Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResidential Infill power pointRESIDENTIAL INFILL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS City Council Work Session April 2, 2019 PARK RD U-1 ' co , t Sn� w Information gathered (Assessor's Report): oll Lot Coverage oll Total Living Area (TLA) oll Building Width oll Number of Stories n (exact height information unavailable) w Not raw data oil Figures are normalized to each infill property's specific neighbors Difference 12.46% 3,303.5 26.5 Fr - 0 Property Bldg Area (sf) Lot Size (sf) Lot Coverage TLA (sf) Bldg Width (ft) aSubject 2014 Ridgeway Dr 4,153.0 15,000.0 27.7% 5,191.0 88.5 Adjacent Properties O2010 Ridgeway Dr 2,240.0 15,080.0 14.9% 1,664.0 76.0 2017 RochesterCt 2,058.0 11,070.0 18.6% 2,196.0 54.0 2020 Ridgeway Dr 2,067.0 14,820.0 13.9% 1,524.0 56.0 2015 Ridgeway Dr 2,436.0 18,000.0 13.5% 2,166.0 62.0 Avg of Surrounding Properties: 15.23% 1,887.5 62.0 Difference 12.46% 3,303.5 26.5 Fr - 0 Min. Max. Allowable Existing Lot Avg. Lot Coverage of LOT Existing Total Avg. TIA of Allowable Total Living Avg. Building Building Width of Building Ref. # Address of Infill Development Zone District Lot Coverage by surrounding Living Area Surrounding Building Surrounding Properties Zone Coverage properties COVERAGE et in square feet Properties (sf) Area (TLA) Width by Width Width (ft) (ft) Width Zone RD) 1101 Lusk Ave RS5 45.0% 44.0% 13.0% 31.106 5,706.0 1,294.5 4,411.5 20.0 78.0 32.0 46.0 282957th Ave R58/OCD 45.0% 30.7% 21.8% 8.9% 1,267.0 1,389.8 -122.8 20.0 29.0 29.8 -0.8 31618 Muscatine Ave R58 45.0% 19.1% 15.4% 3.7% 1,673.0 1,455.5 217.5 20.0 38.0 40.5 -2.5 41WS Prairie Du Chien Rd RS5 45.0% 25.3% 14.5% 10.8% 1,650.0 1,611.8 38.3 20.0 36.5 50.9 -14.4 5918 E Bloomington St R58 45.0% 36.1% 21.0% 15.1% 2,488.0 1,420.5 1,067.5 20.0 29.0 31.0 -2.0 61221 2nd Ave R58 45.0% 17.5% 20.2% -2.7% 870.0 1,112.0 -242.0 20.0 35.0 48.0 -13.0 7431 Pleasant St RS5 45.0% 22.9% 9.0% 14.0% 2,552.0 2,350.7 201.3 20.0 33.0 41.7 -8.7 8817 Spencer Dr RS5 45.0% 23.8% 16.3% 7.5% 1,841.0 1,854.5 -13.5 20.0 62.0 73.0 -11.0 9834 St Annes Dr RS5 45.0% 2D.5% 8.3% 12.2% 1,293D 973D 320.0 20.0 35D 37.5 -2.5 10928 N Governor St RS8 45.0% 20.0% 9.4% 10.6% 1,714D 1,433.8 280.3 20.0 24.D 33D -9.0 11924 N Governor St RS8 45.0% 12.5% 14.3% -1.8% 1,7,MD 1,376.D 368.0 20.0 42.D 32D 1D.D 122014 Ridgeway Dr RS5 45.0% 27.E 15.2% 12.5% 5,191.0 1,887.5 3,303.5 20.0 88.5 62.0 26.5 13123D E Bl.mungton St RS5 45.0% 23.9% 17.3% 6.6% 1,831D 1,DDDD 831.0 20.0 57.D 37D 20.0 141603 Prairie Du Chien Rd RS5 45.0% 23.6% 15.2% 8.4% 1,553.D 1,522.D 31.0 20.0 38.5 62.4 -23.9 1531D Later Dr RS5 45.0% 23.4% 11.1% 12.3% 2,697D 1,937.3 759.7 20.0 69.5 71D -1.5 16432 3rd Ave RS5 45.0% 26.3% 14.7% 11.6% 1,618D 1,D78.8 539.2 20.0 38D 4DD -2.0 171317 Rochester Ave RS5 45.0% 41.9% 16.9% 25.0% 1,492.0 1,871.0 -379.0 20.0 28.5 43.8 -15.3 182 Wellesley Way RS5 45.0% 18.4% 18.3% 0.1% 3,052.0 1,728.2 1,323.8 20.0 93D 74.9 18.1 19831 Orchard St RS8 45.0% 14D% 13.8% 0.2% 1,636.0 1,346.D 290.0 20.0 2D.D 22D -2.0 2D423 Douglass Ct RS8 45.0% 24.5% 15.8% 8.7% 1,131.0 992.D 139.0 20.0 4D.5 350 5.5 Average of All 9.7% 668.2 D.9 Infill value is greater than the average of its surrounding propenes Infill value is less than the average of its surrounding properties InfiI Ivalue is gre ate than the average