on-street parking. If a whole neighborhood is built in such a manner, it would not be very pleasant or safe for pedestrians nor would it have the residential character enjoyed by the majority of the existing neighborhoods in Iowa City. Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in the Single Family Residential Zones (p.16) -In the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, change the minimum lot width for detached single family dwellings to from 55 feet to 45 feet. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 4 Staff recommends adding a provision to the density bonus provisions for the RS-8 and RS-12 Zones that would allow front-loaded garages on lots less than 55 feet wide, provided they take up no more than 50% of the front façade of the home and are not located forward of the front façade of the home. For comparison purposes, in Coralville the minimum lot width for detached single family homes in the R1(B) and R-2 Zones, which are equivalent to our RS-8 and RS-12 Zones, is 50 feet. 55 feet is the minimum necessary to allow a 2-car front-loaded garage that doesn't dominate the front façade of the home This provides far greater flexibility to build small lot single family neighborhoods by riqht than is allowed in any community surrounding Iowa City. Staff does not recommend making any changes to these standards. Changes to the dimensional standards in the new code will allow the development of more attached units by right. Standards should be established to ensure that the residential character of the resulting neighborhoods meet the expectations and vision expressed in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan It is not unusual for cities to require certain design provisions for attached dwellings. With dwellings located so close together, differences in quality or design of the units is more pronounced and can detract from the property values in the entire neighborhood. Iowa City has a much more liberal allowance for duplexes and attached single family dwellings than surrounding communities. The standards proposed are not expensive or difficult to meet. A certain "style" of home is not required. Expensive building materials are also not required. It should also be noted that currently townhouses are effectively excluded from single family zones due to the current lot requirements. Since the lot requirements are being modified to make it easier to build duplexes, attached single family houses, and townhouses, it is necessary to address issues of design, street access, setbacks, and building entrances; all of which are currently addressed through the planned development rezoning process 14-4B-4A-2 and 14-4B-4A-3 and 14-4B- 4A-5 (pp. 168-176) In all the single family residential zones, remove the "design provisions" for duplexes and attached single family (townhouses). They do not specify which "design standards" they want removed. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 5 this making Staff is In support of change. For comparison purposes, Coralville does not allow duplexes or townhouses in its single family residential zones. In its Two-Family Residential Zone, attached single family dwellings and detached single family dwellings must meet certain design standards that specify color, roof pitch, and exterior building materials. In Coralville's Mixed Housing Residential Zone townhouses must meet these same design standards. more Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for affordable. small-lot single family homes in Iowa City. 14-2A-7A-1. (p.20) Single Family Bonus Options in the RS-5 Zone - Change bonus density provision in the RS-5 Zone to allow lot widths to be reduced to 45 feet (instead of 50 feet) if alleys or rear lanes are utilized for vehicular access 6 Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council On larger lots, this is not as much of a concern because there is more open space to work with. Since most single family neighborhoods built in the last 10 years in Iowa City were built with lots greater than 70 feet in width, it has not been much of a concern. However, in the last several years the City has received a number of requests to reduce lot sizes and lot widths through the planned development process. If smaller lots are going to be allowed by right in Iowa City without having to go through a planned develoQment process,~ar~lacement should be addressed. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council Remove provision 14-2A-6 (p.18), which states that "on lots less than 60 feet in width, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape. " On lots less than 60 feet in width, if front-loaded garages are not carefully located on the lot, they can dominate the front façade of the home, cause excessive front yard paving, leave little space for street trees and front yard landscaping and on-street parking. Some have suggested that increasing the front yard setback will solve this problem. However, homes with 2 and 3-car garages that face the street require wide driveways. Pushing the homes back from the street only makes it necessary to build longer driveways and use more paving in the front yard. While there may be a few more feet in which to plant a tree, the front yard will still be dominated by paving and blank garage doors. 8 7 Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 14-2A-7A-2. (p.20) Single Family Bonus Options in the RS-8 Zone - Change bonus density provision in the RS-8 Zone to allow lot widths to be reduced to 35 feet (rather than 40 feet) if alley or rear lanes are utilized for vehicular access. Such a change would allow even greater opportunity for more affordable, small-lot single family homes in Iowa City. However, 35 feet is very narrow for detached single family homes. Other design considerations may be necessary to ensure that homes located so close together are placed on the lot in a manner that will maximum privacy and allow for some private open space on the lot. In addition, given that there will be more dwelling units along a single street frontage, measures to prevent monotony should be considered. Staff is in support of making this change, but believes that other provisions may be needed to prevent monotony along street frontages. While deleting this provision entirely would be a problem, it may be possible to draft language to clarify that non-required parking may be located on a driveway that provides access to a required parking space. That way, residents could park in their driveway, but would not be allowed to establish a parking lot in the front setback. The provision in the current ordinance and has never been a problem. The City does not send enforcement officials out to tell people they cannot park in their driveway. However, if this provision is eliminated entirely, entire front setbacks will be allowed to be paved as parking lots for both required and non-required parking. This would have a deleterious effect particularly in residential neighborhoods close to the University, where there are many properties rented to groups of students. Occupancy for single family rentals and duplexes is directly related to the amount of parking provided on the lot, so there is an incentive for landlords to pave over large parts of existing lots so that they can rent to more students. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council The intent of requiring a front building setback is to maintain some open space along the front of residential lots. Previous to 1980, no parking was allowed in the front setback. Around 1978, the current exceptions were added to the Code allowing some area of the front setback to count toward a property's required parking 10 Remove 14-2A-6C-3 (p. 18) - Parking is not permitted in the front building setback, with a few listed exceptions. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff is in support of amending the language to allow non-required parking to be allowed on a regularly constructed driveway. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 9 14-4B-4A-2 (p.168) and 14-4B-4A-5 (p.175) - In the RS-5 Zone, keep the provision that duplexes and attached SF dwellings are allowed on corner lots with each unit facing a different street, but remove other standards. Requestor did not specify which standards should be removed. Duplexes are not currently allowed in the RS-5 Zone. There has been concern expressed by neighborhood groups that such an allowance will detract from existing and new single family neighborhoods. However, allowing duplexes on large corner lots with certain design provisions in place will ensure that such dwellings fit into the character of single family neighborhoods and will also provide needed affordable housing options throughout Iowa City neighborhoods. Staff does not recommend changing the standards. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 14-4B-4A-2i (p.170) 14-4B-4A-3g (p.172); 14-4B-4A-4a & e. (p.174) - With regard to maintenance easements required for zero lot line dwellings, it was suggested that such easements be recorded with the subdivision rather than with the deed to the property. 13 The language can be clarified to address this issue Reguestor: 14-2A-7B (p.21) Historic Preservation Exceptions - Request to change the word "necessary" within the Board of Adjustment approval criteria. The requestor feels that this word may be interpreted so strictly that it would make it difficult for most properties to meet the standard. Mark McCalhon The intent of this special exception option is to make it possible for historic properties to be adapted to new uses and preserved over time. The language can be changed to address this issue Staff is In support of making this change. Staff is in support of this change 12 For instance, if a subdivision is proposed with small lots with vehicular access from an alley and utilities also located in the alley, allowing homes to be located closer to the street will allow more space in the rear for yard space, utilities, and the garage. Without utilities and a driveway in the front, 15 feet is enough room for front yard landscaping and street trees. 11 Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council Table 2A-2 (p.16) Increase the minimum setback in residential zones 25 feet. (In the proposed Code, the minimum setback for the principal use 15 feet. In the current code, the minimum setback is 20 feet.) is to The Code establishes a minimum setback, but does not prevent developers from establishing a greater setback along a given street or within a particular subdivision. If a developer desires a greater setback, a covenant can be established with the subdivision. However, establishing a greater minimum setback in the Zoning Code prevents anyone from establishing a neighborhood with homes located closer to the street. In other words, the lower the minimum setback the more flexibility there is to establish whatever setback is desired by the developer based on the proposed subdivision design and the topography and physical features of the land. Staff does not recommend increasing the minimum setback. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Develo~ment Council 14-2B-6C-3c. (pAO) Remove requirement for S2 screening between parking areas and building walls that contain ground level windows into dwelling units. This standard is currently in place in the PRM and RIO Zones. It is intended to keep bright headlines from shining into windows of a ground level apartment. The S2 screening is a low level screening of shrubs between 2 and 4 feet in height, which is typical of the size of shrubs planted outside many homes, multi-family buildings, and commercial businesses. It is not an onerous standard to meet. Staff does not recommend making change 16 Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council 14-2B-4B-3c. Lots with Multiple Buildings: Remove provisions regarding designing buildings to maintain privacy between dwelling units. The standard in the current code is that if more than one principal building is located on a single lot, the buildings must be separated by a horizontal distance equal to the height of the tallest building. This means that in most cases buildings have to be at least 25 to 35 feet apart. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that this was excessive and if efforts were made to locate windows, air conditioning units and balconies in such a way as to preserve privacy between dwelling units, then buildings could be located closer together. This new provision adds flexibility to the Code. this Alternatively, leave the standard the same as in the current code: 14-6Q-2E-2: Where more than one principal building is permitted on a lot the buildings must be separated by a horizontal distance that is e~ual to the he![ht of the h!ahest buildinji Keep new standard to provide maximum flexibility in locating buildings on a lot, without compromising privacy and fire safety. Specific suggestions from the LDC on how to make the language more clear and objective are welcome. 15 14-2B-6C: Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages: Remove provision that parking has to be located behind buildings, but keep the provision that parking may not be located within the front-yard setbacks. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council In the Central Planning District, the PRM, and the RIO Zones parking is currently not allowed between the building and the street. This location standard is intended to prevent parking lots between buildings and the public sidewalk. Since most of the City's multi- family zones allow a mix of housing types, this standard helps to prevent large parking lots located along the street and immediately adjacent to smaller scale homes and duplexes. Eliminating this standard would be a change to the current ordinance in many multi-family areas Staff does not recommend making change 14 14-28 - Multi-Family Residential Zones iiiiiiii Proposed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation this Commission Action 19 14-2B-61 (p.45-46) Additional Standards in the Central Planning District. LDC feels that these standards are too restrictive. Made no specific suggestion for changes. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council. These regulations were adopted about 5 years ago. They have been quite effective and resulted in more functional and attractive multi-family buildings in areas that have a mix of housing types. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council. The intent of these building scale standards is to break up the façade of multi-family buildings that tend to be larger than surrounding residential dwellings, such as single family homes, duplexes, and townhouses. These regulations help buildings to fit into neighborhoods where there is a mix of housing types 14-4B-6E (p.41-42): Building Scale. Suggests that these standards are not necessary and lead to increased costs THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT, THE RIO ZONE, AND THE PRM ZONE. Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section. 18 Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land DeveloRment Council 17 14-2B-6D-6 (p.41) Remove the requirement that access to entrance doors of any individual dwellings units located above the ground level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairwell. This provision does not preclude exterior stairwells, but states such stairwells must not be used as the primary means of access to an upper floor dwelling unit. Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are currently prohibited in the PRM and RIO Zones. They are strictly regulated in other MF zones Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section. t should also be noted that exceptions to these standards are allowed through the minor modification process both for sites that are difficult to develop due to the topography and for building designs that are unlgue or innovative. The vast majority of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards have nothing to do with history or architectural styles. They address location and screening of parking areas, location and design of building entrances, building bulk and scale, and height, location of balconies and exterior stairways, building materials, location and screening of mechanical equipment, and design of storefront commercial space in mixed-use buildings in the RIO Zone. In the proposed draft of the Code the mandatory standards from current code have been applied citywide. These will be administered through the site plan review process and will not require approval by the Design Review Committee. In the Central Planning District, the PRM Zone, and the RIO Zone, all areas that currently have design standards that are administered through the Design Review Committee, Design Review will continue to be required. Except for 14-2B-61 (p.45-46), there are no standards that refer to historical architectural styles. The standards in 14-2B-61 are only applied in the Central Planning District and will replace the previous point system. 20 Req uestor: 14-2B-6 Multi-Family Site Development Standards. Questioned whether it was a good idea to substitute the proposed objective standards for the previous point system that was administered by the Design Review Committee. Also stated the opinion that there was an over-emphasis on historic features on a building. No specific changes were requested Larry Svoboda the Currently, the Multi-Family Design Standards only apply in the Central Planning District. Certain standards are mandatory and some are administered through a point system. The point system has proved cumbersome and difficult to administer. It was also difficult for developers to know what was expected, because there was no guidance on how the various architectural elements should fit together. Picking and choosing from the point menu would sometimes result in a building with a hodge-podge of architectural elements that did not work well together. It also requires that each building be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Staff feels the new standards will work better than the existing point system and will be applied more consistently over time. Duncan and Associates, the consultant that analyzed the City's zoning code, also recommended making the standards more objective and easier to administer fairly and consistently. Staff does not recommend going back to a point system. However, in the proposed code there is a height step-down requirement in all the multi-family zones when buildings are located adjacent to single family dwellings or single family zones. With these provisions in place, the RIO restriction to 2-1/2 stories may not be as necessary. Requestor: Eliminate the provision in the Code that restricts buildings to 2-1/2 stories in the Residential/Office Zone. Nila Haug Since the RIO Zone allows both single family residential uses and commercial uses to locate side-by-side, this height limitation is intended to prevent large commercial building overshadowing next door residential dwellings. Staff supports making this change, provided buildings are required to step- down to 2-1/2 stories within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single Family Use or a property that is zoned Single Family Residential. 