HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 11.15.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 15, 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
Comprehensive Plan Items
4. Case No. CPA23-0001
Location: 1201 W. Benton Street
A request to set a public hearing for December 6, 2023 on a proposed amendment to
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to 8-
16 Dwelling Units per Acre and an amendment to change the Southwest District Plan future
land use map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential for approximately 0.78 acres of property.
5. Consideration of meeting minutes: October 4, 2023
6. Consideration of meeting minutes: October 18, 2023
7. Planning and Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 6 / December 20 / January 3
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA23-0001
Parcel(s): 016272001
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
Date: November 15, 2023
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant: Steve Roe
Christian Retirement Services, Inc.
1 Oaknoll Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
319-351-1720
sroe@oaknoll.com
Contact Person: Brian Boelk
Axiom Consultants, LLC
60 E Court St. Unit 03
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6222
bboelk@axiom-con.com
Requested Action: To amend the future land use map
designations in the Comprehensive Plan from
2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to 8-16 Dwelling
Units per Acre and in the Southwest District
Plan from Single-Family/Duplex Residential
to Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Purpose:
To allow for an expansion of the Oaknoll
Retirement Residence campus
Location: 1201 W. Benton Street
Location Map:
Size: 0.78 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Household Living, Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Group Living, Medium and High
Density Multi-Family Residential with
a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RM-20 and OPD/RM-44)
South: Household Living, Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
East: Household Living, Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
West: Household Living, Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
Comprehensive Plan: Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential
File Date: October 24, 2023
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Oaknoll Retirement Residence (Christian Retirement Services, Inc.) recently purchased
approximately 0.78 acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton Street, just south of Oaknoll’s main
campus. The owner is working with Axiom Consultants to prepare two applications to permit a
campus expansion by allowing a small, assisted group living use that would house up to 12
residents in a single-story building on the subject property. Attachment 3 includes the applicant
submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the plan and includes the applicant statement
describing the rationale behind the request.
The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA23-0001). The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map suggests this area is appropriate for residential uses at
2-8 dwelling units per acre. The Southwest District Plan includes the subject property in the Benton
Hill neighborhood of the Roosevelt Subarea. The District Plan future land use scenario indicates
the property is appropriate for Single-Family/Duplex Residential. The proposed amendment would
change the future land use designations for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to
residential uses at 8-16 dwelling units per acre and in the Comprehensive Plan to Low Density
Multi-Family Residential. Updated maps can be found in Attachment 5.
The other concurrently submitted application includes a zoning map amendment (REZ23-0008).
That application would rezone the subject property from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-
5) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must
be approved for changes to the zoning map to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
A similar but more substantial request was approved in 2012 to allow Oaknoll to expand its primary
facility to the west across George Street. In that case, the expansion was a 69-unit, 5-story planned
development. In addition to a Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA12-00002) and rezoning
(REZ12-00010) to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a planned development overlay
(OPD/RM-20), that case also required the vacation of Spring Street (VAC12-00004). City Council
approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on July 31, 2012 (Resolution 12-356).
The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on
September 5, 2023. Several neighbors attended. Attachment 4 provides correspondence and the
summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant.
3
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the two approval criteria specified in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found
in the attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows.
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The Oaknoll campus and the surrounding area including the subject property are located within
the Benton Hill neighborhood of Roosevelt Subarea, which is located in the Southwest Planning
District. The initial policy direction of the Southwest Plan was adopted in 2002. However,
circumstances have changed substantially over the past 20 years, including the size and age of
the City’s population. In 2000, the Census counted 62,220 residents in Iowa City of which 4,482
residents (7%) were aged 65 years and older. By 2020, the population grew to 74,828, an increase
of more than 12,600 or just over 20%. However, the number of individuals aged 65 years and
older nearly doubled to 8,646 residents or almost 12% of the population as of 2020. The City is
expected to continue growing, and the population is expected to continue aging. As a result, there
is a growing need to build additional assisting living and skilled nursing capacity to help baby
boomers with the daily activities of life as they continue to age.
The proposed amendment would allow the provision of additional skilled nursing facilities by
changing the future land use of the subject property from 2-8 dwelling units per acre to 8-16
dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan and from Single-Family/Duplex Residential to
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential in the Southwest District Plan. The Zoning Code, which
helps implement City plans, describes the Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone as
providing for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi-family
housing. This zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods
throughout the city. It notes that careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure
that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. Based on
these factors, the proposed amendment appears to be in the public interest to help address these
changing circumstances.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
At the time the Southwest Plan was initially adopted in 2002, single-family neighborhoods in the
area were located primarily west of Harlocke and George Streets and along Tower Court and
Woodside Drive. Apartment buildings were concentrated north of Benton Street between
Greenwood Drive and Oaknoll Drive and along Oakcrest Street, in addition to the area directly
south of Benton Street. As a result of this delineation, the future land use map shows the subject
property as being in an area that is appropriate for Single-Family/Duplex Residential uses. In turn,
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map adopted in 2013 reflects the land uses shown in
the Southwest District Plan.
City policies include locating multifamily housing along arterial street corridors in areas with good
access to urban services. However, the Southwest District Plan noted concern that the amount
of land zoned high-density multifamily is excessive for this area and an appropriate transition
between low density single-family neighborhoods and areas zoned for high density multi-family
4
was lacking. Specific concerns included the bulk and scale of large apartment buildings, large
parking lots, bright lights, and noise directly adjacent to single-family homes which could
constitute nuisances near those neighborhoods.
The plan included a goal to stabilize existing single-family neighborhoods in the Roosevelt
Subarea in order to provide the opportunity and encourage households of all types to live close
to the University and downtown Iowa City. In addition, it encouraged the development of high-
quality multi-family housing that is compatible with surrounding development to meet the housing
needs of a variety of households including singles, young families, university students, and elderly
populations. Recommended actions included the following:
• Avoid concentrations of high-density multifamily zoning directly adjacent to low-density
single-family zones; facilitate downzoning multifamily property where appropriate.
• Apply the Multifamily Residential Design Standards contained in Section 14-5H-5N of the
City Code to the Roosevelt Subarea.
• Review and make needed changes to the Multifamily Residential Design Standards to
ensure compatibility of new multifamily development with surrounding development.
As Iowa City has continued growing, vacant land near the Benton Hill neighborhood has
developed, and established facilities such as Oaknoll have needed to redevelop adjacent land to
meet the increasing needs of the community. Around 2004, the large multi-family development at
Hawk’s Ridge was built on vacant ground as a planned development zoned Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential (OPD/RM-20). Though it is a higher density use that is adjacent low density
single-family neighborhoods to the west, it was found to be compatible due to its careful site
design. Similarly, when Oaknoll expanded its facility to the west across George Street c. 2012, it
required a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a rezoning to Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential (OPD/RM-20). Despite the proposed expansion being 5-stories, the comprehensive
plan amendment and rezoning were approved because the building was designed to create an
appropriate transition from existing single-family neighborhoods to the west and north and the
Oaknoll campus to the east.
The comprehensive plan amendment currently under consideration is substantially less intense
than that approved for the expansion of Oaknoll in 2012. The change would facilitate rezoning to
a Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) designation which can be compatible near single-family
neighborhoods. In addition, the one-story building shown in the submitted concept would provide
an appropriate transition between multi-story, higher density residential uses to the north and
lower density residential uses to the south. It also would provide a high quality of design that
complements nearby buildings as required by zoning code regulations updated in 2005 that
enhanced the multi-family site development standards corresponding to standards previously
codified at 14-5H-5N. Altogether, the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of the
Southwest District Plan.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies regarding land use
and housing from the Comprehensive Plan. This includes the following:
• Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place.
• Promote housing design and features that allow people to age in place, such as universal
design.
For the reasons above, staff finds the requested comprehensive plan amendment to be
5
compatible with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan so long as an appropriate transition is
provided. Implementing this proposed amendment requires amending the zoning map (to be
considered under REZ23-0008). Any rezoning of the property should include conditions to help
ensure the goals of the Comprehensive Plan relating to an appropriate transition are met. A high
quality of design is already required as part of the City’s multi-family site development standards
which were updated after adoption of the Southwest District Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission set a public hearing for December
6, 2023 on CPA23-0001, a proposed amendment to change the future land use designations of
approximately 0.78 acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton Street from 2-8 dwelling units
per acre to 8-16 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan and from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential to Low Density Multi-Family Residential in the Southwest District Plan.
NEXT STEPS:
After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing to be
held on December 6, the following will occur:
• City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning.
• City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA23-0001)
and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ23-0008).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Applicant Submittal
4. Correspondence and Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
5. Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the Roosevelt Subarea of the Southwest
District Plan
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Harlocke St
W Benton St
Oa
k
n
o
l
l
C
t
Weeber
St
W
y
l
d
e
G
r
e
e
n
R
d
St
r
e
b
S
t
Ge
o
r
g
e
S
t
Oaknoll Dr
Talwrn Ct
µCPA23-0001 & REZ23-0008
1201 W. Benton St.
Prepared By: Melanie Comer
Date Prepared: October 2023
0 0.03 0.050.01 Miles
Two applications submitted by Axiom Consultants on
behalf of Christian Retirement Services, Inc. for 0.78
acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton St. First, to
change the future land use map designations in the
Comprehensive Plan from 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre
to 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre and from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential in the Southwest District Plan. Second, to
rezone from the current RS-5 zone to an RM-12 zone to
allow an assisted living use serving 12 residents.
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Harlocke St
W Benton St
Oa
k
n
o
l
l
C
t
Weeber
St
W
y
l
d
e
G
r
e
e
n
R
d
St
r
e
b
S
t
Ge
o
r
g
e
S
t
OaknollDr
Talwrn Ct
RM20
RM20
RM44
RS5
RS5
RS8
µCPA23-0001 & REZ23-0008
1201 W. Benton St.
Prepared By: Melanie Comer
Date Prepared: October 2023
0 0.03 0.050.01 Miles
Two applications submitted by Axiom Consultants on
behalf of Christian Retirement Services, Inc. for 0.78
acres of property located at 1201 W. Benton St. First, to
change the future land use map designations in the
Comprehensive Plan from 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre
to 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre and from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential in the Southwest District Plan. Second, to
rezone from the current RS-5 zone to an RM-12 zone to
allow an assisted living use serving 12 residents.
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal
0
50
10
0
B
E
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
GEORGE STREET
OAKNOLL COURT WEEBER STREET
TA
L
W
R
N
C
O
U
R
T
SH
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
DA
T
E
I
S
S
U
E
D
:
CU
R
R
E
N
T
R
E
V
:
WW
W
.