of its surrounding properties Infill value is less than the average of its surrounding properties Avg. Building Existing Infill Building Existing Width of Building Width Difference Max. Surrounding Avg. Lot Infill Lot Coverage from Surrounding Infill TLA Properties Property Average (ft) 78.0 32.0 Total Living Avg. TLA of 57.6 Min. Allowable Address of Infill Zone Allowable Existing Lot Coverage of Difference from 45.0 61.3 Difference from 58.5 Ref. If 3.9 47.0 41.6 5.4 74.0 46.2 Surrounding 88.0 Building Width by Development District Lot Coverage Coverage Surrounding Surrounding Property Surrounding inArea square in square Properties (sf) Zone (ft) by Zone Properties Average Prope rty Ave rage feet 1 101 Lusk Ave RS5 45.0% 44.0% 13.0% 31.0% 5,706.0 1,294.5 4,411.5 20.0 2204 Lexington & 624 Bayard R55 45.0% 26.691. 22.5% 4.2% 4,131.0 1,998.5 2,132.5 20.0 3347 Hutchinson Ave R55 45.0% 30.2% 13.4% 16.7% 3,579.0 2132.6 1,446.4 20.0 4351 Hutch in son Ave R55 45.0% 16.4% 13.4% 2.9% 3,168.0 2132.6 1,035.4 20.0 5216 Lexington R55 45.0% 26.8% 20.5% 6.3% 1,812.0 2108.6 -296.6 20.0 6222 Lexington R55 45.0% 25.2% 16.9% 8.2% 1,885.0 1,960.6 -75.6 20.0 7228 Lexington R55 45.0% 22.7% 17.2% 5.5% 2,009.0 1,777.0 232.0 20.0 8201 Ferson R55 45.0% 20.0% 16.0% 4.0% 3,929.0 1,80&0 2,121.0 20.0 9901 Park Road R55 45.0% 18.0% 16.4% 1.7% 3,868.0 1,378.3 2,489.8 20.0 10255 North Street R55 45.0% 21.8% 11.2% 10. T/. 3,125.0 Z528.8 596.3 20.0 InfiI Ivalue is gre ate than the average of its surrounding properties Infill value is less than the average of its surrounding properties Avg. Building Existing Infill Building Width of Building Width Difference Surrounding Width from Surrounding (ft) Properties Property Average (ft) 78.0 32.0 46.0 69.0 57.6 11.4 54.5 59.4 -4.9 66.0 59.4 6.6 45.0 61.3 -16.3 58.5 54.6 3.9 47.0 41.6 5.4 74.0 46.2 27.8 88.0 47.0 41 84.0 63.3 20.8 ■ Blue Dots: ■ Infill Projects ■ Dashed Line: ■ Average of All Infill Projects ■ Blue Line: ■ Neighborhood Average 35% `o L 30% on v 25% E 0 20% � v y @ 15% > v o M 0 10%— y 5% ❑1 Infill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison �17 U Iowa City Infill Projects Average: +9.72% — — -3% lot coverage compared to: +9% lot coverage compared to: #7: 431 Pleasant Street FRONT EI1bAU 10 TV NLI,NIIf^I Ht, �U '—K I p 59I - r r. -'- r r P EDPVENPORTST 6 , iio bid L 11 +31 % lot coverage compared to: OR wNwi ■ Orange Dots: ■ Manville Infill Projects ■ Dashed Line: ■ Average of All Infill Projects ■ Blue Line: ■ Neighborhood Average Manville Heights Infill Lot Coverage Comparison 0 35% 1......... L � 30% O E ° zsr° w v zo°r° > o >0 Average: M U ° o Ss/° +9.12% v-----------------{---------�— u o 0% Manville Heights Infill Projects +4% lot coverage compared to: AR7 (Tf r T ew_,- +8% lot coverage compared to: +17% lot coverage compared to: Adjacent Properties ONTM T"I ■ Blue Dots: Infill Total Living Area (TLA) Compatibility Comparison (sq. ft.) ■ Infill Projects 0 5,000.0 Ov ■ Dashed Line: a 4,000.0 E ■ Average of All Infill ; OD 5,000.0 to Projects o v 0 m 2,000.0 Average: a +668.21 sq. ft. ■ Blue Line: 0-.r 1000.0 ®— ■ Neighborhood � O�® � � � Average 0.0 Gin u ami v -1,000.0 o Iowa City Infill Projects #4: 1605 Prairie Du Chien Road I I #S: 918 East Bloomington Street 3 SOUTH ELEVATION E OGVFNNORT$T 1r Irl f I'r rF- E BLOOI.IINf.TON ST > r O I O I �i- A jacent Properties �i- +3,303 square feet compared to: . ..ice .. -r 77 'W-iuifh MR, LJ oew+�Y11111Y1 � uu iullll` a iifl - �. .,. ■ Orange Dots: ■ Manville Infill Projects ■ Dashed Line: ■ Average of All Infill Projects ■ Blue Line: ■ Neighborhood Average Manville Heights Infill Total Living Area (TLA) Comparison (sq. ft.) v 5,000.0 m Q 0 4,000.0 w �v o 3,000.0 �O > M �`0 2,000.0 as � op - g c 1,000.0 C 0 0.0 C d d -1,000.0 ❑1 Average: !