HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 10.04.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Zoning Code Amendment Items
4. Case No. REZ23-0001
(continued discussion of accessory apartments from 8/2)
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to improve housing choice, increase
housing supply, and encourage affordability.
5. Consideration of meeting minutes: August 16, 2023
6. Planning and Zoning Information
7. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: October 20 / November 1 / November 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: October 4, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to related to accessory apartments 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 proposed several amendments to Title 14 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.
Staff presented these proposed amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission at their
meeting on August 2. The Commission recommended approval with the exception of standards
relating to accessory apartments and directed staff to solicit more public feedback regarding those
changes. After additional public engagement, staff is bringing the proposed amendments relating
to accessory apartments back to the Commission for consideration with no further changes.
Background
One of several ways the City is looking to help meet the need for additional housing is to
encourage accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), carriage
houses, or in-law suites. Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwellings units located
as a subordinate use on the same lot as a primary home and come in a variety of shapes, sizes,
and configurations. Possible ADU arrangements, including detached and attached units, interior
lower- or upper-level units, above-garage units, and garage conversions. This allows them to fit
discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban
neighborhoods.
The proposed changes to accessory apartment standards will encourage their construction and
help meet the need for additional housing. Iowa City currently anticipates a demand for over 4,600
additional residences by 2030 but is currently only expected to meet 61% of that projected
demand based on recent building permit trends. This suggests that Iowa City has a housing
supply shortage which drives up the cost of housing. In addition, accessory apartments tend to
have lower construction costs than other housing types that are typically larger.
October 4, 2023
Page 2
Current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction of ADUs in most areas of the
city. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for the elderly and persons with disabilities in 1987 and widened
occupancy to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that change,
construction has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at an average
rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 1). Of these, nearly one third (16) were constructed as part of
the Peninsula neighborhood. Staff estimates that approximately 9,947 single-family dwellings are
currently allowed to build an ADU. Removing barriers to ADU development allows an incremental
increase in housing supply in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of neighborhoods.
Figure 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023
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. Over the long run, these proposed changes should help better align
the supply of housing with the demand and do so in such a way that provides a greater diversity
of housing types throughout the city.
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 preventing the construction of housing types that are smaller and more
affordable than detached single-family homes. By implementing these strategies, the City can
become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all
residents.
Public Engagement
The proposed changes are based on existing policies and goals in plans and studies reviewed
and adopted by Council over the course of several years (beginning in 2016). These include the
City’s 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, 2019 Fair Housing Study, 2022 Affordable Housing
Action Plan Update, and most recently, City Council’s FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. These plans
were developed after multiple rounds of outreach, including surveys, public meetings, focus
groups, and interviews. They were also reviewed and adopted through public processes. Relevant
policies and goals adopted by Council are discussed in the analysis section below.
In addition, staff held 2 open houses on September 13 and 14 to gain additional input from the
public regarding proposed changes to ADU standards. 58 people signed into the open houses,
and additional members of the public attended but did not sign the sheet. Staff also distributed a
survey at the open houses and online. In total, 51 people provided responses. The full responses
to the survey are available in Attachment 1. Feedback obtained in these surveys include the
following:
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
Ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
U
n
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
October 4, 2023
Page 3
• Allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit was the only proposed
change about which a majority of respondents (57%) indicated concern.
• A majority of respondents indicated that all other proposed changes, except for those
related to allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit, were not a
concern.
• The proposed change that provoked the second most concern in respondents (45%),
though not a majority, was no longer requiring a parking space for an accessory
apartment.
• Only a third or less of respondents indicated concerned with other proposed changes.
Staff has also received some correspondence specifically related to these amendments.
Correspondence received at the time of the publishing of this packet are available in Attachment
2.
The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 3) provides more detailed background regarding the
including the public engagement process and rationale that lead to the proposed changes. Over
the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its affordable
housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps meant to execute these adopted
policies and goals.
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Proposed changes to ADU standards are based on recommendations made by Johnson County’s
Livable Community for Successful Aging (JCLC) Housing Action Team and align with policy
efforts made by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). JCLC serves as a unifying
structure that fosters effective collaboration, communication, and education to build and sustain
a livable community for successful aging. Action teams, such as that on housing, focus on specific
topic areas and are comprised of public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders. A summary of current
and proposed standards, in addition to rationale for each change, can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Current & Proposed Regulations
Current Standard Proposed Standard Rationale for Change
Must be accessory to
detached single-family
uses
May be accessory to
attached or detached
single-family uses, in
addition to duplex uses
This change increases the supply of lots
that may allow ADUs while maintaining
the existing character of neighborhoods.
Only allowed in certain
zones (RS-5, RS-8, RM-
12, RM-20, & RNS-20)
Allowed in all zones that
allow residential uses
(includes RNS-12, RM-
44, PRM, MU, and some
other commercial zones)
ADUs should be treated like other
residential uses, so they should be
permitted in all zones that allow single-
family or duplex uses.
Owner must live on-site;
a rental permit is
required
Owner is not required to
live on-site; a rental
permit is still required
ADUs should be treated like other
residential uses. Owner occupancy is not
regulated in any other context in the
zoning code. Occupancy requirements
are also a barrier because they limit how
successive owners can use property
(complicating sales from divorce, job
transfer, or death) and make financing
more difficult.
Requires 1 off-street
parking space for
accessory apartment
No off-street parking
required for accessory
apartment
Requiring an off-street parking space for
an ADU is a barrier because off-street
parking adds cost, and lot characteristics
and topography can create challenges for
siting a new parking space.
October 4, 2023
Page 4
Limited to 1 bedroom
and 2 occupants
Bedrooms and
occupants limited by
rental permit and
maximum size limits
ADUs should be treated like other
residential uses, so rental standards
should apply to determine maximum
number of bedrooms and occupancy
(specifically that no more than 35% of the
unit may consist of bedrooms). However,
the City still recommends a maximum size
requirements to ensure that the ADU is
subordinate to the principle use without
being overly restrictive.
Size limited to the lesser
of 650 square feet, 30%
of the floor area if in the
main building, or 50% of
the floor area if in an
accessory building
Size limited to the lesser
of 1,000 square feet or
50% of the floor area of
the main building
An accessory apartment
cannot increase the
floor area of the main
building by over 10%
The square footage for
an accessory apartment
is restricted by maximum
size limits
ADUs should be treated like other
residential uses, so building an ADU in an
independent building or in an addition
should be possible.
Does not allow a
standalone accessory
apartment
Allows a standalone
accessory apartment
Buildings with an
attached accessory
apartment must
appear to be a detached
single-family home, so
new entrances must
face side or rear lot line
Buildings with an
attached accessory
apartment must
appear to be a use
allowed in the zone;
entrance locations are
not dictated
ADUs should be treated like other
residential uses, so the location of
entrances should not be more restrictive
than for primary residences. In addition,
requiring an ADU entrance on the side or
rear of the house can compromise the
design and increase the cost.
In general, the proposed changes are intended to remove barriers to the construction of ADUs
and ultimately increase the supply of housing. However, they also are intended to acknowledge
accessory apartments as a legitimate use, and therefore they should be treated like other
residential uses on the property. Staff continues to recommend that the owner-occupancy
requirement for ADUs be removed on this basis and with the understanding that policies geared
towards ADUs are intended to increase the supply of housing in a meaningful way. All relevant
lot standards still need to be met, including minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum
accessory building height, and minimum open space which ensures that they fit into the
neighborhood as well as any other allowed use. Staff also proposes that lots must meet the
minimum lot size to allow an accessory apartment.
Analysis
Overall, the proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by allowing ADUs in all
zones that allow household living uses and by expanding the building types to which ADUs can
be accessory to any lot with up to 2 dwelling units. Figure 3 shows parcels that currently allow
ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs under the proposed amendments
(yellow). The most notable changes are that ADUs would be allowed in areas that are zoned
RNS-12, that are zoned lower density multi-family, and areas that contain 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 expand the lots on which
ADUs are allowed by approximately 1,400 ADUs as noted in Figure 4.
The proposed amendment would also 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. This could potentially allow ADUs on just over another 3,000 new ADUs for single-
family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental permit (Figure
4). However, removing the owner-occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the
University due to a higher number of single-family rental units in that area. In a recent analysis
from June 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
October 4, 2023
Page 5
owner-occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those
gained from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. However, 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 3: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Apartments: Current and Proposed
Figure 4: Estimated Number of Lots City-Wide that May Accommodate ADUs
Lots
Lots that may currently allow ADUs 9,947
New lots that may allow ADUs by expanding permitted zones and uses 1,403
New lots that may allow ADUs by removing the owner-occupancy requirement 3,073
Total lots that may allow ADUs under proposed amendments 14,423
Encouraging accessory apartments provides several benefits in addition to increasing the housing
supply and diversity throughout neighborhoods. ADUs can be used to:
• Provide convenient living arrangements for families, caretakers, and/or older homeowners.
• Reduce negative historical impacts created by exclusionary zoning.
• Improve affordability for homeowners by creating extra income.
• Provide opportunities for people seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents, and
locations.
• Create compact growth which positively impacts the environment.
• Enhance job opportunities by providing housing near transit and job centers.
• Accommodate development in a cost-effective way.
October 4, 2023
Page 6
Because of these benefits, encouraging ADUs in existing neighborhoods generally supports the
City’s sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, and reduced parking
encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation.
Comparable Communities
Staff looked at comparable communities to identify how other local jurisdictions are regulating
ADUs, including other large cities in Iowa and other college towns. Other jurisdictions use a range
of different parameters. Many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU regulations to
enhance their supply of housing, similar to Iowa City. These changes include things such as
removing the owner-occupancy and off-street parking requirements, increasing allowed sizes,
and expanding the number of ADUs allowed on a site to 2 or allowing ADUs to be accessory to
lots with two units. In some cases, the maximum size and/or parking requirements are dependent
on the size of the lot or unit. A summary of the ADU standards for comparable communities can
be found in Figure 5. In general, many of the proposed changes are in line with other communities
with similar situations to Iowa City, though each community has a unique set of regulations based
on their circumstances.
Figure 5: ADU Standards for Comparable Communities
City Ownership
Required
Max. Size Limits Occupancy
Limits
Design Parking
Required
Cedar
Rapids,
Iowa
No 1,000 sq. ft. but
not to exceed
footprint of
primary structure
None 2 ADUs allowed per lot,
1 attached & 1
detached; no other
requirements
1 space
Ann Arbor,
Michigan
No 600 sq. ft. for lots
up to 7,200 sq.
ft; 800 sq. ft. for
lots 7,200 sq. ft.
or more
2
occupants
max.
No requirements No
Madison,
Wisconsin
Yes, i.e.
must be
owner-
occupied
900 sq. ft. 2
bedrooms
max.
Entries in a rear or side
yard shall be connected
to a street by a paved
walkway or driveway;
must be above a garage
in certain zones
No
Des Moines,
Iowa
Yes, i.e.
must be
owner-
occupied
50% of primary
structure floor
area (if
detached,
greater of 576
sq. ft. or 25% of
rear yard)
Max.
bedrooms
based on
sq. ft.
Must match primary
structure with regards to
roof, materials, color,
and character; only one
entrance to a house with
an ADU may face a
street
1 space
Fayetteville,
Arkansas
No 1,200 sq. ft. 2
occupants
max.
2 ADUs allowed per lot,
1 attached & 1
detached; 2-story ADUs
shall limit access stairs,
decks, entries &
windows to walls facing
primary structure or
alley
1 space
if ADU is
larger
than 800
sq. ft.