A
X
I
O
M
-
C
O
N
.
C
O
M
|
(
3
1
9
)
5
1
9
-
6
2
2
0
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
,
D
E
T
A
I
L
E
D
&
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
O
c
t
2
4
,
2
0
2
3
-
2
:
1
9
p
m
S
:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
3
\
2
3
0
1
0
1
-
O
P
N
-
O
a
k
n
o
l
l
1
2
0
1
W
B
e
n
t
o
n
\
0
5
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
C
i
v
i
l
-
S
u
r
v
e
y
\
P
l
a
t
s
\
2
3
0
1
0
1
-
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
f
o
r
C
o
m
p
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
12
0
1
W
E
S
T
B
E
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
10
-
2
4
-
2
0
2
3
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
2
O
F
2
23
0
1
0
1
BO
E
L
K
0 50 100
BENTON STREET
GE
O
R
G
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
OA
K
N
O
L
L
C
O
U
R
T
WE
E
B
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
TAL
W
R
N
C
O
U
R
T
SHEET NUMBER:
SHEET TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE ISSUED:
CURRENT REV:
WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220
DESIGNED, DETAILED
& CHECKED BY:
Oct 24, 2023 - 2:19pm S:\PROJECTS\2023\230101 - OPN - Oaknoll 1201 W Benton\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\230101 - Comp Plan Amendment Exhibit.dwg
1201 WEST BENTON STREET
10-24-2023
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
1 OF 2
230101BOELK
CURRENT COMP PLAN: SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
SUBDISTRICT: ROOSEVELT SUBAREA
REQUESTED AMENDMENT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
300 S Clinton St #200, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
2330 12th Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 | 319.519.6220
October 24, 2023
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT
On behalf of Oaknoll of Iowa City (Christian Retirement Services, Inc.), we are submitting a request for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in conjunction with the recently submitted Rezoning application (REZ23-0008). This area includes 1201 W
Benton Street in Iowa City, defined as Parcel No. 016272001. Since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted,
circumstances have changed and/or factors have come to light that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other
policies and/or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District and Subdistrict Plans or other amendments
thereto.
Oaknoll requests that Iowa City’s Southwest Planning District Comprehensive Plan be amended within the Roosevelt
Subarea so that the parcel at 1201 W Benton Street be able to be considered multi-family for the purpose of providing much
needed housing and specific use with Oaknoll. This request includes supporting a change of the current RS-5 rezoning at
1201 W Benton Street to the proposed zoning of RM -12. In similar fashion, previous amendments were made to Oaknoll’s
property at the northwest corner of W Benton Street and George Street, allowing for multi-family residential, which was built
and currently exists.
This revision to the Roosevelt Subarea would redefine an existing RS-5 zoned area with existing single family residential
home to the proposed RM-12 zoned area to allow for a new “small-house” nursing home model that would serve a much
needed twelve residents with assisted living within a single residential structure.
Modifying the Southeast Comprehensive Plan is appropriate for this site due to the size, aesthetics, and use of the proposed
project in which it finds itself in. Situated on a large parcel (0.776 acres), the proposed structure was specifically designed
with the intent to represent nothing more than a large single family residential home, which we feel it certainly does . The
proposed building location has been well thought-out in terms of preservation of existing trees and screening from existing
adjacent residential homes. It also finds itself situated within the existing topography, with a height within that of the
surrounding homes found there today.
Being proactive, and a well-respected member of the community, Oaknoll has recently met with the adjacent neighbors
and those that would be directly impacted by the proposed change. The results were very positive and well received.
Within the application submittal, you will find letters of support from adjacent property owners and neighbors within this
specific location.
Knowing that the Oaknoll Campus is directly across Benton Street, and understanding the desires and needs to provide
services such as this to the Iowa City Community, we feel this this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for a more
cohesive development while still being sensitive to the neighborhood scale to the adjacent properties.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Boelk, PE
PRINCIPAL/OWNER
09/05/20231201 W Benton - Site Plan 1PG.12/05/2022
KITCHEN
300SF
PANTRY
94SF
OFFICE
108SF GARAGE
312SF
DEN
276SF
STOR 58SF
CLEAN LIN.
72SF
SOILED
72SF
SPA
160SF
RR
83SF
ELEC
52SF
DATA
35SFSPRINK
39SF
MECH
127SF
COURTYARD
PATIO
360SF
TRASH
100SF
SCREEN PORCH
340SF
PORCH
307SF
COVERED
ENTRY
108SF
VESTIBULE
80SF
DINING
302SF
INFORMAL
SEATING
224SF
LIVING ROOM
504SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
RESIDENT
280SF
5'-0"
10'-0"
20'-0"
40'-0"
12 Residential Units
Gross SF: 8,720 SF
Circulation: 2,185 SF (25%)
Lot Coverage: 26%
W Benton St
HC
5 Spaces
Res.
Den
Porch
EntryVest.
Screen
Porch
Res.Res.Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.Res.Res.Res.
Dining
Inf. Seat.
Living
Room
340SF
307SF
80SF
Patio
312SF
GaragePtry.Off.
Clean
Sld.
St.
RR.
Spa
TrashKit.D.Sp.El.
M.
09/05/20231201 W Benton - North Elevation - Existing 2PG.12/05/2022
09/05/20231201 W Benton - North Elevation 3PG.12/05/2022
09/05/20231201 W Benton - Proposed North Elevation 4PG.12/05/2022
ATTACHMENT 4
Correspondence and Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
ATTACHMENT 5
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
and the Roosevelt Subarea of the Southwest District Plan
City Growth Area (Resolution 21-285)
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 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: Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, William Gorman, Phoebe Martin, Deanna
Thomann, Andy Martin, Jared Knote, Sharon DeGraw, Jonathan
Melba, Lorraine Bowans, Alex Lewis, Kelcey Patrick Ferree
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the owner is not required to live
on-site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning code be replaced with the term
accessory dwelling unit.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
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.
Lehmann began the staff report with some general background reminding the Commissioners
this is part of a package of proposed amendments with a goal of increasing flexibility for a range
of housing types, modifying design standards, providing additional flexibility to enhance the
supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and also addressing fair
housing. This package came back before the Commission on August 2 and the Commission did
recommend approval of those items with the exception of the changes related to accessory
apartments. At that time, staff was directed to solicit more public feedback regarding those
changes.
In terms of the public feedback staff solicited, they held two open houses for an opportunity for
the community to learn more about the proposed changes, ask questions and talk with staff
about the changes and then also provide feedback in a survey to indicate what concerns there
were. The open houses were held on September 13, from 5:00 – 7:00 pm and from September
14 from 5:00 – 7:00 pm at two different locations in different parts of town. 58 folks signed in and
there were some others who attended but did not sign it. Staff also received 51 surveys, both
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 2 of 22
through a combination of folks that were in the public meetings and then also online as well. A
majority of survey respondents were concerned about allowing accessory apartments on rental
properties which is one of the proposed changes. The majority of the survey respondents were
not concerned with most of the other changes but the second most proposed change that
provoked concern was not requiring a parking space for the accessory apartments. That was at
45% concern versus a 53% who were not concerned.
With regards to the proposed amendments, Lehmann reiterated this is part of the section on
providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, specifically as they relate to
modifying the standards for accessory apartments. In terms of the proposed changes, there are
quite a few of them so he will go into detail on those as a refresher. One of the changes is
allowing accessory uses to be in places that are currently not allowed, such as allowing them to
be accessory to single-family or duplex uses instead of only having it be allowed with detached
single family uses. Second, allowing them in any zone that allows residential uses instead of
specified zones. Third is that the owner not be required to live on the site, which they currently
are. Lehmann noted again that was the item that was flagged as the most concern for folks.
Fourth is no longer requiring an off-street parking space for accessory apartments, currently
there is a standard where one space must be provided. Fifth, no longer having an additional
restriction on bedrooms and occupants other than what would be required from a rental permit
for single family and duplex uses. In this case, that means that no more than 35% of the floor
area could be bedrooms, changing the size limitations somewhat such that it'd be the lesser of
1000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the main building. That's a change from a smaller
amount that was previously required. Lehmann also stated that it used to be for a detached
accessory apartment it could only be a portion of a detached accessory structure which meant
that one couldn't have a standalone accessory apartment but with these changes to the way that
sizes would be regulated, it'd be based off the principal use and one could have a standalone
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or could also have an attached accessory dwelling unit that would
be added in an addition to a building. Finally, with regards to the design standards there currently
is a standard that accessory apartments have to be entered from the side or rear lot line and this
change would say that no entrance locations are dictated in the way it’s designed. He also
mentioned that staff are continuing to recommend the owner occupancy requirement primarily
because their understanding of Council's goals with these proposed amendments are tied to
increasing housing supply and housing diversity of housing types.
In terms of an analysis of what the proposed changes might cause Lehmann explained currently
with the existing situation the City hasn’t seen much ADU development in the last 30 years,
they've only seen about 52 units out of approximately 10,000 eligible properties. He noted part of
the reason for that is that the current standards appear to be a barrier to construction of
accessory dwelling units so as a result in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it
recommended promoting ADUs and allowing them in more situations. The Plan also
recommended looking at the owner occupancy requirement as well and this does come to a
special head now as more and more households are single person households where smaller
units are something that are required, essentially. In terms of impacts, the parcels that are
currently eligible will remain eligible, and an additional 13,000 will be eligible because that would
include any properties that currently have a rental permit that are single family since that can
change at any time whether it's rental or owner occupied. In addition, it would expand the
number of parcels which ADUs would be allowed and up to 1400 new units would be allowed by
expanding the zones and uses to which the accessory, an additional 3100 new units could
potentially accommodate ADUs by removing the owner occupancy requirement as well. In
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 3 of 22
addition, staff would expect more property owners to take advantage of accessory dwelling units
by trying to remove some of those other barriers such as the parking requirement, trying to
increase size, trying to allow as a standalone use, and all the different things that they've heard
about that act as barriers. In addition, staff does see trying to encourage accessory dwelling units
as being especially compatible with the City’s sustainability goals since these would be added
with existing buildings, for the most part, and would tend to be in more walkable areas of the
City. Therefore, staff see it as pairing nicely with some of the standards such as trying to
encourage alternative modes of transportation and the free two-year transit trial the City currently
has in effect.