22 21 Requestor: Change the name of the Residential- Office Zone (RIO) to Mixed Use Zone (MU). Nila Haug In the proposed code the RIO Zone has been amended to allow a wider variety of commercial uses, not just office uses, as well as a whole variety of residential uses. Changing the name of the zone to Mixed Use may more accurately describe the nature of the zone The staff supports making this change 23 14-2C - Table 2C-1 (p.55) Change "Community Service - Shelter" back to a Special Exception in the CI-1 Zone. Make changes accordingly in Article 14- 4B. Requestor: Many requested this chan e. 24 14-2C-7E (p.69) CN-1 Zone Build-To Line: Question the need for the build-to line standard and whether it creates a problem for CN-1 zones that are already developed. They also question whether establishing a built-to line five feet from the ROW line is a good idea if the frontage is along an arterial street. Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council. The current standard for an arterial street ROW is 100 feet. A two- lane arterial would typically have a 34-foot pavement width. A four- lane arterial with a center turn lane would typically have 60 feet of pavement. So even with a multiple-lane arterial and a 5-foot build- to line, the buildings would still be a minimum of 25 feet from the street pavement, leaving ample space for street trees and safe pedestrian amenities. Since the sidewalk is located in the public ROW, the separation between vehicles in the street and pedestrians along the sidewalk is not affected by the fact that the buildings are located closer to the ROW. The LDC seems to be advocating for parking lots located close to the ROW instead of buildings, which would leave pedestrians to negotiate between street traffic on one side and parking lot traffic on the other. Since neighborhood commercial areas are intended to serve residents of adjacent neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle traffic is likely to be more significant. The build-to line and other building bulk standards are intended to foster more pedestrian-friendly commercial areas. There is an exemption provision for adoption of these standards CN-1 THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. areas bu It prior to the Staff does not recommend making change this Transient housing is currently only allowed by special exception in the CI-1 Zone. In the proposed Code there are a number of zones where transient housing was changed from a use that is allowed by special exception to a provisional use. If the Commission is going to re-examine the decision in the CI-1 Zone, it might be a good idea to re-examine all the zoning districts where a similar change to provisional approval is proposed. Staff supports making the proposed change in the CI-1 Zone and also supports re-examining how shelters are approved in other zones as well. 14-2C - Commercial Zones Proposed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Commission Action R~ uestor: 14-2C: Commercial Zones - Request to establish standards for large commercial retailers ("big box" retailers) to keep such developments compatible with the character of the community, to reduce large parking lots, and to provide better pedestrian amenities. Ga~ Klein A number of new standards were added to the Code for commercial areas: new screening standards for parking lots; new design standards for large parking lots; standards for outdoor storage and display; new standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation. However, other than in the CN-1 Zone, there are no standards that regulate the size, bulk, and façade articulation of commercial buildings. Standards are currently in place in the CB-5 Zone and proposed in the CB-10 Zone to prevent development that would damage the pedestrian-friendly character of the downtown. Staff is not opposed to exploring options for regulating big box retailers, but will take direction from the Commission about whether to draft amendments for the new zoning code or undertake it as a separate work project in the future. 27 26 14-2C-7L - 70 (p.71-72) - CN-1 Zone building standards for street-level windows, building bulk, building entrances, and balconies. LDC req uests that these be removed Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Develo~ment Council. These are standards to promote pedestrian-friendly retail commercial areas. Many communities across the country have adopted similar standards to promote attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood commercial areas. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making change. this Requestor: Steve Gordon. Land Development Council. 25 14-2C-7F (p.69) CN-1 Zone location of parking and loading areas. Questioned provision that states that no more than 35 percent of the street frontage of a lot may be comprised of off-street parking spaces that are located between the building and the street. The intent of these parking location standards is to encourage neighborhood commercial areas that are conducive to walking and biking as well as vehicular traffic. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making change this Requestor: 14-2C: Commercial Zones - Allow stealth cell tower facilities (towers that look like flag poles, light poles, etc.) in Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Tim Lynch , U.S. Cellular In the new code, a number of changes were made to clarify the regulations for communication towers based on recommendations from a joint committee of staff and communication providers from Iowa City and surrounding communities. Staff is in support of making this change, provided there are limitations on the height and specific requirements for camouflaging the facilities. Alternatively, the Code could be amended in the future after some additional research and discussion. 29 The downtown currently contains numerous banking establishments that exist without drive-through facilities. Most of these banks have branches in other areas of town that contain drive-through facilities to serve their customers needs. 28 14-2C-8H. (p. 75) Drive-Through Facilities (in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones). Allow drive-through facilities by special exception in the CB-1 0 Zone, particularly for banks. Requestor: Marc Moen Drive-through facilities are not currently allowed in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, since they are auto-oriented uses that require curb cuts onto busy downtown streets and would require significant areas of a site to be devoted to vehicle maneuvering. Such facilities may erode the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown by creating incentives to replace active building uses with driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making change this 14-3A-4K-2. (p.112) Modifications to Street Standards. Mr. Gordon stated that he and the Land Development Council assume that alleys and rear lanes are considered private streets as there is no provision in the Code for these to be dedicated to the City. They object to this because when streets or alleys are private, maintenance, garbage and snow removal is the responsibility of the private owners through a homeowner's association or similar entity and they feel this increases costs to the consumer. Subsection K, referenced by the LDC, applies when a developer is specifically requesting private streets, including private rear lanes or alleys. In the event private streets are requested, certain standards must be met in order to provide for maintenance and services. The reason that the ordinance states that private streets are discouraged is because once they are built, residents, not aware that they are private streets, assume that the City is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the streets and will often call to complain when services and maintenance are not properly provided. There is no provision in the code that requires alleys to be private rather than public. The City Code, through the planned development process and through subdivision regulations provides a means by which land for public improvements is dedicated to the City (See 14-3A-4F & G. Dedication of Public Right of Way and Streets. See also the subdivision regulations, which are in a separate part of the City Code.) Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section 30 Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Commission Action Proposed Amendment 14-3A - Planned Development Overlay Unlike the current ordinance, the provisions of Article 14-3A state clearly what standards are applicable to the property, making it much easier to submit a complete application with fewer deficiencies. This should help to streamline the process for all involved. In addition, the Article 14-3A provides maximum flexibility to request modifications to those standards for creative and innovative subdivision deslgns. Keep in mind that through the planned development process, developers have great latitude to request land uses and modifications to the underlying zoning requirements that are not allowed in the standard zones, but city officials and decision-makers and developers need to know what the underlying standards are before they can be modified or varied. Subsection 14-3A-4K (p.1 09) contains the procedures and standards for requesting modifications to the underlying zoning requirements. In addition, there is also an overarching "exceptions" section that allows modifications to the approval criteria (See 14-3A-7 on p. 115). No specific changes to the proposed draft were proposed. Requestor: Steve Gordon/ Land Development Council. Note that for planned developments where the underlying zoning is commercial, the qeneral commercial site development standards apply, not the CN-1 Zone standards. In the current code, planned developments are not allowed on land zoned commercia so this is a new allowance that creates more opportunities for creative commercial development in the community. 31 . 14-3A-4 (starting on p. 104) Approva Criteria The LDC feels that certain design standards are mandated which takes away from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed in a planned development. They refer to the following: · Attached SF uses must comply with the standards for the RS-12 zone, MF uses and duplexes must comply with MF site development standards Commercial development must comply with the CN-1 Zone site development standards. . n the current planned development regulations, any variations from the requirements and standards of the underlying zoning designation must be specified on the plan and approved. However, in the current code it is unclear what the underlying zoning requirements are. In the proposed code, the provisions make clear what those underlying standards are. Standards that might otherwise be difficult to find in other places in the code are listed in this section for clarity and ease of use. If, for example, the underlying zoning is RS-5, the planned development ordinance allows you to build a whole variety of housing types and commercial uses as well. Since townhouses, duplexes, multi-family buildings, and commercial uses are not generally allowed in the RS-5 Zone, it is difficult to determine what zoning standards would apply. The proposed code contains basic standards for duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family buildings that are fairly standard across all the zones. For clarity and ease of use, the applicable standards are referenced here. Since any commercial development proposed for property zoned residential must be small-scale in order to fit into a residential planned development, applying the CN-1 zone standards seems the most appropriate. Staff does not recommend making these changes. 14-4A-4B (p.147) Animal-Related Commercial Uses - Request to add language to this use category definition to make it clear that overnight sleeping facilities for staff would be allowed as an accessory use in veterinary establishments Requestor: Allan Berger Since the list of accessory uses for each land use category is not intended to be exhaustive of all of the types of accessory uses that might exist, sleeping accommodations for vet clinics would not necessarily be excluded. However, adding the language requested will provide additional information and clarification. The requestor is veterinarian. In discussions at one of the Commission's open house sessions, he mentioned that there is a need for overnight accommodations within some veterinary facilities in cases where animals need around-the-clock monitoring and care. Staff recommends making change. 32 Pro~osed Amendment Ex~lanato-'!y Notes Staff Recommendation this Commission Action 14-4A: Land Use Classification · · Accessory apartment rental permits must be renewed every 2 years (instead of 3), after completion of a housing inspection. Size of the accessory unit is limited to 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, 50% of the floor area of the accessory dwelling, or 650 square feet, whichever is least. (In the current and the proposed code accessory apartments are limited to one bedroom). There are a number of safeguards already built into the regulations to ensure that these units are only allowed on owner-occupied properties. For example, the property has to record on the covenants of the property that their right to an accessory apartment ceases upon transfer of Title. · Following is a list of all the changes proposed to the accessory apartment regulations: · Accessory apartments would not be allowed in the RNC-12 Zone. (They are currently allowed in any single family home in any zone.) · Accessory apartments will not be restricted to occupancy by an elderly or disabled person. The accessory unit may be rented to anyone, but maximum occupancy on the property is still limited to what would be allowed for the property without the accessory unit (see next bullet) and the property must be owner-occupied. · Occupancy on the property is limited to what is currently allowed for the principal dwelling (one "household," as defined in the Code). In other words, no additional unrelated persons (roomers) would be allowed beyond what is currently allowed in the particular zone in which the property is located. So, the maximum occupancy of the property with or without the accessory apartment is exactly the same. The current Code is vague on this point, so it is necessary to clarify this point. The intent is not to double the allowed occupancy, but rather to allow a semi-private living arrangement for a member of the "household." Requestors: Longfellow Neighborhood Association 14-4C-2A. (p.198) Accessory Apartments. Disallow accessory apartments in the RS-5 and RS-8 Zones. The Zoning Code currently allows accessory apartments on any single family owner-occupied property, either within the principal structure or in an accessory structure (such as a garage). Sometimes called "granny flats," such an apartment provides the opportunity for a homeowner to provide semi-private living quarters for an elderly or disabled relative, a nanny, or other person seeking affordable housing. While accessory apartments have been allowed for a number of years, there are only a handful of property owners that have taken advantage of these provisions. Staff does not recommend eliminating the opportunity for accessory apartments 33 Proposed Amendment THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Commission Action 14-4C: Accessory Uses Reguestor: 14-4C - Accessory Uses - requested that windmill power generators intended for on-site power generation be allowed as an accessory use. The requestor did not specify which zones he thinks they should be allowed in. Allan Be~er Some initial research on windmill generators was conducted several years ago. A genera finding of this research was that such facilities often generate a level of noise that may be a nuisance to surrounding properties Without further research on this issue, staff does not recommend making a change at this time. 35 Requestor: Diana Baculis As with many regulations that are Intended enforced on a complaint basis. 34 14-4C-2M (p. 206) Home Occupations - Requests that Type B home occupations be limited so that clients or customers were not allowed to frequent the site on weekends. to prevent In order to prevent nuisance issues, new definitions and restrictions were added the home occupation regulations requiring that home occupations where customers frequent the site on a regular basis (Type B Home Occupations) must obtain a home occupation permit from the city, so that they are aware of the regulations and can be monitored by the city more easily. A new restriction was also added limiting customer or client visits to 10 per day. nUisance issues these regulations wi I be Since there are a number of new limitations and regulations proposed in the new code for home occupations, staff does not recommend making this change at this time. Instead staff recommends waiting to see how well the new restrictions are working and making any necessary adjustments in the future if needed. Larry Schnittjer, Council 37 Proposed Amendment 14-51-6C. (p. 311) Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. Rename this section "Wetland Protection Plan" and reorder provisions sequentially. Land Development Explanatory Notes This would not be a substantive change to reordering of the provisions. Making the suggested changes clarify the regulations. Staff recommends making the changes the regulations. but a Staff Recommendation may Commission Action 14-51 Requestor: 14-5A-3D (p.228) Maximum Parking in the CB-10 Zone - Concern expressed about the new approval criteria for private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone. Would like to see some allowance made for parking at grade, either within a parking structure or in surface parking lots. - Sensitive Lands and Features Marc Moen Private, off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone is currently only allowed by special exception. However, the current ordinance does not give the Board of Adjustment much guidance regarding what factors should be considered when reviewing these requests. The standards in the proposed code would prohibit off-street surface parking and ground level structured parking. Staff recommends easing the proposed standards to allow some ground level structured parking, provided the first 30 feet of the lot depth is reserved for active building uses, i.e. no structured parking along the street front (this is similar to the current standard in the CB-5 Zone). Staff feels that private, off- street surface parking should not be allowed in the CB-10 Zone. If it is, it should only be allowed from an alley behind buildings, not along the street front. 36 Pro~osed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Commission Action 14-5A - Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards Larry Schnittjer, Council 14-51-7 (p. 315) Stream Corridors- This section should be moved to the storm water management section of the code and as such the buffers could be applied to a specific need of a stream corridor and not just based on where that line is on the map Land Development It is not clear how moving the regulations to another part of the Code will result in an improvement or any greater protection for regulated stream corridors. There is already differentiated buffer requirements based on the type of stream and reductions are based on clearly stated approval criteria. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section of the Code. 40 Larry Schnittjer, Council 14-51-6G. Compensatory Mitigation The references to specific replacement ratios should be eliminated and replaced with "as required by the COE" to avoid conflicts and confusion. Land Development The replacement ratios were intentionally included in the ordinance by the original committee that crafted the sensitive areas ordinance Knowing that federal regulations might change over time, the committee wanted to provide some certainty and consistency with regard to wetland mitigation in Iowa City. The replacement ratios the current and the proposed code are based on ratios used in model wetland ordinances from other communities around the r~ion. n THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Staff does not recommend making any changes to this section. 39 Larry Schnitljer, Council 38 15-51-6E-1 (p. 311). Wetland Buffer Requirement. Opening paragraph should be modified to take into account the consideration relative to constructed and/or altered wetlands where "natural" landscapes(s) adjacent to the wetland probably will not exist. No specific language provided by requestor. Land Development Mr. Schnittjer concern is addressed in Paragraph 14-51-6F-7 (p.313). It states, "Where it is determined that the area occupied by the required buffer provides little natural protection to the wetland due to previous land disturbance, enhanced vegetative cover must be provided within the buffer area to help filter and slow the flow of surface water. The enhanced vegetation shall consist of species that are known to be noninvasive to wetland areas." THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. Some cross reference to this paragraph 14-51-6F-7 could be added to 15-51-6E- 1 if necessary for clarification. The ordinance already allows "manmade" protected slopes to be altered, but protects naturally formed ravines where the soil is stabilized by existing trees and understory vegetation. In addition, the sensitive areas ordinance was amended recently to allow up to 35% of the critical slopes on a site to be disturbed without the need for a sensitive areas rezoning. One of the primary reasons the sensitive areas ordinance was adopted was due to severe erosion problems caused by inappropriate grading and cutting of slopes. Grading changes the topography, the hydrology, and the drainage patterns of a site. Erosion also increases in proportion to the amount of lost vegetation. Therefore, controlling clearing and grading on steeply sloping sites is the first step in controlling erosion. It is clear from his comments that Mr. Schnittjer would like the City to do a major rewrite of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Changes were made to the ordinance about two years ago that allow greater use of administrative reviews as opposed to the more lengthy overlay rezoning process. No other significant changes to the sensitive areas ordinance were contemplated during this rewrite. Larry Schnittjer, Council 41 14-51-8 (p.316) Regulated Slopes - Requestor would like this section rewritten to correlate slopes with degrees of protection, Le. the greater the percentage of slope, the greater the degree of constructed slope protection to be provided Land Development Mr. Schnittjer would like this section of the code modified to allow any slope to be altered or engineered so that they are no longer steep. This assumes that any slope no matter how steep can be graded and engineered to prevent erosion and land slides on to adjacent properties. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. The change suggested is counter to the intent of the sensitive areas ordinance. Staff is opposed to making such a significant reversal in policy and regulation without a community-wide debate. "0 0) ..... 0) ...... en 0> 0) 0:::...... _ en -"ÕJ 0) 0 l:::J- '- 0 0) 0) ~..c: U E ..... .- oCt: 1-- .. ro ..... c: o 0 ...... .- en en 0) en :J 0) O"'+- 0) e 0::: a.. ro c: ·"00)0 en .~ ..... .- 0> O)~:Jenc: - ..... "0 :J .- en U5 ro 0) 'E .!: 0) _uuooE:!:: ro 0) ..... U ..... en .~ .c a. 0 2 ro o>o)-c:o)o o 0> ro en "0 .- o ro § .- c: g> 0) :J.- 0) 0)- ..c: 0> ro Q)..c: g ec:.......c:3:..c: oCt: ro 8.:: 0) e ........0) 0 ro"O ro C\..c:O)..c:ro..... C\- ......E C") co .5 0 .E ci..c: - en enO) en "-" _:J - c: C\ û) 0 2 -æ .Q "";'"0)0).$û)t) - :J a. CJ) .- 0) u;> 0" en 0) E õ ""20..c:.......... ..-u..............oo. 0) en.5O) c:o- 0.......$ .- c: CJ) co 'ã) 0) :J o>..c: O>ro- O):J- ..... 0> ro O>c:en c: ro 0) .- - '-- ii) o>:J .- c: "0 O)x "- 0) -u o a. 0 . ......0.....0) en "0 a. E c: ro - .- ......ro- .Q :J c: 0)..... -00 ~ .c:;:¡ ê5 .- ro ro tenQ)O) ro:Jo.O> -ooc: U._ ro 0):J:=..c: ..... ro ro u rooã)c: "0 0)"0 ro 2.cc:o en .- 0) 0) "0 en en O>:JO)O) o>o.c..c: :J ..c: '': - en en U 0) en 0) en en O»O):J 0> > "0 ro c: ....... U ro Q) ro 0) ..c:>.5.c UO)O)-" 0) 3: "0 0) ..c:oo> I-IuO) 0) a. 0> '::>........ - c: ~. ro 0) .- - ..c: õ.. ¡] CJ) ......oenO) ro"OO)..c: ..c:rou_ +-'......Q)+-' en :J c: ro 0) 0 c: en O>..c: :J 0) c: :!:: c: ..... ro 3:._:J ..c:enen~ u c: 0) U O>c: 0:9 0 .- :æ b 0. ~-en ro:J - EO> 0) ro 0) "0 c: en ..... co .Q to)..c:ro 0..c:_ ..... 8:- 0) 8. :J£g>o en(ij:J:=......: :t:: u 0>.$ 0» ro c: 0) -Oro 0) CJ)__"O_ M "" >. 0> 0) tco -0..... 5:t::ii) .cO)ro roc:o> c: ro c: o..c::;:¡ .- u ro en:J_ en CJ) :J a E en = ..... .- en· 0 "0 '+- 0) '::>..0)"0 ~...... c: ro - ro c: ~ _ .- ..... -en E ro 0) =EO) ~"Ol:; o.c:~ 0) ro ..... E =- ro o 0 E en ,+-"0 c: c: . "0 roO) ro .Q =- E ..c: Õ O>:;:¡ en 0) c: ..... ro õ'c 0) ..c:.....¡¡:::> c:0.0)0 oO)"OE ëñEO)O) .~ 0.: ..c: Een:J- E 0> gt) O.!: ..... .8 ü~"Oe O»:Jo. ..c:eoo I- 0.3:_ ....... ~ - 'c ..c: u CJ) '(3 ~c: ..... :J ro 0 ....Jü N "" ...... c: 0) E a. o 0) > 0) o "0 c: ro ....J c:...... c:.Q ro 0> o t) .5 .!: c: :;:¡O) "Oro ro - "0 .>-,.... . uOo) :::;- I ¡¡::: a'.!: e = ~ en :;:¡ a. a. en 0) æ~õo.....O)c: ..... '-' en 0 0 ~ 0) oCt: 0)- en'+-- 0> ..c:0)-C:~c: "0 _ > ro 0 ..... "_ 0) "0 0) 0) :;:¡ ro en "8 0) o>I ~ E -g oC:c: '¡¡:::"O > .Q..: en:;:¡ c: ro > _en 0) 0) en ro "0 '+-C::J-O CO 0) ~ 0'-' = 0 ..-:J"ON~o3: C") 0" 0> - 0 '+- . ..... c: c: ..... a. 0·- 0) E c: .E "-" - >. ..... 0 en - 0) en:;:¡ en q> 0) o.:t:: .- u .- - :J 0.._ 0) 0) 0) L{') 0" ro "0 ..... _ ..... ~O)""''''''O)eO) ..- 0::: .E .E .5 0..5 en en E Õ o .- 0) .- 0) 0.0 '+- Q) U) ~ I- u 0 _ ~ .- en- c:~ en >. W C:roen.. "0- -c:oc:~:!:: ~ ê~o.§ c:§O)"o.....ro~O)roen Z .-..... 0).- ro 0 ..c: 0) 0 "0 0) "0 en c: "0""0)...... ......0.-0 0) « ....."o-.$enenE'+-oroo~O)O)"o ~ oO)en:=O)O)ro°O):;:¡>ro.5c:..... 0)"0 c: U) 0» O»C:>O) 00) o ..c:oo"OroeO)C:O)O)>'enC:N..c: « - 0 "0 c: :; 0>.5 'c "0 :!2 .c .- 0) ~ 0> W .!: 3: c: ro 0 en c: 0 c: enO) "0 :!:: j ëñ E >. ro c: u 0) .- N:J 0). c: m ~ï:: .0c:coO)O).....;-0:::.....>.enO)O) C - ro ~.¡¡¡ 0) ..... U..c: en ro ~ "0 ~ "0 .5 .$ :J 0 0 "0 0 c: ...... .: ..... 0 c: :J ..... c: ....J enu"O.....c:~~c:~:Juo_O)ro ::> en t '': 0) ro 0 0) 0 . 0::: en ~ æ 3: ..c: o ro.....o.....O).....;-u:t::"o~~roCJ)-o...... > "" u ro c: .- ..c: ~ 0) - ro > en a. u :J ...... .- "0 0) - 0)..... ro 0) 0) ~ -gØE~~coro20§~~:;.5(ij I- ro ro ro ..... ..c: .5 .~ '+- N 0) '> ro - Z "o~~enO)c:O)"Oê"o~~c:~-g ww·oro-enO''+-o>.....O)c:oc:...............Oro :E 0 =.- 0) ro ~ "" 0) '+- - C°3:io>~"oenO)..c:~~-enE..c:~"Oo Z c:.- I- - 0) >. c: - 0) z « 0> "0 0 0 3: "0 0)..... ï:: ._ 0) 0 ,.... 0 c:O-en ..... roroE .....3: w Z .- 0 ro - '+- c: en 0) 0 _ _ "0 I- ~ -> rooroO) ~:JC:o.c: 0) «~5ro>øenc:0.:;:¡.c~.~00ro~..... :J 0 "0 "0 0 .- ii) t u 0) en 0) 0 ca:::O>-c:c::;:¡.8~:J~roc:>"03:E W 0 ~ 0) ro ro u·¡¡¡ E E ro a. 0) 0) c: 0 c: O>......-:J ......"Oro- I-l-oro~"8l:;"oro-~~õ>."oen~ ~ Z '+- E > 0 en c: en ro 0) c: ...... .c 0 .- ã) wwO)ro.....3:~roro.5..c:roc:"ooE..... ::>a:::~"oæ c: en enl-= 0) 0)3: 0)0 o a::: a. 0) c: g> ~ .~ -g -g >. ~ §.. -e 0) E :; ~ ::> :; g "0 ~ .~ '> ro ro t c: 0 .3 i:: g- 0) . .. 0 a. "0 0) 0) E .- "0 "0 0) 0) 0) en 0) - .: en W W 0) ~ CO Õ 'c :g 0 0 g- ~ > :a ~ ~ s. ~ ~ ~ ..c: 0 Ou ..... ·E- :J §Z §Z ..... 0) 00) c: ..... 0) 0) 0 I-I-I-......_a.. en> > a...... :JO'''O.....N ro roO) en en .5 c: .- 0 E O>.Q ro en ...... ro c:_ 0)"0..... .- ro 0> 0) 0) 0> -æ 'S .!: .Þ "0 e E O>co~"O a. O)-.....ro "O.....:Jro ~ C:"OEE15o O)c:....."o 3: Ero.Ec:"OO) E"O -ro:J..... ogQ)t)8.3 ~3:ã;2"O.2 .....O)3:oc:en - ..c: 0 ..... ro -c: o-I 0._ 0 c: 0 0 ro._ en_ -oen 0) en oj >. O>.~ oO)EO>>'E "0 0>._ O)..c: E C:--t :t::roenrooo .$ ..c: E l:;en 3: ü CJ)u_ Requestor: Mike Pugh. Land Development Council Regarding payment of fees in lieu of dedication, they would like the period of time for the city to use the funds to be reduced from 5 years to 2 or 3 years. They would also like the funds automatically refunded to property owners and not require them to apply for a refund. They also feel that fees should be used for the particular subdivision, not for neighborhood parks. It is unreasonable to require that open space fees be used to establish parkland within the boundaries of the specific subdivision. If there was land suitable for a park within the subdivision, presumably fees would not have been paid in lieu of dedication. The developers, the City, and the future residents of a subdivision all benefit from this system of parkland creation. If fees can be pooled from several adjacent subdivisions, the resulting parkland is likely to be more attractive and usable for all area residents. The alternative would be for the City to eliminate the o¡:>tion for developers to pay fees in lieu of dedication. The City makes every effort to use open space fees within the time allotted in the current ordinance. Setting up a system to automatically refund fees to current owners of property within a subdivision after a certain period of time may entail considerable administrative oversight and cost. Reducing the amount of time the City has to use any funds paid in lieu of dedication would be difficult given that the City has a five-year capital improvements plan. Getting new parkland improvements into the queue in two or three years may not always be possible. In addition, most subdivisions take more than 2 or 3 years to build out. Reordering other capital improvement priorities in the community to establish parks in an area where few homes currently exist seems unreasonable. Waiting until more homes are built out also allows the Parks Department to solicit input from residents about how they would like the funds used and what improvements are most desired. · · · That parks be considered a public improvement and be accepted as a dedication when all the other public improvements are accepted by the City. More objective standards in the code regarding how a site should be prepared before dedication, e.g. grading, trimming of trees, seeding, etc. Payment of fees in lieu of dedication: Rather than require land dedication in subdivisions where there is no open space appropriate for a neighborhood park, the City collects fees equivalent to the cost of the land that otherwise would have been dedicated. The funds are then used to purchase more suitable parkland in close proximity to the subdivision or the funds are used to improve an existing park in the area. For example, the fees collected in lieu of open space for the Southpointe subdivision were used for the expansion and improvement of Wetherby Park, which is approximately 500 feet from Southpointe The subdividers agreement typically specifies what improvements, if any, must be made to open space before it is dedicated to the City. Trying to write general standards in the zoning code that would be appropriate in all cases would be very difficult. Each piece of land has its own topography and characteristics. The subdividers agreement is a much better vehicle for establishing specific improvements that must be taken care of before the City accepts the land as public parkland. 14-5K. (p.333-337) Neighborhood Open Space Requirements. The Land Development Council requests: THESE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE The City does accept dedicated parkland in the same manner as other public improvements; that is when been improved as specified in the subdivision's legal papers and as per City Code. it has Staff does not recommend making any changes to the current system of administering the fees paid in lieu of dedication. Staff recommends making some changes to the language in the zoning code to make it clear that any improvements required prior to dedication will be specified in the subdividers agreement. 44 Proposed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff Recommendation Commission Action 14-5K - Neighborhood Open Space Requ i rements Reg uestor: 14-4E-9 (p. 226) Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy. Make a change so that persons that have been issued a building permit and made substantial progress on a project based on the current occupancy standards will be grandfathered in at the current standards, even if they do not yet have a rental permit. Michael McLau~hlin Changes to the occupancy standards in the proposed code are not intended to impact existing rental properties or properties where a building permit was issued prior to the release of the public review draft of the zoning code. 45 Pro~osed Amendment Ex~lanato~ Notes Staff recommends making Staff Recommendation this change Commission Action 14-4E - Nonconforming Situations Requestor: Dan Smith. Land Development Council 14-8B-9 (p. 359) Performance Guarantees. Remove this section This section was copied from its current location in the site plan section of the City Code. It was included in the proposed zoning code, so that users of the Code would not have to flip to a different section of the City Code to find out the procedures for a performance guarantee !f one was required. No new requirements were added to the City Code for performance guarantees. This section merely describes the procedure to be followed !f a Qerformance guarantee is reguired. (Note: It will remain in its current form within site plan review section of the City Code.) Staff recommends Zoning Code. the 48 Requestor: Charlie Eastham, Greater Iowa City Housing FellowshiQ removing this section from the 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting Required. Request to re-write this provision to provide a greater possibility of participation by people interested in or who would be living in the proposed development to attend the meeting. There is nothing in the regulations that would prevent a developer from inviting prospective tenants or home buyers to the neighborhood meeting. Staff encourages full participation by all those who might be affected by a development, including those who may be future residents of the neighborhood. However, it would be difficult to make this a requirement in the code, since it is often unknown who will be living in a new development. Therefore, staff does not recommend making a change to the ordinance. 47 Requestor: Dan Smith. Land Development Council 14-8A-2 (p.352) Neighborhood Meeting Required. Remove this requirement This requirement is intended to supplement the opportunities for public input into a development proposal. If information is provided early in the planning stages of a project, it can help to dispel misinformation and may help to foster better communication throughout the development review and approval process. The public hearing process is not the best means to foster a dialogue between parties, but is a means to provide input to the Commission and the Ci~ Council. 46 Proposed Amendment Explanatory Notes Staff does not recommend making Staff Recommendation this change Commission Action 14-8 - Review and Approva I Procedures The proposed code, while somewhat more ambiguous, provides more flexibility (See 14-8D-7E (p.378) 49 14-8D-7E (p.378) Amending Approved OPD Plans or Sensitive Areas Development Plans. Request clarification of the phrase "character of development" with regard to requests for changes to an approved planned development. Requestor: Dan Smith. Land Development Council "Minor changes in building arrangements that do not substantially alter the character of the development are permissible without further City Council action. Any other changes, including changes in street locations, land use and buildinga arrangements, shall be considered as material changes to the approved plan. Such changes must be approved as amendments in accordance with the procedures set forth in D2." (Preliminary PDH Plan Approval). The existing language in the Code is more restrictive than the proposed language regarding changes to approved OPD Plans. It only allows minor changes in building arrangements. The existing language in 14-6J-2D-10a. states: If more certainty is desired regarding requests for amendments to approved OPD Plans, staff recommends amending the proposed code using language from the existing zoning code (Density bonus is allowed without a PDH rezonil}gl . . lot size: 8,000 s.f. Optional Density Bonus: If garages are located on an alley, then: · The minimum lot width may be reduced to 50 feet; The minimum setback may be reduced to feet, if utilities are located along the alley; and The minimum lot size may be reduced to 6,000 s.f. Minimum Minimum ç¡araQe. Minimum 15 · · · · This option will allow all the benefits of option B, above. It will also provide flexibility and a density bonus for subdivision design that includes rear access from an alley or private rear lane. Since alley ROW requirement is 20 feet, reducing the lot size requirement will more than offset the land required for the alley. In other words, developers will not be penalized with a loss of density if they put in an alley. In fact, allowing reduced lot widths and lot sizes will provide a density bonus for developers that will more than offset the cost of constructing an alley. With an alley, more houses can be built in a neighborhood without it feeling crowded. On-street parking will be more plentiful and sidewalks will be safer, since there will be few driveways directly from the street. Additional density and flexibility in subdivision design will be allowed without having to go through a PDH rezoning process. · This will still allow house plans where the garage dominates the front façade of the house. D C Minimum lot width: 70 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 25 ft. for the QaraQe. Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning.) lot width: 70 ft. setback: 20 ft for the house, 25 ft for · · Minimum lot width: 60 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 25 ft. for the aaraQe Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning) · 70-foot lot width would allow for 3-car garages and still leave enough room for the residential portion of house to be visible and accessible from the street. · Additional land is not needed for the increase in lot width to 70 ft, because the minimum lot size will remain the same at 8,000 s.f. per lot. This is a dimensional change, not an increase in area. · The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly as vehicles have increased in size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation. · Note: This will not require the garage to be setback from the front façade of the house, but will allow the house to be located closer to the street than the garage, if the owner/builder so chooses. · · · · This will still the house. There is no incentive to build subdivisions with alternative garage access. Any variation from these standards will require a PDH rezoning. Increasing the minimum lot width to 70 feet may result in additional consumed if lot depth is not reduced accordingly. land being The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly as vehicles have increased in size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation · allow house plans where Regulations are not flexible. the standards. Even though the 60 ft. min. lot width has been on the books for a number of years, it has only been in the last few years that developers have started platting lots at this min. standard. With the increasing desire for 3 car garages, neighborhood streets in even low density single family neighborhoods may be affected ~ the ..Qrominence of~es. Regulations are not flexible. A PDH rezoning is needed for the standards. Even though the 60 ft. min. lot width has been on the books for a number of years, it has only been in the last few years that developers have started platting lots at this min. standard. With the increasing desire for 3 car garages, neighborhood streets in even low density single family neighborhoods may be affected ~ the .