(may be
on-
street)
Durham,
North
Carolina
No 800 sq. ft. but
not to exceed
50% of the
primary structure
floor area
None May be accessory to
single-family or duplex
uses; can only extend
forward to the rear 25%
of the primary structure
No
October 4, 2023
Page 7
Best Practices
The proposed amendments regarding accessory apartments 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
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.
• 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.
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
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, the AARP has drafted an optimal Model Local ADU
Ordinance, which identifies the following ways to help encourage ADUs:
• ADUs should be allowed in all zones that allow single-family residential uses/
• ADUs should only require those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on
neighboring properties/
• Treat ADUs like other uses in the zone; this may include removing requirements for owner-
occupancy if not regulated by zoning/
• Eliminating off-street parking requirements reduces the cost and difficulty of building ADUs.
• ADUs should be allowed administratively (i.e. without discretionary approvals).
• Limit design requirements which increase the cost of building ADUs.
• Standards relating to neighborhood character can be problematic (especially if subjective).
As noted above, 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), and that infill development should add to
the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over-burdening
infrastructure (IC2030 p.21). 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)
• Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older
parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29).
October 4, 2023
Page 8
• 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)
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…[p]ermit[ing] 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
housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice
Study, Strategy 1.1)
• 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.
(2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan – Development Regulations 1); The plan also
specifically suggests that the City should consider ADU’s associated with rental housing.
• 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.
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 4 to enhance
land use regulations related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase
housing supply, and encourage affordability.
Attachments
1. Survey Results and Open House Materials
2. Correspondence
3. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice,
increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability
4. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
5. Enlarged Map
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Survey Results and Open House Materials
Accessory Apartment
Open House Survey
Current
Standards
Proposed
Standards
Co
n
c
e
r
n
No
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
Un
s
u
r
e
Must be accessory to detached
single-family use
Must be accessory to single-
family or duplex use
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-
20, & RNS-20)
Allowed in any zone that allows
residential uses (includes RNS-
12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and
some other commercial zones)
Owner must live on-site; a
rental permit is required
Owner is not required to live on-
site; a rental permit is required
Requires 1 off-street parking
space for accessory apartment
No off-street parking required
for accessory apartment
Limited to 1 bedroom and 2
occupants
Bedrooms and occupants
limited by rental permit
Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq
Ft., 30% of the floor area if in
the main building, or 50% of
the floor area if in an accessory
building
Size limited to the lesser of
1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor
area of the main building
Does not allow a standalone
accessory apartment
Allows a standalone accessory
apartment
An accessory apartment cannot
increase the floor area of the
main building by over 10%
The square footage for an
accessory apartment is
restricted by max. size limits
Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must
appear to be a detached single-
family home, so new entrances
must face side or rear lot line
Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must
appear to be a use allowed in
the zone; entrance locations
are not dictated
1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code
are a concern:
-SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK -
Accessory Apartment
Open House Survey
Current
Standards
Proposed
Standards
Co
n
c
e
r
n
No
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
Un
s
u
r
e
Must be accessory to detached
single-family use
Must be accessory to single-
family or duplex use
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-
20, & RNS-20)
Allowed in any zone that allows
residential uses (includes RNS-
12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and
some other commercial zones)
Owner must live on-site; a
rental permit is required
Owner is not required to live on-
site; a rental permit is required
Requires 1 off-street parking
space for accessory apartment
No off-street parking required
for accessory apartment
Limited to 1 bedroom and 2
occupants
Bedrooms and occupants
limited by rental permit
Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq
Ft., 30% of the floor area if in
the main building, or 50% of
the floor area if in an accessory
building
Size limited to the lesser of
1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor
area of the main building
Does not allow a standalone
accessory apartment
Allows a standalone accessory
apartment
An accessory apartment cannot
increase the floor area of the
main building by over 10%
The square footage for an
accessory apartment is
restricted by max. size limits
Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must
appear to be a detached single-
family home, so new entrances
must face side or rear lot line
Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must
appear to be a use allowed in
the zone; entrance locations
are not dictated
1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code
are a concern:
-SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK -
2. What is your age?5. What is your race?
(select all that apply)
6. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin?
7. How would you describe your
living situation?
4. What is your zip code?
Have any questions? Please contact:
Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247
or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org
Under 18 years
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74
75 years and over
3. With which gender do you most
identify?
Male
Female
Non-Binary/Non-
Conforming
__________________________
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Other:
__________________________
Yes
No
Live in a home owned by
you or someone in your
household
Live in a home rented by
you or someone in your
household
Other:
__________________________
2. What is your age?5. What is your race?
(select all that apply)
6. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish Origin?
7. How would you describe your
living situation?
4. What is your zip code?
Have any questions? Please contact:
Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247
or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org
Under 18 years
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 to 74
75 years and over
3. With which gender do you most
identify?
Male
Female
Non-Binary/Non-
Conforming
__________________________
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Other:
__________________________
Yes
No
Live in a home owned by
you or someone in your
household
Live in a home rented by
you or someone in your
household
Other:
__________________________
Accessory Apartment
Open House Survey
Accessory Apartment
Open House Survey
Attachment 1
Summary of Survey Responses to
Proposed Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards
Please identify which, if any, of the following
proposed changes to City Code are a concern: Concerned Unsure Not
Concerned Responses
Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot
increase the floor area of the main building by over
10%
Proposed Standard: The square footage for an
accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits
15.9% 20.5% 63.6% 44
Current Standard: Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must appear to be a detached
single-family home, so new entrances must face
side or rear lot line
Proposed Standard: Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must appear to be a use
allowed in the zone; entrance locations are not
dictated
19.1% 10.6% 70.2% 45
Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone
accessory apartment
Proposed Standard: Allows a standalone
accessory apartment
22.7% 9.1% 68.2% 44
Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2
occupants
Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and occupants
limited by rental permit
28.9% 6.7% 64.4% 47
Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq
Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or
50% of the floor area if in an accessory building
Proposed Standard: Size limited to the lesser of
1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main
building
30.4% 13.0% 56.5% 45
Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)
Proposed Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows
residential uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM,
MU, and some other commercial zones)
33.3% 11.1% 55.6% 46
Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached
single-family use
Proposed Standard: Must be accessory to single-
family or duplex use
34.1% 4.5% 61.4% 44
Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking
space for accessory apartment
Proposed Standard: No off-street parking required
for accessory apartment
44.7% 2.1% 53.2% 44
Current Standard: Owner must live on-site; a rental
permit is required
Proposed Standard: Owner is not required to live
on-site; a rental permit is required
56.8% 9.1% 34.1% 47
Attachment 1
Visual Summary (ordered from highest concern to least concern)
15.9%
19.1%
22.7%
28.9%
30.4%
33.3%
34.1%
44.7%
56.8%
20.5%
10.6%
9.1%
6.7%
13.0%
11.1%
4.5%
2.1%
9.1%
63.6%
70.2%
68.2%
64.4%
56.5%
55.6%
61.4%
53.2%
34.1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot
increase the floor area of the main building by over
10%Proposed Standard: The square footage for an
accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits
Current Standard: Buildings with an attached
accessory apartment must appear to be a detached
single-family home, so new entrances must face side
or rear lot lineProposed Standard: Buildings with an
attached accessory apartment must appear to be a
use allo
Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone
accessory apartmentProposed Standard: Allows a
standalone accessory apartment
Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2
occupants Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and
occupants limited by rental permit
Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Ft.,
30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of
the floor area if in an accessory buildingProposed
Standard: Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft. or
50% of the floor area of the main bu
Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones (RS-
5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)Proposed
Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows residential
uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some
other commercial zones)
Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached
single-family useProposed Standard: Must be
accessory to single-family or duplex use
Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking space
for accessory apartmentProposed Standard: No off-
street parking required for accessory apartment
Current Standard: Owner must live on-site; a rental
permit is requiredProposed Standard: Owner is not
required to live on-site; a rental permit is required
Concerned Unsure Not Concerned
Attachment 1
What is your age? Responses (49 total)
18 to 24 years 3
25 to 34 years 6
35 to 44 years 8
45 to 54 years 5
55 to 64 years 13
65 to 74 years 11
75 years and over 3
With which gender do you most identify? Responses (47 total)
Male 30
Female 17
Non-Binary/Non-Conforming 0
Zip Code Responses (47 total)
52240 19
52241 1
52245 15
52246 9
52333 1
52358 1
52761 1
What is your race? (select all that apply) Responses (42 total)
White/Caucasian 42
Black/African American 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 1
Asian or Pacific Islander 0
Other 0
Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
origin?
Responses (27 total)
Yes 1
No 26
How would you describe your living situation? Responses (47 total)
Live in a home owned by you or someone in your
household
40
Live in a home rented by you or someone in your
household
6
Other: Live alone in a 55+ apartment building 1
Survey Type Responses (51 total)
Paper 29
Online 22
The City of Iowa City invites you to attend an
ACCESSORY
APARTMENT
OPEN HOUSE
The City of Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to
increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage
housing affordability. As part of this effort, the City is proposing to
modify how it regulates accessory apartments, also known as
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), granny flats, mother-in-law
suites, guest houses, or carriage houses. The City is hosting two
Open Houses to provide opportunities for residents to learn more
about these proposed changes and to listen to your thoughts!
What are Accessory Apartments?
Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwelling units
located on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs can be attached
or detached and come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and
configurations. Images above and on the next page show some
examples of where accessory apartments may be located.
Event
Dates and
Times
____
September 13th
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Terry Trueblood
Park Lodge
579 McCollister Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 52240
____
September 14th
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Iowa City Public
Library – Meeting
Room A
123 S Linn St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
QUESTIONS?
PLEASE CONTACT:
Kirk Lehmann
Associate Planner
(319) 356-5247
klehmann@iowa-city.org
Why Accessory Apartments?
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing
market in Iowa. Removing barriers to the
construction of ADUs can help increase our
housing supply while also providing older
homeowners, single parents, young home-
buyers, and renters additional opportunities to
access a wider range of homes, prices, and
rents throughout our neighborhoods.
Source: City of Des Moines Accessory Housing
Current Standards Proposed Standards
Owner is not required to live on-site;
a rental permit is required
Owner must live on-site;
a rental permit is required
Must be accessory to detached single-family use Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use
No off-street parking required
for accessory apartment
Requires 1 off-street parking space
for accessory apartment
Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants
Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft.
or 50% of the floor area of the main building
Size limited to the lesser of 650 Sq Ft.,
30% of the floor area if in the main building,
or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building
The square footage for an accessory apartment is
restricted by max. size limits
An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor
area of the main building by over 10%
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance
locations are not dictated
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a detached single-family home, so new
entrances must face side or rear lot line
Summary of Proposed Changes
Allows a standalone accessory apartment Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment
Allowed in any zone that allows residential uses
(includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU,
and some other commercial zones)
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Introduction
Background Why These Updates?
Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to
increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and
encourage housing affordability.
The proposed changes seek to:
1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types;
2. Modify design standards to reduce the cost of construction;
3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing,
including reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments;
4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing; and
5. Address fair housing concerns to help advance the City’s
equity and inclusion goals.
2023
Planning & Zoning Commission
• February: Introduced upcoming amendments
• July: Summarized the proposed amendments
• August: Provided comprehensive overview of the
proposed amendments
2016
• Recommended 15 action
steps, including changes
to zoning regulations
• The only action step not yet
completed consists of the
recommended changes to
zoning regulations
“Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including...more building
types by right as opposed to requiring a [Planned Unit Development]
process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.)”