Lehmann showed a map of the parcels that would potentially be affected, noting the areas that
would currently allow an ADU if they are owner occupied and the proposed amendments would
continue to allow these if they're owner occupied, but it would also mean that they could have an
ADU if they're renter occupied as well. He then showed the new areas that would allow ADUs
that currently do not, in some cases these are zones that previously hadn't allowed them and in
other cases there are areas where there are more duplexes or other uses that currently don't
allow an ADU.
Staff did it also look at other comparable communities and information regarding those were
provided in the agenda packet. The examples of different communities are both in Iowa and are
other college towns. Lehmann noted many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU
regulations and have removed things like owner occupancy requirements, off street parking
requirements, increasing allowable sizes, and modifying what ADUs can be accessory to. He
explained part of the reason for this is that all of America is experiencing the housing crisis that
Iowa City is also currently experiencing and accessory dwelling units are a way to really integrate
new density while still maintaining the character of the neighborhoods as well. That being said,
each community does have unique set of regulations and are all a little different. Some require
owner occupancy, some don't. Some require parking, some don't. Some have more strict design
requirements; it all really depends on the community. However, that being said Iowa City’s
proposed changes are in line with other communities that are in similar situations.
Staff also looked at best practices when looking at accessory dwelling units. The American
Planning Association (APA) produces an equity and zoning policy guide that Iowa City uses and
within that policy guide it really recommends allowing a broader range of building forms, lot sizes
and a lot widths and residential types, specifically in low density residential neighborhoods. It
also recommends allowing ADUs without a public hearing and only using conditions that are
needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties within that community, but all of
these are based on national best practices. Staff really reviewed the APA guide and what works
and what doesn't work in different communities and how can they further equity through the
zoning code.
Staff also relied on the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which produces lots of
content about accessory dwelling units, and the proposed changes that staff brought before this
Commission were really the product of recommendations made by the Johnson County Livable
Communities Housing Action Group. Lehmann noted that's a group that includes lots of folks, is
staffed by a person from the County, and the goal is to try and make sure that Johnson County
communities are livable for folks as they age within that community. Accessory dwelling units are
really seen as a key component of allowing people to age in place. In terms of best practices
they recommend things like allowing these uses in all zones that allow single family residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 4 of 22
uses, only requiring those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts, treating them like
they're a valid use within this zone rather than some sort of a use that is an undesirable use
within the zone. Treating it like other uses is looking at owner occupancy requirements and if
that's not regulated in the zoning code then they would recommend not regulating that for
accessory dwelling units. They also talk about things like parking requirements which can make
accessory dwelling units challenging, and limiting design requirements that can increase the cost
of constructing ADUs.
In addition, Lehmann stated the push towards encouraging ADUs is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Within the City’s vision statement it talks about creating attractive and
affordable housing for all people and housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe and diverse
neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. Again, those relevant strategies and goals are things like
mixing housing types throughout neighborhoods to provide household options for all types of
households, whether they be singles, families, retirees, etc., ensuring a balance of housing
types, promoting small lot infill development, and especially supporting that infill development in
areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. It also does support other policy
documents that the City has adopted over the past several years including the Affordable
Housing Action Plan, which was first adopted in 2016, and then updated in 2022. That Plan does
talk about increasing the allowable number and type of dwelling units in single family zoning
districts and specifically calls out ADUs. The Plan also specifically calls out considering ADUs
associated with rental housing as something to consider. In addition the 2019 Fair Housing
Study talks about exploring ways to increase density and exploring the types of housing that are
allowed, especially in those low density, single family zones.
In terms of public's correspondence, staff received several pieces of correspondence that have
been forwarded to the Commissioners or included in the agenda packet. Lehmann noted the
latest piece of correspondence that was submitted very recently has just now been provided to
the Commission for consideration as well.
In terms of staff recommendation, staff does recommend that Title 14, Zoning, be amended as
illustrated in Attachment Four of the staff report. Lehmann noted it's similar to what was
proposed before with a few small changes, but nothing substantive. Again, the goal is improving
housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encouraging housing affordability.
Lehmann added there is one more part of that staff recommendation that he did not include in
this presentation, which is they currently call accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments,
and that has been a confusing term for many. Staff has gotten lots of calls about what exactly is
meant by an accessory apartment so staff would also propose changing the terminology to ADU
which is also consistent with the rental code, which calls them ADUs. There could be a separate
motion for that, or it could be included in the motion tonight, staff does intend on updating the
motion before they bring it to Council, so the ordinance that goes before Council would reflect
that language change.
In terms of next steps, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff
would expect it to be scheduled for consideration by Council. The earliest it would go to Council
is November 6, that would be the public hearing, and then there would be two additional readings
by Council at the second meeting in November and at the first meeting in December, which
would be December 12. Therefore, December 12 would be the earliest that something would be
considered for adoption by Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 5 of 22
Quellhorst thanked staff for the thorough and thoughtful presentation and especially appreciated
the comparison to regulations in comparable communities. It was mentioned that some of those
communities have recently eliminated the owner occupancy requirement, so he was just
wondering if they know anything about the experience of those communities and whether it was
positive or negative, or a kind of mixed bag. Lehmann replied that a lot of these changes are
pretty fresh in a lot of communities. When he talks about best practices that have led to or that
have been incorporated in a lot of these documents, those are based on communities that made
similar changes and found that it increased their development of accessory dwelling units within
that community. Within the specifical comparable communities that he provided he is not sure if
they have outcome data from that yet.
Quellhorst asked if anybody has recently gone the other way and adopted an owner occupancy
requirement when they didn't previously have one. Russett clarified Iowa City’s current
regulations require that the owner live on-site and what staff is proposing is that owner
occupancy requirement be removed so the owner would no longer need to live on-site and both
units could be rented. Quellhorst wondered if there has been a community that's had an inverse
situation where they did not have an owner-occupied requirement and then adopted one.
Lehmann is not aware of any, most of them have been similar changes to what Iowa City is
recommending.
Townsend asked with an ADU and there being two units on the property, if the owner decides to
sell, are those sold separately, and if so, how do they decide what goes and what the lot line
should be. Lehmann explained there's a standard in the code currently that requires both units
on the lot be under common ownership so they can't sell an accessory apartment and not sell
the principal use, they have to be under the same ownership. Staff is not proposing to change
that standard and it would continue to be in effect. Townsend stated then, the owner doesn't
have to live on the property, but whoever buys the new property has to buy both units. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct. Hekteon clarified if the lot was split there'd be a subdivision and that
would be a different process and in the realm of the subdivision regulations. For planning
regulations as long as the units are on the same lot, then it's considered an accessory dwelling
unit. Lehmann added if there was a subdivision that would have to follow all regulations within
the code including street frontage, so they couldn't have a situation where there was a unit in the
front and back but they’re not on an alley and they split it down the middle, that's not something
that would be allowed under the subdivision code. Presumably, one could have a corner lot
where both units meet minimum lot size requirements and everything and that could be split.
Padron noted then if there was a subdivision it wouldn't be an ADU anymore it would become a
principal use. Lehmann confirmed that is correct.
Townsend asked how these units would help large families, these are all smaller units that
they're talking about so it's really not going to help the affordable housing problem families have.
Lehmann stated for large families the way that accessory dwelling units are often used is where
the parents would live in the in-law suite and have the kids live in the main unit, or vice versa, if
you have young kids, he stated that's how it would be used to support larger families. Townsend
stated she would not call that affordable housing, she would call that convenience for someone
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 6 of 22
with means enough to build a separate unit for in-laws, and that would not be in that affordable
housing realm. Lehmann noted in the sense that an accessory dwelling unit is up to 1000
square feet, which is a relatively small unit that could be built under IRC code standards, it is
more affordable than building under multifamily standards and is a more affordable housing
product. Townsend stated for a single person or for two people, but not for a family, because it's
not big enough for a family of four.
Russett noted what Lehmann is trying to say is that with if there is a multi-generational
household where there are grandparents, parents, and children, it can provide additional room
for those families. Or if someone is taking care of a family member who has a disability, or who
has an illness, they could be nearby and be on-site. Then in terms of the affordability concern,
there's a couple of ways that they're thinking about affordability with these amendments and with
the amendments to accessory dwelling units they're really thinking about it in terms of supply and
ways to increase the housing supply in the community. Right now the supply is not keeping up
with the demand and it's impacting price. It's also a way to encourage different types of housing.
Accessory dwelling units are smaller, they're going to cost less, the price point is going to be
lower than the typical detached single-family home.
Wade noted one of the proposed changes is actually to remove the occupancy limit, right now
only two people can live in an ADU and conceivably under these regulations they could have
three people or even a potentially small family live in one. Lehmann confirmed that.
Hensch noted in the packet it says that the occupancy is determined by the rental permit, can
staff just discuss that briefly. Lehmann explained in single family and duplex uses to which
accessory dwelling units could be accessory to under the proposed amendments there's a
requirement that no more than 35% of a unit may be bedrooms, which acts as a de facto
occupancy limit. There are also additional occupancy limits based on the square footage of the
unit. So presumably, a three-bedroom accessory dwelling unit under the proposed standards
with that 35% standard accounting for minimum bedroom sizes that are allowed.
Wade noted in Fayetteville and Cedar Rapids it looks like they allow two ADUs for a lot, and
Iowa City’s recommendation just a single, correct. Lehmann confirmed they are recommending
a single with a duplex. In some cases, they may see where it's single family and they allow two
accessory dwelling units. In the case of States that have preempted local jurisdiction’s ability to
regulate ADUs there are situations where it's a duplex and two ADUs. There is a variety of
different ways that people allow them but staff is recommending one ADU per lot.
Wade acknowledged that’s how the current administration will control it, with the building permit
and with a change of ownership of the property and such but what's the long-term administration
look like on having that restriction. Lehmann did agree it can be challenging. In some cases, a
family might purchase a house that has an ADU with it and they use the ADU for storage and
they don't rent it out. Staff will check in to make sure that it doesn't become occupied at some
point, because once it's occupied then it needs a rental permit. There are challenges where
houses are sold and then the main house is rented out and there's still an ADU on the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 7 of 22
That can be an administrative challenge and he doesn’t know the exact answer about how they
deal with it but presumes that it just doesn't count towards the occupancy of that rental permit.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jim Throgmorton (co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee)
comes before the Commission tonight to ask that they amend item 3C-2 in the staff’s August 2
memo for properties located within the University Impact Area (UIA). They urge the Commission
to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner-occupied properties. They further
recommend the Commission carve out an exception to permit nonprofit providers of income-
restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UIA. Two months ago this Commission
deferred action on the ADU provisions and Throgmorton thanked them for doing that. As
Lehmann stated, City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs and several
Northside Neighborhood neighbors attended and some had stimulating conversations with
individual staff members. But the conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all
attendees. Many attendees looked puzzled as they were studying the posters and appeared to
be wondering what do the ADU amendments mean for their neighborhood. The first challenge
residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staff’s reports and that is
no easy task, partly because the technical language of zoning is unfamiliar to most people.
Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. His own
neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts
and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes
might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities
of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between
neighborhood leaders and the City planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the
amendments might affect their neighborhood they focused their attention on the medium density
residential that is the RS-8 areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in
they studied one block in Goosetown, it's the long block that currently contains 31 properties,
one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last
century, they are all one to two stories in height, and the assessed value of this block of 30 single
family properties average a modest $216,000. Being in the UIA the entire block is affected by
the demand for off-campus student housing. 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated
entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to the ADUs could,
when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single family structures,
cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the UIA as
major opportunities for financial gain. In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of
land up when properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner occupants and they
would very likely demolish older, lower cost owner-occupied structures and replace them with the
largest possible rental duplexes or attached single family structures coupled with rentable ADUs.
All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these
neighborhoods. Staff tells him that seven of the lots on this block could potentially be
redeveloped with duplexes and that 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. If they look more
closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block, one is currently vacant, whereas the
other is occupied by a one and a half story single family structure. Picture an investor building a
new structure and ADU on the vacant lot. While that investor or perhaps another one, purchases
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 8 of 22
the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the
structures being rentals and this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other
neighborhoods in the UIA. The ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this
and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner-occupied housing would shrink
and while diversifying housing choices this amendment could result in the neighborhoods
becoming more dominated by investor-owned rental structures. Throgmorton requests they
retain the owner-occupied requirements for properties in the UIA and carve out an exception for
nonprofits.
William Gorman (Chair of the Housing Action Team of the Johnson County Livable Community
for Successful Aging Policy Board) stated last November they held a forum on ADUs and invited
all 11 cities in Johnson County to attend. They invited the City Councils and the Mayors as well
as home builders and realtors. They focused on the benefits of ADUs to help seniors age in
place, as well as the need for affordable housing for people of all ages. One month later, in
December, they submitted to all 11 cities in Johnson County what he would describe as a white
paper, providing recommendations on the elements of a potential ADU zoning code. To be clear,
they reached out to Iowa City and the other cities in Johnson County, the cities did not reach out
to them. However, they do appreciate the fact that the city of Iowa City staff took their
recommendations seriously and at this Commission’s direction from the previous meeting, the
staff did reach out to the community to solicit additional input, including looking at how other
university towns have addressed ADUs. The results show that university towns have utilized a
variety of strategies, some university towns do not require owner occupancy, some do. Gorman
stated they continue to support the staff recommendations with one caveat. Clearly many
residents have expressed genuine concerns regarding the proposed removal of the owner
occupancy requirement. Even though they believe removing the owner occupancy requirement is
best practice and removing the owner occupancy requirement is likely to more significantly
increase the number of ADUs that could be developed he acknowledged it is very difficult to
forecast how many developers will field their sufficient profit margin to purchase homes and then
add on ADUs in order to rent out both dwellings. Kirk Lehmann’s October 4 letter on page seven
notes the following “ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating
extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from the tenants but it may be
necessary to limit them to properties where their primary dwelling unit is the owners primary
residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals”. On top
of that, since Iowa law does not allow cities to prohibit short-term rentals in the abundance of
caution, Gorman states they now recommend that Iowa City keep the owner occupancy
requirement indicating that the lot owner must reside in the primary residence or the ADU and
then suggest that the City revisit this issue in two to four years to see if the requirement can be
dropped. Give it some time, monitor it and then see if they can remove that requirement later.
Lastly, they encourage the City to review its permitting process to look for ways to simplify the
application process, decrease fees and eliminate any regulations that may hinder ADU
development.
Phoebe Martin (Iowa City) stated she is speaking personally and not for all realtors but wanted to
thank everyone for bringing this whole thing up, she is very excited about it. She noted she works
with a lot of different types of clients and has a few different people that have been keeping an
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 9 of 22
eye on all of this, one of which is a family that has a son that cannot afford to buy their own
house on their own lot. They could potentially afford to build an ADU in their backyard, but it does
not have an alley, it would need to, it'd be weird to be on the side and make more sense sort of
like a little compound. It's also significantly cheaper than then bringing in external care to them
renting something else. So even though that seems kind of frivolous, it actually would really help
them in terms of affordability. She also has a lot of clients that are looking to rent tiny houses,
which is something that Iowa City has not always been a huge fan of. Every tiny house she has
sold, and oddly enough she has sold quite a few of them, they go immediately and more of that
would be even better, because then they're also reducing the carbon footprint a little bit. Not all
people want yards, she is seeing lots of clients that are looking for studio, office and
homeschooling space. The idea of owner occupied or not, she thinks it would be just fine to not
have that requirement, but has also seen a lot of people, one of which is on Davenport Street,
who bought their house thinking that was going to be there forever investment and would love to
have an ADU on there so that they could rent out both and that's their retirement fund but they
don't want to live there anymore.
Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and tonight is just
here to read a letter Ann Freerks as she couldn't make it tonight. “Dear Planning and Zoning
Commissioners, I'm writing to urge you to vote against the proposal that would allow rental
properties to have accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, including the RNS-12 zone. I
have lived in a near downtown Iowa City neighborhood for over 30 years. During this time, I have
worked to create stable housing for all. I am not a NIMBY, there is a 12-Plex in my backyard,
duplexes, triplexes and lots of multifamily houses in my neighborhood, but there are also single-
family homes that are key to the balance and fabric of the community. These are some of the
most fragile portions of our neighborhoods and this proposal would threaten that balance. I spent
over 15 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission here in Iowa City, many of those as
chair. I did this to create positive change and a healthy community. I have worked through
Comprehensive Plan updates, re-drafts of the zoning code and subdivision regulations, I have
been part of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force and clearly understand the
concerns this will cause the University Impact Zone. Iowa City has committed a great deal of
time and money to reduce density in this area through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership.
When the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the
UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older
neighborhoods are concerned the proposed changes will further tip the scale in favor of
investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. The goal
should always be finding zoning tools that will promote the creation as well as the preservation of
affordable housing. There are endless solutions to every issue and this one does not work for
the long-term benefit of Iowa City. It should never be about warehousing people. People need
basic amenities, green space and community. This recommendation does not take into account
the damage that will be done in the Neighborhood Impact Zone. The near downtown
neighborhoods are already very dense and lack parking. I would ask that at the very least you
remove the University Impact zone and the RNS-12 zone from this proposal.” Thomann noted
Freerks signed it as community member and former Planning and Zoning chair.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 10 of 22
Thomann want to just say a little bit about her situation as well, again she lives in the 200 block
of Fairchild and that's just right down the way from Pagliai’s Pizza. It's a great neighborhood and
her house is in the Northside Historic District. She also serves on the Historic Preservation
Commission representing the Northside Neighborhood. She agrees with what Ann Freerks has
to say in her letter. Her block is unique in that she is in a historic home and a lot of her neighbors
are in the District with her, but across the street they have the RNS-12 houses that could really
affect the look and feel of their neighborhood. It is already dense, it’s already diverse, her
backyard borders a four-plex and on the other side there are multifamily houses that run along
Dubuque Street. There are a lot of people there and she feels like they're doing their part as a
community in just those few blocks there of creating a diverse and dense living environment.
Andy Martin (member HBA and president of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) is
a remodeler in town and a member of some organizations but is not speaking for those bodies.
Today he is just speaking personally. He stated ADUs are something that's near and dear to him
as he has had many people ask him to build ADUs over the years. Typically, the reason is
because they have a family member that they'd like to have close, he has never had a rental
person ask to build one. What usually happens is that they end up not building the ADU
because it's too expensive and the reason is the restrictions. Martin does think if they did change
the code a little bit private individuals may be able to do more ADUs, particularly with elderly
parents or disabled people, and not having to have that extra space for a detached unit will be a
big help because the traditional way that's done is a carriage house with the garage below and
the building above. One would have to have a really big lot in order to do a side by side. But the
carriage house type doesn't work for a disabled or elderly persons, climbing a full flight of stairs
to get to their apartment, that just doesn't fly. Martin thinks if they can loosen these restrictions
they will end up seeing that more and in that case it is truly affordable housing because it's a lot
less expensive than other options such as the assisted living as those are 1000s of dollars a
month. He appreciates the City looking for a way to reduce costs and in a bigger picture they’re
looking at choices for the future. One of the things he loves about Iowa City is that it is
consistently growing every year and the traditional form of growth is out in the cornfields and this
is looking at the idea of becoming more dense which he thinks is the way of the future as it is the
sustainable way and the smart way to go, there's no reason to go out when they can go up or go
more dense. Traditionally more dense is having huge multifamily buildings, because that's the
only way it can be done under current code and if they allow a little bit more flexibility here they
will see a way to gain density without getting monolithic density. Martin also stated he
understands the concerns with students, because he has lived in Iowa City for 30 years, but they
have the same choice with students as well, they're either going to grow more dense in the area
that they're allowed, or they're going to spread out. Again if they can make the requirements
more flexible and make them more inviting to people, he believes they will see an uptick in ADUs
but as pointed out they’ve had 52 in the past 30 years, so they’re not likely going to see 52 next
month, it's not going to be that kind of rapid growth.
Hensch asked what the price range would be to construct a 1000-foot standalone unit for an
ADU. Martin stated the last ADU they built was about $180,000 and about 35% to 40% of that
cost was the garage. He noted if they could knock that way down, then it’s roughly about half the
price of a new home. Hensch stated then without a garage it would be a range of $100,000 to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 11 of 22
$150,000. Martin confirmed and stated that is a half or a third of the price of a new home but is it
truly affordable in the definition of affordable housing, where it's going to appeal to people who
are making 60% or less of median income, probably not, it's probably not that type of affordable
housing but is it useful and more affordable than traditional building, yes.
Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) asks that they maintain the owner occupancy requirement
on ADUs. He lives in a RNS-12 stabilization zone and when he thinks about stabilization, it's not
necessarily that there's no historic overlay, it's not about character, it's a recognition that a
neighborhood was really in a situation where it's acknowledging that the diversity of the
neighborhood, and the equity of the neighborhood, was being flattened out by monoculture, and
frankly by a price insensitive monoculture. Frankly, it's students who are price insensitive and it's
one type of people taking over that neighborhood, as well as doing a stable, diverse
neighborhood. He is caring about how long can he stay in this neighborhood, he’s at midlife and
would like to stay there but if they open it up it to the extent of free development, which is the
auspices of this report and if they just free the market, the market will crowd supply. They may
think when they crowd supply, it'll fix everything and prices will fall. Good examples of where that
doesn't work is in health care and it also doesn't work in housing. Last week the Federal
Reserve, certainly not a socialist body, had an excellent presentation about three hours long that
he would recommend everyone watch, it showed what the data said about what actually drives
affordable housing and they actually do need requirements and mandates, that's what actually
drives affordable housing, it's not the market and crowding in with supply. Knote also stated at
one of the City Council meetings where people were speculating and imagining the wonderful
things that the market will provide but they don't necessarily have to imagine what the market
provides, because they have exact examples. He lives in a neighborhood but looking at
maps.google.com. they can check out some of these examples and that framework was really
helpful. The feedback from the mayor was really helpful because he gave first principles. What
do they care about in Iowa City? It's not character, it’s not necessarily historical stuff, its
affordability, diversity, and environmental impact. If those are reasonable frameworks and
reasonable guidance he used those as he walked around his neighborhood concerns him. For
example, to focus on that 900 block of Jefferson, 942 & 944 is a duplex that was put in brand
new where there once was an old home and it takes up the almost the entire lot. Did it affect
affordability or prices of those rental units, it didn't and now there's three of them in a row. That's
a lot of additional housing supply so presumably it should have some impact as the market is
crowded but it had no impact on affordability. What did it impact, well the culture is now
monoculture, there's no more diversity, it's all students on that that particular area of the block.
That may be what they want but he doesn’t think that creates a thriving neighborhood where
people are investing in the community and in keeping this an alive and generative community.
Also, what do they have in terms of environmental impact, are people really not using their cars
to get around, well around the corner there are no more trees, no cover, just a heat sink that’s
really become a concrete jungle and that drives up air conditioning in the summer. Also on his
block, at 923 Market Street, a cute little house was torn down in the middle of the block and he
doesn’t know what is going to go in there but can speculate that it might be another very, very
large duplex. He doesn’t think that will have an appreciable impact on affordability nor in terms of
the environmental impact. Things will get hotter, fewer trees, more parking spaces, people are
still using their cars, less diversity, so again, no real measurable impact on affordability.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 12 of 22
Sharon DeGraw (Northside Neighborhood Member) stated from where she lives she is most
concerned about the University Impact Zone. She has a survey of streetscapes with what it looks
like parking wise in the Northside Neighborhood, some on South Lucas Street, and it's really in
the University Impact Zone the role that parking plays. Therefore, she is concerned about the
waiver of the parking aspect of the ADUs. She showed an image that's the 400 block of North
Gilbert Street and there are cars on the correct side of the street that they can park on all day
from eight o'clock to five o'clock but once it turns five o'clock cars start showing up on the other
side of the street and even though they are only supposed to park on one side, there are errant
cars parking on the wrong side of the street and they just accept the ticket. She next showed the
500 block of Gilbert Street and noted these streets are not terribly wide and it's hard for a
delivery driver parking a truck to go run food or packages to a house with cars just piling up on
either side for about five minutes and people start to get testy because they can't back up and
they're just stuck until the delivery person finds the right residence and recipient. DeGraw is
imagining if they start to add ADUs to some of these lots, and don't have the parking
requirement, people are still going to bring their cars and this situation is going to get worse. She
next showed an area closer into the downtown, noting plenty of lots where on the alley side with
very little green spaces left and are virtual parking lots. They're not supposed to be doing that as
much anymore, but one can see how densely packed in the parking is. She doesn’t know that
these could be converted to have an ADU, but if they did where would the cars go, and students
are going to bring their cars. At the ADU open house DeGraw expressed her concern about the
parking waiver for ADUs and the response staff said is students will learn to leave their vehicles
at home but that's not really going to happen. In addition, thinking about the AARP aspect of the
recommendation for ADUs in the University Impact Zone there's really not going to be a lot of
seniors looking for an accessory dwelling unit in the back of a downtown rental house. It's
illogical that Iowa City will see an increase in seniors living in ADUs in the University Impact
Zone, very close to the downtown. DeGraw next showed an image of after she drops her kids off
at school she will often go see a friend on South Lucas Street and has been stuck behind maybe
the same garbage truck many times. The image shows there's a car on the other side that can't
make it through so already the streets are very packed with automobiles and the streets are
narrow. If they increase the density at this point, she doesn’t think that they're going to convince
the students to leave their cars at home and this car did a three-point turn to get out of the way
and turn around. She has been in situations where it took five minutes for people to figure out to
dive into a driveway, back up or do a three-point turn to get back around. Next she showed the
300 block of North Linn Street where she actually used to live when she first moved to Iowa City
as a young professional. She would strategically drive her car down to the end of the block and
use that as her jogging exercise. Every morning she would try to get out there to fetch her car
and try to find a new parking spot for it. She was from California and didn't have parents where
she could leave a car somewhere else and then get it occasionally. She would prepay parking
tickets because she knew that was the best rate and just put down $100 every month or so.
Jonathan Melba (South Van Buren) wanted to add a different perspective to this conversation,
which is the perspective of a student and especially as relates to the parking aspect. Just to echo
the sentiments of what was just said, if the ADUs are targeted as an affordable housing
mechanism for students, the basic reality with the students is that there's an expectation that
they will have a car here and that whatever adverse parking requirements come from that they're
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 13 of 22
going to have their car here one way or another. For that reason, he thinks that the requirement
of a parking spot per ADU should stay. Melba noted they can have an increase in density
without an increase of set aside parking spots but they're still going to see the same increase in
cars, provided this is being targeted towards students. If it's being targeted towards elderly
residents or for extended families in a singular unit, in that case he thinks the owner occupancy
requirements should probably stay. If it's the case that they're looking for affordable housing for
different family situations to incorporate it onto the same house, then there's no reason to
remove the owner occupancy requirement and what that does is help to prevent some of these
concerns have already been expressed, and also helps to remove any possibility of the sort of
speculative real estate investment from happening and keep the homes concentrated in local
residents and local companies rather than allowing it to be a source of investment speculation.
Melba stated depending on what the intended or imagined goal of loosening some of the
restrictions from the ADU would be, it seems as though either the owner occupancy requirement
should stay up and/or the parking requirements should stay.
Lorraine Bowans (South Governor Street) had lived in her home for over 30 years, it’s an old
house built in 1864 and she is very passionate about the historic homes, the older
neighborhoods and everything. Her house was a duplex when they moved in and they converted
it back to a single family and built a garage at the back of the property. They put frost footings so
they could build an addition up thinking at the time her parents would come to live with them.
She is also on the Board of Johnson County Livable Communities, is a realtor and also works
with helping seniors find services. She is becoming very active politically for seniors and living
with dignity in aging. She is also an active volunteer and advocate for AARP, she is a firm
believer but where she differentiates from AARP in this town is they need to keep it owner-
occupied to preserve what little housing stock they have left that's historic, they don't have a lot
and ADUs do not have to be an extra building. On South Governor Street, when they lived there,
there was probably nine houses that used to be rooming houses or duplexes or triplexes that
were converted to single family. They could be converted back. The lots were 190 feet so a
small unit could be put in the back and still have a good neighborhood. With the historic and
conservation districts they have to stay blended so they’re not going to have an ugly thing. Right
now real estate is not that great, the interest rates are high, building is expensive so they don't
see as much development, taking down old homes, to build a lot of new stuff. That could change
in the future but right now that's not the case. She noted trying to find housing for someone who
has no money is heartbreaking and this is an opportunity for seniors or young family people that
want to live in their neighborhood. For seniors to age in place, they can't live in the two-story
house where the only bathroom may be on the second floor, they could but it may not be safe.
Bowans noted they could build an addition on to their house, as an example on Governor Street
the house caddy corner from them, they could no longer do the stairs so they built an addition of
a master suite onto their home and that did not detract from the neighborhood, there is still plenty
of room for parking and everything like that. Bowans stated they need to have design standards
that really preserve some of the lot and the integrity of older homes. She noted they are in the
infant stages now of trying to find out a way where seniors could stay in their neighborhoods and
in their homes. Maybe build a smaller unit in the back, where they could either move into and
rent the big house to a larger family and have them provide services for them. Or for them to stay
in their home, have a small unit, either attached or separate, where they could have a student
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 14 of 22
who has been vetted, has background checks and everything, move in. It's a win win for both,
less student debt for the student and services for the senior. Iowa is closing nursing homes like
crazy. She has been to several meetings with the head of the Department of Human Services,
the director of Medicaid services, and the director of Aging and Disability Services, and there's a
lot of things going on, nothing's been set in stone, but they're shutting nursing homes because
they have no care workers, they don't pay enough, Medicaid does not reimburse enough. They
are going to have a crisis of there's no place for people in Iowa with lower incomes to move to so
people are forced to stay in their homes. Bowans looks at this as a whole different perspective, if
they could somehow benefit a teacher who's coming here to work fresh out of college, they’re
going to have student loans to pay back, if there is an affordable unit for that teacher to live in
then it's a win win if they can also do some cares for the senior or a family that's coming in. The
State is working on ways to finance ADUs for lower income people, the Iowa Finance Authority is
working on some things, and the State is also going to try and work on some things to get homes
modified for this particular situation. There's a lot of things in the work but people need to think
outside the box.
Alex Lewis stated for some background context he is currently in the middle of a research project
on the way land use can increase affordability so he thought a few statistics might help couch the
conversation. The Council of Economic Advisers recognize there's about 7 million market rate
affordable units in the country, which means that someone at the defined poverty line could
afford the rent at their current salary. Two and a half million of those are being occupied by
people that could afford an up-market unit but don't because there's no supply up-market. That
means that millions of units that could be affordable today aren't on the market. When they talk
about market rate, versus addressing the affordability crisis, that is all the same conversation
about supply. When they talk about what's happening in neighborhoods, how to stop the change
of neighborhoods and where students moving, apparently students are not very well liked. Well
students are going to here, there's a university here, sorry, they’re coming, the demand is
constant, and it's going to grow. It's only a question of whether it's inelastic student demand.