£!"ominence of garages. A PDH rezoning is needed for the garage dominates the front façade of any variation from B A No chanqe: Minimum lot width: 60 ft. Minimum setback for both house and garage: 20 ft. Minimum lot size: 8,000 s.f. (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning) . No change to the ordinance would be needed · · · any variation from Options Low Densi~ Si"-gle Fami~RS-5) Zone Pros Cons (Density bonus is allowed without a PDH Optional Density Bonus: If garages are located on an alley, then: · The minimum lot width may be reduced to 40 feet; · The minimum setback may be reduced to 15 feet, if utilities are located along the alley; and · The minimum lot size may be reduced to 4,000 sJ. rezoning.l · · Minimum lot width: 55 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft for the house, 25 ft for garage. Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. Garages must be located flush with or setback behind the front façade of the house, with the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of the front façade. · · This option will allow all the benefits of option B, above. It will also provide flexibility and a density bonus for subdivision design that includes rear access from an alley or private rear lane. Reducing the lot size requirement will more than offset the land required for the alley. In other words, developers will not be penalized with a loss of density if they put in an alley. In fact, allowing reduced lot widths and lot sizes will provide a density bonus for developers that will more than offset the cost of constructing an alley. With an alley, more houses can be built in a neighborhood without it feeling crowded. On-street parking will be more plentiful and sidewalks will be safer, since there will be few driveways directly from the street. Additional density and flexibility in subdivision design will be allowed without having to go through a PDH rezoning. Some house plans currently being used may have to be re-designed to meet the garage location standards. C Minimum lot width: 55 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 25 for garage. Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. Garages must be located on an alley or must be flush with or setback behind front façade of the house, with the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of the front façade. (Any variation from these standards would PDH rezoning.) require a · · · · · 55-foot lot width would allow for front-loaded 2-car garages and still leave enough room for the residential portion of house to be visible and accessible from the street. The additional garage location standards will prevent garages from dominating the frontage along neighborhood streets in these smaller lot subdivisions. Additional land is not needed for the increase in lot width, because the minimum lot size will remain the same at 5,000 sJ. per lot. This is a dimensional change, not an increase in area. The current 20-foot garage setback has not been sufficient, particularly as vehicles have increased in size, to allow a person to park in front of their garage with enough room to walk around the vehicle, without blocking the public sidewalk. Increasing the setback to 25 feet will improve this situation. · · · · There is no incentive to build subdivisions with alley access. Any variation from these standards will require a PDH rezoning. Some house plans currently being used may have to be re-designed to meet the garage location standards. B A No chanqe: Minimum lot width: 45 ft. Minimum setback for both house and garage Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. (Any variation from these standards would PDH rezoning) require a ~ros No change to the ordinance would be needed. 20 ft. · · The current regulations are not flexible variation from the standards. It is difficult to develop lots that are this narrow with front-loaded garages. A 2-car front-loaded garage (typically 20-24 ft. wide) on a lot this narrow, leaves little room for the residential portion of the house. A 3-car front- loaded garage (typically 30-33 ft wide) on a lot this narrow would result in the front door being moved to the side of the house with the front façade com2!eteJï consumed ~ the garage. O~tions Medium Density Single Family ResidentialjRS-8}Zone Cons · APDH rezoning is needed for any lDensity bonus is allowed without a PDH · · · Optional Density Bonus: If garages are located on an alley, then: · The minimum lot width may be reduced to 30 ft for detached SF; 20 ft. for attached SF; and 50 ft. for duplexes; The minimum setback may be reduced to 15 feet, if utilities are located along the alley; and The minimum lot size may be reduced to 3,200 sJ. per dwelling unit for detached SF and duplexes; 3,000 sJ. per unit for attached SF. Some additional standards would be required for attached units to address shared property line issues; pedestrian access; building bulk/scale. rezoning.) · Minimum lot width: 55 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft for the house, 25 ft for garage. Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. Garages must be located flush with or setback behind the front façade of the house, with the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of the front façade. · This option has all the advantages of option B, above, but provides opportunities for a variety of housing types currently precluded by the development standards of this zone. The Density Bonus provisions provide the opportunities for development of narrow lot detached SF houses, duplexes, and townhouses without having to go through the PDH rezoning process. This will streamline the development process for higher density housing types, which may bring the cost down for consumers. Establishing minimum standards in the ordinance for vehicle access, shared lot lines, and building bulk/scale may help to reduce community resistance to higher density housing · There would be few downsides to this option, since it is currently difficult to develop anything other than single family houses and duplexes in this zone at the same density as the RS-8 Zone. c Minimum lot width: 55 ft. Minimum setback: 20 ft. for the house, 25 for garage. Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. Garages must be located on an alley or must be flush with or setback behind front façade of the house, with the garage taking up no more than 50% of the width of the front façade. ~y variation from these standards would require a PDH rezonil!9.1 · · · This option will establish a baseline lot size, width, and garage location standard at which it is possible to build small lot neighborhoods with attractive streets. The advantages of this approach are the same as RS-8 zone, above. isted for the · While this option will provide better development standards for detached single family dwellings on smaller lots, it still will not allow the higher density housing options anticipated for this zone without going through a PDH rezoning process. As is currently the case, there would be little difference between RS-8 zoning and RS-12 zoning, because townhouses are effectively precluded by the minimum lot width and size requirements. B No chanqe: Minimum lot width: 45 ft. Minimum setback for both house and garage: 20 ft Minimum lot size: 5,000 sJ. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,000 sJ. (Any variation from these standards would require a PDH rezoning) · · While this zone allows a mix of housing types, including houses, duplexes, and townhouses, the minimum lot size and width effectively prevent the development of higher density SF units, such as townhouses. If well planned, higher density residential developments provide attractive, yet more affordable housing options for young families and seniors, looking to downsize after retirement. We currently have very little RS-12 zoning. Developers are instead using the PDH rezoning process in order to develop these types of attached units. While this process often results in a better development, the additional approval time may add to the cost of housing. A Pros · No change to the ordinance would be needed. · Options Hijlh Density Sinjlle Family ResidentiaURS-121 Zone Cons "C """ Q) (") .-+ .-+ o :J CD """ en .-+ "C en Evolution of Quality Affordable Housing Design: The Springfield, Missouri Way Across America, communities are taking up the chal- lenge of developing affordable housing. In some instances, this has meant trading design aesthetics for rapid construction and lower costs. Places like Springfield, Missouri have taken a more balanced approach by instituting design guidelines that do a better job of blending affordable housing into the existing community aesthetic. In the process, they're achieving a positive return on their investment through pride of ownership and increased equity. Like many communities across America, Springfield, with a population of over 150,000, is a HUD entitle- ment recipient. Assisting low- to moderate-income families with housing needs is a significant part of the City's Consolidated Plan. Programs developed in the mid 1980s provide low to 0 percent interest-deferred loans for the rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied units, as well as for the rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing units and construction of new affordable rental units. These activities target specific census tracts contain- ing a high percentage of substandard housing stock and low- to moderate-income residents. Springfield's low-interest loan programs provide funding to address the most essential deferred maintenance issues, while meeting basic code compliance requirements and pro- viding for decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Because Springfield's affordable housing programs have resulted in underutilized lots or dilapidated houses being replaced with new and rehabilitated housing stock, they have traditionally enjoyed broad community support. The common perception has been that any new housing stock was good for the neigh- borhood, regardless of how it looked. As Springfield has evolved, so too have community expectations. As more affordable housing units have been con- structed, an increasing number of residents have come to question whether these units are truly a benefit to the community as a whole. Many of the questions being asked are based on the relative quality of design in comparison to other single- and multi-family homes in the area. In an effort to meet the objective of provid- ing affordable housing, the City's loan programs were funding intill rental housing that was often inexpensive, contemporary in style, cheap to build, and insensitive 2 researcworks to the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The result has been affordable housing units that clearly stand out from the crowd... but for all the wrong reasons. Residents expressed concern that these units would lower their property values and increase rental development/renter population. Homes constructed prior to the adop- tion of design guidelines do little to promote inter- action between building occupants and the surround- ing neighborhood. More recent design-driven homes incorporate elements, such as front porches and multiple window openings, that promote an inviting and engaging streetscope. In the fall of 2002, the Springfield City Council responded by authorizing the use of basic design guidelines - the Residential In fill and Rehabilitation Guidelines (For Single-Family and Duplex Development). The purpose of these basic Guidelines is to promote the rehabilitation and design of single-family residential and duplex developments located within established neighborhoods in a manner that's compatible with surrounding single-family housing styles, and to promote specific design elements that are beneficial to the health of affected neighborhoods. Since implementing the Guidelines, the City has con- tinued to use its low-interest loan programs to fund several owner-occupied rehabilitation projects and the construction of new rental housing units. These continued on page 3 It can be argued that the 20th Century Civil Rights Movement got its start in 1905 in Western New York and neighboring Fort Erie, Canada. An African- American organization created there espoused for the first time a modern program of uncompromising WE. B. DuBois- the driving force protest and demand behind the Niagara Movement. for change. Dubbed the Niagara Movement because of its place of origin, the group was composed of 59 leading African-American intellectuals, writers, newspapermen, and activists. The purpose of the Movement was to fight racial discrimination in the US It was significant because it laid the cornerstone for the modern civil rights movement. The Niagara Movement also chartered the course for the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was formally established on February 12, 1909. The Niagara Movement founders of the Niagara Movement stood for voting rights, higher education, freedom of speech, and first- class citizenship for African-Americans. W. E. B. DuBois (1868-1963) was the driving force behind the Movement. He was the first African- American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard, held a professorship at Atlanta University, and was widely recognized as one of the leading black intellectuals of his time. It was DuBois who predicted that the great issue of the coming century was going to be "the problem of the color line." While the Niagara Movement lasted only a few years and never had more than 200 active members, its lin- gering effects were tremendous. In fact, the impact of the Niagara Movement is still being felt to this day. On February 15, the Birmingham, Alabama HUD Field Office celebrated African-American History Month by hosting a celebration to commemorate the Niagara Movement. The program was developed in accor- dance with this year's national theme - "The Niagara Movement: Black Protest Reborn -1905 - 2005." The HUD Field Office Program featured artistic perfor- mances as well as guest speakers. The Honorable Judge Helen Shores Lee served as the keynote speaker. . .... () (/) () Q) .... () ::T :J () ~ en Evolution of Quality Affordable Housing Design conUrompage2 single-family and duplex projects incorporate tradi- tional designs that are compatible with the surround- ing housing styles. In addition, the Guidelines require the incorporation of design elements, such as front porches, thus promoting a streetscape that encourages pedestrian activity and interaction. At a recent open house, responses from neighbors, neighborhood orga- nizations, developers, and City Building Department staff exceeded all expectations of acceptance. While not eliminating resistance altogether, use of the Guidelines has shrunk the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) banner that's often raised in response to afford- able housing down to the size of a postcard. During and following the construction of these new design-driven units, the City has received requests from other developers interested in acquiring houses and parcels for (re)development that are in close proximity to City-funded affordable housing projects. Further, citizens who previously called on a routine basis to complain about neighborhood conditions have now contacted City staff to thank them for remov- ing a blight and saving their neighborhood. Renewed interest in infill development in distressed areas is now at an all-time high. For developers of affordable housing, the ques- tions are always the same - how much will design requirements add to project costs, and why should they spend more if rent amounts stay the same? The preliminary results of Springfield's completed projects reveal that if design-related costs increase project costs at all, they typically add no more than 2 to 3 percent to the overall cost. However, the earned continued on page 6 FEBRUARY 05 3 Evolution of Quality Affordable Housing Design cont. frampage3 value in terms of increased property value and equity is approximately 5 percent over contemporary infill construction styles, providing an instant 2.5 percent (or better) gain in property equity. In addition, tenants of these developments seem to be taking much more pride in their housing, which equals fewer associated overhead costs. Springfield has found that there are many ways to measure design value. First, good design promotes neighborhood unity through continued growth, regardless of whether the properties are rented or owner occupied. In addition, the sense of neighbor- hood pride associated with quality ¡nfill is something that only those directly affected by it are able to describe. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly common for residents surrounding City-funded affordable housing projects to tell City staff that they are very proud of what is happening on "their" street, and they often invite others to stop by for a look. And while there has yet to be any hard data to support Three HUD-Sponsored Programs Helping to Promote Affordable Housing Design National Building Museum Exhibit-Affordable Housing: Designing an American Asset This exhibit profiles 18 projects from across the nation that demonstrate that well-designed developments can offer new opportunities for the least wealthy Americans, while creating real value as assets for their surrounding communities. The projects demonstrate that America's architects are increasingly creating affordable housing that is durable, environmen- tally sensitive, comfortable, attractive, and economical to maintain. The exhibit is traveling through March 2007. Upcoming dates and locations include: March 19, 2005 - May 15, 2005 June 4, 2005-July 31, 2005 August 20, 2005 - October 16, 2005 November 5, 2005-January 1, 2006 January 21, 2006 - March 19, 2006 For more information, visit www.nbm.org UPenn School of Design, Philadelphia, PA Chicago Architecture Foundation, Chicago, IL Lyceum, Hartford, CT MIT Museum, Boston, MA Museum of Design, Atlanta, GA The Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology (PATH) Concept Home The Concept Home, PATH's latest effort to encourage innovation in the housing industry, illustrates advanced construction principles. The Concept Home represents a long-term, multi-part initiative that combines forward-thinking technological innovations with consideration of the American family's needs and the American homebuilding industry's potential. The Concept Home demonstrates a high quality, affordable home that can be built in 20 days. It can accommodate chang- ing lifestyles, adapt to technological advances, be easily repaired and remodeled, and even looks custom-built. An architectural model of the home was created to demonstrate these concepts. The model will be displayed on March 23 in Baltimore at Building Mart as part of the Maryland Homebuilder's Association Meeting, and from May 31-June 3 at the Pacific Coast Building Conference in San Francisco. For more information, visit www.pathnet.org HUD's Affordable Housing Design Advisor HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research was an early and enthusiastic sponsor of a resource known as the Affordable Housing Design Advisor. The Advisor is a website that brings together experiences and ideas from successful affordable housing projects all over the country, and the people who develop, design, and build them. The Affordable Housing Design Advisor has been developed to help anyone involved in the production of affordable housing achieve better design quality. It is full of useful- and usable- information that can be accessed in a variety of ways. For more information, visit the Advisor site at www.designadvisor.org. 6 researcVvorks continued on page 7 Evolution of Quality Affordable Housing Design cant. from pagE 6 Springfield's design guidelines require traditional building form to be maintained during city-funded rehabilitation,as shown at left. .. /;m Here is the same home as it appeared prior to rehabilitation. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff to the site and expand its services to the residents of University Park. Through funding provided by the HUD-HBCU program and by local, state, and private sources, UAPB (through its Economic Research and Development Center) has made significant strides in the areas of housing, infrastructure, small business development, and edu- cational enhancement. The University's HUD-HBCU ini- tiatives have been the result of successful partnerships with several agencies and organizations, including the City of Pine Bluff, community-based organizations, local school districts, and other civic and faith-based organizations. Current projects include the joint "Why Not In Our Community?" cant. from pagE 5 "Why Not In Our Community?" describes these trends and focuses on the successful efforts of several states to overcome these types of barriers. For example, Idaho now requires municipalities to permit manufac- tured homes in residential areas. Illinois requires an analysis of the impact on affordable housing of every bill that potentially impacts the cost of constructing, purchasing, owning, or selling a single-family residence. There's also progress being seen at the local level. For example, New York City recently announced a com- prehensive strategy for overhauling the city's outdated building code, zoning process, developing city-owned subjective observation, su rrou nd ing property va lues may soon be on the rise. One thing that's obvious to both the developers and owners who have first-hand experience in the marriage of affordable and high quality design is the renewed sense of pride in their properties. It is not uncommon to hear developers say they are very proud to own affordable housing property funded through the City of Springfield's Loan Programs, and to play an active role in making NIMBYism a thing of the past. . con t. from pagE 4 development of a 'super block' housing development in University Park, a minority empowerment business support incubator in downtown Pine Bluff, and a community/UAPB neighborhood medical complex. For additional information on programs of the Economic Research and Development Center of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, please contact Mr. Henry A. Golatt or Mr. Jeffery Pulliam at 870.575.8030. For more information on HUD's Historically Black Colleges and Universities program, visit HUD's Office of University Partnerships (OUP) website at www.oup.orgfaboutfhbcu.html. . property for affordable housing that the city has usually sold at auction, and streamlining the approval process. For teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses, service workers and others, removing barriers is critical to meeting their housing needs. By reducing or elimi- nating the barriers to affordable housing, millions of American families will be able to buy or rent suitable housing that they otherwise could not afford. To obtain a copy of the report "Why Not In Our Community?" Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing vis it www.huduser.orgfpubl¡cationsfaffhsg/ whynotourComm.html . FEBRUARY 05 7 MINUTES PLANNING and ZONING PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 28, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Buss, Dennis Nowatny, John Kammermeyer, Craig Dahlen, Glenn Siders, Gary Kleinfelder, Pam Ehrhardt, Steve Gordon, Ed Jones, Cecile Kuenzli, Scott Hochstasser, Dan Smith, Charles Eastham, Larry Svoboda, Gary Moore, Bob Welsh, Lori Dahlen, Larry Schnittjer, Joe Holland, Mike Pugh, Ann Bovbjerg, Mark McCalhon, Patti Santangelo, Mike McLaughlin CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the public hearing to order at 7:32 pm. OPENING REMARKS: Chairperson Brooks said the purpose of this meeting was to hold a public comment hearing on the new Zoning Code for the City of Iowa City. A draft of proposed changes to the Zoning Code had been made available to the public in February, 2005. Since that time, P&Z staff had attended numerous civic group meetings to present information on the proposed changes and three public informational open houses had been held during which time the public had been invited to attend to meet one-on-one with staff and Commission members to ask questions and discuss areas/issues that needed clarification. All of those comments along with any additional Public Review Draft Comment Sheets received would be entered into the public record and would become part of the Commission's deliberation process as they moved through the adoption of the new Zoning Code. A copy of the proposed Code was available on the City's web page as well as on a CD or in hard copy format from the Planning and Community Development office. Brooks said this would be the first of at-least two public hearings before the Commission. All commentary received would be considered and utilized in the process of developing the final Code which would be voted on by the Commission and then sent to City Council for their review. The Council would also hold a series of public hearings before the Code was adopted. This public hearing would go until 10:00 pm. Persons were requested to limit their comments to five minutes to provide everyone an opportunity to speak. If all persons had had the opportunity to speak, persons would be welcome to speak a second time for an additional 3-5 minutes. Brooks said the Commission had already received a large amount of public input in the form of letters, e-mails and comments during the public informational meetings. There were several items which the Commission would be directing staff to review further and provide suggested changes or revisions to the proposed Code for re-consideration by the Commission. Potential re- review items included the location of shelters in certain neighborhoods and ways to keep existing duplexes in certain zones conforming with the proposed changes in the Code. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 2 of 20 Motion: Anciaux made a motion to accept and put into record all correspondence received to date. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: Barbara Buss, 718 S. Summit, said she was there to urge the Commission's support for the proposed changes to the Code. She thanked Karen and Staff for the careful way the proposals had been made with special consideration for public input. She felt the specific proposals spoke to the common interest of the community. Two groups, homeowners and landlords, would speak before the Commission. Each would speak in its own self interest as property owners. It would be up to the Commission to decide which of those self interest's best coincided with the interests of the City. Homeowners were persons who owned property as their home, their largest financial asset was the equity in their homes. Their interests would be to protect the value of their investment by maintaining their property and the neighborhood in which it was located. The stability of Iowa City's neighborhood followed from the pursuit of that self interest. Landlords, who owned rental property but had little interest beyond the revenue from their property. This group did not include the many landlords with a sense of civic responsibility. They also had a significant investment in the property they owned. Their interests in maintaining the value of their investment did not extend to any interest in preserving the quality of the neighborhood of which their property was a part. Iowa City had a large population of short term residents who did not make significant financial or emotional commitments to the places they lived. This lack of commitment on the part of the tenants allowed landlords to disregard neighborhoods. This disregard furthered the self interest of the landlord group by devaluing the property in these neighborhoods for homeowners. Buss said it was often taken for granted that there was a presumption in favor of property rights as belonging strictly to the person who owned the property. It went without saying that you could not keep an elephant in your backyard just because you owned the backyard. She quoted from Eric Freifogal, Professor of Law, University of Law. "American's have largely forgotten the links between property rights and the common good. Dominant myths not withstanding, it has been clear for generations that the only sound way to justify private rights in land is to point to the contributions property makes for the common good." Buss said she felt the proposed revisions spoke to the common good. She, as a homeowner, cared very much about her neighborhood and about Iowa City as a place of neighborhoods and hoped that the Commission would act in support of the common good by supporting the proposed revisions. Dennis Nowatny, 511 Washington Street, said he lived in commercial property and had rental properties across the street from him. Goals for the Code had been to simplify the Code and get more affordable housing in Iowa City. The Code had doubled from 200 to 400 pages. CB-2 zoned property owners were notified that the two major CB-2 zoned areas would be split into six pieces. That would not simplify the Code. Pagglia Pizza and the old house on Bloomington Street would become non-conforming heights because they were higher than 37-feet. The R/O zoned area on Washington Street would also become nonconforming as they were more or less 35-feet in height. 35-feet seemed to be a suburban height limit and did not fit with some of the neighborhoods and homes closer to the downtown area. Affordable housinq. The east-side of downtown was zoned RNC-20 and were allowed to have 5- bedrooms in those houses. On P. 394, definitions, in the Code, only 4 bedrooms would be permitted which would cut away another bedroom and its use. 1 a-years ago when RM-12 had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 3 of 20 been downzoned to RNC-12, four to three bedrooms, the use of one bedroom had been lost. City Council had provided assurances the change would be reversed, it had never happened. CB-2 to R/O reduced the usable lot size by 1'2. Currently CB-2 could build lot to lot, 100-foot height. R/O cut down to 1'2 lot build on and cut 2/3 of height from 100-feet to 37 -feet. He'd prefer to see the R/O and CB-2 zones merged into the CB-5 zoning. Keep the older building usable as they had been in the past. John Kammermeyer, 116 Fearson Avenue, said he'd served on a committee in the 1970's-80's that had spent over 6-months revising the Comprehensive Plan. It asked too much of the Commission, Council and the public to comprehend the new Code. · The revision should have been done in stages looking at residential zones, commercial, etc. · Opposed to the design regulations that had crept into the Code. · Need less zones rather than more zones, the zones needed to be more flexible. · Simplify not complicate the Code; pages doubled in quantity. · Less regulations rather than more. · Avoid at all costs making properties non-conforming or taking value away from property. Comprehensive Plan should be looked at as a broad brush overview document and not adhered to rigidly. Looked at and revamped every 5-years. One of their major principles had been with any change in zoning or Comprehensive Plan to minimize making a property non-conforming; to not take value away from property. He felt there would be major non-conformities arise with the proposed new regulations. Kammermeyer said his analogy was "For development in the City of Iowa City, we are slowly hemorrhaging to Coralville and North Liberty. They are more flexible in their regulations for development." Iowa City needed to look at that or they would be left in the dust. Craiq Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, one of two current managers of the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. He felt it would be wrong to change the property from exceptional zoning to provisional zoning because that would be taking away the voice of the people. The shelter house wished to build on Waterfront Drive. Hilltop Mobile Home Park and thirteen businesses along Waterfront Drive did not wish them to build there. There were many voices opposing each other right now, he felt those voices needed be heard. If it went to provisional zoning those voices would be taken away. Dahlen read Shelter House Rules for Guardians of Dependents, Rule #8. It stated that the Shelter House might have occasion in which clients of Shelter House might be on the State's Sex Offender list. It was the guardian's responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well- being and safety of dependants. Dahlen said the potential was to have sex offenders staying at the Shelter House both day and night. Currently at the Mobile Home Park they had 85 children and there were 60 children across the street at Ha-Cap, which meant 145 children were also there day and night. The House of Representatives had passed a bill that sex offenders could not live within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care center. If they felt it was an important issue, why didn't the City give it the same consideration? Dahlen urged the Commission to keep the zoning as Exceptional Zoning. Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, said he represented the Land Development Council (LDC), an organization conformed primarily of the development community in this area. Their membership expanded to include home builders, realtors, construction industry, financiers, suppliers and retailers. Their membership represented over 1,000 businesses. Their group had formed one- year ago when they learned that the zoning code was becoming more than what they'd anticipated it to be. Based on The Duncan and Associates Report issued 4-years ago, the LDC Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 4 of 20 had thought that the Zoning Ordinance would be reviewed, critiqued, amended, some problematic areas changed and enhanced and see more flexibility. The current product was 423 pages of redesigned codifications. They were opposed to many things in the ordinance, it was impossible to read it page-by-page. They objected to the public hearing being the first opportunity which allowed them to have oral presentation before the Commission. Siders said the LDC had condensed their concerns to a few problematic areas. Desiqn Elements: It was their opinion that the market should bear the design of a home. When a homeowner purchased a lot and built a property, they should be able to build what they wanted. Siders said the argument was frequently heard now that there was not a flexibility that existed or the opportunity now for people to build what they wanted. There were different markets and neighborhoods available with different types of construction which documented what the people wanted to buy and at affordability that they would buy. Siders said if the City wished to incorporate standards for development of property, such as alleys, then the City needed to step up and take the responsibility to maintain those alleys. He did not think that that responsibility should be passed on to the homeowners. He didn't see that opportunity in the proposed ordinance, he saw the opposite. Siders said the LDC commentary would primarily be directed toward the residential and not commercial aspect of the proposed changes. Gary Kleinfelder, 1131 E. Washington Street. Approximately one-year ago he was considering redeveloping two properties in the RS-8 zone that were across the street from him. He'd spoken with Staff, who'd suggested that some changes would be proposed for the RS-8 zone. He'd been told that in the new subdivisions zoned RS-8 basically all that had been built were duplexes. The City wished more of a mix of housing so the Code revision would be changed. However under the proposed changes, duplex standards would be applied to all current existing RS-8 zones. His concern was with the non-conformity issue. He'd just completed two duplexes which under the zoning proposal would become non-conforming. Brand new buildings built as condominiums for future marketability, 3-bedroom units with the potential for a fourth in the basement. If they were sold to a family who wished to install the fourth bedroom or a bath in the basement, they would be denied a permit. Kleinfelder said currently there were probably less than 1 % of duplexes in Iowa City in existing duplex zones that met the standards in the proposed Code. Kleinfelder said he was waiting to hear why a huge block of properties would be made non-conforming and why certain types of improvements could not be made to them and hoped that this situation could'be addressed in an equitable manner. Pam Ehrhardt, 1029 E. Court Street, said she personally wished to thank each Commission member and the Planning Staff for the tremendous amount of work, the time invested and thoughtful considerations put into the proposed Code revisions. She said there might be a struggle now but for years to come citizens as well as developers would thank them for the revisions of the Code. She wished to speak in support of three areas. Allowinq duplexes only on corner lots in RS-8 zones would encourage a good mix of single-family homes and duplexes in the development area. It would avoid what had occurred in the Longfellow Manor where all the homes were duplexes and unlike the rest of the neighborhood where all the homes were a good mix. Desiqn standards for narrow lots. There seemed to be a trend toward increasing urban density by using narrower lots. She felt it was imperative that there be a design standard to avoid having blocks of a wall of 2-door garages which was not a welcoming entrance to homes. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 5 of 20 Good Neiqhbor Policy mandatory. There had been many instances when the good neighbor policy had worked and the developer had met with the entire neighborhood. Listening to and discussing with each other had worked very well. There had also been instances where developers had ignored this policy and hostilities and mistrust had developed. Steve Gordon, 1718 Timber Hills Dr, Coralville. Land Development Council (LDC) representative. The proposed Zoning Code was a large document which covered many complex issues. A large part of the code as written would serve the citizens of Iowa City well, the LDC planned to focus on areas which they felt would place an undue burden on future homeowners and renters. One of their basic philosophies was that the market should drive individual housing choices. They were opposed to design standards. The concept of new urbanism or traditional neighborhood was a relatively new development philosophy which placed a large emphasis on architectural and design features of a dwelling and the placement of various structures within the development. The LDC felt the choice of design should market driven and not mandated. They felt that a lot of new urbanism concepts had been mandated within the Code. They also felt that a lot of the changes in the proposed code would decrease the availability and make it more difficult to provide market rate affordable housing in Iowa City. Residential Zones RS-5 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 60-feet to 70-feet. Density bonus back to 60-feet if certain design standards are met. Don't feel is a bonus as 60-foot lots currently allowed in RS-5. Design standards, P. 18, #6 require an alley unless criteria are met. Proposed changes will mean that a lot of the current, attractive, comfortable housing designs will no longer be allowed. 50% requirement will be especially burdensome and eliminate many current popular house plans potentially forcing houses to be larger and more expensive. LDC recommends minimum lot size of 60-feet per current code and garage standards removed. There would be a second density bonus for 50-foot lots allowed if criteria met. LDC propose bonus be lowered to 45-foot lots if alleys or rear lanes are used. RS-8 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 40- foot lot. LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet per current code, density bonus be changed to allow 35-foot lot if alley or rear lane used. RS-12 Zone: Minimum lot size increased from 45-feet to 55-feet. Density bonus allowed for 30- foot lot. LDC propose minimum lot size remain at 45-feet as per current code. P18. #6 - Garaqe Desiqn Standard. LDC propose this section be removed. P18. #3 - Sinqle Family Dwellinq will allow only one car to be parked in front setback area. Persons w/ 2-car garage can have only one vehicle parked in driveway. LDC feel in un-enforceable; should be removed from code. Minimum front yard setback reduced to 15-feet in all residential zones. Utility easements typically located in first 15-feet of front yard. All front yard landscaping and trees would be in easement and not likely to be repaired in event that easement space is needed for public repair. LDC feel 20-foot setback more desirable. They propose and support a minimum setback of 25- feet which would allow for larger front yards and enhanced landscaping. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 6 of 20 Proposed setback of 15-feet and required garage setback of 25-feet, not all persons will wish to design a home with a garage set-back 10-feet from front façade of home. Streetscape with some houses set back 15-feet and some 25-feet or further which would not make an attractive streetscape. Duplexes and Attached Sinqle-Family rO-lot linel RS-8 Zone: In proposed Code would only allow on corner lots and must meet design standards listed on pp. 169 and 175-176. LDC feels the design standards are unreasonable and will drive the cost of construction and ultimately the price to the consumer up. LCD propose that the design standards be removed and that duplexes and O-Iot line dwellings be allowed by right within the zone per the current code and not just on corner lots. These types of units have become a staple for quality, market-rate affordable housing in Iowa City and surrounding standards. RS-5 Zone: Same design standards and placement restrictions apply to duplexes and O-Iot line dwellings. LDC feels restricting these units to corner lots and having each unit a different street is acceptable in this zone. All other design requirements should be removed. RS-12 Zone: Duplexes and attached Single-Family are allowed anywhere within the zone. The same design criteria would apply. LDC feels the design criteria should be removed. P. 171 requires additional design criteria if there are 4 or more attached units. LDC feels these requirements should be removed as they would further drive up the cost of housing. P. 172 - Maintenance. It would be required to secure an access or maintenance easement for all lots that abut the O-Iot line side of a dwelling. This would be required to be recorded on the deed before the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. This would allow both sides of a O-Iot line unit to have an access easement to work on the side of their home that would be next to the other unit. It is not possible to deed over the property to the consumer before you build it; LDC feels this requirement can not be met. LDC propose the access and maintenance rights be secured in the covenants of the subdivision as is the current common practice and this requirement be removed. Multi-Family Zones. Parking would only be allowed behind principle buildings and concealed from view of fronting streets. The current Code does not allow parking in the front yard set-back area but allows flexibility to deal with lot topography and corner lots. LDC propose that parking be prohibited in front-yard setbacks but not required to be behind buildings as per the proposed code. P. 28 #3-C - requires that more than one building on a lot must be designed to preserve privacy. Proposed Code indicates this can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into windows of adjacent buildings and units. Are no criteria as to exactly what this means. Windows are dictated by safety standards and live-ability issues. If two multi-family buildings are parallel to each other, does this mean that one of the walls of one of the buildings can contain no windows? LDC feels this section needs to be better defined and would recommend that it be removed. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 7 of 20 The same section prohibits balconies and air-conditioning units from being located along a building wall that is within 20-feet of a building wall of an adjacent building on the same lot if that wall contains a window or door openings. By design, balconies or air conditioning units are within 20-feet of the walls or window or door-opening that they serve. LDC questions why is privacy more important for the adjacent building but not for the building the units are on and that they serve. LDC feels this is an unreasonable requirement and if balconies and air-conditioning units are truly a menace to privacy, they should be eliminated all together. LCD recommends that this requirement be removed. P. 40 #3-B requires an S-2 landscape screening standard between any parking areas where headlights will shine on a wall containing ground level windows. The examples used for acceptable parking configurations on P. 39 have entire building facades that would require the S- 2 screening which requires a landscape screen that ranges from 2-feet to 4-feet in height, and at- least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to a height of no less than 4-feet. LDC feels having entire facades of buildings where tenants park and enter the building shrouded by 4-foot tall shrubs poses a serious safety concern. LDC recommends this requirement be removed. P. 41 #6 requires entrance doors to individual units located above ground level must be accessed from an enclosed lobby or corridor. There are many good apartment building designs that utilize covered stairways and landings to access upper level units. LDC feels this requirement is too restrictive and should be removed. P. 41 Section E - Desiqn Standards. These types of design standards lead to increased construction costs and ultimately higher costs for the residents. P. 42 - Central Planninq District Desiqn Standards are very restrictive. They take up five-pages. The Central Planning District is meant to preserve the historic character of the District, it is a wide reaching district that includes many acres of undeveloped land in the northern part of the city. LDC feels the established historic districts can accomplish the preservation and historic feel of their specific neighborhoods. To have such restrictive detailed design standards over such a large area including large areas of undeveloped land is unwarranted. Commercial Zones CN-1 Zone. The requirements on P. 68 do not seem feasible or conducive to commercial uses. The build-to line is set at 5-feet back from the front property line. At least 65% of the build-to line must contain a building which means on a 100-foot wide lot, at-least 65-feet of the lot will contain a building that is no more that 5-feet back from the property line. The first 15-feet of a front lot is usually reserved for utility easements. To meet this requirement in areas already developed, the utilities would have to be moved; in undeveloped areas they would need to be placed in a location different from current practices. The LDC question if the City Engineering Department and local utilities have been consulted regarding this issue. The requirement will force parking to the rear of the lot or behind commercial uses. The LDC feels that clearly would not be conducive to a small business trying to provide convenience to its customers. In most successful CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City the building isolated on the side or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have convenient, easy access to the business. The LDC feels that the Code is trying to address a problem that does not exist. By definition in the proposed Code, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The proposed Code will put buildings 5-foot back from the right-of-way line on the City's busiest Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 8 of 20 streets. The opinion of the LDC is that this will jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians and would not be aesthetically pleasing. P. 71 Section L - 0, BuildinQ Architectural Standards. The LDC propose that these be removed or modified to be less restrictive. CB-5 and CB-10 zones have the same design standards found in the CN-1 zone. Certain design standards seem appropriate in these zones because of the unique nature of our downtown and the desire to preserve that nature. It needs to be certain that the requirements encourage and promote the revitalization and business health of these areas and are not a deterrent. Planned Development Overlay Zone. As mentioned in the description the OPD zone should permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land. Flexibility is the key word. As with residential zones, the LDC feels that certain design standards are mandated which takes away from the flexibility and creativity that should be allowed. The OPD zoning process should be a tool where the City and developers have an opportunity to be creative and find new and innovative ways to develop property. Restrictions included: · Attached single family uses must comply with the design standards for an RS-12 zone. · Design standards limit housing to certain-craftsman neo-traditionallook · Multi family & duplex uses must comply with design standards of multi-family zones, very limiting. · All commercial development must comply with CN-1 standards, not feasible in a lot of areas · Undue emphasis placed on pedestrian oriented street frontages with limited interruption from driveways. Design feature found in new urbanism but not necessarily a desire feature in all development design in all situations. · Alleys or rear lane access are required on all lots if the lot dimension is reduced unless the garage standards met. P. 113 Section 2-C, #1, states that private streets are discouraged. Throughout the proposed Code the use of alleys and private rear lanes is encouraged and sometimes required. It is the assumption of the LDC that alleys and rear lanes are considered private streets as there is no provision in the Code for these to be dedicated to the City. Section 2-C, #3 The developer must submit legally binding papers setting forth the procedure for maintaining private streets and providing garbage and snow removal and how these services will be paid for. The proposed code requires rear alleys and lanes but makes the upkeep and routine maintenance the responsibility of the residents, thus further affecting the affordability of housing. The LDC believes at a minimum that if the City is going to require alleys they should also take the responsibility for routine maintenance and long term care of those alleys. Ed Jones, 1047 Scott Park Drive, said property rights are absolutely critical. It seems the City of Iowa City does not seem to care about the individuals who buy property and what they should be allowed to do with it. Jones said he very much resists the proposed changes to the Code. The design issue is so subjective that in a lot of cases the citizen does not know what his/her rights are and they are interpreted by the government. Jones said this is too cumbersome. He'd just finished a project and found the coordination with the City to be cumbersome to deal with. Sometimes City Staff's decisions were much more restrictive than the Code. There needed to be a rule of law that stated that both parties are aware of what the criteria are. That is not the case now; the proposed Code will make it more restrictive. Jones said The free market system is the most efficient way to supply the needs of the citizens. Government has not proven it can do that. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 9 of 20 Cecile Kuenzli, 705 S. Summit Street, thanked the Commission for having undertaken this project. She had done some reading and it seemed as if Staff were trying to simplify the process, consolidate things and put them in places where a person didn't have to flip through the Code book sixteen different places to find the information pertaining to a single topic. She felt that was a lot of work that had to be done, Staff had done it and she felt it was a wonderful job that Staff was doing for the public. She would be speaking in favor of adopting the new zoning code. Kuenzli said as she wandered around Iowa City, she found that too much of the new construction was both faceless and graceless. Construction where garages were the main feature, where concrete driveways dwarfed the lawn or sidewalk, where you had to look hard to find a front entry because it was recessed so far it could barely be detected. There was the same lack of landscaping, the same roof lines, the same neutral colors and the same building materials. Same, same, same meant boring. She felt there was not much choice when someone wanted to buy a new house in Iowa City. Much of it looked the same. In the last 10-years various family events had taken her all over the nation and everywhere she went she was interested in what was going on in terms of new construction. She frequently found herself saying, "That is so interesting, why can't we do that in Iowa City." Kuenzli said she felt the proposed Zoning Code would enable things that were more interesting to be done. Cities that were attractive had a lot of regulations that encouraged good design. Portland, Boulder and New Haven, CT, had made great comebacks. They were cities where there was a lot of regulation and regulation specifically concerning design. She didn't think we needed to fear change in Iowa City. She felt that the change the Zoning Code would represent might result in a better housing product and in a more desirable community for all Iowa Citians. Scott Hochstasser, 3727 Forrest Gate Drive, said he didn't live or own property in Iowa City. He was a professional land use planner. He practiced planning on the west coast in the state of California. Hochstasser said he'd lived in Iowa City for eight years. He'd watched the development boom and the economy grow. Ours was an incredibly vital and incredibly amazing community. He felt that the consultant and Staff had done a fantastic job of trying to mitigate and mediate the issues that were being heard between the development community and the people who wanted to preserve or protect the City to keep a viable and sustainable community for the future. Hochstasser said a number of years ago, as an adjunct professor he'd sent a team of graduate students from the University to the City Council with a report of findings about barriers to affordable housing in Iowa City. He was very pleased to see that the proposed new regulations would actually lower some of those barriers and allow for future affordable housing development - - real affordable housing development. Hochstasser said he'd like to say that the planning process is just that, it is a process. A lot of discussion would be heard yet this evening. He'd been looking across the tops of heads searching for an empty chair to sit in and had taken note that many of the heads had less hair or graying hair. He felt that the way the process was going, most of the people in the room would not even see the Code implemented or feel the effects of it. However, the process would continue. He felt that the Zoning Code, by being more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would take the City of Iowa City forward in a much more complete and well designed way. Dan Smith, 905 Wylde Green Road, representative of the Land Development Council. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 10 of 20 Chapter 8 - Review and Approval Processes and Procedures Smith thanked the Commission, Bob Miklo, Karen Franklin and all others in the Planning Department who'd been working on the Code for such a long time. Neiqhborhood Meetinq -Mandated, Chapter 14 8 B, #7 , PP 352-353 Said the LDC felt this was an unnecessary provision for a variety of reasons including the significant delay that it would impose upon the development process. As everyone knew, time was money. Such a delay with such onerous uncertainty as to how the reporting requirements would be used and if they would be used in the future process of a planned development or for an up-zoning. It would be a significant cost and delay built into process from the start. The LDC encouraged neighborhood meetings. They felt it was the best practice and encouraged their members to do so. However as the Commission had seen on many occasions, numerous neighborhood meetings had been held and there was still contention and dispute. It would never go away. The State Code recognized that. That was why there was the public hearing process both at Planning and Zoning and at the City Council levels. Smith said the mandatory neighborhood meeting created the presumption of disapproval. The LDC wished to see the presumption that when a developer came to Staff or before the Commission that their proposal would meet the Code be built into the Code more often. The clearer it was in the Code, the easier it would be to read and therefore enjoy that presumption. Performance Guarantees, Chapter14 8 B, #9. Smith said it was unnecessary to include the performance guarantees in the Zoning Code as it was already included in the Building Code. It was problematic from a couple of different perspectives, the most important being that it could be nearly impossible to secure the money for a project from a lending institution. If a development loan was taken out, the City was asking a lender to securitize another loan on the same underlying assets which simply could not be done. The Building Department already had performance guarantees and they had the ultimate power to withhold building permits or to grant them. If there was something that needed to be done the City already had the authority to accomplish that. Chapter 14 8 D. #7. P. 378 Planned Development Rezoning and the language that talked about the character of the development. Once approval for a planned development had been received, if certain things were changed such as street-layout and character of the development. Smith said reading the Code as someone who would be liable for that Code and responsible for it, the language was too arbitrary, too open for interpretation and far too subjective. It could easily lead to an abuse by making exactions of a developer that are not listed in the Code and thereby starting the whole planned development process over again anew. Smith said the LDC looked forward to working with the Council. Charlie Eastham, President of Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. The Housing Fellowship was an affordable housing developer. They generally supported the efforts the City was making in proposing the revisions to the Zoning Code. They were particularly pleased about providing more flexibility in all residential zones for smaller lot sizes which would help the Fellowship to meet some of their goals in providing affordable housing in newer developments. He requested that the Good Neighbor / Neighborhood meetings be re-worked to provide for a greater possibility of participation by people interested in or who would be living in the proposed development. In his experience in two separate instances they'd tried to obtain rezoning for affordable housing development. They'd initiated neighborhood meetings in both re-zoning Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 11 of 20 requests and had found that there was a lot of opposition to the meetings. However, there had been participation in the public hearings before the Commission and the Council by persons who would be living in the proposed residential developments. Eastham said it might mean a few more hearings but there would be a lot to be gained by obtaining participation by people who would benefit from the proposed housing and/or who would be interested in living in the proposed housing. Eastham said generally he felt this was a good effort and a good start. He felt overall the comments and comments about the design standards were well taken, there were some things hopefully to be worked out over the long run. Eastham said he hoped Staff and the Commission would continue in their efforts. Larry Svoboda, resident of Coralville, property owner in Iowa City. When he'd first moved to Iowa City it had been going through the urban renewal process. The general housing and most construction in Iowa City was fairly unsophisticated, he thought the builders in Iowa City were also unsophisticated because everything being constructed was not too nice to look at. Over the years he'd built a building himself and had gone through a learning process, and decided that we needed more design and sophistication in the buildings being built in Iowa City. He'd recently served on a design review committee that had put together a proposed ordinance for Iowa City. They'd created a menu and list of building features whereby the builder could select from the menu certain building amenities. When a total of xx points was reached, the builder could get a building permit and proceed. Svoboda felt that had been a good approach as it gave the builder the choice of what he could do to improve the design of his building, based on the builder's choice - not the City's choice. Svoboda said it had been a start. He'd pushed for dental moldings, cross-heads, things to add to the building's design but he'd not been too successful on the committee design enhancements. Svoboda said it seemed that anything that was historic in nature had been over-represented on that committee. He'd watched this process become an ugly two headed monster which had gone from the ability of the designer and builder as to what they'd like to do to strictly what the City wished to see. He felt there was an over-emphasis on historic features on a building and nothing else counted. He felt there were other types of building features that were equally important which improved the value of the community as well. P. 44 , Central Planning District, as an example of being overly restrictive, "the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clap-board style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone or stucco." Svoboda said the proposed Code would make the new Tower building non-conforming as that building was constructed mostly of glass. He suggested if that was the approach the City wished to take, they should list certain items they did not wish to see instead of only items that they did wish to see which would give more latitude to the builder. Svoboda said he'd like to see this go back to a common ground. He felt there were two good arguments at hand. The homeowners had a legitimate argument that they didn't wish to see the City deteriorate with poor style and buildings. The building owner and developer had to have the latitude to pick their own design within a parameter that the initial Committee had tried to establish. Svoboda said he'd like to know what had happened to the proposal created by the Committee he'd served on. Gary Moore, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said many of his neighbors were very concerned about the situation. His was a unique perspective as he was a Salvation Army soldier and had also driven Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 12 of 20 school buses. Moore said within 50- or 60-feet of where people stopped for the shelter was the school bus stop where 85 children were picked up. The last 5 or 6 children who were picked up at the bus stop were special education children who would be very vulnerable to anyone from the homeless shelter. There was a need for a homeless shelter, his suggestion was to place it further down where there was more industrial development and no residential area near it. Of the homeless persons who ate dinner at the Salvation Army's site, currently there were six registered child molesters. That was his main concern; his neighbors were also upset about values. He felt that the proposed site for the shelter was a very dangerous and inappropriate place, too close to residential. It needed to be much further from the residential area. Moore said he was in a 'torn' position as he knew from his work with the Salvation Army that there was a need for a homeless shelter but the proposed location would be too risky for the children and the neighbors. Bob Welsh, said on P. 1 of the Code the purpose was stated. He hoped that everyone in the room and in the community agreed with those purposes. He suggested that was the place to start discussion. Were they valid purposes or not. He requested that every one of the specific suggestions received be reviewed and considered if it helped to carry out the purpose(s) or not. If it was not consistent with a purpose, then change it so it would be consistent with a purpose. When persons spoke of and/or requested that changes be made, that they would consider and identify with which purpose it was not consistent. Welsh said of the eight purposes, he'd guess the most difficult one would be the first purpose, to conserve and to protect the value of property throughout the City. He said the purpose did not say to preserve and protect the value of every piece of property in the City. He felt that was a significant difference and personally liked purpose #1 as it was stated in the proposed Code. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said she lived and worked there. P.55 142 C, #1 Dahlen said this area of land was currently zoned as special exception. She'd spoken before the Commission on previous occasions. Their request was that the land not be zoned as provisional use. Dahlen said she'd brought a mother and her two children with her to the meeting. They were uncomfortable speaking before the Commission. The woman's husband worked part-time for the Dahlen's and part-time evenings at another job. The husband was very concerned about the Shelter House issue and also wished to see the land remain zoned as special exception. It was a situation that needed to be talked about. If the zoning were changed to provisional use, the public in the surrounding area would have no say about it. Dahlen said it was a burden to her to think that she would need to be able to protect a women and her children in their home if the Shelter House were to be located across from the Mobile Home Park and that there might be sex offenders in the shelter, use the Shelter's services and/or be in the area. Dahlen said it was a great concern to the husband and to the resident's of the mobile home park. If the Shelter House were to be relocated to their area, then all of the emergency housing for Iowa City would be located in one area and that would not be an ideal situation for anyone. Larry Schnittier, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, member of the Developer's Council Group. Area of concern: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This was an existing and had been some slight modifications to it. As currently written and proposed to be revised, this section of the Zoning Ordinance might become the greatest deterrent to growth and development that the City had devised to date. Schnittjer said nearly no one had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 13 of 20 any serious argument about the necessity to preserve environmental features but they did not like the way it was currently regulated. Jurisdictional wetlands were currently under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers. He felt that was all that should be necessary as the Corps had requirements for identification of wetlands, requirements for how wetlands could be affected or not affected, reconstructed elsewhere, reporting requirements on how well the wetlands were surviving after they had been constructed. Schnittjer felt the whole section on wetlands was a duplication and sometimes conflicted with the Corps requirements. Stream Corridors: He felt there needed to be some rethought in the process. Buffers were defined based on character or how a stream was classified. The SAO section of the Code should be included in the Storm Water Management section and as such the buffers could be applied to a specific need of a stream corridor and not just based on where that line was on the map. Requlated Slopes - Schnittjer said he had a lot of reservations about the regulated slopes. He'd brought a demonstration to the meeting but would defer presenting it. If the SAO were to be kept in the Zoning Ordinance, he felt the following should be considered: · Remove any requirements for a level II review if the applicant does not wish to utilize cluster design or otherwise modify the underlying zoning requirements. · Paraqraph C, Jurisdictional Wetlands - Wetland Mitigation Plan Required. This section needed to be re-captioned. There was nothing in the section that was relative to a mitigation as the terminology used by the Corps of Engineers or other wetland specialist. A more appropriate captioned would be Wetland Protection Plan. As such this paragraph should be located after the Wetland Delineation paragraph so that the process would be sequential and the procedures required to determine if a wetland existed. · Paraqraph E, Wetland Buffer Requirements. The opening paragraph needed to be modified to take into account the considerations relative to the constructed and/or altered wetlands where natural landscapes adjacent to a wetland that are required for the buffer probably would not exist. · Compensatory Wetland Mitiqation. References to specific ratios should be eliminated and replaced with 'as required by the Corps of Engineers' to avoid conflicts and confusions. · Section G-4 E, Monitoring Requirements. The Corps of Engineers had specific requirements that had to be met. This section did not add anything except another level of unnecessary bureaucracy and should be replaced with a requirement to provide duplicate copies of the Corps of Engineers required reports only if there was some reason the City thought there was a need for duplicate jurisdiction. · Requlated Slopes. The normal lay person did not relate to what the actual slopes were of the percentages. There was no correlation between degrees which most lay persons understood and percent of slope. A normal perception would be that a 50% slope would be a 45degree angle, which was wrong. A 50% slope was a one-in-two slope which was considerably less than a 50degree angle. A 40% slope, called a protected slope, had a 25degree slope angle. Schnittjer said he'd be willing to illustrate those with the props that he'd prepared for the meeting. Schnittjer said there were many things about the slope section that bothered him. He would like to see the Slope Section changed and completely re-written to correlate the slopes with degrees of protection. The greater the percentage of slope the greater the degree of construction protection. Current protected slopes could be modified as long as the resulting slope was less Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 14 of 20 than 40%. Created slopes in excess of 33% should have specific engineering to assure stability and erosion control. Schnittjer said if the City was trying to clean-up the current Code they should get rid of the steep slope requirement. There was nothing in the ordinance that said what to do with or not to do with Steep Slope. He felt it was just an extraneous piece of garbage in the Code. The only thing they had to do was to draw a line on the map which indicated where "steep" slopes were; no other requirement. Critical slopes requirements should coincide with the maximum allowable grading that could be done under the Engineered Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance that was in existence. A critical slope would be modified to be a 29% slope instead of a 25% slope. Protected slopes should be taken out of the ordinance except where a slope of some to be defined gradient was within a certain distance to be defined of an adjacent property where there was potential for damage to another person's property; Wooded Areas. Schnittjer said he failed to see the justification for applying different levels of protection to the different zones. RR-1 had a 70% retention requirement for woodlands, all the Residential Zones were 50% retention, Commercial zones were 20%. In his estimation a tree was a tree no matter what zone it was in. There was no protection at all for landmark trees. He felt that issue needed to be looked at. Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said he'd like to see common sense in the ordinance. He represented a large variety of persons coming from virtually every perspective in terms of what was happening with land use planning. He remembered attending the public hearings in 1982 and 1983 which were the hearings for the current ordinance. It had been the foundation of what the current ordinance was. He had a problem with the philosophical approach to the current ordinance in terms of how it had been rolled out. Holland said if he were going to try to push an agenda through he'd give someone a thick document that was so dense and had so many interrelated references that people would freeze up. The tendency when someone froze up was to pass the item as is. The Commission had heard from a variety of persons quoting from chapter, section, subsection and sub- subsection. Holland felt a public meeting was not a good forum to do legislative analysis and legislative drafting. He'd been professionally involved in those types of open forums and they typically were not very productive. Holland said he wished to focus on the design perspectives of the ordinance. He remembered the proceeding when it had become clear to him the agenda on the part of Planning and Zoning staff to take control of the aesthetics of buildings and their appearances in Iowa City. It had been a hearing on a variance before the Board of Adjustment, approximately 7,8 or 10-years ago. The City Staff had indicated that they were going to require certain things as part of the variance. The Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission had asked if they could require those things, Staff had said no, but they thought it would look good. Holland said he didn't connect it at the time as it had been part of the typical give-and-take and ask for more than you think you can get as part of the process. Holland said he'd watched over the last few years as the whole concept of Staff designing buildings had unfolded. It came at a variety of levels; in the ordinance where there were detailed design criteria and bonus points granted for certain design elements, it was pervasive through out the entire ordinance. He'd been told that the word design appeared throughout the ordinance over 500 times. 