HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-27 AgendaSubject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the City
Clerk's Office, 356-5040.
AGENDA
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 27, 1995
6:30 P,M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ITEM NO. 1 - CALL TO ORDER.
ROLL CALL.
ITEM NO. 2 -
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY
CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF AN APPROXIMATE
2.0 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF OLD DUBUQUE ROAD AND
NORTH OF DODGE STREET FROM RS-5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, TO OPDH-8, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY
(REZ95-0010).
Comment: At its November 2 meeting, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended denial of the original application to rezone
5.7 acres. The Planning and Zoning Commission has been invited to meet and
consult with the Council at the November 27 meeting. Comments were
received at the November 21 public hearing on this item. The Council at the
request of the applicant decreased the rezoning application to approximately
2.0 acres. .~/~_.~,C A.~MEND
ITEM NO. 3- CONSIDER AN ORDINAN ING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
'CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF AN APPROXIMATE
2.0 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF OLD DUBUQUE ROAD AND
NORTH OF DODGE STREET FROM RS-5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, TO OPDH-8, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY.
(REZ95-0010)(First Consideration)
Comment: See item 2. above
Action:
ITEM NO. 4 - CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING.
/
Subject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final off/opy, contact the City
Clerk's 356-5040.
AGENDA
10WA CITY CITY COUNCIL/
ClL MEETING - NOVEM)~R 27, 1995
6:30 P.M.
ITEM NO. I - CALL TO t.
ITEM NO. 2 -
ITEM NO. 3 -
ROLL CALL.
PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDII
CONDITIONALLV ~
5.7 ACRE TRACT OF
NORTH OF DODGE
RESIDENTIAL, TO OPD~
(REZ95~0010).
Comment: At its
Zoning
Commission
contained
November 21 p~
ING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY
DNS OF AN APPROXIMATE
EAST OF OLD DUBUQUE ROAD AND
FROM RS-5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY
meeting, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning and
nded denial of the requested rezoning. The
inconsistent with the staff recommendation
October 19. Comments were received at the
s item.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE AI~
CONDITION/ .LY ( ~ THE
IF LAND
NORTH DODGE STREET FROM
RE,~ TO OPDH-8, PLANNED
0)(First Consideration)
Acti~ :
See item 2. above
~IDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
E REGULATIONS OF AN APPROXIMATE
EAST OF OLD DUBUQUE ROAD AND
;-5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
EVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY.
ITEM NO. 4
Action:
A MOTION TO ADJOURN SPECIAL
#2 page 1
ITEM NO. 2 - PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
CHAPTER BY CONDITIONi%LLY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF
APPROXIMATE 2.0 ACRE TEACT OF LAND LOCATED EAT OF OLD DUBUQUE
ROAD AND NORTH OF DODGE STREET FROM RS-St LOW DENSITY SINOLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OPDH-8, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSIN~
OVERLAY (REZ95-0010).
Horow/ This is a continuation from the previous member of November
21. I would like staff to start this p.h. and give us as much
information as they can. Yes, right, you are to address.
Franklin/ First of all we have just done some calculations based on
protests that were submitted today° There are sufficient
protests to constitute 21% which will require an extraordinary
majority vote of the city council to fezone this property. I
can go through that if you are interested.
Horow/ Could you tell us which ones these are?
Franklin/ The total property is 11.56 acres. You deduct the two
acres of the property being rezoned0 When I say the total
property, what I mean is the elliptical shaped property that
is defined by the area being rezoned and then all the property
within 200 feet of that area. That total is 11.56. You deduct
the 2 acres of the rezoned property or the property proposed
to be rezoned which equals 9.56 acres. 20% of that is 1.91
acres. The protest that we have are from the Donahue, that is
one acre; Kessler and Gordon constitutes 1.24 acres; Dyer, .69
acres; and Dickens, .08 acres for a total of 2~0! which
constitutes 21.03%.
Throg/ So what is the possibility of their-You are saying 21%. How
many acres is that and given you calculations, is there any
possibility (can't hear).?
Franklin/ We used a preliminer and calculated this three times
which is the practice. Is there a possibility of error?
Always. This is done by a human being and it is a done with a
machine that is not a survey instrument. We consideredwhether
we would advise you to wait and have this checked by engineers
tomorrow. The engineers would use a preliminet also. I don't
think you are going to get a different answer. It is very
close however.
Throg/ How many acres is 1%?
Franklin/ 1% of 9.56 acres? .956 acres. No, .0956. Can you
Thlsrepresentsonlyareasonably accuratetranscrlption oftholowa CIW council meeting of Novemb~27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 2
calculate that with the square footage? Did you want that?
Throg/ No.
Franklin/ I can't do that in my head. I can't even do 1% in my
head.
Gibson/ What is the (can't hear)?
Franklin/ The requirement is 20%. We are at 21.03.
Gibson/ Represented by protest?
Franklin/ Represented by protest.
Horow/ Did the conditional zoning agreement-
Franklin/ The conditional zoning agreement has not been signed. The
reason being a snow storm in Minneapolis. It required the
signature of two parties, Mr. and Mrs. Hitchcock? Mr.
Hitchcock was able to sign it but Mrs. Hitchcock was not able
to get to where the agreement was faxed to. Presumably she
would be able to sign it by tomorrow but we don't have a
conditional zoning agreement signed at this point in time.
Horow/ And as I understood the conditional zoning agreement had
been amended by Mrs. Hitchcock.
Franklin/ Yes.
Woito/ Very minor. There is nothing substantive from what you saw.
Horow/ What is council's pleasure? We can continue the p.h. I have
asked staff to also brief us on the financial aspect of this.
But since there is an extraordinary majority required and
there is no CZA, what is your pleasure?
Kubby/ I guess it matters if there are two people who are saying
right now no matter what else could be said at the p.h. or
with council discussion that they can't support this that it
is moot.