Students are coming here with the money to afford any kind of rent, he worked for a few years
and lived in Dallas, when he came to Iowa City his rent money was going to go where he can
afford to live but that doesn't necessarily mean that students are immune to market pressure. If
there's a more dense area that's more amenable to students, they can bike, they can walk,
they're closer to downtown, they can go to bars, that’s where they want to be. That brings up the
car issue too, which he will address in a second, but to first address where that supply exists so
that they don't grow out. Someone else made a great point about growing out into cornfields
versus growing up. Students like more dense housing, they like being closer to other people,
ADUs are a way of enabling that and making sure the students are going to stay closer to where
the university is. Because as you all discuss the impact area, that where the students want to be,
if you want to keep people closer to the university, if you want less and less people getting priced
out of those areas, it means making sure that more students can live on one lot. If there's 10
students coming to town, either five of them can live on one lot or two of them can live on five
lots so it seems like for everyone, students, homeowners, the community, it would be better to
have students in more dense areas on less lots. Additionally, it removes the pressure from the
historic districts and other issues like that. The car issue is another big one. The cars are the
problem. Cars and density are inverse, they're against each other. There's a great saying “you're
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 15 of 22
not in traffic, you are the traffic” so when they're looking at pictures of people stuck in traffic and
watching people do three-point turns, you are also the ones sitting behind the garbage truck and
blocking the person in the car. Nobody wants to be in that traffic jam. The way to encourage that
is by getting more people out of their cars, biking, walking to school, which everyone would all
love to do. Cars are expensive, students don't have that much money. There are other policies
like protected bike lanes and things like that which are part of this, but increasing density and
reducing parking makes it overall more attractive. They’ve heard about the building cost
associated with garages but there's also space constraints, cars are big and if they're requiring a
place for a car on every lot, that pushes the units further out and it reduces the density of the
area and it means people have to have their cars. There's a great statistic from some reform in
Buffalo that showed that for the doubling of housing density, transportation emissions reduced
almost 50% and household heating costs reduced by 40%. That means it's also more affordable
when those units are closer together, especially in an apartment building or a multi-unit situation,
they don't have five exposed sides, they have four exposed sides or three exposed sides, which
means less heating, less cooling costs. All of that makes the situation more affordable. As far as
the investor concerns and owner occupancy concerns even in the most aggressive markets,
New York, San Francisco, LA, only about 8% of units at the high end are being owned by
incorporated entities. Most of these units are local people who are just looking for another stream
of income, ability to monetize their lot to retire, things of that nature, so it's good to keep those
avenues open. They shouldn't be artificially constraining ability to build because that's just going
to harm supply. People talked earlier about why they haven't seen changes in the market, but 52
units over 30 years isn't something anyone is going to notice, especially when the university is
growing and the town is growing. They need to take serious supply side reforms seriously so that
people can respond to that. There is money to be made for people in this community by
monetizing their lots, by increasing density, by taking advantage of students with their inelastic
demand coming here, and spending so it's good to be able to capture that and get rid of the car
requirement.
Kelcey Patrick-Ferree (Sandusky Drive) lives in the South District and is here because she
supports these proposed changes to the zoning code to increase the availability and diversity of
housing in Iowa City. She supports all of the changes that City staff have has proposed, she
appreciates the students who are in the room tonight pointing out that they do need housing and
it's better for them to have housing closer to the university, they've got walking opportunities.
Personally, ideally, she’d love to have a few more grocery stores in that area so they don't have
to be driving out to get food. She thinks if some of the homeowners who have come to object to
these changes would add ADUs to their homes and rent to students some of them might find that
actually like having students around more than they realize. She noted they rented a room in
their house to a student a few years ago, for a brief period of time, and a few weeks ago her
husband officiated at his wedding. He's a dear friend and he's part of their lives now. But all of
that said, as she has listened to all of these concerns that have been raised and read all of the
reports and everything, she thinks that one potential solution for the University Impact Zone
presents itself. Part of it is what Jim Throgmorton mentioned before which is only allowing ADUs
to be built on properties that are owner occupied, except for also allowing ADUs of nonprofits
too. But then the second part of that is to divorce that ownership requirement from future
ownership of the property. Reading through the packet, her understanding from some of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 16 of 22
things that were in there that the staff said is that the owner occupancy requirement presents a
big problem for future uses of that dwelling unit, both the main house and the dwelling unit.
Patrick-Ferree thinks that if they can separate those two requirements, the building requirement
and the renting requirement, that would be a good way forward just within the University Impact
Zone. What that could look like is either a general lack of requirement of owner occupancy to get
a rental permit for an ADU or it can be a provision that says that once the house plus ADU has
been sold to someone else, or otherwise transferred, like a transfer on death deed, the owner
occupancy requirement no longer applies to that property. Patrick thinks that would solve a lot of
the problems that they're seeing raised here today. However, she wants to be clear, this isn't
actually what she’s advocating for, she likes the City staff’s recommendations, she just wanted to
put that out there because it might be helpful if they need to find a compromise position.
Jared Knote wanted to make a point of clarification, he doesn’t think anyone wants this being a
false antagonism, which he doesn’t think is generative, nor is it representative, he thinks what
anyone is saying here is they want stable communities that are diverse, that are affordable, and
that are environmentally responsible and that is what might be unlocked by having ADUs
available to owner-occupied buildings, where they could have as opposed to having hollowing
out diverse communities, and rebuilding a monoculture. They have existing examples of where
that happens, in particular in the stabilization area of RNS-12 as one example. Other areas of
the University Impact Zone might also be relevant here. He thinks a false antagonism or an
interpretation of antagonism is not representative, many of the opinions are those principles, of
affordability, diversity and environmental and having a generative community.
Jim Throgmorton clarified that nothing he or anyone else affiliated within Northside
Neighborhood Association has said should be understood as being opposed to rental units in the
neighborhood. As noted from previous presentations a very large proportion of the housing in the
Northside Neighborhood already is rental, apartment buildings, rooming houses, single family
structures that have been converted to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 family structures. The problem for
many people in the Northside is not that there are renters in the neighborhood, it's that pressure
exists and the amendments they're considering would increase the pressure exist to convert
pretty much all of the Northside to rental units. The challenge is to make it possible for owner-
occupants to actually live in the neighborhood instead of feeling pressured by market forces to
move out. It's not hostility toward renters, not hostility towards students.
Andy Martin wanted to talk quickly about the parking requirement. He was talking to a guy who
lives in Solon and apparently they have regressed in their parking requirements there and they're
requiring more parking or something. Martin doesn’t know the details but basically they're
requiring more parking per unit now and are the only town in the country that is trying to create
more rights for cars. He noted if they've got a street, that's where the car belongs, put the car on
the street, they don't need to create more parking lots for cars. Martin thinks that's something
they should consider that they want to build for people and not for cars. That's the way they've
kind of been heading in the last few years and he thinks it's great. When they went to two lanes
on Mormon Trek he thought it was crazy but now loves it. So, he would encourage them not to
try and build to allow more room for cars in the future.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 17 of 22
Sharon DeGraw added that she does love where she lives because of the number of students
that live all around, it's just the density is quite great and she is not sure how much more they
can go. There was a report that Jerry Anthony help compiled along with graduate students, and
it has an interesting statistic about tax revenue, but then think of tax revenue translated as
density. For the Northside they have 91 cents per square foot of tax revenue created out of the
Northside Neighborhood and that's translated as density. For the Weber neighborhood, it's 31
cents per square foot of space. And for Windsor Ridge, it is 24 cents. So if other areas took on a
little density, and if the ADU component works well outside the University Impact Zone, with or
without parking requirement, with or without landlord or owner-occupied, she sees more
possibility there. But just within the University Impact Area they’re doing quite well right now.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Elliott moved that Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the
owner is not required to live on-site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning
code be replaced with the term accessory dwelling unit.
Craig asked if the motion will limit the owner occupancy to the University Impact Zone. Elliott
replied she is not.
Motion seconded by Wade.
Elliott appreciates the extra work that the staff has gone to and the people who came to the
forum and the people here tonight. She does believe that loosening the current regulations on
ADUs will contribute to the strategic goal of attractive affordable housing for all people. Her
concern is with a proposed standard to eliminate the requirement for owner occupancy, the
majority of attendees at the forum and tonight had concerns about removing the owner-occupied
requirement. Removing the requirement places a greater burden on the University Impact Zone
and also likely the Longfellow zone, which is not in the University Impact Zone, but are older
neighborhoods where there are more rental units in the area. If one of the goals is to stabilize
and preserve the character of older neighborhoods, than allowing for ADUs with the owner on-
site helps to preserve the character of those neighborhoods.
Hensch stated he is a big fan of ADUs because he believes strongly in intergenerational housing
and that's why he supports ADUs. Interestingly, in the last issue of Planning magazine that just
came out, there was a discussion, as was referenced in the presentation, AARP and the
American Planning Association have collaborated to come up with these standards and they
issued a report for that. He found it interesting in this article that the main justification they give
for these new standards actually validate what the motion is, and to quote it says “we can point
out that by creating an accessory dwelling unit ordinance in your town might allow you to build a
unit in the backyard of your mother’s house for a caregiver if you need care, or can act as an
income generating source for you”. So in their own justifications they're saying that the reason
you should have these ADUs is because you're occupying that place and this is for caregivers for
you or intergenerational housing, or for income generation for you. He found it interesting that
they specifically in their recommendations say there shouldn't be requirement about the owner
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 18 of 22
on-site, but their justification says that's exactly what it actually should be. There should be an
owner on-site and he agrees 100% with that.
Quellhorst stated he would generally be in favor of removing the owner occupancy requirement
because doing that encourages investment in ADUs, which does a really nice job of balancing
these concerns of bringing down the cost of housing while also avoiding excessive density.
When they talk about people creating ADUs on their property, one thing that staff noted is these
folks are having trouble getting financing because they go to the bank and the bank says they’re
not going to give a mortgage because if something were to happen to them they wouldn't
necessarily or their successor wouldn't be able to continue to rent out this ADU. He thinks that
removing owner occupancy requirements is in the best interest not only of developers, but also in
the interest of normal people that would want to build ADUs on their property but might not have
the funds to do so.
Padron is also in favor of removing the requirement and would support the motion with all of
these recommendations.
Craig is in favor of removing the requirement too but as a compromise could support a position
that left that requirement in the University Impact Zone and removed it elsewhere.
