HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-10 Info PacketCity Council Information Packet
August 10, 2023
IP1.Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
IP2.Work Session Agenda
IP3.Memo from Associate Planner: Zoning Code Amendment to improve housing
choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability
IP4.Pending City Council Work Session Topics
IP5.Memo from Assistant City Manager: 2023-2024 Bow Hunt Program Update
IP6.Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Athletic Fields
IP7.Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 1
IP8.Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 2
IP9.Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: August 3
IP10.Airport Commission: July 13
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
August 15 Work Session
Miscellaneous
Draft Minutes
August 10, 2023 City of Iowa City
Attachments:Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Item Number: IP1.
August 10, 2023
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
August 10, 2023
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Monday, October 16, 2023 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBD
Hosted by Iowa City Community Sch Dist
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Monday, November 6, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Tuesday, November 21, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E. Washington Street
Attachments:Work Session Agenda
Item Number: IP2.
August 10, 2023
Work Session Agenda
Attachments:Memo from Associate Planner: Zoning Code Amendment to improve housing
choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability
Item Number: IP3.
August 10, 2023
Memo from Associate Planner: Zoning Code Amendment to improve housing choice, increase
housing supply, and encourage affordability
Date: August 2, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and
encourage affordability (REZ23-0001)
Introduction
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. The City has focused on facilitating
the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within
neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households.
The City’s Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect
affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing,
staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 (Attachment 2) to continue to enhance housing
choice, increase housing supply, and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include:
1. Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices;
2. Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe,
attractive, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods;
3. Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional
standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments;
4. Creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing (e.g., density bonuses and parking
reductions) that would encourage income-restricted units throughout the community; and
5. Address fair housing concerns to help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can
support a range of living situations and advance the City’s equity and inclusion goals.
Overall, the proposed zoning code changes are those supported by the City’s current
Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, they can be implemented with only modifications to existing
code provisions, with the exception of the regulatory incentives for affordable housing and the
reasonable accommodations process. Other more substantial changes in support of affordable
housing have also been discussed previously, but they would likely require Comprehensive and/or
District Plan amendments along with a robust public engagement process.
The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 1) provides background regarding the proposed
amendments, including the public engagement process and rationale that lead it. In summary,
these amendments are the culmination of a series of efforts which began with the City’s 2016
Affordable Housing Action Plan and were reinforced through the City’s 2019 Fair Housing Study,
2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan, and most recently, City Council’s FY23-FY28 Strategic
Plan. Over the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its
affordable housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps.
The amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can
help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, encourage affordability, and more
generally reduce barriers that prevent the construction of more affordable housing options as part
of the larger effort to facilitate affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become
a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents.
August 2, 2023
Page 2
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments and Analysis
This section discusses current and proposed regulations and analyzes their impacts. It is
organized by into 5 general topic areas with a separate analysis for each proposed amendment.
More detailed background on the rationale of each proposed amendment can be found in
Attachment 1.
Proposed Amendments: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
Iowa City’s zoning code has increased in complexity over time. Iowa City’s first zoning code in
1925 simply distinguished between residential, business, and industrial uses and zones and made
no distinction between the types of buildings in which people lived. Today, there are 14 residential
zones along with mixed use and commercial zones that regulate a wide variety residential of uses.
While new zones and uses add specificity to development, it often does so in a way that separates
and/or restricts housing types that are typically more affordable to lower income households. This
has typically led to conventional development patterns with segregated land uses and housing
types.
The first set of proposed changes to the code allows a greater variety of housing types throughout
Iowa City. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Current & Proposed Regulations
1. INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR A RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES
Current Proposed
1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential
zones
Duplexes and attached single-family uses in
RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on
corner lots. [14-4B-4A-2 & -5]
Allow duplexes and attached single-family
uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be anywhere
in a block.
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone
Up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
on individual lots are allowed in RS-12 zones,
but they are not allowed if they are on a single
lot because it is considered a multi-family use.
[14-2A-2 & -4, 14-4B-4A]
Provisionally allow up to 6 side-by-side,
attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS-
12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily).
1c. Allow multi-family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special
exception and provisionally allow multi-family uses in the CC-2 zone
In most commercial zones, multi-family uses
are only allowed above the ground floor
(except under very specific circumstances in a
few Central Business zones).
Multi-family uses in CC-2 zones must be
located above the ground floor and require a
special exception.
[14-2C-2, 14-4B-4A-7]
Provisionally allow multi-family uses in CC-2
zones and allow multi-family uses on the
ground floor in most commercial zones by
special exception with the following specific
approval criteria:
1. If in an existing building in a Historic
District Overlay (OHD) zone, a
rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission must be
completed prior to occupancy.
2. The units cannot significantly alter the
overall commercial character of the zone.
3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone,
dwellings are prohibited on or below street
level where 3 or more of the following
commercial storefront characteristics are
present:
a. The main entrance is at or near grade;
August 2, 2023
Page 3
b. The front facade of the building is within 10'
of the front property line;
c. The front facade contains ground floor
storefront or display windows; and
d. The street level floor of the building was
originally constructed to accommodate sales
oriented and personal service oriented retail
uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses
Assisted group living uses are provisionally
allowed in RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, and
CO-1 zones and allowed by special exception
in RM-12 and CO-1 zones. Multi-family uses
are allowed by right in all multi-family and MU
zones, provisionally in CO-1, CN-1, and most
CB zones and by special exception in CC-2
and sometimes CB-10 zones.
[14-2B-2, 14-2C-2, 14-4B-4A-8]
Regulate assisted group living uses more
consistently with multi-family uses by allowing
it provisionally in RM-12, CN-1, MU, and CB
zones and by not allowing it in CI-1 zones. For
CC-2 zones, allow it to the same extent as
multi-family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1c
is approved or by special exception if it is not
approved).
Analysis: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
These proposed changes would enhance housing diversity especially for missing middle
housing types like duplexes, attached single-family uses, and townhome-style multi-family uses.
They also permit a wider variety of living arrangements and better accommodates residential
uses near commercial areas. These in turn benefit housing affordability and equity by removing
some barriers to housing types that tend to be more affordable, leading to more compact
neighborhoods, and reducing the potential for racial and class segregation caused by
exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning. These are possible with relatively
limited impact to neighborhood character by focusing on uses and building types similar to what
is currently allowed in those zones.
1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones
Existing Comprehensive and District Plans consider duplex and attached single-family uses to be
compatible with detached single-family homes in most contexts. These uses are typically more
affordable than detached single-family homes. However, the number of these units permitted over
the past 30 years dropped from an annual average of 33 duplex and 13 attached single-family
units from 1992 to 2005 to an annual average of 11 duplex units and 8 attached single-family
units from 2006 to 2022 (Figure 2). This change corresponds to the adoption of a new zoning
code in 2005 which opened these uses to corner lots in RS-5 zones but restricted them from mid-
block locations in RS-8 zones. It also established more stringent design standards.
August 2, 2023
Page 4
Figure 2: Duplex and Attached Single-Family Units Permitted by Year
Lower density single-family residential zones (RS-5 and RS-8) constitute much of the City’s land
and often act as a default zone for new development. Figure 3 shows where duplexes and
attached single-family uses are currently allowed. Areas that currently allow duplexes or
attached single-family uses provisionally throughout a block are relatively limited (green), while
areas zoned Riverfront Crossings allow these uses if they meet a valid building type (yellow).
On the other hand, most neighborhoods are zoned RS-5 and RS-8 which currently allows these
uses only on corner lots (orange). This limits their production unless a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD) zone is utilized.
Figure 3: Map of Zones that Currently Allow Duplex and/or Attached Single-Family Uses
10
20 28
16
28 26 30
40
26 34 32
60 52 60
18 26
16 10 8
18 16 8 12 6 12 8 10 6 4 6 2
26
49 30
28 4 2
6
7
2
2 4
6
7
10
18
14
0 12
6
0
14
14 12 23 19
6 2 2 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Duplex Unis Permitted Single-Family Attached Units Permitted
August 2, 2023
Page 5
The proposed amendment would expand the potential number of existing lots in RS-5 and RS-8
zones that could contain a duplex use, as shown in Figure 4 (attached single-family uses would
likely require a re-subdivision). Lots that allow duplexes currently (green) are generally scattered
throughout the city. Lots that may contain duplex uses under the proposed amendment (yellow)
are generally located outside of the city’s central core. Lots that do not meet the minimum
dimensional standards (e.g. lot size or width) for duplex uses under proposed amendments
(gray) are primarily located in older portions of the City, including the Northside, Morningside,
Twain, and Longfellow neighborhoods. However, some additional lots concentrated in other
areas of the city may also allow these uses if this amendment and the proposed lot dimension
reduction amendment (3a) occur (orange). Areas zoned with an OPD are excluded as they must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if the new use constitutes a significant
change to an approved OPD Plan.
Figure 4: Map of Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
Approximately 12,000 existing parcels may be impacted by the proposed amendment because
they are zoned RS-5 or RS-8 and are outside of an OPD zone (Figure 5). Of these, around
2,900 lots may allow duplex uses with the proposed amendment, while another 2,200 may
accommodate duplexes if minimum lot dimensions are also reduced as proposed in
Amendment 3a. The remainder can either currently contain a duplex use or cannot
accommodate duplexes even with the proposed amendments due to insufficient lot dimensions.
Note that these numbers only indicate lots that could accommodate duplex uses under the
proposed amendments. This analysis does not account for the fact that some lots already
contain such uses, some may be non-residential, or some may retain their current use. Allowing
a use does not mean it will be established, and staff cannot estimate where these uses may be
added. If conversions or redevelopment does occur, it will likely happen gradually which
provides time to adjust standards if needed. This is especially true given current market
conditions where loan rates and construction costs are high which limits incentives to redevelop
lots on which a structure already exists.
August 2, 2023
Page 6
Figure 5: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
RS-5 RS-8 Total
Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex
(does not meet current or proposed standards)
4,679
(48.8%)
1,490
(61.3%)
6,169
(51.3%)
Allows Duplex Under Current Standards
(on corner, meets current min. lot requirements)
632
(6.6%)
100
(4.1%)
732
(6.1%)
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a
(not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements)
2,375
(24.8%)
498
(20.5%)
2,873
(23.9%)
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a
(not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements)
1,905
(19.9%)
342
(14.1%)
2,247
(18.7%)
Total RS-5 and RS-8 Parcels w/o an OPD 9,591 2,430 12,021
Staff also reviewed the potential impact of the proposed amendment on parcels in the University
Impact Area (Figure 6), which includes neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus.
This area is subject to additional zoning standards to help prevent some negative effects
associated with concentrations of dormitory-style apartments. Staff identified 166 parcels zoned
RS-5 and RS-8 in the University Impact Area that would be able to accommodate a duplex use
with the proposed amendment, and an additional 93 parcels may become duplexes if
dimensional standards are reduced as proposed in amendment 3a. Of these 259 parcels, 66
are within an Historic or Conservation Overlay zone, which strictly regulates the demolition of
historic homes and the appearance of any conversions. The remaining lots could either become
a duplex use under current rules (37), were already previously converted into a duplex, multi-
family, group living, or commercial use (67), or would be ineligible for a duplex use due to lot
characteristics, even with other proposed changes (614). Most other zones in the University
Impact Area already allow duplexes throughout a block. As such, impacts to the University
Impact Area should be relatively limited.
Figure 6: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 in the University Impact Area That Allow Duplexes Under
Proposed Amendments
Non-OCD/
Non-OHD
OCD/
OHD
Total
Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex
(does not meet current or proposed standards)
357
(57.3%)
257
(72.6%)
614
(62.8%)
Contains a Legal Non-Conforming Duplex, Multi-
family, Group living, or Commercial use
51
(8.2%)
16
(4.5%)
67
(6.9%)
Allows Duplex Under Current Standards
(on corner, meets current min. lot requirements)
22
(3.5%)
15
(4.2%)
37
(3.8%)
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a
(not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements)
128
(20.5%)
38
(10.7%)
166
(17.0%)
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a
(not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements)
65
(10.4%)
28
(7.9%)
93
(9.5%)
Total RS-5/RS-8 Parcels in University Impact Area 623 354 977
In summary, if the proposed amendments are adopted, it may allow an additional 5,120 new
duplex units in the community, of which 259 may be in the University Impact Area. However, the
number of units added would likely be significantly smaller. Staff anticipates that the effects of
the proposed amendment would be more pronounced on the edge of the community where it is
easier to meet the relevant lot standards through the creation of new lots in green field
development. It would also reduce the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or OPD
process for these housing types, which will streamline approvals.
August 2, 2023
Page 7
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone
From the exterior, townhome-style multi-family uses are virtually indistinguishable from attached
single-family uses. The primary difference is the lot configuration where attached single-family
uses are located on individual lots and townhome-style multi-family uses are located on one lot
(see Figure 7). While the proposed amendment would likely have limited impact in the number
of new units added, it would increase flexibility in terms of housing types within the RS-12 zone
by allowing limited multi-family uses that look like single-family uses in a single-family zone.
Figure 8 illustrates areas zoned RS-12 that do not currently allow townhome-style multi-family
with up to 6 attached units but would with the proposed amendment (orange).
Figure 7: Street View and Lot View of Attached Single-Family at 1101-1117 Mormon Trek Blvd
(left) and Townhome-Style Multi-Family 4717-4723 Herbert Hoover Highway SE (right)
August 2, 2023
Page 8
1c. Allow multi-family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special
exception and provisionally allow multi-family uses in the CC-2 zone
Figure 8 illustrates areas that currently allow multi-family uses, and areas that would allow multi-
family uses under the proposed amendments. Multi-family uses today are allowed by right in the
center of the city and in defined nodes which are zoned multi-family, Riverfront Crossings, and
MU (blue). Commercial zones that currently allow multi-family uses provisionally above the
ground floor (green) include CO-1, CN-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10. Areas zoned OPD may allow
multi-family uses based on an approved OPD plan.
CC-2 is the only commercial zone that currently requires a special exception for multi-family
uses (yellow), but the proposed amendment would remove this procedural barrier. This code
change would streamline the process for providing mixed use buildings along important
corridors and in other nodes missed by current zoning. This would also help support commercial
activity in those areas by encouraging more people to live in closer proximity to the goods and
services available there.
Additionally, allowing residential uses on the ground floor in commercial zones by special
exception opens the possibility for horizontally mixed-use projects where there are separate
commercial and residential buildings on a single site. Currently, most horizontally mixed-use
projects require an OPD or a subdivision and multiple zones; only vertically mixed-use buildings
are allowed (i.e. ground floor commercial with residential uses above). The proposed
amendment could lead to a greater mix of uses on under-utilized parcels, such as former big
box sites, but Board of Adjustment review will also ensure that existing and historic buildings are
appropriately protected and that the commercial character of these zones is maintained.
Figure 8: Map of Zones That Allow Multi-Family Uses: Current and Proposed
August 2, 2023
Page 9
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses
Assisted group living uses include group care facilities such as nursing and convalescent homes
and assisted living facilities. They are considered a group living use rather than a household living
use, even though they appear similar to other multi-family uses.
Figure 9 illustrates where assisted group living uses are currently allowed and where they would
be allowed under the proposed amendment. Currently, assisted group living uses are allowed
provisionally in higher intensity multi-family residential zones (RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, and CO-
1 shown in green) and allowed by special exception in the RM-12 zone (yellow). They are also
allowed in Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zones (red) but not in any commercial zones that allow
multi-family uses (CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, CB-10, and MU, shown in orange). Areas zoned OPD
may allow assisted group living uses based on an approved OPD plan.
Figure 9: Map of Zones That Allow Assisted Group Living Uses: Current and Proposed
The primary impact of the proposed amendment would be to allow assisted group living more
readily in commercial zones that already allow multi-family residential uses and to streamline
approvals for assisted group living in RM-12 zones. However, the amendment would also prohibit
assisted group living in areas zoned CI-1 as residential uses are not generally considered
compatible with these areas. Overall, the proposed amendment would provide for a greater
variety of living arrangements while maintaining a similar character for each zone involved.
August 2, 2023
Page 10
Proposed Amendments: 2. Modify Design Standards
Encouraging an enhanced standard of design helps maintain the high quality of life present in
Iowa City. To that end, the zoning code has a number of regulations regarding the building and
site design based on zone, use, and location to promote safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly
neighborhoods.
The second set of proposed amendments includes several recommendations to help reduce the
cost of compliance and streamline implementation without impacting the purpose of these
standards. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Current & Proposed Regulations
2. MODIFY DESIGN STANDARDS
Current Proposed
2a. Eliminate some multi-family site development standards to provide flexibility
Most multi-family and group living uses in
buildings not built of masonry or stucco must
have a 2-foot base of masonry, stucco, or
dressed concrete. Where wall materials
change around the corner of a building, the
material must wrap 3 feet around the corner.
[14-2B-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-9I-3 & -6]
Eliminate those two requirements from the
multi-family site development standards.
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid-block
locations
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-
5 and RS-8 zones must have each unit’s main
entrance and garage facing a different street.
[14-4B-4A-2, -3, & -5]
Modify standards for attached single-family
and duplex uses to allow entrances and
garages to face one street, but limit garage
frontage to 60% of the building wall and limit
vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20’) or 2
singlewide (10’) garage doors facing each
street unless they are set back at least 15’
from the building façade. In addition, require
alley access to be used where present.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi-family uses
Buildings in multi-family zones cannot have
parking within the first 15 feet of building
depth. This may be waived by minor
modification which requires a mailing and
administrative hearing.
[14-5A-5F-1b]
Allow the Building Official to waive this
requirement for townhome-style multi-family
uses without a minor modification. This would
be for streets not faced by main entrances to
dwelling units.
Analysis: 2. Modify Design Standards
These proposed changes to design standards are intended to reduce the cost and time required
to ensure attractive, visually interesting buildings that remain compatible with surrounding uses.
They will also facilitate mid-block duplexes and attached single-family uses in RS-5 and RS-8
zones in conjunction with proposed amendment 1a and allow for more flexibility with regards to
building placement and architectural elements. For the most part, new structures are expected to
look similar to those built under current standards.
August 2, 2023
Page 11
2a. Eliminate some multi-family site development standards to provide flexibility
This proposed amendment would
affect multi-family, group living, and
institutional/civic uses in residential
zones and the Central Planning
District. However, it is not expected to
substantially impact the quality of
design or appearance of buildings
because other multi-family site
development standards that more
directly affect visual interest will remain
in effect. These include standards
addressing building entrances and
scale, balconies and exterior
stairways, building materials,
mechanical equipment, and in the
Central Planning District, architectural
style. The image to the right is an example of a building that would currently not be allowed
because it does not meet the durable base standard.
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid-block
locations
The implications of allowing duplexes and attached single-family uses throughout RS-5 and RS-
8 zones is explored in more detail above (proposed amendment 1a). However, this proposed
amendment helps mitigate the impacts of allowing duplex and attached single-family uses in lower
density residential neighborhoods by limiting blank garage walls facing the street. Limiting the
garage wall openings to a maximum of 20 feet facing a street continues to allow units on corner
lots to each have a doublewide (2-car) garage facing a different street, or if they both face a single
street frontage, they could share one doublewide garage or have two separate single-wide
garages. Where additional parking is desired, garages could face away from a street or be set
back 15 feet from the front façade.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi-family uses
The impacts of this proposed
amendment are very limited. The
diagram to the right illustrates the 15’
building depth line behind which
parking must be located in the current
code. The intent is that parking be
located behind occupied building
space so that it is not visible from the
front of the building. The proposed
amendment allows an administrative
waiver from this standard for
townhome-style multi-family uses on a
corner lot. The waiver could only be
applied to the side street, not the front
street. The proposed amendment
maintains the intent of the current
regulation and would no longer require
a minor modification that triggers
neighbor notification and an administrative hearing, both of which add time to a project.
August 2, 2023
Page 12
Proposed Amendments: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
Another way to enhance the supply of housing and provide flexibility in the design of new
subdivisions is through modifying dimensional standards (e.g. minimum lot size) and allowing
different types of housing that can provide additional housing choices for a variety of households.
This includes removing barriers to the construction of accessory apartments, also called
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), granny flats, or mother-in-law suites. Proposed changes to ADU
standards are based on recommendations made by the Johnson County’s Housing Action Team
of the Livable Community for Successful Aging and align with those from the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
This third set of proposed amendments is intended to reduce the cost of land as a portion of the
total housing cost on a per unit and per person basis. A more specific description of each
amendment is provided in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Current & Proposed Regulations
3. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO ENHANCE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING
Current Proposed
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form-based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
Min. detached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 8,000 8,000 60 45
RS-5* 6,000 6,000 50 30
RNS-12* 5,000 5,000 45 25
RM-12 55
RM-20 55
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS-8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 6,000 6,000 40 40
RS-8 4,350 4,350 35 35
Min. detached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 6,000 6,000 50 40
RS-5* 5,000 5,000 45 30
RNS-12* 3,000 3,000 30 20
RM-12 45
RM-20 45
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 10,000 5,000 70 70
RS-8 8,000 4,000 60 60
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 5,000 5,000 35 35
RS-8 4,000 4,000 30 30
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi-family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
Multi-family dwelling units are limited to 3
bedrooms and duplex and attached single-
family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms.
[14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4]
Increase the number of bedrooms allowed
outside of the University Impact Area to 4
bedrooms for multi-family units and to 5 for
duplex and single-family attached units.
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce
barriers to construction
Accessory apartments are only allowed in the
RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-
12 zones and must:
1. Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a
detached single-family use; one per lot.
Modify the standards to reduce barriers,
including the following changes:
1. Allow accessory apartments in any zone that
allows household living uses (including
RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow on any lot
that contains up to 2 dwelling units.
August 2, 2023
Page 13
2. Be under the same ownership as the single-
family use; one unit must be owner-
occupied.
3. Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom.
4. Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30% of
the floor area of the principal dwelling if in a
principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area of
an accessory building if in an accessory
building, whichever is less.
5. Provide one extra off-street parking space.
6. When located within the principal dwelling,
must be designed so that the appearance of
the building remains that of a single-family
residence. Any new entrances should face
the side or rear yard, and any addition may
not increase the floor area of the original
dwelling by more than 10%. Exterior finish
materials, trim, windows, and eaves must
visually match the principal dwelling unit.
[14-4C-2A]
2. Remove the requirement that one unit be
owner-occupied.
3. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms
and residents.
4. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or
50% of the floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Also, allow stand-alone
accessory apartments.
5. Remove the requirement for an additional
parking space.
6. Remove requirements limiting additions to
10% of a building and limiting entrances to
side or rear yards so long as it appears to be
a use allowed in the zone.
Analysis: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
These proposed changes share the goal of reducing the costs associated with housing and
allowing flexibility for a variety of living arrangements. Reducing minimum lot sizes and lot widths
can help lower the land costs associated with each dwelling unit, especially in lower density zones
such as RS-5. It would also bring the lot sizes of many areas developed before 1962 into
conformance with the zoning code. Increasing the bedroom cap would allow the City to
accommodate larger households in a wider variety of housing types outside of the University
Impact Area while retaining a lower bedroom cap where the demand for student rentals is highest.
Removing barriers to the development of ADUs allows an incremental increase in housing supply
in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of a neighborhood.
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form-based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
By reducing lot standards for single-family and duplex uses and allowing detached single-family
homes in RNS-12 zones with rear alley access to have reduced minimum lot sizes and widths,
the proposed amendment brings a number of detached single-family lots zoned RS-5 and RNS-
12 into conformance with the zoning code. Figure 12 illustrates the conformance or non-
conformance of detached single-family lots zoned RS-5 and RNS-12 under the proposed
amendment, excluding areas with Planned Development Overlays that can receive waivers from
lot requirements. As expected, most lots currently conform to the zoning code (green), but a
number of non-conforming lots would become conforming due to the proposed reduction in lot
size and lot width (yellow). These areas are primarily located in older areas of the City, including
the Morningside, Twain, Plum Grove, and Manville Heights neighborhood, among others.
However, a number of lots would remain non-conforming even with the proposed amendment
(red), especially near Towncrest and the Northside. Bringing lots into conformance with the
zoning code simplifies occupancy on the lot. Minimizing non-conformities is also considered
best practice.
Figure 13 provides the number of lots affected by the proposed amendment. There are
approximately 9,500 single-family detached lots zoned RS-5 outside of areas with an OPD, of
which nearly 1,750 or 18% are currently non-conforming. Another 278 single-family detached
lots are zoned RNS-12, of which 184 or 66% are non-conforming. The proposed amendments
August 2, 2023
Page 14
would bring nearly 1,550 lots zoned RS-5 and 91 lots zoned RNS-12 into compliance with the
zoning code, which reduces the total number of remaining non-conforming lots in these zones to
296. Many remaining lots are 50-foot by 80-foot reversed corner lots which have trouble
meeting parking and other dimensional and site requirements.
Figure 12: Map of Detached Single-Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status:
Current and Proposed
Figure 13: Detached Single-Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Current
and Proposed
RS-5 RNS-12 Total
Currently Conforming Lots; Remain Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
7,756
(81.6%)
94
(33.8%)
7,850
(80.2%)
Currently Non-Conforming Lots; Made Conforming
Under Proposed Amendments
1,545
(16.3%)
91
(32.7%)
1,636
(16.7%)
Currently Non-Conforming Lots; Remain Non-
Conforming Under Proposed Amendments
203
(2.1%)
93
(33.5%)
296
(3.0%)
Total SFD Parcels zoned RS-5/RNS-12 w/o an OPD 9,504 278 9,782
The impact of the proposed amendment would be larger for new subdivisions containing single-
family and duplex uses because it allows a more flexible arrange of lots with reduced lot widths
and frontages. However, many lots in new subdivisions are larger than the minimum lot size
required. As such, the proposed change enables the creation of smaller lots but does not
mandate it as developers choose lot sizes based on the target market and subdivision. Another
impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. The
implications are discussed under the analysis for proposed amendment 1a.
August 2, 2023
Page 15
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi-family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
This proposed amendment accommodates a wider range of household types outside of the
University Impact Area. Current standards make it difficult to accommodate larger families in any
dwelling units that are not detached single-family. This creates higher housings costs for larger
families, especially those that are lower income. For example, Habitat for Humanity has built 5-
bedroom attached single-family units for families in the past, but that is no longer possible. The
proposed amendment will positively impact the ability of those household types, including
intergenerational households, to find dwellings that meet their housing needs.
The proposed amendment will not apply to the University Impact Area (Figure 14). Bedroom caps
for multi-family units were implemented due to a proliferation of large dwellings near downtown
that effectively functioned as rooming units. Bedrooms for duplex and attached single-family units
were capped after the City lost the ability to limit the number of unrelated individuals living in a
household to 3. Maintaining a lower bedroom cap in the University Impact Area helps maintain a
balance of owner- renter-occupied units in neighborhoods in and around the University.
Numerous other rental permit standards will also remain in effect, such as minimum open space
standards, restrictions on the percentage of dwelling units that can be bedrooms, and paving
restrictions for rear yards.
Figure 14: Map of University Impact Area
August 2, 2023
Page 16
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers
to construction
Removing barriers to the construction of ADUs can increase the supply of housing and help older
homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters in seeking a wider range of homes,
prices, rents and locations. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for elderly or persons with disabilities in
1987, and widened it to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that
change, development has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at
an average rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 15). Of these, 16 (31%) were constructed as part
of the Peninsula development. Current standards constitute a significant barrier to new ADUs in
most areas of the city.
Figure 15: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023
Comparing the properties that could currently have an ADU to the number that do further
highlights the issue. Based on building characteristics alone, there are approximately 13,020
single-family detached dwelling units in zones that currently allow an accessory apartment.
However, renter-occupied properties are currently not allowed to have an ADU. The 2021 5-year
American Community Survey estimates that approximately 76.4% of single-family detached units
are owner-occupied. This suggests that 9,947 single-family dwellings may have an ADU, of which
only 52 (0.5%) actually have a permitted ADU.
The proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by expanding the zones in
which ADUs are allowed to any zone that allows household living uses and by expanding the
building types to which ADUs can be accessory to any lot with 2 or less dwelling units. Figure 16
shows parcels that currently allow ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs
under the proposed amendments (yellow). The most notable areas ADUs would be allowed are
the RNS-12 zone, the lower density multi-family zones, and areas that contain a concentration of
duplexes. Note that the map does not account for properties with a current rental permit as
properties can switch between owner- or renter-occupied at any time. In total, staff anticipates
that this could allow for an additional 1,403 ADUs.
In addition, this proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the owner of the
property must live either in the primary home or ADU, i.e. ADUs could be accessory to properties
with a rental permit under the proposed amendment. This could potentially add 3,073 new ADUs
for single-family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental
permit. However, removing the owner-occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the
University due to a higher number of rental permits in that area. In a recent analysis from June
1
0
1
0 0 0
1 1
5
1
0
4
2 2 2
1
4
6
5
3
2
0
1 1
0
1
3
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Accessory Units Permitted
August 2, 2023
Page 17
30, 2022, the City estimated that approximately 32.5% of single-family and duplex units in select
neighborhoods near downtown have a rental permit. This would mean removing the owner-
occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those gained
from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. This generally supports the City’s
sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, but there are also
additional constraints in this area that make it challenging to add ADUs including smaller lot sizes
and additional design considerations from Historic and Conservation District zones. As such, it is
difficult to fully anticipate the number of new units that may be added.
Figure 16: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Proposed
Proposed Amendments: 4. Create Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing
Staff also recommends new regulatory incentives including density bonuses, flexibility from
dimensional standards, and parking reductions that are tied directly to producing income-
restricted, affordable housing. The proposed amendments are similar to recently adopted
regulatory incentives for income-restricted affordable housing in Form-Based Zones. A more
specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Current & Proposed Regulations
4. CREATE REGULATORY INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Current Proposed
4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts
Affordable housing projects can receive height
bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones
and density bonuses in Form-Based zones,
but conventional zoning districts only provide
density bonuses for alleys serving single-
family detached housing, for multi-family elder
For conventional zones, create a 20% density
bonus where 20% of units in a development
are income-restricted affordable housing for
20 years, to be administered through existing
processes. In addition, provide additional
flexibility from dimensional standards
August 2, 2023
Page 18
housing, for quality design elements in certain
zones, and for features promoting
sustainability. [14-2A-7, 14-2B-7, 14-2C-11,
14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F]
including allowing an increase in the maximum
height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction.
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
There is no minimum parking requirement for
affordable housing units in the Riverfront
Crossings District or Form-Based Zones, and
a minor modification is available in CB-5 and
CB-10 zones which allows up to 30% of units
in an affordable housing project to be
exempted from minimum parking
requirements. [14-5A-4F-4]
Income-restricted affordable housing units in
all zones would not be required to have on-site
parking if they provide affordable housing for
at least 20 years in compliance with the City’s
new affordable housing requirements.
Analysis: 4. Create Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing
The goal of these proposed amendments is to encourage developers to voluntarily provide
income-restricted affordable housing units. They do so by helping off-set the financial costs of
affordable housing through an increased number of units which improves revenues and reduced
parking space requirements which decreases the cost of construction. In addition, flexibility from
other standards can be provided where it is needed to make an affordable housing project work.
Both regulatory incentives would be administered by staff through the site plan or building permit
process, although the density bonus may also be reviewed by City Council during approval of a
subdivision or Planned Overlay Development (OPD) Plan.
4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts
In a 2020 study, Fannie Mae identified just over 1,000 inclusionary housing programs throughout
the United States.1 The most common incentive to provide is a density bonuses (57%), and the
most common program requirements are that 10 to 19% of units are affordable, units are
available to households making 51 to 80% of the area median income, and that units are
affordable for a period of 30 to 39 years. Finding a balance between the incentive and the
requirements to be eligible for the incentive is an important factor in whether developers utilize
voluntary bonuses. Overall, the proposed amendment will help encourage new affordable housing
units throughout Iowa City by increasing the density of development that includes income-
restricted affordable units.
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
Fannie Mae’s 2020 study also found that other zoning variances such as parking reductions and
design flexibility was the next most common incentive, active in 24% of jurisdictions with
inclusionary housing policies. The City’s affordable housing requirement in the Riverfront
Crossings District is one such example, as are the parking reductions available to voluntary
affordable housing projects in the form-based, CB-5, and CB-10 zones. The impact of this
proposed amendment will be to reduce the minimum number of required on-site parking to zero
(0) spaces for income-restricted, affordable units. This also provides more flexibility in site design
and allows the affordable housing development to determine the appropriate number of parking
spaces for their future residents.
1 Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Prevalence, Practices, and Production in Local Jurisdictions
as of 2019, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), December 2020.