Throg/ I would like to ask a question of council before that. I
guess I am wondering whether the develops have any interest in
whether they are confident that 21% have actually opposed or
come in and have signed petitions or whether there is a
possibility of,I don't mean error but just the difficulty of
Thlsrepresentsonlyareasonably accuratetranscrlptlonofthelowa CitycouncllmeetlngofNovember27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 3
calculating. Maybe really 19.9, I only want to know if the
~eveloper is having in interest in verifying those numbers?
Horow/ Okay, would Mr. Burns care to address council?
Bob Burns/ In answer to your question, tonight is the first that I
have heard about the calculations. I assume the calculations
are- Obviously we would like to know how they were calculated
but I trust the staff and they are the ones who perform the
calculation. But I haven't seen that.
Hor0w/ Okay. Jim, do you wish to pursue this farther?
Thr0g/ No.
Hor0w/ Okay, are there-is there anything else that council wishes
to go along with in terms of this. Investigate anything else?
Lehman/ Sue, I guess I am not sure this is the appropriate time but
I have got some questions for either Marinanne or Karin that
I think are really pretty pertinent to this.
Bakar/ Why are we having this discussion if at least two people are
going to vote against it?
Lehman/ Because I think we have done something here that really
really is not in the best public interest. It is a matter of
poor judgement and a lot of other things and I think the
public should have an opportunity to hear about it. And if we
just drop it here they are not going to hear about it.
Baker/ So you want to call on the question of judgement of who?
Lehman/ Our judgement. The judgement of the Housing Commission.
When we-when Bob Burns first approached council or approached
the Housing Commission on that property, Rohret Road and
Mormon Trek, my understanding is that we were willing to put
CDBG moneys and whatever in the amount of about $300,000
towards 300 units. Is that correct?
Franklin/ No, it was $300,000 toward 133 units in a mixed project.
It was not specifically the Mormon Trek project, the Mormon
Trek property, that was the first area that they looked at and
then were not able to acquire.
Lehman/ My point is ll and some units, $300,000. Now when this
project came up it was first 44 units?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 4
Franklin/ It started at 66 at staff. It came before the council at
42-41.
Lehman/ Did we consider giving them the $300,000 on the 60, the 40,
and the 32?
Franklin/ Yes.
Lehman/ And then when it came down to 20, we increased that from
300 to almost $400,000. Is that correct?
Franklin/ The HCD Commission recommended that, yes, $398,441.
Lehman/ Or a subsidy to the tune of about $120,000 per unit.
Franklin/ The price per unit that you have been given is $117,000
and $123,000 is the total cost of the unit. That is direct and
indirect subsidy through low income housing tax credits. So it
is not, it is not a direct subsidy of $123,000 or $117,000.
Kubby/ So what is that figure? That $398,000 divided by?
Franklin/ $398,441 divided by 12. $33,203 which is the subsidy in
terms of the locally funded CDBG and HOME. This project also
involves state HOME money and low income housing tax credits.
Lehman/ For a total of?
Franklin/ A total cost per unit, depending on how you calculate the
share of cost, between $117,000 -$123,000 per unit.
Lehman/ Which is considerably above market?
Franklin/ Yes. I have some materials if you want to get into this.
Lehman Well, no. I just wanted to point that out because I think
this is really not the direction that at least I, as a
councilor, want to take. To me it is like buying $1,000 toilet
seats for the Navy.
Kubby/ It is not fair to say it is $118,000 that we are subsidizing
as the city in terms of our decision making process. It is at
least three.
Lehman/ Our decision making process allows the subsidy of about
$120,000.
This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
Fl1279B
#2 page 5
Kubby/ That is true for the whole picture but some of that can
happen no matter what we decide about, the decision we have to
make about block grant and HOME moneys. Some of that can
happen without any decision on our part. So, I don't know-
Franklin/ Not necessarily, Karen, because it takes a certain
commitment shown on the part of the local level to allocate
those federal CDBG and HOME moneys for the state to then
follow with their allocations.
Horow/ And is that cost of just the land acquisition and
infrastructure or does that cost of $117,000 to $123,000
include building?
Franklin/ That includes everything.
Horow/ This includes everything for affordable housing.
Throg/ But I am sure you agree based on our conversation earlier to
day that the magnitude of the subsidy per unit has been drive
up by prior council decisions and P/Z Commission decisions to
reduce the number of units from 66 down to 21 which we are not
going to approve today.
Lehman/ At some point I think it just plain becomes not feasible.
It is not a good idea anymore. And I know exactly where you
are coming from, Jim, and I respect your opinion and you know,
whatever. We talked about it. You know, it is a lose lose
deal.
Throg/ Then the complexity becomes what can you do? What is the
alternative? What is the magic bullet out there that is going
to do a better job than what we have in front of us?
Horow/ Jim, I was thinking about that from the other point of view
that affordable housing now would be seen as something capable
of being in this price range. That I would hate to have the
Iowa City be seen as the most expensive affordable housing in
the state. I mean, that is a catch-22.
Kubby/ But there are nine other units here that aren't being
directly subsidized. That because of the multi-family units
can happen, the other nine can happen. So you really, in
reality, have to put that in the formula. SO that brings the
cost per unit down when you-
Horow/ I don't see that with this particular decision that we would
This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 6
be making. I mean this decision right now, if it worked by
itself- I mean, who is to say whether or not it would
ultimately be those nine individual homes.
Kubby/ I think it is important, especially when you and Ernie speak
about this that you also acknowledge that because you couldn't
support it at the 40 lot unit number that you have the power
to create the lower density which drove it up which makes you
say I can't support it again. I think that just needs to be
acknowledged that-
Horow/ I have no problems doing that considering that I did support
the previous in the southeastern part of the city which was
rejected. So I don't have any problems with that.
Kubby/ But these are such different situations because with Green
View there was a $2 million subsidy on the part of local
government in one form or another for a project that was going
to happen anyway without any subsidy. This is a project that
will not happen unless there is a partnership with local
government. So those two situations are very very different.