Hensch understands that the impetus for a lot of this is to decrease the cost of housing and he
honestly don't think this will have anything other than a marginal impact, even if they allowed
unrestricted ADU growth. That's not the driver of the housing costs in Iowa City.
Criag stated she doesn’t think growth of ADUs is going to run rampant in any case, in any
neighborhood, in the next two years, but it's hard to predict the future.
Hensch noted it's a pretty strong statistic that in the last 30 years there has been 52 units, which
is 1.7 ADUs per year. He understands there's more restrictions on that but as Mr. Martin stated
at $100,000 to $150,000 for an ADU, a very limited number of people that have affordability for
that. His fear is that limited number of people are in the investor class, or people who are not
going to live in the neighborhood but will spend the money because they know they can rent that
out for the next 40 years so they can afford to build that ADU. He is really concerned about
neighborhood integrity.
Townsend stated her concern is when she thinks of affordable housing she thinks of housing for
families that are going to remain in the communities. She thinks the ADU is a good idea for
seniors and for people who want to keep their families together but would like to see that
uncoupled from calling it affordable housing because it's a whole different entity than just
affordable housing. If they take out that owner occupancy piece it just becomes another
moneymaker for whoever, they're going to rent out the big unit and rent out the small unit. What's
it going to do to the neighborhood. Townsend stated she lives up from the Mayflower and there's
lots of big yards in that area but it's still a community, it's a nice neighborhood. She can see
building ADUs that are not on the land with the owner becoming just rentals and there are a lot of
rental homes in that neighborhood, but their owners live across the street. So they've bought
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 19 of 22
units on the other side of the street and they're kept up. But she has also seen properties in the
Iowa City area where that's not happening, especially around the University where some of those
places are just run-down and they tack them up just enough to get students in and then they're
falling apart. Therefore she thinks they need to keep the owner-occupied piece in there.
Wade stated the reason he seconded the motion with the owner occupancy requirement is really
an incremental approach to it. He has the same concerns he raised last time, it does become an
opportunity for a private owner on premises to make that property more affordable as their
ownership for creating a rental unit to help supplement the cost of the house. As everyone is
aware the cost of housing is expensive right now and anything to help that or level the playing
field is good. However, he has the same concerns that requirement is not going to get them any
closer to walkability from being close to downtown as far as getting more housing on the market.
If this doesn't promote or show results in increased utilization or development of ADUs then he
would look to revisit that requirement after a year to see if that needs to be lifted.
Padron asked staff if she wanted to rent a property for her family with an ADU for her parents, for
example, she couldn't do that because she wouldn't be the owner. Lehmann confirmed she could
not do that, if she bought the property with the ADU then it would be okay.
Quellhorst stated he is supportive of ADUs and looking at the statistics that staff presented, he
thought was pretty compelling in terms of just how few of these properties have been
constructed. Therefore, to the extent they favor an incremental approach, eliminating the owner
occupancy requirement isn’t likely to result in dozens or hundreds of ADUs overnight. He thinks
that's a process that would happen fairly slowly. He also thinks that ADUs are still subject to
other zoning requirements so they’re not just packing places onto tiny lots that are not suitable
for them. They still have to meet setback requirements and there's still a variety of provisions in
the zoning code that ensure that ADUs are consistent with the character of the community. He
strongly supports ADUs and thinks that they can eliminate the owner occupancy requirements
and wouldn't see drastic change. And in the very unlikely event that they did start seeing diverse
impact the community there's nothing stopping them from coming back and revisiting that
regulation and making further recommendations to Council.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2023:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 16, 2023. Quellhorst seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave an updated on a few development projects. First the rezoning across from the fire
station on Dodge and Scott with the proposed coffee shop/mixed-use building and townhomes
was recently subdivided and approved by Council and the site plan was also recently approved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 20 of 22
Second is out on Melrose and Slothower, the annexation, rezoning and subdivision, they came
back for a re-subdivision and are proposing some additional lots and streets and that was pre-
approved by Council at the last meeting. Also approved by Council last night was the local
landmark rezoning of the original Emma Goldman Clinic. Regarding the rest of the Zoning Code
Amendments related to housing, the first reading passed at Council last night and they deferred
the second consideration to the next meeting and staff will be preparing some additional
information for Council. Lastly, Russett mentioned staff are working on grant application to HUD
for pro-housing. Lehmann stated the goal is to address barriers to housing choice and it's a lot of
the similar things that they’ve see in the amendments that they’ve been proposing. Staff has
prepared a grant application that will go before Council at their next meeting, it would request
$5.6 million in federal funds, and the staff is proposing that the City would match it with $2.85
million. The activities that they're proposing are a continuation of a lot of things that they’ve
already been able to move forward over the last several years, including trying to expand the
scope of the Comprehensive Plan update, specifically looking at the housing element and a
regional housing study, but also looking at a land use element that really does reflect the desires
of the community. They've also had parking as something to look at as a long-term barrier to
affordable housing and they would want to do a parking study and possibly bring proposed
changes to the parking standards. Staff is also looking at if the City can directly develop
affordable housing rather than using RFPs to develop affordable housing. Lehmann clarified it
would be income-restricted affordable housing and include funding for a pilot project that would
hopefully be able to produce 24 dwelling units that would be affordable and kickstart a City
development arm or housing authority development arm. Staff is also looking at other activities
that address more immediate needs such as an emergency assistance fund that would help with
rent for folks who might become unhoused otherwise, look at security deposits for folks that can't
find housing, and also doing housing counseling as part of the Housing Authority. There is a
comment period right now available online at ICgov.org/action plan or from the main page there
is a news article that will link to the pro-housing grant application. Lehmann encourages the
Commissioners to take a look at it and provide feedback. Staff will review all the
comments/feedback and that'll all be provided to Council. Lehmann added there would also be
an accessory dwelling unit program and provide funds to produce accessory dwelling units that
would help homeowners.
Townsend noted she heard on the news this week that they are going to start to charge for the
electric charging stations so how will that affect building when they're putting in those units now.
Lehmann explained that residential properties are exempted, his understanding is that it applies
to commercial and public properties. He also noted the EV standards are something that staff
still intends to bring back to this Commission and they will probably recommend that it only be
required for residential properties then because of that change there should be grant funds that
are available to help with that.
Hensch noted because he has less than a year and a half left on this Commission there are two
items he’d like them to discuss sometime in the future. One is the borders of the University
Impact Area need to be looked at as they just don't seem correct to him and wonders when the
last time they were updated, but if it's truly a University Impact Zone they should really make sure
that it's accurate. The other thing, and it is a minor thing, but it drives him crazy, is throughout
town there's flood detention areas a mostly they're the responsibility of HOAs to maintain but
they don't maintain them, they just abandon them. Perhaps this would be an opportunity to
maybe to restore those detention areas and if they had a pollinator requirement for prairie
restoration, because they don’t need maintenance other than burn it or mow at once every five
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2023
Page 21 of 22
years. The HOAs do not maintain them and they get overgrown with shrubs. He would like to
discuss that sometime.
Russett noted they all are members of the American Planning Association and should be getting
their emails and the Planning magazine. Lehmann stated they do have to opt in for a paper
version.
Craig stated a recent email from the APA was interesting to her, it was about zoning for home
occupation and how that world has changed so much in the last 10, let alone 20 years, because
so many people are working from home, and what kind of work are they doing, it’s not always
obvious, even to their neighbors, that they could be running a business out of their home, so she
is wondering what the zoning regulations for home occupation are. Russett replied they actually
don't deal with home occupations, even though it is in the zoning code they have other staff that
deal with home occupation permits for home-based business, the planning staff doesn't
implement that section of the code.
Townsend asked how that differs from people that now work at home, they're part of a company.
Russett replied the State actually preempted cities to some extent on how they regulate home-
based business. If someone works at home via zoom or whatever all day that is a no impact
home-based business per the State Code and cities can't require a permit. The State Code has
this thing called No Impact Home- Based Business which is if any business doesn't create traffic
or that the neighbors can’t visually see the business, cities can't require a permit for it.
Craig asked what if someone converted their three-season room into a hair cutting business and
there was a hairdryer and washing station and that's what she did that the whole time. Russett
stated the current code has prohibited uses and that's not one of them. Additionally, even now
with some of these things that the zoning code actually prohibits, like a restaurant, if it can be
demonstrated that it's no impact they could potentially operate without a permit.
Finally, Russett wanted to mention the local HUD region seven has been following Iowa City’s
proposed zoning code changes and they're very interested in what the City is doing here and
requested to meet with staff so staff will be meeting with HUD next month.
Townsend asked staff to suggest to them that they revisit the formula for affordable housing
because one of the housing members thinks it’s too damn high.
ADJOURNMENT:
Elliott moved to adjourn, seconded by Townsend and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2024
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 10/4
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X O/E X 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 O/E X X X X
PADRON, MARIA X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
QUELLHORST, SCOTT --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
SIGNS, MARK X O/E O/E X X X X O/E O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X
WADE, CHAD --- X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 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: Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Wally Plahutnik, Susan Shullaw, Nancy Carlson,
Sharon DeGraw, Charlie Thomas, Deanna Thomann, Dave Moore,
Spencer Blackwell, Jared Knote
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting) the Commission recommends
maintaining 35-feet as the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) zones.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ23-0005:
(continued discussion from 8/16)
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 began the staff report with background information. At the August 16 meeting the
Northside Neighborhood Association requested to reduce the height to 27-feet for new single
family and duplex structures. Staff did not support that recommendation and the Commission
deferred the item to tonight and requested that staff meet with the Neighborhood Association
again, which they did on September 6. Russett noted a couple of the main concerns that the
Neighborhood Association representatives mentioned to staff were that the 35-foot height
maximum acts as a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, affordable owner-occupied
structures and that the 35-foot height maximum encourages redevelopment of out of scale
buildings that will harm neighboring properties. The example given by the Neighborhood
Association was the single-family home proposed at 319 North Van Buren Street and at the
meeting they were requesting the reduction in height to 27-feet for new single family and duplex
structures. Staff continues to recommend retaining the current height maximum of 35-feet in the
RNS-12 zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 2 of 14
Russett stated for the purpose of this presentation she was going to try to focus on new
information and not the information that was presented on August 16. One item that was briefly
discussed at the August 16 meeting was a justification for having varying height limits for varying
land uses. She noted if there's an interest in modifying the height only for single-family and
duplex structures, justification must be identified why those lower intensity residential uses need
a lower height maximum. The main concern that's outlined in the staff report is the applicability of
this only to new single-family and duplex structures which would require varying standards for
varying uses as existing single-family and duplex uses would be subject to the 35-feet rule and
new single-family and duplexes would be 27-feet and all other land uses would be 35-feet. This
would also require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at
different points in time. Russett noted recent correspondence from Jim Throgmorton of the
Northside Neighborhood Association agrees with staff on this point and recommends applying
the 27-foot height maximum to both existing and new single-family and duplex uses.