Affordable Housing Action Plan
2019
• Lack of affordable rental
housing was identified as
a significant fair housing
issue
• The study recommended
improving housing choice
as a strategy to help further
fair housing
“…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
housing units at different price points within neighborhoods.”
Fair Housing Choice Study
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
2022
• The update was created following
numerous public input sessions, in
addition to a survey, targeted stake-
holder meetings, and other events
• Reiterates the need to explore uses
allowed, including the possiblity of
allowing rental units to have ADUs
“Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit[s] in single family
zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and
zero-lot line structures.”
Affordable Housing Action Plan Update
FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan
“Advance prioritized recommendations in the
2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.”
• Prioritizes recommendations in the
updated Affordable Housing Action Plan
Planning Timeline
The proposed amendments are the
culmination of a series of efforts beginning
with the City’s 2016 Affordable Housing
Action Plan and continuing through several
subsequent planning processes.
Iowa City has a housing supply shortage. The City is looking at encouraging accessory apartments as one of several
ways to help meet the need for housing. However, current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction.
Consider:
• Iowa City anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional
residences by 2030
• Only 61% of projected demand will be met based on recent
trends, which will lead to higher housing costs
• 55% of renters and 23% of homeowners are cost-burdened
(i.e. spend more than 30% of their income on housing)
• The City has allowed accessory apartments since 1987 but
averages fewer than 2 units permitted per year
• Only ~0.5% of eligible properties have an accessory apartment
Accessory Apartments Permitted, 1995 - 2023
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Accessory Apartments
What are they?
Accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs),
are small, self-contained dwellings units located on the same lot as a primary
home. ADUs come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. This
allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban
subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. Possible ADUs
arrangements include all of the following:
Why encourage ADUs?
Detached Unit Attached Unit Interior Upper Level Unit
Interior Lower Level Unit Garage ConversionAbove Garage Unit
GARAGE ADU
Can include converting all or part of an attached or detached garage
into a residence; may also include adding an ADU above a garage or
building a new unit for both people and cars, as in the example above.
To increase housing supply and
diversity throughout neighborhoods
To provide convenient living
arrangements for families, caretakers,
and/or older homeowners
To reduce negative historical impacts
created by exclusionsary zoning
To improve affordability for homeowners
by creating extra income
To provide opportunities for people
seeking a wider range of homes, prices,
rents, and locations
To create compact growth which
positively impacts the environment
To enhance job opportunities by
providing housing near transit and job
centers
To accommodate development in a cost-
effective way
LOWER LEVEL ADU
Can be created through the conversion of a home’s existing basement
(provided that height and safety conditions are met), during construction
of the house, or as part of a foundation replacement.
DETACHED ADU
A stand-alone home on the same lot as a larger primary dwelling.
Examples include backyard bungalows and converted outbuildings.
Currently, detached ADUs are not allowed in Iowa City but would be
under the proposed amendments.
(photo courtesty of Backyard ADUs via the American Planning Association)
Accessory Apartments
go by many names,
including:
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
• Carriage or Coach Houses
• Basement Apartments
• Garage Apartments
• Granny Flats
• Guest House or Guest Cottage
• In-Law Suites/Apartments
• Multi-Generational Houses
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Current Standard
Must be accessory to detached single-family uses
Only allowed in certain zones
(RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20)
Owner must live on-site;
a rental permit is required
Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory
apartment
Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants
Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30% of the
floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area
if in an accessory building
Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment
An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area
of the main building by over 10%
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a detached single-family home, so new
entrances must face side or rear lot line
Proposed Changes
Guiding Principles:
Treat accessory apartments like other residential
uses allowed on the property.
Most Standards Are Not Affected
Accessory apartments are only allowed where they
comply with all relevant standards. This includes but
is not limited to:
• Dimensional Standards
(such as minimum lot size, minimum open space,
maximum lot coverage, etc.)
• General Accessory Use Standards
(such as setbacks and height limits for accessory
uses, etc.)
• Rental Permit Standards
(such as maximum occupancy, minimum bedroom
and unit sizes, etc.)
1
Remove barriers preventing the construction of
accessory apartments.
Simplify and eliminate redundant regulations.
2
3
Proposed Standard
May be accessory to attached or detached single-
family uses, in addition to duplex uses
Allowed in all zones that allow residential uses
(includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other
commercial zones)
Owner is not required to live on-site;
a rental permit is required
No off-street parking required for accessory apartment
Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit and
maximum size limits
Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50%
of the floor area of the main building
Allows a standalone accessory apartment
The square footage for an accessory apartment is
restricted by maximum size limits
Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must
appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance
locations are not dictated
4
1
2
2
1
Increase the supply of housing.4
1
3
4
2
4
1
2
1
4
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
Must be owner-occupied
50% of primary structure floor
area max. (if detached, greater
of 576 sq. ft. or 25% of rear yard)
Max. bedrooms based on sq. ft.
Must match primary structure
with regards to roof, materials,
color, and character; only one
entrance to a house with an
ADU may face a street
1 space required
Des Moines, Iowa
Comparable Communities
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
600 sq. ft. max. for lots up to
7,200 sq. ft.; 800 sq. ft. max. for
lots of 7,200 sq. ft. or more
2 occupants max.
No requirements
No requirements
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
1,000 sq. ft. max. but not to
exceed footprint of primary
structure
No requirements
2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1
attached & 1 detached; no other
requirements
1 space required
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
800 sq. ft. max. but not to
exceed 50% of the primary
structure floor area
No requirements
May be accessory to single-
family or duplex uses; can only
extend forward to the rear 25%
of the primary structure
No requirements
Durham, North Carolina
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
No requirements
1,200 sq. ft. max.
2 occupants max.
2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1
attached & 1 detached; 2-story
ADUs shall limit access stairs,
decks, entries & windows to walls
facing primary structure or alley
1 space required if larger than
800 sq. ft. (may be on-street)
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Ownership:
Size:
Occupancy:
Design:
Parking:
Must be owner-occupied
900 sq. ft. max.
2 bedrooms max.
Entries in a rear or side yard
shall be connected to a street by
a paved walkway or driveway;
must be above a garage in
certain zones
No requirements
Madison, Wisconsin
• Make it easier to build a diversity of
housing types, especially in lower density
neighborhoods
• Encouraging ADU development can increase
housing supply and improve housing choice
• ADUs should be allowed in all zones that allow
single-family residential uses
• ADUs should only require those conditions
needed to mitigate potential impacts on
neighboring properties
• Treat ADUs like other uses in the zone; this
may include removing requirements for owner
occupancy if not regulated by zoning
• Owner occupancy requirements may be
warranted where allowing short-term rentals
could lead to displacement
• Eliminating off-street parking requirements
reduces the cost and difficulty of building ADUs
• ADUs should be allowed administratively
(i.e. without discretionary appovals)
• Limit design requirements which increase the
cost of building ADUs
• Standards relating to neighborhood character
can be problematic (especially if not objective)
Best Practices
Sources:
Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State, Act
and Local Ordinance, American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), 2020
Equity in Zoning Policy Guide, American
Planning Association, 2022
The ABCs of ADUs, AARP, 2021
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Analysis
N
Mormo
nTr e k B lvd
420th St
5th St
H o l i d a y R d
W Park Rd
C
a
m
p
CardinalB
l
v
d
S 1 stAve
SScott
Blvd
1 s t A ve
Highland Ave
N
1
stAve
River St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
er
M
u
s
c
atin
e
Rd
Sunset
S
t
Kirkwood Ave
10th St
W Benton St
S
7
th
Ave
E
P
ark Rd
N
Rive
rside
Dr
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
Melrose Ave
Rochester Ave
Sheridan Ave
Rohret Rd
E Market St
2n
d
S
t
Bowery St
S
Su
m
m
i
t
S
t
Friendship St
Church St
HawkinsD r
P
r
a
iri
e
D
u
C
h
i
e
n
R
d
22ndAve
Ki m b all
R
d
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
McCollister
B
l
v
d
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
M
o
r
m
onTrek Blvd
Heartl
a
n
dDr
S
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
S
G
il
b
e
r
t
S
t
IWV Rd SW
N S c ott Blvd
S
a
n
d
R
d
S
E
Herbert Hoover Hwy SE
D
ubuqueSt
N
E
Highw
ay
6
S
E
Highway
1
S
W
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
Interstate 80
Parcel Currently Allows
AD8s if owneroccupied
Would Allow AD8s 8nder
Proposed Changes
Regardless of 2ccupancy
Parcel Currently Does Not
Allow AD8s
Would Allow AD8s 8nder
Proposed Changes
Where ADUs Are Allowed: Current & Proposed
City ParkCity Park
Rental: 101Rental: 101
Total: 544Total: 544
Percent: 19%Percent: 19%
Northside Northside
GoosetownGoosetown
Rental: 631Rental: 631
Total: 1,187Total: 1,187
Percent: 53%Percent: 53%
City HighCity High
Rental: 155Rental: 155
Total: 1,136Total: 1,136
Percent: 14%Percent: 14%
College GreenCollege Green
Rental: 213Rental: 213
Total: 375Total: 375
Percent: 57%Percent: 57%
RFC East & WestRFC East & West
Rental: 30Rental: 30
Total: 44Total: 44
Percent: 68%Percent: 68%
LongfellowLongfellow
Rental: 237Rental: 237
Total: 902Total: 902
Percent: 26%Percent: 26%
Mark TwainMark Twain
Rental: 323Rental: 323
Total: 1,135Total: 1,135
Percent: 28%Percent: 28%
Miller OrchardMiller Orchard
Rental: 81Rental: 81
Total: 307Total: 307
Percent: 26%Percent: 26%
Brookland Brookland
RooseveltRoosevelt
Rental: 172Rental: 172
Total: 292Total: 292
Percent: 59%Percent: 59%
Melrose Melrose
EmeraldEmerald
Rental: 39Rental: 39
Total: 227Total: 227
Percent: 17%Percent: 17%
Willow CreekWillow Creek
Rental: 166Rental: 166
Total: 787Total: 787
Percent: 21%Percent: 21%
BoweryBowery
Rental: 185Rental: 185
Total: 243Total: 243
Percent: 76%Percent: 76%
By the Numbers:
Source: City Assessor parcel data
downloaded June 14, 2023
Single-Family & Duplex Rental Units
additional properties may construct an AD8 due to proposed changes
that e[pand where AD8s are allowed+1,400
additional properties may construct an AD8 due to proposed
changes that allow AD8s for properties that are not owneroccupied+3,070
properties may currently construct an AD89,950
52 AD8s have been permitted since 1 5
Higher %of properties are e[pected to construct an AD8 due to proposed
changes that reduce other barriers to construction
Take Away:
Singlefamily and duple[ units
in select neighborhoods near
downtown tend to have higher
levels of rental occupancy
8niversity Impact Area
Source: Iowa City Rental Impact
Area Analysis, June 30, 2022
Name of Rental DistrictName of Rental District
Rental: Single-family & duplex units Rental: Single-family & duplex units
with a rental permitwith a rental permit
Total: All single-family & duplex unitsTotal: All single-family & duplex units
Percent: Percent of single-family & Percent: Percent of single-family &
duplex units with a rental permitduplex units with a rental permit
Rental Districts
Key for Te[t on Map
36%of singlefamily and duple[ properties in Iowa City are rentals
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Excerpt from the Community Vision Statement:
³We will strive to preserve and build upon these aspects our community while supporting compatible
growth and investment that contributes to the overall sustainability of Iowa City byCreating attractive
and affordable housing for all people ± housing that is the foundation of healthy safe and diverse
neighborhoods throughout our city´
Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in
Established Neighborhoods:
Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of
Iowa City¶s historic and established neighborhoods helps
to preserve the culture history and identity of Iowa City
Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to maMor
employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to
live close to work school and shopping promotes walking
and bicycling and reduces vehicle miles traveled
Compatible Infill Development:
4uality in¿ll development plays an important role in
neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating
e[isting structures or encouraging new development of
vacant blighted or deteriorated property Development
of in¿ll sites should add to the diversity of housing options
without compromising neighborhood character
Diversity of Housing Types:
A mi[ of housing types within a neighborhood provides
residential opportunities for a variety of people including
singles couples families with children and elderly
persons Integrating diverse housing si]es and types
throughout the community increases the opportunity for
people to live in the same neighborhood throughout the
stages of life
Affordable Housing:
By allowing for a mi[ of housing types moderately priced
housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood rather
than segregated in one or two areas of the community
Townhouses and duple[ units can be mi[ed with single
family homes within a neighborhood
Se
l
e
c
t
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
f
o
r
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
Su
s
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at www.icgov.org/NDS
Next Steps
Important Dates
The public is encouraged to express their thoughts regarding the proposed
amendments to staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council.