August 2, 2023
Page 19
Proposed Amendments: 5. Address Fair Housing
In addition to focusing on housing affordability, the City also works to make Iowa City a more
equitable place to live. Consequently, staff proposes two amendments to help enhance fair
housing as recommended by the City’s 2019 Fair Housing Study. A more specific description of
each amendment is provided in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Current & Proposed Regulations
5. ADDRESS FAIR HOUSING
Current Proposed
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
Per Federal Fair Housing law, the City must
provide reasonable accommodations from
land use or zoning policies where they may be
necessary to allow persons with disabilities to
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling. The code has a few specific waivers,
but they do not cover every accommodation
and are not easily identified.
[14-8B]
Create an administrative “Reasonable
Accommodations Request” process with a
defined approval procedure. Applications
must be reviewed within 30 working days.
Proposed approval criteria include:
1. The housing will be used by an individual
with disabilities;
2. The accommodation is necessary to make
housing available for the use and enjoyment
of an individual with disabilities;
3. The accommodation would not impose an
undue financial or administrative burden on
the jurisdiction; and
4. The accommodation would not require a
fundamental alteration in the nature of the
City’s zoning program.
5b. Reclassify community service – long term housing uses as a residential use
Long-term housing operated by a public or
nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is
classified as a Community Service – Long
Term Housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently
from residential uses. As a result, this use is
only allowed in a few commercial zones
(including the CI-1 zone which does not allow
household living uses), but it is not allowed in
residential, CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. Long
Term Housing uses allow higher densities and
less parking than residential uses and typically
have on-site supportive services, but they also
trigger additional process where it is near
single-family residential zones. They also
require a neighborhood meeting and
management plan which are not required for
other residential uses that house persons with
disabilities.
[14-2C-2, 14-4A-3A, 14-4A-6C, 14-4B-4D-6,
14-5A-4, 14-9A]
Eliminate the Community Service – Long Term
Housing use as a distinct use category and
instead regulate it as a residential use.
Create a definition for permanent supportive
housing and specify that it is considered to be
a residential use.
Specify that supportive services for residents
of a development may be considered
accessory to a residential use.
August 2, 2023
Page 20
Analysis: 5. Address Fair Housing
The goal of these proposed amendments is to enhance equity by clarifying the process to request
reasonable accommodations and to treat housing for persons with disabilities as a residential use
rather than an institutional use. They are designed to be consistent with best practices.
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
The new process would ensure a systemic way to provide reasonable accommodations from
zoning regulations and processes consistent with best practices and federal law. The primary
impacts would be streamlining how grant reasonable accommodations requests are granted and
providing a clear set of criteria to evaluate such requests. While the City currently has a number
of provisions that allow persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,
these provisions can require administrative hearings (as a Minor Modification), and there is no
systemic way to address all requests. Finally, this proposed amendment provides clarity for those
who wish to utilize such requests. In total, it will help avoid calling attention to the disability of the
applicant and placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability.
5b. Reclassify community service – long term housing uses as a residential use
This proposed amendment would have a number of impacts by ensuring housing with supportive
services for people with disabilities is treated like any other similarly sized residential use,
specifically household living use. Generally, reclassifying the use would reduce the density
allowed and increase the minimum parking requirement, but it would also eliminate additional
required processes such as a neighborhood meeting, a management plan, and a special
exception when located near single-family residential zones. The proposed amendment also
would allow housing with supportive services for persons experiencing disabilities into any zone
that allows household living uses in single-family, duplex, or multi-family contexts, though it would
also no longer allow such uses in the CI-1 zone. Finally, it would allow supportive services to be
accessory to household living uses like any other amenities provided to residents of a housing
complex. This also applies to other assistance for a residents of a property, such as a live-in aid.
Overall, the proposed amendment will expand where and how these uses are allowed, but its
intensity would be regulated by residential use standards.
To date, 2 properties are classified as Community Service – Long Term Housing under the
zoning code. They are 820 Cross Park Place and 501 Southgate Avenue. Both are operated by
Shelter House, a non-profit agency, as permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing
disabilities who previously experienced homelessness. The proposed amendment would make
both uses non-conforming. The first would become non-conforming because the density of
dwelling units is higher than what is allowed for multi-family uses. The second would become
non-conforming because it is zoned CI-1 which does not allow household living uses. Staff
discussed the proposed amendment with Shelter House leadership, and generally there was
little concern so long as the current uses would be able to continue operating. As a non-
conforming use, both facilities could continue as they are, but they would not be allowed to
expand.
Zoning Code Best Practices Related to Housing
All of the proposed amendments discussed above were developed by staff to reflect best
practice supported by a variety of organizations. The American Planning Association’s (APA)
Equity in Zoning Policy Guide provides valuable insight into how to amend zoning codes to
improve equity, which in turn assists with affordability. Recommendations include:
• Allow a broader range of building forms, lot sizes, lot widths, and residential types in
low-density residential neighborhoods and avoid zones limited to only single-
household detached dwellings. Evidence shows that single-household only residential
August 2, 2023
Page 21
zoning has a disproportionate impact on the ability of historically disadvantaged and
vulnerable groups to access attainable housing and quality schools and services. In
addition, allowing a wider mix of residential and non-residential uses in existing zoning
districts can increase opportunities for historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations
to live closer to sources of quality employment, goods, and services.
• Reduce single-household minimum lot size requirements for different types of
housing and standards that effectively require construction of more expensive homes
that are less affordable to historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. While
large minimum lot sizes are often defended on the basis of preserving neighborhood
character or property values, their impact has been to perpetuate patterns of economic and
demographic segregation of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Many
neighborhoods with broad mixes of lot sizes and housing maintain high qualities of life
without perpetuating exclusionary impacts.
• Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the need for a public hearing, subject
to only those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring
properties. ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating
extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from tenants, but it may be
necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owner’s primary
residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals.
• Treat assisted living facilities, retirement villages, and supportive housing types as
residential (not commercial) uses and allow them in a wide variety of residential zoning
districts where the scale of the facility is similar to other permitted uses in the district.
Classifying supportive housing types as residential uses and reducing the need for conditional
approvals expands opportunities for older adults to “age in place.”
• Allow administrative approval of “Reasonable Accommodations” for persons
experiencing disabilities. This avoids a public hearing that will call attention to the disability
of the applicant and avoids placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability.
• Treat housing with supportive services for people with disabilities the same as similarly
sized residential uses. Ensure that the zoning regulations allow small group homes
wherever single-household homes are permitted and allow large group homes wherever multi-
household buildings of the same size are permitted.
In addition, the National Association of Counties’ Matchmaker Tool provides customized
housing policy recommendations based on the trends in each county. Recommended policy
solutions for Johnson County, a “high-cost county with a rapidly growing population” include:
• Make it easier to build small, moderately priced homes. In expensive metro areas, the
size of homes and the amount of land used per home are major factors in the price of
individual homes. Single-family detached homes on large lots are the most expensive
structure type. Rowhouses, townhomes, two-to-four family homes, and low-rise apartment
buildings have lower per-unit development costs than detached homes. Relaxing
dimensional requirements and allowing flexibility in housing design can help reach this goal.
• Make the development process simpler and shorter. The length of time required to
complete development projects, combined with the complexity of the process, are significant
factors in the price of newly built housing. Development processes that make decisions on a
case-by-case basis, rather than following consistent, transparent rules, increase the
uncertainty and risk of development, which translates into higher costs. Allowing more
development by right can help with this issue.
• Expand vouchers or income supports for low-income renters. Even in communities
where enough housing is built to accommodate increased demand, market-rate housing
remains unaffordable to many low-income households. Jurisdictions should support the
construction of affordable housing.
Additionally, groups such as the AARP have begun strongly supporting ADUs because they can
assist older homeowners maintain their independence by providing additional income to offset
August 2, 2023
Page 22
taxes and maintenance costs or by providing housing for a caregiver. ADUs can also become the
residents’ home if they wish to downsize, allowing them to rent out the main house or to have
family move into it. As part of this effort, they drafted an optimal Model Local ADU Ordinance,
which identifies “poison pills” that substantially restrict construction including:
• Owner-occupancy requirements (because they give pause to homeowners and financial
institutions due to the limits they place on successive owners); and
• Parking requirements (because of the cost of building parking spaces and lot size, location
of the primary residence, and topography may make the construction impossible).
As noted, the proposed amendments were designed with these best practices in mind.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports creating “attractive and affordable housing for all
people – housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout
our city” (IC2030 p.7). To that end, the plan discusses the need for a mix of housing types within
neighborhoods to provide residential opportunities for a variety of households along with
integrated affordable housing options (IC2030 p. 21), that infill development should add to the
diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over-burdening
infrastructure (IC2030 p.21), and that narrower lot frontages and smaller lots sizes are important
to create opportunities for more moderately priced housing (IC2030 p. 23). The plan also
discusses strategies that support goals related to affordable housing including the following:
• Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households
of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. (IC2030 p. 28)
• Encourage development on smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable
single-family housing options. (IC2030 p. 28)
• Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older
parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29).
• Discourage sprawl by promoting small-lot and infill development. (IC2030 p. 42)
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place. (IC2030 p. 28)
Reinforcing these policies, the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use category with the lowest
density (aside from rural residential) allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Proposed changes to
allowable uses and minimum lot requirements support that vision. The plan also mentions that
when interpreting the future land use map, a diversity of housing types should be considered as
one of the neighborhood design principles that applies to all developments.
In addition, many of the proposed amendments have been identified in recent planning efforts to
help further affordable housing, including the 2016 and 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plans,
the 2019 Fair Housing study, and the City Council’s most recent Strategic Plan. Specific
recommendations from these plans incorporated in the proposed amendments include:
• Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including:
▪ Waive parking requirements for affordable housing units.
▪ Review possible changes to the multi-family design standards for all units in an effort to
reduce cost and expedite approvals.
▪ Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area
▪ Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density,
multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.)
(2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, Step 9)
• …allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since
most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to
increase the density and types of housing allow[ed]…which also facilitates the creation of
August 2, 2023
Page 23
housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice
Study, Strategy 1.1)
• …remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e.
attached single family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings). Specifically… explore expanding
the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi-family units and consider when this
would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. (2019 Fair
Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1)
• In some cases, appropriate units are not…available, especially for those with disabilities. In
such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units
accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling…To facilitate
this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to
their zoning ordinances and other policies. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.4)
• …One simple change is to reclassify community service – long term shelter as a multi-
family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use.
(2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 4.2)
• Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit in single-family zoning districts
by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero-lot line structures.
(2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan – Development Regulations 1)
• Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero-lot line structures in single
family zoning districts (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan – Development Regulations 2)
• Allow multi-family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state or
federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program (2022 Affordable
Housing Action Plan – Development Regulations 5)
• Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. (FY23-
FY28 Strategic Plan, Neighborhoods & Housing Action 4)
Overall, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City’s current policy direction,
including the Comprehensive Plan.
Correspondence
Staff has received 3 pieces of correspondence related to these amendments at the time of the
publishing of this packet. They are available in Attachment 3.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance
land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage
affordability.
Attachments
1. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice,
increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability
2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including Summary Table
3. Correspondence
4. Enlarged Maps
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code
Amendments
Date: July 5, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and
encourage affordability (REZ23-0001)
Introduction
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. As a result, the City has increasingly
focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing
choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households.
The City’s Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect
affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing,
staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 to enhance housing choice and support a more
inclusive, equitable city. These include:
• Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices;
• Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe,
attractive, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods;
• Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional
standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; and
• Creating incentives (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) to encourage income-
restricted affordable housing throughout the community.
The proposed amendments also include provisions to improve fair housing. This will help ensure
that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City’s
equity and inclusion goals.
At your meeting on July 5, staff will provide an overview of the proposed amendments, answer
questions, and request feedback from the Commission. These amendments will not solve all
issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice,
increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Consequently, they are just one part of the
larger effort to encourage affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a
more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents.
Background
Affordable housing is complicated because it depends on a variety of factors including income,
household characteristics, education, the cost of necessities such as child and health care, and
the cost of housing itself. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
considers housing to be affordable if a household pays no more than 30% of its gross income on
housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments, other fees, and utilities. Most publicly
subsidized housing is targeted to households that make less than a certain percentage of the
area median income (AMI) based on household size and housing tenure, as noted in Table 1.
HUD defines households making less than 80% AMI as low income. For households with lower
incomes, it is often the case that the housing families can afford may not meet their needs, such
as a large family in a one-bedroom apartment, or they simply can’t find housing that is affordable.
July 5, 2023
Page 2
Table 1: Household Income Limits Based on Household Size and Area Median Income (AMI)
Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6
Owner Households
(80% AMI)
$64,650 $73,850 $83,100 $92,300 $99,700 $107,100
Renter Households
(60% AMI)
$48,480 $55,440 $62,340 $69,240 $74,820 $80,340
Effective June 15, 2023, and updated annually
One of the primary factors affecting housing affordability in Iowa City is continued growth. The
metro provides a great quality of life and the University of Iowa and University of Iowa Hospitals
and Clinics helps provide a strong economic base. These in turn draw new residents. However,
continued growth has also strained housing affordability, especially for lower income households,
because the demand for housing is not being met by an adequate housing supply of new
construction as noted in the City’s recent residential development analysis (Attachment 1). This
leads to increased competition, rising rental prices (especially in neighborhoods near the
university), and higher sales prices. As a result, certain households can be priced out of the city.
Another factor that influences housing choice and supply, and therefore the cost of housing, is
the Zoning Code. Zoning is a tool used by the City to implement its Comprehensive and District
Plans by providing rules for how land can be developed and used, including what structures can
be built where and how they may be designed. The code must balance multiple goals, including
protecting property values, encouraging appropriate uses of land, providing for a variety of
housing types, promoting economic stability of existing and future land uses, lessening congestion
and promoting access, preventing overcrowding of land, avoiding undue concentration of
population, and conserving open space and natural, scenic, and historic resources. Given this
context, it is crucial to continually assess whether the code is addressing the policy goals of the
City as identified through public input processes and adopted plans.
Public Engagement
City Council adopted its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action
steps based on goals in long-term planning documents and on previous public input about how
the City could help address housing affordability. Since then, the City completed 14 of the action
steps in the plan with the exception of regulatory changes to the code in support of affordable
housing. In addition, the City continued engaging stakeholders during and after this process to
identify additional solutions and barriers preventing the construction of affordable housing.
In 2019, the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which comprehensively reviewed
impediments to accessing housing because of protected class such as race, gender, or disability
as codified in the federal Fair Housing Act. This Study included recommended actions to
affirmatively further fair housing based on extensive public input such as targeted feedback from
stakeholder interviews and focus groups, a fair housing survey, public events, and a public
adoption process. One of the most significant fair housing issues identified was lack of affordable
rental housing, and improving housing choice was one of many strategies recommended to help
address this issue. The full list of recommendations is included in Attachment 2.
The City updated its Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 to build off previous efforts in support
of affordable housing. Its recommendations, included in Attachment 3, were developed following
nearly a year of data review and community engagement. Public input included the following:
• American Rescue Plan Act citywide survey with over 1,800 responses and listening posts;
• General outreach activities at Wetherby National Night Out, Fairmeadows Party in the
Park, and CommUnity Crisis Services and Iowa City Compassion Food Bank distributions;
• Meetings with targeted stakeholders such as the Disability Services Coordinating
Committee, University of Iowa Student Government leadership, Catholic Worker House,
July 5, 2023
Page 3
Agency Impact Coalition, Open Heartland, and community and economic development
organizations; and
• Comments from the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association and Iowa City
Area Association of Realtors regarding development regulations and from the Housing
Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.
City Council drew upon previous planning work, studies, and community conversations to refine
strategies, determine action steps, and establish priorities for their FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. A
summary of the action steps, which includes advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022
Affordable Housing Action Plan, is included in Attachment 4. While the City has made significant
progress since 2016, the proposed amendments are another step towards achieving the City’s
goals as the culmination of these extended efforts.
Zoning Code Amendment Summary & Justification
The proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning are intended to improve housing choice, increase
housing supply, and encourage affordability while also enhancing equity in Iowa City. The
following list describes current and proposed regulations, organized by topic. A future memo will
include specific language and more detailed analysis.
1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
The City of Iowa City has regulated uses since the adoption of its first zoning code in 1925. Over
time, the ordinance expanded from simply distinguishing between residential, business, and
industrial uses and zones to more complex structures regulating housing types and household
arrangements, in addition to where they may be located. This has often resulted in zones that
segregate and discourage housing types which are more financially accessible to lower income
households in much of the community, even if they would not create substantial impacts.
Consequently, the City has identified the need to expand the range of housing types allowed,
especially in single-family zoning districts, in its 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, its 2019
Fair Housing Study, and again in its 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. The following changes
are intended to create flexibility and streamline processes for a variety of more affordable housing
types that would have limited impacts on neighborhood character.
a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones.
Currently duplexes and attached single-family homes are only allowed on corner lots in
the RS-5 and RS-8 zones. The proposed amendment would allow such uses to be
located anywhere in a block. This provides additional flexibility to facilitate the inclusion
of these housing types in more neighborhoods compared to current requirements.
b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone. Currently up to 6
attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., one unit per lot) can be located in the RS-12
zone. The proposed amendment would allow up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
to be located on one lot. Generally, these two uses are indistinguishable from the street
since the only difference is the composition of lots. As such, this provides an additional
method to provide housing without affecting the appearance of the neighborhood.
c. Allow multi-family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception
and provisionally allow multi-family uses in the CC-2 zone. Currently, the code only allows
multi-family uses on the ground floor in a few Central Business zones under very specific
circumstances. In most commercial zones, multi-family uses are only allowed above the
ground floor. Additionally, multi-family uses in the CC-2 zone require a special exception
which must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed change would allow
multi-family uses provisionally in the CC-2 zone and would also allow multi-family uses on
the ground floor in most commercial zones through a special exception. This would mean
a ground floor multi-family use must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment to ensure all
July 5, 2023
Page 4
approval criteria are met while multi-family uses on upper floors would be allowed
provisionally in most commercial zones. This simplifies the process in most mixed-use
contexts while permitting ground floor multi-family uses only where they are appropriate.
d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses in RM-12,
CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones. Assisted group living uses, which include
assisted living facilities and group care facilities such as nursing homes, are currently
allowed in many but not all zones where multi-family uses are allowed. In some cases,
additional approval processes are also required. The proposed amendment would
regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses by allowing it
in more commercial zones, eliminating the need for a special exception in the RM-12 zone,
and removing it as an allowable use in the CI-1 zone. The CI-1 zone is an intensive
commercial zone where residential uses are typically not allowed. This provides for a
greater variety of living arrangements without impacting the character of each zone.
2. Modify design standards
Standards regarding building and site design based on zone, use, and location help ensure safe,
attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan
identified a need to review the multi-family site development standards to reduce cost and
expedite approvals, which has been supported by ongoing feedback from the Affordable Housing
Coalition and Homebuilders Association. Design standards continue to be important, but staff
recommends some adjustments to help reduce the cost and timing of compliance without
impacting the purpose of the standards.
a. Eliminate some multi-family site development standards to provide flexibility. Buildings
containing multi-family or group living uses not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2-
foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete, and where wall materials change, they
must wrap 3’ around the corner. This often requires additional material which has cost and
design implications. Removing these provisions will improve affordability and flexibility
while continuing to meet the intent of the multi-family site development standards.
b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid-block locations.
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on
corner lots, and each unit’s main entrance and garage must face a different street to
appear like a single-family home. The proposed amendment would allow attached single-
family and duplex uses in mid-block locations which would require different standards.
Staff proposes amending the use standards in such a way to facilitate mid-block duplex
and attached single-family uses consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood.
c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi-family uses.
Currently, townhome-style multi-family uses cannot have parking for the first 15’ of building
depth. This makes sense for the front, but parking for end units must be set back 15’ where
they abut a street. While this standard may be waived by minor modification, it requires
additional process and there is no similar requirement for attached single-family uses. The
proposed amendment would allow the Building Official to simply waive this requirement
for townhome-style multi-family uses without a minor modification.
3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
Iowa City is always balancing the demand for student rentals near downtown with concerns
regarding quality of life for long-term residents and redevelopment in older neighborhoods.
Residents near the edge of the city are also often wary of new development. As a result, single-
family zones with lower densities, specifically RS-5 and RS-8, often become a default to try and
minimize neighborhood opposition. This has several impacts including more conventional
development patterns at the edge of the city that are often at odds with the City’s sustainability
and equity goals. In some areas, RS-5 was also applied to historic small lot areas near downtown
July 5, 2023
Page 5
which created non-conforming lots. In addition, planned development overlays are often required
to recreate neighborhoods like those in the core of the city. Additionally, standards like bedroom
caps for non-single-family detached units and policies on accessory apartments (a.k.a. accessory
dwelling units) limit what housing types can serve households throughout the City.
a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form-based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use. Current and proposed dimensional
standards are noted in the table below. In some older neighborhoods, lot sizes and widths
do not conform to current zoning requirements, and standards for missing middle housing
types are well above those in recently adopted for form-based zones (14-2H). The
proposed amendment would reduce the minimum lot size and width for detached single-
family uses in RS-5 zones and allow the RNS-12 zone to utilize the single-family density
bonus which together align standards more closely to historic lot requirements. In addition,
it would reduce lot widths for detached single-family uses in RM zones to match those for
single-family uses in other zones. Finally, it would reduce minimum standards for duplex
and attached single-family uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be closer to those in the
recently adopted form-based zones. These updates provide additional flexibility and
enhance the supply of housing in a way that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Zone Use Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Area/ Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot Width
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Ft.)
RS-5 Detached
Single-family
Current 8,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
8,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
60 (50 w/
rear access)
45 (30 w/
rear access)
Proposed 6,000
(5,000 w/
rear access)
6,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
50 (45 w/
rear access)
40 (30 w/
rear access)
Duplex Current 12,000 6,000 80 80
Proposed 10,000 5,000 70 70
Attached
Single-Family
Current 6,000 6,000 40 40
Proposed 5,000 5,000 35 35
Other Uses Current 8,000 n/a 60 45
Proposed 6,000 n/a 50 40
RS-8 Duplex Current 8,700 4,350 70 70
Proposed 8,000 4,000 60 60
Attached
Single-Family
Current 4,350 4,350 35 35
Proposed 4,000 4,000 30 30
RNS-
12
Detached
Single-family
Current 5,000 5,000 45 25
Proposed 5,000
(3,000 w/
rear access)
5,000
(3,000 w/
rear access)
45 (30 w/
rear access)
25 (20 w/
rear access)
RM-
12
Detached
Single-family
Current 5,000 5,000 55 40
Proposed no change no change 45 no change
RM-
20
Detached
Single-family
Current 5,000 5,000 55 40
Proposed no change no change 45 no change
b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi-family uses outside
of the University Impact Area. The code limits multi-family uses to 3 bedrooms and duplex
and attached single-family uses to 4 bedrooms. Staff recommends increasing the number
of bedrooms allowed outside of the University Impact Area (see map in Attachment 5) to
4 bedrooms for multi-family uses and to 5 for duplex and single-family attached uses. This
allows these uses to accommodate a wider range of family types in areas where
development pressure for student rentals is less than near downtown.
c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to
construction. Currently, accessory apartments are only allowed in conjunction with owner-
July 5, 2023
Page 6
occupied, detached single-family homes in a limited number of zones. The proposed
amendment would make several changes generally based on recommendations by the
Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Board (Attachment 6). Proposed changes include allowing accessory apartments on any
lot that allows household living uses and does not contain more than two dwelling units as
a principal use (including all single-family and duplex lots). In addition, the amendment
would remove barriers such as requirements for owner-occupancy, an additional parking
space, that additions not exceed 10% of an existing building’s floor area, that the unit only
have one bedroom, and that detached accessory apartments not exceed 50% of an
accessory building’s floor area. It would also increase the allowable size of a detached
accessory apartment to 1,000 square feet, though it still must be smaller than a percentage
of the principal use. These changes help increase the supply of housing by encouraging
the development of accessory apartments.
4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing
The proposed amendments above help enhance housing diversity and increase housing supply,
but they do not specifically create income-restricted affordable units for low-income households.
As such, staff also recommends creating new regulatory incentives (i.e., density bonuses,
flexibility, and parking reductions) for affordable housing in conventional zones. This would help
reduce the cost of units in exchange for providing housing for low-income households in ways
similar to other programs that directly subsidize affordable housing. As part of these changes,
staff recommends consolidating multiple sections that encourage the provision of affordable
housing into one section. This should enhance understanding and streamline administration.
a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts.
Currently the City offers height bonuses for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings and
density bonuses in Form-Based zones, but conventional zones only provide density
bonuses for alleys serving single-family detached housing, for multi-family elder housing,
for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. Staff
proposes adding a 20% density bonus in exchange for 20% of units in a development
being regulated as affordable housing for 20 years. The bonus would be administered
through existing processes, primarily during site plan, subdivision, or OPD rezoning review
depending on the project. This would help off-set the financial costs of providing affordable
housing by increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. The proposed change may
also include additional flexibility from dimensional and site development standards and
would consolidate multiple sections of the zoning code that address affordable housing
into a common set of definitions, requirements, and incentives.
b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones. Currently in the
Riverfront Crossings District and Form-Based Zones, no minimum amount of parking is
mandated for affordable housing. The code also allows a minor modification in CB-5 and
CB-10 zones to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in an affordable housing project from
the minimum parking requirements. These should be consolidated into a single
requirement exempting income-restricted affordable housing from minimum parking
requirements in all zones if it serves that purpose for 20 years. This requirement will help
offset the cost of providing affordable housing through an indirect subsidy equal to the
cost of building parking areas.
5. Address fair housing
In order to make Iowa City a more equitable place to live, staff also proposes amendments to help
enhance fair housing as recommended by the City’s 2019 Fair Housing Study.
a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code. By federal
law, cities are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning
policies when they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal
July 5, 2023
Page 7
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Currently, the zoning code has some specific
waivers (such as a minor modification to allow a ramp in the front setback), but they do
not cover every accommodation and are not easily found. Adding a “Reasonable
Accommodations Request” process would streamline the ability to grant reasonable
accommodations with a defined approval procedure.
b. Reclassify community service – long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently,
long-term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities
is classified as a community service – long term housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently from residential uses. Major differences
include that community service – long term housing is only allowed in a few commercial
zones (including the CI-1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not
allowed in residential or the CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. On one hand, long term housing
uses allow higher densities and less parking than residential uses in the zones in which
it is allowed, and it is typically accompanied by on-site supportive services. On the other,
it can trigger additional process where it is near single-family residential zones, and it
requires a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for any
other residential use that houses persons with disabilities. To date, only two properties
are classified as community service – long term housing uses.
The proposed amendment would reclassify community service – long term housing as a
residential use, and it would specify that supportive services only for residents are
considered an accessory use. Where supportive services are provided for a population
outside of a development, they would be considered a separate use. The proposed
amendment would allow housing with supportive services for persons with disabilities
more widely in the community while addressing a potential fair housing issue.
Next Steps
At the Planning & Zoning Commission’s first meeting in August, staff will present proposed
changes to zoning code. A future memo to the Commission will provide a more detailed outline
of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, along with additional analyses. Draft code language
will also be available for public review, and staff will accept comments throughout the adoption
period.
Attachments
1. Memo Regarding Iowa City Residential Development in 2022
2. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Fair Housing Choice Study, 2019
3. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, 2022
4. Excerpt of the Action Plan from the FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan
5. Map of the University Impact Area
6. Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Board Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Date: March 15, 2023
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: Iowa City Residential Development in 2022
Introduction:
Every year, the City of Iowa City analyzes residential subdivision and building permit data to track
development patterns and to compare recent and long-term trends. The goal is to provide
accurate information that can be used during land use and planning decision-making processes,
and to provide a discussion on implications for future growth. Key takeaways in 2022 include:
- 2022 continued the trend of low levels of residential lot creation from the past few years.
- The number of dwellings units permitted increased slightly from 2021, but the City is still
seeing fewer units permitted than before the pandemic.
- Permit activity continues to outpace the creation of new lots, which diminishes the supply.
- If residential growth continues its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate
less than 6,300 new residents by 2030, compared to a projected demand of 10,240.
- While redevelopment can provide some additional housing, the City is still on track to
experience unmet demand and deplete its supply of all vacant lots.
Where housing demand remains unmet, the City may see impacts to its population growth and
the growth of surrounding communities, which has implications on the City’s sustainability and
housing affordability goals. One of the fundamental aspects of planning is being able to
accommodate new growth. Staff believes it is important to continue encouraging residential
development in areas with access to City services, as well as in the City’s planned growth areas.
Background:
Residential development is the process by which land is prepared for new dwellings, either as
new construction on vacant land or redevelopment on land that was previously developed. It
includes a series of steps with each step provides more clarity to the size, type, and appearance
of the development. However, it is the final two steps of the land development process that provide
the best understanding of how many new dwelling units are expected in the next few years:
- Final Plats: A subdivision permanently delineating the location and dimensions of features
such as lots, streets, easements, and other elements pertinent to the transfer of property.
- Building Permits: The final administrative approval of building plans to allow construction.
In general, the City distinguishes between three types of development. Single-family development
includes one principal dwelling unit on a lot, which may be detached or attached to adjacent units
(such as townhomes) and which may include accessory dwelling units. Duplex development
includes two principal units on a single lot. Multi-family development includes three or more
principal dwelling units on a single lot, which may include apartments or condominiums. In
buildings with a mix of residential and non-residential uses, all dwellings are considered multi-
family.
March 15, 2023
Page 2
Analysis:
This section reviews short-term and long-term trends on the approval of final plats, the issuance
of building permits, and the number of vacant lots. This is used to estimate how long the supply
of lots will last given recent development activity.
Final Plat Activity
In 2022, City Council approved two final plats with residential components: Sandhill Estates Part
5 in the south and Hickory Trail Estates in the northeast. While they encompass 57.63 acres, only
18.65 will be developed with 38.98 acres dedicated as parkland. In total, these subdivisions
created lots that can accommodate 18 single-family units and an assisted living use with an
estimated 140 beds (which are counted as dwelling units in Figure 1). Both properties were zoned
Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
In 2022, the residential lots platted will accommodate the lowest number of single-family dwelling
units since at least 1990 with the exception of 2010 (long-term trends are in Attachment 1). This
is somewhat offset by the multi-family lot with a proposed 140-bed assisted living facility. While
beds typically do not count as dwelling units, they do help accommodate some residential growth.
Overall, the number of lots produced were below the average lots platted from 2012 to 2021,
which would have accommodated an average of 128 single-family, 7 duplex, and 136 multi-family
units annually. Figure 1 shows residential lots subdivided by type from 2012 to 2022.
Figure 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 2012-2022
Over the previous 30 years, enough lots were created to accommodate an average of 133 single-
family units, 11 duplex units, and 123 multi-family units each year. This indicates that the
production of single-family and duplex lots has somewhat decreased over time, while the
production of lots accommodating multi-family units has increased. However, lot creation tends
to occur in cycles lasting about 10 years with a recent peak in 2015. The City appears to be near
the low point of its development cycle, though staff had hoped to see a larger rebound in
development trends after last year. If past trends hold, development may increase over the next
few years to peak around 2026. Several final plat applications are currently under review this year,
which should help numbers in 2023.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Multi-Family 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140
Duplex 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0
Single Family 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Units Platted
March 15, 2023
Page 3
Building Permit Activity
With regards to building activity, the City issued permits for approximately 363 dwelling units in
2022. Figure 2 shows residential building permits issued by type from 2012 to 2022. Trends for
building permits include the following:
- Single-Family: The number of single-family building permits sunk to 95 units from a brief
uptick during 2021 and is now well below the 10-year (138) and 30-year (145) averages.
Since 1990, 358 more single-family building permits were issued compared to lots created,
which has decreased the supply of vacant single-family lots over time.
- Duplex: Only 2 duplex units were permitted in 2022, which is lower than the 10- and 30-
year annual averages of 10 and 22 respectively. However, relatively few duplexes are
permitted annually, which causes greater variation in numbers. Prior to the 2005 zoning
code update, duplexes were about twice as common. The supply of duplex lots also
decreased over time with 166 more duplexes permitted than lots created since 1990.
- Multi-Family: Permits for multi-family units increased to 266 units in 2022, but the number
is still slightly below both the 10-year average (386) and 30-year average (274). Of the
units permitted this year, 249 are due to a single building in the Riverfront Crossings
District. Notably, no multi-family units were in mixed use buildings this year.
Figure 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 2012-2022
Attachment 2 shows long-term trends in building permit activity. Similar to platting patterns, single-
family and duplex building permits occur in cycles, but they have trended downward the past 30
years. However, multi-family construction has increased over time, especially following the
adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2012. This has led to
redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, which is reflected in the recent peak in multi-
family activity that culminated in nearly 900 multi-family units permitted in 2016 alone. As a result,
the total number of units permitted has trended upward over the past 30 years.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Multi-Family, Mixed Use 100 27 37 47 340 150 169 59 0 40 0
Multi-Family 140 488 218 499 556 203 163 417 49 155 266
Duplex 16 8 14 6 12 8 10 8 8 6 2
Single Family 143 171 176 137 172 157 109 80 97 133 95
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Dwelling Units Permitted
March 15, 2023
Page 4
Development Potential
In general, the number of new building permits exceeded the creation of new lots for all
development types since at least 1990. Because multi-family development often occurs on infill
sites, it is less dependent on the creation of new lots compared to single-family and duplex
development. Figure 3 notes the number of vacant lots in Iowa City, the number of dwelling units
they can accommodate, and whether they still require infrastructure for a building permit to be
issued. This year’s memo provides a more complete understanding than last year’s because it
includes all vacant lots in Iowa City rather than just those in subdivisions platted since 1990.
Figure 3: Number of Vacant Lots by Type of Dwelling and Provision of Infrastructure
Dwelling
Type
Infrastructure Required Infrastructure Provided Total
Lots Units Lots Units Lots Units
Single-Family 124 124 270 270 394 394
Duplex 0 0 12 24 12 24
Multi-Family 4 56 16 709 20 765
At the end of 2022, the City had approximately 394 vacant single-family lots, of which 270 are
currently served by infrastructure. The City also contained 12 vacant duplex lots with infrastructure
provided. With regards to lots that still require infrastructure to be built, the City anticipates 18
single-family lots will become buildable next year in Sandhill Estates Pt. 5 which was recently
platted. The other 106 single-family lots that still require infrastructure are from older subdivisions
that are not likely to be built out anytime soon. Note that residential lots owned by adjacent
property owners and used as a single lot are excluded from these numbers because they are
unlikely to develop. Most vacant single-family lots available for development are in the Northeast,
South, or Southeast Planning Districts.
Multi-family development depends less on new lot creation because many new units are part of
redevelopment projects on existing lots. At the end of 2022, the City had around 20 vacant multi-
family lots, of which 16 had infrastructure provided. 14 of these lots are on greenfield sites and
are expected to accommodate at least 483 dwelling units (including the assisted living facility with
140 beds). The other 2 lots are on infill sites and concepts show them accommodating at least
226 units. The 4 multi-family lots that do not yet have infrastructure constructed are expected to
accommodate at least another 56 dwellings units. Vacant developable multi-family lots are spread
throughout the City, including the North (52 units), Northeast (70 units + 140 beds), Southeast
(75 units), South (36 units), Northwest (110 units), and Central/Downtown (226 units) Planning
Districts. Undevelopable lots are currently located exclusively in the South District. There is also
some capacity for additional units on partially developed lots that are not included.
Based on development trends from 2012 through 2021, the supply of vacant lots with
infrastructure would last as follows:
- 2.0 years for single-family units (down from 2.7 in 2021),
- 2.4 years for duplex units (down from 3.7 om 2021)
- 1.8 years for multi-family units (up from 1.7) – note redevelopment extends this timeframe.
Because this analysis is more complete than that conducted last year, the decrease in the supply
of vacant single-family and duplex lots points to an even larger deficit than previously understood.
March 15, 2023
Page 5
Discussion:
The year 2022 marks one of the lowest levels of residential lot creation in at least 30 years,
especially as it relates to single-family lots. It also reflects broader trends such as building permit
activity outpacing the creation of new lots. This has resulted in a diminishing lot supply which is
not meeting the demand. Ripple effects include increased competition for a limited supply of
residential lots, which can increase lot prices. Despite this, the number of dwelling units developed
has increased over the past 30 years, primarily due to multi-family redevelopment which does not
depend as heavily on the creation of new lots.
Looking forward, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPO) projects a
demand for 10,240 new residents in Iowa City by 2030. However, if recent trends continue through
2030, the City would only be able to accommodate new population as follows:
- 2,626 new residents based on the development of all vacant residential lots
(in 394 single-family units, 24 duplex units, and 765 multi-family units); or
- 3,189 new residents based on average annual residential lot creation trends from 2020
through 2022 (in 463 single-family units, 40 duplex units, and 933 multi-family units); or
- 6,297 new residents based on average annual building permit trends from 2020 through
2022 (in 1,083 single-family, 53 duplex, and 1,700 multi-family dwelling units)
Based on the most optimistic scenario, the City stills need to develop and build out all currently
platted vacant lots, and add lots accommodating an additional 689 single-family, 30 duplex, and
935 multi-family dwelling units over the next 7 years. This would still only accommodate 61% of
the projected demand for new housing and would leave the City with no available lots for the next
decade. To meet the full demand projected by the MPO, the City would need to construct
approximately 3,430 dwelling units, on top of developing all existing vacant lots. Staff anticipates
the completion of several final plat and redevelopment applications this year which will help next
year’s outlook. However, these trends continue to highlight a significant deficit.
If Iowa City cannot meet its demand for housing, it may see slower population growth along with
other repercussions. First, excess demand may locate in nearby cities, such as Tiffin or North
Liberty, which have seen a proliferation of new residential lots. This can create negative
environmental impacts as homes shift further from employment centers and car dependence and
traffic congestion increases. Other impacts include rising housing prices - when supply cannot
meet the demand for housing, Iowa City becomes less affordable. Regardless of the cost when
built, new homes are needed to help the City meet its demand for housing to achieve affordability.
Accommodating new residential growth is a fundamental aspect of planning for the future of Iowa
City. Staff believes it is important to continue to encourage residential growth in areas that have
access to City services, such as in infill locations, as well as in the City’s designated growth areas
which are anticipated to become part of the City in the future.
Attachments:
1. Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
2. Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
Attachment 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Multi-Family 194 0 44 22 20 4 262 28 89 434 118 233 54 413 117 169 11 142 31 0 60 64 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140
Duplex 12 0 40 6 22 116 8 0 0 0 2 0 24 26 4 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0
Single-Family 75 264 167 359 205 49 89 110 46 174 92 63 281 108 300 193 173 77 65 81 0 79 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Anticipated Dwelling Units
Attachment 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Mixed Use*17 82 45 42 56 0 16 51 100 27 37 47 340 150 169 59 0 40 0
Multi-Family 203 140 312 235 335 166 218 185 97 152 267 310 402 486 220 141 138 83 85 71 80 76 140 488 218 499 556 203 163 417 49 155 266
Duplex 2 10 12 20 28 16 28 26 32 44 26 34 34 60 52 62 18 26 16 10 8 18 16 8 14 6 12 8 10 8 8 6 2
Single-Family 136 143 214 223 206 149 90 110 154 209 139 129 148 193 149 160 137 133 114 127 108 80 143 171 176 137 172 157 109 80 97 133 95
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Dwelling Units* not collected prior to 2004
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY
2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Neighborhood & Development Services
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Adopted August 20, 2019
171
171
Chapter 5: Impediments & Recommendations
This Chapter analyzes factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, and increase the severity of fair
housing issues. Identifying contributing factors is important in assessing why members of protected
classes may experience restricted housing choice due to various reasons including, but not limited to,
segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, or ot her issues. Some
contributing factors are outside of the ability of the City to control or influence; however, such factors
should still be identified and recognized.
After discussing and identifying barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City, it is important to lay out
strategies to overcome those barriers. These strategies can then be prioritized and incorporated into
subsequent planning processes such as the Consolidated Plan. Ultimately, the City is responsible for
taking meaningful actions to move towards completing the strategies identified. Meaningful actions
are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively
furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing dispar ities in access
to opportunity.
The City of Iowa City is committed to providing fair housing choices for all its residents. The City Code
has a broad definition of discriminatory behavior, an inclusive definition of protected classes, and is
clear in its lack of tolerance for discriminatory behavior in the housing market. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan envisions a city with a variety of housing options for the city’s diverse population.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows for construction of a variety of housing types at difference price
points. And the City’s Building Code does not impose conditions that could restrict fair housing choice
for protected classes. However, policies and practices can be improved upon and the City can take
additional steps to assure that all protected classes have fair access to housing in Iowa City. These
identified impediments to fair housing choice and some strategies to address them comprise the rest of
this Chapter.
172
DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
1: Improving Housing Choice
One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of adequate housing choices throughout
neighborhoods in Iowa City for residents with protected characteristics, who tend to have
disproportionately lower incomes. This includes a lack of availability in addition to d iversity in price
points, housing types, and locations that would facilitate equal access to housing across the City. While
many low-income households in Iowa City are nonfamily student renters, 21% are small families
(including single parents) and 15% are elderly. 31% of low-income households have a member with a
disability. Many are people of color. Large families face additional challenges in finding appropriate
units with the proper price points. Coupled with the City’s expensive housing, this has nega tively
impacted fair housing choice within Iowa City.
Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types to promote fair
housing choice, especially in areas that promote access to opportunity. This means encouraging the
provision of affordable housing for households of all types in Iowa City, including larger units for
families with children, smaller accessible units with supportive services for the elderly and persons
with disabilities, and adequate housing for students. When considering housing choice, transportation,
supportive services, school quality, and other important factors must also be considered. The City
should continue to support and encourage a diversity of housing types in areas of opportun ity. The
following strategies assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice:
Strategy 1: Facilitate a Range of Housing Types
One strategy to overcome this barrier is to allow a wider variety of development types in areas
throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will
require exploring ways to increase the density and the types of housing allowable in order to further
fair housing goals. This strategy includes promotion of more types of housing in more varied locations,
which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods.
Many non-single family residential developments require rezonings to increase density. The City can
proactively increase the amount of land available for development by-right for higher densities, as
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan along major arterials, intersections, and commercial centers.
This may be especially helpful where undeveloped land is zoned for single family and would allow a
variety of housing types as the land is developed . Staff could proactively look for areas intended for
higher densities and initiate a rezoning with the City as the applicant.
Eliminating the distinction between single family and multi -family residential zoning districts would
have a similar effect, thereby regulating by density rather than type of housing. Similarly, the City
could make flexible zoning arrangements, such as OPD overlays, provisional rather than negotiated.
This would encourage its use while simultaneously promoting a range of housing.
Another way to increase housing variety is to remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not
detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings).
Specifically, the code places a bedroom cap on these types of units, which may negatively affect the
ability of certain protected classes to find appropriate units, such as large families. The City should
explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi-family units and consider when
this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. While this does not
necessarily change the type of housing, it does allow a greater diversity of units within a specific type
of housing.
173
173
Strategy 2: Lower the Cost of Housing
In addition to facilitating a wider range of housing types throughout Iowa City, reducing the cost of
housing can also help ensure more varied price points, especially in the more affordable rental and
owner markets. The City is already in the process of working with the Home Builders Association to
explore ways of reducing costs through modifications to the zoning and development codes.
One way to lower the cost of housing is to evaluate building and housing permit fees and their effects
on housing costs. Given that these fees have a higher relative impact on lower cost units, it is
recommended that the City explore reducing or waiving fees for properties which are operated for
affordable housing by non-profit housing organizations to offset negative disproportionate impacts. This
could be used for properties in the private market receiving City assistance for a period of time for
affordable housing as well.
It may also be possible to use property tax policies to lower the cost of housing. While there are
already several such programs for the most vulnerable populations, including seniors, persons with
disabilities, and affordable rental housing providers, broadening property tax relief could further help
preserve lower-income homeownership opportunities for the more than 4,000 low income homeowners
in the City. For example, tax exemption policies could be used to increase the affordability of housing.
The ongoing viability of the existing housing stock becomes increasingly important as the cost of new
housing continues to rise. Continued improvement and maintenance of the current stock is vital.
Efforts towards energy conservation can also reduce heating and cooling costs when rehabilitating older
homes. All these factors can help lower the cost of housing.
Due to the number of student households in the community, the City should explore ways to increase
affordability and housing choice for this demographic. Incentives for housing programs should remain
available for students from low income families and students who are financially independent.
Strategy 3: Continue investment in affordable housing
There is a growing gap in the number of affordable homes for those with lower incomes. C ontinuing
affordable housing activities is crucial to creating a variety of housing types and price points within the
community. This can include new construction, acquisition, and rehabi litation of rental and owner
properties. These provide a valuable opportunity to improve housing choice for members of the
protected classes who are often low- and moderate-income households. This also includes leveraging
City funds to obtain additional affordable housing investment in the community through LIHTC or other
programs that assist with the construction of affordable housing opportunities. Assisting renters’
transition to homeownership, in certain cases, may also help stabilize housing payments t hrough fixed
rate mortgages in a market experiencing increasing rental rates.
Strategy 4: Retrofit Housing for Equal Access
In some cases, appropriate units are not be available, especially for those with disabilities. In such
cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Access may include physical access for
individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, installing ramps and other accessibility
features for individuals with mobility impairments, visual alarms and signals for individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing, and audio signals, accessible signage, and other accessibility features for
individuals who are blind or have low vision. To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a
Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies.
This would allow persons with disabilities to request a reasonable accommodation/modification to
174
DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
regulatory provisions, including land use and zoning requirements to facilitate the retrofitting of
existing housing.
In addition, because many low-income households are elderly and/or disabled, continuing to provide
assistance to allow those households to age in place is also important, as is continuing to invest in their
housing to ensure it remains safe, decent and affordable .
175
175
2: Facilitating Access to Opportunity
Housing that affords access to opportunities, such as high-performing schools, public transportation,
employment centers, low poverty, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods may be cost prohibitive
or non-existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes. High
costs can have a greater effect on families with children who need multiple bedrooms and individuals
with disabilities who need accessible housing or housing located close to accessible transportation.
Currently, Iowa City appears to have some disparate access to opportunity, especially when it comes to
access to jobs and other quality of life factors such as affordable childcare.
The geographic relationship of employment centers, housing, and schools, and the transportation
linkages between them, are important components of fair housing choice. The quality of schools and
economic opportunities are often major factors in deciding where to live. Job and school quality are
also key components of economic mobility. Ensuring affordable units are available in a range of sizes,
locations, and types is essential to providing equal access to opportunities by meeting the needs of
individuals with protected characteristics. In Iowa City, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a
variety of jobs and training opportunities, is also vital. In addition, affordable childcare should be
available and close to a range of housing opportunities, and facilities should be fully accessible to
individuals with different types of disabilities to avoid further barriers.
As such, siting as it relates to the placement of new housing developments, especially those that are
affordable, becomes crucial. This includes new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of
previously unsubsidized housing. Local policies and decisions significantly affect the location of new
housing. In addition, the availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation including
buses and paratransit for persons with disabilities also affect which households are connected to
community assets and economic opportunities. As such, it is important to connect individuals to places
they need to go such as jobs, schools, retail establishments, and healthcare.
This study proposes a balanced approach to address disparities in access to provide for both strategic
investment in areas that lack key opportunity indicators, while opening housing opportunities in areas
with existing opportunity through effective mobility options and the preservation and development of a
variety of housing in high opportunity areas. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment
to fair housing choice:
Strategy 1: Emphasize Variety in Housing in Areas of Opportunity
Areas of opportunity are places where jobs are relatively plentiful and access to education, healthcare,
and other amenities is close at hand. Iowa City generally ranks highly when it comes to quality of life.
However, some areas of town have less access to opportunity as identified w ithin this Study, especially
as it relates to affordable childcare and job access. Analysis suggests there are some discrepancies in
services and access to opportunity by race, income, and area. To some extent, this is likely due to
clustering of racial and ethnic groups. All protected classes should have an equal opportunity to live
throughout Iowa City. Increasing housing variety for a range of household types and price points, in
areas with affordable childcare and near job centers is one way to achieve fair housing choice while
improving access to opportunities. This strategy complements those related to increasing the variety of
available types and prices of housing.
The placement of the City’s subsidized housing is governed by the Affordable Housing Lo cation Model
(AHLM). The model serves to not place additional subsidized housing in areas that already have a
concentration of City-assisted housing and lower incomes as determined by elementary school
catchment areas. The model does not apply to housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, the
rehabilitation of existing rental housing or for homeownership. The AHLM does not necessarily promote
greater variety of price points in areas of opportunity. As such, the City could explore ways to use the
176
DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
model or another policy to promote city-assisted housing in low poverty neighborhoods or
neighborhoods that provide good access to opportunity.
The goal of fair housing choice is to provide sufficient, comparable opportunities for housing for all
types of households in a variety of income ranges. Comparable units should have the same household
(elderly, disabled, family, large family) and tenure (owner/renter) type; have similar rents/prices;
serve the same income group; in the same housing market; and in standar d condition. The goal is not
to necessarily have an equal number of assisted units within each neighborhood, but rather that a
reasonable distribution of assisted units should be produced each year to approach an appropriate
balance of housing choices within and outside neighborhoods over several years. An appropriate
balance should be based on local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for
different types of households as they relate to the mix of the City’s population.
Strategy 2: Community Investment
It is recommended that the City pursue additional investment in neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of low income families, especially those with concentrations of persons with protected
characteristics, to improve the quality of life for existing residents. This may include a range of
activities such as improving housing, attracting private investment, creating jobs, expanding
educational opportunities, and providing links to other community assets. The quality and maintenance
of housing is especially important to community investment as survey respondents rank it as one of the
factors that varies most widely between areas of the City.
As a result, the City should continue targeted investment in infrastructure, ameniti es, community
facilities, and public services serving lower income households and in low income areas. Amenities such
as recreational facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks are especially important in maintaining
a higher quality of life. Housing rehabilitation is also important in maintaining the housing stock and
appearance, while new construction in areas that have not received as much recent investment can
also be beneficial. Special attention should be given to investments that increase access to housing or
that lower housing costs generally, such as energy efficiency improvements. Economic development
support near low-income neighborhoods also can create jobs, increase wages, and increase access to
amenities. This strategy in conjunction with providing a diversity of housing types in all new
neighborhoods creates opportunities of access throughout the City.
Preserving the City’s existing affordable housing is also important as part of a balanced approach to
affirmatively further fair housing. This can include funding and indirect subsidies for rehabilitation to
maintain physical structures, refinancing, affordable use agreements, and incentives for owners to
maintain affordability. Similarly, efforts to repair and maintain the infrastructure of existing affordable
housing should be part of concerted housing preservation and community investment effort.
The City should continue encouraging private investment to advance fair housing from homeowners,
developers, and other nonprofit or business initiatives. Securing financial resources (public, for-profit,
and nonprofit) from sources inside and outside the City to fund housing improvements, community
facilities and services, and business opportunities in neighborhoods will help ensure access to
opportunities for all residents.
Strategy 3: Enhance Mobility Linkages Throughout the Community
Non-automotive transportation is an important part of ensuring equal access from housing to jobs and
other amenities in Iowa City. Transportation improvements could significantly improve access to
opportunity for employment and other services and amenities for those who rely on public or active
transportation. This complements policies to increase the range of housing opportunities near
opportunity and employment areas which can reduce spending on transportation-related expenses.
177
177
Strategies to enhance both active and public transportation linkages may include improved
coordination with service providers, expansion of active and public transportation to provide ac cess to
jobs through improved infrastructure, providing late night/ weekend service, or ensuring adequate
coverage to assist with access to opportunities. Investment across the City can also include improved
transit facilities and equipment, including bus shelters, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prioritizing ADA access is especially important to further fair housing purposes.
178
DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
3: Increasing Education and Outreach
Based on public input, many residents of Iowa City lack awareness about rights under fair housing and
civil rights laws, which can lead to under-reporting of discrimination, failure to take advantage of
remedies under the law, and the continuation of discriminatory practices. Even those who do know
their rights do not always act on them due to feeling it would not be productive or fear of reprisal. This
suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding fair housing rights is a major barrier to fair
housing choice.
Ensuring access to information about housing programs and neighbo rhoods can also facilitate fair
housing goals. This is because individuals and families attempting to move to a neighborhood of their
choice, especially areas of opportunity, may not be aware of potential assistance or support. In those
cases, having quality information related to housing and affordability, available services, and
organizations that serve potential tenants, can help those moves be successful. Other relevant info
may include listings of affordable housing opportunities or local landlords; mobility counseling
programs; and community outreach to potential beneficiaries.
Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice.
Strategy 1: Improve Demand-Side Awareness
The demand-side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park
residents, and other who need and/or use housing. Generally, these groups do not have any formal
training or education regarding their fair housing rights, nor are they formally organized in most cases.
This makes it important to raise awareness through advocacy campaigns, education and outreach
activities geared toward the general public, and fair housing informational materials for both
homebuyers and tenants. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should especially be informed of their
rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. In addition to fair
housing rights, this should include how to report violations of those rights.
It is recommended that the City explore the development of new outreach, education, or informational
programs and activities to promote housing opportunities for segments of the community such as
persons of color, those not as fluent in English, and for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This
should be done in cooperation with other organizations working on furthering fair housing. Ideally, this
will increase knowledge of the laws, reduce discriminatory behavior, achieve a better understanding,
and reduce negative attitudes concerning people who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse or
who are disabled. A comprehensive program would help ensure that there is broad knowledge of legal
protections for all residents.
Beyond fair housing information, providing more generalized information about housing can be
beneficial. For example, information for tenants about leasing can improve rental outcomes and
homebuyer education can help those less familiar with homeownership, such as long-term renters,
overcome challenges as first time homebuyer. Those new to the HCV program can also benefit from
additional information about facilities and services available in each neighborhood to assist them with
their housing search. This may encourage voucher holders to look for housing in neighborhoods with
more access to opportunity. This information can also assist residents moving from high -poverty to low-
poverty neighborhoods that have greater access to opportunity assets appropriate for their family.
It is important that information is comprehensive (e.g. that the information provided includes a variety
of neighborhoods, including those with access to opportunity indicators) and up -to-date (e.g. that the
information is actively being maintained, updated and improved). The information should also alleviate
fears of retaliation and should showcase the process and concrete outcomes to address those who
“didn’t know what good it would do” to report discrimination.
179
179
Strategy 2: Increase Supply-Side Awareness
The supply-side of housing includes lenders, appraisers, mortgage insurers, realtors, landlords, and
management companies. Unlike the demand-side, these groups are often provided formal training
regarding fair housing rights through industry groups or employee training. As such, they require less
guidance than the demand-side of housing. However, it is still important that they understand fair
housing rights and responsibilities as well, especially small landlords or others who may be less formally
integrated within the industry. As such, technical training for housing industry representatives remains
an important component of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing in the communit y.
In addition to general fair housing rights, those on the supply -side of housing should also be made
aware of best practices and efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through equity, inclusion,
fairness, and justice. This could involve providing education regarding marketing in targeted
neighborhoods or for protected classes and encouraging advocacy groups to share opportunities for
their products and services. Similarly, additional technical training regarding civil rights may include
fair housing issues such as the appropriate application of arrest and criminal conviction records, credit
policies, prior evictions, leasing and lease termination decision making; and fair housing issues
affecting LGBTQ individuals. Pro-active outreach can widen the pool of participating rental housing
providers, including both owners of individual residences and larger rental management companies.
Meanwhile, the City should encourage these groups to regularly examine and update their policies,
procedures, and practices to avoid differential treatment of residents and applicants based on
protected characteristics. Similarly, supply-side providers should also be encouraged to examine their
clientele profiles to determine whether there are neighborhoods or groups that are underrepresented
or unrepresented. Doing so will help supply-side providers to go beyond just understanding fair housing
issues towards meaningfully furthering fair housing.
Strategy 3: Increase Regulator Awareness
The City must ensure those who make decisions regarding public policies and regulations, including
public officials, Commission and Board members, and staff, have adequate fair housing training. While
this will further fair housing, it may also help inspire confidence in the City’s processes. In addition to
general training, one potential method of educating decision -makers would be to train them as fair
housing ambassadors who can then help spread the word about fair housing to both demand - and
supply-side groups.
Strategy 4: Provide meaningful language access
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) includes anyone who does not speak English as their
primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. Often, t his
is tied to foreign-born populations who may not understand English. Increasing meaningful language
access regarding fair housing information and housing programs would facilitate housing choice for LEP
individuals seeking housing. It is important that housing providers and policy makers ensure that all
individuals have access to information regarding fair and affordable housing, regardless of language. In
Iowa City, this is particularly salient due to the higher prevalence of foreign-born populations.
Relevant City departments maintain Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure equal access to
knowledge of fair housing and housing assistance. However, the LEP plan likely needs to be updated,
especially as the number of foreign-born residents has rapidly grown in recent years. In addition, the
City should explore what housing documents are most important to translate to achieve a better
understanding of fair housing choice by LEP speakers and to improve communication through language
access.
180
DRAFT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY | 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
4: Operational Improvements
Several other barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City included smaller operational and planning
changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing. These include impediments such as
administrative processes and regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit
protected classes, a need for increased regional cooperation for issues that affect housing, a lack of
information that could help identify or address other barriers, and a need to improve the transparency
of fair housing enforcement. Most of these barriers can be addressed through operational
improvements at the City level, though accomplishing in cooperation with others may improve their
effectiveness.
Strategy 1: Improve Fair Housing Enforcement and Transparency
In addition to ensuring awareness of fair housing rights and process, the City needs to improve
enforcement and increase transparency in the process, so the public can be aware that complainants
obtain relief in a timely and effective manner. Doing so would fight feelings of helplessness and
provide certainty to complainants that filing a report helps combat fair housing violations. This may
include actively monitoring the outcomes of complaints, in addition to making fair housing complaint
information more easily visible to the public.
Fair housing testing may also assist with transparency and fair housing enforcement. Doing so allows
the City to identify whether landlords or realtors, and others involved in the housing market are
abiding by fair housing laws. In addition, these tests help the City to better identify and target fair
housing outreach.
Strategy 2: Review implementing procedures and regulations
The City has several new programs, administered by various staff and departments, with various rules
that can be confusing to understand, implement and enforce. This problem is exacerbated when the
program is combined with federal programs that have rigid, complex rules. This creates a challenging
regulatory environment, especially for affordable housing and public service programs. As such, t here
are opportunities to harmonize, coordinate, streamline, and define administration and planning.
Possibilities include centralizing processes for affordable housing and ensuring they are online;
reducing uncertainty for service providers in allocating funds; and harmonizing rules between
programs.
Similarly, the zoning ordinance has been updated in fragmented ways since its initial adoption. While it
generally accommodates the City’s fair housing goals, codes frequently updated can indicate a
need for a comprehensive reevaluation. This is a long -term effort. In the meantime, incremental
improvements can make the code easier to follow yet still comprehensive and flexible. One simple
change is to reclassify community service – long term shelter as a multi-family/mixed use, since it
is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. Another similar chan ge is to
clarify the definition of nonfamily households; the current City definition is a holdover from before
the State modified law to prohibit regulating use based on familial characteristics .
In addition, administrative procedures may better promote fair housing choice as compared to some
decision-making processes. Updating administrative policies and practices may help support Council
objectives in ways that produce more impartial, predictable outcomes. The City should promote funds
to organizations committed to affordable housing and who have the capacity to administer long term
housing projects. Agencies receiving funds should have the capacity to administer the project for the
entire compliance period while enhancing fair housing. By doing so, the City increases the likelihood of
maintaining the units as affordable housing after City and federal restrictions are released.
181
181
Regardless, all changes to administrative, zoning, or other public policies and practices should be
preemptively evaluated through the lens of fair housing. This is also true as new policy continues to
develop, including potential changes to the housing and zoning following the State’s disallowing the
use of a rental permit cap.
Strategy 3: Improve regional cooperation
Regional cooperation includes networks or coalitions of organizations, people, and entities working
together to plan for regional development. Cooperation in regional planning can help coordinate
responses to identified fair housing issues that cross multiple sectors—including housing, education,
transportation, and commercial and economic development—and multiple political and geographic
boundaries. As such, encouraging regional cooperation can further fair housing not only for Iowa City,
but the entire region. This was also mentioned as a need in many stakeholder meetings.
While the City and surrounding jurisdictions cooperate through regional transportation planning and
through the Fringe Area Agreement, there are still additional opportunities to better coordinate
housing and fair housing planning on a regional level. Projecting development and demand for different
types of housing and price points is one way to approach the issue. Doing so can start a d iscussion
about how to facilitate housing choice in each of the communities. Communication between staff can
also facilitate coordination between jurisdictions.
Strategy 4: Improved Data Collection
Another impediment is the need for increased data, analysis and reporting. While improving data
collection and analysis does not directly overcome a barrier to fair housing choice, it will help identify
potential barriers in the future. All of these can also be paired with equity mapping to identify areas of
opportunity using factors relevant to fair housing choice.
Currently, many of the City’s local housing programs do not require the same level of tracking and
reporting regarding protected characteristics of beneficiaries as federal programs. As part of its annual
monitoring of these projects, the City should begin tracking and reporting the race, ethnicity, and
other protected characteristics of beneficiaries to allow finer levels of analysis and reporting regarding
fair housing choice. This will also allow better measurement regarding the extent to which policy and
practice changes are impacting outcomes and reducing disparities.
In addition, the City should regularly monitor HMDA reports of financial i nstitutions and obtain
information on the location of properties that are the subject of loan applications . HMDA data can be
used to develop policies to act upon this information such as incentivizing banks with good
performance records by only depositing public funds in banks that meet threshold scores. Similarly,
location information can help the City guide lender education activities to promote fair housing.
Finally, ICHA should regularly analyze its beneficiary and waitlist data to ensure its preferences do not
have a disparate impact on those in protected classes and that it is serving the people most in need as
determined by the City’s Consolidated Plan. As part of this, ICHA should periodically update an equity
analysis to identify if any disparate impacts are identified.
2022
Iowa City
Affordable
H ousing
ACTION
PLAN
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 28
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITIES/GOALS
The City Council’s Strategic Plan objectives include fostering healthy neighborhoods and affordable
housing throughout the City. The City strives to do this through:
1. Investing City and federal CDBG/HOME funds to create and/or preserve affordable homes, both
rental and owner-occupied housing throughout the City;
2. Supporting our most vulnerable residents, especially those experiencing homelessness or at risk
of homelessness, maintain safe, affordable housing;
3. Ensuring equitable growth for all Iowa City residents and minimizing displacement; and
4. Supporting innovation in housing and streamlining processes.
2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS
The City has broad powers to support affordable housing through various requirements and funding
mechanisms. The City is willing to pursue courses of action to support affordable housing, except when
legally prohibited. For example, in the state of Iowa, cities cannot institute rent control. Cities are also
preempted by state law from regulating the provisions in a lease between a landlord and a tenant.
In 2016 the City of Iowa City adopted an ordinance to protect source of income. The measure prohibited
landlords from rejecting housing applicants based solely on their use of housing vouchers or other rental
subsidies. The purpose of the Iowa City Human Rights ordinance amendment was to reduce housing
discrimination and give all tenants the same consideration for housing. In 2021 the state prohibited
cities from passing or enforcing “source of income” ordinances. Any city who adopted a source of
income protection may not enforce it after January 1, 2023.
The City will continue to work with our various partners to support and encourage affordable housing
with the mechanisms and funding sources available to municipalities in Iowa.
The Committee’s recommendations for City Council consideration are broken down into three sections:
Recommendations for existing policies and programs, recommendations for development regulations
and recommendations for programs or policies based on household income.
Existing Policies and Programs
The Affordable Housing Steering Committee reviewed the City’s current policies and programs. Most
programs were found to be effectively increasing or preserving the supply of affordable housing;
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 29
however, six recommendations were made to either enhance or make the policy or program more
effective.
1. Affordable Housing Location Model
The model currently aims to distribute subsidized affordable housing more evenly throughout the
community and avoid overconcentration in any one neighborhood. While the intent of the model is a
worthy goal, the model can restrict supply for much needed affordable housing projects. The committee
recommends shifting from a restrictive model to one that incentivizes or prioritizes affordable housing
projects in all neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing options
but does not go so far as to restrict supply of potential locations.
If the model is discontinued, it is recommended that there be close monitoring of changes in affordable
housing locations within the community. Achieving mixed-income neighborhoods throughout the City
should continue to be an overall goal.
Recommendation: Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or
prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods.
2. Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) Funding Allocation Process
The Committee observed that the current funding process for housing projects does not involve detailed
staff analysis of applications. Staff have years of professional experience and often understand the
funding sources and regulatory environment much more comprehensively than volunteer
commissioners. The Committee recommends that the funding process be restructured to ensure staff
scoring recommendations are provided upfront to the HCDC. Their recommendations should be
considered during the review process to ensure the City is supporting viable, federally compliant
projects that meet the City’s priorities for the entire length of the required affordability period.
Ultimately, the HCDC can still make alternate recommendations to the City Council but the process will
be enhanced by inviting this input from the outset.
Furthermore, policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further improve
transparency in decision-making (e.g., full funding to top-rated applications, or applications will be pro-
rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores, etc.). The Commission’s final review and ranking
should be based on objective and established criteria, priorities, and data. Discrepancies with staff
scores should be included in the final recommendations to the City Council.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 30
Recommendation: 1) Require staff analysis and funding recommendations before HCDC review; and 2)
Further define how funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top-rated
applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.)
3. Affordable Housing Fund Distribution
The overall funding should be increased with consideration given to the budget with a goal of a 3%
increase each year.
Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds, for example:
o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to only those at that
income.
o Include Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding with the Housing Trust Fund of
Johnson County (HTFJC) allocation. However, set as a preferred use but not
restricted/required. If funding is awarded to a LIHTC project and the project does not
get funding from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), allow HTFJC to withdraw the award
and make those funds available for general applications rather than waiting for the next
LIHTC cycle.
Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and implement a Risk Mitigation Fund. Typically, Risk
Mitigation Funds cover landlord losses, up to a certain value, but may also include a connection
to resources such as tenant/landlord education, credit repair, etc. to increase rental
opportunities for households who have difficulty finding a landlord who will accept them due to
criminal history, bad credit, bad landlord references, and/or a prior eviction history.
Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds.
Periodically review (every 5 years as part of the Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs and Services
for Low-Income Residents) the affordable housing fund distribution to ensure the set-asides
produce/contribute to the desired policy outcomes.
Prioritize partnerships with not-for-profit affordable housing developers to preserve affordable
units as their mission is centric to preserving affordability.
Recommendation: 1) Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing fund with a goal of a 3% annual
increase; 2) Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during
the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to
make those funds available for general applications; 3) Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund; and 4)
Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not-for-profit affordable housing
developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units.
4. Support of Non-Profit Housing Provider Capacity
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 31
Typically, developers receive a developer fee to build or rehabilitate housing projects. This fee is only
received if a project is funded. Funds, including operational funds and developer fees, should be
provided on a regular basis to non-profit affordable housing providers who build and/or rehabilitate
residential housing as long-term investments to build the capacity of local providers. This could include
technical assistance in various areas such as housing finance, market analysis, legal issues, property
management, green and/or sustainable building practices and affordable housing design.
Financial assistance for architectural and engineering expenses for the development of multi-family
affordable development, outside of LIHTC projects, is needed to support the development of
townhomes, small apartment buildings, and the rehabilitation of existing multi-family developments.
The City should increase access by non-profit affordable housing developers to various funding
opportunities to incorporate green or sustainable housing practices.
Recommendation: Allow non-profit affordable housing developers who build or rehabilitate
residential housing to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations; and 2) Allow
developers of affordable housing to apply for technical assistance needs from a variety of City
programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action
grants.
5. Annexation Policy
The current policy has only applied to one annexation and thus drawing conclusions is difficult. Staff and
some committee members have concerns about the cost implications and viability of requiring
permanent affordable housing or greater percentages and compliance periods. This is particularly a
concern in a regional housing market where outlying communities that are experiencing robust growth
do not have similar policies. Too stringent requirements could have an unintended impact of pushing
development into other jurisdictions and thus forgoing any affordable housing requirements and
constraining supply in Iowa City.
The Committee does believe that permanent affordable housing achieved through dedication of lots to
the City or a non-profit housing provider is a goal that should be vigorously pursued with future
annexations. If needed, the City should consider contributing funding or exploring unique partnerships
such as tax increment financing or tax abatement to achieve the goal of permanent affordable housing
in new residential annexations.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 32
Recommendation: Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential
annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure
permanent affordability when possible.
6. General Education
Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address
housing code problems, perceived discrimination, or other matters most effectively.
Recommendation: Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and
how to address housing issues.
Development Regulations
Development regulation is an umbrella term for rules that govern land development. At the local level,
zoning is the way the government controls the physical development of land and the kinds of uses to
which each individual property may be put. This includes the use, size, height, and design of buildings,
and historic preservation requirements. These regulations are contained in the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Iowa City as laws adopted by the City’s Legislative body the Iowa City Council.
The following are recommended changes to the current land-development regulations to increase the
diversity and supply of housing throughout the City:
1. Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling units in zoning districts previously limited
to only free-standing single-family dwellings.
For example:
In Single-Family zoning districts, expand by-right building allowances to permit attached
single-family dwellings, such as duplexes and zero-lot line structures, in more locations.
Allow accessory dwelling units in more circumstances and locations. To support student
housing, consider ADU’s associated with rental housing (expand from owner-occupied).
Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling (duplex and attached single-
family).
2. Facilitate multi-family dwelling development.
For example:
Continue to look for opportunities to purchase land for future resale/development.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 33
Conduct a City-initiated rezoning to allow multi-family housing or mixed use in areas
supported by the Comprehensive Plan and served by transit.
Reduce the minimum amount of land needed to qualify for a planned overlay
district/planned development.
3. Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling in multi-family dwellings outside of the
University Impact Area.
Various state and federal housing programs incentivize housing developments that include units
with more than three bedrooms to accommodate large families. Allow larger bedroom sizes to
accommodate local, state and federal funding parameters.
4. Create Form Based Code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first
and then infill locations.
Recommendation: 1) Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling unit in single family
zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero-lot line
structures. 2) Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero-lot line structures in
single family zoning districts; 3) Facilitate multi-family development by purchasing land to be
developed; 4) Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi-family housing or mixed use in areas
supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 5) Allow multi-family units with more than three bedrooms
when required to meet local, state or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC
program; 6) Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum amount to land eligible
to apply for a planned overlay zoning; and 7) Create form based code regulations for additional
neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations.
Programs and Policies Based on Household Income
If additional funding is made available, the priority should be on housing for those with the lowest
income. In recognizing housing is needed to support a healthy housing market and there needs to be
housing options for all incomes and ages throughout the City, recommendations are made for housing
for households up to 100% of area median income.
0-30% Median Income Recommendations
1. Support a Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund for hard to house tenants.
Landlord risk mitigation programs are intended to add protection to landlords willing to rent to
someone with limited income, a poor rental history, or a criminal history. The funds can cover items
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 34
such as excessive damages to the rental unit, lost rent, or legal fees beyond the security deposit. The
Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board plans to develop a program working in
collaboration with the City. These programs are most effective at a regional level for expanded housing
options and landlord participation.
Recommendation: Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants
and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with
regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and
landlord participation.
2. Support non-profit housing providers develop and maintain permanent supportive
housing/Housing First models.
The Housing First model is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing
to people experiencing chronic homelessness. The subsidized housing is provided with the ongoing
option to participate in supportive services but does not place conditions on the housing.
Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing in which housing assistance and supportive
services are provided to assist households with at least one member with a disability in achieving
housing stability.
The City supported Shelter House in the development of Cross Park Place, a Housing First project, that
opened in January of 2019. The project houses 24 one-bedroom apartments with on-site offices and an
exam room for case managers and partners with health and behavioral health clinicians. The City
converted 24 tenant based rental vouchers to project-based vouchers so that those renting at Cross Park
Place have a voucher to assist with rent.
Due to the success of Cross Park Place, plans are underway for the second Housing First project, “The
501 Project,” for persons facing chronic homelessness. Construction started in 2021. The building will
have 36 apartments with a clinic for partnering health clinicians, computer workstations, laundry
facilities and a multi-purpose room for tenants. Like Cross Park Place, housing choice vouchers will be
converted to project-based vouchers to assist tenants pay rent.
The City should continue to provide support for existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects as
well as additional efforts to produce additional housing through acquisition, new construction, or
rehabilitation. The City should expand efforts to include permanent supportive/Housing first projects to
families experiencing chronic homelessness.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 35
Recommendation: Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects,
expanding into projects for families experiencing chronic homelessness.
3. Support major investments.
Support non-profit housing providers to significantly increase their supply of permanent supportive
housing when granted an opportunity, either through acquisition, new construction or by assisting
through creative approaches such as a master lease between non-profit providers and landlords. Under
a master lease scenario, a non-profit service provider enters a lease with one or more landlords to
secure housing for their participants. The participants in the program pay rent to the non-profit service
provider based on the requirements of the program. Consider converting housing choice vouchers to
project-based vouchers for projects assisting those experiencing or with a history of homelessness.
The City is currently collaborating with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County for the allocation of
ARPA funds. Funds will be dedicated to support larger investments in affordable housing for acquisition,
rehabilitation, or new construction. The goal for the projects selected will be permanent affordability
through deed restrictions, land leases or ownership by non-profit entities whose core mission is to
provide affordable housing.
Recommendation: Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in
affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and
households with lower incomes.
4. Maintain affordable housing through rehabilitation.
Efforts should include grant funds for those improvements that improve energy efficiency and lower
tenant utility costs. In all housing, support aging in place initiatives that supports the ability to live in
one’s own home safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age or ability level. Support
safety improvements and emergency repairs to homes, including mobile/manufactured homes.
Recommendation: Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency,
lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants
where feasible.
31-60% Median Income Recommendations
1. Support security deposit assistance.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 36
Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance that allows up to 2 months for those with
poor rental history to get housed. The City allocated $70,000 to security deposit assistance in FY22. The
amount has been increased twice due to demand to a total of $148,000. Previously, the program
allowed up to 2 months of assistance, but due to limited funds available for the remainder of the fiscal
year, assistance was limited to $1,000 in a twelve-month period with a preference for tenants referred
by Shelter House and the Domestic Violence Intervention Program.
Recommendation: Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance.
2. Support and Expand Eviction Prevention Programs.
Due to the pandemic, housing instability has increased dramatically. Evictions are a destabilizing event
that can send a family into a cycle of financial and emotional upheaval and affect their current and
future prospect for residential stability. The City has allocated over $850,000 to our community partners
to maintain housing for those impacted by the pandemic for eviction prevention and eviction diversion.
It is anticipated that additional funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) will be dedicated for
this purpose.
Efforts should expand community outreach, especially to landlords, to make more tenants and landlords
aware of eviction diversion and prevention programs. Increase efforts to intervene earlier before
evictions are necessary with opportunities to mediate, work out payment arrangements and file for
rental assistance programs.
Recommendation: Support and expand eviction prevention programs.
3. Energy Efficiency Improvements
Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or
homeowner’s monthly utility cost. Increase partnerships with non-profit housing providers, including
public housing, to complete energy efficiency improvements.
Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower
utility costs.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 37
4. Downpayment Assistance
Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such
as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership.
Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers.
61-100% Median Income Recommendations
1. Downpayment Assistance
Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such
as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership.
Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers.
2. Energy Efficiency Improvements
Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or
homeowner’s monthly utility cost.
Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements.
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 38
Summary Tables
Recommendations and Actions Required for Existing Policies and Programs
Recommendation
Type of Action Required
Policy
Change
Increased
Funding Education
Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider
incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable
housing in all neighborhoods.
X
Require staff analysis and funding recommendations of
CDBG/HOME housing applications before HCDC review.
X
Further define how CDBG/HOME funds will be allocated to
improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top-rated
applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.).
X
Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing Fund with a goal of a
3% annual increase.
X
Affordable Housing Fund: Include the LIHTC reservation with the
HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual
allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA
funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for
general applications.
X
Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund. X X
Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not-for-profit
affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve
affordable housing units in all housing programs.
X
Allow non-profit affordable housing developers to apply for
additional funds to support ongoing operations (Opportunity
Fund, HOME CHDO funds, etc.).
X X
Allow developers of affordable housing to apply for technical
assistance needs from a variety of city programs, including but
not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and
Climate Action grants.
X X
Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in
new residential annexations. With future annexations explore
partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent
affordability when possible.
X X
Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and
responsibilities and how to address housing issues.
X
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 39
Recommendations and Actions Required for Development Regulations
Applicable to Both Single- and Multi-Family
Recommendation
Type of Action Required
Policy
Change
Increased
Funding Education
Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum
amount of land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning.
X
Create form-based code regulations for additional
neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill
locations.
X
Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations
Applicable to Single-Family
Recommendation
Type of Action Required
Policy
Change
Increased
Funding Education
Allow by right more types of dwelling units in single family zoning
districts such as duplexes and zero-lot line structures in more
locations. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be
quired. Possible consultant.)
X X
Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero-
lot line structures in single family zoning districts.
X X
Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) under more circumstances
and in more locations.
X X
Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations
Applicable to Multi-Family
Recommendation
Type of Action Required
Policy
Change
Increased
Funding Education
Facilitate multi-family development by purchasing land to be
developed.
X X
Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi-family housing or
mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan. (Note:
Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible
consultant.)
X X
Allow multi-family dwelling units with more than three bedrooms
when required to meet local, state, or federal affordable housing
funding parameters such as the LIHTC program.
X
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
CITY OF IOWA CITY 40
If additional funds are allocated/reserved for affordable housing, recommendations based on household
income are below.
0-30% Median Income Recommendations
Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding
to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities
Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation.
Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects for
families experiencing chronic homelessness.
Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing
assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with
lower incomes.
Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports
aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible.
31-60% Median Income Recommendations
Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance.
Support and expand eviction prevention programs.
Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs.
Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers.
61-100% Median Income Recommendations
Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs.
Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers.
Strategic Plan
FISCAL YEARS 2023-2028
Adopted December 2022
9
IMPACT AREAS
Neighborhoods & Housing
FUTURE VISION
Iowa City is a collection of authentic, vibrant
neighborhoods and districts. By way of internal and
external streets and trails, each community member
has safe, easy access to everyday facilities and
services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride.
Neighborhoods are compact and socially diverse,
with a variety of housing choices and at least one
place serving as its center. Permanent affordable
housing choices are dispersed throughout the
community. New higher density development blends
with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human-scale pedestrian environment. Public spaces
are inviting and active with people recreating and socializing in parks, natural areas, and tree-lined
streetscapes, all enhanced with public art and placemaking initiatives.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
Update City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to encourage compact neighborhoods with
diverse housing types and land uses.
Partner in projects that serve as models for desired future development.
Create inviting and active outdoor spaces with unique and engaging recreation offerings.
Address the unique needs of vulnerable populations and low-to-moderate income neighborhoods.
10
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property
investors.
City Attorney FY23-24
Act on building regulation recommendations outlined in the Accelerating Iowa
City’s Climate Actions Report; including TIF energy efficiency incentives, energy
standards for height and density bonuses, and a climate action building permit
rebate program.
Climate Action &
Outreach and
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY23-25
Revamp the neighborhood PIN grant program and evaluate discretionary funding
for district/neighborhood grassroots projects.
Communications FY23-25
Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Work with partners to undertake significant-scale affordable housing efforts.
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY23-28
Seek out and approve residential TIF applications for infrastructure when the
project provides community benefit such as permanent affordable housing,
expansive public open space, or advancement toward stated climate action goals.
Consider a standard application of residential TIF for all new annexations to meet
permanent affordable housing goals.
City Manager’s
Office
FY24-25
Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more
broadly incorporate form-based principles with emphasis on growth areas first and
infill areas next, expanded missing middle housing allowances, minimum density
requirements, and streamlined approval processes
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY24-28
Explore pilot housing projects utilizing tiny homes, 3D printed homes,
prefabricated or manufactured homes, net-zero homes, or other innovative
options.
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY24-28
Bolster financial support for homeless services and evaluate shifting towards
shelter as service model.
City Manager’s
Office
FY25-28
Expand the South District Homeownership Program to other targeted
neighborhoods and consider allowing relocation assistance to expedite
completion.
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY26-28
Provide all residents with public open space within a 15-minute walk or bike ride by
strategically executing agreements with local schools or other partners.
Parks and
Recreation
FY26-28
11
Mobility
FUTURE VISION
Community members of all socioeconomic statuses
easily, safely, and comfortably travel using multiple
modes of transportation year-round. Commuters
choose to walk, bike, or bus at least half of the time,
and an increasing number of trips are fueled by clean
energy. Regional collaboration has created a strong
multi-modal network that links Iowa City to
neighboring communities. Highly traveled corridors
have separated trails or comfortable, safe lanes for
bicyclists. When prioritizing, the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and other
emerging forms of transportation are weighted
greater than those of automobile drivers and
adjacent property owners.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
following strategies:
Expand the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public
transit.
Design and maintain complete streets that are comfortable and safe for all users.
Grow and prioritize bike and pedestrian accommodations.
12
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero-fare transit
system.
Transportation
Services and
Finance
FY23-24
Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson
County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each
entity’s elected officials.
City Council FY23-25
Install additional permanent charging stations for vehicles, bicycles, and electronic
devices.
Climate Action
Outreach
FY23-28
Identify additional opportunities for road diets, sidewalk infill, curb cut
enhancement, and bike lane installation with a goal of at least two such projects
each construction season.
Public Works FY23-28
Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus
rapid transit, or pedestrian usage.
City Council FY23-28
Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets Public Works FY23-28
Secure federal funding for a relocated transit building that can accommodate future
growth in service and electrification of the fleet.
Transportation
and City
Manager’s
Office
FY24-28
Consider adding or retrofitting bike pathways that are separated from streets or
protected utilizing flexible bollards.
Public Works FY24-28
Expand the fleet of electric buses or other low/no emission-technology vehicles each
time a diesel bus is due for replacement and seek grants that can expedite the
conversion.
Climate Action
Outreach
FY25-28
Consider an on-demand or subsidized voucher system for times and locations in
which no fixed route service is available.
Transportation
Services
FY25-28
Expand snow clearing operations at sidewalk corners in high priority pedestrian
areas, bus stops, and bike lanes.
Public Works
and Parks &
Recreation
FY25-28
Initiate and promote vehicle and bike-share/scooter programs. Transportation
Services
FY26-28
Evaluate with the State of Iowa the possibility of a Burlington Street Road Diet
utilizing flex zones in non-peak hours.
Public Works FY26-28
13
Economy
FUTURE VISION
Iowa City is the preferred location for businesses at
all stages of development. Start-up businesses
flourish and take advantage of mentoring and other
resources. The vibrant arts and culture community
attracts both visitors and new residents.
Technologies developed through the University of
Iowa are transferred to the local business sector,
creating business diversity and new value within the
community. Businesses pay living wages and support
skill development for their employees. Support
services - such as child-care and language assistance - are readily available for all, which means every
person who wishes to participate in the local economy can do so. Community members support each
other by spending their money locally.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
Reinforce Iowa City as a premier community to locate and grow a business.
Ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place for future business growth and development.
Cultivate a strong entrepreneurial and small businesses ecosystem with a focus on creating new
pathways to success for systemically marginalized populations.
Build Iowa City’s image as the Greatest Small City for the Arts.
Strengthen the Iowa River’s role as a signature community amenity and tourism generator.
14
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative
partnerships with higher education, non-profits, and the business community.
City Manager’s
Office and
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY23-25
Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in
the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that
build long-term support and wealth-building opportunities for systemically
marginalized populations.
City Manager’s
Office and
Economic
Development
FY23-25
Partner with Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Community School District,
Iowa Labor Center, local trades, and other stakeholders to provide meaningful
career development opportunities, pre-apprenticeship, and apprentice
programs.
Economic
Development and
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
FY23-28
Increase small business technical assistance to aid in the creation, success, and
growth of home-grown businesses.
Economic
Development
FY24-28
Create flexible incentives to support the top goals of Iowa City’s Self-Supporting
Municipal Improvement Districts and other commercial nodes, including
attaining a desired business mix that serves the surrounding neighborhood.
Economic
Development and
City Manager’s
Office
FY25-28
Develop targeted marketing to promote Iowa City as a unique and attractive
place to do business.
City Manager’s
Office
FY26-28
Develop a riverfront master plan in cooperation with the University of Iowa,
Think Iowa City, and other stakeholders.
City Manager’s
Office
FY26-28
15
Safety & Well-being
FUTURE VISION
Our City supports the mental and physical well-being
of our community members. Public safety response,
whether from the City or a non-profit partner, is
nuanced depending on the specific needs of the
situation. Community members receive emergency
response services promptly and welcome
responders as problem-solvers. Inviting spaces for
social interaction, exercise, and regeneration are
equitably located throughout the community and
are lively with activity and use. New and long-time
community members alike, especially marginalized
groups, easily build networks and establish roots
within our community. Community members have
safe, healthy indoor spaces and are well-prepared
for climate-related changes.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
following strategies:
Implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and
relationships within the community.
Partner with non-profits to address the most emergent and foundational community safety and
well-being needs.
Build community by fostering social connections and developing safe, accessible public spaces for
gathering.
16
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a
community violence intervention effort in close cooperation with local law
enforcement.
City Council and Police
Department
FY23-24
Leveraging American Rescue Plan Act funds, build capacity in local non-profits
that will help ensure they are able to meet future community demands.
Neighborhood &
Development Services
FY23-26
Build on the relationship with the University of Iowa College of Nursing to
increase participation in the Healthy Homes program.
Neighborhood &
Development Services
FY23-26
Expand the Mental Health Liaison program with CommUnity Mobile Crisis with a
goal of 24-hour coverage by the end of FY28.
Police Department FY23-28
Actively promote 988 throughout the year and ensure that CommUnity Mobile
Crisis has resources to meet community demands.
City Manager’s Office and
Communications
FY23-28
Continue critical exterior renovations to the Senior Center and continue
progress on Senior Center Facility Master Plan recommendations.
Senior Center FY23-28
Integrate CommUnity Mobile Crisis into the 911 dispatch protocols. Police Department FY24-26
Consider and, where feasible, implement alternatives to routine non-emergent
traffic stops.
Police Department FY24-26
Expand neighborhood-based programs such as mobile community
social/recreation resources (fun patrol), nests or micro-hubs for kids/teens.
Parks & Recreation FY26-28
17
RESOURCES
Facilities, Equipment and Technology
FUTURE VISION
Municipal facilities are modernized and designed for
operational efficiency, capacity for growth,
employee safety and health, resilience, alignment
with Climate Action goals, and civic pride. Funding of
equipment and facility replacement funds and
partnerships with other entities result in joint
facilities, technology, and equipment that improve
access and services. City staff are encouraged to be
entrepreneurial in their approach and actively seek
to innovative and streamline processes while
improving service levels to the community.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
following strategies:
Invest in the next generation of public facilities
and equipment to create immediate operational efficiencies, boost workplace safety, health, and
morale, and improve cross-department collaboration.
Promote high-performance governance leveraging technology, partnerships, and innovation.
18
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Outline a municipal-wide facilities plan and initiate relevant action steps to keep
projects moving forward.
City Manager’s Office FY23-24
Complete a City Hall and Public Safety Headquarters space needs study and
develop a plan for next steps toward implementation.
City Manager’s Office FY23-24
Implement the asset management system and expand use for facility
maintenance and management.
Public Works FY23-25
Develop and implement an electric vehicle transition plan. Public Works and Climate
Action & Outreach
FY23-25
Pursue grant opportunities, bolster the Facility Reserve Fund, and explore
public/private partnerships to facilitate completion of key facility projects.
City Manager’s
Office and Finance
FY23-28
Design replacement and renovated facilities to ensure alignment with Climate
Action goals and create safer and healthier working environments for public
employees.
City Manager’s Office FY24-28
Improve public transparency through a coordinated and centralized open data
platform.
City Manager’s Office FY26-28
Consider resourcing a Smart City initiative that prioritizes data-driven decision-
making through technology adaptation and data analysis.
City Manager’s Office FY26-28
19
People
FUTURE VISION
The City is an employer of choice in the region and
viewed as a rewarding, long-term career choice.
Valuable benefits, flexible schedules, energizing
workspaces, remote and hybrid work arrangements,
and professional development and advancement
opportunities improve productivity, service to the
public, and morale. Employees enter an inclusive,
fun, and engaging environment each workday. City
staff, board and commission members, and
volunteers are demographically representative of
the City population at-large and every employee is
continuously building cultural awareness. Leadership
and elected officials ensure sufficient staff levels to
maintain baseline services, weather vacancies or
emergencies, protect against employee burnout, and
add capacity to act on special assignments and
strategic, long-term initiatives.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
Establish the City of Iowa City as an employer of choice in the region with a pay plan, benefits
package, and flexible work options that attract and retain high-quality and motivated public
service employees.
Carry out a multi-dimensional staff engagement initiative to ensure every City employee feels
welcome, informed, involved, and engaged at work.
Build a diverse talent pipeline.
20
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Complete and execute upon the results of an organization-wide classification and
compensation study. As part of study, review all job requirements to ensure applicability
and eliminate unnecessary barriers to employment, including testing, residency
requirements, education, and certification or license requirements.
Human Resources FY23-25
Monitor implementation of new telecommuting and flexible work schedule policies to
ensure public service standards are fully met and desired employee work arrangement
flexibility is pursued where possible.
City Manager FY23-25
Balance investment in new annual initiatives with staffing levels to ensure core municipal
service levels are maintained and reduce instances of burnout.
City Manager’s
Office and City
Council
FY23-28
Elevate new and existing intra-organizational communication strategies to bolster
information sharing and improve productivity and connectiveness across the
organization.
City Manager’s
Office
FY23-25
Create more opportunities to promote inter-departmental relationships, collaboration,
and problem-solving.
City Manager’s
Office
FY23-25
Upskill City staff in implicit bias, cultural awareness, and inclusion. Equity & Human
Rights
FY23-28
Develop recruitment network with local minority institutions. City Manager’s
Office
FY23-28
Take steps to promote more diverse representation on Boards, Commissions, and
Committees.
City Council FY23-28
Ensure every single employee knows the City’s strategic vision and can connect their role
accordingly.
City Manager’s
Office
FY23-28
Strengthen volunteer engagement, management, and appreciation efforts. City Council and City
Manager’s Office
FY23-28
Implement increasingly relevant organization-wide training opportunities such as conflict
resolution and de-escalation training.
City Manager’s
Office
FY24-28
Conduct comprehensive benefits review and implement changes based upon best
practices and modern expectations, exploring benefits such as paid volunteer time,
wellness offerings, and flexible stipends for challenges such as childcare, transportation,
higher education and more.
City Manager’s
Office
FY25-28
Launch targeted apprenticeship program(s) in partnership with local education and
workforce institutions.
City Manager’s
Office
FY26-28
21
Financial
FUTURE VISION
City residents believe property taxes and utility
fees are fair and commensurate to service
levels, and do not experience erratic changes
in rates and fees. The City maintains sufficient
financial resources to proactively maintain and
replace assets, carry out strategic plan
initiatives, and be insulated from unanticipated
financial stressors. Partnerships, grant funding,
and other creative financing mechanisms are
routinely part of program and project financing structure. The City maintains a AAA bond rating,
resulting in lower borrowing costs for residents and businesses.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
Grow the tax base, consider alternative revenue sources, and leverage outside funding to maintain
core services and pursue community priorities while maintaining equitable property tax rates.
Exercise fiscal responsibility by maintaining and growing assigned and emergency reserve funds
and prudent debt management.
22
ACTION PLAN
Action Champion Target
Date
Ensure Enterprise Funds are well supported through incremental rate and fee
increases and do not become reliant on large rate spikes, property taxes, or
unplanned debt issuance.
Finance FY23-28
Coordinate with Iowa League of Cities, Metro Coalition, and the City’s contracted
state lobbyist to oppose unfunded state mandates and detrimental tax reforms.
City Manager’s Office FY23-28
Maintain the City’s AAA bond rating. Finance FY23-28
Increase the Emergency Fund balance by an annual target of 5%. Finance FY23-28
Significantly bolster the Facility Reserve Fund and develop an implementation plan
for use of funds that minimizes large debt issuances.
Finance FY23-28
Create a centralized grant management initiative that will focus on securing
additional private, state, and federal funding opportunities, while ensuring proper
oversight and compliance.
City Manager’s Office FY24-28
Develop and maintain cost recovery guidelines for programs and services that
balance fiscal responsibility and equity.
City Manager’s Office FY26-28
Consider financial incentives and land use policies that aim to grow and diversify the
tax base (commercial, industrial, and residential).
City Manager’s Office FY26-28
Consider alternative revenue sources such as a Local Option Sales Tax that can help
achieve strategic plan goals, fund infrastructure and facility needs, and reduce
reliance on property tax.
City Manager’s Office
and City Council
FY26-28
FROM: Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Board
TO: Cities in Johnson County and Johnson County
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
DATE: December 21, 2022
The Housing Action Team believes that there are many benefits associated with the creation of
legal accessory dwelling units on lots in single family zones and in other districts. These include:
1. Increasing the supply of a more affordable type of housing n ot requiring government
subsidies;
2. Helping older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters seeking a wider
range of homes, prices, rents and locations;
3. By increasing housing diversity and supply, provide opportunities to reduce the segrega tion
of people by race, ethnicity and income that resulted from decades of exclusionary zoning;
4. Providing homeowners with extra income to help meet rising home ownership costs;
5. Providing a convenient living arrangement for family members or other persons to provide
care and support for someone in a semi-independent living arrangement while remaining in
their community;
6. Providing an opportunity for increased security, home care, and companionship for older
and other homeowners;
7. Reducing burdens on taxpayers while enhancing the local property tax base by providing a
cost-effective means of accommodating development without the cost of building,
operating and maintaining new infrastructure;
8. Promoting more compact urban and suburban growth, a pattern which reduces the loss of
farm and forest lands, natures areas and resources, while reducing the distances people
must drive and thereby reducing pollution that contributes to climate instability; and
9. Enhancing job opportunities for individuals by providing housing c loser to employment
centers and public transportation.
Some cities in Johnson County already have code for ADUs (Iowa City and Solon). Johnson
County has code that covers the unincorporated areas of the County. Oxford utilizes the
Johnson County code. Swisher, Shueyville, Hills and North Liberty do not have code for ADUs. At
present, Coralville, Lone Tree and Tiffin do not allow ADUs. The codes that do exist, vary among
jurisdictions.
The Housing Action Team would like to provide our recommendations that minimize lengthy
application processes, high fees and harsh regulations that will prevent the development of
ADUs or encourage illegal ADUs. Our recommendation or specific recommended language for
each policy question is underlined and then followed by a rationale, if deemed necessary.
Recommendations for the Elements of an ADU Code/Ordinance
A. Definition- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel
as a single-family dwelling or a parcel of which a single-family dwelling is present or may be
constructed, that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It
may take various forms: a detached unit, a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such
as a detached garage, or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling.
[Rationale- Two common circumstances in which an ADU might be built before the primary
residence are (1) when a homeowner wishes to stage construction expenses and living
arrangements; and (2) when the homeowner owns an adjacent legal lot (typically used as a
side or backyard) and would prefer to site an ADU there rather than on the lot with the
primary residence.]
B. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District*- Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all
zoning districts which allow residential use, including mixed-use zones, townhouse zones
and single-family zones, subject to the requirements of the ordinance.
C. Number of ADUs Allowed per Lot in Single-Family Zones- Any lot with, or zoned for, a
principal single-family dwelling unit, may have up to two accessory dwelling units.
[Rationale- There are many ways to accommodate more than one ADU that are sensitive to
concerns about neighbor appearance. For example, two internal ADUs can be
accommodated by remodeling a large home, without increasing height or bulk. An internal
unit can be allowed along with an ADU over an attached garage, without increasing the area
of the lot occupied by structures.]
D. Minimum Lot Size in Single-Family and Townhouse Zones- Accessory dwelling units may be
created on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for a single -family dwelling or
townhouses. Attached and internal accessory dwelling units may be built on any lot with a
single-family dwelling or townhouse that is nonconforming solely because the lot is smaller
than the minimum size, provided the accessory dwelling units would not increase the
nonconformity of the residential use with respect to building height, bulk or lot coverage.
[Rationale- As a policy matter, it should not be necessary to establish a separate qualifying
lot size for ADUs if the purpose is to assure the retention of landscaping and privacy
between homes, because the setback and lot coverage standards can achieve those
objectives.]
E. Minimum / Maximum Size Area: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be
no more than the footprint of the primary structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less .
[Rationale- We recommend eliminating minimum size since the basic requirements for a
living space (kitchen, bathroom, living/sleeping space) and the housing market will establish
a minimum size. For situations in which the existing residence is very small, local
governments might consider authorizing ADUs up to 80 0 square feet when the primary
dwelling is smaller than 800 feet.]
F. Types of Structures- A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory
dwelling unit in any zone in which dwelling units are permitted . [Rationale- In recent years,
many off-site manufactured and modular ADUs are being produced; old conceptions of
what constitutes a manufactured or modular home are outdated. This language maximizes
the opportunities for ADUs by allowing any type of structure to be an ADU if that structure
is allowed as a principal unit in the zoning district.]
G. Lot Coverage Limits- An accessory dwelling unit (detached, attached, or built by expanding
the footprint of an existing dwelling) on a lot of 4,000 square feet or larger shall not occupy
more than 15% of the total lot area. For single family lots of less than 4,000 square feet, the
combined lot coverage of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling shall not exceed
60%. Accessory dwelling units built within the footprint of existing, legal, acc essory
structures are considered not to have changed existing lot coverage . [Rationale- Lot
coverage allowances and limits intersect with setback requirements, floor-area ratio limits
and height limits. If detached or attached ADUs are significantly constr ained by a lot
coverage limit, then the possibility of having a two-story ADU may determine whether the
investment in an ADU will generate a sufficient return to justify its construction.]
H. ADU Setbacks- 1. A setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall
be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure
or a new structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an
existing structure. 2. No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or
accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same
dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a
portion of an accessory dwelling unit; and 3. A detached accessory dwelling unit is not
permitted on the front half of a lot, except when located a minimum of 30 feet from the
front line or it falls within the provision of subsection 2.
I. ADU Height Limit- The maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit is 25 feet or the
height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the
lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less.
J. Architectural Consistency and Design Review- We recommend against establishing
separate architectural or design standards for ADUs. [Rationale- Highly discretionary
standards based on neighborhood "character” or “quality” can be serious obstacles to the
construction of ADUs. Vague standards hamper homeowners and decision-makers alike.
They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In
some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably
to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of
objective standards governing roof pitches, window orientation and siding. In some cases,
design standards should only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a
specified height or taller than one story.]
K. Orientation of Entrance- Regulations governing the location, type and number of entrances
into primary dwellings apply to accessory dwelling units. [Rationale- Not allowing an ADU
entrance on the same side of the house as the primary dwelling can compromise the design
and increase the cost of an ADU, substituting a more awkward and expensive entrance.
Following the general principal of treating ADUs like the primary dwelling, the authorization
and location of access doors and stairs for detached and attached ADUs should be the same
as for primary residences.]
L. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation- We do not have a specific recommendation
on this subject because a privacy regulation that is not applied to primary dwellings should
not be applied to ADUs. ADU regulations addressing privacy as a separate subject seem to
be rare.
M. Parking Requirements- No additional off-street parking is required for construction of an
ADU. If the ADU removes one of the existing off-street parking spaces it must be replaced
on site if required by the underlying zoning. In lieu of an on-site parking space, an additional
on-street parking space may be substituted if there’s already sufficient curb area available
along the frontage for a parking space or by removing the parking space access ra mp and
reinstalling the curb. [Rationale- Requiring an off-street parking space for each ADU is a
serious inhibition to the construction of ADUs for two reasons. First, the cost of creating off -
street parking spaces. Second, the lot size, location of the p rimary residence and
topography may make the creation of the space impossible.]
N. Short-Term Rentals- We recommend that jurisdictions do not adopt a limitation on short-
term rentals unless rental regulations or prohibitions exist for all housing in the jurisdiction
or zone. [Rationale- Many ordinances already have such limitations or prohibitions on the
use of homes as transient lodging in their land use regulations, and those could be extended
to ADUs.]
O. Separate Sale of ADUs- We do not have a specific recommendation regarding this subject
since most ADU ordinances are silent on the separate sale of the units as condominiums .
We leave this policy question to the discretion of local jurisdictions.
P. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards- There should be no requirement that the owner
live on the same property (whether in the primary dwelling or the ADU) if there is no owner
occupancy requirement for primary residences. [Rationale- The practical impact of the
occupancy requirement is to inhibit construction of most ADUs. This requirement gives
pause to homeowners or institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they
place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house,
which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer or death. It can also make
financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of an ADU and because
it acts as a restriction on a mortgage lender’s security interest in the property.]
Standards and Conditions Not Recommended for Application to ADUs
The following standards and conditions are not recommended for inclusion in ADU ordinances:
• Density limits on ADUs in a zone or district
• Age of principal dwelling
• Size of principal dwelling
• Tenure of current owner
• Limits on persons who can live in ADUs (age, relationship, disability)
• Annual renewal and monitoring of permits for ADUs
*Note on Historic Districts: Even historic districts can accommodate ADUs. Denver, Colorado and
Pasadena, California provide useful examples. A city may require a simplified pre-application
process utilizing a Design Review Committee to provide recommendations to a Landmark
Preservation Commission. The most common issues pertain to the massing, building material and
historic detailing on the elevations that face the street. The secondary elevations that face away
from the street only need to complement the primary structure. In some cases, the roof
treatment of an ADU’s primary elevation is reminiscent of the primary building; while its
secondary elevations, which face the alley, may be flat to maximize interior space. This allows
homeowners the flexibility to create more usable spaces while still blending with historical forms
and traditions.
Incentives: Some cities around the country, recognizing the benefits of ADUs, have initiated
various forms of incentives to foster ADU development. Assistance with rent, down payments
and mortgages along with tax abatements have been utilized. The city of Des Moines, in January
2022, implemented a 10 year, 100% tax abatement for new ADUs.
We hope that the cities that already have an ADU ordinance will review these
recommendations and consider making revisions to be more in alignment with our advice. For
those cities without an ADU ordinance/code, we encourage you to utilize/consider these
recommendations as a template for the drafting of your ordinance/code. We would welcome
the opportunity to discuss with you how ADUs can be a useful strategy to support seniors and
also provide affordable housing in your city and across the county.
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including
Summary Table
Attachment 2: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Summary Table
1. INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR A RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES
Current Proposed
1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential
zones
Duplexes and attached single-family uses in
RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on
corner lots. [14-4B-4A-2 & -5]
Allow duplexes and attached single-family
uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be anywhere
in a block.
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone
Up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
on individual lots are allowed in RS-12 zones,
but they are not allowed if they are on a single
lot because it is considered a multi-family use.
[14-2A-2 & -4, 14-4B-4A]
Provisionally allow up to 6 side-by-side,
attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS-
12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily).
1c. Allow multi-family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special
exception and provisionally allow multi-family uses in the CC-2 zone
In most commercial zones, multi-family uses
are only allowed above the ground floor
(except under very specific circumstances in a
few Central Business zones).
Multi-family uses in CC-2 zones must be
located above the ground floor and require a
special exception. [14-2C-2, 14-4B-4A-7]
Provisionally allow multi-family uses in CC-2
zones and allow multi-family uses on the
ground floor in most commercial zones by
special exception with the following specific
approval criteria:
1. If in an existing building in a Historic
District Overlay (OHD) zone, a
rehabilitation plan approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission
must be completed prior to
occupancy.
2. The units cannot significantly alter the
overall commercial character of the zone.
3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone,
dwellings are prohibited on or below street
level where 3 or more of the following
commercial storefront characteristics are
present:
a. The main entrance is at or near grade;
b. The front facade of the building is within 10'
of the front property line;
c. The front facade contains ground floor
storefront or display windows; and
d. The street level floor of the building was
originally constructed to accommodate sales
oriented and personal service oriented retail
uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses
Assisted group living uses are provisionally
allowed in RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, and
CO-1 zones and allowed by special exception
in RM-12 and CO-1 zones. Multi-family uses
are allowed by right in all multi-family and MU
zones, provisionally in CO-1, CN-1, and most
CB zones and by special exception in CC-2
Regulate assisted group living uses more
consistently with multi-family uses by allowing
it provisionally in RM-12, CN-1, MU, and CB
zones and by not allowing it in CI-1 zones. For
CC-2 zones, allow it to the same extent as
multi-family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1c
and sometimes CB-10 zones. [14-2B-2, 14-
2C-2, 14-4B-4A-8]
is approved or by special exception if it is not
approved).
2. MODIFY DESIGN STANDARDS
Current Proposed
2a. Eliminate some multi-family site development standards to provide flexibility
Multi-family or group living uses in buildings
not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2-
foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed
concrete. Where wall materials change
around the corner of a building, the material
must wrap 3’ around the corner.
[14-2B-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-9I-3 & -6]
Eliminate those two requirements from the
multi-family site development standards.
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid-block
locations
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-
5 and RS-8 zones must have each unit’s main
entrance and garage facing a different street.
[14-4B-4A-2, -3, & -5]
Modify standards for attached single-family
and duplex uses to allow entrances and
garages to face one street, but limit garage
frontage to 60% of the garage wall and limit
vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20’) or 2
singlewide (10’) garage doors facing each
street unless they are set back at least 15’
from the building façade. In addition, require
alley access to be used where present.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi-family uses
Buildings in multi-family zones cannot have
parking within the first 15’ of building depth.
This may be waived by minor modification
which requires a mailing and administrative
hearing. [14-5A-5F-1b]
Allow the Building Official to waive this
requirement for townhome-style multi-family
uses without a minor modification. This would
be for streets not faced by main entrances to
dwelling units.
3. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO ENHANCE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING
Current Proposed
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form-based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
Min. detached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 8,000 8,000 60 45
RS-5* 6,000 6,000 50 30
RNS-12* 5,000 5,000 45 25
RM-12 55
RM-20 55
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS-8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 6,000 6,000 40 40
RS-8 4,350 4,350 35 35
Min. detached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 6,000 6,000 50 40
RS-5* 5,000 5,000 45 30
RNS-12* 3,000 3,000 30 20
RM-12 45
RM-20 45
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 10,000 5,000 70 70
RS-8 8,000 4,000 60 60
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS-5 5,000 5,000 35 35
RS-8 4,000 4,000 30 30
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi-family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
Multi-family dwelling units are limited to 3
bedrooms and duplex and attached single-
family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms.
[14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4]
Increase the number of bedrooms allowed
outside of the University Impact Area to 4
bedrooms for multi-family units and to 5 for
duplex and single-family attached units.
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce
barriers to construction
Accessory apartments are only allowed in the
RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-
12 zones and must:
7. Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a
detached single-family use; one per lot.
8. Be under the same ownership as the single-
family use; one unit must be owner-
occupied.
9. Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom.
10. Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30%
of the floor area of the principal dwelling if in
a principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area
of an accessory building if in an accessory
building, whichever is less.
11. Provide one extra off-street parking
space.
When located within the principal dwelling,
must be designed so that the appearance of
the building remains that of a single-family
residence. Any new entrances should face the
side or rear yard, and any addition may not
increase the floor area of the original dwelling
by more than 10%. Exterior finish materials,
trim, windows, and eaves must visually match
the principal dwelling unit. [14-4C-2A]
Modify the standards to reduce barriers,
including the following changes:
7. Allow accessory apartments in any zone that
allows household living uses (including
RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow for any lot
that contains up to 2 dwelling units.
8. Remove the requirement that one unit be
owner-occupied.
9. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms
and residents.
10. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square
feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal
use, whichever is less. Also, allow stand-
alone accessory apartments.
11. Remove the requirement for an
additional parking space.
12. Remove requirements limiting
entrances to side or rear yards so long as it
appears to be a use allowed in the zone and
limiting additions to 10% of building.
4. CREATE REGULATORY INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Current Proposed
4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts
Affordable housing projects can receive height
bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones
and density bonuses in Form-Based zones,
but conventional zoning districts only provide
density bonuses for alleys serving single-
family detached housing, for multi-family elder
housing, for quality design elements in certain
zones, and for features promoting
sustainability. [14-2A-7, 14-2B-7, 14-2C-11,
14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F]
For conventional zones, create a 20% density
bonus where 20% of units in a development
are income-restricted affordable housing for
20 years, to be administered through existing
processes. In addition, provide additional
flexibility from dimensional standards
including allowing an increase in the maximum
height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction.
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
There is no minimum parking requirement for
affordable housing units in the Riverfront
Crossings District or Form-Based Zones, and
a minor modification is available in CB-5 and
CB-10 zones which allows up to 30% of units
in an affordable housing project to be
exempted from minimum parking
requirements. [14-5A-4F-4]
Income-restricted affordable housing units in
all zones would not be required to provide a
minimum amount of on-site parking if they
provide affordable housing for at least 20
years in compliance with the City’s new
affordable housing requirements.
5. ADDRESS FAIR HOUSING
Current Proposed
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
Per Federal Fair Housing law, the City must
provide reasonable accommodations from
land use or zoning policies where they may be
necessary to allow persons with disabilities to
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling. The code has specific waivers, but
they do not cover every accommodation and
are not user friendly. [14-8B]
Create an administrative “Reasonable
Accommodations Request” process with a
defined approval procedure. Applications
must be reviewed within 30 working days.
Proposed approval criteria include:
5. The housing will be used by an individual
with disabilities;
6. The accommodation is necessary to make
housing available for the use and enjoyment
of an individual with disabilities;
7. The accommodation would not impose an
undue financial or administrative burden on
the jurisdiction; and
8. The accommodation would not require a
fundamental alteration in the nature of the
City’s zoning program.
5b. Reclassify community service – long term housing uses as a residential use
Long-term housing operated by a public or
nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is
classified as a community service – long term
housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently
from residential uses. As a result, the use is
only allowed in a few commercial zones
(including the CI-1 zone which does not allow
household living uses), but it is not allowed in
residential or the CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones.
Long term housing uses allow higher densities
and less parking than residential uses and
typically has on-site supportive services, but it
also triggers additional process where it is
near single-family residential zones and
requires a neighborhood meeting and
management plan which are not required for
other residential uses that house persons with
disabilities. [14-2C-2, 14-4A-3A, 14-4A-6C,
14-4B-4D-6, 14-5A-4, 14-9A]
Eliminate the community service – long term
housing use as a distinct use category and
instead regulate it as a residential use.
Create a definition for permanent supportive
housing.
Specify that supportive services for residents
of a development may be considered
accessory to a residential use.
Proposed Changes
Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a strikethrough indicates deleted language.
Article 14-2A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
14-2A-2: LAND USES ALLOWED:
Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Single-Family Residential Zones
USE
CATEGORIES
SUBGROUPS RR-1 RS-5 RS-8 RS-12 RNS-12
Residential Uses
Household
living uses
Detached single- family
dwellings
P P P P P
Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR PR
Attached single- family dwellings PR2 PR PR
Two-family uses (duplexes)
PR2 PR PR PR
Group households PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family uses
PR 1
Group living
uses
Assisted group living
Independent group living
1
Fraternal group living
1
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2A-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
14-2A-4E. Minimum Open Space Requirements:
1. Purpose: The minimum open space requirements are intended to ensure a minimum
amount of private, usable open space is provided to support the health, well -being and enjoyment
of the residents of the dwelling. The intent of the open space is to support passive recreation,
leisure activities, informal gathering, and opportunities for interaction with nature.
2. Minimum Requirements:
a. On lots that contain multi-family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be
provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred
(400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less
than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (15'). On
lots that contain multi-family uses in the RS-12 zone, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space per unit shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no
dimension less than ten feet (10').
b. On lots that contain detached single family uses, a minimum of five hundred (500)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than twenty feet (20').
c. On lots that contain attached single family uses, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than ten feet (10').
d. On lots that contain two family uses, a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of
usable open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, located in one or more clearly defined,
compact areas, with each area not less than three hundred (300) square feet with no dimension
less than twelve feet (12').
3. Standards:
a. For multi-family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards as set
forth in subsections 14-2G-7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except multi-family uses in the RS-12
zone shall comply with the standards in subsection 14-2A-4E-3b.
b. For single family uses and two family uses open space shall be located behind the
principal dwelling in an area visible and easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall
consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gar dens, and other
amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted
toward usable open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air
terraces or rear yard-facing porches, including screened-in porches (non-habitable space only)
may count toward the open space requirement.
4. Minor Modification: A minor modification may be requested according to the provisions
and approval criteria of section 14-4B-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title, to reduce the required
open space for single family and two family uses in the following circumstances, provided the
additional approval criteria stated in subsection E4e of this section, are satisfied. Note that
reducing the open space may reduce the allowed occupancy of a rental property (see title 17,
chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code):
a. In order to establish up to two (2) off-street parking spaces (surface parking or in a
garage) on a lot that currently has fewer than two (2) off-street parking spaces; or
b. If the lot is a corner lot, is irregular in shape, substandard in size, or contains severe
topography, or other unique circumstance, such that there is practical difficulty meeting the
standard; or
c. The lot contains a manufactured home, where due to the shape/dimensions of the home
there is practical difficulty meeting the standard; or
d. The lot contains a detached zero lot line dwelling, where the side yard is designed to
serve as usable open space for the dwelling;
e. Approval criteria:
(1) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings,
paved areas, and vehicular use areas to meet the open space requirement. Such efforts may
include but are not limited to reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas and size of
new buildings or additions, and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property;
and
(2) The open space requirement will be satisfied to the extent possible in another
location on the lot, such as a side yard; and
(3) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent
possible.
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single-Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Maximum
Number
of
Bedroom
s Per
Unit11
Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Area/Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot Width
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Ft.)
RS-5 Detached
single- family,
including zero
lot line
6,000 8,0008 6,0008 8,000 50 608 40 458 n/a
Duplexes 1012,000 5,000 6,000 70 80 70 80 411
Attached single-
family
5,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 35 40 35 40 411
Other uses1 6,000 8,000 n/a 50 60 40 45 n/a
RS-8 Detached
single- family,
including zero
lot line
5,0008 5,0008 458 408 n/a
Duplex 8,000 8,700 4,000 4,350 60 70 60 70 411
Attached single-
family
4,000 4,350 4,000 4,350 30 35 30 35 411
Other uses1 5,000 n/a 45 40 n/a
RS-
12
Detached
single- family,
including zero
lot line
5,0008 5,0008 458 408 n/a
Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 411
Attached single-
family
3,000 3,000 20/287 20 411
Other uses1 5,000 n/a 45 40 n/a
Multi-family uses [insert standards from reoriented table below]
RNS-
12
Detached
single- family
5,0008 5,0008 458 258 n/a
Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 411
Multi-family uses 5,000 Existing4 45 25 311
Other uses1 Other uses1 5,000 n/a 45 n/a
Table 2A-2: [REORIENTED FOR CLARITY]
Zone/Use RS-12
Multi-family uses
Minimum Lot
Requirements
Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) 9,000
Area/ Unit (Sq. Ft.) 3,000
Lot Width (Ft.) 76
Frontage (Ft.) 60
Minimum
Setbacks
Front (Ft.) 156
Side (Ft.) 10
Rear (Ft.) 20
Building Bulk Max. Height (Ft.) 35
Min. Building Width (Ft.) 543
Maximum Lot
Coverage
Total Building Coverage 50%
Front Setback Coverage 50%
Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit11 411
Minimum Open Space (Sq. Ft.)10 150 / unit
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
1. Other uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise
in chapter 4, article B of this title.
2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story.
Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards
in chapter 4, article B of this title.
3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75
percent of the building's length.
4. See the special provisions of this article regarding multi-family uses.
5. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4, article B,
"Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title.
6. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the
bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all
lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C,
"Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title.
7. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a
row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide.
8. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area
per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See section 14-2A-
7 of this article.)
9. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet, except in the Central Planning District and
Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots
equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100
feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision,
garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non -habitable)
breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width) will be considered detached accessory buildings and,
therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than
principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as
detached accessory structures/buildings.
10. Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14-2A-4E of this section.
11. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached
single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing
Code", of this Code.
14-2A-7: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14-2A-7A. Single-Family Density Bonus Options: For detached single- family dwellings and
detached zero lot line dwellings, the following density bonuses are allowed in the following zones
and under the following conditions:
1. RS-5 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are
allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty-five fifty feet (450') and the minimum lot
frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to five six thousand (56,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
2. RS-8 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are
allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty feet (40') and the minimum frontage to
twenty five feet (25');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to four thousand (4,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
3. RS-12 & RNS-12 zones: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is
restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional
requirements are allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to thirty feet (30') and the minimum frontage to
twenty feet (20');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to three thousand (3,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
14-2A-7F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article
14-4F, “Affordable Housing”.
Article 14-2B: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
14-2B-2: LAND USES ALLOWED
Table 2B-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi-Family Residential Zones
Use Categories Subgroups RM-12 RM-20 RNS-20 RM-44 PRM
Residential uses:
Household living
uses
Detached single-family
dwellings
P P P
Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR
Attached single-family dwellings PR PR PR
Duplexes PR PR PR
Group households PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family dwellings P P P P P
Group living
uses
Assisted group living PRS PR PR PR PR
Independent group living PR PR PR
Fraternal group living PR S PR PR
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2B-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi-Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Maximum
Number Of
Bedrooms Per
Unit13
Total
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Area/ Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Width
(Ft.)
Minimum
Frontage
(Ft.)
RM-
12
Detached
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
5,0007 5,0007 45 557
407
n/a
Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 413
Attached single-
family
3,000 3,000 20/286 20 413
Multi-family 8,175 See table 2B-
3 of this
section
60 40 313
Group living 8,175 See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of this title
60 40 See chapter 4,
article 14-4B of
this title
Non-residential1 5,000 5,000 60 40 n/a
RM-
20
Detached
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
5,0007 5,0007 45 557 407 n/a
Duplex 3,600 1,800 45 35 413
Attached single-
family
1,800 1,800 20/286 20 413
Multi-family 5,000 See table 2B-
3 of this
section
60 40 313
Group living 5,000 See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of this title
60 40 See chapter 4,
article 14-4B of
this title
Non-residential1 5,000 n/a 60 40 n/a
RNS-
20
Detached
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
5,0007 5,0007 407 257 n/a
Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 25 413
Attached single-
family
2,500 2,500 20/286 20 413
Multi-family 5,000 See table 2B-
3 of this
section
40 25 313
Group living 5,000 See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of this title
40 25 See chapter 4,
article 14-4B of
this title
Non-residential1 5,000 n/a 40 25 n/a
RM-
44
Multi-family 5,000 See table 2B-
3 of this
section
None 35 313
Group living 5,000 See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of this title
None 35 See chapter 4,
article 14-4B of
this title
Non-residential1 5,000 n/a None 35 n/a
PRM Multi-family 5,000 See table 2B-
3 of this
section
None 35 313
Group living 5,000 See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of this title
None 35 See chapter 4,
article 14-4B of
this title
Non-residential1 5,000 n/a None 35 n/a
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area
per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-
2B-4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.)
13. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5,
"Housing Code", of this Code.
Table 2B-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Multi-Family Zone Zone
RM-12 RM-20 And
RNS-20
RM-44 PRM
Minimum lot area per unit (in
square feet):
Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 500 435
2-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 1,000 875
3-bedroom unit 2,725 2,700 1,500 1,315
Maximum number of
bedrooms per multi-family
dwelling unit
3 3 3 3
Minimum bedroom
size1 (square feet)
100 100 100 100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of
the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in
size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as
specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room,
dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225
square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more
bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further
constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
14-2B-6: MULTI-FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
14-2B-6E. Building Scale:
1. RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, And PRM Zones Outside the Central Planning District:
Street-facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be articulated with bays,
projections, or recesses (see figure 2B.7 of this section) according to the following standards:
a. Bays and projections must be at least six feet (6') in width and at least sixteen inches
(16") but not more than six feet (6') in depth. Recesses must be at least six feet (6') in width and
have a depth of at least sixteen inches (16").
b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline
or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural
element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a chan ge in window
pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation in
architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents.
Figure 2B.7 - Building Articulation
14-2B-6G. Building Materials:
1. In the central planning district, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of
clapboard style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco.
2. In the PRM zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be
constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including
concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material
when used in combination with other masonry finish.
3. In the central planning district and in the PRM zone, buildings not constructed of masonry
or stucco must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and
construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are
used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 2B.10 - Building Materials
4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using
similar materials and design as the front facade.
5. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry or stucco must have a
durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete that extends at least two feet
(2') in height above grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative face.
6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a
street side lot line.
67. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the
change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
8. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a different
material than what is used on the street facing wall, the street facing wall material must wrap
around the corners to the sides of the building for at least three feet (3').
79. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the
materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band
board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 2B.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
14-2B-8: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14-2B-8E. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to
Article 14-4F, “Affordable Housing”.
Article 14-2C: COMMERCIAL ZONES
14-2C-2: LAND USES ALLOWED:
Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Commercial Zones
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for
requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
Use Categories Subgroups CO-1 CN-1 CH-1 CI-1 CC-2 CB-2 CB-5 CB-
10
MU
Residential uses:
Group living
uses
Assisted group
living
PR PR
S PR PR PR PR PR
Fraternal group
living
Independent
group living
Household living
uses
Attached single-
family dwellings
PR
Detached single-
family dwellings
P
Detached zero
lot line dwellings
PR
Duplexes
PR
Group
households
PR PR PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-family
dwellings
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR/
S
P
Institutional and civic uses:
Community
service uses
Community
service - long
term housing
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR/
S
PR PR
Community
service - shelter
S S S PR PR S S
General commu
nity service
P S S P P P P S
14-2C-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU
Zone9
Zone Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit
CO-1 310
CN-1 310
CH-1 n/a
CI-1 n/a
CC-2 310
CB-2 310
CB-5 310
CB-10 310
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
10. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5,
"Housing Code", of this Code.
Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone (MU)7
Zone Use Maximum Number Of
Bedrooms Per Unit
MU Detached single-family and detached zero lot line n/a
Two-family (duplex) 48
Attached single-family 48
Multi-family 38
Group living See article 14-4B
Nonresidential1 n/a
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
8. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5,
"Housing Code", of this Code.
Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings In Commercial
Zones
Zone
Minimum lot area per unit (in
square feet):
CO-1, CC-2,
CN-1 And MU
CB-2 CB-5 And CB-10
There is no minimum lot area per
unit standard. However, the
number of 3- and 4- bedroom units
per lot may not exceed 30% of the
total number of units on the lot
Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 435
2-bedroom unit 2,725 875
3-bedroom unit 2,725 1,315
Maximum number of
bedrooms per multi-family
dwelling unit
3 3 3
Minimum bedroom
size1 (square feet)
100 100 100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of
the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in
size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as
specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room,
dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 225
square feet in size or have any horizontal dimension gr eater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more
bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further
constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
14-2C-9: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN MU ZONE:
14-2C-9I. Building Materials For Multi-Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional
Buildings:
1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements
incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are
used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 2C.5 - Building Materials
2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using
similar materials and design as the front facade.
3. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry or stucco must have a
durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete that extends at least two feet
(2') in height above grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative face.
4. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a
street-side lot line.
45. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the
change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
6. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a different
material than what is used on the street-facing wall, the street-facing wall material must wrap
around the corners to the sides of the building for at least three feet (3').
7.5 Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the
materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band
board or other trim, to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 2C.6 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
14-2C-11: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14-2C-11F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article
14-4F, “Affordable Housing”.
Article 14-2G: RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM
BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to:
1. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
2. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City;
3. Increase the multi-family housing stock near the university and the City's urban core;
4. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
5. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key employment
centers;
6. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels;
7. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households; and
8. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
B. Definitions: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner occupied affordable housing"
and/or "affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market
rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income
eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through
the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County,
as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household.
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible
household for purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area
median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household
is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an
annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City , as adjusted
annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets,
excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households.
OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than
the most current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit
for existing and new homes to an income eligible household.
RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person
reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and
TIAA-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the assets.
C. General Requirements:
1. Affordable Housing Requirement: Except for developments providing affordable housing
pursuant to a development agreement with the city executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for
developments exclusively providing elder apartment housing, any development containing ten (10)
or more dwelling units on land zoned a riverfront crossings zoning designation is required to provide
affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the
total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number o f dwelling units result
in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction
over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of affordable housing dwelling units. Any
exempt elder apartment housing developments shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure
compliance with the zoning code regulations of this title of such use.
B. Affordable housing shall be regulated pursuant to Article 14-4F, “Affordable Housing”.
2. Methods Of Achieving Affordability: The affordable housing requirement may be satisfied
through the provision of one or more of the following methods:
a. On site owner occupied affordable housing;
b. On site affordable rental housing;
c. A fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund;
d. Off site affordable housing; and/or
e. Contribution of land.
If the owner desires to utilize methods in subsection C2d or C2e of this section, the owner must
establish that methods in subsections C2a, C2b, and C2c of this section cannot feasibly be
satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city.
3. Affordable Housing Agreement: Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation,
the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing which
method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the public
hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building perm it to construct any
development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an
agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include
details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The city manager is hereby
given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records of the
Johnson County, Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense.
4. Term Of Affordability: The affordable housing dwelling units shall remain so for no less than
ten (10) years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording
of the deed restriction described below.
5. Occupancy: No affordable housing dwellin g unit shall be occupied by anyone other than an
income eligible household. Households that wish to purchase or rent affordable housing dwelling
units shall be subject to verification of their eligibility in accordance with the applicable income
verification provisions set forth below and as set forth in administrative rules adopted to accomplish
the purposes of this section.
6. Deed Restriction: A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements,
selected method of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable
occupancy and rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing
dwelling unit or, in the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being
developed contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed
restriction shall be recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed
conveying title of any such unit or land during the term of affordability . This deed restriction shall
automatically upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The city manager is hereby authorized
to issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form
approved by the city attorney.
7. Parking: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the parking
spaces otherwise required by the zoning code.
D. Owner Occupied Affordable Housing: Owner occupied affordable housing must satisfy the
general requirements set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Dwelling Unit Types: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the
same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the
development.
b. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least
eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, and shall
be of similar quality, or as approved by the city manager or designee.
c. Location: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the
development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable
housing dwelling units, unless a different distribution will result in the provision of additional
affordable housing dwelling units than that which is required by this code, as approved by the city
manager or designee.
d. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and
issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of
affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
b. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined a ccording to the
HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and
verified by the city prior to close of the sale.
c. Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, exc ept
an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
d. Sale Restrictions: In addition to the deed restrictions required above, all required owner
occupied affordable housing dwelling units shall be subject to the following sale restrictions du ring
the term of affordability, compliance with which shall be verified by the city manager, or designee,
prior to closing on the sale.
(1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to
an income eligible household.
(2) Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the
purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(A) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(B) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(C) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly
issued building permit.
(D) Special Fees: The seller of an affordable dwelling unit shall not levy or charge any
additional fees or any finder's fee nor demand any other monetary consideration other than
provided in this chapter.
E. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements
set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Affordable rental units shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements
for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section.
b. If a tenant initially deemed an income eligible household for purposes of occupying an
affordable housing dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter, but is subsequently deemed no longer
income eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be
considered an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To
maintain compliance with the affordable housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the
project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an income eligible household. To that end,
the affordable rental units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating
throughout the development.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD
metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no
more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households.
c. Income Verification: The landlord shall annually verify to the city that the affordable ren tal
housing units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease,
the landlord shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD
part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 2 4 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon
extension or renewal of a lease, the landlord may determine a tenant's annual household income
based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension
of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
F. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner may
contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by the
city. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city council
based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate uni t for the term
of affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household. The fund
shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in
the riverfront crossings district.
G. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the
affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city,
it may be satisfied by designating off site existing or newly construc ted dwelling units in the riverfront
crossings district as affordable housing dwelling units. Any transferred affordable housing units
shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide affordable housing units within the
development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general
requirements set forth in subsection C of this section, these units must satisfy the following
requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Provision Of Units: Off site affordable dwelling units, whether they are owner occupied or
rental units, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner occupied
affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section. The city reserves the right to deny a
request to transfer affordable housing units to a particular development if it would result in an undue
concentration of affordable housing units within that development.
b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of
newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no later
than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the
affordable housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the city manager, or designee. Where the
affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off site dwelling units,
they shall be established as affordable housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any occupancy
permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The marketing of the
affordable housing dwelling units should occur no later than one year after the first market rate
dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final in spection, unless otherwise
agreed upon by the city manager. The affordable housing agreement pursuant to subsection C3 of
this section shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development creating
the need for the affordable housing.
2. Programming Requirements:
a. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be owner occupied affordable housing,
those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied affordable housing
set forth in subsection D2 of this section.
b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be affordable rental housing, they shall
comply with the programming requirements for affordable rental housing set forth in subsection E2
of this section.
H. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements
cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by the
dedication of land to the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for
construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon
consideration of the following factors:
1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area appropriate
for residential redevelopment, as determined by the city;
2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to
or greater than the number of required affordable housing dwelling units;
3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type
(single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which
would have been otherwise required;
4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cos t of the
developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers
provided by the city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city
agree; and
5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of
the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is
not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not
likely to construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner due
to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed
to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with
the provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up
this difference in values.
I. Administrative Rules: The city manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish
administrative rules deemed necessary not inconsistent with any ordinance adopted by the city
council in order to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rule s
shall be on file with the city clerk and available on the city website.
Article 14-2H: FORM-BASED ZONES AND STANDARDS
14-2H-3: USE STANDARDS:
Table 14-2H-3B-1: Uses
Use Categories T4NS T4NS-
O
T4NM T4NM-
O
T4MS Specific
Standards
Institutional And Civic Uses
Community Service Uses
Community Service-
Long Term Housing
S S S S S2 14-4B-4D-
6(CO-1)
Community Service -
Shelter
S S S S S2 14-4B-4D-
5(RM-44)
General Community
Service
S S S S PR 14-4B-4D-
3(CN-1)
Day-care Uses PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-7
14-2H-10: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to:
1. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
2. Encourage the distribution of affordable housing throughout all areas of the City;
3. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce ;
4. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels;
5. To reduce the number of housing cost-burdened households; and
6. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
B. Eligibility And Incentive Provisions: Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the
provisions of this section shall apply in all Form-Based Zones that allow residential uses are eligible
to utilize affordable housing incentives found in Article 14-4F “Affordable Housing”,. Owners that
provide affordable housing not required pursuant to the Affordable Housing Annexation Policy or
the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policies may utilize the following incentives:.
B. Affordable housing shall be regulated pursuant to Article 14-4F, “Affordable Housing”.
1. Parking Reduction: No parking spaces shall be required for affordable housing.
2. Density Bonus: For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the maximu m
number of dwelling units may be increased by twenty -five percent (25%) if all additional units are
affordable housing.
3. Minor adjustments to certain "Zone Standards" (14-2H-2). One of the following adjustments
may be administratively approved in buildings that contain affordable housing units where the
proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is
consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and
District Plans:
a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up fifteen feet (15'). This
provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new civic
space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of twenty-five feet (25').
b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%).
c. Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to
twenty percent (20%).
4. Minor adjustments to certain "Building Type Standards" (14-2H-6). One of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain affordable housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%).
b. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the
building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a (Building
Form; Height) of section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5').
5. Additional Minor Adjustments: An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards"
described in subsection B2c and "Building Type Standards" described in subsection B2d may be
administratively approved where affordable housing units are income restricted to households
making fifty percent (50%) or less of the area median Income.
C. Definitions: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
The collective reference to "owner-occupied affordable housing" and/or "affordable rental housing",
as those terms are defined herein.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING:
Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD
metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household, or housing that
has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and
rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented
to an income eligible household.
INCOME-ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD:
Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing
an owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal
to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted
annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for leasing
affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent
(60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hun dred
thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in assets, excluding retirement assets, are not income eligible
households.
OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current published housing and urban
development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an income
eligible household.
RETIREMENT ASSETS:
Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches retirement age,
including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and TIAA-CREF, not including
distribution of or income from the assets.
D. General Requirements:
1. Methods Of Achieving Affordable Housing: Affordable housing may be provided through
one or both of the following methods:
a. Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing; or
b. Onsite affordable rental housing.
2. Affordable Housing Agreement And Deed Restriction: Upon approval of an affordable
housing incentive, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which
method(s) it will utilize and detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details
of the applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed
prior to issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing incentive. The
City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded
in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction memorializing
these obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at the owner's
cost.
3. Term Of Affordability: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than
twenty (20) years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and
recording of the deed restriction described below.
4. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules
of this Article is a violation of this Article.
E. Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing: Owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the
general requirements set forth in section 14-2H-10D and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least
eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall have
the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City Manager
or designee. Where a housing development contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit,
the percentage of affordable dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal to
the percentage of non-set-aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms.
b. Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the
development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable
housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
c. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and
issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwellin g units in the
development.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of
affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
b. Income Verification: The owner shall determine annual household income according to
the HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended,
and verified by the City prior to close of the sale.
c. Rental Restriction: An owner-occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except
an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
d. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all owner -occupied affordable
housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing
on the sale.
(1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to
an income-eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual household income
according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as
amended.
(2) Sale Price: The sale price of any owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit shall
not exceed the purchase price paid by the original income-eligible household purchaser or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(a) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(b) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(c) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly
issued building permit.
(d) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's
fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this chapter.
F. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements
set forth in section 14-2H-10D, the development requirements for owner-occupied affordable
housing set forth in subsection E1 of this section, and the following:
1. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) No more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD
metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2) For projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no
more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households. If a
tenant household is initially deemed an income-eligible household, but is subsequently deemed to
no longer be income-eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant household
shall still be considered an income-eligible household until they vacate that unit. However, upon
the vacation of that unit, the subsequent tenant must be an i ncome-eligible household.
c. Income Verification: Owner shall annually verify that the affordable rental housing units
are occupied by income-eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, owner shall
determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8,
regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal
of a lease, owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal income
tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension
of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
G. Administrative Rules: The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish
administrative rules deemed necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are
accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City
website.
Article 14-3A: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (OPD)
14-3A-4: APPROVAL CRITERIA:
14-3A-4D-1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in
the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding
development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified
in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14 -3A-4D-3 or
Section 14-4F. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum
expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project
relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of
this title.
Article 14-4A: USE CATEGORIES
14-4A-3: RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORIES:
14-4A-3A. Household Living Uses:
1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group
household, who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. The principal use of the property
is for long term residential living, with each dwelling unit containing its own facilities for living,
sleeping, cooking and eating meals, and with all spaces within the unit open to the entire household.
The dwelling or dwelling units are designed for residential living which includes Permanent
Supportive Housing and any accessory use shall be secondary to the use of the property as a
residence.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the subgroups listed below. The single family uses
are further divided into various dwelling types, because these dwelling types have distinct
dimensional and development standards based on the zone in which they are located. Group
households, given that they are a type of "household" rather than a type of dwelling, are permitted
in any type of dwelling listed in the three (3) other subgroups, as is Permanent Supportive Housing.
a. Group Households: Group households include only the following specific uses: elder
family homes, elder group homes, parental group homes, and family care homes, all as defined in
chapter 9, article A, "General Definitions", of this title.
b. Single Family Uses: A single family use is a household living use where there is no more
than one principal dwelling unit per lot. Single family uses include the following dwelling types.
(1) Detached single family dwellings. Farm dwellings; detached single family houses;
manufactured homes; modular homes; and mobile homes, if converted to real property and taxed
as a site built dwelling, as provided in the Code of Iowa, as amended. (See exceptions, below.)
(2) Detached zero lot line dwellings.
(3) Attached single family dwellings. Attached zero-lot-line dwellings; townhouse
dwellings.
c. Two Family Uses: Two family uses are household living uses in which there are two (2)
principal dwelling units within a single building and both dwelling units are located on the same lot.
These uses are often referred to as duplexes.
d. Multi-Family Uses: Multi-family uses are household living uses where there are three
(3) or more principal dwelling units within a single building and all dwelling units within the building
are located on the same lot. These uses include apartments, condominium apartments, elder
apartments, assisted living apartments, townhouse-style apartments and condominiums, efficiency
apartments, and dwelling units located within mixed-use buildings.
3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents'
vehicles; supportive services that assist Permanent Supportive Housing residents in retaining
housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and when possible work
in the community. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical
structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and breakfasts are accessory uses that are
subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this
chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the
property for residential living.
14-4A-6: INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES:
14-4A-6C Community Service Uses:
1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local service to
people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or have employees at the
site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not just for special events. Included are community
centers or facilities that have membership provisions that are open to the general public to join at
any time, e.g., a senior center that allows any senior to join. The use may provide shelter or short -
term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use may provide tenancy for long
term housing for persons with disabilities when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use
may also provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable
nature.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following three (3) subgroups:
a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride facilities;
senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities; some social service
facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally disabled; soup kitchens; surplus
food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as police and fire stations.
b. Community Service - Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
c. Community Service - Long Term Housing: Long term housing for persons with a disability
operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
3. Accessory Uses: Offices; meeting areas; food preparation areas; parking; health and
therapy areas; daycare uses; athletic facilities.
4. Exceptions:
a. Religious institutions and private clubs and lodges are classified as religious/private group
assembly uses.
b. Group care facilities where patients are residents of the facility are classified as assisted
group living.
c. Private, for profit athletic or health clubs are classified as indoor commercial recreational
uses.
d. Private, for profit art galleries are classified as sales oriented retail.
e. Social service agencies that consist primarily of office and counseling functions and
operate in a similar fashion to other office uses are classified as general office.
f. Parks and cemeteries are classified as parks and open space.
g. Uses where tenancy is arranged on a non-transient basis are residential and are classified
as household living or group living.
h. Alternatives to incarceration, such as halfway houses, where residents of the facility are
under supervision of sworn officers of the court are classified as detention facilities.
Article 14-4B: MINOR MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND
PROVISIONAL USES
14-4B-4: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR PROVISIONAL USES AND SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS:
14-4B-4A-2. Attached Single-Family Dwellings In RS-5 And RS-8 Zones:
a. Number Of Units: Only one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot. A maximum of
two (2) dwelling units may be attached.
b. Location: One of the attached dwelling units must be located on a corner lot.
c. Setbacks:
(1) Interior Lots: On interior lots, the side setback on the side containing the common
wall is reduced to zero. The side building setback on the side opposite the common wall must be
at least ten feet (10').
(2) Corner Lots: On corner lots, either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback may be
reduced to zero. However, the remaining nonstreet setback must be at least ten feet (10') if it is a
side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback.
d. Entrances:
(1) To give the attached units the overall appearance of separate dwellings, each
dwelling unit must have its main entrance oriented towards a different street than the main
entrance of the other dwelling unit.
(2) The main entrance must be visible from and oriented towards the street. To meet this
standard, the main entrance must face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°)
from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entrance may not face an alley or private rear
lane.
(3) Each dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance
and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided.
e. Garages: The garage entrance for a dwelling unit must be oriented towards the same
street as the dwelling unit's main entrance, unless the garage is oriented t oward an alley or
private rear lane. The length of any garage wall that faces a street-side lot line may not exceed
sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street - side lot
line.
f. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be
demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an
exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design
of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall
that faces a street-side lot line.
g. Vehicular Access:
(1) Access points must comply with the provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (45'), vehicular access is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane.
h. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street or rear lot
line.
i. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from
the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The easement must ensure
access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall located on the lot line and other
common elements, such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a covenant on
the applicable lots. Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or
occupancy permit.
j. Figure 4B.1 - Single-Family Attached In The RS-5 And RS-8 Zones:
14-4B-4A-3. Attached Single-Family Dwellings In RS-12, RM-12, RNS-20, RM-20, And MU
Zones:
a. Number Of Units:
(1) Only one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot.
(2) In RS-5 and RS-8 zones: A maximum of two (2) dwelling units may be attached
unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
(3) In all other zones: A maximum of six (6) dwellings units may be attached unless
approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
b. Setbacks:
(1) Interior Lots: The side setbacks for the attached dwellings may be reduced to zero
along the common wall side of the units. Each end unit in a row of attached single -family
dwellings shall have one side setback that is a minimum of ten feet (10'), unless the end unit is on
a corner lot.
(2) If an end unit is on a cCorner Llots:, Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback
may be reduced to zero feet (0’). The the remaining nonstreet setback must be at least ten feet
(10') if it is a side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback. (See figure 4B.2 below.)
Figure 4B.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single-Family Dwellings
c. Entrances:
(1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that is visible from and
oriented toward the street. To meet this standard, the main entrance must faces the street, is be
at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main
entrance may not face an alley.
(2) Each dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance
and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided.
(3) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must
be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side
facade of the dwelling.
d. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be
demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an
exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design
of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall
that faces a street-side lot line.
(4) If four (4) or more dwelling units are attached, the units must be articulated by at least
one of the following means in order to prevent monotony, but the units should be consistent in
architectural style and proportion. Figure 4B.3, located at the end of this subsection A3d, provides
some examples of acceptable building articulation. However, other designs meeting the
standards listed below are acceptable.
(A) Construct front and side elevations of the building of at least fifty percent (50%)
brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not
include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block o r
decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material.
(B) Construct front and side elevations of the end units of one hundred percent (100%)
brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not
include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or
decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material.
(C) Distinguish each unit architecturally through a change in the roofline and a jog in
the street-facing wall plane. The jog must be at least eighteen inches (18") deep and a minimum
of eight feet (8') wide; the change in the roofline must be in concert with the jog in the wall plane,
which may be accomplished by the addition of a gable, hip or similar roof that is perpendicular to
the primary roof.
Figure 4B.3 - Examples Of Facade Articulation For Attached Single-Family Dwellings
e. Garages
(1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, there may be no more than one doublewide or two
singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet
(15’) from the front of the building façade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered
part of the building façade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet (20’) in width;
singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10’) in width.
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street-side lot line may not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the total length of the building façade that faces the same street-side lot line. On
corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of
article 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site
development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Attached single -family
dwellings located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N,
"Single-Family And Two-Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (45'), vehicular access is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane. Corner lots are exempt from this standard if vehicular access faces a lot
line that is at least forty five feet (45') in length.
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be
accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
gf. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street or rear
lot line.
hg. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from
the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The easement must ensure
access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall located on the lot line and other
common elements, such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a covenant on
the applicable lots. Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or
occupancy permit.
14-4B-4A-3. Multi-Family Uses In The RS-12 Zone:
a. Number Of Units: No more than six (6) principal dwelling units may be located on a lot in
an RS-12 zone unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
b. Principal dwelling units must be arranged as a townhouse-style multi-family building
such that each unit has frontage on the same street.
c. Principal dwelling units may not be stacked where one unit is located above or below
another.
d. Entrances:
(1) Each principal dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that faces the
street, is at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The
main entrance may not face an alley.
(2) Each principal dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian
entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided.
(3) A second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the
rear facade of each dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling.
e. Design Features and vehicular access: The multi-family use must meet all
requirements in Section 14-2B-6 “Multi-Family Site Development Standards”.
14-4B-4A-5. Two-Family Uses In RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNS-12, RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20, And
MU Zones:
a. Location Limitation In RS-5 And RS-8 Zones: In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, two-family
uses are only allowed on corner lots.
b. Central Planning District: Two-family uses located in the central planning district must
comply with the provisions of subsection 14-2B-6I, "Additional Standards In Central Planning
District", of this title, which will be administered through the design review process as set forth in
chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
bc. Entrances:
(1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, to give the structure the overall appearance of separate
dwellings, each dwelling unit must have its main entrance oriented towards a different street than
the main entrance of the other dwelling unit.
(2) The main entrance(s) must be visible from and oriented towards the street. To meet
this standard, the main entrance must face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees
(45°) from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entrance(s) may not face an alley or private
rear lane.
(23) The duplex Each dwelling must have a paved connection between the main
pedestrian entrance(s) and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is
not provided.
(34) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must
be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side
facade of the dwelling.
d. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be
demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an
exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design
of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall
that faces a street-side lot line.
e. Garages:
(1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, the garage entrance there may be no more than one
doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at
least fifteen feet (15’) from the front of the building façade. For the purposes of this section, a
porch is considered part of the building façade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet
(20’) in width; singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10’) in width. for a dwelling unit must be
oriented towards the same street as the dwelling unit's main entrance, unless the garage is
oriented toward an alley or private rear lane.
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street-side lot line may not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street-side lot line. On
corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard. In the MU
zone, garages are exempt from this standard, but are subject to the standards of subsection 14-
2C-9N, "Single-Family Uses And Two-Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular Access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of
chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single -family site
development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Two-family uses located in
the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single-Family And Two-
Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than eighty feet (80'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley
or private rear lane. Corner lots and double frontage lots are exempt from this standard if the
vehicular access for one of the dwelling units is located along a different street than the vehicular
access of the other dwelling unit, or if vehicular access for both dwelling units is located along a
street where the front setback line is at least eighty feet (80') in length. (See defi nitions of "lot
width" and "setback line, front" in section 14-9A-1 of this title.)
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be
accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
g. Figure 4B.5 - Examples Of Two-Family Uses In The RS-5 And RS-8 Zones:
14-4B-4A-7. Multi-Family Uses In Commercial Zones CO-1, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, And CB-
10 Zones:
a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level floor of a
building, except as provided in subsections A7e and A7f of this section.
b. Maximum Density: The residential density standards for multi- family uses in
commercial zones are stated in section 14-2C-4, "Dimensional Requirements", table 2C-2(c) of
this title.
c. Residential Entrances:
(1) To provide safe access for residents within a mixed use building, any building
containing a residential use must have at least one door on the exterior of the building that
provides pedestrian access to the dwelling units within the building. Said entrance must be
located on an exterior building wall that faces a street, public sidewalk, or pedestrian plaza and is
visible from and easily accessed from said street, sidewalk, or plaza. Access to dwelling units
must not be solely through a parking garage or from an alley.
(2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwelling units located above the ground
level floor of a building must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway.
Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are prohibited. However, the city may allow
exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code
requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a
street.
(3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level, the ground level floor height should
be no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. The
City may adjust this requirement for On sloping building sites, for multi-family buildings with no
commercial component, and or for existing buildings, the city may adjust this requirement.
However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building
must be located no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian
plaza; and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more than three
feet (3') above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a
street-facing building facade.
d. Standards For Ground Level Floor Of Building:
(1) On the ground level floor, tThe floor to ceiling height must be at least fourteen feet
(14'), except it may be reduced for existing buildings or where dwelling units are permitted on the
ground level floor of the building.
(2) For the ground level floor of the building, c Construction must meet the building code
specifications for commercial uses, except where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level
floor of the building.
[duplication of 14-2C-8L-2] (3) In the CB-10 zone, for the first two (2) floors of a
building, construction must meet the building code specifications for commercial uses.
e. CB-5 And CB-10 Exception: In the CB-5 and CB-10 zones, except as provided in
subsection A7e(4) of this section and except as allowed by subsection A7f of this section, tThe
board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi-family dwellings to be located on or
below the ground street level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) Where tThe proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic
District Overlay (OHD) zone on a property designated as an Iowa City historic landmark,. aA
rehabilitation plan for the property must be has been reviewed and approved by the Iowa City
historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according
to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted.
(2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of
the subject CB-5 or CB-10 zone.
(3) There are site conditions or building characteristics that make the street level of the
subject building or buildings unsuitable for other uses allowed in the CB-5 or CB-10 zone.
(34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone on a
landmark property includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront
characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building:
(A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade;
(B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property
line;
(C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display
windows; and
(D) The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate
sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
f. CB-5 Form Based Code Exception: For properties zoned CB-5 located within the area
bounded by Gilbert Street, Van Buren Street, Burlington Street and the midblock alley south of
Jefferson Street, residential uses are allowed on the ground level floor of buildings, provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) In lieu of the standards in subsections A7c and A7d of this section, the proposed
ground level dwelling units must be located within one of the following building types, as
described in the form based zoning standards in section 14-2G-5, "Building Type Standards", of
this title:
(A) Apartment building;
(B) Multi-dwelling building;
(C) Liner building;
(D) Townhouse.
(2) Building frontage(s) must be designed to meet the requirements of section 14-2G-4,
"Frontage Type Standards", of this title, as applicable for the chosen building type.
(3) In lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development
standards that generally apply in the CB-5 zone, buildings must comply with the same zoning
standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict of riverfront crossings as set forth in chapter
2, article G, "Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development
Standards", of this title, including all general requirements in section 14-2G-7 of this title. If the
ground level dwelling units are proposed as an integral part of a larger project on the same
property that includes a mix of building types, the standards that apply in the south Gilbert
subdistrict shall apply to the entire project in lieu of the dimensional requiremen ts and central
business site development standards of the CB-5 zone.
(4) Buildings are subject to design review. Minor adjustments may be allowed by the
design review committee as warranted according to the provisions of subsection 14-2G-7H of this
title.
14-4B-4A-8. Assisted Group Living:
a. Maximum Density: Maximum density within an assisted group living use is as follows.
For purposes of calculating maximum density, staff and live-in staff of a facility are not considered
roomers.
(1) In the RM-12 zone: One roomer per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of lot area.
(2) In the RM-20, RNS-20, CN-1, CC-2, and MU zones: One roomer per five hundred
fifty (550) square feet of lot area.
(3) In the RM-44, PRM, CO-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 and CI-1 zones: One roomer per
three hundred (300) square feet of lot area.
b. Facilities: The group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by
roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building And Housing", of this code. In addition,
the occupants may have access to a communal kitchen, dining room, and other common facilities
and services.
14-4B-4D-6 Community Service - Long Term Housing:
a. Maximum Density:
(1) In the CO-1, CI-1 and CC-2 zones: A minimum of nine hundred (900) square feet of lot
area per dwelling unit is required. Dwelling units must be efficiency and/or one bedroom units.
(2) In the CB-2 and CB-5 zones: Density standards for multi- family dwellings in
commercial zones in chapter 2, article C of this title.
b. Management Plan Required: The applicant must submit a site plan and a management
plan that addresses potential nuisances such as loitering, noise, lighting, late night operations,
odors, outdoor storage and litter. The management plan must include plans for controlling litter,
loitering and noise; provisions for 24/7 on site management and/or security, and a conflict resolution
procedure to resolve nuisances if they occur. The site plan and management plan must be
submitted concurrently to the city, or if permitted as a special exception said plans must be
submitted with the special exception application.
c. Special Exception Required: A special exception is required if the proposed use is in a
CO-1, CI-1 or CC-2 zone and is across the street from or adjacent to a single-family residential
zone.
d. Neighborhood Meeting Required: Prior to a building permit being issued, the owner or
operator of the community service - long term housing use must hold a neighborhood meeting
inviting all property owners within two hundred feet (200') of the proposed use. At the neighborhood
meeting, the owner or operator must provide copies of the management plan, and contact
information for the management team of the proposed use.
e. Site And Building Development Standards:
(1) If the proposed use is located in the central planning district, it must comply with the
multi-family site development standards as set forth in section 14-2B-6 of this title.
(2) In the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, community service - long term housing uses must be
located above the street level floor of a building.
(3) The proposed facility must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa
City housing code, as amended, and maintain a rental permit.
(4) In the CO-1, CI-1, and CC-2 zones up to fifty percent (50%) of the first floor of the
building may be occupied by residential uses.
Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS
14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA:
14-4C-2A. Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-
12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 Zones in owner occupied detached single-family dwellings and
detached zero lot line dwellings and in buildings accessory to these same dwelling types, provided
the following conditions are met:
1. Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the
principal dwelling unit use must obtain a rental permit from the Department of Housing and
Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cchapter 14-8, "Review
And Approval Procedures", of this title.
2. Ownership And Occupancy:
a. The owner of the property on which an accessory apartment is located must occ upy at
least one of the dwelling units on the premises as the permanent legal resident The lot shall contain
no more than two (2) dwelling units as a principal use and shall be located in a zone that allows
household living activities.
b. The accessory apartment and the principal dwelling use must be under the same
ownership.
c. The total number of individuals that reside in the accessory apartment may not exceed
two (2).
3. Site Requirements:
a. Only one accessory apartment may be established per single- family lot.
b. In addition to the parking required for the principal dwelling unit, one off street parking
space is required for the accessory apartment.
c. The minimum lot size area per unit requirement of the underlying base zone must be met,
but does not apply to an accessory apartment, i.e., no additional lot area is required beyond that
which is required for the principal use dwelling unit.
4. Design Requirements:
a. The accessory apartment may be located within the principal dwelling or within an
accessory building.
b. The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions
independently from the principal single- family dwelling unit use. It must contain its own kitchen and
bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exteri or.
bc. When located within the a building with an existing principal use dwelling, the accessory
apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use
within that zone, and any single-family residence. Any new entrances should face the side or rear
yard of the building, and any addition for an accessory apartment may not increase the floor area
of the original dwelling by more than ten percent (10%). Eexterior finish materials, trim, windows,
and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useunit.
5. Apartment Size: The accessory apartment must be clearly subordinate in area to the
principal dwelling unit or to the accessory building in which it is located. Accordingly, it must co mply
with the following standards:
a. For an accessory apartment located within a principal dwelling unit, tThe floor area of the
accessory apartment unit may not exceed fifty thirty percent (530%) of the total floor area of the
principal use dwelling, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand six hundred fifty
(1,000650) square feet, whichever is less.
b. For an accessory apartment located within an accessory building, the floor area of the
accessory apartment may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the accessory
building or six hundred fifty (650) square feet, whichever is less.
c. The accessory apartment may contain no more than one bedroom.
Article 14-4F. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SECTION:
14-4F-1: Purpose
14-4F-2: Eligibility
14-4F-3: Definitions
14-4F-4: Regulatory Incentives
14-4F-5: General Requirements
14-4F-6: Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing
14-4F-7: Renter-Occupied Affordable Housing
14-4F-8: Alternative Methods Allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District
14-4F-9: Administrative Rules
14-4F-1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this article is to:
A. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
B. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City;
C. Increase the multi-family housing stock near the university and the City's urban core;
D. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
E. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key employment
centers;
F. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income
levels;
G. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households; and
H. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
14-4E-2: ELIGIBILITY
Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this section shall voluntarily
apply in all zones that allow residential uses, with the exception of developments on land zoned a
riverfront crossings zoning designation which shall be required to provide affordable housing
dwelling units in an amount established pursuant to Article 14-2G-8.
14-4E-3: DEFINITIONS:
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner-occupied affordable housing"
and/or "renter-occupied affordable housing", as those terms are defined herein.
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income
eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit
located in the Riverfront Crossings District shown in Section 14-2G-2, Figure 2G-1 if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the
area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually, or if not located in the Riverfront
Crossings District, if that household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent
(80%) of the (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is
an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an
annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted
annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets,
excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households.
OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than
the most current published HUD homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an
income eligible household.
RENTER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the
HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and
rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent
limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household.
RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person
reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and
TIAA-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the assets.
14-4F-4: REGULATORY INCENTIVES
Owners that provide affordable housing may utilize the following incentives:
A. Parking Reduction: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the
parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code, pursuant to Section 14-5A-4F-4,
“Affordable Housing Parking Reduction”.
B. Riverfront Crossings District: Affordable housing in zones established by Article 14-2G may
be eligible for additional floors of building height, pursuant to Section 14 -2G-7G “Building Height
Bonus Provisions.”
C. Form-based zones established by Article 14-2H
1. For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the maximum number of
dwelling units may be increased by twenty-five percent (25%) if all additional units are affordable
housing.
2. Minor adjustments to certain "Zone Standards" (14-2H-2). One of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved in buildings that contain affordable housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of
the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up fifteen feet (15'). This
provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new
civic space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of twenty -five feet
(25').
b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%).
c. Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to
twenty percent (20%).
3. Minor adjustments to certain "Building Type Standards" (14-2H-6). One of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain affordable housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of
the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%).
b. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the
building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a (Building
Form; Height) of section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5').
4. Additional Minor Adjustments: An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards"
described in subsection C2 and "Building Type Standards" described in subsection C3 may be
administratively approved where affordable housing units are income restricted to households
making fifty percent (50%) or less of the area median Income.
All Other Zones:
D. All Other Zones
1. Density Bonus. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a
development are affordable housing, the minimum lot area and minimum lot area per units is
reduced by twenty percent (20%). Alternatively, where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling
units within a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone are affordable housing, the maximum
residential density is increased by twenty percent (20%).
2. Minor Adjustments to Certain Dimensional Standards. Where at least twenty percent
(20%) of dwelling units within a development are affordable housing, one of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved where the proposed adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the intent of
the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Front, rear, or side setbacks may be reduced by up to fifteen percent (15%).
b. Maximum building height may be increased by up to five feet (5’).
14-4F-5: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Methods Of Achieving Affordable Housing: Affordable housing may be provided through
one or more of the following methods:
1. Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing;
2. Onsite affordable rental housing; or
3. Alternative methods allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District, including a fee in lieu
contribution to an affordable housing fund, off site affordable housing; and/or contribution of land.
B. Affordable Housing Agreement And Deed Restriction:
1. Riverfront Crossings District.
a. Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation pursuant to Article 14-2G,
the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing
which method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the
public hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building permit to construct any
development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an
agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include
details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The City Manager is
hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records
of the Johnson County, Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense.
b. A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements, selected method
of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and
rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit or, in
the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed
contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed restriction shall
be recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed conveying title
of any such unit or land during the term of affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically
expire upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The City Manager is hereby authorized to
issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form
approved by the city attorney.
2. All Other Zones. Upon approval of an affordable housing regulatory incentive, the property
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize and
detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the applicable
programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing regulatory ince ntive.
The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be
recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction
memorializing these obligations and limitations shall be recorde d contemporaneously therewith at
the owner's cost.
C. Term Of Affordability: Depending on the zone, an affordable housing dwelling unit shall
remain so for no less than the following number of years from the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed restriction described below.
1. Riverfront Crossings Zone established pursuant to Article 14-2G: Ten (10) years
2. All other zones: Twenty (20) years
D. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules
of this Article is a violation of this Article. It may also result in immediate suspension of any rental
permit issued for a renter-occupied affordable housing unit.
14-4F-6: OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-
4F-5 and the following requirements.
A. Development Requirements:
1. Dwelling Unit Types: In the Riverfront Crossings District, the aff ordable housing dwelling
units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate
dwelling units within the development.
2. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least
eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall
have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City
Manager or designee. Outside of the Riverfront Crossings District, where a housing development
contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit, the percentage of affordable dwelling units
with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal to the percentage of non-set-aside dwelling
units with the same number of bedrooms.
3. Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the
development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable
housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
4. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and
issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
B. Program Requirements:
1. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of
affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
2. Income Verification: The annual household inc ome shall be determined according to the
HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and
verified by the city prior to close of the sale.
3. Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except
an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
4. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all owner-occupied affordable
housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or desig nee, prior to
closing on the sale.
a. Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income-eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual household income
according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609,
as amended.
b. Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the
purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(1) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(2) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(3) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly
issued building permit.
(4) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's
fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this Article.
14-4F-7: RENTER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Renter-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section
14-4F-5 and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements: Renter-occupied affordable housing shall be provided in
accordance with the development requirements for owner-occupied affordable housing set forth
in Section 14-4F-6A.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD
metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no
more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households.
(1) in the Riverfront Crossings District, if a tenant initially deemed an income eligible
household for purposes of occupying an affordable housing dwelling unit pursuant to this Article,
but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of household
income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent
can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with the affordable housing requirement,
the next available rental unit in the project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an
income eligible household. To that end, the affordable rental units need not be specifically
designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development.
(2) In all other zones, if a tenant household is initially deemed an income-eligible
household, but is subsequently deemed to no longer be income-eligible upon annual examination
of household income, that tenant household shall still be cons idered an income-eligible
household until they vacate that unit. However, upon the vacation of that unit, the subsequent
tenant must be an income-eligible household.
c. Income Verification: The property owner shall annually verify that the renter-occupied
affordable housing dwelling units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the
commencement of a lease, the owner shall determine a potential tenant's annual household
income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR
5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, the owner may determine a tenant's
annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
14-4F-8: ALTERNATIVE METHODS ALLOWED IN THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
DISTRICT
If the owner desires to provide off-site affordable housing and/or contribution of land, the owner
must establish that on-site affordable housing or a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing
fund cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city.
A. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner
may contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by
the city. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city
council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for
the term of affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household.
The fund shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include
administration costs, in the riverfront crossings district.
B. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the
affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the
city, it may be satisfied by designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the
riverfront crossings district as affordable housing dwelling units. Any transferred affordable
housing units shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide affordable housing units
within the development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general
requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5, these units must satisfy the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Provision Of Units: Off site affordable dwelling units, whether they are owner - or renter-
occupied, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner -
occupied affordable housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. The city reserves the right to deny a
request to transfer affordable housing units to a particular development if it would result in an
undue concentration of affordable housing units within that development.
b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of
newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no
later than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the
affordable housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager, or designee. Where the
affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off site dwelling
units, they shall be established as affordable housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The
marketing of the affordable housing dwelling units should occur no later than one (1) year after
the first market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final
inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager. The affordable housing
agreement pursuant to Subsection 14-4F-5B-1 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building
permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing.
2. Programming Requirements:
a. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be owner occupied affordable
housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied
affordable housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6.
b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be renter-occupied affordable
housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for aff ordable rental housing set
forth in Section 14-4F-7.
C. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements
cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by the
dedication of land to the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for
construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon
consideration of the following factors:
1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area
appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the city;
2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to
or greater than the number of required affordable housing dwelling units;
3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type
(single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which
would have been otherwise required;
4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the
developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers
provided by the city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city
agree; and
5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of
the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is
not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not
likely to construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner
due to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land
proposed to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in
accordance with the provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to con tribute
a fee making up this difference in values.
14-4F-9: ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed
necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall
be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website.
Article 14-5A: OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS
14-5A-4: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB-5 And CB-10 Zones, Except As
Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14-5A-4B2 Of This Section
Use
Categories
Subgroups Parking Requirements
Household
living uses
Multi-family
dwellings
CB-5 Zone
Efficiency, 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling
unit.
2 bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
CB-10
Zone
For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008:
Bedrooms 1-10: No parking required.
All additional bedrooms: 0.5 space per bedroom.
(For purposes of this standard an efficiency
apartment will be counted as 1 bedroom.)
For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per
dwelling unit.
2 bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB-5, CB-10,
Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District
Use
Categories
Subgroups Parking Requirement
Household
living
Single family and two
family uses
For 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units: 1 parking
space, plus 1 additional parking space for each adult
occupant beyond 3.
For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking
spaces plus 1 additional parking space for each
adult occupant beyond 3.
Multi-
family
uses
All zones,
except
PRM and
CB-2
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per
dwelling unit.
2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
4 bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit.
5 bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit.
University impact area: 1 space per bedroom (see
section 14-2B-6, map 2B.1 of this title).
PRM &
CB-2 Zone
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space per
dwelling unit.
2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
University impact area in the PRM zone: 1 space
per bedroom (see section 14-2B-6, map 2B.1 of this
title).
CB-2 Zone Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space per unit.
2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per unit.
Elder
apartments
1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units
and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted
living units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones.
In the PRM and CB-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2
dwelling units.
…
Use
Categories
Subgroups Parking Requirement Bicycle
Parking
Community
service
General community
service
1 space per 300 square feet of floor
area.
10 percent
Community service -
shelter
0.1 space per temporary resident
based on the maximum number of
temporary residents staying at the
shelter at any 1 time, plus 1 space
per employee based on the
maximum number of employees at
the site at any 1 time.
25 percent
Community service
- long term housing
1 space per 3 units, or 3 beds,
whichever is greater.
25 percent
14-5A-4F-4. Minor Modification For Affordable Housing Parking Reduction In The Central
Business Zones: Affordable housing dwelling units, as defined in Article 14-4F, shall be exempt
from providing the parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code where those units are
regulated as affordable housing for a period of at least twenty (20) years pursuan t to Article 14-
4F. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, a minor modification may be granted as specified in
section 14-4B-1 of this title exempting up to thirty percent (30%) of the total number of dwelling
units contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those
dwelling units are committed to the City’s assisted housing program or any other affordable
housing program approved by the City.
14-5A-5: CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS:
14-5A-5F-1b.
In Multi-Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building
for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the street -facing building wall. On
lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback must be met along each street frontage,
unless reduced or waived by minor modification. The Building Official may also waive this
requirement along a side street for townhome-style multi-family units. When considering a minor
modification request, the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation,
location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where
the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain.
Article 14-8B: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES
14-8B-11: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS REQUEST:
A. Applicability: A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with
a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with
disabilities, when the application of a regulation, policy, practice, or procedure in Title 14 acts as a
barrier to fair housing opportunities.
B. Submittal Requirements:
1. The applicant must file a written application for a reasonable accommodations request with
the Department of Neighborhood and Development services on application forms provided by the
City.
2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the applicatio n form or as
requested by staff to allow a full review of the request.
3. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the
City will assist to ensure that the process is accessible. Any information identifie d by an applicant
as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and
shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law.
C. Approval Procedure:
1. Upon receipt of a complete application, staff will review said application for compliance with
the following approval criteria:
a. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be
used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws;
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the use and
enjoyment of an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws;
c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative
burden on the jurisdiction; and
d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of
the City’s zoning program.
2. Within thirty (30) working days of the date a complete application is submitted to the City,
the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services will approve, approve with modifications
agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove the application consistent with fair housing laws.
3. If the Director does not act within thirty (30) working days and the applicant does not agree
to an extension of time, the application will be deemed approved.
4. The Director's findings on each application shall be set forth in a written decision, which will
be filed in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and Development
services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant at the time of filing. All written decisions
shall give notice of the applicant’s right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the
appeals process as set forth below.
D. Appeals:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the reviewing authority’s written decision, an applicant
may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from the adverse decision
shall be made in writing pursuant to the procedures in Section 14-8C-3, “Appeals”.
2. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the City will
assist to ensure that the appeals process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant
as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and
shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law.
3. In deciding such appeal, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the approval criteria in
Section 14-8B-11C-1.
4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with
the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error,
reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from
and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that
end, shall have all the powers of the Director.
5. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other
state or federal remedy available.
Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS
14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS:
DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, someone who has a verifiable
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major life
activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone with a record of such
impairment. and is expected to be long continued and of indefinite duration.
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied
by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive
housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or
her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: With respect to land use and zoning, it means providing
individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility i n the
application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or
waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities.
TARGET POPULATION: Persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including
mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, and may include, among other
populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults
aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and
homeless people.
ATTACHMENT 3
Correspondence
From:william gorman
To:Tracy Hightshoe; Kirk Lehmann; Anne Russett
Cc:Jeff Kellbach; Jessica Andino; Scott Hawes; Leonard Sandler; Bob Untiedt
Subject:P&Z Committee Meeting- July 5th
Date:Sunday, July 2, 2023 10:00:10 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Tracy/Kirk/Anne,
I reviewed the draft proposed revisions to the city's zoning code and I want to thank you for
your willingness to listen to and seriously consider the input of local organizations. I just have
two questions.
1. Is there an option to attend the P&Z Committee via Zoom? I want to attend the meeting
but I recently had surgery for a detached retina and it is advisable for me to remain
home. I currently cannot drive.
2. I have noted that a number of the Housing Action Team recommendations regarding
the city's ADU code have been integrated into the proposed amendments to the current
code. One recommendation that does not appear to have been accepted pertains to the
current requirement that "exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must
visually match the principal dwelling unit". Is that correct? If that is so, we would hope
you would reconsider and propose the removal of this requirement since it limits
options for homeowners and can drive up construction cost.
Thank you for all the time and effort your staff have put into these proposed zoning
amendments, not only pertaining to ADUs but more broadly for improving housing choice,
increasing the housing supply and encouraging affordability.
William Gorman
Chair, Housing Action Team
Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Team
The easiest thing of all is to deceive oneself; for we believe whatever we want to believe.
Demosthenes
From:Freerks, Ann M
To:Anne Russett
Subject:Proposed Iowa City Zoning changes
Date:Wednesday, July 5, 2023 1:01:55 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
I served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for several years, including time as
chairperson. I was a member of the Commission when we updated the Comprehensive Plan
including the Central District Plan. I also participated in the redrafting of the Zoning and
Subdivision regulations.
I understand and appreciate the your work and I applaud the City’s efforts to use zoning tools
in an effort to promote the development of more affordable housing. I believe that some of the
proposed changes before you have merit and may help our community achieve more
affordable and equitable housing opportunities.
I am however concerned that some of the proposed changes will have unintended
consequences in the older neighbors, such as Longfellow, Goosetown, the Northside, College
Hill and Green. and Miller Orchard. Having older houses, many of which are “fixer uppers”,
these neighborhoods provide opportunities for individuals and families to purchase homes.
There is however stiff competition for these properties from investment owners who market
their holdings as rentals to University students. A group of students can pool their funds and
pay far more for housing than an individual or a family. When the City adopted the
Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the UniverCity Neighborhood
Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older neighborhoods are
concerned that some of the proposed changes to the zoning code will further tip the scale in
favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable
housing.
With the goal of finding zoning tools that will promote the creation of as well as the
preservation of affordable housing, I ask the neighborhood associations be added to the stake
holders involved in this process and be given an opportunity to meet with staff to discuss our
concerns and to offer solutions.
Sincerely,
Ann Freerks
443 South Governor Street
Iowa City
Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your
July 5th meeting. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 4
Enlarged Map
Map of Zones That Currently Allow Duplex and/or Attached Single-Family Uses
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
Currently Allows
Throughout Block
Currently Allows in RFC
Building Type
Currently Allows on
Corner Lots
Map of Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
Currently Allows Duplex
Allows Duplex Under
Proposed Change 1a
Allows Duplex Under
Proposed Change 1a &
3a
Does Not Allow Duplex
Under Current or
Proposed Changes
Map of Zones That Allow Multi-Family Uses: Current and Proposed
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
Hawki
nsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiverside DrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1
S
W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert
H
oover Hwy
S
E
Interstate 80
Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
Currently Allows by Right
Currently Allows Provisionally
Currently Allows by Special
Exception; Allows
Provisionally Under Proposed
Amendments
Currently Does Not Allow;
Allows Provisionally Under
Proposed Amendments
Map of Zones That Allow Assisted Group Living Uses: Current and Proposed
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Currently Allows Provisionally
Currently Allows by Special
Exception; Allows
Provisionally Under Proposed
Amendments
Currently Does Not Allow;
Allows Provisionally Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Allows by Special
Exception; Does Not Allow
Under Proposed
Amendments
Map of Detached Single-Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Current and Proposed
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Currently Non-Conforming;
Made Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Conforming;
Remain Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Non-Conforming;
Remain Non-Conforming
Under Proposed
Amendments
Map of University Impact Area
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Map of Parcels That Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Ppoposed
5th St
H o lid ay Rd
W Park Rd
CampCar
d
inal Blv
dSScottBlvd1stAveHighla n d Ave N1stAveRiver St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
dSunsetS
t
10th St
W Benton St S7thAveSycamore StMelrose Ave
Rochester A v eKirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1stAveChurch St
HawkinsD
r22ndAveKim b a llRd12thAveMcCollister B lv dNDubuq
u
e
StMormon
Tr
e
k
Blvd SRiversideDrSGi
l
ber
t
St
2n
d
S
t
N Sco t t Blvd
SandRdSEHig
h
w
a
y
6
S
EDubuq
ueStN
E
Highwa y 1 S W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
H e r bert Hoover Hwy SE
Interstate 80
Currently Allows If Owner-
Occupied; Allows If Owner-
or Renter-Occupied Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Does Not Allow;
Allows If Owner- or Renter-
Occupied Under Proposed
Amendments
Attachments:Pending City Council Work Session Topics
Item Number: IP4.
August 10, 2023
Pending City Council Work Session Topics
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
August 9, 2023
FY23-24 Strategic Plan Action Item Topics Requiring Council Discussion:
• Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property investors
• Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more broadly incorporate form-based
principles with emphasis on growth areas first and infill areas next, expanded missing middle housing allowances,
minimum density requirements, and streamlined approval processes (Suggested Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning
Commission)
• Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Work with partners to undertake
significant-scale affordable housing efforts
• Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson County entities and obtain initial
commitments to study a regional system from each entity’s elected officials
• Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus rapid transit, or pedestrian usage
• Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets
• Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in the Inclusive Economic Development
Plan with a particular focus on actions that build long-term support and wealth-building opportunities for systemically
marginalized populations
• Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a community violence intervention effort in
close cooperation with local law enforcement
Other Topics:
• Quarterly American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA-SLRF) update
• Consider a strategic plan decision-making framework
• Develop strategies to address equity gaps noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of
destination parks within an easy and safe distance of all residents.
• FY25 Budget Meeting (tentative for September 5)
• Joint Meeting with the Airport Commission to discuss new Airport Strategic Plan
Note: Some items on the Pending List may require staff research and information gathering prior to scheduling.
Attachments:Memo from Assistant City Manager: 2023-2024 Bow Hunt Program Update
Item Number: IP5.
August 10, 2023
Memo from Assistant City Manager: 2023-2024 Bow Hunt Program Update
Date: August 10, 2022
To: City Council
From: Rachel Kilburg, Assistant City Manager
RE: 2023 – 2024 Bow Hunt Program Update
The City’s 2023 – 2024 Bow Hunt season will begin September 16, 2023 and end January
10, 2024. The bow hunt is part of the City’s Long-Term Deer Management Plan, which
provides for professional sharpshooting in 2019 and an urban bow hunt in years 2020 –
2024.The upcoming season will be the fourth and final of four years of bow hunts, as outlined
and approved in that Plan.
In the Iowa DNR’s aerial deer survey conducted in February 2023, 382 deer were observed.
It should be noted this is a ‘moment in time’ snapshot, and the City has experienced a notable
increase in the number and severity of complaints from the public related to deer. Successful
deer management depends heavily on an ability to maintain levels annually, over the long-
term. Following the 2020 sharpshooting effort, it was estimated the City would need to cull
approximately 25 deer per year to maintain population levels. A total of 36 deer have been
culled over the last three bow hunt seasons.
The Long-Term Deer Management Plan also calls for annual public input opportunities to
collect feedback on the City’s deer management efforts. In July, the public was invited to
submit comments and suggestions via phone or email. From July 26, 2023 to August 8, 2023,
43 e-mails were submitted. The majority expressed concerns about deer damage to property,
dangers to drivers, and concerns about the spread of disease. Notably, several were long-
term residents who provided longitudinal perspective of observing a considerable uptick in
deer levels in the last 2-3 years. 23 commenters explicitly supported lethal methods of
management, 13 explicitly supported another round of sharpshooting, and 2 explicitly
opposed any method of lethal management. A copy of all correspondence received on this
topic is attached to this memo.
The 2022 – 2023 Bow Hunt Program results were presented in an annual report which is
available on the City website at icgov.org/deerprogram. In total, 29 deer were harvested
(compared to four the prior season). The results were largely due to the City taking an active
approach in targeted recruitment of property owners in key areas with high deer densities, as
August 10, 2023
Page 2
recommended by Iowa DNR staff. As a result of those efforts, two large private property
owners participated for the first time. However, one of those is not planning to participate in
the 2023-2024 program.
Considering the loss of this property’s participation, and to maintain flexibility to sustain the
success of the annual bow hunt, City staff are seeking City Council direction on the following
proposed amendment to the hunt rules:
Allow hunting on or near specified publicly owned lands. Under the change, any new
public properties recommended for use would be presented to City Council each year in this
memo prior to the annual bow hunt season. If City Council is amenable to this change, City
staff would recommend approving use of 1150 Covered Wagon Dr. for the 2023-2024 season:
Should Council agree to the proposed change, City staff will prepare a resolution amending
the urban bow hunt rules for consideration at upcoming City Council meeting. If City Council
desires any additional changes in rules or approach to the bow hunt process, those should
be communicated to staff as well.
cc: Lt. Zach Diersen (Hunt Coordinator)
Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek
City Manager Geoff Fruin
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Comment on Deer Management
Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:52:04 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
I just read the Deer Management Annual Report. Many interesting activities have been
undertaken, but based on the very mild deer harvesting during the recent Urban-Hunt years, it
appears we are not yet managing the deer population. I would propose that (1) we confirm
whether we really intend to reduce the urban deer population – it appears we do not – but if
so, then (2) we use whatever mode we know that brings deer population to an acceptable
level. That appears to be sharpshooting until such time as we reach some unspecified level.
Bow-hunting appears superfluous, the numbers are so small. In short, let’s set a goal and use
methods that will work. Period. That would be my opinion.
Also, in general, the aerial data appears too erratic to be valid. Others may know otherwise,
but it seems data needs significant improvement. Without reliable data, one cannot talk of
actual management. It becomes only non-specific good intentions. (Note the aerial survey
shows about a 150% increase in 2022, then a 40% decline in 2023. Both seem unlikely unless
something else is known.)
BTW, at our eastside home, the deer population appears to be not only growing, but also
becoming more adapted to human presence. However, I recognize anecdotes are not
necessarily good data. Nevertheless, it prompts my concern.
Thank you for considering my view. I know it is difficult working with wide-ranging opinions,
but thank you for your efforts.
Regards,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:deer
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 7:44:41 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Deer cross Court Street just beyond 1st Ave on a daily basis. They come up along the creek, cross Court St and
head North thru my/neighbors yards. Females with babies and sometimes herds of 8-10 at a time cross our yards.
Always worry that they will get hit by cars as they cross over Court St (2300 block).
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:*City Council
Subject:Deer management
Date:Tuesday, August 1, 2023 8:01:52 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Dear city council members:
I am a resident of the Manville Heights neighborhood for more than 15 years and have seen some fluctuations in the
local deer population.
My impression is that the population is at an unprecedented high with groups of deer coming through the yards
every hour during all hours of the day. The damage to the vegetation is substantial.
It is quite obvious to my neighbors and me that the deer management program is not effective. What are your plans
to ameliorate the problem?
Best regards,
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer management
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:26:14 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
We unfortunately live in a day and age when the natural predators are absent and from the ecosystem. We must
manage the deer population for its own good for our woods and prairies good and for our own safety, I understand
there will be pushback. I hope the city can stay firm in reducing the population to a scientifically sustainable level.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Comments on Deer Management
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 7:04:12 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this issue. As an Iowa City resident and
avid archery hunter, this issue is important to me. I have followed it closely although work and
other obligations have always prevented me from attending listening sessions and other
opportunities to voice my opinion.
I am encouraged to see the change in the city's approach to the hunt slightly changed last year
and allowed greater hunter access. This city's previous position in the first two years made it
abundantly clear the city did not want to see the program succeed and harvest statistics were
clear evidence of a program designed to be so restrictive as to only allow for one report back
to the DNR at the conclusion of this trial period - "see, we told you this didn't work." The
same restrictive rules deterred me from participating in the program. However, a reading of
the report from last year leaves me strongly considering participating in the program this year.
Although the recent shift in perspective by the city is a step in the right direction, the attitude
the city maintains toward hunting and the management of our deer herd is still, in my opinion,
driven by misguided political opinions of hunting that are ignorant of the role of hunting as a
premier tool in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (the "North American
Model").
One of the main tenets of the North American Model is scientific management of wildlife. The
primary method of managing wildlife herds to meet scientific objectives is hunter
management. I am of the opinion that the city is still falling short of allowing this tool to do its
job.
It is undisputed that Iowa City's deer population is unstable, leading to disease, property
damage, and wildlife conflicts. The most concerning element to me is disease, especially in
the face of the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease, which will inevitably be reported in
Johnson County. This disease is always fatal and is rapidly spread in areas with unstable deer
densities. This is especially concerning for me as a hunter who almost entirely relies on
venison as my source of protein and who cares deeply about the well being of deer.
I strongly encourage the city to loosen restrictions around the hunt to allow increased hunter
opportunity. This increased opportunity will allow for hunters to manage the resource
according to scientific objectives, use the resource to feed ourselves and our families, and
reduce current and future negative consequences of having an unbalanced deer herd. I would
encourage Iowa City to look to Coralville as a guide in easing its restrictions, including
allowing hunting in public areas according to prescribed rules.
Finally, it just makes good fiscal sense... Let hunters pay to hunt rather than wasting taxpayer
dollars on sharpshooters. I am willing to pay more money to the city so that I can hunt and so
my tax dollars can be used in an alternate way that provides greater benefit to the community.
Thank you. If the city ever desires a hunter's point of view, I would be happy to offer my
opinions.
--
From:
To:*City Council
Subject:Comments on Iowa City"s Deer Management Plan
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:45:28 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
July 27, 2023
To: Iowa City Council Members
From:
Iowa City, IA 52245
Prior to the 2019-2020 sharpshooting, we had experienced extensive
damage to the trees, bushes, and plants in our yard. Clean-up of deer
droppings in our yard was a daily task. We noticed a sharp drop in deer
damage in the following year, as well as fewer sightings of deer in our
yard and neighborhood. However, this summer (2023) we have seen
many more deer and are experiencing an increase in damage to our
yard.
In October of 2022 I contracted Lyme Disease, having been hospitalized
for five days before arriving at a diagnosis and treatment. In my case,
Lyme Disease led to pleurisy and pericarditis, for which I am continuing
treatment. This disease has enforced reduced activity and many lost
opportunities, in addition to the financial costs to us, UIHC, and our
insurance companies. Lyme Disease is spread by deer ticks; deer ticks
are known to parasitize white-tailed deer. As such, deer populations are
an obvious threat to public health.
White-tailed deer are also known to be a reservoir for Covid (e.g.,
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/white-tailed-deer-found-be-huge-
reservoir-coronavirus-infection?
gclid=CjwKCAjwq4imBhBQEiwA9Nx1BjVn5ywXKKqLB-
f6vc01as1ZZmXzHr14XrDkaXfcJcjJXacmBfEddhoC39UQAvD_BwE ). For
this reason as well, deer populations are an obvious threat to public
health.
In January of 2022 I hit a deer while driving on Rocky Shore Drive. The
impact knocked the deer down, but it scrambled up and off into the
darkness. The repair to my car cost $2000 (of which insurance covered
all but $250). Because the deer appeared to be unhurt, I did not report
the incident.
In reading through the material available on the City’s web page about
deer management, one thing that is not mentioned is the health of the
deer themselves. In the winter before the 2019-2020 sharpshooting,
when the deer population had grown tremendously, the deer ate
everything they could but still appeared to be starving. Contrary to the
arguments against culling, failing to control the deer population leads to
population sizes well beyond the numbers that the local environment
can sustain, leading to cruel conditions for the deer.
I was unable to find information on your web site about the efficacy of
non-lethal methods for controlling the deer population in the City. I
suspect such methods are ineffective, if well-meaning. Regarding the
efficacy of the bow-hunting efforts, the numbers reported on your web
page suggest that bow-hunting is entirely inadequate to regulate deer
populations in our city.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Continue and expand urban bow hunt
Date:Monday, August 7, 2023 4:45:52 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I'm writing to provide feedback on the deer management program. I think that the City needs
to continue the urban bowhunt program and invest more effort in making the urban bow hunt
successful. The deer have been a road hazard for many years, and I've seen groups of 4 to 6
pretty regularly this year in the fields south of town and in my neighborhood. This year is also
the first time we've also had problems with deer coming onto our property and eating our
vegetable garden (in south Iowa City), so it seems from here like the problem is getting worse,
not better.
I think the City was on the right track last year with its outreach efforts to landowners and
pairing landowners with hunters. It also needs to make more outreach efforts to local
bowhunters. The bow hunt hasn't been very successful, but I think that's in part because the
city hasn't been very willing to make rules that could make it successful. For example, the
parks were closed for the sharpshooter; the city could allow urban bowhunters a few days each
season to hunt in certain city parks or other publicly owned land as well, based on what areas
have the highest deer concentration that year. I realize this may not be very popular, but
neither is having deer running out in front of cars and eating landscaping and vegetable
gardens.
I wish nonlethal options were enough to adequately manage the deer population, but they
aren't. We humans have removed deer predators from the equation, so in order to have a well-
balanced ecosystem (and prevent disease and starvation from killing deer), we need to fill that
niche. Because of how close bow hunters have to be in order to harvest deer, continuing the
bow hunt and expanding the program is a relatively safe way to do that.
Warm regards,
--
And biannual time changes must be abolished. #LockTheClock
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:deer comments
Date:Friday, July 28, 2023 4:16:41 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I live at off of Kirkwood and two streets up from Gilbert. I've lived here since
1979. In the last couple of years, we regularly have deer in our yards, including currently a doe
with twin fawns. They are cute,. But voracious. I have seen cars almost hit deer on Summit St
by the train tracks. A herd of 7 was regularly on Walnut St. I can somewhat deal with damage
to my gardens, but I don't think our neighborhood can take any more density with deer, and if
it continues, we'll soon see deer in downtown, crossing Burlington and grazing by City Hall.
Something needs to be done to help lower populations, also for the health of the deer
population.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Effects in East Iowa City
Date:Friday, July 28, 2023 8:24:16 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Thank you for seeking input from homeowners in town. I live a , Iowa City. I am an avid gardener and
have invested both my time, labor and locally-spent money on perennials to achieve a beautiful flowering yard. I
have invested in anti-deer repellents as well as buying less desirable plants to no avail. The deer visits happen daily
and it has been heartbreaking to find 1/3 of my flowers and shrubs eaten so I have no blooms or new growth for the
season. Since the deer are losing more and more natural habitat, it is unfair for property-tax paying residents to give
up their property for grazing… I therefore support increased culling of the deer numbers.
Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Herd Management
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 4:42:37 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
We live in East Iowa City and have had noticeable winter deer pressure over the years but never before have we had
such summer pressure as this one. I know that the sharpshooters do not work pro bono but they are the only effective
way to manage the herd. I contend that the increased population density of the current herd is a direct result of the
completely ineffective results of the (hopefully one off never to be repeated) bow and arrow project. Until the
sharpshooters are allowed to return, Iowa City residents’ landscaping and gardens will continue to pay a price.
Anyone who advises you differently is simply fawning…
Best regards,
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer in iowa city
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 5:25:54 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Do what ever has to be done to get rid of as many deer as possible. I have hit deer twice in the last 12 months within
3 blocks of our home at on the east side. Damages were over $5,000. It’s a joke how many are
roaming around this city. In addition there is all the damage they have done to our yard and landscaping. I’m sick
and tired of this situation. We are retired and work hard to keep our autos and home looking nice. We do not have
unlimited funds to keep repairing our cars ot fixing up our yard. Please help with this mess. Thank you.
Iowa City
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer invasion
Date:Sunday, July 30, 2023 4:01:53 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
This is the first year in the past 13 that I have lived on Rochester Court that deer have eaten
every day lily in my front and back yard. I have many lovely plants and was disappointed that
I didn't get to enjoy any blooms. I can say that it's not uncommon for a parade of 15 Deer trek
down my sidewalk or are in my and neighbors' yards on a regular basis. I think that means
there are too many. Perhaps Rochester Avenue construction plays a role but I think they need
to be thinned.
Thanks,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:DEER MANAGEMENT BY BOW HUNTERS 2023
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:59:40 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. ** Hello,
I am OPPOSED to urban deer management by bow hunters due the threat of the skill of
certain bow hunters being marginal at best, being allowed to hunt. IF, and this is a BIG IF, the
bow hunters were SCREENED FIRST allowing ONLY those with a high level of
ACCURACY SHOWN during the screening, the AND ONLY THEN, should they be allowed
to hunt in urban areas.
My concern is for the safety of people in the urban areas. When a hunt is scheduled signs
should AT LEAST be placed around that area notifying when a bow hunt will take place.
All in all, I AM OPPOSED TO DEER KILLING IN URBAN AREAS.
Sincerel ,
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:deer management comments
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 3:36:05 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Deer population in Iowa City and Johnson County must be reduced fast for their health and
ours. Please hire some group like White Buffalo to kill/remove as many deer as possible to
get the herds down to the 10 per square mile the DNR recommends.
We have had 2 occasions where deer broke their legs when trying to cross the creek between
Abbey and Plaen View on the western end and animal control had to come shoot them.
Deer ticks are increasing. They carry disease. If safe to process and eat then it is good to use
deer meat. But, this overpopulation is becoming a big human health problem too besides the
car crashes.
Iowa City, IA 52246
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer management disaster
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:40:42 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
The "deer management" program is doing nothing. We have 5 new fawns this summer in our yard and
expect anywhere from 15-18 deer this winter when they all come back. It's getting to the intolerable point
as they are destroying thousands of dollars worth of plants and landscaping.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management Feedback
Date:Monday, July 31, 2023 8:35:21 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
I have lived in an area with a large deer population (near Hickory Hill Park) for 35 years. The deer are as numerous
as they have ever been since I have been here. Yesterday a group of 10 wandered through the yard and then took off
across the street. I have never seen any impact from bow hunting, only from the professional culling. Although I
have been removing their favorites, the deer continue to eat a lot of ornamental plants, shrubs and trees, they often
leave so much excrement in the yard that I have to watch where I walk and that the 18 month grandson doesn’t play
with it. I have seen one deer car collision, hear of others and hold my breath every time they run into the street. I am
glad to coexist with deer, but their population level needs to be stabilized and kept at a reasonable number.
Iowa City
I hope that IowaCity can
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management Program Input
Date:Saturday, August 5, 2023 8:51:39 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Thank you for allowing me to comment on Iowa City’s deer management program.
The deer population in Iowa City is out of control. We have lost several trees and have had a
difficult time maintaining our property due to deer damage.
We believe Iowa City needs to establish a reasonable number of deer that Iowa City can support
and then take action to comply with this number.
Our recommendations include:
1. Revisit the number of deer Iowa City can reasonably support without damage to
property owners. Mayor Throgmorton increased this number despite the recommendations
of those with more knowledge of deer management.
2. Split the bow hunting season into two seasons.
3. Count the number of deer in Iowa before the first bow season to establish the number
of tags to issue. Issue more tags than is necessary to meet the target goals.
4. Do everything possible to help the bow hunters meet the target harvest. This includes
expanding the hunting area and allowable hunting times.
5. After the first season, determine if the bow hunters can successfully meet the target
goals during the second season. If not, cancel the second season and use sharpshooters to
meet the goals.
We believe it is critical to get our deer population under control. It is not fair to the deer or the
property owners to be in the situation we find ourselves in today.
Sincerely,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management public comment
Date:Saturday, July 29, 2023 8:10:56 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. ** Hello,
I’d like to share my opinion that the deer population needs to be managed more aggressively,
especially in the area of Goosetown/Hickory Hill Park/Reno Street Park. I don’t know the data
on the deer population this year, but at least anecdotally they seem much more present and
aggressive this year than the past couple of years. The community garden program in Reno St
Park is a great resource, but it has become really tough to garden there, even with very high
fences that have kept deer out in the past. Also, over in the surrounding neighborhood we’ve
seen a lot more deer this year in yards and streets, and more deer with multiple young ones
than we’ve seen in the past. I’d like to see the population brought down pretty significantly, to
reduce impact on home and garden, as well as risk in the streets and risk of things like disease
and supporting Lyme-carrying deer tick populations.
Thank you,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management
Date:Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9:36:39 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I live along Ralston Creek on College Street. We have deer in the area that seem to have
mange this time of year and appear to be malnourished in the winter. We also have at least one
neighbor that feeds them all year long which leads to disease spread, namely CWD.
I am a lifelong deer hunter who welcomes the opportunity to hunt in new places. I was very
excited about an urban hunt in Iowa City when it was announced a few years back. However,
the rules and regulations surrounding the hunt were a bit discouraging. Specifically, not being
able to hunt City owned areas and having to source hunting areas.
The largest concentration of deer appears to be around City parks where hunting is not
allowed. Opening these areas up to bow hunters would seemingly increase the number of deer
harvested. These areas were closed during the sharpshooting efforts. Making these park areas,
such as Hickory Hills, Peninsula Park, and Terry Trueblood, accessible during certain hours in
the morning and afternoon would all but ensure more deer harvested. This would also relieve
the daunting task of sourcing hunting areas and getting permission from landowners within the
City.
Thank ou,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:22:32 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
To: City Manager’s Office
From:
Re: Deer Management
We have deer grazing on our yard during the day and sleeping under our trees at night. I have
encountered deer crossing Grant St. in the Longfellow neighborhood at noon, crossing Foster
Rd. near the dog park and Elks golf club in the afternoon, and Rocky Shore Drive and Dubuque
St. during the day. We suggest that the City of Iowa City continue to gather statistics regarding
the prevalence of Lyme disease in Johnson County; the number of cars damaged by deer in
Johnson County; and the possibility that deer are carriers of Covid.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Management
Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:24:15 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments about deer
management. It seems the current five-year plan is not controlling deer
population as much as needed. We hope the City of Iowa City can ask the
state for leeway to take more effective action than bow-hunting this year.
In addition, the state should allow the next plan to be realistically geared
for our city size and habitat loss impacts due to development.
We don’t blame the city for challenges with the current plan. The state’s
requirements prioritize recreational sport over public health, public safety
and even animal suffering. Based on the numbers, bow-hunting is not
happening in our community at the levels needed for effective control (3, 4
and 29 counts in the most recent three years of the bow-hunt). It is also
confusing that this year the DNR says that density per square mile is not a
meaningful statistic.
We live close to Rochester Avenue and Hickory Hill Park. We see more
deer than ever—including seven fawns seen within three blocks one recent
evening. We see sick and limping deer. Despite a fenced backyard, deer-
resistant plantings, and non-lethal deterrents, we have pulled deer ticks
off ourselves after being outside our home, and a family member had to
go on antibiotics to prevent Lyme disease.* We are very alert about deer
but have had close misses while driving and riding bikes and know several
people whose cars have been totaled or damaged within city limits by
deer.
We think there needs to be a different and more effective plan than one
that is so dependent on bow-hunting.
Thank you,
Iowa City
* Deer are not the sole source of tick spread, and ticks don’t even get Lyme disease
from deer, but adult deer ticks feed only on larger animals such as deer. So, the size
of the deer population is relevant to Lyme disease spread as noted in the following
excerpt from this article: https://entomologytoday.org/2017/09/28/could-
reducing-deer-populations-reduce-lyme-disease/
If ticks don’t get Lyme disease from deer, why would reducing deer
populations help curb Lyme disease transmission?
Telford argues that it goes back to the tick life cycle. If an adult
female tick can’t feed, she isn’t able to reproduce. That means a
reduction in the number of larval- and nymphal-stage ticks. Lyme
disease is primarily spread to humans through nymphal-stage ticks,
so having less of those ticks around could lead to less human
infections.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer Population
Date:Monday, July 31, 2023 2:18:42 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hello,
My name is . I’ve lived at since 1982. I have never encountered so many deer, in that
time, as I now am. There are groups, as well as pairs and solo animals, that come through my neighborhood almost
daily. I’ve seen fauns for the first time. Lately, there have been a series of young bucks with developing antlers.
These deer are so comfortable and numerous that they eat from gardens for extended periods of time. Yesterday, one
fed in a neighbors sheltered garden for over 3 hours, while he was out of town.
The management plan is definitely failing. I suspect you are aware, but I wanted to add my concern. It is a bad
situation on may levels and needs to be fixed in a sustainable way. I know that State regulations are a part of this,
but that does not excuse this problem.
Thank you,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:33:38 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Please continue to cull the many deer that live in our community. In addition to the frustration of deer eating my
landscape, I see many malnourished deer in the wintertime. Several years ago a woman died driving in my
neighborhood who sweared to avoid a deer and lost control of her car. I enjoy the deer and recognize we are
invading their territory but we must find a way to live safely together.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 6:52:50 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Way too many deer cruising through this neighborhood, day and night.
Not afraid of anything. They look healthy. Send them somewhere else.
You have my approval to remove them anyway possible.
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Deer
Date:Monday, July 31, 2023 10:31:42 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
This response to deer management in Iowa City. Bow hunters do not cull enough deer from the Bristol Drive area.
Sharp shooters are the best method. Deer continually consume most everything except weeds! Annuals and most
perennials are fair game. I would suggest killing off all deer but I know the city won't do that. Our house has been
here for fifty years and it is not like we have just built in their habitat. Anything you can do would help.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Failure
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 3:33:37 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
The Iowa City Deer Management Plan, forced on you by a state agency, is a failure. I have not
the ability to conduct a deer population count, but our deer problem has only grown. We have
deer in our yard literally every night & many early mornings. We have invested hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of dollars to improve the appearance of our property—only to find much
of it destroyed by deer. I am at a complete loss to understand why the state does not allow
sharpshooting to reduce the herd in city limits. Many of our friends have hit or been hit by
deer. The cost to Iowa City's drivers continues to increase unabated. We live near the Regina
schools. Elementary students walk west on Rochester along a sidewalk. Very often they come
within 5-10 feet of deer grazing on the north side of Rochester. That is a child's injury or even
death waiting to happen! Please request that sharpshooting be allowed yet this winter.
Iowa City
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Feed back
Date:Friday, August 4, 2023 12:58:36 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Holy cow I am a very unhappy tax payer! Deer graze in my landscaping daily and have destroyed literally thousands
of dollars in landscaping materials. We’re retired farmers. My husband a was a hunter.
The gorgeous old evergreen was under planted with hosta when we bought this house in 2012. Initially there were
no problems with deer. We purchased additional varieties, some variegated. I got a $50 giant for my birthday, we
drove to Dubuque to get it from a hosta grower.
In the last 5 years our landscaping has been destroyed. There are no hostas on the south side now and the remaining
plants are stems, leaves eaten. I’ve interplanted with other things but it’s real ragged looking.
Yes I spray. Where I can I’ve covered plants with chicken wire and or netting. They eat my vegetables, roses, old
azalea, nearly destroyed old raspberries, they’ve destroyed my blueberries. They knock over the fencing and denude
the second attempt planted right in front of the house.
These are domestic animals! One night we drove up the alley into the back yard after dark. A deer was grazing
the hosta under the landmark evergreen, We honked and flashed our lights. Nothing happened. My husband got out
of the car and charged the deer running and shouting. Nothing happened. He hit the deer on the rump and yelled.
The deer turned his head, looked at him, walked 3 steps and returned to grazing.
They are often in the park in broad daylight.
Please do better!!
Iowa City, IA 52245
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Feedback on current program
Date:Friday, July 28, 2023 4:05:56 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
To whom it may concern:
In a nutshell, the current deer management program is not working. We have lived in our home since 1983. Since
the current plan was put into place, the number of deer that appear in our yard is many times higher than in previous
years and are quite a nuisance. We live within a few blocks of Hickory Hill Park and previous programs were
effective.
We feel this is an important issue and needs to be addressed in a timely manner.
Respectfully,
Iowa City 52245
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Feedback re: deer management
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:52:15 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
I understand the need for and support the harvesting of deer in Iowa City. I believe it needs to
be carried out in the most humane way possible. I strongly object to bow hunting because I
think it is less humane.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:FW: Public input
Date:Monday, July 31, 2023 10:05:35 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
As a long time Iowa City resident and deer hunter, the only viable solution for management is bow
hunting. Hiring sharpshooters is expensive and the funds could be used for other efforts.
There is a shortage of public bow hunting lands around IC, so offering to local bow hunters a win-
win.
Just don’t add unnecessary hoops to jump through like “trainings”. We know how to hunt and be
safe. Just create maps and spell out the rules. Keep it simple. Perhaps a calendar of dates with
individuals given windows of time instead of the whole season.
I participated in the Kent Park shotgun hunt and it was easy, other than the unnecessary in-person
training we all had to attend.
Thanks for taking a practical approach to this long standing problem.
Get Outlook for iOS
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:input on deer management efforts
Date:Wednesday, August 2, 2023 8:10:19 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I've lived in Iowa City since 1993, and I've never seen as many deer in our
current neighborhood as I have the past three years. About two months ago I counted 13
deer in our next-door-neighbors backyard. I've had near-collisions with deer on Rochester
boulevard, we've had deer eat many of our outdoor plants, and I've been bitten by a deer tick
that I acquired from our front yard. We live about a half-mile east of City High School; not a
wooded area. I'm in favor of a multi-pronged approach to try to keep the deer population at a
reasonable and healthy level. I'm in favor of the use of sharpshooters, bow hunters, and
community outreach/education. The sharpshooting may have to be scheduled every few
years, just to keep the overpopulaion in check. Processing the culled deer to stock local food
pantries with venison is a good way to combat two problems at the same time.
Thank you for your time.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Iowa City Deer Management Comments.
Date:Friday, July 28, 2023 4:09:00 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I’m I live at in the Court Hill neighborhood. I have been a resident of
Court Hill for my entire 59 years life.
We have zero deer management in our area it would seem. This summer I have several does with
twins and one doe with triplets roaming the area.
Not to mention many yearlings and young bucks as well. In the winter when they start yarding, you
realize the crazy amount that live within
the narrow habitats of the Court Hill/Washington area. After the 2019 shoot we saw no decrease in
deer in our area. And have seen
nothing but increased or steady population in our area for many years now. I have not seen a lily
bloom for over 5 years now. Not even
Hostas are safe. Many people will tell you our deer problems are caused by our development
spreading into the deer’s natural habitat.
I would argue against that, considering I have lived at my address for most of the house’s life since
construction in 1962. At that time there
were open fields to the east with cows mooing, and Court Hill Park was just a field of bachelor
buttons and weeds. What there was not any
of were deer. Whitetail deer did start populating east central Iowa again until the DNR started
spreading them for recreational hunting purposes
in the mid and late 60’s. Due to mismanagement, the deer became over populated, forcing many
into the urban areas where generations have become
accustomed to living well amongst the humans. If you could remove all urban deer from a city, it
would take years for the “wild” country deer
to reestablish in that urban area and become used to the human neighbors in the way they are in
Iowa City. Anyway, I do not have the answer for
our area since there are not really any safe spots for shooting. And bow hunting would be very tight
as well, given that deer usually run quite a distance after
an arrow hit. It’s too bad we can’t dart (tranquilize) the deer and remove them in that fashion. As
much as I love watching them, I hate having them.
We need to do something.
Thank you,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Iowa City deer management comments
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:39:42 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Living near Hickory Hill Park, puts my neighborhood in a deer hotspot. My impression is the
number of deer visits have continued to increase over the last five years or longer. Even my
winter squash plants and privet hedge are no longer safe from the "delightful munching
monsters" which lurk in our yards night and day.
I have started to replace most plants they favor, fenced trees and shrubs with plastic and
burlap, and sprayed deer repellent just to damp down the destruction to a mild roar.
The homes on my block form a large park-like area in the back, which would seem to be an
ideal place for hunters to harvest some deer. While I have mentioned the idea to a few
neighbors, I also suspect they are not excited by the idea. There are numerous children that
play in the backyards, so safety is a concern. I'm also guessing the parents would not like
having to explain the sight of dead deer being dragged through yards or possible blood trails.
(Having grown up in the country with hunters in the household, it wouldn't bother me, but I'm
likely an exception.)
In general, I would like to see the sharpshooting effort return. Humans have eliminated most,
or all, natural deer predators. Our choice seems deal with them ourselves or rish being
overrun.
Thanks for the opportunity to express some thoughts. Good luck.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Iowa city deer management suggestion
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:11:21 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. ** Recall, my family are at the deer hunters. However, it is my belief
that the best thing to do for the deer is to stop tearing down and taking away their habits. Limit
or stop building in their habitat. If we don’t, we’re going to continue to see more deer in our
populated areas. We are the ones causing the problem, not them. It’s unfortunate that they are
the ones having to pay for it with their lives.
Thank you in advance for listening.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:22:02 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
I hate the urban bow hunting. We continue to encroach on wildlife’s habitat and animals pay the
price. Can they be “shot” with some time of sterilizer/birth control that would perhaps leave a
defined marking so as not to be resterilized?
Just a thought…
From:
To:DeerManagement
Date:Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:39:49 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Good morning,
Thanks for asking for input. I can only imagine what kinds of responses you are
getting.
I live on the west side of town and see deer very often in Willow Creek Park. They
also are going after gardens on Cambria Ct., Jemma Ct, and I believe on Cae Drive.
Two weeks ago, I shooed one away from the Hospice garden where it was munching
on the hostas. We have one doe with three fawns and I've seen at least one buck.
Earlier this month I saw five adults (probably does) wandering together through the
west side of the park. Nothing deters them, including barking dogs.
Until two years ago, I saw exactly one deer over here, and that was 25 years ago.
Clearly, they have moved in quickly and are propagating at a rapid rate.
I love animals in nature, but there are just too many deer here. They are damaging
trees, large and small, and trampling/eating gardens. I'm not a big fan of bow hunting
because it isn't as instantaneous as shooting, but I really would like to see the deer
disappear from city/private property. Also, so many people use Willow Creek Park
trails and greenspace, which makes me wonder about the possible prevalence of
deer ticks.
So, if the herd over here can be eliminated in a humane way, I'm in favor of that.
Thanks,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Our deer comcerns
Date:Sunday, August 6, 2023 9:09:33 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
We live just west of Weber school, and city development has occurred west of us, on former ag ground. We used to
see deer in that area, grazing after harvest within the west-most area of Iowa City.
In the last few years—six or seven, since development began—we have had deer in our yard, occasionally,
sometimes as many as 5 or 6 at a time running through the back yard. Right now, we seem to have just one, a young
buck who has appeared occasionally since spring and who hangs out in the area we’ve devoted to prairie and woods.
Yesterday, however, our son spotted a doe with 2 fawns in our backyard.
So we are not dealing with an inundation, by any means!
However, I’ve already had Lyme, last summer, after sitting for a while in our backyard. We found a dead tick on me
and saw the telltale ring of rash, so I got antibiotic treatment at UI Healthcare and am fine—I assume.
More concisely, deer don’t "just" pose car-crash issues and garden destruction—they are part of the Lyme disease
circuit of infection and spread!
Additionally iowa deer are known to carry Covid!
Time for the sharpshooters, I believe.
Thank you.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Personal opinion
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:15:26 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
This is just my opinion and does not reflect anyone else.
1. We have too many deer living in close proximity to high density population areas. It is unsafe for drivers, walkers
and the deer.
2. I am very uncomfortable having amateur bow hunters shooting arrows off in proximity to residents, including
children and pets.
3. I recommend the use of professional sharp shooters as warranted by the deer population.
Thank you for the chance to offer my opinions.
Iowa City, IA 52245
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:please help
Date:Saturday, July 29, 2023 8:33:55 AM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
We are deeply upset about the amount of deer that are present daily. We have a fenced yard
that the deer find a way and eat our lovely garden. We try to make our property an asset to the
neighborhood only to have it destroyed by deer.
We have a garden plot in Chadek City garden and the deer eat off our vegetable plants. They
are not just an occasional one walking through but are constantly seen, any time during the
day, and often in groups of 3 or 4 or more. It is very frustrating.
Our major concern is the likely high occurrence of LIme Disease. It is a public health problem
to have deer in our yards and parks where children play and everyone is vulnerable. It is a
devastating disease if left unchecked and we must reduce the deer population to keep it under
control.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Solutions for the deer epidemic
Date:Monday, July 31, 2023 3:35:36 PM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Deer problems in Timber Trails.docx
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Deer-Management@iowa-city.org
I am a member of the Timber Trails Homeowners Association (TTHA) which lies along
Newport Rd just off of Prairie du Chien Rd, and which also faces a deer problem. I counted 46 on a
corn stubble field across from my property. I have attached a memo that was circulated to TTHA
members last April. Since that time a group of concerned individuals from four countries and seven
states have been putting together an essay dealing with the deer problem in Iowa and large
predator control in general. This will be subsequently sent to the attention of secretaries Vilsack and
Naig and distributed to several newspapers and the editor of “Outdoors Iowa”. In 1971 deer were a
rarity in Iowa City, but their population has reached epidemic proportion across the state primarily
due to the conversion of Iowa agriculture to a corn monoculture for the production of ethanol. Not
surprisingly large animal predators followed them. In penning our essay, we have worked with
faculty in wildlife management and wildlife diseases at UW-Madison.
A decade ago, a cougar (Mt lion) appeared on my property and the DNR denied their
existence but have since killed six in Iowa. Another “cougar kill” occurred on my fenced property in
March. 40% of deer in SW Wisconsin carry the COVID 19 virus, transmissible to humans, but the DNR
in Iowa keeps no such records and has not reported this result to the public. So much for the Iowa
DNR.
The obvious solution for Iowa is similar to those used in other states, such as requiring a
hunter to kill one doe before the hunter is allowed to kill a buck. Horns are good for decorating your
walls but controlling “horny females” is more effective. In addition, why are we killing the predators
that help control the deer population? Cougars are solitary hunters, travel 30-50 miles per day in
search of deer and are unlikely to attack a human in Iowa. They did not return to Iowa to attack
humans, or they would have done it much earlier; humans were always available but large numbers
of deer, their natural prey, only more recently.
If you are interested, we can in the future provide you with our essay on the subject.
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:thoughts
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:13:48 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hello,
I'm very supportive of any efforts to diminish the deer population, lethal and non-lethal
efforts. Tick-borne diseases are rising because of deer populations and climate change (and
other factors). Here's one article sharing the research:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tick-borne-babesiosis-disease-cases-rising-cdc-
rcna75276
Thank you,
Iowa City
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Too many deer!
Date:Thursday, August 3, 2023 1:54:51 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Dear Sirs,
I live at and have seen an explosion in the number deer in the area. There are far more than
before we were annexed into the city. They are very destructive and seemed to have lost their fear of humans. I am
for any methods to control their numbers. In fact, my deck is offered as a “ tree stand” for sharp shooters or hunters
to help put meat into the food bank.
Thank you,
From:
To:DeerManagement
Subject:Too many deer
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:22:59 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Hi,
I am ok with the city thinning the deer out. I live near Hickory Hill. Last year/ year and half
there was 10 to 15 deer in my yard every evening, eating every plant. That is, until they were
thinned out. Now one to three are in my yard infrequently and much of my yard isn't eaten up.
I saw two new bucks, two females, and babies this month a couple times, however.
Thanks,
2022 - 202 3
CITY OF IOWA CITY
DEER MANAGEMENT
ANNUAL REPORT
The Iowa City City Council adopted a Deer Management Plan in 2019. This plan was developed
in collaboration with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and local public input and was
approved through the Iowa Natural Resource Commission. The Plan includes one year of
professional sharpshooting, four years of urban bow hunts, and ongoing public education. To
learn more please visit www.icgov.org/deerprogram.
CONTENTS
• Background
• Deer Collisions + Complaints
• Non-Lethal Deer Management
• Depredation & Urban Bow Hunt Results
• DNR Aerial Survey Results (Attached)
• Analysis & Looking Ahead
2
BACKGROUND
Iowa City’s Deer Management Plan was formed in response to resident concerns about deer in
urban and suburban areas. A deer count survey conducted in 2018 revealed the urban deer
population had tripled since the City ceased its deer management program in 2010. After
coordinating with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and soliciting public input,
the City Council adopted a Deer Management Plan in 2019. This plan was submitted to the Iowa
Natural Resource Commission (NRC) and included one year of professional sharpshooting, four
years of urban bow hunts, and ongoing public education. A full timeline and history of the City’s
deer management response is available at www.icgov.org/deerprogram.
Public Input
In 2018, a deer committee was formed of both City staff and community members. On August
14, 2018, approximately 60 community members attended a public input meeting held to
discuss deer population management. Staff offered additional opportunities for providing input
for those unable to attend the public forum.
In August 2020, City staff met with members of the Iowa City Deer Friends to receive feedback
and incorporate their input into the rules for the 2020-2021 urban bow hunt. Members of the
public also addressed the City Council during four City Council meetings at which the urban bow
hunt rules and deer feeding ordinance were on the agendas.
In July 2022, the City held a Deer Management Listening Session. City staff, DNR staff, the
media, and seven members of the public were in attendance. City staff provided an overview of
the history and current deer management strategies and then opened the floor for public
comment and questions, a summary of which is provided below:
• Multiple residents from Manville Heights neighborhood expressed concerns about the
growing deer population and the resulting challenges, including reports of erratic driving
from people avoiding deer in the road, damage to landscaping and gardens, deer
sleeping near housing structures, and concerns about the spread of ticks and Lyme
Disease.
• Comments in opposition to the bow hunt in general were shared, including one
participant against any deer culling efforts and another expressing preference for
sharpshooting over bow hunting.
• Concerns were shared that the first two years of bow hunt have produced inadequate
results and low interest from hunters and property owners.
• A comment encouraged the City to utilize wildlife crossings (vegetated bridges) where
deer/vehicle accidents are most prevalent.
• Comment thanking the City for promotion of non-lethal strategies and suggesting
additional.
• Comment from near east-side resident (Green Mountain) that deer population is
becoming a challenge and that some owners in the neighborhood have single-acre+ lots
that could be used for hunting.
• Comment from far east side (Scott to Taft) that deer population is not a significant
challenge, but the educational/informational material has been helpful.
3
Additionally, the DNR staff shared comments about the success of urban bow hunts in other
Iowa communities and that it takes time to grow awareness, trust, and interest in the hunt. City
staff encouraged participants to promote opportunities for both property owners and hunters to
contact the City if they are interested in being involved in the hunt. Additionally, staff shared that
planning for a new deer management plan (to replace the current 2020 – 2025 plan), will begin
mid-2023 with additional input opportunities offered during that process.
Members of the public are invited to provide ongoing input on the City’s deer management
activities by contacting City staff or City Council members. Typically, this correspondence
occurs when a property owner experiences a deer-related issue and wishes to share
suggestions for managing the deer population. The City will report annually to City Council on
deer management and population estimates for the remainder of the long-term deer
management plan. Residents are invited to provide comments during this time or may address
councilors during the public comment period at any regular City Council meeting.
State Collaboration
The City maintains close collaboration with staff from the DNR regarding implementation of the
Long-Term Deer Management Plan. The City has sought input from DNR staff before and after
the last two urban bow hunts and have incorporated many of their suggestions.
In preparation for the 2022-2023 urban bow hunt season, City staff again sought input from the
DNR to discuss strategies for improving the effectiveness of the bow hunt program. City and
DNR staff met in Iowa City in March 2022 to discuss challenges and opportunities for the hunt.
Following this meeting, City and DNR staff planned to conduct joint data analysis to identify top
areas of concern where the City could explore targeting specific property owners to participate
in deer culling activities. Additionally, the City was provided contact information of urban bow
hunt coordinators from Polk County, Pleasant Hill, and Des Moines to learn more about other
cities’ successes and challenges.
Staff followed up with these contacts in July 2022. Below is a summary of feedback collected
from each of these entities who are in varying states of longevity and success in their programs:
• Lack of public land or recruited private land to offer hunters is a deterrent to hunter
participation. Suggested coordinating with interested property owners in target areas to
connect them with approved hunters.
• Continue offering buck incentive program and longer season incentives.
• Demonstrate long-term commitment to bow hunt.
• Promote hunt opportunity through local outdoorsmen and sportsmen groups.
• No entity had found a non-lethal method that was effective enough to manage population.
• Educate the public on hunter motives and training and safety and efficacy data from
longstanding urban bow hunts around the state.
• Maintenance of density level is key. Deer will re-populate exponentially if left unchecked.
Social tolerance can disappear rapidly after rutting season, at which point a quick solution
is not possible.
4
Both City and DNR staff recognize that shifting social and political comfort levels with the
program in Iowa City is a work in progress. Staff intend to continue refining the urban bow hunt
program in collaboration with the DNR and NRC. However, the City may need to explore
sharpshooting in targeted areas to help manage growing deer levels while the Urban Bow Hunt
program continues to be improved and gain traction as a more reliable deer management tool.
DEER COLLISIONS & COMPLAINTS
Vehicle & Deer Collisions
Between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, the Iowa City Police Department received
28 calls for service involving vehicular collisions with deer, with the associated total estimated
damage costs totaling $101,500. All deer/vehicle accidents in result in a call-for-service to police
(minor collisions may be dealt with without police involvement).
An interactive map showing locations of vehicle-deer collisions over the years is available at
www.icgov.org/deerprogram.
2021 Vehicle-Deer Collisions (Iowa City Police Department)
Date Location of Deer Collision Total Estimated Damage
1/20/2022 ASHWOOD DR AND ROCHESTER AVE $2,000
2/18/2022 1200 N. DUBUQUE ST $2,000
2/21/2022 CAMP CARDINAL BLVD/KENNEDY PKWY $4,000
2/22/2022 MORMON TREK BLVD $1,000
3/30/2022 IA 1 N $1,500
4/1/2022 US 218 SB @93 $5,000
4/9/2022 MELROSE AVE $2,000
4/14/2022 IA 1 N $5,000
5/5/2022 OLD HIGHWAY 218 SIGNED ROUTE $2,000
5/22/2022 218NB 94MM $10,000
5/26/2022 IA 1 N $3,000
5/31/2022 MORMON TREK BLVD $2,000
6/1/2022 US 218 N 92MM $2,500
7/8/2022 1801 SOUTH RIVERSIDE DR $2,000
7/9/2022 218/93SB $3,000
7/9/2022 I 80 W NEAR 244 MM $2,000
7/17/2022 US 218 S $7,000
5
7/26/2022 HWY1/SUNSET $3,000
7/27/2022 US 218 N 93MM $1,500
8/30/2022 MELROSE AVE AND MCBRIDE RD $5,000
11/12/2022 218 N/92 $500
11/12/2022 601 HWY 6 W $1,000
11/13/2022 US 218 S n/a
11/29/2022 3590 HIGHWAY 1 S.W. $5,000
12/2/2022 NORTH RIVERSIDE DR $9,500
12/15/2022 HAWKINS DR AND ROCKY SHORE DR
AND US 6 W $15,000
12/19/2022 COURT ST $3,000
12/24/2022 US 218 S $2,000
2022 Deer-Related Calls and Complaints
The City received 21 e-mailed comments and complaints related to deer in 2022 (eight more
complaints than 2021 and 15 more than 2020), several phone calls (which are not tracked as
closely), and eight deer-related complaints submitted through ICgovXpress, the platform for
reporting concerns to the City.
51 54 58 57
14
36
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Number of Deer-Vehicle Collisions in Iowa City
6
Three of the 18 e-mails received were either in opposition to lethal deer management or
encouraging more promotion of non-lethal strategies. One e-mail was from a hunter perspective
sharing reasons for hesitance to join Iowa City’s bow hunt program. 17 e-mails were from
residents complaining about population levels, landscaping and garden damage, and
expressing that the City’s current deer management efforts are not working.
Notably, in 2022 several of the complaints mentioned observing groups of deer as large as 14-
17 in their yards. Multiple complainants
also shared longitudinal perspective
from having resided in the same house
for decades (one as long as 50 years),
sharing that the problem has been
worsening and/or that 2022 was the
worst year for deer-related issues.
In addition to concerns from the public,
the City Parks Division has reported
that deer have become a large issue in
terms of tree health and damage to
public trees caused by deer is routinely
observed throughout the City.
NON-LETHAL DEER MANAGEMENT
Iowa City’s Long-Term Deer Management Plan includes a series of activities for the City to
provide, consider, or develop. Non-lethal management actions taken to date include:
• Publishing of a comprehensive set of deer management related webpages at
www.icgov.org/deerprogram. Content includes background information, FAQs, non-lethal
management tips, links to resources, a map of deer-vehicle collisions, and other content
referenced in the Long-Term Deer Management Plan.
• Passing an ordinance which prohibits the feeding of deer and issued communications
notifying residents.
• Issuing utility-bill inserts, news releases, and social media posts, advising residents on
how to minimize deer damage using non-lethal methods.
Currently, there are four Deer Crossing signs installed within Iowa City limits. These are located
at Dubuque Street, north of Kimball Avenue; Dubuque Street, south of the I-80 bridge;
Rochester Avenue, east of First Avenue; and Rochester Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard.
In effort to deter deer from browsing on City-maintained plantings, the City has adopted a
practicing of planting allium species in place of more deer-friendly vegetation, such as hostas.
Map of Known Complaint Locations
7
DEER DEPREDATION RESULTS
The Long-Term Deer Management Plan adopted by City Council and submitted to the Iowa
NRC included one year of professional sharpshooting and a bow hunt in years 2020 – 2024.
Deer Harvest Summary by Year
Year Hunters
Approved
Tags
Purchased
Buck Incentive
Earned
Deer
Harvested
2019 – 2020 Sharpshooting n/a n/a n/a 500
2020 – 2021 Urban Bow Hunt 5 15 0 3
2021-2022 Urban Bow Hunt 5 15 1 4
2022 – 2023 Urban Bow Hunt 12 46 6 29
2019 – 2020 Professional Sharpshooting
The City contracted with White Buffalo Inc., a wildlife management organization, to conduct
the 2019-2020 professional sharpshooting deer cull. White Buffalo Inc. provided a full report of
the cull results in March 2020. Approximately 500 deer were harvested through the sharpshoot.
The meat from the deer (estimated to be approximately 30,000 pounds) was tested for safety by
the Iowa DNR and then processed and donated to local food banks.
2020 – 2021 Urban Bow Hunt
A total of 14 tags were purchased between the five approved hunters. Of those tags, three deer
were harvested during the 2020-2021 urban bow hunt. All the deer were harvested on private
property per the hunt rules.
2021 – 2022 Urban Bow Hunt
A total of 15 tags were purchased between the five approved hunters. Of those tags, four deer
were harvested on private property per the hunt rules and one buck incentive was earned. Prior
to the 2021 – 2022 season, the City implemented several changes to the program as
recommended by the DNR staff, including: lengthening the application period, opening the hunt
season earlier, and increasing the quota from 75 deer to 200 deer.
2022 – 2023 Urban Bow Hunt
The application period, quota, and season duration changes implemented in the 2021-2022 bow
hunt were maintained. Additionally, following recommendations from DNR staff, other
communities, and public input, the City introduced a few new outreach efforts to the 2022-2023
Urban Bow Hunt:
• Private property owners were asked to submit their interest and willingness to provide
land for hunters, which the City would then help connect to approved hunters and
cooperative property owners.
• The City reached out to key property owners in target areas with the highest deer
densities to consider participating.
8
• The City worked with a local outfitter to promote the hunt opportunity with local hunting,
outdoorsmen, and sportsmen groups.
As a result of these changes, two private properties with large natural areas participated in the
bow hunt, which helped more hunters participate and resulted in a significant increase in the
number of deer harvested. Several other property owners expressed interest in participating in
the future, and a few who expressed interest were deemed ineligible due to not meeting the 150’
separation requirement.
The City’s 2022- 2023 bow hunt season began on September 17, 2022 and ended on January
10, 2023. The City of Iowa City accepted applications for bow hunters until October 20, 2022.
Thirteen hunters applied and twelve were accepted for the hunt. All approved hunters held a
valid DNR hunting License, completed the required qualifications at Fin & Feather, and
submitted the appropriate paperwork with the City regarding their hunt locations.
A total of 46 tags were purchased between the 12 approved hunters. Of those tags, 29 deer
were harvested during the 2021-2022 bow hunt. All the deer were harvested on private property
per the hunt rules. There was one complaint from a hunter about a stand being located too close
to a sidewalk, which was discovered to be in compliance when investigated.
DNR # Doe Button Buck Buck Total Harvest
1269596 0
866190879 3 2 5
712186386 1 1
4465621 3 1 4
1738095 3 3
2672145-455268 3 3
1000522239 1 1
586414070 3 3
2617694 8 8
1000277157 1 1
Total harvested: 26 2 1 29
No reporting violations occurred. Six buck incentive tags were earned, which means those five
hunters will be eligible for a buck tag for the 2023-2023 urban bow hunt season.
The voluntary participation of several large property owners resulted in a significant increase the
number of deer harvested over prior years. However, it is important not to depend too heavily on
this factor as property participation is entirely voluntary and could change from year to year.
9
AERIAL DEER SURVEY & DENSITY ESTIMATES
On February 22, 2023, the Iowa DNR conducted an aerial deer survey in Iowa City and
observed 382 deer in all zones. In previous years, deer density estimates were provided by
zone; however, density estimates were not included this year as DNR staff advised that the best
data is trend in deer observed numbers over a long period of time.
The DNR also advises that aerial surveys provide a snapshot of levels but that a variety of
factors influence the day-to-day movement of deer throughout the area. Variance in numbers
from aerial surveys year to year can be due to variables including weather, food availability,
days of snow cover, etc.
Iowa City Aerial Surveys and Deer Observed
Zone Acres Sq Miles 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2008 2021 2022 2023
A 1,398 2.18 37 60 74 64 29 76 71 170 80 15 180 72
B 669 1.05 69 154 81 33 30 30 19 5 2 3 20 9
C 808 1.26 78 90 99 39 36 60 43 46 33 30 87 125 D 1,489 2.33 65 127 140 38 25 100 88 65 36 103 130
E 958 1.50 0 0 7 12 0 12 9 41 19 21 79 49
F 1,594 2.49 11 15 48 42 15 74 65 80 32 19 66 30
G 993 1.55 3 0 4 0 0 0 5 43 35 13 4 6
H 1,187 1.85 6 31 48 24 23 42 6 53 26 20 24 58
I 1,239 1.94 49 79 197 99 43 169 109 101 39 15 25 33
Total 318 556 698 351 201 563 415 604 302 239 615 382
Note: Professional sharpshooting to manage deer occurred in 2000 – 2009 and ceased in 2010. One year of
professional sharpshooting was again completed in 2020 and culled approximately 500 deer.
318
556
698
351
201
563
415
604
302 239
615
382
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2008 2021 2022 2023Total # Deer ObservedIowa City Aerial Survey: Deer Observed by Year (all zones)
10
Iowa City Aerial Survey Zone Map (with number of deer observed added in RED)
33
6
72
125
58
9
30 49
11
ANALYSIS & LOOKING AHEAD
Looking holistically at the variety of datasets collected by the City (including deer-vehicle
collisions, location of public complaints, and the aerial deer survey), top areas of concern for
deer population levels include the belt stretching from Manville Heights east through
Morningside-Glendale and Washington Hills and north around Hickory Hill Park and the
Bluffwood/Shimek neighborhoods.
While recruiting property owners for the 2022-2023 bow hunt, the City mapped potential bow
hunting areas in Iowa City which met the 150’ separation requirements. Fortunately, the
participation of two large property owners in the northeast region of Iowa City, where population
levels are estimated to be the highest, resulted in a higher deer harvest count in the 2022-2023
bow hunt.
However, it is important to remember that property owner participation is voluntary and not
guaranteed from year to year. Should one of these properties change use, ownership or
otherwise decline to participate in future bow hunts, it is unlikely the City would see similar
harvest results. As such, the lack of eligible hunting land in Iowa City remains a top concern
about the City’s ability to effectively manage deer population levels moving forward.
The current Long-Term Deer Management Plan concludes with a final 2023-2024 urban bow
hunt. Preparation for the next urban bow hunt and planning for a new deer management plan
will begin in Summer 2023.
Attachments:Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Athletic Fields
Item Number: IP6.
August 10, 2023
Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Athletic Fields
Attachments:Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 1
Item Number: IP7.
August 10, 2023
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 1
Attachments:Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 2
Item Number: IP8.
August 10, 2023
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 2
Attachments:Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: August 3
Item Number: IP9.
August 10, 2023
Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: August 3
Attachments:Airport Commission: July 13
Item Number: IP10.
August 10, 2023
Airport Commission: July 13