The amount of money that we are talking about is very
different.
Horow/ I don't see it that way but then we can agree to disagree.
Baker/ Can I ask a simple question here? Since the main concern
seems to be cost per unit. What is an acceptable cost per unit
figure?
Franklin/ In the materials I just passed out to you, the last page
has examples of housing costs in Iowa City. Single family new
construction, s.f. acquisition rehab projects as well as
multi-family projects. And I have an overhead that I can dig
out so everybody knows what we are talking about here.
Horow/ (Can't hear).
Franklin/ This was just to give you an idea of what some of the
possibilities are in terms of providing housing and we tried
to give you somethings that are comparable to the type of
housing that would have been provided in the Saratoga Springs
project. The highest per unit cost here and we don't have
anything on Villa Garden. I am afraid we couldn't get that
figure by the end of the day. but the highest cost here is the
Citizen Building Project. Now one reason that is such a high
cost per unit is because this project went from 66 units to
Thisrepresents only areasonably accurate transcription ofthelowe City council meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 7
18- 66, I think to start with, to 18. There is still the
intention of building those additional units at that site. So
that will bring the overall cost per unit down on that
project. But as you can see from the other ones the cost per
unit are less than the project that we are talking about
including private market costs on Westside Drive and Jema
Court. The staff was going to suggest to you tonight that we
cannot support this project based on the cost per unit. We
advise HCD Commission of that and would advise you of that.
Also given how the project has evolved, the cost per unit
seems to have gotten so high as a consequence of a number of
things including the reduction in density on the project. That
it doesn't seem reasonable to call this affordable housing.
And remember that we are talking about subsidy for
construction. There will also be subsidy for rental.
Throg/ So what is the magic alternative? I am not expecting you to
answer that question. You could try to do it. I want to know
what is the magic alternative that is going to provide us with
affordable housing for typically female head of the households
that are low income? Where are we going to provide housing
that is affordable for those kinds of folks. We went south,
southeast part of town and it was very clear this council
chose not to do that because we were told by people who live
in the southeast part of town that we don't want to
concentrate low income housing in that part of the city. Very
strong message, right? Okay, so we go north this particular
area. We try to locate what I think was an outstanding project
at that intersection and because of the supermajority
requirement and the feelings of other people living near that
area, we cut and sized down that. Where do you go? What is the
magic alternative that is going to be better?
Horow/ I think that is part of the reason we wanted to get together
with the P/Z Commission and also among ourselves in terms of
assisted housing. The regional approach, different projects
that are going on, either in Iowa City or out of Iowa City.
These are things that we haven't talked about, Jim. And part
of P/Z's charge-no, I am interpreting their charge was until
council really discussed this and came up with some sort of
agreement, that they would preclude going along with something
that came in. We have not discussed that with ourselves.
Lehman/ Well Jim, you and I talked this morning. Certainly this is
not a the most wonderful solution but we may have to locate
subsidized housing in less expensive areas, namely outside
Iowa City.
Thlsrepresents only ereasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa CI~ council meeting of November 27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 8
Kubby/ That is totally unacceptable to say. If you live at 50% of
median income and need assisted housing, you can't live in
Iowa City in a new unit? That is really scary.
Lehman/ That just may be the case.
Kubby/ Wow.
Nov/
We do provide a voucher and certificate for all of Johnson
County and even some areas beyond Johnson County. Those people
are not required to live in-
Throg/ That's true. What that would be to state as a matter of
policy, adopted by the city, that we want wealthier people to
live in the city and lower income outside.
Horow/ No, I totally disagree with that.
Council/ (All talking).
Kubby/ The other thing that we have to understand is that this
project like the original project and as it got honed down to
a smaller numbers, it was not going to be 100% of individuals
living there going to be on Section 8 Housing. They may have
been within a certain income but not necessarily in the
subsidized housing program. So we have to talk about levels of
income and what the ratio of open market and assisted housing
would have been although it is all open market because we are
disqualifying people. But-so you can't say this was 100%
assisted housing. I think we need to be real careful about our
language and the things that we project out into the
community. I think it projects and attitude which is something
we talked about last time at our housing meeting. That I feel
really scared right now that we might be talking like that.
Baker/ Can I ask the same exact question again to the staff this
time? Where did Karin go? You said the staff came to the
conclusion the cost had increased. Was there an acceptable
figure in the staff's mind that would have made the project
viable? Cost per unit.
Franklin/ No. Well, we did not the construction cost on this
particular project, that is the 21 unit project, until
November 9. We knew an estimate at that point and we went to
the HCD Commission with this per unit cost and a concern about
it. We have not sat down and said this is the per unit cost
that we would accept. However, we knew that in projects that
This represents only e reasonably ~ccurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 9
we had done on 5th Avenue and the projects that were done on
Whispering Meadows by GICHF and by the Public Housing
Authority that you could build s.f. and duplex housing for
less than what this project was being built for and given
that, could not recommend then this price. The median price of
housing in Iowa City is $109,000.
Baker/ I understand that and I don't think it is the staff's
responsibility to determine what the cut off point is. I mean
that is eventually going to have to be a council decision
about what the proper subsidy is. But I guess my concern is we
are doing all of this at the tail end of the process again.
Everybody jumps through all of these hoops and now since we
have driven down the number of available units from 32 in the
previous proposal which was within the comp plan density
guidelines and was actually a better project than this is as
far as layout goes I think. We have driven it down to 21 and
jumped up the per unit cost and now we suddenly discovered it
cost too much. It is not directed at you but it is part of my
frustration the fact that this is a question we raised after
Green View and was one of the reasons I thought we were going
to have a meeting last September to talk about those specifics
and we never settled then. But now we are sitting saying all
right, 2-3 people on the council at the tail end of the
process suddenly decide this cost too much. Whereas if the
developer knows up front here are the outer limits. What can
you do in that range? Everybody would have been better served
and basically we are sitting talking to ourselves and nothing
is getting done.