To provide your input, you can do one (or more) of the following:
1. Provide comments in person at public meetings (noted above);
2. Fill out and return the survey on the proposed code changes (shown right); and/or
3. Submit written correspondence for consideration by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council (send to Kirk Lehmann at klehmann@iowa-city.org)
December 12, 2023:
Tentative City Council Meeting, Third Reading and Possible Adoption
October 4, 2023:
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Possible Recommendation
November 21, 2023:
Tentative City Council Meeting, Second Reading
November 6, 2023:
Tentative City Council Public Hearing and First Reading
We want to hear from you!
Survey
Questions?
Contact Kirk Lehmann
Associate Planner
klehmann@iowa-city.org
319-356-5247
This brief survey allows you to share your thoughts
on the proposed changes. Results will be shared with
the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council.
ATTACHMENT 2
Correspondence
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Mark Signs <mark.signs@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:26 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:RE: Proposed ADU changes
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Kirk,
I have purposely tried to stay out of planning and zoning discussions since resigning from the
Commission. But the current discussions around zoning changes for ADUs has me itching to
comment. So here you go!
I agree with what appears to be the majority of folks that allowing ADUs on non-owner-occupied
properties would be a big mistake. I think a lot of the concerns coming from citizens are that this
would result in landlords building ADUs on rental properties they already own, and turning those new
ADU's into additional rental units. I think those are VERY legitimate concerns.
As many have commented, MOST off-site owners never take quite as good of care of their properties
as do MOST homeowners. Allowing investors to add more units (in the form of an ADU) to their
properties will most likely result in additional rental units that will then likely negatively impact the
neighborhoods.
For years the city has looked for ways to limit the proliferation of rental units in our
neighborhoods, especially the older ones. Allowing landlords to build additional ADUs on
existing properties seems to fly directly in the face of those previous efforts.
I am all for changes that would promote more ADUs on Owner-Occupied properties, and would
support any zoning code changes that would limit non-owner-occupied ADUs accordingly.
The only other thing I would question is the elimination of parking requirements for new ADUs. As
you may recall, when I was on the Commission, I was always generally opposed to zoning changes
that lowered the parking requirements for new development. If the city continues to reduce or
eliminate parking requirements on residential properties, we will just end up with more streets
jammed with more cars - creating more safety issues and problems for street maintenance staff.
Iowans (and most Americans) like their cars. Yes, there is a small subset of avid bikers and walkers.
But simply eliminating parking spaces is not going to convert car drivers to bike riders - in most
cases. I do not believe the "If you don't build it, they won't come" philosophy works. But that's just
me. I know the bike lobby in Iowa City is strong!
Please share my comments with the P&Z Commissioners, City Council and relevant city staff. And
say hello to everyone. I do miss seeing all of you!
2
Mark Signs
South District resident
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:31 PM
To:*City Council; Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Re: ADUs and owner residency
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hi, all --
A followup: as I've reflected on this, I see a major problem with Iowa City ADU changes as described by this
proposal that I should've noticed earlier -- I think it can be fixed, but if it isn't, I see it exacerbating problems in our
rental market and solving none.
As I see it, nothing here stops developers from running away with the ADU idea and building more high-priced
student housing -- especially if multi-unit ADUs are on the table, as apparently they are. In particular, if owner-
residence is not part of the package for ADUs, it's just a license to build more exploitative housing for the student
market in existing rental properties, and encourage developers to buy houses in stable neighborhoods for the
conversion value. If you're selling a $350K house and a developer buys it to rent, with another 3 units in the
backyard, say that's $100K, 150K to build, that's a huge win for an unscrupulous developer: that could be a rental
income stream of $8-9K/mo, or more. In fact I don't know why developers wouldn't bid up housing prices in those
neighborhoods to till yield drops to something closer to the ROI expected on rental property -- suddenly that $350K
house goes for twice that, so now you've not only created more wildly expensive student housing, you've priced
even more people out of homeownership.
The idea driving this "more ADUs, make it easy" push seems to be a simple but, I think, wrongheaded supply-
demand belief: rental housing's too expensive, build more rental housing, prices come down. While in Econ 101
terms that's true, locally it's naive to the point of being wrong, especially near the university. I'll leave the explanation
to the end, so see there if you're interested. Bottom line, though, if you grant developers a license to build more
student housing near the U through under-thought-through ADU changes, I see us getting more of the usual
problems and the opposite of what you've been trying to do through the UniverCity program.
If those changes are more carefully thought through, then given the size of ADUs, I see two target populations that
could be assisted with benefit to renters, neighborhoods, and the city:
1. Small low-income households, including elderly, disabled, immigrant populations, minimum-wage workers,
and others (affordable housing)
2. Small LMI university/UIHC-employee households
Those in the first category have particular need of living within walking distance of jobs, hospitals, transit, shops, and
other amenities of city density; affordable rentals downtown also allow people to live car-free, erasing a major
expense. Those in the second category are chronically priced out of IC's housing market as prospective
homeowners, but the combination of job stability and close-in, affordable, quiet, non-student-housing rentals that
reduce car dependence should allow more people to save down payments -- or remain long-term renters, if they
preferred that -- and could arguably be more effective than the UniverCity program itself.
If ADUs went in that direction, again with owner occupancy required, you could get a really good neighborhood mix
of renters and homeowners at various income levels and backgrounds, create a stable long-term renter base and
2
more diverse neighborhoods, and do some real good in solving the chronic unaffordability of IC. You could also
create some relief on the voucher side by increasing the stock of small accessible units for people with disabilities.
:) And I guess that's all I have to say about it for now.
best, and thanks for the consideration -
amy
*The supply/demand problem: As a small landlord these last 20 years -- as well as an Iowa Citian who's been
watching these efforts since I first worked for the City in '95, when vacancy rates were stuck at 2% -- I'll point out
that the Econ 101 idea ignores a massive, permanent distortion in the rental market, which is the UI dorms, which
are anything but a free-market exercise in real estate. The annualized dorm fees in effect set a rent floor for the
areas near the university. Dorm rooms are expensive, annualized, because not only does UI need them to be, they
can be: students, especially first/second-years, are highly captive and they've got convenient grant/loan/tax support
for the dorm rents, which are folded into COA and help determine their financial aid. Higher COA, more fin aid. All of
it goes on the U-bill, which grants/loans/etc. pay automatically, adding to the convenience of dorm life. As for private
landlords, we need be attractive only in relation to dorm life in order to draw student renters. And aggressive private
landlords, which is most of them, will at best price just below dorm rates per room annualized, extracting every
penny they can. With rents in that range, students and their parents -- already habituated to "this is what housing
costs in college" -- feel it's reasonable to trade convenience for independence and a sense of growing up. They'll
pay even more for more room, privacy, amenities, etc. (Two years ago, when I had my last turnover, I had people
contacting me while I was mid-signing, trying to bid up the rent sight unseen to something closer to dorm level, and
being pretty tenacious about it. There were plenty of other, fairly similar apartments available nearby, no actual
housing scarcity. But it was a case of "I saw an apt I wanted online, normal housing here goes higher, I'm fine with
throwing money to seal the deal fast.") That artificial floor for the rental market, along with UI's reservoir of potential
renters, means, I think, that we'd need to see a large oversupply of student rental housing before unregulated off-
campus prices budged much: I don't see that major rental companies have an incentive to back away from the
dorm-level rents otherwise. And ADUs are not going to create that kind of oversupply, which I'm pretty sure we don't
want anyway. Student housing expenses are a serious problem for many students, and so are their effects on the
rental market for everyone else. But after 30 years of blind "just build more, supply up, price down" with prices high
and rising throughout, and giant, cheaply-built, future-white-elephant off-campus dorms now dotting the town, I'd like
to see us approach that problem -- and, in this instance, ADUs -- more thoughtfully.
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, August 31st, 2023 at 10:53 AM, amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmail.com> wrote:
Hey, all -
I saw Kirk's flyer about the ADU meeting, which I won't be at, but wanted to chime in --
In general I think granny flats are a grand idea, but:
The owner-residency requirement needs to stay. We already have chronic problems with
properties and tenants left neglected because the owners live elsewhere and have no intention of
keeping an eye on what goes on or keeping the place properly maintained. I just called in a neglect
case a couple months ago on a SFH rental with years' worth of problems around the corner from me
-- for a while they just had noise problems, but the property became dilapidated. The owners live in
Florida and over the years I've called them at work repeatedly to tell them to get their property
maintained and in decent condition for their tenants. This year I gave up and turned it over to city
enforcement. Clearly, though, they have no intention of maintaining the property unless forced to,
and that's pretty normal for absentees. Owners need to maintain neighborhood skin in the game.
Increased noise levels have to be taken into account -- something that the owner-residency
requirement helps with. One backyard granny flat has the potential to be a noise nuisance for every
other house on the block, and we don't have much help for them at the moment. Given that people
3
work and go to school remotely at high rates, we have a big hospital/restaurant population here
doing shiftwork and sleeping during the day, and we also have populations sensitive to noise, we
can't just shrug and tell people there's not much we can do about chronic ADU-related daytime noise
after going and making quiet neighborhoods noisier while trying to solve a different social problem.
Dogs left in small ADUs to bark all day, loud music, parties, etc. need to be considered, and
enforcement discussed and defined before new ADU rules are passed. And, again, if owner-
landlords have to live in the main dwelling units, they're more likely to regulate noise themselves.
Funding should be made available for maintenance, and maintenance enforced. Commercial
property in IC is generally held to a much lower standard of maintenance than private residences are
on the market, and a dilapidated ADU will affect the sale price of adjacent properties. Given the goal
of easing housing availability, though, low- or no-interest loans and grants for maintenance should
be available for ADU owners under 110% AMI, and maintenance enforced.
New ADUs should be built as efficient dwellings. Good for tenants, good for the environment.
Again, funding should be made available through the City to support installation of solar panels, heat
pumps, double- or triple-glazed windows, R60 attic insulation, 2x6" stud walls, orientation to take
advantage of solar gain, and so on. ADUs built in or above garages will need particular attention --
these spaces are often underinsulated and encourage the use of space heaters.
Consider a residence-based requirement. I think we all know that any new rental units built are
likely to go preferentially to students, who are the easiest tenants to find and have ready access to
loan money to pay rents with. If the intention here is to create housing for non-students, consider a
requirement of establishing residence in IC.