� +1,409 sq. ft. Manville Heights Infill Projects 30 +1,035 square feet compared to: Adjacent Properties ONT T"I +2,121 square feetcompared to: AR7 Infill Building Width Compatibility Comparison (ft.) ■ Blue Dots: 50.0 ■ Infill Projects a a 40.0 v `m E 30.0 ■ Dashed Line: g v V 20.0 ® Average: s v ■ Average of All Infill m M 10.0r +0.88 ft. Projects S0 a y 0.0 c c -10.0O -10.000 ......... ......... ......... O ■ Blue Line: v -20.0 ■ Neighborhood m Average -30.0 Iowa City Infill Projects #13: 1230 E. Bloomington Street =RONT ELEVATION E DAVENPORT ST j_e r iz1-_.._ir1 re.12 3i 123"j ii~tr ` i J U � r r7o 314 n:7- F 6LODMI NG ION ST ■ Orange Dots: ■ Manville Infill Projects ■ Dashed Line: ■ Average of All Infill Projects ■ Blue Line: ■ Neighborhood Average Manville Heights Infill Building Width Comparison (ft.) 50.0 0 v 40.0 a 0 30.0 u y t � o v 20.0 �3 > - 10.0 bD 'v 0.0 v v -10.0 -20.0 +14.2 ft. ----�-------------------- ---------- Manville Heights Infill Projects ZE +21 feet wider than: '..� KIM F, lot Ll I dalmillf ji +41 feet wider than: ■ On average, not out -of -scale ■ Imprecise ■ For both analyses, averaged out to about zero X30 Infill Building Stories Compatibility Comparison Manville Heights Infill Building Stories Comparison os 0.8 0.6 O a as O ® v o © m E .4 0 v m 04 © O ° Q2 i .o > 02 m 0.0 o v a a o m o -0.2 _ Emu ` -62O O o n E � -0.4 ` O v c c c .a .4 © c -0.6 E o -0.60 u c -0.8 `v 0.8 Iowa City Infill Projects -1.0 p Manville Heights Infill Projects X30 #18: 2 Wellesley Way IM ■ Overall residential infill being built larger than existing neighborhood scale in terms of: ■ Lot Coverage ■ Total Living Area (TLA) ■ Manville Heights infill being built larger (TLA) than infill in rest of city ■ Infill in Manville Heights being built wider than existing neighbors, infill outside of Manville Heights being built narrower than existing neighbors ■ Looking at one metric in isolation not enough ■ 1317 Rochester Ave ■ Blue Dots: 4nfill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison —0— 10 U Iowa City Infill Projects Average: +9.72% — — 35% ■ Infill Projects `o L 30% on ■ Dashed Line: Z E zs% 0 ■ Average of All Infill 209/6 Projects y @ 15% > v o M ■ Blue Line: 0 10%— ■ Neighborhood v u 5% Average c v 0% y 0 -5% 4nfill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison —0— 10 U Iowa City Infill Projects Average: +9.72% — — Doesn't tell the whole story: 101 Lusk Avenue :) RAYARD SI S _ J y N r I� liil J VS 1317 Rochester Avenue r - I -r RnCHE�TER AVL r r.r L130] 1311 11411 r -{ r „ r Ii_'If-r err I{I r,f•IIr- 1— TS I 3��II II +�r. iea 11 ii n': I�j_I IIS ' #17: 1317 Rochester Avenue Mill A jacent Properties #17: 1317 Rochester Avenue :h '449' 40% 20% 0% 60.0 2,000.0 50.0 1,500.0 40.0 1,000.0 500.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 Building Width (ft) Total Living Area (sf) Lot Coverage #1: 101 Lusk Avenue �.k100-w M RAYARD 5I Y yY• 40% Subject Property 20% Avg. of Adjacent..- o% Lot Coverage 90.0 6,000.0 80.0 5,000.0 70.0 4,000.0 60.0 3,000.0 50.0 2,000.0 40.0 1,000.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 Total Living Area (sf) Building Width (ft) #1: 101 Lusk Avenue J BAYARD 5I J r v #12: 2014 Ridgeway Drive ,I CHESTER IT �c-I�, I.�I'.� .2n,1.. zm� ana �r rq`r,+ z!.0 soeo 918° RIDGEWAY OR 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Building Width (ft) 40% 20% 0% r 6,000.0 4,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 Lot Coverage Total Living Area (sf) . ..ice .. -r yyV I. Tailor requirements to surrounding neighborhood (E.g., limit infill to 20% taller, wider, or greater lot coverage than neighbor average) Pros: Efficient, transparent, and explicit 2. Cons: Lacks flexibility, single metric not always enough (1317 Rochester example) 2. Maximum heights or additional landscaping / open space requirements Pros: More uniform, easier application 2. Cons: Not specific to existing neighborhood 3. Additional open space requirements recently added to city code Red areas most ripe for infill development ■ High land value: Low structure value Gi• Hof Spot Analysis and Boundaries of Historic Preservation and Conservation Districts � M Land Value ■ _ case sod-osx ca��aeee _ case sod-osx cadet... case sod-es+c ca.ence dd 5pK as la sod-wacurueiee _ Hd Spd-i5]L CmN.o _ IIM' -BP.I Car �Ivm Source: Sylvia Bochner 0 0.325 Obs 1.3 1.95 Md - ❑i Infill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison [1] U Iowa City Infill Projects 35% Infill Projects Disallowed: L 30% • 101 LuskAve (#I) Z zs% o 20% • 1317 Rochester Ave (#17) It „ 15%- • 918 E. Bloomington St (#5) ° M o 1OD/o y 5% u c v `y 0% 0 -5% ❑i Infill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison [1] U Iowa City Infill Projects #1: 101 Lusk Avenue J BAYARD 5I J r v #17: 1317 Rochester Avenue Mill A jacent Properties #S: 918 East Bloomington Street 3 SOUTH ELEVATION E OGVFNNORT$T fir, 17 f rF- E BLOOI.IINf.TON ST Manville Heights Infill Lot Coverage Comparison Infill Projects Disallowed: 35% r • 101 LuskAve (#I) v 3000/0 O E 25% • 347 Hutchinson Ave (#23) °A 2000/0 v� 0 y � isr 0 c � 10% 5% O 0% Manville Heights Infill Projects Adjacent Properties Ila, Infill Building Width Compatibility Comparison (ft.) Infill Projects Disallowed: 50.0 O O 40.0 • 101 LuskAve (#I) a v a E 30.0 • 2014 Ridgeway Dr (#12) a 20.0 10.0 • 1230 E Bloomington St (#13) m v 0.0 • 2 Wellesley Way (# 18) io.o O O m O -20.0 o -so.o Iowa City Infill Projects . ..ice .. -r yyV #13: 1230 E. Bloomington Street =RONT ELEVATION E DAVENPORT ST j_e r iz1-_.._ir1 re.12 3i 123"j ii~tr ` i J U � r r7o 314 n:7- F 6LODMI NG ION ST #18: 2 Wellesley Way IM Manville Heights Infill Building Width Comparison (ft.) 50.0 O Infill Projects Disallowed: 40.0 v • 101 Lusk Ave (#I) a 0 30.0 u y • 201 Ferson Ave (#28) 3 20.0 10.0 • 901 Park Rd (#29) j • 255 North St (#30) u = 0.0 v -io.o -zo.o Manville Heights Infill Projects AR7 (Tf r lie T ew_,- #30: 255 North Street n Opticos Design Inc. will receive: • Staff Analysis • Council Feedback m Will work with Staff to recommend specific policies back to Council w What constitutes out -of -scale infill? w Which variables of most concern? n Lot coverage? Width? Height? m Specific neighborhoods at risk?