Horow/ Larry, I agree we seem to do this. I felt the very same way
with Green View. I really did. That all of the work that had
been done by staff and at the very end it was a political
decision, not one of planning. I don't know how you get around
that. That is purely the composition of the-
Baker/ You don't do this over and over again. Wait until everybody
goes through the hoops. The neighbors come out, you keep
adjusting things the last minute trying to keep everybody
happy and then the thing gets screwed up at the end anyway.
You don't keep doing that.
Horow/ If you have got a better suggestion-
Baker/ Yeah, my suggestion is what we should have done earlier
which is to sit down with the next council, obviously, and say
all right, give everybody, neighborhoods, Mr. Burns and people
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meating of November 27, 1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 10
like him that are in this business, some clearer guidelines
and simply say if you can't do it in this section of town,
this number of units at this cost, consider something else.
Don't waste your time. That is what I would like to see
happen.
Nov/ It isn't just the cost of the units that people are objecting
to.
Baker/ That is the only thing I heard so far.
Nov/
Well, all right, that is what you heard from the council. But
until now, until we heard this 21 unit description a week ago,
most of the objections were from the neighbors and their
objections were not costs, they were density. And many of them
were objecting not only to the density but to the fact that
things are going to be rezoned. People are saying if I moved
in here knowing that it was RS-5 we should not have it rezoned
while I am still living there because I don't want to see
apartment buildings. There are other people who do not live
here who are telling me if I knew that the area across the
street from my house is zoned for RS-12 or any other multi-
family I would then accept the fact that I would eventually
see apartment buildings across the street. But the rezoning is
what is bothering people. They looked at the zoning plan. They
figured nothing would ever be rezoned and therefore they
bought this house.
Baker/ Which is exactly people on the westside said.
Nov/ Right.
Council/ (All talking).
Nov/ I am not saying that I agree with this. I am not saying that
I would never vote to rezone something. But I am saying that
this is the neighborhood objection and the cost per unit
objection was one that never came up until a week ago. We
never saw anything of this-we never talked about cost per unit
until it became so few units. So it isn't a last minute
decision.
Throg/ Because we drove the number of units down. That is a
tradeoff between density, the density of the building and the
practicality of doing it. Unless you are putting on very cheap
land in the first place. Where is very cheap land in Iowa
City?
This represents only 8 reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
Fl12795
page
H0row/ In the southeast part of the city.
Throg/ All right, so do we want to be putting low income housing in
the southeast part of Iowa City?
Horow/ I think that is something that you are going to have to
really consider.
Nov/ That is a real affordability issue.
H0row/ If the object is to get people housed.
Kubby/ But there are other issues. We are making trade-offs. We
have said we don't want to concentrate more units in the
southeast part of town. You tradeoff is, because development
costs are higher and because land costs are higher, so you are
going to pay more per unit in other parts of town to live out
another value to not have one section of town have lots of
people in a certain income or lower. And so there are trade-
offs and we have to decide where those cutoffs are going to
be.
Horow/ Or whether those tradeoffs should take place.
Tom Scott/ But originally, if I may interject something. Originally
sometime back, I think between the 43 and the 32 or the 41 and
the 32 units proposals, the council gave pretty clear
direction that you all wanted to discussed whether or not you
wanted to continue clustering subsidized housing or if in fact
you wanted to scatter subsidized housing. The message to the
commission was that you guys were going to decide that issue.
It seemed to me and this is the position that I have argued
consistently from that date forward, that until that policy
decision was made by the council we were duty bound to put
things in abeyance. It is very similar to what we did when I
first joined the commission when the entire city was going to
be rezoned. A goodly number of people had properties that sat
for sometime when they came in front of the commission or the
city to be rezoned and they were not rezoned until that
process was completed. Until whether it is this council or the
new cogncil answers that particular question, whether you want
to continue with the present uolicy or whether you want to go
forward with a different policy. I think the commission is in
limbo and I think I stated publicly for the council as good as
well as for the neighbors benefit, that in all actuality the
31 or 32 unit proposal was by far the best proposal that had
been presented to the commission and that in all likelihood
Thisrepresents only areasonably accuratetranscrlption ofthelowa Clty coundl meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 12
there were enough votes to pass it. It was not discussed and
it was deferred based on council's-I don't want to say
direction because that may be too strong. But based on
council's desire to discuss clustered versus scattered
development and you all had one meeting and the issue is not
totally decided and I don't think the issue is totally decided
yet.
Throg/ Surely you are right, Tom. But there are at least two
different ways of thinking about scattering housing. One is by
individual units around the city. The other is in small
clusters around the city and this is a small cluster. It was
a small cluster in 31 units. If it for a larger number of
units being dispersed in a small clusters around the city- I
am sorry, Naomi, I didn't hear what you said.
Nov/ I said it was also a small cluster at 40 units.
Throg/ Yes, I would totally agree with that.
Nov/
And when we first discussed this we talked about over 300
units and out of that number 133 would be scattered through
the development and designated as affordable and that would
have been truly scattered. That was the original idea.
Kubby/ That would have been an ideal project. It is something that
we should try to go back to to make happen, maybe, with a
larger subsidy than $300,000 because the land costs were so
high. But that is not what is before us and it just couldn't
happen with the amount of money that the developers had to
work with.
Horow/ Ann.
Ann Bovjberg/ May I give a perspective at least from my end on the
apparent suddenness of money and the cost going up and units
gone down. P/Z got this as a strictly land use, dwelling units
per acre in the comp plan, rezoning kinds of things. And we
tried to look at it as that and many people have said that it
is a (can't hear) if this were not a public private
affordable- We tried to really concentrate on land. Arguments
were given to us, statements were given to us about the
desirability of the project based upon money. Well, we weren't
suppose to think about that and so the minutes that you have
seen from us have had money in it but our decisions and our
discussions have been on dwelling units per acre. How many
acres was it also changed over time which was confusing to us.
Thisrepresents only areasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa City council meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 13
And so it might appear that suddenly there was a money and a
dwelling unit per acre and a change in a subsidy per dwelling
unit problem but it has always been there. P/Z has not made
that a major part of our decisions because that was not
suppose to be our major decision and so we are at the end here
and suddenly all the considerations from commissions, several
meetings, several renditions have all come together and you
have this stew pot with a bunch of things that happened, all
been cooking together, or maybe don't belong in the pot at the
same time. So I think part of that might be your frustration
and I know it is my frustration and I think that is at least
part of what I hear from the council the last couple of
sessions.
Horow/ I certainly have appreciated P/Z's positioning on this
because it is difficult to constantly focus only on the land
use issue and keep blinders away from the financial aspect of
it. That is not an easy task. Does anyone else have anything
else they want to say.
Nov/ There may be some public that has something to say.
Horow/ I meant just council. Okay. The p.h. is in continuation. If
anyone cares to address council on this issue. I ask you to
come up before the mic and state your name and sign in please.
Liz Swenson/ I am on the HCD Commission and have struggled with
this particular project I think as many of you have and I also
felt it was a stronger project to have 33 units or 44 units
and I am deeply pained at getting to this point when there is
a great deal of pressure to make a decision about whether or
not this group can go forward with this pot of money and what
I would like to suggest even though I know it is incredibly
difficult for a lot of different groups to develop a
consensus. I would really like to suggest that HCD, P/Z, and
the city council come up with guidelines because a number of
the issues that I find troublesome are really things that Bob
Burns would have had to be a mind reader to deal with and they
would be the kinds of issues that would be a part of
guidelines which would allow for flexibility and would allow
for a range of costs on land and costs per unit dwelling unit
and would really strengthen I think any proposal that would
come forward in the future. That doesn't solve this particular
project but I would just like to suggest that maybe instead of
letting this die that the city council reconsider it at the 33
unit level even given the issues that the neighbors raised
about density and approve it at that level and then work with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 14
the neighborhood to resolve some of
transportation, sidewalks and work with
been approved. Thank you.
the issues about
them after this has
Nov/ The problem with that is we can't have a CZA for that many
acres.
Horow/ Does anyone else care to address council on this issue?
Mary Losch/ I live at 1252 Oakes Drive still and I just have a
couple of brief comments to make tonight on behalf of the
neighbors. There may be a couple of other people who would
like to talk as well. It is not clear to me exactly where
things are right now. So I am going to proceed as if there
would be a vote later which I assume there will be since the
p.h. is open. We have talked about a number of issues. Density
is one but I think there are probably fourteen or fifteen. It
seems many of those have sort of dropped by the wayside in the
minds of many of the people sitting around the table this
evening. I am not going to rehash all of them tonight though.
The only thing that we are going to talk about with regard to
the financing has to do with really land acquisition costs.
That is a separate issue from the increase in the price per
unit as the density decreases. Obviously you are going to lose
economy of scale and there is some increase in the price per
unit as density decreases. We don't have a problem with that
concept. I think there is a point at which it becomes
unreasonable. I am not going to tell you that we have decided
what that is. I think that is a decision that has to be made
and clearly from some of the information that we have seen
tonight, it may very well be the case that in this particular
project it may have tipped too far. I don't know. We are not
really going to address that/ But with regard to land
acquisition it does seem to us that the quarter of million
dollars for land acquisition in this sight for this small
tract of land has contributed to some of these high costs when
that wouldn't necessarily be the case separate from the
economy of scale issue, particularly for RS-5 land. That
certainly is an issue that is separate and I think should be
discussed as a separate issue. Something that we talked about
earlier in terms of being part of the problem. When too much
is offered for land others then are going to want that much as
well, so on and so on. That is an issue that we want to bring
up. Second, the recent decision last week if we understand it
correctly to drop the southern portion of the property from
the rezoning decisions is clearly inconsistent with previous
statements by city staff and council to P/Z Commission. These
Thlsrepresents only araasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa City council meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 15
statements indicated that the sole reason for including this
property was to avoid spot zoning and although removal of the
tract is positive from our perspective that precludes
apartments from going up on the corner which we were also
concerned about. We do believe that it would constitute spot
zoning as we understand it and would probably be challenged as
such° Finally we believe that the decision on this project is
premature. We have heard a lot of this in the last few
minutes. When council is only now beginning to articulate its
policies on affordable housing. The rush to advance this
project based on the developers financing deadlines regardless
of the proJect's serious deficiencies is not in the best
interests of the community of the neighborhood and I would
just like to-There was a small point brought up today that I
think makes a lot of sense from the practice of local
government planning that is really appropriate to what has
gone on in this project. The practical problem with zoning, I
am quoting, by negotiation, whatever the motives, is that it
represents decision making in a policy vacuum. Lawyers have a
saying that hard cases make law. Planners could say hard cases
make a bad plan. The hard cases are those that are not clearly
guided by established standards and policies. The result is
bad plans because it is impossible for the governing body to
set good policy in a public meeting room with an eager
developer on one side, unhappy neighbors on the other and the
specific piece of land in the middle. Good policy must be
established in the abstract away from such particular
pressures and concerns and then forced in the review of the
individual applications. So in sum, if despite these concerns
and unanimous negative vote by P/Z, if you decide to vote
positive on this rezoning then we believe that you can
properly do so only if you tie it to first capital
improvements to provide sidewalks on Dubuque Road from Oakes
Drive to HyVee. And a good faith offer on at least five acres
of remaining undeveloped land on Dubuque Road near the
proposed development to establish a much needed neighborhood
park. In sum, we believe this project is still mired in
serious difficulties ranging from reasonably high land
acquisition costs to likely spot zoning. Although the most
recent site plan has reduced the density of the project. It
does not effectively remove these other problems. Therefore we
are asking that you vote against this rezoning rather than
hastily push through a flawed project simply to meet a
financing deadline.
Horow/ Thank you, Mary. Anyone else care to address council?
Thisrepresents only areasonablyaccuratetranscrtpfion ofthelowaCt~ council meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 16
Bob
Burns/ We never priced out the 32 unit project precisely
because we knew it was dead when it left the city council. But
I just did a quick calculation here, sitting here in the
audience, that we would be able to if we built the 32 unit
project, the cost per unit would be $88,000, approximately
$88,000 per unit.
Throg/ Versus $120,000 now, Bob?
Burns/ That is correct. If built 16 units it would be $105,000 a
unit. In other words if we substituted an 8-plex for the
townhouse that would be easier to do. It would have been less
work. I mean we had to design a 8-plex and a 4-plex to have
the 12 units. Just doing that would have been driving the
price down.
Kubby/ How much would that be? What is the number?
Burns/ It ~s approximately $105,000. So clearly that driving the
density down has driven up the cost per unit and we tried to
avoid that. Now one other point I would like to ask about this
map. I would like to know why the green line was drawn just
around this tract and not the southern tract because the
application covered both tracts and I don't know whether you
are going to take action on the southern tract.
Franklin/ At the last council meeting it was our understanding that
you diminished the area that was being considered for rezoning
at Mr. Burn's request to include the 2 acres which is why the
southern part was not included.
Horow/ That is right.
Burns/ I think my request was to separate the two so they would be
considered separately, not necessarily that they would be
voted on-
Franklin/ That was not my understanding of the council's response
to Mr. Burns at all.
Nov/ It was my understanding that only 2 acres are being rezoned.
Those are the only two acres at which somebody can protest.
Franklin/ Correct°
Throg/ I must say Bob, too, I understood that it was only the
center part.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City couucil meeting of November 27, 1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 17 '
Burns/ That answers the question then.
Horow/ Does anyone else care to address council on this issue?
Ben Moore/ Most of council know that my name is Ben Moore. I was on
the Housing Commission for nine years and through those nine
years I learned a lot about low income housing and
affordability of housing and stuff like this. And some of the
government programs. The issue, this may not be of reference
to Bob, but some of the issues today were where to we go from
here. Few years back I think Mace was involved then with
Hallmark Homes, they built 32 units in Iowa City, scattered
throughout the town. There are some on Dodge Street, some on
Muscatine Avenue and there is a s.f. unit over on Highland
Court and 16 units I think you are in the process of selling
to HACAP that were scattered throughout Iowa City. Those units
have settled in well. I don't think there was much opposition
~n the neighborhoods at that time about doing something like
that. So my recommendation is if this is voted down is two
things. Either try to scatter housing like that or try to
start working with the working single group of people as the
city has already approved $100,000 for that particular
investigation to proceed with that. Another issue is council
people and P/Z people and Housing Commision are sticking their
neck on this. Deal with this as a paper type of thing. You
might want to think about getting some developers and builders
involved in this when you start talking about where can we go,
low income housing and that issue. We got-there are quite a
few developers in this town. They got ground around town. It
might be interesting talking. The last one, Bob Wolf, worked
as far as he could go until it got shot down. Maybe, as
business people, we have a way that you might be able to come
up with something on this. I know the Homebuilders Association
looks at this because of me involved in that. So think about
contacting the people that really are involved in this in
cost. As far as some of the costs, watch what your
administration cost is. I know that on this particular project
I just got this information today. I was asked to come talk
about it. But there is like 17% administration costs, like
architect fees, engineer fees and development fees and stuff
like that. I checked with HUD today, on most of their
projects, they will allow anywheTe from 7% to 10% on that. So
there is an exorbitant amount of cost involved in this for
that seems like they have been buried into it. The other issue
is watch your management costs. At one time we talked about
this on the Housing Commission when one of these projects came
up and if I recall it was like a 12-13% management fee where
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 18
locally most management fees range from 5-7%. So watch all
your costs all the way down through the line and maybe you
won't have this high density cost that you are coming up with
now.
Horow/ Anybody else care to address council on this issue? All
right. Council, what is your pleasure? We have the p.h. Do you
wish to close the p.h.? Do you wish to take the vote now, item
#3? Do you wish to continue the p.h.? Okay, Linda.
Woito/ I talked to Bill Meardon and he said there is no reason to
believe that Mary Hitchcock will not sign the CZA. If you
wanted to continue the p.h. until tomorrow but that would also
require scheduling special meetings on Wednesday. You would
have to do it now. But if there is an extraordinary required,
I think the thing is dead.
Horow/ I am declaring the p.h. closed unless you have some more
comments.
Kubby/ I think we should talk about this a little bit. If the p.h.
is closed right now, Sue, that means the CZA is not signed and
I cannot support the development and I think we should have
more-No council member has gotten to speak on the issue before
you close the p.h.
Horow/ Council members can speak on the issue under the vote.
Kubby/ No because you have already cast the die to make certain
things happen by making the decision.
Horow/ Excuse me, I read you wrong then because you said that you
could not have a meeting on Wednesday. We do not have
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 95-136 SIDE 2
Kubby/ People may have something to say about whether we close the
p.h. or not or whether someone wanted to move to continue.
Horow/ I read the nodding of the heads wrong. I certainly retract
that. The p.h. is still open. Do council wish to consider?
Baker/ I just want some clarification about what happens if we
close it without a signed CZA.
Horow/ (Can't hear) are not there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 19
Baker/ So we can't take this first vote tonight?
Woito/ That is correct, you cannot.
Baker/ But we'll know tonight whether or not the votes are there.
Woito/ You can take a vote but it would not be on a
zoning because the CZA is not signed. It is only
due to a snow storm.
conditional
half signed
Nov/ If we wanted to close the p.h. based on the fact that we don't
have six votes in favor of it and therefore it doesn't pay to
wait for a CZA, is that allowed?
Horow/ We have not actually taken a vote to find that we don't have
6 out of 7.
Nov/ I am asking a hypothetical question.
Council/ (All talking).
Nov/ Yeah, we could count noses but I asking you if that is a valid
reason to close the p.h. before we have a CZA?
Woito/ Yes.
Throg/ Could we discuss how we would likely to vote if in fact we
got (can't hear).
council/ (All talking).
Nov/ This is my hypothetical question. Thank you.
Kubby/ I hear Ernie saying I don't feel comfortable with the price
per unit.
Lehman/ Right.
Kubby/ So that you would say no to it.
Horow/ I would concur with Ernie. I cannot see Iowa City being seen
as having affordable housing of this cost. We certainly-It
would only add to our aura of high cost living. That, to me,
is imprudent use of public moneys. I would much rather see us
get even more rehabilitation, more s.f. houses. I cannot in
conscience support this. There is no compelling reason for me.
Thisrepresents only areasonably accurate transcription ofthelowe City councilmeeting of November 27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 20
Nov/
That is part of my concern also, the cost. An even higher
concern is the fact that this is not a well designed project.
I could have supported 40 units. I could have supported 32
units. They were both well designed into the area that they
were put. I don't think that this is. I think this is more
like spot zoning than anything that we have ever dealt with
and I'm with P/Z on this issue. I just can't support it.
Kubby/ I agree it is not the best project and it is not as good as
other ones that we have seen on this plot of land but the
realities are that because Ernie and Sue could not support
even the 32 units on this land that we had to-For the
partnership to go forward, they had to go down in units and it
changed the whole configuration. So, there is certain things
that I am willing to make tradeoffs for and no one else is
providing new construction housing for families living at 50%
or below median income and so because of that I am willing to
go a little bit more per unit to make that happen because it
is not happening any other way. And I hope, I mean this is not
going to happen it looks like. I hope that the partnership is
not discouraged and hope that we can move a little more
quickly on getting some guidelines that have flexibility
because if you just have an amount-If you just say $35,000 per
unit no matter what the land costs are, you are negating any
other values that you want to live out, like staying out of
southeast. Iowa City which for me is a very high value. I am
willing to pay more for the unit to live out that value.
Nov/
We are not dealing just in more per unit. We are dealing in
something higher than our average cost for other housing being
sold in Iowa City and this is a very real stumbling block.
Horow/ I went back and looked at the reasons why I could not
support this at the previous densities and I have been
consistent in concern for not only the people who would be
living there but also the people who already live there and I
know that the GICH¥ certainly initially was as concerned and
went to as much trouble as they could to put in neighborhood
center. Some sort of a focus in terms of working with the
people who would be living there. I don't see that now and if
we talk about putting the-making the two buildings multi-unit
instead of the one and smaller ones, that still does not
contain that support system. I think that the experience that
we have seen around the city certainly has shown me the need
for a support system for higher density in an area of low to
moderate income.
Thlsreprasentsonly areasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa City councilmeetlngofNovember27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 21
Throg/ I seem to remember that.we actually discussed that during
our council meeting about three months ago in the 41 unit
discussion came up and at that time I think it was pretty
clear if you drove the number of units down, the viability of
a community center, neighborhood center, there and with
support services would disappear because the partnership would
not be able to afford that. It would go away. So what's
happened is we have driven the number of units down is that we
have worsened the project. It has just become a worse project
and that creates for me a very frustrating-just as it does for
all of you. It is not as good of proposal as it was initially
and the cost is higher than it use to be. But I would vote for
it. Not because I think it is a great project but because I
think we need to do something to provide housing for the
people involved and I don't see us-I still don't see a better
alternative out there. If I saw a better alternative I would
leap at it but I don't see it.
Kubby/ We also have to look at when you talk about the need for
support services, is that the GICHF said of the 18 units of
transitional housing they have, only one family needs and is
receiving support services. So that goes against- I mean we
need to be willing to look at information that is real that is
placed in front of us and be willing to change our attitudes
and our behavior about these issues looking at real
information and not what we think is happening and what we
think we observe and I don't know that we do that very
'
onslstently. There are some other issues that the
neighborhood brought up in terms of the sidewalks which I
think is totally separate from this particular development and
parkland. I mean there are many many already developed areas
in town that need open space and it doesn't mean that we are
not allow development and redevelopment to happen in those
areas until we make that happen. If we do it for this we have
to be consistent and make that a policy that we will not go
forward with any development infill lots without providing
open space and our open space plan is already helping that
happen with moneys in lieu of because this particular plot of
land is not appropriate for open space in that area.
Horow/ Okay, does anyone else- Okay, Larry, do you have a comment?
Baker/ Two things. One, I want to clarify something that I think
may have misunderstood when I was talking about specific
guidelines in the future for cost and location. When I talk
about specific cost per unit guideline I use that as here is
the figure that is most appropriate. But there are other
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 22
factors that you balance out and tradeoff. But you have that
figure in mind. You are not surprised later. That can all be
worked out in a process that clarifies it somehow. I go back
to my original position which is folks, if anybody objects to
this based upon the cost per unit they have to take the blame
themselves. We have to take the blame ourselves. We had a
better project at 32 units down in the same range as the
private market and the other Iowa City Public Housing
Authority figures and we wouldn't let it pass. So, I am
frustrated. You are frustrated. But I want to make sure the
public understands that it is not the developer who drove the
cost up.
Throg/ It really makes me wonder what would happen if the
partnership would have come in with a proposal for say 26
units, 27 units, 25 units. What is the cost per unit then? Is
that an acceptable cost per unit.
Pigott/ From what I hear it is not just cost per unit that is
keeping this program stalled. I mean really, I mean Sue's
concerns are not solely cost per unit although cost per unit
now is a primarily factor apparently. But you still have
concerns regarding childcare. So I see no movement regardless.
26, 12, you name it. I can hear that from Sue and Ernie as
loud and clear as-
Horow/ There are a lot of issues that we reflect that our political
but they do get into the planning aspect of it.
Pigott/ I would like to concur with Larry, too. This problem is our
own making. It really is. We have decided that-And it is also,
part of the problem is and it is not a problem. Part of it is
that we are listening to the community, to neighborhoods as
well as trying to accommodate a real need we have in thins
community that this council or future councils will have to
address and that is going to be a very tough issue in the
future as well and it is frustrating as hell for me to, you
know, spend the last two years on council where we haven't
made any progress in this specific area in the south side or
the north side. We have made some progress in some ways but we
can't get off the ground and that-
Horow/ We have made some progress.
Nov/ To some extent it is not entirely our fault that there has
been no progress. For example, we approved Sycamore Farms and
we haven't seen any construction. It was suppose to be
Thisrepresents only araasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa City council meeting of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#2 page 23
affordable housing, a market style, not subsidized.
Pigott/ This is this project.
Nov/ I know, this project. But I mean there was another project-
Pigott/ We have to talk about things we control. Sycamore Farms we
don't control whether they build on that area now. Let's talk
about what we control today and that is this project.
Nov/ (Can't hear). How it was going to be. We put a lot of
conmissions on that.
Pigott/ That is right. We did everything we could and now that is
out of our hands. What we are talking about isn't Sycamore
Farms. What we control is the subsidies and whether or not-
Nov/ Well, your comment was that we hadn't done anything about it.
Pigott/ In these specific instances we made no progress.
Lehman/ Even had this come in with a subsidy of $85,000 a unit,
that means that we are basically paying for the units and we
don't have the units. What are we paying for? I can't
understand how we would do that.
/ Sure seems to me that the city ought to own them at those
prices.
Throg/ Ernie has made it very clear that he doesn't think the city
ought to own public housing. So, I don't know where you are
headed with that.
Lehman/ I am just saying we are paying for something we don't own.
We are paying market price for something we don't own. How
could we do that?
Throg/ Because the intent would be to make-The ideal intent would
to be make affordable housing available for 20-30 years with
a commitment with partnership to make that.
Lehman/ To the extent of market value on something that we don't
own. You know I called Steve this morning. There is something
I am missing here because this absolutely doesn't add up to
me.
Kubby/ On the other hand people on this council argue that we
This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Novembor 27, 1995.
F112795
#2 page 24
shouldn't get into the development business and we shouldn't
be building housing or that we shouldn't be buying housing
that is already on the market. So, what is the answer then? I
mean you are painting us into a corner in a certain way where
there are no options. Then we resign to do nothing.
Lehman/ I hear you.
Kubby~ And we need to get out of that corner.
Lehman/ I hear you.
Baker/ Well, we are not going to get out of it tonight.
Kubby/ Because there are at least two people who are going to vote
against it, I think the humane thing to do is to close the
p.h. and to vote it down because there is no conditions on the
rezoning. So it is just finished.
Horow/ All right, if that is council's pleasure or we can vote
right now?
Kubby/ People can go on if they like.
Horow/ I declare the p.h. closed. I would like to take a roll call
on this. We can move to item 3. and consider the ordinance or
we can take a nose count. I think I would prefe~ to have an
absolute vote.
Thlsrepresentsonlyareasonablyaccuratetranscrlptlonofthelowa Clty councllmeetlng of November27,1995.
Fl12795
#3 page 1
ITEM NO. 3 - CONSIDER ANORDINANCEAMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF /%NAPPROXIMATE
2°0 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF OLD DUBUQUE ROAD AND
NORTH OF DODGE STREET FROM RS-5 LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO OPDH-8 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY.
Horow/ (Reads agenda.)
Woito/ It is not conditionally zoned.
Horow/ That is right. You are right. Amend, it is to note it is not
conditioned. We are voting consider an ordinance amending the
zoning ordinance for 2.08 tract of land.
Moved by Kubby, seconded by Baker. Any further discussion.
Kubby/ Yeah, I want to say thank you to the partnership of the
GICHF and Bob Burns for their tenacity, their persistence, for
not giving up and I hope you will continue to not give up on
us in local government. I want to thank the neighborhood
because it was real clear that you were willing to change your
position after looking at something new that was put in front
of you and I think that is important for us to recognize that-
I mean, in some of the discussion it was easy to say oh they
are just against affordable housing when really you were
talking about density and traffic issues although I think
there is still some attitude in the whole community. That we
don't like to think that we are against apartments in our
neighborhood or how it is laid out but in changing the reality
you changed your position and I really saw that and
appreciated that a lot.
Horow/ To appreciate that. I would like to thank the P/Z Commission
for their tenacity, for their frustrations and for the level
of sticking with it as well as the HCD Commission.
Roll call-
Baker/ This is without the CZA?
Woito/ Correct.
Horow/ (7-no). The ordinance is defeated.
Kubby/ I guess I would also like to challenge the people who are
saying to really be clear with each of us about what is
acceptable and what is not and to figure out a process that
Thlsrepresentsonlyareasonablyaccuratetranscrtption ofthelowaCItycouncilmeetlngofNovember27,1995.
Fl12795
#3 page 2
let's us talk about that so that we can get more specific. The
last time we met and talked about affordable housing I think
we needed that generalized discussion to get to some
specifics. I think Larry disagrees because he was ready to get
really specific and -
Council/ (All talking).
Throg/ Larry, your idea about coming up with some criteria is
pretty good one if we think about them as being fairly loose
because they can never be rigidly (can't hear). There is a
real problem because I think, Sue correct me if I am wrong, I
think I heard you say it wasn't the cost per unit that really
was, for you, the important thing here. It was some other
stuff which sounded kind of vaque to me but it was important
to you and how does that becom~ criteria.
Baker/ Well, it doesn't. What clearer criteria on the things that
you can't agree are specific criteria makes it harder to use
those nebulas criteria as a projection when your objection is
really something else.
Nov/ I think guidelines is probably a better word than criteria.
This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 27, 1995.
Fl12795