Otherwise, granny-flat away -- and yes, more well-built duplexes and townhouses, please, they're
great and affordable; some architecture wouldn't kill us, either --
thanks for all the hard work --
amy
ATTACHMENT 3
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
Un
i
t
s
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
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
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
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
An
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
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
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
* 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 4
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Attachment 4: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a strikethrough indicates deleted language.
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 occupy 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 stree t 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 exterior.
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 comply
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. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area. 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. Bedrooms cannot exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the finished floor area of the
accessory apartment. The accessory apartment may contain no more than one bedroom.
Article 14-8B: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES:
14-8B-1: ACCESSORY APARTMENT RENTAL PERMIT:
A. Permit Required:
1. Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal dwelling
unit must obtain a rental permit from the department of housing and inspection services. The
permit will be effective for two (2) years. At the end of every two (2) years, renewal of the
accessory apartment rental permit will be granted after completion of a routine housing inspection
verifying that the property remains the principal residence of the owner and that all of the
conditions of this section and approval criteria for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4,
article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title have been met.
2. No rental permit for an accessory apartment will be issued unless all the requirements
and standards for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4, article C of this title have been
met.
B. Submittal Requirements:
1. The owner shall file an application for a rental permit with the department of housing and
inspection services on application forms provided by said department.
2. Prior to issuance or renewal of an accessory apartment rental permit, the owner must
submit a notarized affidavit to the city, verifying owner occupancy.
3. Prior to the issuance of an accessory apartment rental permit, the owner shall file, in the
office of the county recorder, a declaration of covenants stating that the right to maintain an
accessory apartment ceases upon transfer of title, and that the right t o maintain an accessory
apartment in no way constitutes approval of the dwelling as a different principle use duplex. The
owner shall provide a copy of the declaration to the department of housing and inspection
services, or its successor, prior to the issuance of the accessory apartment permit.
Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS
14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS:
ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: An temporary accessory dwelling unit located within an owner
occupied, single-family or duplex dwelling home or in an accessory building and meeting the
requirements of this title. An accessory apartment may also be referred to as an accessory
dwelling unit.
Article 17-5: HOUSING CODE
17-5-3: DEFINITIONS:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A temporary dwelling unit that is accessory to an owner-
occupied single-family or duplex dwelling.
ATTACHMENT 5
Enlarged Map
Map of Parcels That Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Ppoposed
5th St
H o l i d a y Rd
W Park Rd
C
a
m
p
C
a
r
d
inal Blv
d
SScott
Blvd
1stAve
Highla n d Ave
N
1s
t
Ave
River St
Muscatine Ave
E Court St
E Jefferson S t
L
o
w
e
r
M
u
s
c
atin
e
R
d
S
unset
S
t
10th St
W Benton St
S
7th
Ave
Sy
c
a
m
o
r
e
S
t
Melrose Ave
Rochester A v e
Kirkwood Ave
R o h r e t R d S 1st
Ave
Church St
HawkinsD
r
22ndAve
Kim b a ll R d
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
McCollister B l v d
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
S
t
Mormon
T
r
e
k
Blvd
S
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r S
G
i
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
2n
d
S
t
N S c o t t Blvd
S
a
n
d
R
d
S
E
Hig
h
w
a
y
6
S
E
Dub
u
q
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
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 16, 2023 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott
Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Cecile Kuenzli, Ginalie Swaim, Kevin Boyd, Susan Shullaw, Karen
Kubby, Regina Bailey Jim Throgmorton, Sharon DeGraw, Linda
McGuire, Jared Knote
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ23-0006, an application to
designate 715 North Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
By a vote of 6-1 (Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends deferral of REZ23-0005 until
the second meeting in October.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and introduced new Commission member
Quellhorst.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Cecile Kuenzli (705 S. Summit St.) has served two terms as the first president of the Longfellow
Neighborhood Association and recently completed two terms on the Historic Preservation
Commission. In reference to the proposed zoning amendment changes, she has a question. In
the last 20 years, the City has supported neighborhood stabilization programs such as the
UniverCity program and create a design review process for new infill properties. Kuenzli is
wondering why the plan that P&Z voted on August 2 was approved after one reading without
consultation or communication or input from neighborhood associations or the Historic
Preservation Commission, because those amendments affect particularly the older
neighborhoods and everyone in these older neighborhoods completely, but yet there was no
information about it. Kuenzli stated also the proposed zoning amendments speak very little to
historic districts and what the impact on them might be from these zoning changes. To quote
Marla Svensson, who was hired by Iowa City several times to survey neighborhoods to see if
they qualified to become designated historic districts, “historic preservation begins with zoning.
You don't have anything without that”. So again, Kuenzli’s question is why the Historic
Preservation Commission wasn’t asked for input or consultation and why were none of the
neighborhood associations informed either.
Hensch thanked Kuenzli for her comments and noted the Commission could only take comments
and not answer questions at this time and directed her to contact staff.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 2 of 18
{Padron joined the meeting}
REZONING ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ23-0006:
Location: 715 N. Dodge Street
An application for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic
Landmark.
Russett began the staff report showing a map of the location of the property. This property is
already within a Historic District and is a contributing property to the Brown Street Historic
District. It is zoned RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay. This property is being proposed as a
Local Historic Landmark because it was the original location of the Emma Goldman Clinic.
Russett showed some pictures of the property from the 1970s when the property was operating
as the Emma Goldman Clinic. She explained that even though the property is already protected
because it's within a local Historic District, the purpose of this landmark designation is to share
the story of feminist healthcare and the history of the Emma Goldman Clinic as they are going to
be celebrating a 50th anniversary this year. The home is a craftsman style catalog home and
again is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. Russett reiterated this
designation relates to the mid-70s feminist healthcare movement in the United States as it was
the fourth feminist healthcare clinic in the nation, the first three were located in California.
The current zoning designation is RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay and the proposed zoning
is RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay so the zoning is not changing. The Commission's role in
this review is to demonstrate that a landmark designation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Russett explained there are goals and objectives within the Central District Plan and within
the Historic Preservation Plan that speak to the importance of protecting historic buildings,
identifying historic resources significant to the community's past, and identifying and pursuing
landmark designations for those properties.
Staff did receive two pieces of late correspondence related to this request, both in support of the
landmark designation. Russett shared those with the Commission members.
Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715 North Dodge Street
as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Russett noted last week at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting they unanimously
recommended approval of this landmark designation so after the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes its recommendation tonight it will move forward to City Council.
Quellhorst asked what the practical difference between a Historic District Overlay and
designation as a Historic Landmark is and does that impose additional obligations on the owner
of the property or what's the practical impact of that classification. Russett explained because
this is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District there is no difference in how
the building is regulated in terms of exterior modifications, those are the same with the landmark
designation and they would be required as they are today to go through historic review for
exterior modifications and they would be subject to the same guidelines that the property is
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 3 of 18
today, the landmark designation is largely symbolic.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ginalie Swaim (Iowa City) started this is a big thing to her, it is symbolic but more than that it is
really historically significant as a local example, and a midwestern example, of an enormous
movement in American social culture and healthcare. In the early 1970s there was a whole crop
of nonprofits that sprung up in Iowa City dealing with teenagers, with medical care and many
other things, it was a very rich and fertile and vital time. Emma Goldman was one of the major
movers in that and one thing that often alerts preservation to people is when a building is really
the crux of local history and helps tell a local story and how it fits into a national context. Here is
a very local story and many may have had experiences here and know about the excellent care
and the pioneering spirit of this entity, but it fits into this national movement of a whole new way
of delivering healthcare, and particularly women's healthcare. Swaim is excited about it receiving
a landmark designation, which, besides a symbolic sense of it, it shows a special honor and
recognition and significance of an individual building that really says something about the
community and about the national history.
Kevin Boyd (Iowa City) is the former chair of the Historic Preservation Commission but is no
longer on the Commission. At his last meeting in June, he talked about the importance of telling
a more full history of Iowa City and making sure that they preserve and share parts of Iowa City’s
history that reflect the values and the community as it is today. One of the historic preservation
work plan goals is identifying opportunities to highlight Iowa City's history as a leader on social
justice, racial equity and human rights and preserve the stories and structures that helped to
define that history. This nomination fits that objective as well as the others that have been
highlighted. This is a project that got started before he left the Commission, it's an opportunity to
add a unique story. The story of these founders, radical college age feminist badasses, who 50
years ago this month were preparing to open the Emma Goldman Clinic to shift the power
dynamic in healthcare. As Boyd researched the history of the Emma Goldman Clinic for this
project, he was really in awe of these founders and what they were able to accomplish together
and how radical it really was, and yet how relevant that this fight for women's healthcare remains
today. These founders’ story, along with the property at 715 North Dodge, which is now a
residential home again, is so much a part of the history and deserves to be among the properties
listed on the list of Iowa City local landmarks. Boyd urges the Commission to support this
landmark nomination. He also wants to thank the property owners, Jennifer and Benton for their
open mindedness and supportive sharing their property’s history.
Susan Shullaw (Iowa City) is representing the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering
Committee and they heartily endorse this recommendation and want to thank both the Historic
Preservation Commission, this Commission and all those involved in the nomination. They are
extremely proud that this landmark is located on the Northside and are very pleased that the
property owners also joined in endorsing this recommendation. Shullaw stated it’s indeed a
major piece of history and they hope that people can remember it for many decades to come.
Karen Kubby (Iowa City) lives in the Mark Twain neighborhood and shares a lot of history with
the Emma Goldman Clinic. She started volunteering there in 1983 when there were threats of fire
bombings. That was a time when the anti-choice community was not interested in hurting people
but destroying property and disrupting the provision of services in that way, so as a younger
woman she would stay up all night at the clinic and move around a lot so they could see that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 4 of 18
there were people inside. The Clinic is really at this point a very important landmark nationally
because now it is the oldest feminist clinic in the country. Some of those California clinics are no
longer providing services. There is that nexus between the local importance of this form of
healthcare and the specifics of the organization that is not only a healthcare provider, but a
public educator, and needs to do a lot of political education as well. Kubby was very privileged to
be the director there for 10 years and stated there's going to be a reunion in September with
many community events available (panel discussions and movies at Film Scene). The property
owners are supporting this and it clearly meets the criteria that the City has outlined for such a
designation so she hope this Commission will unanimously and heartfeltly support this
nomination.
Regina Bailey (Iowa City) lives in the Goosetown neighborhood and as Boyd and Kubby
mentioned the Clinic is getting ready to celebrate its 50th anniversary which will happen over
Labor Day weekend. Kubby mentioned some public events and one of them will be a movie at
Film Scene, a documentary, at 3:30 on Sunday afternoon. It's called From One Place to Another
and it was made at the 20th anniversary and talks about an organization that starts out as a
collective. Bailey noted they are all probably very familiar with boards of directors of that kind of
organizational structure but think about people getting together, meeting and consensus-based
decision making to start a clinic. They started this shortly after Roe v Wade in 1973 and in
September they opened up the Clinic. With that collective spirit of meetings and getting together
in nine months they launched the fourth feminist clinic in the country so it's real notable history.
Staff mentioned that it's symbolic, but as Swaim says it's more than symbolic, it tells an important
story about feminist healthcare and about women doing something because women's history
weren’t the stories that they heard growing up. Iowa City can join together and tell this story by
designating this landmark.
Jim Throgmorton (Iowa City) has lived in the Northside Neighborhood for 28 years and lives
about a block and a half away from this building. He never had any idea that the Emma Goldman
Clinic started in that particular building just down the alley from where he lives. It was a real treat
to learn about it and discover that these young women got together back then to create this
Clinic and to do what they did. Throgmorton also discovered that three Molotov cocktails were
thrown at the building at one time, so it shows the power of stories. He stated it's a real joy to be
here and support this, he wanted to praise Kevin Boyd for proposing the idea and to praise the
owners, Jennifer and Benton, for enthusiastically supporting the idea. He wants to praise the
Historic Preservation Commission, and the planning staff for proposing it.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Elliott moved to recommend approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715
North Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Craig seconded the motion.
Elliott echoed what everybody who came to the podium said and she appreciates them coming
up and sharing the history and the support.
Craig noted she came to Iowa City in 1970 and her high school counselor cried because she was
coming to this den of iniquity. She wanted her to go to a Christian girls school in Missouri that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 5 of 18
had 300 people, all women. Anyway, she loves Iowa City for many, many reasons and the
Emma Goldman Clinic is one of them.
Townsend strongly support this but noted on the documentation regarding the landmark
designations it says that the staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the
property meeting criterion F at this time, F is regarding information important to history, why
would that not be. Russett explained that's a criteria that the Historic Preservation Commission
evaluates and determined that F didn't apply because typically F applies to things that are
archaeologically or prehistoric significant.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ23-0005:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in
the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35-feet to 27-feet.
Russett stated this is a proposed amendment to the zoning code that started originally with a
meeting with representatives of the Northside Neighborhood. Staff met with them several weeks
ago when they reached out regarding a change that they would like to see in the RNS-12 zone to
reduce the maximum allowable height in that zone. Staff had recommended that they petition
City Council with that proposed change, which they did, and at the June 6 work session City
Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. Staff’s understanding of
this change was it to be a reduction of the maximum allowable height from 35-feet to 27-feet in
the RNS-12 zone.
Some background on the RNS-12 zone, it was created in 1992 when there was a project that
was proposed to add more than one residential structure to a single lot in the RM-12 zone.
Owners of nearby properties petition City Council due to concerns that allowing more than one
structure per lot in the RM-12 zone would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. In
1993, the City Council adopted the RNS-12 zone to preserve the single-family character of the
neighborhood and prevent new multifamily residential development. In addition to the creation of
that new zoning district, there were also several map amendments that started in 1993. Russett
shared a map showing all the properties that were zoned from a multifamily zoning designation,
whether it was RM-12 or RNC-20 to the RNS-12 zoning designation. The last map amendment
was to a portion of South Governor where there was a proposal to change the zoning from RNS-
12 to RS-8, which was approved by City Council.
In terms of the current regulations, all the City's single-family and multifamily residential zones
have a maximum height limit of 35 feet. The form-based zones do regulate height differently, but
single-family and multifamily residential zones have a maximum height of 35 feet. The RNS-12
Zone allows single family detached units with duplexes allowed midblock duplexes and duplexes
on corner lots. It also allows daycares, religious institutions and educational facilities. It does not
allow new multifamily uses and the maximum height is 35 feet. Russett showed a map of the
properties that are zoned RNS-12 and pointed out the Northside Neighborhood Association
boundary.
Russett also talked about the Historic and Conservation District overlay zones noting properties
within those overlay zones require additional review. Properties are subject to the guidelines
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 6 of 18
adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and the maximum allowable height
within these overlay zones is 35 feet just as it is in the base zoning district of RNS-12. However,
the handbook does include specific guidelines related to height and mass. Specifically, it states
that new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height in the Northside
Neighborhood. New construction and demolitions must be reviewed and approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission and with new construction, it’s reviewed based on the surrounding
neighborhood context, and the mass and scale of adjacent buildings. Demolition in historic
districts is only considered where the building is structurally unsound or irretrievable, so very
uncommon. The overlay zones provide a large degree of protection from future construction,
demolition and development changes.
Russett shared a table showing the breakdown of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 and
whether or not they're located within a historic district or a conservation district overlay. Citywide
75% of the RNS zoned properties are located within either an historic or conservation district
overlay and within the Northside Neighborhood 85% of the properties are within historic or
conservation district overlay. Staff note that importance because there are additional rules and
processes which add a large degree of protection for those properties. Staff also reviewed
demolition permits in the RNS-12 zones since 1992 and there have been 17 demolitions within
RNS-12 zone, an average of one demolition every two years over the past 31 years. The data
suggests that redevelopment pressure in RNS-12 zones has decreased over time and that may
in part be due to the fact that 75% of the properties are either in a historic or conservation district
which would restrict demolitions. Staff also looked at conversions because it seems to be a
concern of the residents of the Northside Neighborhood. Since 1992 there have been 82
conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family City wide, 38% are single-
family to duplex and 62% are duplex to single-family. This data shows that more of the
conversion is from duplex to single-family than the other way around. For property zoned RNS-
12 there were 10 conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family. 70% of
them were from duplexes to single-family and again, Russett stated the RNS-12 zone does not
allow conversions to new multifamily. Russett stated even though staff looked at conversions,
height limits will have no impact on future conversions within this zone since conversions are
dealing with existing structures and not new structures.
Staff also did some field work and until they received the recent correspondence yesterday from
the neighborhood association, they weren't aware that the Northside Neighborhoods intent was
to only apply the 27-foot requirement to new buildings, specifically new single-family and duplex
uses. Based on Council's direction staff was concerned with the creation of non-conforming
structures and discussed this with the Northside representatives. Due to concerns about
creating non-conforming situations staff estimated building height using the best tool that they
had available and Russett shared a table showing the results of that work. Based on the
estimate, some buildings may become non-conforming, however if the Northside Neighborhood
Association wishes to only apply the height standard of 27-foot to new buildings the non-
conforming analysis becomes irrelevant and won’t apply to existing structures.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan does include a
land use designation for single-family residential stabilization, with the description of preserving
single-family residential character, and preventing further densification and conversion of single-
family residences to multifamily. The land use designation focuses on housing types and density
rather than the scale of development. It maintains single-family neighborhoods and restricts the
number of units by limiting housing types. Russett reiterated in all single-family residential zones
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 7 of 18
the maximum height limit is 35 feet so there's been some determination that this maximum
ensures a complimentary scale within single-family neighborhoods. In terms of staff’s
conclusions, again 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a historic or
conservation district, which requires additional review processes to ensure that new structures
are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the demolition data,
redevelopment pressure is limited and staff concluded based on non-conforming situations,
however that may no longer apply as this is only applying to new structures. Again, the purpose
of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character which has been interpreted as
preserving single-family uses and preventing new multifamily uses. Height limits don't help
preserve single-family uses or further the intent of the zone and the current height limits are
consistent with other single-family residential zones and therefore consistent with the purpose of
the RNS zone to maintain that predominantly single-family character.
Staff did receive some additional correspondence yesterday from the Northside Neighborhood
Association. They noted in the correspondence that they meant for the change to only apply to
new construction and only single-family and duplex dwellings. Staff hasn’t had much time to fully
analyze this as they just received the correspondence yesterday but do have some initial
concerns to highlight. First, if the reduced height limit only applies to new construction, it would
address the concerns related to non-conforming situations, so that's a good thing. The concern is
that the RNS-12 zone allows other uses besides just single-family and duplex structures, such as
daycare uses and religious institutions. If the purpose of height regulations is to promote
reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, all land uses should be considered
when establishing a height limit. Also, if the maximum allowable height varies between uses, a
governmental purpose for that variation would need to be established. The second concern is
complexity and challenges with implementation. If a governmental purpose could be identified for
having different regulations for different uses, the code becomes even more complicated and
difficult to administer. It not only would have different height requirements for different uses but
uses that would typically be subject to non-conforming provisions would no longer be subject to
them because existing structures would remain conforming. Lastly, regarding affordability, the
Northside Neighborhood document states that reducing the maximum height would reduce the
pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner-occupied structures. Height
regulations don't impact the balance of owner and renter properties. Zoning codes do not
regulate whether structures are owned or rented. Russett also noted that in their correspondence
the Neighborhood Association has requested that this item be deferred.
Staff has received two additional pieces of late correspondence which she shared with the
Commissioners via email and handed out this evening, both are in support of the Northside
Neighborhood’s proposal in their request.
Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum
allowable building height from 35-feet to 27-feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization
(RNS-12) zone. Also, staff has not identified a governmental purpose for the proposal for this
only to apply to new structures and to only single-family and duplex uses. If the Commission
wants to recommend approval, they will need to identify what that governmental purpose is
because it is regulating height differently for different uses. Staff would also not recommend
approval of a proposed change to the maximum allowable building height for new single-family
and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone to 27-feet.
In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 8 of 18
would go before City Council.
Hensch asked if the request for deferral had a particular reason requested other than the obvious
to give staff time to come up with a governmental purpose and application of that. Russett replied
she believes they wanted staff to change their analysis and to reflect on their request that it is
new construction only.
Hensch noted the 35-foot limit would only apply to new construction future requests, which won't
result in any non-conforming status of existing buildings. Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted in the South District, the form-based code that they previously passed, the height
limit for that is 27 feet, correct. Russett explained the limit there is two and a half stories but
there's also a feet maximum as well.
Hensch stated regarding the historic district and conservation district height limits, the limit is 35-
feet but the handbook guidelines they want to have one or two stories for new construction and
that seems incongruent. Has there ever been thoughts about making those two things match up
better. Russett stated no because a guideline clearly carries no force of law, it’s just a
recommendation and within the zoning code 35-feet is the maximum. There are other
requirements in the zoning code such as maximum density, for example, but each property isn't
always going to get to that maximum density, that's why it's maximum, it's just the cap.
Hensch noted it seems that the 35-foot limitation mainly was instituted to address grade issues
on site. Russett replied that's what the former senior planner noted in his correspondence, the
City has had this 35-foot height limit since the 1930s. She noted walk-outs may have not been a
popular housing style in the 1930s but that 35-foot maximum has been around for decades.
Hensch asked in the RNS-12 zoning areas, how are those heights determined because it doesn't
include steeples or spires. Russett explained typically there's an average grade that would be
calculated based on elevations five feet from the proposed structure. They calculate an average
grade and then measure from that all the way up to the midpoint of the roof, and in most roof
types that would be the midpoint between the eaves and the peak.
Quellhorst noted one of the Association's concerns is that the Historic Preservation handbook is
just guidelines and are not binding, so he is curious to know what the process is for deviating
from those guidelines and how often that happens. Russett stated while they are guidelines, the
language in the guidelines is pretty strong, they use words like shall and must, and the guidelines
are also adopted by reference within the zoning code. The guidelines include exceptions that can
be considered for certain proposals within historic districts so it could be possible that the Historic
Preservation Commission maybe would allow something more than two and a half stories based
on the building type proposed. However, based on how the guidelines are implemented, and the
Historic Preservation Program, the guidelines carry a lot of weight and are used heavily in the
evaluation of the proposals for new construction, demolition or even just exterior modifications to
buildings. The decision to deviate from the guidelines is determined by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 9 of 18
Quellhorst asked if Russett is aware of any incidents where the Commission approved a
substantial deviation from the guidelines. Russett explained there's exceptions within the
guidelines that the Historic Preservation Commission can consider so they are limited to the
exceptions outlined in the in the guidelines.
Quellhorst noted one of the Association's main concerns is the potential to build incongruent
really tall homes and in the analysis of structures that are 27-feet currently, is there any sense of
how many of those are single-family homes. Russett is not sure but noted that could be
determined. He asked how many existing single-family homes are in the conservation overlay
that exceed 27-feet. Again, Russett is not sure but could find out.
Elliott noted one of the issues is the different heights for different uses, could there just be a rule
that says 27-feet is the maximum height in RNS-12 and not specify the use, and what would be
the implications of doing that. Russett said yes, they could implement that rule, and that was
staff’s original concern, because they thought the original request was for a 27-foot requirement,
and the concern would be the creation of non-conforming situations. Elliott asked if the height
requirement was just for new buildings, what would be the concern. Russett stated then the
concern is related to the complexity of how they regulate height and it only applying to new
structures and only applying at certain points in time, if the ordinance is adopted that new
structures are now 27-feet then previous ones would be conforming. It gets trickier to implement.
Padron noted some RNS-12 could be churches so someone could build a church but if they say
no more than 27-feet for everybody then the church would not be able to be taller than 27-feet.
Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Susan Shullaw spoke again as a member of the steering committee of the Northside
Neighborhood Association. She thanked everyone for taking some time in reading their initial
proposal but just wanted to refresh their memories of some of the main points. The initial
proposal had made clear that this was for new residential structures, this is really about new infill
in RNS-12 districts, and specifically the Northside, which they really support as long as that infill
feels appropriate, and particularly today when this is a hot topic for all when it can create
affordable housing. However, they also want to preserve and strengthen the character of these
neighborhoods and to quote the Plans “infill development that is compatible and complimentary
to surrounding neighborhood and creates a healthy balance of rental and owner-occupied
housing in all neighborhoods”. Shullaw showed images of the beautiful structures in the
Northside and addressed their first objection to the 35-foot height. It was their understanding
that this height limit was initially designed for structures on slopes and for walkout basements,
but there are a few, if any, sloping lots in the Northside. This and the other RNS-12 districts are
in older and flatter areas of town, so it's a moot point and raises the question of why 35-feet is
allowed in these neighborhoods. They believe that this negatively impacts affordable housing
because it gives an incentive to developers to convert existing single-family structures and
demolish them and replace them with larger structures with larger occupants. They've seen this
happening before and have some examples in the Northside of smaller, older houses being
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 10 of 18
replaced with large single-family unable to sell and they become rentals. They are concerned
about that development pressure. Shullaw acknowledged even though it's true what staff found
in their research about the number of demolitions that have happened in recent years, she stated
they all know that past performance is not always a predictor of what happens in the future. So
that's a concern for them. Shullaw also reiterated some points they've made about driving up
property values and making these neighborhoods less affordable. They believe that the 35-foot
height thwarts the purpose of the zoning, which is to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods
and to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings and provide
options. She showed an illustration of a very tall building placed next to a very short building in
the Northside. She noted an example of a structure that doesn't really allow for light and air
between buildings. They have done some research on the Northside and its clear buildings in the
Northside are overwhelmingly one and a half, two, and two and a half stories, they couldn't find
any three story buildings on the Northside, and few of the buildings approach that 35-foot limit.
Therefore, 35-foot buildings would be an aberration in this part of town and out of character of
the neighborhood. It may also make the neighborhood less attractive at a time when the City is
hoping to bring more people in and to patronize schools like Horace Mann. Shullaw stated they
also believe that this 35-foot height limit in new construction of residential violates many of what
the City is saying in its Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan about wanting to preserve
central neighborhoods and the character of those neighborhoods.
Jim Throgmorton stated he wanted to focus attention on the staff’s report and their response to it
because they have several concerns. The report makes a few key mistakes and misjudgments
which leads to inappropriate conclusions. First, the Northside Neighborhood Association did not
petition the City Council to consider reducing the maximum building heights in the RNS-12 zone
from 35-feet to 27-feet. Those numbers are all correct, but that's not exactly what they petitioned.
Their requests focused exclusively on reducing the maximum allowable height for single-family
and duplex residential structures in that zone. Had the staff invited them to consult before writing
their report this distinction could have been clarified and any errors corrected. Second influenced
by this error, the staff reports that 117 or more properties currently exceed the proposed 27-foot
height limit. They correctly observed there are 500 properties in the RNS-12 districts, 313 of
which are within the Northside, but instead of using the total numbers when determining how
many properties currently exceed the proposed height limit, staff should have used the number
of single-family and duplex properties when counting. In their petition the Northside
Neighborhood Association reported that only 188 of the 313 parcels located in the Northside are
occupied by single-family structures, two family conversions or duplexes. Even a three, four and
five family conversions are included. None of the 213, that is 188 plus 25, structures are greater
than two and a half stories, so in their judgment, the non-conformance issue goes away.
Throgmorton acknowledged staff presented some new information tonight, which they would
want to take into account and might influence the collective judgment about what to do. He also
wanted to note that there's a property inventory viewer available through the City Assessor's
office that he has been going through in great detail and it identifies every single-family/owner-
occupied property in the Northside Neighborhood and other parts of the City. The odd thing is it
identifies them as single-family/owner-occupied when a large proportion of them are not
occupied by owners but are occupied by renters, it's really quite puzzling. Third, the staff
estimated building heights using 2021 pictometry data from Connect Explorer, which
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 11 of 18
Throgmorton admitted he has no experience with whatsoever, but volunteers from the Northside
actually measured the taller buildings. They walked or biked by every property in all the RNS-12
zones, including those outside of the Northside and identified the taller houses and duplexes.
After measuring some apartment buildings for comparison's sake, they then went back to the
taller buildings with a laser measure and determined the height from the grade to the midpoint of
the roof pitch. These volunteers knocked on the door of each house to tell residents the
volunteers were doing research on houses in the neighborhood and asked if they could take
some measurements. Every resident they asked granted permission. The volunteers then placed
the laser device next to the house to obtain accurate measurements. Fourth, the staff
emphasizes that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in historic and conservation
overlay zones and the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that “new
structures must be one and a half or two stories in height”. Throgmorton emphasized however,
that these guidelines do not have the force of the zoning code which is what matters when it
comes to heights. He also noted it is important for the guidelines and zoning law to be consistent
with one another to avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Fifth, the staff
reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30
years. He acknowledged that is correct, however 14 of those structures were single-family and
14 out of 151 is 10% of the neighborhood's current stock of single-family properties. Moreover,
the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure.
Over the years 25 properties have been converted from single-family to three, four or five family
structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions
only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Years of neglect and disinvestment
can make a building unsound and irretrievable and the staff essentially dismisses the concern for
the small, inexpensive, single-family structures located in the southeastern part of the Northside
Neighborhood, ones that are outside of the historic preservation and conservation districts. Even
more important, the past does not necessarily predict the future, relying too heavily on past
trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you are headed. Just two weeks ago,
this Commission approved staff proposed amendments to the zoning code which are explicitly
designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new
structures. So, if in the past there's not been a large amount of development pressure, this
Commission just voted to increase the pressure and need to take that into account. Throgmorton
noted it is especially important to look at the mix of owners of the 363 residential properties
located in the Northside Neighborhoods in RNS-12 district, plus the part that extends out on the
southeastern part of the Northside. 42% are owned by 66 or more limited liability companies and
other incorporated entities. One LLC owns 13% of the 363 residential properties. One family
owns at least 17 of the RNS-12 residential properties and a third entity owns another 16.
Together these three owners possess 23% of all the residential properties in the Northside areas
RNS-12 district and they are likely to have considerable influence over what gets repaired, what
gets demolished and what gets built in the RNS-12 districts. The next point, sixth, is the staff
indicates it is not aware of any evidence that the proposed height limitation would increase
housing affordability, the Northside Association never ever said it would, what they did say is that
reducing the maximum permitted height of new single-family and duplex structures would reduce
the pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner-occupied structures. A new
structure will be far less affordable than an existing structure. Seventh, the staff states that the
existing 35-foot maximum height is consistent with all single family and multifamily residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 12 of 18
zones in Iowa City. This is not true. The form-based code for the South District limits heights to
two and a half stories, or 30-feet at the peak of the roof, essentially 27-feet to the midpoint of a
sloped roof, which is what they're asking for. Staff states “it has already been determined that
35-feet is a height that ensures a complimentary scale for the RNS-12 district”, they disagree.
The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of
certain neighborhoods. Section 14-2A-1E further stipulates that the maximum height standards in
the code are intended to “discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the
vicinity”. The current 35-foot height limit encourages redevelopment without a scale building that
can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. It therefore undermines the purpose of the
RNS-12 zone. Permitting new infill structures at that height would make it more difficult for RNS-
12 neighborhoods to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing
without compromising the character of the neighborhoods. It goes to the heart of the purpose of
the RNS-12 district. Given these facts, Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood
Association is asking the Commission to approve the request to reduce the maximum permitted
height of single-family and duplex structures from 35-feet to 27-feet. However, if the Commission
feels uncertain at this very moment, they urge them to defer voting to instruct staff to correct its
report and to finish considering this proposal at the next meeting or maybe the one after that.
Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood Association would be eager to work with staff to
ensure that both parties agree about the fact for that matter.
Sharon DeGraw (Iowa City) stated in response to the height change request staff expressed
concerned about creating non-conforming situations. DeGraw shared some images to illustrate
why they believe non-conformance is not an issue. The device that they used to measure houses
was a Bosch laser measure, and it's a high precision device. They can set this on the ground
and point it up at something and it sends a laser and measures. There was a question earlier on
how height is measured for a building so DeGraw demonstrated how they spotted the apex of
the building, the highest point, and whatever that measurement is in length they divide that in half
and shows the midpoint that represents the height of a building. She noted when there is a flat
top roof, it is even more evident to see how much taller a 35-foot flat top roof structure would be
than a typical one and a half to two and a half story structure like is found in the Northside and
RNS-12 single-family or duplex structures. She showed some images that if 27-feet seems
constricting there are very many tall buildings that are single-family or duplexes that already
existing in the Northside. DeGraw reiterated their proposal is just to talk about single-family and
duplex for infill. She showed an image of a duplex on the 900 block of Jefferson Street, its
relatively new construction, and it's about 27-feet at the midpoint. If the basement level was sunk
a little more, the structure would fit better with its neighbors. The picture also demonstrates that
under the current 35-foot height limit, this building would be much taller compared to its neighbor.
Next, she showed 225 East Fairchild noting this historic house on Fairchild is one of the tallest
that they could find in the RNS-12 zone. The main part of the house is 27-feet tall to the midpoint
of the gables on the front, the back and sides of the house but there is a pure middle shape roof
that goes up a bit higher, so the house would likely exceed the proposed 27-foot height limit.
However, this is not an issue regarding nonconformity, as the zoning code allows historic
structures to be rebuilt to the previous design, even if they are totally destroyed. She next
showed a single-family house on South Lucas that has a large addition that slightly exceeds the
proposed 27-foot height limit. Even so, it's not clear that this would be non-conforming because
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 13 of 18
height is measured based on average grade. Regardless, they ask if this would fit into a RNS-12
neighborhood or a neighborhood you'd want to live in. The duplex on Fairchild Street is quite
large compared to its neighbors, which itself is a large house. It is 35-feet tall at the peak but less
tall at the midpoint. Because of the odd roofline it's difficult to give an exact height for the zoning
purposes but it appears that even this large structure complies or comes close to the 27-feet
proposed height limit. Next, she showed a house at 911 Washington Street, it's one of the tallest
structures that they could find in the RNS-12 zone and because it's multifamily it would be
exempt from the request that they have. Finally, she showed 112 and 114 North Governor, this is
new construction that conforms with the height request of 27-feet and it looks good and is
appropriate for Northside and RNS-12 zones. DeGraw stated they respectfully request Council to
amend the zoning code by reducing the maximum building height for new single-family and
duplex structures in the RNS-12 zones from 35-feet to 27-feet.
Linda McGuire (Iowa City) stated she is almost a 50-year resident of the Northside and the
Northside Neighborhood Association got started when they successfully prevented a heli-a-pad
from being on Mercy Hospital in 1989, and they're hoping they don't have to fight that one again.
She wanted to point out that this was a request from the Northside Neighborhood Association,
directly to City government, to engage in planning for their neighborhood. They really appreciate
the staff having to step up and do it on an expedited schedule. She wants to make two points.
First, the objective measure of 27-feet is really good considering that many of the lots in the
Northside are 40 feet wide. So what they’re asking is that especially in the middle of the block
that they don't put up needle structures. The other consideration is what they call single-family.
The City cannot put occupancy limits on houses but what are called single-family houses in the
Northside are packed with as many renters as possible, which drives up the value of the lot.
Therefore, if they're demolished, there is a connection to affordability. McGuire noted it's a
complication that is way beyond what they're talking about right now, but the main point is the
failsafe that staff has said is that they already have existing processes to regulate heights in
neighborhoods is insufficient and painful and expensive. If every time there is a proposal to put
something in to fight the height requirement of 35 feet because it doesn't fit in the character of
the neighborhood, that's an expensive process for neighbors, for staff and for Commission's.
She did a fight like that next door and had to go to the Historic Preservation Commission to keep
a demolition from happening at 319 North Van Buren Street. McGuire stated what they're asking
is the beginning of a form-based code in the Northside with height requirements and that the
Commission would support the Northside Neighborhood Association’s proposal for height
requirement. If they must defer, please understand that they are approaching the Commission to
come up with some approach for planning for the inevitable development in the Northside
neighborhood that preserves affordability, walkability, access for elders, families, whatever.
Ginalie Swaim stated for several years she was a member of the Historic Preservation
Commission which has participated in the City's past planning efforts regarding Downtown and
Central Planning Districts. Tonight she is representing as a board member of the local nonprofit
Friends of Historic Preservation and they encourage the Commission to support the Northside
Neighborhood’s proposal to amend the height standards for RNS-12. Historic Preservation is not
about preserving every historic building, it is also about preserving the character of Iowa City
neighborhoods. Even preservationists acknowledge that not all buildings can be saved, repaired
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 14 of 18
or salvageable, and may be replaced with newer structures. However, when that happens the
new buildings should be compatible with their neighbors. New buildings should not be so tall as
to lord over the existing streetscape. Swaim noted they have all seen in many places, streets in
neighborhoods, where a new building lords over the streetscape and where a taller building
sticks out like a sore thumb. Taller buildings interrupt the rhythm and the scale of nearby houses
that are a consistent height and they diminish the sense of time and place that appeals to so
many people. The height incentive to build taller buildings opens the door to developers willing
and able to invest in tear down and build up 37-feet because taller buildings mean more units
and bigger rental income or higher purchase prices. In turn such a strategy decreases the
number of smaller houses that are affordable to owners. Where then does this leave the
residents who call these neighborhoods home, the residents who choose not to or can't afford to
tear down and build bigger, who appreciate the consistent scale, who depend on a good supply
of older housing stock, and who enjoyed the natural light that could be blocked by taller
buildings. As stated, the City established RNS-12 to conserve an area for folks who want to live
within walking distance to downtown, the City has other areas, South Gilbert and South
Burlington for taller structures. The Northside, whether the parts in a district or those that are not
in historical district, is the largest older neighborhood in Iowa City and many consider it the core
of older Iowa City. Why not then be proactive about protecting this older neighborhood whether
it's in a historic district or not. Additionally, don't properties in neighborhoods in the Northside that
are not in a district still deserve the same considerations for quality of life to those that are in
districts that are subject guidelines. Perhaps they've heard the expression, the greenest building
is the one that's already built. A building 60-70 or more years older is better was built by lumber
from old growth forests, it's denser and more durable. Tearing down houses means that this still
valuable old growth lumber ends up in the landfill. Hardly a climate action goal.
Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) lives in a section that's not in the Northside District and is a
relatively new resident and has been here since 2020. What he was most compelled about with
this particular proposal was less about the character in terms of the physical character in
neighborhoods, sure that's important to some people, but for him it's really about the community
and the character of the place. One of the things that's so attractive to him about this particular
space is that there are so many different types of people and family settings and communities.
Part of the ability to preserve that community and equity is to have these diverse, sometimes
littler buildings that allow people to find a place that is affordable. Families and people’s
situations change, as an example people have divorces or perhaps they get widowed, and
finding space within that same community so kids can stay in schools is an important part about
having a vibrant, diverse community. That makes Iowa City so special and makes that
neighborhood so special. Some of the addendums that were made and submitted do a beautiful
job of is providing nuance that perhaps was not in the initial request nor were in staff’s work,
were affordability. He respects that best practice might be that height restrictions aren't great for
affordability, there's a reasonableness to that, but there's also reasonableness to allowing for the
diverse type of housing stock to being preserved and part of a way of making that preserved, as
others have said more eloquently said, is to reduce an incentive to redevelop in a way that is not
going to force folks out because they can no longer afford to rent a home that has either multiple
rental folks in it, and so forth. Knote acknowledged the Commission is doing the hard work of
contemplating this pretty complex item, it seems relatively simple in some ways, but in some
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 15 of 18
ways there's a lot of complexity. He just asks that maybe as they're figuring out think about what
would be helpful to preserve some of the diversity of the community and sustainability of the
community. Consider perhaps how this height restriction might disincentivize the type of
redevelopment that might force folks out who might otherwise want to stay in that community.
Kevin Boyd stated he loves local history and is going to talk about history for a second. Tonight
they meet in Emma J. Harvat Hall, many know that she was the first woman to become mayor of
Iowa City but what they may not know is it took 37 years for a second woman to become mayor
again. Thelma Lewis was the first mayor to govern in this chamber, so she sat right where they
are and wielded the gavel for the first time. Thelma, more than anyone else in our history, is the
reason they have professional city staff, rather than political appointees, she co-chaired the
campaign, and Boyd suspects she did most of the work to get the referendum passed to get the
council/manager form of government and secured professional staff here in Iowa City. Lewis
was ready to retire from her term on Council but the anti-Council/manager forces were running a
slate of candidates and at that time her seat would be the critical seat on the Council overriding
the referendum. Thelma knew that she was a strong enough candidate to win again, and she did,
securing for a second time the professionalization of staff and the council/manager form of
government. At the end of her term on Council, Thelma gave a bit of a farewell address to the
Pilots’ Club in the ballroom at the Hotel Jefferson and she made several accurate predictions
about issues that Iowa City would face over the next decades, it's really remarkable to read.
She shared a vision for how staff and the City would work with this new kind of professional staff
that was growing in size. She believed it was important for citizen groups, neighborhood
associations, groups who cared about things in the community would come together with a
thoughtful proposal, bring it to the City staff and City Council and partner with the City staff to find
a workable solution. That was her vision, the vision of the woman who was responsible for
having professional staff here. She, in that ballroom, reminded future decision makers in Iowa
City that they, the decision makers, should listen to civic organizations, neighborhood groups,
and to encourage City staff to find workable ways to try to accommodate what they're trying to
achieve. So tonight, here in Emma J Harvat Hall, where Thelma Lewis once wielded her gavel,
Boyd encourages the Commission to channel Thelma Lewis and support the citizen-led groups.
If they are concerned that there's some details in here that still need to be worked out, channel
Thelma Lewis some more and encourage staff and the neighborhood association to come
together to find a reasonable solution and defer until that time could come.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Elliott moved to defer this item until the second meeting in October. Townsend seconded
the motion.
Quellhorst wanted to make a couple of points, maybe some things to consider during the deferral
process. First, he’d really like to thank everybody because it's clear that they have thought very
hard about this issue, staff put together a very detailed and conscientious report and the
neighborhood association also obviously put a great deal of effort into their submissions. It's
evident that they care very deeply about historic preservation, which is something that's very
important in the Strategic Plan, as well as the Central District Plan. He noted one thing that
would be helpful to him is to understand how effectively the historic and conservation overlays
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 16 of 18
currently function. He has some concerns about carving out a unique height limit that is
applicable to a unique and limited zone and is inconsistent with height limits in other residential
zones. Again, historic preservation and preserving the integrity of Iowa City neighborhoods is
also vitally important and is a priority in the Strategic Plan so to that end it'd be helpful to
understand both how effectively the current historic preservation scheme is, as well as whether
there are any alternatives to this they might consider that would get them all to the same place.
The two things that he would have in mind would be strengthening the provisions that underlie
the historic conservation overlay zones, or perhaps adding additional properties to those zones,
if they feel it's appropriate.
Wade appreciates everybody coming in and all the correspondence on this item. His position is
he thinks it's demonstrated to this point all the overlays are performing their goal or intent, as
demonstrated by new developments. The new developments are fitting within the goals of the
existing neighborhoods so introducing a new complication or new special consideration he just
wants to make sure that overall it makes sense. Also seeking to look in the rearview mirror, he’d
be curious if this lower height restriction was in place generations before, what would the
neighborhoods look like as a result of that. The neighborhoods now might not necessarily be the
same neighborhoods if generations before implemented that.
Padron stated she does not support the deferral and also doesn’t support reducing the height.
Staff made a very good point and within the staff report do they show the affect and the human
scale of the neighborhoods. Mainly, when she reads the last point, that the current height
limitation is consistent with other single family residential zones.
Craig shares some of the feelings that others have already expressed that they’ve heard from
the Northside Neighborhood, but the RNS-12 zone is actually a pretty small part of the of the
Northside, not a small part of a significant part, but certainly not even half of the Northside
Neighborhood and they haven't heard from anybody in an RSN-12 zone that lives outside the
Northside Neighborhood. It appears from the math that there are historic protections on almost
everything in the Northside Neighborhood that is currently zoned RSN-12 so why do they need
this. She wants to know why they need this and she is not compelled that it is necessary to do it
and still preserve the character of the neighborhood, which she is absolutely in favor of.
Hensch stated he will be voting yes on this deferral for two reasons. Number one, since there's a
misunderstanding about the application of this request from the Northside Neighborhood
Association, he thinks that just needs to be clarified to make sure everybody's on same page.
Second, overall, fundamentally, neighborhood integrity and character is a high priority of his and
the whole city can't be taken over by rentals and profit motives, there has to be a place for
people to live who work in this community and plan to stay here and contribute and be good
neighbors over time.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Padron dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 2023:
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 17 of 18
Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 2, 2023. Craig seconded the motion,
a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett forwarded an email from the Corridor Community Action Network, they're hosting a
community engagement festival on Sunday, August 27 and they invited boards and commissions
to be part of that. If the commission is interested in having a table and talking to other volunteers
in the community let her know.
Hensch noted at the last meeting Craig brought up the AARP and some of the information that
they had on AUDs and today he received an email about a slide presentation that talks about the
benefits and what AUDs are. It's a really a great reference site for people.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, seconded by Elliott and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2024
9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15 3/1 4/5 4/19 6/21 7/5 7/19 8/2 8/16
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PADRON, MARIA X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
QUELLHORST, SCOTT -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
SIGNS, MARK X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X
WADE, CHAD --- --- X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member