3-4 years ago City Planning Staff had employed an architect on staff so that when a developer came in with a project the architect could design and re-design the appearance of the building. That had happened on a number of occasions on projects that he'd been involved in. Holland said he didn't think there was any ill design on the Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 15 of 20 part of City Staff. They genuinely believed in what they wanted to accomplish. They had a vision within the Planning Department as to what Iowa City should look like. The real fundamental question for the Commission and eventually for City Council to grapple with would be who would set that vision for Iowa City and how would it be implemented. Holland said he'd lived in a whole variety of residential settings in Iowa City from corrugated steel Quonset huts on the University's campus to residential houses. Housing had developed a culture of its own. Everyone's housing hut had essentially been identical and persons had each done their own thing to modify it and make it look different. When the barracks had been built at the end of World War II, they had been built without a tree in sight. He considered that organic architecture. Structures are constructed all over the world, all over the State and all over Iowa City that each individual person might not consider attractive. Whole neighborhoods might not be considered attractive but the people who live there infuse the properties with life. Holland said the majority of the Commission had been on the Commission when the issue of snout houses had come up with the Sand Hill Estates subdivision. He'd thought that the Council had sent the message that they were not interested in that sort of design standards but now they were back in the ordinance. In Sunday's Gazette there had been an article about how garages were becoming porches in people lives and how they were a place to socialize and to conduct activity. Holland said that was adaptation and culture developing out of the organic feeling where people took what a property was, invested themselves in it and turned it into something that the Planning Staff did not imagine, what he might not imagine, something that no one else might imagine. He felt there was a philosophical battle over what group of people would control how our neighborhoods developed and how they would look. The proposed ordinance vested that power in twelve or so people in the Planning Department because there were so many provisions in the ordinance where there were little bits of discretion given here and there, little bits of incentives that could be given and little bits of punishment that could be inflicted over design issues. It was not over if it would be a good land use proposition or did the structure fit with the integrity of an area. Holland said it was very interesting to hear people speak from the east side neighborhoods talk about how wonderful those neighborhood were because they could never be built under the zoning ordinance. Lots were too small, too big a lot ration, side yards were too small, there were all kind of reasons why the Longfellow and Dodge-Governor neighborhoods that people seemed to admire could never be built. They'd developed by and large without zoning ordinances. He had a copy of 1926 Zoning Ordinance, all six pages of it. Holland said he didn't disagree with the fundamental concept of zoning or disagree with reasonable regulation. People had great battles over what reasonable was. He urged the Commission to particularly look at the design issue and how much of a choke hold they would have over the organic development in Iowa City. Holland said there was a very famous Supreme Court Case which dealt with taxes. The quote was, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Holland said he'd say, "The power to regulate is also the power to destroy." The proposed design specifications destroyed innovation and destroyed creativity. They put people into boxes in terms of what they could build. A person might not like what was built or might not like what it looked like but it was a creative innovation that had come about. No one knew what sort of organic culture would develop. Holland said he defied Staff and the Commission to say what a pedestrian friendly streetscape was. Why was it any less friendly for someone to walk into someone's garage, sit down and have a beer out of their mini-fridge than it was to sit down on their porch? Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 16 of 20 Holland said he agreed with the speakers who'd spoken in favor of removing the design criteria form the ordinance. Not to give people free-reign but simply to allow things to develop in a way that partially was driven by reasonable regulation and partially driven by market forces. Mike Puqh, 1. South Gilbert Street, current president of the local Homebuilders Association and member of the Land Development Council. The local HBA was comprised of 425 business members which constituted the second largest HBA in the state of Iowa. Neiqhborhood Open Space. Pugh said the LDC and HBA were generally in favor of the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. It had been in existence since 1994. In general builders and developers liked to ordinance, they felt it added value to subdivisions and developments. There were items in the proposed draft that gave cause for concern for builders and developers based on 1) they had lived with the ordinance since 1994 and had seen some of the problems that could arise under the ordinance and 2) was driven in part by an Iowa Supreme Court case in West Des Moines regarding an ordinance that was almost identical to the one being considered in the proposed development code. Dedication of land in connection with the dedication of other public improvements and timinq of the dedication. Currently the dedication of land happened two years after approval of the preliminary plat or when 50% of the occupancy permits for the subdivision had been issued, which ever occurred sooner. The payment of fees in lieu of dedication had to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. The LDC and HBA would like to see some consistency there. They'd like to see parks be considered a public improvement and be accepted as a dedication when all the other public improvements were accepted by the City. They would also like to see more objective standards for what was required to prepare the site that was to be dedicated, i.e. prepared prior to dedication. Currently there were a lot of inconsistencies from one development to the next in terms of what was required such as grading, trimming of trees, seeding, etc. They'd like to have objective standards in the Code that really gave notice to the developer as to what was required; similar to the objective standards for installation of streets, water mains, etc. In connection with payment of fees in lieu of dedication they had several concerns. The current ordinance and the proposed Code required the City to use those fees for neighborhood open space within 5-years of approval of the preliminary plat and it could extend the 5-years in additional 5-year periods if less than 50% of the occupancy permits had not been issued for a sub-division. The LDC and HBA felt that was unreasonable. They felt that the City should use those funds for open space and green space within the subdivision within a more reasonable period of time such as 2-3 years. In the proposed draft those monies would not be returned to the lot owners unless the lot owners applied to the City in writing for a lot refund. There were two very limited windows for applying for the funds: at the expiration of the 5-years they had 180 days to apply in writing to the City in order to receive that particular refund. If the City's 5-year period was extended for additional 5-years, then the lot owners had 180 days from the end of the 10- year period in which to apply for the refund. The HBA and LDC believed that if those funds were set aside for a particular development, that there should be an automatic refund of those monies if they are not used by the City whether it be at the end of two or three years. The refund should not go to the developer but go to the citizens who've purchased lots in that particular subdivision. The refund should be automatic and pro-rata to each individual lot owner. Lanquaqe of the ordinance that discussed why or how funds are used when fees are paid in lieu of dedication. The current ordinance required that all payments be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks or recreational facilities or greenway trails that would benefit the residents of Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 17 of 20 the subdivision or planed development for which the payment had been made. The HBA and LDC felt that was too vague and was not in compliance with the Iowa Supreme Court case which basically said that those fees, if permissible under Iowa law, had to be used for two purposes: 1) to cover the City's administrative expenses in regulating that particular development or 2) as compensation for services that were provided to the subdivision or to the property owner. It was not an administrative fee to cover expenses. The fees, if they are used, had to specifically benefit the residents of that particular subdivision. In the West Des Moines case, the fees had been used for neighborhood parks. The Supreme Court had said if there was any was any benefit at all to the general public by use of those fees that constituted an illegal tax. The HBA and LDC felt that under the current ordinance if fees are paid in lieu of dedication, language needed to be tightened in terms of how those fees were used. It should be that the fees are used specifically for that particular subdivision. Not for neighborhood parks. Refund monies - if the money is not applied for as a refund the presumption was that that money either trickled its way into the general park fund or found it way into the general fund of the City coffers. In either case, the HBA and LDC felt at that time it constituted a tax that was not permissible by the Iowa Legislature. Pugh said this was a great opportunity for changes to be made based on the history of having lived with the ordinance for 1 a-years and based on the guidelines that the Supreme Court had provided in connection with an ordinance that was almost identical to the proposed ordinance. Ann Bovbierq, 1710 Ridge Road, said she'd seen the beginning of some of this and it was interesting to see it finished up. She said along with the previous speaker who'd spoken about the general purpose of the Code, the good of the City was and always had been the basis of it. The one that had been voiced over the years with the old zoning and the old Comprehensive Plan as well as the new one was that there might be consistency, might be predictability and that there might be usability. The Code should be something that people could use. Bovbjerg said as she'd looked over the draft she had been very pleased that instead of just saying maybe this or maybe that, the Code had been very specific. It might sound like over specificity or over regulation but sometimes too vague had been an issue. Persons would say they'd drawn a development or made a plan and they didn't know if it met Code because there was nothing specific enough. Bovbjerg said she was pleased with the specificity of the proposed code and was also pleased to see the diagrams and the pictures, it meant a lot of more than words. Bovbjerg said she also appreciated that the draft constantly referred to other parts of the Code or other parts of City Code which spoke very specifically to persons who said they didn't know where to go next. Bovbjerg said these kinds of things were useful; they were the kinds of things that citizens and builders had been asking for. Bovbjerg said if there were specific requirements or wording or things that didn't work or things that developers and/or builders told the Commission that they were hard to work with, then that should be where revisions were made. If something was not useful then you might as well not have it. What ever revisions were made, they should come from persons who had been affected, from people who had used it. She was very pleased that the Commission was having the public hearings for just that reason. Bovbjerg said the previous speaker had spoken about Neighborhood Open Spaces. That had been a hard slog. Persons on the Commission, the Parks Commission and City Staff had looked at court cases and other cities in other jurisdictions to figure what kind of connection must there be, what kind of vagueness can't you have. One particular aspect of that had been saying that Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 18 of 20 dedicated acreage must be relative to density of people not to just acreage. It had been a very good and almost a landmark part of the ordinance. Bovbjerg said she was very glad that the Commission was listening to the public, all of whom would be affected. It would be a useful ordinance. Mark McCalhon, 811 College Street, member of the Historic Preservation Commission and College Green Representative. P. 51 Historic Preservation Exemptions - Special Provisions Recently the HCP Commission had been discussing and looking at what could they do to 'make people do the right thing' with historic or key structures in lieu of some of the most recent unsuccessful historic districts that had not passed over the last year. Section A-2 was an improvement over what the Code currently had. McCalhon felt it was a good move in the right direction but further into Section A it said 'the exception was necessary'. He didn't understand why it could not be made as an acceptable use. A very select number of properties, 40-50 "Gems" within the City, would be affected. The creation of an added value for the adaptive re-use of those properties so the likelihood of that property surviving over time would be preserved. McCalhon said he had a problem with the word necessary. What was the standard, had a provision been put in that really would not have any application over the long term. He wondered if it even needed to be a special exception for those types of uses. He said this would not mean every old building, just those identified as key structures by Historic Preservation, Planning Commission and/or properties on the National Historic Register. Patti Santanqelo, 3035 Stanford, member of several Affordable Housing Boards and attendee of many Scattered Site Housing meetings. Santangelo said she knew they were thinking of recommending social urban inclusionary zoning. She wondered if Staff and the Board had thought about adding that into the Code, it might be better to include it sooner rather than later. She liked ·the smaller lot sizes as it would hopefully make it easier for affordable housing. Mike McLauqhlin, 614 Pine Ridge Rd, rental property owner in the near downtown area. Most of his properties were in RN-12, RNC-20, RNC-12 zones. In February he'd applied for and been granted building permits to add an addition to the back side of single family homes to duplex the properties at 512 and 514 S. Dodge Street. On March 30, 2005 he'd applied for a building permit to complete the same procedure for 530 S. Dodge Street. The last building permit had been issued at the same time the proposed Code had been introduced to the public in the open house sessions. He'd read through the proposed Code which stated that upon passage the new rental permits would be permitted according to essentially one less non-related occupant. What the proposed Code did not address was the situation he was in. He'd received building permits and had a significant financial investment in the three projects. All three additions already had the foundations poured, footings in place, slabs laid and plumbing in place. One was almost entirely framed. McLaughlin felt he was almost in a race between getting his additions completed and the potential passage of the Code. He might have to apply for new permits which would reduce the non-occupancy allowed by one tenant from what the intentions had been when the permits had been applied for and granted. McLaughlin requested that there be a provision added to the proposal that took into consideration when a building permit was granted, the significant investment that had been made with that permit and to allow the occupancy to be granted under current levels of the existing Code as opposed to potentially having it dictated by the proposed Code. Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 19 of 20 Glen Siders, Land Development Council, said the LDC had a very serious concern as the proposed Code was a very thick, complicated document which would have a significant impact on the City. He concurred with the comments made earlier that the revisions should have been broken down and analyzed via sections and then run through public hearings. A comment that the LDC had a particular concern with was with the grandfathering in of existing developments and approved subdivisions, many of those lots were less than 60-feet. The LDC did not feel that they should be obligated to come under the new ordinances that came about such as the design standards. They felt that should be a consideration. They did not agree with the philosophy that a 60-foot lot was a narrow lot; it could be reduced down. They did encourage Staff and the Commission to consider a new urbanism zone which would allow for the opportunity and flexibility to incorporate those criteria; they felt the trigger should be a 45-foot wide lot or less. One of the concerns they had with the design criteria was that they had heard frequently that some of it was imposed because the City had problems within in-fill development. In-fill development was different than new development and probably should be looked at differently than the ordinary standards. Scatter Site Housing Task Force forthcoming proposal. Consideration should be given to should the new code be adopted and then amended to incorporate the SSHTF recommendations or incorporated before passing the Code? Sensitive Areas Zone. In the new ordinance it was proposed that if a feature had a sensitive feature it then became a part of the OPDH Plan - they were opposed to that requirement. It was very difficulty to find any property that did not have some sensitive feature on that property. The feature might be a very small percentage on the property. A sensitive feature should not trigger an OPDH which would put the developer/builder into the OPDH design criteria and related regulations. Siders said if the City did have one thing that was available and one useful tool the SAO should be a stand-alone ordinance and not part of the OPDH. It should be a checklist as it was very clear in the ordinance what had to be done. If someone wanted to alter the standards, then that would be a different situation. The LDC thanked the Board for allowing them input during the public comment hearing. CLOSING REMARKS: Brooks thanked the members of the audience for attending and for their input. He said this public hearing would be the first of at least two public comment hearings. The Commission had developed a list of issues raised during the hearing, it was expected that additional items would be received. Brooks encouraged everyone to document their input on the Draft Comment Sheets and give them to the Planning and Community Development Office. Howard requested that persons who had very specific requests for amendments be sure to put a contact phone number or contact information in case Staff needed to contact them for a clarification. It was Staff's intention to compile a list of all suggested amendments and they wanted to be sure that they had the person's input correct. Persons were also reminded to sign- in on the Sign-In sheet at the entry to the room. Brooks said the next public comment hearing had not been scheduled yet as there had been no way to anticipate the amount of speakers and input received during this hearing. Staff and the Commission would now work through the input received and look for other options to get additional input and public involvement during the public hearing processes. If persons had Planning and Zoning Public Hearing April 28, 2005 Page 20 of 20 signed in they would receive notification of future public meetings. Notifications would also be placed in the local newspapers. Brooks said the Commission had hoped that by the end of the summer they would be through with their review of the Code and would be able to send it to the Council for consideration. He thought It was the Council's intention to have a series of work sessions with the Commission as well as hearings for public input. The Commission wished to move the process along as quickly as possible but acknowledged the importance of taking time to investigate and review potential problematic items and to review those concerns with various public groups. Brooks said it had been mentioned several times that the proposed Code was twice the number of pages as the current Code. The new Code was a single column format with larger print and more detailed illustrations where as the old Code format was double columns with small print. Brooks and Howard encouraged persons to contact Howard if they had questions, comments or concerns prior to the next public hearing. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill