HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 03.01.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
4. Case No. VAC23-0001
Location: Grand Avenue Court Right-of-Way
An application for a vacation of approximately 5,129 square feet of the Grand Avenue Court
public right-of-way to incorporate it into the University of Iowa’s planned redevelopment of
the area.
5. Case No. REZ23-0002
Location: East of Mormon Trek Blvd along Grace Drive
An application for a rezoning of approximately 13 acres of land from Commercial Office (CO-
1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone.
6. Consideration of meeting minutes: February 15, 2023
7. Planning and Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: March 15 / April 5 / April 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: VAC23-0001
Prepared by: Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern
and Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: March 1, 2023
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
University of Iowa
Attn: David Kieft
4 Jessup Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
Contact Person: University of Iowa
Attn: David Kieft
4 Jessup Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
Owner: City of Iowa City
410 E Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Vacation of the remaining part of Grand
Avenue Court
Purpose:
To incorporate land into proposed
redevelopment of the area
Location:
Northern one-third of Grand Avenue Court
Location Map:
Size: 5,129 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: n/a
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Institutional Public Zone (P-2)
South Institutional Public Zone (P-2)
East: Institutional Public Zone (P-2)
West: Institutional Public Zone (P-2)
2
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners within 500’ of the subject
property received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Vacation signs were posted on the site at the
corner of Grand Avenue Ct and Grand Ave.
File Date: January 27, 2023
45 Day Limitation Period:
n/a
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, the University of Iowa, submitted a request to vacate approximately 5,129 square
feet of City right-of-way located at the northern one-third of Grand Avenue Court. If granted, the
vacation would allow the University to move forward with plans to redevelopment the area.
The City vacated the southern portion of Grand Avenue Court in 2002 (VAC02-0003) to the
University.
ANALYSIS:
The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request:
a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation;
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property;
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property:
Grand Avenue Court provides a link between Grand Avenue and Melrose Avenue but only buses,
emergency vehicles and Slater Hall service vehicles can access Grand Avenue Court from Grand
Avenue and most traffic uses Byington Road and South Grand Avenue, which are configured for
circulation around this block. The lack of sidewalks along Grand Avenue Court makes it
undesirable for pedestrian traffic.
Grand Avenue Court provides the only vehicular access to 124, 122, 120, 121 Grand Avenue
Court, and 311 Grand Avenue. All of these properties are owned by the applicant and according
to the University will be vacant by June 1 and incorporated into the proposed redevelopment of
the area.
b) Emergency and utility and service access:
To ensure adequate fire and emergency protection, the City requires that prior to the vacation an
access easement be established for fire and emergency services. The easement would be
released upon approval by the City’s Fire Department.
The street currently contains private utilities and a City water line. Utilities easements must be
retained for these utilities, as well, unless they are relocated, removed, or abandoned.
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties:
The University owns all the property adjacent to Grand Avenue Court. There is no impact to
private properties.
3
d) Desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs:
This street provides very limited connectivity to the larger street system. Staff has determined that
there is no need to maintain the right-of-way for access or circulation needs upon redevelopment.
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property:
Private utilities have been contacted and asked to identify if they have any facilities within the
subject right-of-way. The subject right-of-way contains existing public and private utilities.
Specifically, Lumen, MidAmerican, and Mediacom have existing utility lines and there is a City
water line.
The City’s water line must be abandoned and a new line established subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer or an easement must be established. Additionally, the private utility
lines for Lumen, MidAmerican, and Mediacom must either be relocated, removed, or an easement
established prior to the vacation.
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation:
Staff does not believe there are any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested
vacation.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed vacation will be
reviewed by the City Council. The City Council will discuss both the proposed vacation and the
conveyance. State code allows the City to convey land to other governmental entities without
compensation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of VAC23-0001 a vacation of the northern one-third of Grand
Avenue Court subject to an access easement for fire and emergency protection, private utility
easements, City water line easement as described in this report and in forms approved by the
City Attorney’s Office.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Vacation Exhibit
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
LuconDrByington RdFor The Kids Way
Melrose Ave SRi
versi
deDrGrand Avenue CtSGrandAveS Riverside DrGrand Ave
An application submitted by The University of Iowa
to vacate the northern 1/3 of Grand Avenue Court.
µVAC23-0001
Grand Avenue Court
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: January 2023
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
LuconDrByington RdFor The Kids Way
Melrose Ave SRi
versi
deDrGrand Avenue CtSGrandAveS Riverside DrGrand Ave
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
An application submitted by The University of Iowa
to vacate the northern 1/3 of Grand Avenue Court.
µVAC23-0001
Grand Avenue Court
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: January 2023
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
MELROSE AVE
K
Map Date: Friday, January 27, 2023
Vacation and Conveyance
Grand Avenue Court
0 100 20050
Feet
Vacation of public right-of-way for
Grand Avenue Court
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ23-0002 Mormon Trek
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate
Planner
Date: March 1, 2023
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owners: CGGRB Realty Holdings INC
Donna Allegra Dane
Harold John III Dane
Helen Elizabeth Dane
1111 E River Drive
Davenport, IA 52803
D & P Property LLC
526 Woodridge Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
James R. Davis
4097 Kitty Lee Road SW
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Shottenkirk I C R LLC
309 S Gear
West Burlington, IA 52655
Contact Person: Jon Marner
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Rezoning
Purpose:
Rezoning of approximately 13.00 acres of
land from Commercial Office Zone (CO-1)
to Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1)
Location:
2650 Mormon Trek Blvd, JJR Davis
Second Addition Lots 2-4, and JJR Davis
Fourth Additions Lots 1-4
Location Map:
2
Size: 13.00 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial Office Zone (CO-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Neighborhood Public Zone
(P-1)
South: Intensive Commercial Zone
(CI-1)
East: Neighborhood Public Zone
(P-1)
West: Intensive Commercial Zone
(CI-1)
Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi-Public and Office
Commercial
District Plan:
South Central District Plan: Intensive or
Highway Commercial and Office
Park/Commercial
Neighborhood Open Space District:
S1 and SW2
Public Meeting Notification:
Properties within 500’ of the subject
property received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on
the property on the corner of Grace Dr.
and Mormon Trek Blvd.
File Date: February 16, 2023
45 Day Limitation Period:
April 2, 2023
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicants have requested a rezoning of approximately 13 acres from Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1) to Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) located east of Mormon Trek Blvd along Grace Drive,
Iowa City, Iowa. The property currently contains PIP Printing and Marketing Services and Edward
Jones Financial Advisor located at 2650 Mormon Trek Blvd. The remaining subject property along
Grace Dr, and Eagle View Dr. is undeveloped with no development anticipated at this time.
The subject property was platted in 2005 for 4 commercial lots and an outlot. In 2007 the property
was replatted to include 4 additional lots originally platted as Outlot A, for a total of 8 lots. Also in
2007 the subject property was rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Commercial Office
(CO-1). The purpose of the rezoning was to find a zone that would provide more land use options,
namely office and eating/drinking establishments, as the 2006 Iowa City Zoning Code update
removed allowable uses from the CI-1 zone. The applicant initially worked to rezone the subject
property to Community Commercial (CC-2) before staff determined that such a rezoning would
make PIP a nonconforming use. Staff instead recommended the CO-1 rezoning that could provide
office uses, while also ensuring that PIP would remain a conforming use under the Personal Service
use category. PIP had also requested a special exception in 2006 to allow up to 12,400 square feet
within the proposed building for printing purposes. A rezoning back to the initial CI-1 zone at which
PIP began development would not interfere with the 2006 special exception.
3
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the “Good Neighbor Policy” and
have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning:
The property is currently zoned Commercial Office Zone (CO-1). The purpose of CO-1 is to
provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain
public and semipublic uses may be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The
CO-1 zone can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial
areas.
To the north of the subject property is the Iowa City Municipal Airport. The Airport has established
airport zones, which may have regulations with further restrictions than what is outlined in the
base zone. The subject property is located within the Transitional Overlay (TO) Zone per the
Airport Zoning Map. According to the City Airport Manager additional height restrictions may
apply to the subject property. Specifically, the maximum building height for lots north of Grace
Drive can be expected to align with what was allowed for PIP Printing, which was 18’7” above
grade at its tallest point. This may not be an exact height restriction for future development on lots
north of Grace Dr. as official FAA and Airport review would be necessary for development within
airport air space.
Proposed Zoning:
The request is to rezone the subject property from the existing CO-1 to Intensive Commercial (CI-
1) zone. The purpose of CI-1 is to provide areas for those sales and service functions and
businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of
merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial
amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or
structures not completely enclosed.
The CI-1 zone would provide an increase in maximum building height from 25’ to 35’, as well as
more land use opportunities than what is currently allowed in a CO-1 zone. Additionally, the two
existing businesses at 2650 Mormon Trek Blvd., PIP (Personal Service Use) and Edward Jones
Financial Advisor (General Office Use), would remain permitted uses in a CI-1 zone. Table 1
below shows the allowable uses in both CO-1 and CI-1.
Table 1: Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones
Uses Categories Commercial Office Intensive Commercial
Residential – Assisted Group Living PR S
Residential – Group Household PR
Residential – Multi-Family PR
Adult Business PR
Animal Related Commercial – General S PR
Animal Related Commercial –
Intensive
PR
Building Trade Uses P
Commercial Recreation – Indoor PR/S P
Commercial Recreation – Outdoor P
Drinking Establishments PR
Eating Establishments P
Office - General P P
Office – Medical/Dental P P
Quick Vehicle Servicing PR/S
4
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as suitable for Office
Commercial and Public/Semi-Public use. The Comprehensive Plan also states that “in addition
to the District Plans, the neighborhood design principals should be considered when interpreting
the land use map”. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to state, “use the District Plans to identify
appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly to focus commercial development to meet
the needs of the present and future population”. Staff found that the District Plan and
neighborhood design principles support the proposed rezoning.
The South Central District Plan FLUM has the subject property designated as Intensive or
Highway Commercial or Office Park/Commercial. The subject property is known in the Plan as
Subarea B, which is a commercial corridor intended for a mix of retail, office, and other
business. The Plan also notes that “Intensive Commercial or Office Commercial uses on the
east side of Mormon Trek Blvd. would be most compatible with the Iowa City Airport”. At the
time when the South Central District Plan was originally adopted (2000), Intensive Commercial
was primarily intended for outdoor storage uses such as car dealerships, contractor yards, and
manufactured housing sales. However, in the years since the Plan’s adoption, the Intensive
Retail – Alcohol Sales P
Retail – Hospitality PR P
Outdoor Storage and Display P
Retail – Personal Service P P
Retail – Repair P
Retail – Sales P
Surface Passenger Service P
Vehicle Repair PR
Industrial Service P
General Manufacturing PR
Heavy Manufacturing S
Technical/Light Manufacturing PR
Self Service Storage P
Warehouse & Freight Movement P
Wholesale Sales P
Basic Utility PR/S PR/S
Community Service – Long Term
Housing
PR/S PR/S
Community Service – Shelter S S
General Community Service P S
Daycare PR PR
General Education PR
Specialized Education P S
Hospitals PR
Parks and Open Space PR
Religious/Private Group Assembly PR P
Utility Scale Ground Mounted Solar S S
Communication Transmission Facility PR/S PR/S
P = Permitted, PR = Provisional, S = Special Exception
5
Commercial zoning designation has expanded its allowable use categories, which better fits the
intent of the Plan for a mixture of commercial uses in this major commercial corridor.
Additionally, the neighborhood design principles note the importance of compatible infill. Quality
infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment. The 2007 rezoning
from CI-1 to CO-1 was intended to provide more opportunity for development, namely an office
park, after the 2006 Iowa City Zoning Code update removed office use as allowable from CI-1
zones. Since this time, the subject property has remained undeveloped, aside from PIP which
was undergoing development prior to the 2007 rezoning. The Iowa City Zoning Code has since
been updated to include office use, among others uses, to be allowed within a CI-1 zoning
designation. Additionally, when considering infill development, one of the Comprehensive Plan
goals is to “ensure development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood”. The surrounding neighborhood includes CI-1 zoning to the west, which includes
the auto dealership Billion Auto, and undeveloped CI-1 zoning to the south, unincorporated
residential to the east, and the airport to the north. To the northeast is largely residential with
commercial uses along Highway 1. Although there is no development proposed as part of the
rezoning, a rezoning to CI-1 may provide more opportunities to serve the community in the
southwest part of town, as well as travelers along a major city entryway.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character:
The South Central District Plan states that “Intensive commercial or office commercial
uses on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard would be most compatible with the Iowa City
Airport, and the planned industrial area to the east. Residential uses should be minimized at this
intersection of two major highways and in the vicinity of a primary airport runway”. Additionally,
as previously mentioned, property to the west, south, and northeast of Highway 1 are currently
zoned CI-1. No development is proposed at this time; however, if rezoned to CI-1, future
development would be held to the same Zoning Code standards of much of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Access and Street Design:
Access to the subject properties is provided off Mormon Trek Blvd. through Grace Dr. and Eagle
View Dr. According to section 14-5C-6A, direct lot access to an arterial street will only be
granted upon presentation by the applicant of convincing evidence that an alternative means of
access is not feasible from an intersecting local or collector street or through means of a cross
access easement. Existing lots will be required to access through Grace Dr., Eagle View Dr., or
Dane Rd. SE. No lot access off Mormon Trek Blvd. will be permitted.
Additionally, there is an existing parcel of land located along Dane Rd. that was vacated in
2006.The vacation was due to the City acquiring land at the end of the runway and wanted to
remove the Dane Rd connection that extended to Highway 1. As a condition of the rezoning
staff recommends that the vacated parcel be dedicated back to the City as right-of-way to
ensure a consistent and safe traffic flow that does not end in a dead-end with no available
turnaround along Grace Dr. and Dane Rd. Furthermore, staff believes the subject parcel was
allowed to be vacated in error and the proposed rezoning creates an opportunity to correct this
error.
SUMMARY:
In summary, Staff supports the rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Intensive
Commercial (CI-1). Rezoning to the less restrictive CI-1 may provide quality infill development
and reinvestment opportunities as desired by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that due
to zoning code changes since the time of the 2007 rezoning, CI-1 would provide the land use
flexibility initially desired, such as office use, eating establishments, etc. Additionally, the
rezoning is supported by the South Central District Plan, which identifies a CI-1 zone as a
6
suitable option to provide a commercial corridor intended for a mix of retail, office, and other
business.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0002, a proposal to rezone approximately 13 acres located
east of Mormon Trek Blvd. and along Grace Dr. from Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) to Intensive
Commercial Zone (CI-1) subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Dedicate to the City, without compensation, right-of-way along Dane Rd. SE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Rezoning Exhibit
3. Applicant Statement
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Highway 1 WDane Rd SEMor
mon
Trek
Blvd
Highway1WEa g le
V
i e w Dr
G r ac e
D
r
An application submitted by MMS Consultants for
approval of a rezoning of approximately 13 acres
from Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) to Intensive
Commercial Zone (CI-1).
µREZ23-0002
Mormon Trek
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: January 2023
0 0.04 0.090.02 Miles
CO-1 TO CI-1
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
02-15-2023 added dane road 1\2 row
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
01-25-2023
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
8686-007 1
742
PROJAC
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
REZONING EXHIBIT
A PORTION OF THE NE 1\4 OF THE SE 1\4 AND A PORTION OF THE SE 1\4 OF THE NE 1\4 ALL OF SECTION 20-T79N-R6W
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
1
2
3
4
GRA
C
E
D
RI
V
E
MORMON
TREK
BLVD
EAGLE VIEW DRIVE DANE ROADNE
1
/
4
-
S
E
1
/
4
20
-
7
9
-
6
20
-
7
9
-
6
SE
1
/
4
-
N
E
1
/
4
4
3
2
1
ADDITION
JJR DAVIS SECOND
JJR DAVIS THIRD
ADDITION
JJR DAVIS SECOND
ADDITION
1
JJR DAVIS FOURTH
ADDITION
JJR DAVIS FOURTH
ADDITION
REZONING PARCEL
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT : APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY:
DAVID BILLION
BILLION AUTO
3401 WEST 41 STREET
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57106
STEVEN C. ANDERSON
568 HWY #1 WEST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
OWNER :
CFGRB REALTY HOLDINGS, INC
DONNA ALLEGRA DANE
HAROLD JOHN III DANE
HELEN ELIZABETH DANE
1111 E RIVER DRIVE
DAVENPORT, IA 52803
OWNER :
D & P PROPERTY LLC
526 WOODRIDGE AVENUE
IOWA CITY IA 52245
OWNER :
SHOTTENKIRK I C R LLC
309 S GEAR
WEST BURLINGTON, IA 52655
OWNER :
JAMES R. DAVIS
4097 KITTY LEE ROAD SW
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER :
HJ DANE
1111 E RIVER DRIVE
DAVENPORT, IA 52803
LOCATION MAP - NTS
1
D & D BILLION ADDITION
566,347 SF 13.00 AC
MEADOWLARK HILL
SECOND
SUBDIVISION
MEADOWLARK HILL
SUBDIVISION
POINT OF BEGINNING
REZONING PARCEL
DESCRIPTION - REZONING CO-1 TO CI-1
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 1 of JJR Davis Fourth Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat
thereof Recorded in Plat Book 52 at Page 236 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S20°27'28"E, along the North Line of said JJR Davis Fourth Addition, 247.05 feet; Thence N62°25'02"E, along said North
Line, and the Northeasterly Projection thereof, 298.84 feet, to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County,
Iowa; Thence S00°17'32"W, along said East Line, 372.67 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N89°46'47"W,
along the South Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 33.00 feet, to a Point on the East Line of said
JJR Davis Fourth Addition; Thence S00°08'54"W, along said East Line, 379.56 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof;
Thence S47°50'33"W, along the South Line of said JJR Fourth Addition, 29.68 feet; Thence N89°47'31"W, along said
South Line, 181.27 feet; Thence Southwesterly, 356.23 feet, along said South Line, and the South Line of JJR Davis
Second Addition, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 49 at Page 101 of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office, on a 533.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 349.63 foot chord bears
S71°03'42"W; Thence S50°03'20"W, along the South Line of said JJR Davis Second Addition, 33.13 feet; Thence
N81°50'57"W, along said South Line, 52.69 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof; Thence Northwesterly, 593.39 feet,
along the West Line of said JJR Davis Second Addition, on a 1750.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose
590.55 foot chord bears N26°03'50"W; Thence Northwesterly, 135.10 feet, along said West Line, on a 549.00 foot radius
curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 134.76 foot chord bears N23°34'44"W, to the Northwest Corner thereof; Thence
N61°00'41"E, along the North Line of said JJR Davis Second Addition, and the North Line of said JJR Davis Fourth
Addition, 696.87 feet, to the Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom Grace Drive Public Right-of-Way.
Said Resultant Rezoning Parcel contains 13.00 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
February 16, 2023
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: JJR Davis Second and Fourth Additions to Iowa City, Iowa.
On behalf of Billion Auto we are submitting a request for a Rezoning for Lots 1-4 JJR
Davis Second Addition and Lots 1-4 JJR Davis Fourth Addition. The described land
consists of 13.00 acres in total. We are proposing a change of the land use from
Commercial Office to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate
given the immediate access from the property to Mormon Trek Boulevard which
provides a direct route to Highway #1 and Interstate I-380. In addition, the adjacent
properties to the south and west are currently zoned CI-1 and the Iowa City Airport
adjoins the northerly portion of the site.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly J. Beckler.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
8686-007L1.DOCX
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 15, 2023 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Billie
Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Tracy Hightshoe, Erica Kubly, Anne Russett,
Danielle Sitzman
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY:
Russett stated that at the meeting on January 18 the Commission requested an agenda item be
put on an upcoming agenda to talk about housing affordability in Iowa City so there was a memo
put in the agenda packet addressing this issue and staff also prepared a presentation for tonight.
Russett noted this was a collaborative effort, Tracy Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services is here, Erica Kubly, the Neighborhood Services Coordinators is here,
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator and Sara Hekteon as well all worked on
this information.
Russett began by stating this is a really complex issue, talking about housing affordability and
there's no one solution. She started the presentation going over some of the efforts that pertain
to the Planning and Zoning Commission, things like land use policies, and zoning regulations.
Hightshoe and Kubly will discuss the variety of programs the department administers that provide
direct financial assistance and incentives focused on housing affordability, and finally they’ll get
into some next steps.
First to define what is meant by affordable housing. Typically, housing is considered affordable
when a household spends no more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs and this
includes utilities. When they use the term affordable housing in this presentation, they are
talking about income restricted units that households need to qualify for based on their income.
Russett showed a chart that outlines income thresholds based on household size. If the City has
a requirement that a housing unit needs to be occupied by someone making no more than 60%
of the area median income (AMI), it shows the income brackets they should be in. For example,
a household of two, making no more than $52,320 a year could qualify since they're at 60% AMI
and anyone who makes less than that would also qualify. She showed how the numbers change
going down to 30% AMI and then all the way up to 100% AMI.
In terms of current efforts, Russett reviewed the City's affordable housing requirements. These
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 2 of 21
are requirements where private developers are required to make some type of contribution to
affordable housing. There's the affordable housing annexation policy, which was adopted in
2018, and this was an action item in the former affordable housing action plan. The City has an
updated affordable housing action plan that was adopted in 2022 that really lays the foundation
for efforts moving forward. But in the previous action plan, one thing that was noted was to look
at a potential annexation policy and Council directed staff to move forward with implementation
of that policy. Russett explained with annexations the City has greater flexibility to negotiate for
affordable housing during that process. There's also the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing
requirement which was adopted in 2016. During that time a committee was formed to research
best practices and presented a proposal to Council. That committee included key stakeholders
from banking institutions, construction companies, and affordable housing organizations and they
sought to balance the interest for redevelopment, affordable housing as well as State legislation.
The Riverfront Crossings area presented a unique situation for affordable housing with its
increased density that was allowed through the form-based zones. Russett noted both were
developed with a significant amount of public involvement and they were created to ensure
flexibility and alignment with State law.
The annexation policy is applicable in situations where an annexation results in 10 or more
residential dwelling units. The contribution provided by the developer must equal 10% of the
proposed units and any on-site affordable housing provided has to be affordable for a term of at
least 20 years. Developers are given the option on how they would like to contribute to affordable
housing either through on-site units, transfer of lots or units to the City or an affordable housing
provider, a fee in lieu or participation in a State or Federal program like the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit Program. Qualifying households must be at either 60% AMI or under for rental units
and 110% AMI for owner occupied units.
The Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirement is limited to Riverfront Crossings due to
the increase in development potential that was allowed through the form-based zones. Similar to
the annexation policy, it applies when a project includes 10 or more units, and the contribution
provided by the developer must equal 10% of the proposed units and any on-site units must be
affordable for no less than 10 years. Again, the developer has options which include on-site
housing, fee in lieu, offsite housing and contribution for land. The terms of qualifying households,
standards are the same.
Russett showed a slide that summarized the impact that these policies have had over the last
five years. The Riverfront Crossings requirement was adopted in 2016 however the first
development project under those rules wasn't built until 2018. The annexation policy was
adopted in 2018 and there's only been one annexation that was subject to this policy since it was
adopted. The City has had other annexations, the commercial annexation at Slothower and IWV,
but since that was commercial, the annexation policy didn't apply. The one annexation that that
was subject to this policy was the one off American Legion Road east of Scott Boulevard, which
is referred to as Community View and the developer proposed to provide on-site units so there's
16 income restricted units that are in that development (which is currently under construction). In
terms of Riverfront Crossings, 11 projects have provided on-site housing totaling 79 units. Those
79 units include The Rise which was required to incorporate affordable units on-site per the
developer’s agreement with the City. For that project, there's 33 units that will be permanently
affordable at 80% AMI. Four projects opted to pay a fee in lieu for 36 units and the City currently
has $3.8 million in the fund, $2.8 million of which was just obtained last year. Russett also
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 3 of 21
wanted to note that Kubly has a team that monitors the on-site units to ensure that they are being
rented to households that qualify. Also if a developer owner is out of compliance, the City collects
fees and that $3.8 million does include some fees for developers that were out of compliance.
All of those fees must be spent within the Riverfront Crossings District.
Craig asked if someone is at is 58% AMI and they are renting one of these units, is their rent
then based on their current percent (58%) or at the 60%. Hightshoe replied that for most of the
programs, the person who lives there has to be below 60% of the income but the rent charge is
based on fair market rent and that's basically what monitors housing rates, it's not based on
income, fair market rent is based at about 40% of the units in the market are below that threshold
and 60% are above and the payments are fair market rent, that's how most of the programs are
operated and a HUD requirement. Craig noted then it's not individualized, it goes by unit.
Hightshoe confirmed and stated the only time that is different is for certain housing programs like
housing choice vouchers and public housing, they paid 30% of their income on rent, but for all
the other programs the rent is usually fair market rents.
Padron asked if the fair market rent could be more or less than 30% of a person’s income.
Hightshoe confirmed that was correct.
Russett stated one more current effort that is a requirement isn't something that the Planning and
Zoning Commission sees but it's related to tax increment financing (TIF) policies. If a
development project does obtain TIF from the City, they are required to incorporate affordable
units into the project. 15% of the units must be affordable at a 20-year term. Developers may be
eligible to negotiate a fee in lieu or offsite units and that's done on a case-by-case basis. Again,
qualifying households at 60% AMI for rentals and 110% AMI for owner occupied.
Next Russett explained some of the regulatory incentives that are included in the zoning code. In
2021 Council adopted an amendment to the South District Plan and new form-based zones for
that area, and last month Council also adopted an amendment to the Southwest District Plan
which incorporated form-based land use principles. Those form-based zones and standards
incorporated regulatory incentives for developers interested in providing affordable housing
voluntarily. The goal was maybe for an affordable housing developer getting low income housing
tax credits, they could use some of these regulatory incentives to offset some of the construction
costs associated with the project by providing more development potential on site. The incentives
include things like increased density, minor adjustments to standards such as reduction in lot
width, or height increases. The City doesn’t have any projects to date because it was adopted so
recently but they’re hopeful that it will be used at some point in the future.
Russett next reviewed the regulatory barriers and the development process. When they talk
about regulatory barriers, typically those are local land use policies or regulations that adversely
affect the development availability and/or cost of housing. Some examples of regulatory barriers
are single family only zoning, limited amount of land that's available for multifamily development,
minimum lot sizes, minimum parking requirements, and even things like how they permit
permanent supportive housing. In terms of the land use development process, they're talking
about the process that a developer has to go through to obtain approval to build a project. This
could include rezoning, a subdivision process, site plan review, design review and sometimes
processes are burdensome and sometimes they can be inequitable, so they want to make sure
that they're looking at process too. In the book Neighborhood Defenders researchers at Boston
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 4 of 21
University not only looked at land use regulations and regulatory barriers to housing, but also the
land use process itself and they determined that the typical land use process amplifies voices
within the community that do not represent the larger community. They determined that these
voices were often disproportionately white, male, older, and homeowners and these processes
could result in delays for housing projects, changes to projects which reduced the number of
housing units, and also sometimes completely stalled projects. So overall, these things can result
in less housing and that's why staff is looking at and evaluating barriers and process right now.
She showed a slide that outlined some of the goals that they have and some of the reasons why
they're looking at regulatory barriers to housing development. The first is that they want to ensure
they have a predictable and consistent review process and that is one of the reasons they're
heavily leaning on form-based zones. With the Riverfront Crossings form-based code and the
form-based codes that were created for the South District and the Southwest District staff put the
effort upfront in the process in creating the land use policy, developing the plan, laying the vision.
They also created the code and the standards that went along with that in the hope that the
process after that would be more streamlined. They also want to look at increasing housing
supply, especially multifamily housing. One of the major contributors to the housing crisis is the
housing supply and the need for multifamily housing. The City wants to make sure that the
community has a variety of different housing types, they need single family, duplexes, small
scale multifamily, and larger scale multifamily. When they created the form-based zones they
incorporated a requirement that at the block level developers would be required to have a mix of
housing types to ensure there would be a diversity. Lastly, they wanted to address long standing
issues of inequity and discrimination. Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been
used to enforce racial and class segregation, single family only zones with large minimum lot
sizes are used as an exclusionary practice. Currently 81% of the City is zoned single family and
although the single family zones do allow some other uses besides single family such as
duplexes on corner lots and accessory dwelling units, they’re not seeing a lot of those getting
built.
Russett next discussed some of the regulations they’re looking at and currently evaluating. The
first is related to single family zoning reform and they're currently looking at ways they could
allow more units in single family zones and different types of housing in single family zones.
Major changes to the single family zones would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
Council did approve $150,000 in the FY23 budget for a Comprehensive Plan update so there will
be more to come on that. Staff is also looking at accessory dwelling units (ADUs), granny flats,
there's all different names for these types of units. The City does currently allow them in single
family zones, but again, they're not seeing a lot of them getting built so they're analyzing the
regulations to see if there are regulations that are a barrier. Staff are looking at the parking
requirements for accessory dwelling units, the size, the design, even ownership requirements.
Next are maximum bedrooms, the City currently restricts multifamily units to a maximum of three
bedrooms and this can be a challenge for larger families that need apartments, and also multi-
generational households that need something besides a single family home. So they’re looking
to see if there's a revision that could be made there. Again, Russett mentioned that in the form-
based zones there are regulatory incentives for affordable housing, but they want to look at that
City wide and see if they can apply some of those incentives to other parts of the community and
look at allowing density bonuses, height increases, and other incentives again for affordable
housing developers that are providing affordable housing in the community. With regards to
multifamily housing in commercial zones, most of the commercial zones, although not all of
them, allow multifamily, however it's restricted to the upper levels, the first floor has to be
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 5 of 21
commercial, and they typically require a special exception that has to be reviewed and approved
by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is looking if there's ways to provide flexibility to allow more
multifamily in the commercial zones.
In terms of permanent supportive housing, also referred to as Housing First such as Cross Park
Place that's operated by Shelter House down on Southgate Avenue, that's an example of
permanent supportive housing in the community and it’s an evidence-based model that provides
housing with supportive services to the chronically homeless. Currently in the zoning code they
classified permanent supportive housing as an institutional use instead of residential use so it's
not allowed in any multifamily zones. Staff is taking a look at how they allow permanent
supportive housing to see if there's more places and more zones where it could be allowed.
In terms of parking reform, this is something that staff is not currently looking at amending in the
code at this point but they're doing some best practice research on looking at what other local
jurisdictions are doing. Typically, the approach to parking in zoning codes is to require a
minimum onsite number of parking spaces. A lot of cities are looking at parking maximums to
address affordability goals and climate goals so that's something that is on their list of things to
do but not something they'll be bringing forward to the Commission in the near future.
Staff also want to continue to identify opportunities to apply form-based land use regulations in
greenfield areas similar to what was done in the South District and the Southwest District.
Lastly, staff is not proposing any changes to process but are looking at ways to increase
especially multifamily housing within the community. One way to increase multifamily is through
City initiated rezoning to identify areas that would be appropriate for multifamily housing and
rezoning those to multifamily. Again, similar to parking reform this is on the list of strategies that
they should be looking at but right now they're really focusing on some of the text amendments
related to accessory dwelling units, permanent supportive housing, and single family zoning
reform.
Russett stated back to housing supply, again it's not the only contributor to the housing crisis, but
it's one of the major contributors and supply not keeping up with demand in the community is one
of the reasons that they're looking at regulatory barriers and what they can do in terms of zoning
regulations and land use policy. Russett stated it's widely agreed that the US has a housing
shortage and she showed a map from the 2022 Housing Under Production in the US Report
published by an organization called Up For Growth. The report states that the US is 3.79 million
units shy of its housing need. In Iowa it shows as 8,000 units shy of its need. Staff wanted to
provide a little bit more information and data specific to Iowa City so in early 2022 planning staff
completed a residential development analysis and they’re currently working on updating that
analysis to get the data from 2022. What they learned from that study is that development activity
is not keeping pace with demand and projected growth within the community. She showed a
graph indicating residential lots created by housing type between 1990 and 2021 and in 2020
and 2021, there are low points. In 2021, only three subdivisions were approved and the lots that
was created could accommodate 65 single family residences, 12 duplexes and 32 multifamily
units. That is the lowest number of lots approved since the Great Recession of 2008, 2009 and
2010. Next they looked at building permits and the building permit activity between 1990 and
2021. In 2021 the City issued building permits for 133 single family residences, six duplexes and
195 multifamily units. Single family is at the highest since 2017 but below the long-term average
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 6 of 21
of 145 units per year. Duplexes tend to fluctuate but they really drop off after 2005 and 2005 is
when the City amended the zoning ordinance that restricted duplex development so after that
they got fewer duplexes. In terms of multifamily, the 2021 numbers were again below the 10-
year average, which is 279 units and the long-term average of 270 units. In 2021 there were 195
multifamily units permitted. Overall 2021 has some of the lowest levels of residential lot creation
since the end of the Great Recession and building permit activity is outpacing and creation of
new lots. Lot supplies are diminishing, which does not appear to be keeping up with demand.
Planning staff also anticipates over 10,000 new residents by 2030 and if building activity
continues at this current pace the City can only accommodate 4900 new residents and if
residential lot creation continues at the current pace, they could only accommodate 3000 new
residents.
Additionally, the University of Iowa provides dormitories for some undergraduates, but over
23,000 students rely on the surrounding housing market for their housing needs. If Iowa City
cannot meet its demand for housing, it could result in slower population growth and development
moving to nearby cities such as Tiffin and North Liberty, which has environmental consequences
and increased housing prices because when supply does not meet the demand, Iowa City
becomes less affordable. Staff is going to continue to encourage residential growth in areas that
have access to City services such as infill areas and areas designed for new growth such as
some of the greenfield areas that they've been looking at lately.
Hightshoe noted she has been working with the affordable housing programs over the last 20
years and it is a complex program, land use is just one part of the puzzle. If someone can pay
for housing, it’s a function of the housing price, but it's also a function of their wage opportunities,
their education opportunities, their access to quality affordable childcare, or access to health
care, including mental health and substance abuse. So there's a lot of things that go into if
people can afford the housing that they're in and Neighborhood and Development Services
concentrate on that, and land use side and the program side in Neighborhood Services. They
also have the Housing Authority under Neighborhood Services, so there are a lot of programs
meant to subsidize those under 80% median income with the majority of the services for those
under 50% of median income. Iowa City has spent over $10.4 million in this calendar year on
affordable housing. Most of the beneficiaries are 50% of median income. They spent about a
year looking at policies and programs and with various stakeholders they came together to
finalize the affordable housing action plan which has a lot of incentives. The incentives or
recommendations are about how the City can support affordable housing in the market. Those
recommendations focus on what changes can be made to existing policies and programs, what
changes can be made to development regulations and if they had additional money, how would
they spend that money for targeted populations broken down by 0% to 30%, 30% to 60%, and
60% to 100%. This action plan is also in-line with City Council's strategic plan because the
strategic plan basically says that they prioritize recommendations and work with partners to
undertake significant affordable housing efforts. So Neighborhood and Development Services
will be working in conjunction to try to strengthen affordable housing with what they call the
housing continuum. The housing continuum provides housing for people at all stages of income
and it provides housing for all stages of life. Empty nesters, retirees, and young families are
different so they created a toolbox of financial programs that can be tapped into and there are a
lot of affordable housing options and Hightshoe acknowledged it can be complex. There's a lot
of funding partners and a lot of different sources and they all require different things. One of the
City’s main partners is the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Iowa City
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 7 of 21
is an entitlement community and that simply means the City is a community of over 50,000 and
because of that they don't have to compete for the annual Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME funds, it goes through a formula Congress has and basically these CDBG
monies that can be used for housing, jobs and services in the community, they just have to
benefit low-income residents. Alternatively, HOME funds can only be used for housing, it can be
used for rental housing, owner- occupied housing or tenant subsidies. Those are the funds the
City gets every year that they spread out to try to maximize how much affordable housing goes
into neighborhoods. Also through the Housing and Urban Development they operate the Housing
Choice Voucher and public housing and the City also had a onetime appropriation of $18.3
million of ARPA funds, those are the American Rescue Plan Act funds and a portion of that will
benefit just affordable housing.
They also work with state funds, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects, which is
a 4% or 9% tax credit, that comes through the Iowa Finance Authority. They're actually IRS funds
that are funneled through the State and developers apply for those on an annual basis. The 9%
tax credits provide new construction and are heavily subsidized. They don't get them every year,
they might get a project every other year or once every three years. The City also got a special
allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds that were pandemic related. Those
funds have been allocated those out, it was just a onetime allocation.
Finally, they have local funds and Council has, in addition to federal monies, allocated anywhere
between $650,000 to $1 million to affordable housing. Out of those funds the City allocate 70%
The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Housing and developers can apply directly to the
Housing Trust Fund throughout the year, they have a funding allocation every quarter. The City
reserves 20% of that allocation for LIHTC projects and 10% goes to security deposits and
landlord risk mitigation programs, the City has a partnership and an agreement with Community
Crisis Services to provide security deposits to those most in need, they have to be below 50% of
median income. The City also provides money in an opportunity fund, these local monies are for
if they get an application that fits outside any other of the income streams, something not eligible
entity under federal or state programs, they can apply and use those local funds for various
things.
The City has a Healthy Homes program where they provide rehab for a household. If they meet
the income threshold and a person in the household has COPD or asthma or lung disorder the
City can help with rehab to the air conditioners, taking moisture out of the house, fixing leaky
pipes, putting hard surface floors in and taking up carpet. And then there are emergent funds that
could be for various things (it’s been used for weatherization at Forest View Mobile Home Park,
Houses into Homes), it is capped at $50,000 for small amounts of money, but they represent
some vital need that needs to be addressed and cannot wait until a regular funding cycle.
There are also the City’s general fund dollars and they have used general fund dollars in
partnerships with a lot of projects, even with federal projects. A good example is the South
District Homeownership Program when they bought duplexes in the South District Neighborhood
and rehabbed those, they have used general fund dollars and partnered those with federal
HOME down payment assistance dollars. Lastly there are general obligation bonds. Hightshoe
explained there's been times in the past where there's been a large project needing a lot of
financing and the City will provide a loan to that developer, probably cheaper than what the
private market can do, and it’s usually a 20-year loan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 8 of 21
Hightshoe next discussed the Housing Authority stating they’re the second largest Housing
Authority in the state of Iowa and serve Johnson County, Iowa County and parts of Washington
County. They stabilized housing for about 1500 households and operate 102 public housing and
affordable housing units. This is the program where the tenant only pays 30% of their income for
housing and the Housing Authority is going to pay the rest to the landlord directly. They make
about $8.3 million payments to landlords every year under that program. She next described who
can utilize their programs, 58% of the public housing and housing choice voucher tenants are
elderly or disabled, and of those that are families with children, they're working they just don't
make enough in the private market pay for housing. Less than 1% report are on welfare as their
sole source of income. Interestingly that in the last five years they’ve also been given the
opportunity to apply for and awarded specialty vouchers. The Housing Choice Voucher Program
is not an entitlement program, just because they have more low-income people living in a
jurisdiction doesn’t mean they get more vouchers, they have to apply for them and they're not
always readily available. Therefore, the Housing Authority has applied for specialty vouchers
and it's in cooperation with the Veterans Administration for finding houses for homeless veterans,
and also with the Coordinated Entry Process which is facilitated Shelter House who partners with
others in affordable housing and public service and they prioritize clients and sends those clients
to the right housing intervention.
Kubly stated something they need to consider with affordable housing efforts is what income
level a particular project might serve and how much subsidy or public assistance is required to
make that project feasible. If the City wants to provide housing to those at lower income levels a
greater subsidy is needed. She shared three broad categories of subsidies. First is market rate
housing where there's no income restriction, no assistance provided, most of the housing stock
falls into this category and the type of housing developed based on market conditions. Shallow
subsidy housing can be described for households who are between 50% and 80% of the area
median income, which is considered low income. In order to be affordable rents would need to
be below market rent and therefore some subsidy is required to bridge that gap. Examples of this
might be an affordable rental project for a family under 60% of the area median income, or the
Housing Fellowship would provide homeownership programs such as the down payment
assistance program and owner-occupied assistance rehab program. Finally, for very low-income
households which are under 50% of the area median income there is what is often called a deep
subsidy. For these types of projects, there's a larger gap between the market rate rent and what
applicants can afford, so there is a more substantial subsidy. Often this is achieved through
subsidy layering where the developer has to secure funding from multiple funding sources and it
can get very complex. This can also be done through an ongoing subsidy such as the Housing
Choice Voucher program where the subsidy provides rental assistance each month on an
ongoing basis and is based on 30% of that person’s income. An example of a deep subsidy
project would be Cross Park Place or the 501 Project which are the permanent supportive
housing efforts ran by the Shelter House, low-income housing tax credit apartments would also
be considered a deep subsidy. When the City assess these shallow or deep subsidy projects
they are often working with nonprofit affordable housing providers. The type and amount of
funding provided will dictate the length of the affordability for projects however when working with
a nonprofit affordable housing provider whose mission is to provide affordable housing even
when that period ends they are going to continue to provide affordable housing. Conversely,
when they work with a market rate developer and require affordable units, say for a period of 10
years, those units are probably going to convert back the market right after the 10 years. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 9 of 21
City also more commonly run into compliance issues when they work with people who are not
experienced with affordable housing and the income gap documentation which requires they are
meeting the intent of the program.
Kubly reiterated that different projects require varying levels of subsidies and the City doesn’t
have an infinite budget to allocate out to projects so another consideration is what types of
projects are the most cost effective. Kubly shared a table of a five-year review of City assisted
rental projects, how many units were generated and the average amount of public funds invested
in each unit. For rental rehab, which is making repairs to preserve an existing unit of rental
housing, that is the lowest cost with about $13,000 invested per unit on average. The City
assisted or created 85 units during this five year period. Acquisition for rental housing for special
populations is next with an average of about $18,000 per unit, this is housing typically acquired
by nonprofits for people with physical or mental disabilities. The term SRO (single room
occupancy) is where the tenants have their own bedrooms but share a kitchen, living room and a
bathroom. Next is rental new construction, about $77,000 per unit, and the highest cost was for
the general affordable housing rental acquisition was at about $157,000 per unit. The data can
vary from year to year depending on what projects are funded, but they do see similar themes
through the years. Staff uses this data to encourage project types that have a lower average
public investment per unit to stretch the dollars further. When they hold the funding cycles for
CDBG and HOME allocations for projects that have lower cost per unit that leverage non-City
resources will receive additional points for their score. All these applications are reviewed by the
Housing Development Commission and recommended to Council
Hightshoe discussed the housing continuum and reviewed the type of housing projects they
fund. First are emergency shelters which are the deep subsidies where the providers are either
not going to get rental income or they're going to get very reduced levels of income. To make
things affordable they have to reduce the debt so typically they try to aim for debt free projects so
the entity can provide for maintenance and operations. The Emergency Shelter and Domestic
Violence Intervention Program shelter are the first level of support. Next is transitional housing
and permanent supportive housing such as Cross Park Place and 501 Project would be
examples of permanent supportive housing. There is also a LITHC project for senior housing.
Next level is anything for rent, she shared the Peninsula project has 10 units the City owns that
are affordable housing and there other projects where they provide single-family homes,
duplexes townhomes, etc. to people below 60% median income. The next one is housing seen
in the Riverfront Crossing that have the 10% requirement. The Rise is a student dominated
housing development, there are 33 permanent units that can go up to 80% median income.
There is also the Sabin where The Housing Fellowship bought three units that are considered
permanent affordable housing rented to people at 60% of median income, and then Del Rey is a
LIHTC project by The Housing Fellowship. LIHTC projects are usually affordable for 30 years but
since The Housing Fellowship will be the general partner this project will remain affordable. The
Del Rey will provide housing for people with disabilities as well as affordable rentals for students
and families.
Padron asked what the typical rental price is for these affordable units and would a person
making 60% of a median income pay no more than 30%. Hightshoe explained eligibility is
limited by how much one makes, 60%, 80% or 30% of median income, the rents are based on
fair market rent and one would have to pay the full price unless they have a voucher. The fair
market rent for efficiency is $757, landlord's can always charge cheaper rent, but they can't
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 10 of 21
charge more than that. Padron asked who pays the difference, Hightshoe replied nobody, the
other units in the complex that are not tagged affordable will likely be at a higher rate to make up
the difference for the affordable units.
Russett noted that even though it's called fair market rent, it's below the market rent rate.
Hightshoe added that landlords are going to work with housing providers to offer a fair market
rent but other units in buildings can be priced whatever and private developers will go to the
maximum.
Townend asked if $757 for an efficiency is really affordable. Hightshoe stated it is considered
affordable because the current market rate for similar units is $1200.
Craig asked about the waiting lists for people who have requested to being in an affordable unit.
Hightshoe explained they do not know as these are private market developments and it goes
directly through the developer. Hightshoe said the only waitlist the City keeps is for public
housing and for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Townsend asked if they are taking applications a year from now for those units. Hightshoe
stated for housing choice vouchers they are assisting people that applied back in 2019. People
will apply through The Housing Fellowship, the Mayors Action for Youth and other services for
the private developments and they may be maintaining a waitlist but the City does not see that.
Hektoen noted the units are affordable pursuant to a zoning code requirement, the City requires
the developer to annually verify that they're complying and staff investigates the information that
they provide and if it's not accurate it may require additional information. If staff determines that
they did not comply with their obligations, then they may get a fee, or have to extend their year of
compliance term.
Craig asked about student rented units and how it is determined the student is eligible.
Hightshoe stated students attending the University have to verify that they're independent, show
they're not claimed as a dependent on a parent’s tax form to qualify. If it's TIF financing they can
be a fulltime student but have to be a veteran, married, have a child or their whole family has to
be able to qualify, so with students there are some special provisions. Private developers are not
used to certifying folks and getting parental tax forms, so City staff and nonprofits help when
they're applying for federal funding or the City’s regular allocation process.
Elliott stated her take away from this part of the presentation is the City is better off getting the
fee in lieu of because then they control the money and they end up getting a unit that's probably
subsidized in perpetuity. Hightshoe stated in her experience when they get the fee in lieu, for
example, Tailwinds had to pay $1.8 million as it was a tax increment financing project so the City
got the $1.8 million and were able to use the funds to turn rental duplexes into homes for people
through the Homeownership Program for $1.5 million. They sell those units for $155,000 with
down payment assistance so those folks are only having to finance less than $100,000 and that's
affordable. When they have a project being partnered with a nonprofit housing developer, that
projects going to be affordable for the long term, not just for ten-years, so yes the fee in lieu for
what they can do with the funds. In Riverfront Crossings the fees in lieu have to be used in the
Riverfront Crossings District.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 11 of 21
Hightshoe stated the last piece of the housing continuum is affordable owner-occupied housing.
The City supports affordable housing through down payment assistance, new construction, and
have an extensive owner-occupied rehab program so for those under 80% the City can provide
up to $25,000 in rehab. If someone is in a targeted area in Iowa City it’s a 50% grant. If the
person is already paid 30% of their income towards their payment the City will do a deferred
payment loan and they don't have to pay it back until they sell the property. The City does about
25 homes a year in this program. She showed images of houses they have rehabbed in this
program. With the rehab program they do concentrate on energy efficiency to keep costs down
for the homeowner.
In summary, Russett wanted to say as planners they're really focusing on what their area of
expertise is, the land use policy, and the zoning regulations. However, they cannot regulate a
way out of this housing crisis so if they're really looking to serve the City's most vulnerable
families, it's really the programs and incentives like the housing choice vouchers and the direct
financial assistance that will help. In terms of next steps, they are working on multiple text
amendments to the zoning code which they hope to have before this Commission in the summer
of 2023. They are also going to be embarking on a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the
relatively near future.
Hensch stated this was an outstanding comprehensive overview of the affordable housing issues
in Iowa City and hopes this gets spread farther than just this commission as it would be very
helpful for people concerned about affordable housing but are not looking at it in a holistic
fashion. There's obviously a ton of work went into this so it is really appreciated. A couple
thoughts came to his mind, it seems pretty obvious the issue is they just need more housing and
more mix of types of housing. With 81% of the zoning of Iowa City for single family residential,
that's a problem. He noted from doing this for eight years and projects are not necessarily
stopped by zoning codes alone, they are often delayed, stopped or altered by interested
residents using local land use institutions. They hear all the time where people come and state
they don't want development because their sightlines will be interfered with but they don't own
that property but they're trying to control what happens because of the way it's going to look after
their back door. What he really appreciates Commissioner Signs for is he'll say right to them if
they cared about what it looks like they should have purchased the property. But it is a big
problem, for example those that have been around here for a while saw the Grand Living
concept on west part of Iowa City by Hwy 280 that's now built in Coralville but the neighbors in
Iowa City were adamantly opposed to it for sightline issues. So that very good senior housing
development went to Coralville and not Iowa City and they to reflect on that. He also thinks the
barriers issue is very real, he’s a big advocate for protecting staff time and to do all these
projects and reports they have to hire people, they can't keep adding on staff and giving them
more and more things to do, it’s not fair or realistic. Unfortunately, because of legislative action in
Des Moines, property taxes that can be collected are diminishing rapidly, because multifamily
residential and commercial tax rates were decreased and the reason that landlords wanted it
was so they could make their rents will go down and of course that did not happen, in fact, they
went up. He noted there are other actions happening in Des Moines that will cause even further
erosion of property taxes. Everything mentioned in this report takes staff time, any money not
coming from federal programs needs to come from tax collection and they are seeing that
diminished, so they have to find things they can do in the process to try to reduce the barriers to
encourage development because it's multifaceted problem. It is undeniable that supply is part of
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 12 of 21
the issue, there are 30,000 students in Iowa City which increases demand, and as they see an
increase in demand and supply doesn't change, the price is going to go up. Projections show
that the demand is going to be increasing, but the supply is not going to proportionately increase,
which means higher prices. He does not want Iowa City to look like Coralville or North Liberty
because some of those developments out there aren’t going to look good in 20 years. They want
quality and don't want to surrender quality but have to find a way to work with developers get
more housing quantity. He stated something didn't make sense to him recently was when they
were talking about the rezoning in Riverfront Crossings in the Orchard subdistrict there was no
height bonus allowable for affordable housing units. They can’t be complaining there weren’t any
affordable units if they are creating obstacles through passed regulations. Hensch reiterated this
is all so complicated and they could be here all night if they tried address every issue they'd like
to see changed. He thinks the answer is maybe to ask the City Council to form a committee like
the Affordable Housing Annexation Policy Committee that was formed in 2016, to look at
processes and the affordable housing requirements. Maybe a new committee could make
recommendations holistically and comprehensively to take out some of the barriers and such.
Hensch asked if there are State of Iowa code issues that really restrict options for affordable
housing. It can be a real issue because Johnson County is frequently in the crosshairs of
legislators in Des Moines and if Iowa City or Johnson County does things they don’t approve of
then there is retaliatory legislation that's introduced.
Hektoen stated even back in 2016 when there was the ad hoc committee created to formulate
recommendations on affordable housing requirements and there was a rental permit cap in effect
at that time and then the City was preempted from capping rent rates. Since 2017, the legislature
has preempted local control and amended the State zoning code five times to take away level of
control over various issues. It's important to keep in mind the balance that they're trying to strike
here. Riverfront Crossings is unique because developers have a greater incentive to
development there so they are willing to contribute to affordable housing and participate in
programs that have been codified in the local ordinances, but it is difficult to impose City-wide,
there's not the same kinds of incentives under the typical single family zoning regulations. She
stated all of these things are important to keep in mind when they consider how to manage this
complex process. At the time there were various industries all at the table coming together to
figure out what's realistic in this market.
Craig stated it is not a unique problem, she has been in this town for 45 years or more and it's
always been here. They spend a lot of time talking about issues, and they've done some great
things here, but across Iowa, even small town Iowa, there's no place to live there either. She
was surprised that Iowa is only 8000 units short, she feels there's way more need in Iowa than
8000 units. They hear all the time about small towns in Iowa giving the land away so people will
come and build houses there so they can build up their tax base.
Craig did have one question about regulatory things noting there was nothing mentioned
anywhere about building codes, and she believes in strong building codes but has read some
articles lately about the big advances that have been made in prefab and the way housing is
built. Are that those kinds of things allowed in Iowa City building codes? Sitzman replied
manufactured housing is regulated by the federal government so Iowa City is preempted from
saying what can and can't get built by the federal government which says they must allow it.
There are no more design regulations on a manufactured home than any other single family
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 13 of 21
home so it's not the building code, per se, because it’s already an allowed type of construction
and they've seen it happen successfully in Iowa City.
Elliott asked about the pot of money, that $3.8 million, and who decides what will happen with the
money. Hightshoe replied they didn’t get $2.8 million until recently so they had to wait until they
had a sufficient amount of money that they could invest in Riverfront Crossings. They had
conversations with the County about developing a piece of land they own, a joint partnership,
they could build and then provide affordable housing. If that doesn't pan out they’ll have to look
for other opportunities, either to acquire property or build and that will all have to go to City
Council, staff can suggest a project but Council as to ultimately approve it.
Craig asked if the situation with Riverfront Crossing it's such a desirable place for people
connected to the university, like students, to live that drives the per square foot cost for rent or
purchase. If they build the same project out on Scott Boulevard, they would get a lot more square
footage for the same cost. Hightshoe confirmed that is correct but the RFC in-lieu fees have to
be spent within Riverfront Crossings and they can’t use those for projects outside of Riverfront
Crossings. However, tax increment financing is meant to be used City wide and Foster Road
was a tax increment finance residential deal so as that development grows they will get the taxes
to be used for affordable housing and can be used City-wide.
Padron noted she heard someone say that developers were hesitant to build affordable housing
and one of the reasons is they have a lot of empty affordable housing units because they don't
have enough rooms or enough bathrooms. Does the City know if there are affordable units that
are empty and not used. Hightshoe is not aware of any problem filling their subsidized housing,
she did note the Sabin houses took time to fill up because it was downtown and the rents were
affordable but they had to pay for parking and to pay for parking in addition to rent was difficult
plus The Housing Fellowship had many other units where parking was free.
Craig thinks it is possible this person was referring to conversations she’s heard about some of
the Clark properties downtown, like the one on College Street or elsewhere, where units have
been deliberately left vacant. Hektoen noted those units would be market rate units and not
affordable units.
Hightshoe stated they don’t have a problem with subsidized housing finding tenants but in the
Casey Cook apartment survey they did report a lot more vacancy in the three bedroom units in
the Pentacrest mile and that might be something new construction coming online. They also did
hear that they weren't renting some of the three bedroom units so in order to rent them, they
were really finding two people to rent a three bedroom and only pay the two bedroom price,
which brought the rents down in the study but that wasn't subsidized or housing that the City
supports, that was private market.
Townsend asked regarding the several loans and grants and stuff that lower incomes can apply
for, is there any one place where they can get all this information and do they have to fill out an
application for each loan, grant, or subsidy. Hightshoe explained it is based on the program, the
programs that the City offers people can come in and apply but they also work with the Housing
Fellowship, United Action for Youth and about 20 affordable housing providers so they would
have to apply for them if they wanted to get in them.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 14 of 21
Townsend asked how is that information available to people. Hightshoe replied they have it on
the website, people can call them, they have a down payment assistance program right now that
they are partnering with Greenstate that's on the website, and they try to get that information out
and do different marketing and try to keep the website up to date. But for affordable housing
there's not one central source to go to. If someone is really low income and going through the
coordinated entry process through Shelter House that's great because it looks at the need and
then assigns a housing intervention and the City may get a referral. So coordinated entry is the
best way for very low income. For someone at 50%-60% median income they need to call or
check out the website if they are interested in a program being offered.
Townsend asked why there are so many agencies where it sounds like they are all doing the
same thing but a person has to know where they are in order to apply. Hightshoe stated they try
not to do a duplication of services and have different providers providing different things. For
instance, The Housing Fellowship is the general affordable rental provider in the market and they
have close to 200 units, United Action for Youth focus on their housing on homeless teens or
teen moms, other providers just focus on people with disabilities, so basically agencies are
providing housing based on certain clientele or different populations, a person is not always
eligible for everything out there. Hightshoe acknowledged it's great to have multiple providers,
but it can be confusing and their department and the Housing Authority get a lot of phone calls
from people needing affordable housing and they try to direct them to a resource.
Townsend noted a lot of these requests are coming from people who are immigrants where
English is not their first language so it may be hard to understand their request and how to they
get treated fairly if they have to go to 99 different places for the information. Hightshoe said the
City does have language interpreters and from ARPA funds just paid for a housing stability pilot
project with Shelter House and they're hiring a housing navigator to help navigate the housing
situation for people in need. It may not be the best solution but currently they don't have the
capacity to walk people through all the different housings and help them apply but that is what
that housing navigator through Shelter House does.
Townsend raised the concern if they’re hiring more people with a job, that is taking money out of
the pot which could be used for housing. Why aren’t the agencies getting together so the
information can be held in one spot, even though they may have different places to ask to get the
services. Hightshoe stated that's what Coordinated Entry is trying to do but again one has to be
very low income to go through Coordinated Entry. So DVIP, Shelter House, UAY, Center for
Worker Justice and a few others are all part of that coordinated entry where they're bringing their
clients together and their staff and helping that person figure out what's happening or what
interventions or what program is best.
Wade asked why the decision was made to move away from duplexes that weren’t on corner
lots. Russett believes a lot of it was due to design concerns, with multiple duplexes being all
within a block and having that same housing type over and over again, and repetition. So with
that 2005 amendment the City restricted it to only corner lots and it decreased the land that
would allow duplex units. She thinks it addressed the concern that they were getting duplexes
where they didn’t like the design. Wade stated similar to how they approach larger buildings
where they have design criteria and setbacks and such is there opportunity to revisit the
duplexes being limited to corner lots and try to address it through design requirements. Russett
agreed and confirmed that is something that they're looking at right now, they are analyzing the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 15 of 21
Comprehensive Plan’s land use policy direction on where the Plan would support development
besides just single family in the single family zones and seeing where they could expand
duplexes within single family zones. Wade acknowledged it doesn't solve the need but making it
developer friendly while also fitting within Iowa City modeling community he agrees as far as this
is a big problem.
Wade asked like with The Rise development, using that efficiency of $750 bucks is that a 10-
year affordable unit because it’s in the Riverfront Crossings. Hightshoe stated that one was a
special development agreement so that stays affordable forever.
Wade also asked if the fee in lieu funds that were leveraged to buy duplexes or converted into
duplexes, is that also in perpetuity or does that create a cycle to where the first purchaser gets it
at a good rate but when it comes back up for sale it might return the market rate. Hightshoe
explained the assistance the City provides is for 10 years so they have to stay in the home for 10
years before the full amount is forgive and then at that point they can sell for whatever the
market rate is, however the City did put a 21 year deed restriction that it has to be owner
occupied so they can sell it at whatever market rate but it cannot be turned into a rental.
Hensch asked if there was support amongst the Commission to have staff put together a request
asking Council to form a committee just to examine this issue, just for refresh. It's been five and
eight years respectively since those two different housing committees met and this seems like
the right way to go on a multi-faceted problem.
Elliott stated she feels like the staff is doing stuff. Hensch agreed, he is just suggesting there
may be other things that aren’t being thought of or that staff wants to do and this is a good way to
bring them to Council's attention. He doesn’t want to over complicate this and make it more work
for staff, he wants it to provide an opportunity for people to come together to see if there are
some recommendations because only Council can amend these things.
Padron asked if there wasn’t already a committee. Russett said there was a steering committee
formed to help with the affordable housing action plan, but that was already adopted so that
committee was disbanded.
Townsend voiced concern about the jargon used with affordable housing when they all know that
most of the affordable housing isn’t really affordable for people that need it so she is all in favor
of having a committee formed.
Hensch completely agrees, Iowa City has the highest level of housing and rent prices in the state
of Iowa, it’s a multi-faceted problem, it’s complex problems and it’s going to take multi-faceted
complex solutions. He stated it doesn't hurt to periodically, every five years, eight years, or
whatever, to take a fresh look at it.
Padron also wanted to point out there is a livable wage calculator and she looked it up the other
day and it was $17 or $18 an hour and the minimum wage in the State of Iowa is $7.25. Hensch
noted however that the Johnson County suggested minimum wage around $10.60 or $10.80 but
it has no legal impact because the legislature took that away.
Elliott asked if there was a current committee working on this. Russett replied right now planning
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 16 of 21
staff is working on amendments to the zoning code to address regulatory barriers. There are also
the recommendations in the affordable housing action plan that was adopted in 2022.
Hightshoe stated a group was formed, they made recommendations, they made the
development regulations that they basically wanted staff to follow up on and Council approved
that. So the City Manager’s direction was for staff to provide this presentation, have a joint
meeting to discuss where they want to go, staff will provide a memo based on the
recommendations in affordable housing action plan, focused on land use, what regulations does
Commission want to pursue and what can they do through a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and then have this Commission and Council approve. The Comprehensive Plan will be a large
project and take a lot of time to process with input from various stakeholders.
Craig believes it sounds like they’re not quite in need of a committee right now, this background
work has been done and goals have been set. There's no goal in there that she disagrees with in
any substantial way.
Hensch is fine with that, particularly if staff feels like they have what they need and that
something's being done and it's going to continue. He does however want to be cognizant of the
fact that sometimes they do have to refresh plans, the 2016 plan and 2018 plan are starting to
age.
Elliott suggest they allow the process to go forward and then review this again after that.
Hensch confirmed a majority of the Commission agrees to just let staff work on these issues and
then report back.
Townsend voiced her concern of these millions of dollars that are being put into and these funds
are not being used to buy more affordable housing instead of using it for administrative costs.
Why are these funds not being used to purchase more housing that can be turned into affordable
housing. Russett noted they have $3.8 million in the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing
fund now but only had a $1 million up until a few months ago so they need to get to a point
where they have enough money to actually do a project and that will take time. Hightshoe noted
Council is looking for them to use funds to do a large-scale affordable housing project and they
take time, they have to parcel land, they have to apply for all the different funding sources, and
they have to build it so even if they started this year it would take at least three years to see
something built. Honestly just buying land in Riverfront Crossings might be the whole $3.8
million.
Hightshoe noted there are other means by which they get more and more affordable housing
every year.
Padron agreed her issues is also what they are calling affordable housing, if they are talking
about a person making $15 per hour, that is $31,000 a year which is less than a $1,000 a month
after taxes and $700 for an efficiency is not affordable, especially when adding in utilities, phones
and transportation. If the City believes a rent of $1,000 is affordable because it's lower than the
market rate, well yes, it is lower than the market rate but it’s still not approval for someone
making $15 an hour.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 17 of 21
Hektoen reiterated there are many programs available to subsidize the people that would qualify
for the deep subsidies. No, they are not going to be able to afford the rent without that subsidy
the units they are getting through the Riverfront Crossings program but that's why there are all
these other programs available for that.
Townsend is concerned that people have to know about those programs and how to apply for
them and a lot of people don’t know what is available.
Craig noted that is where they talk about hiring people, do they put all the money into the
subsidies or do they put money into hiring someone to help people know where the subsidies are
and how to do it, there's a balance in there and that's what the new staff that is working at
Shelter House is there for. She totally agrees and understands the need, they do need more
affordable housing but it's not like the money that the City has access to has been ill-spent on
some giant bureaucracy, it just takes a bureaucracy to help people and to create the structure
that makes it fair and equitable. She will say the part she doesn’t like about the structure that
came out tonight is that these landlords get to decide who gets to be in their units.
Hektoen stated if anyone has specific concerns about specific programs, she invites them to
come talk to staff, the are all good resources and will to try to address any concerns.
BY-LAW AMENDMENT REGARDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Russett noted this was another request from the Commission to take an opportunity to look at
the procedures that the City Council adopted for public participation at Council meetings. In the
agenda packet there is a proposed amendment to the bylaws that incorporate public participation
procedures which align with the City Council procedures that were adopted. She noted even
though this was proposed as an amendment to the bylaws it could be something that the
Commission just adopts as a standalone procedure, or they could go through the process of
amending the bylaws which requires a recommendation from the Commission and approval by
City Council.
Again, the proposed amendments were in the agenda packet. They cover rules such as time
limits on public comments, conduct of those providing testimony, consequences for failing to
follow the rules. Russett did want to note a couple differences between what's proposed and the
standard process that has happened at the Commission over the years. Council procedures limit
testimony to three minutes and typically at Commission meetings they've allowed five, so that's
up to the Commission to discuss. Also the Council procedures and the proposed amendment in
the packet state each person is only allowed to address each agenda item once, and sometimes
the Commission does allow people to come back up for a second round if everyone else has had
an opportunity to present to the Commission. One other thing is if the Commission does want to
pursue a bylaw amendment as opposed to just adopting standalone procedures she wanted to
note that Section 6 in the bylaws discusses an annual report that should be prepared annually
and it's something that they haven't done for several years. So if the Commission wants to do a
bylaw amendment they could also discuss if they want to strike that as well.
Hensch admitted he instigated this and wanted to make sure people understand why. In the last
year or two public behaviors at public meetings has been a little out of control at times and he
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 18 of 21
just wanted to make sure they have the tools available if it becomes a problem. He
acknowledged they have been pretty lucky here and have always allowed people to say what
they have to say, which they want to do, but because public behavior has deteriorated over the
years he wants to make sure they have policy in place if they need it.
Hensch doesn’t think the annual report is necessary, Council get the minutes from every meeting
and can call a consult at any time if they want. He also believes the three minutes is a little short
and would like to stay with five minutes, but not have a second call back because after doing this
for eight years somebody that comes back for second time has never said anything new, it’s just
reiterating the same things. He also doesn’t like the idea of where a group can aggregate the
time because they'll just have people yielding to everybody and it' be completely unmanageable
as to what group they are in, so it should just be everyone has one time to speak and five
minutes.
Townsend noted if they allow the aggregate, it would be six minutes rather than five people all
getting five minutes each. Hensch agreed but has seen where people have yielded their time to
another person and it’s hard to judge if someone is part of a group or not.
Craig saw it as an opportunity for a spokesperson, for instance, the Friends of Hickory Hill Park,
they come as a group and perhaps maybe have a brief PowerPoint, or something and coming
forward as an organized group. Hensch is concerned however other members of the group will
still speak as individuals, they also want their five minutes. Townsend agrees but also thinks if
there is an organized group there would be others that would not speak and let the group speak
for them.
Hensch is fine with allowing a group to speak for eight minutes if only the representative of the
group speaks, somehow they need to say it’s implied then that the other people aren’t going to
speak and the group is speaking for them.
Craig noted when the Friends of Hickory Hill Park spoke, she gave some credence to that person
who wasn’t speaking as a neighbor whose view shed was going to get ruined, they were
speaking for all the Friends of Hickory Hill Park.
Craig also believes this should not be in the bylaws, what should be in the bylaws is maybe
under powers and duties that the Commission has the power to set rules related to public
participation and have the rules separate.
Hensch stated he is in favor of putting this in the bylaws because rules prevent discrimination
and ensures everybody is treated exactly the same.
Craig doesn’t feel that strong so if they want it in the bylaws she would agree. However, it's not
really Article 9, it's Article 11, and if they’re going to put it in the bylaws it doesn’t belong in Article
11, it belongs after conduct of commission business because it relates to conduct of commission
business so it could be Article 9 and then all the other articles should just move down.
Craig also asked if the bylaws should address electronic attendance. They should discuss both
electronic attendance of audience and of Commission members to meetings. Hektoen said they
don’t allow electronic attendance of members of the public by operation of State code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 19 of 21
Hektoen stated she was the one that suggested putting this in the bylaws as a way to make sure
they always know where this information is, however does acknowledge it would be easier to
change if it were just rules and not in the bylaws.
Russett also noted there is a typo, she had it listed as Article 9 public participation, but as Craig
pointed out it should be Article 11. However, Craig is suggesting this should go after Article 8
and be Article 9, conduct of commission.
Hensch wanted to echo Craig on discussion of participation by commissioners electronically
because if they need a quorum could one of the persons being electronically attending, or they
must be physically present. Hektoen stated that to have a quorum everyone must be present in
person. Hensch noted that should be reflected in the bylaws then.
Padron asked about section five and attendance at Council meetings, are they supposed to be
doing that. Hensch doesn’t believe that is necessary because they can watch the meetings on
video and read the minutes.
Padron noted when she was on the Housing Commission they wanted to know what was
happening at Council meetings so they divided the meetings up between the commissioners and
then they would report back to the whole commission.
Craig noted staff provides Council updates at each meeting, so everyone agrees that they should
remove that from the bylaws.
Craig noted in Article 5 Meetings, Section 3 it states regular formal meetings should be in a place
that is accessible to all persons with disabilities, can’t that just say meetings, is there any
situation where they may choose to hold a meeting in a place that wasn't accessible. Even if
they were to get on a bus and drive around town and look at affordable housing, but buses are
accessible. Everyone agreed and it should just say meeting and strike regular formal.
Hekteon stated that a deferral on this item tonight would be a good idea so staff can bring this
back with Commission recommendations and vote next time. If there are any additional edits or
suggestions let Russett or Hekteon know.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 18, 2023:
Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 18, 2023. Padron seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1 (Townsend abstained due to absence).
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett reported the Southwest District Plan was adopted. Additionally, the rezoning out by St.
Andrew's Church was also approved by City Council.
She noted a final plat was approved by Council on Kimball Rd. It is an infill plat that’s creating
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2023
Page 20 of 21
three new single-family lots. It was a very large single-family lot that they were able to divide into
three lots.
The solar amendment for the parking reduction passed.
The Orchard rezoning failed, the vote was 4-3 but they needed a super majority because of a
protest petition. Hensch asked if the applicant would have to submit an altered submittal or
could they just submit the same application again. Russett replied that they would need a new
application.
Craig wanted to share she was not at the Commission/Council consult because she felt like she
had a conflict that she did not realize when they first discussed it, she had a conversation after
the meeting with the owner of the property, maybe only part-owner, but she had been introduced
to him before but could only remember his first name, but he is in a business relationship with
her son. She had no idea he had anything to do with that development but as long as they're in
that business relationship she will recuse herself from any discussion if it were to come back up.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O/E X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X
WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X O/E X X X O/E X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member