Russett showed a map of all of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 in the City noting there's
approximately 500 properties City-wide that are zoned RNS-12. 75% of those are within historic
districts or conservation districts, and staff provided additional detail on the City's historic
preservation program in the written staff report. A few highlights of key points about those
districts are that they are regulated differently and are subject to historic preservation guidelines,
and exterior modifications require regulated permits which require historic review. Although some
modifications in the historic and conservation districts to homes can be reviewed by staff, any
major changes have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission and that includes demolition
and new construction. Russett validated that the City has a very robust Historic Preservation
Program and those overlays add a large degree of protection from future construction, demolition
and development changes. She reiterated 75% of the RNS-12 properties City-wide are in one of
those overlays. Within the Northside Neighborhood specifically, 85% of those properties are in
historic or conservation district overlay. Staff updated the demolition analysis that was previously
presented to the Commission and since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the
RNS-12 zone. The data suggests that redevelopment is not increasing, although that can change
in the future. Staff believes that part of the reason there haven't been a lot of demolitions is
because of the historic preservation program and those historic and conservation districts which
restrict demolition. Russett also noted that six of the 17 demolitions occurred prior to the land
being rezoned to RNS-12 so those properties were demolished and redeveloped when it was a
multifamily zoning district. Staff also looked at height for a few of those redevelopment projects,
they were able to find height for 11 of the 17 residential demos and two of the 11 were above 27-
feet and both of those were multifamily. Nine of the 11 were 27-feet or less, which suggests that
the 35-foot height maximum is not an incentive for redevelopment otherwise they would be
seeing those buildings constructed at 35-feet or higher than 27-feet.
In conclusion, Russett stated the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family
character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses and restricting multifamily
residential. The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones.
Again, there's a need to justify why the City would have a different height limit for lower intensity
residential uses, as opposed to other uses within that zone, and staff was concerned with
implementation. Again, in recent correspondence from Mr. Throgmorton they're okay with
applying this to both existing and new single-family and duplex structures. But again, 75% of the
properties are regulated within historic and conservation district overlays, which ensure new
structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, the data staff looked at
showing the residential demolitions that have occurred over time do not suggest 35-foot
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 3 of 14
redevelopment.
Staff has received several pieces of correspondence and all of them are in support of reduction
to 27-feet. All correspondence was emailed to the Commissioners and are also printed out
before them at their seats.
Staff's recommendation is to continue to keep the 35-foot height max in the RNS-12 zone. If the
Commission wants to move forward with an amendment staff would recommend a couple of
things, one that the amendment apply to both new and existing single-family and duplex
structures and that a public purpose justification has identified why single-family and duplex uses
need a different height limit than other uses.
In teRNS of next steps, if the Commission makes a recommendation tonight City Council will
likely hold their public hearing on November 21.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood
Association Steering Committee and stated one month ago this Commission urged City staff to
meet with them to revise their earlier report and to provide this Commission with
recommendations for tonight's meeting. Three of them on the Northside Steering Committee met
with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett on September 6. They found it to be
an enlightening and constructive conversation and he appreciated that very much. During the
meeting staff asked them to clarify what the specific concerns were, and how the proposed
height reduction addressed them. In its revised report City staff recommends against the
proposed change and they offer several reasons. The one reason that stands out is the staff
could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based
on use. Throgmorton wanted to call attention to and remove one of the obstacles off the table as
already referred to this in the September 6 meeting, look for a mutually acceptable compromise.
The Northside Neighborhood Association floated the idea of applying the change only to new
single-family structures and duplexes and not to existing structures. However, the staff report
persuaded them that applying a different standard to new and existing houses would produce
unnecessary complications. Consequently, the Northside Neighborhood Association agreed with
staff that the height amendment should apply both to existing and new single-family and duplex
structures. Doing so is actually consistent with their original petition which they have not changed
in writing. Therefore, it's not as if they're actually changing something here and this should
eliminate staff’s concern about this aspect of the proposed amendment. Throgmorton stated
what led them to propose the change in maximum allowable height, put concisely is the current
read 35-foot limit encourages redevelopment without of scale buildings that can have harmful
effects on neighboring properties. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for
investors to demolish older and currently very affordable owner-occupied structures and makes it
less likely that appropriately sized affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive
stems from the fact that the RNS-12 zones are located in the University Impact Area and
therefore subject to intense demand for off-campus student housing. Throgmorton noted it was
this housing market pressure that led City government to create the RNS-12 district and to give it
a unique public purpose. This unique purpose is “to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 4 of 14
preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods.” As
former City planner Bob Miklo states in his detailed advice to this Commission, which the
Northside Neighborhood Association supports and trusts they have read, “for those who live in
neighborhoods single-family character means all the things that make up quality of life, enough
sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a
wintry day, a fresh summer breeze and not having light and air blocked by a 35-foot tall wall a
few feet from one's property”. This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a
matter of public policy in the Central District Plan that the City will “work to achieve a healthy
balance of rental and owner-occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods” and
continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35-feet in RNS-12 districts would make it more
difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out of scale buildings could have harmful
effects on neighboring properties is also affected by the unique physical characteristics of the
RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of
properties in those neighborhoods and very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed two
and a half stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27-feet. Moreover, the compact lots found in the
RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the City. Consequently, unlike in other residential
zones with large lots and setbacks, 35-foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive
shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35-foot limit therefore runs counter to the
purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14-2A-1E stipulates that the maximum height standards in
the code are intended “to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between
buildings to provide options from height, air and privacy and discourage buildings that visually
dominate other buildings in the vicinity.” Throgmorton stated furthermore the current 35-foot
maximum was originally adopted to allow walk-out basements on sloping lots. There are very few
sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones and none in the Northside. Therefore, there is no need to
accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35-foot heights.
Throgmorton next addressed the staff’s specific concern about varying maximum heights based
on land use. The Northside Neighborhood Association believes there is a clear rationale for
varying heights. The reason for changing to a 27-foot height limit for single-family and duplex
structures in RNS-12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by
ensuring that new 35-foot-tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors and
deny them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. If the 27-foot height limit is adopted for
single-family and duplex structures, the few nonresidential uses allowed in the zone, schools,
religious institutions and daycares, could still be up to 35-feet but those uses are already subject
to greater setbacks that mitigate against any potential harm. In the end, therefore, there's really
only one question the Commission needs to answer. Will changing the maximum permitted
height of single-family and duplex structures from 35- to 27-feet increase the likelihood that new
infill development will help achieve a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner-occupied
housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RNS-12
neighborhoods. If the answer is yes then they should vote in favor of the proposed amendment.
Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) is here to speak for himself as a former person who sat on
this Commission for seven years (2005-2012). During that period they rewrote the entire code
and also redid all the comprehensive plans for each neighborhood. As a commissioner they are
all aware that the Comprehensive Plan should guide their decisions. That's what they told the
people at every meeting they had, and all the different sessions and workshops that they held.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 5 of 14
Staff’s analysis to the neighborhood’s request regarding the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the
land use in that specific map of the residential neighborhood stabilization (RNS-12) district. The
letters RNS is residential, neighborhood stabilization and there's only two that exist in the City,
the rest are residential neighborhoods or RS. Staff acknowledges that there are many
statements within those comprehensive plans with regard to infill, so a lot of that is already
covered, but it all speaks to ensuring that it's compatible and complimentary to the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff goes on to say that because the maximum allowable height in most
residential zones is 35-feet, it is implied that 35-feet ensures compatibility, that's taken as a given
apparently. One thing Plahutnik would like to make note of, and strongly object to, is that every
time staff refers to the stabilization’s wording, they say that this does not interfere with single-
family uses. The stabilization was a district made not to preserve uses, they can use any houses
as a single-family use, it’s meant to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhoods,
character and uses, those words aren't interchangeable. Uses certainly come within the broader
heading of character but one can't cram character into the smaller thing of uses. This very
narrow reading of the Comprehensive Plan dismisses qualitative measures of compatibility. It
ignores that there are very few 35-foot houses anywhere in Iowa City. Typically, it's a walkout
basement that adds that third floor, so the street level is less than 35-feet in almost every
instance. Introducing a 35-foot-tall house with a flat roof, which isn't denied in this 35-foot limit, in
the neighborhood of modest one- and two-story houses is certainly not compatible with the
neighborhood’s character. An investment company that has purchased several properties with
the intent of redeveloping them has just proposed such a structure. To make it worse, the
building would have a flat roof, making it appear even taller and casting even more of a shadow
over its neighbors. Plahutnik urges the Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan and really
work through this to preserve the character of the neighborhood, not just the single-family use.
Susan Shullaw (718 N. Johnson Street) would like to read a portion of the letter that was
submitted to the Commission by Anne Freerks on the occasion of this hearing. As they may
know Freerks was part of this Commission for a number of years. “I am writing to ask that you
vote in favor of the Northside Neighborhood’s request to reduce the height limit in RNS-12
zones. I live on the far west edge of the Longfellow neighborhood, which is comprised of RNS-12
and RS-8 zones, bordering areas that are entirely occupied by undergraduate students. When
we were a young family just starting out we were attracted to the charming houses of South
Governor Street. We liked the proximity to Longfellow Elementary, and it was also a very
attractive and affordable option. In 1993, we took the plunge and bought 100-year-old house
there. We were welcomed by a number of elderly couples who had raised their families on South
Governor and they were happy that our house had not become a student rental like so many
others in the neighborhood. We didn't know it at the time, but we were helping to stabilize the
neighborhood. In 1999, we were surprised when a charming old house across the alley was torn
down and a large three-story apartment building went up. There was no care given to how the
building fit in a neighborhood. All the beautiful mature oak trees were cut down and every square
inch of the available space was taken up with a new building. Although we enjoy having college
kids as neighbors, we found that as more and more students moved in, their habits can conflict
with working families. There are costs and benefits in every situation. For this reason
neighborhood stability, and an increase in density on these narrow lots has great impact. We
knew little about zoning before the apartment building went up. Several of our neighbors were in
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 6 of 14
the same situation. We talked and then decided to approach the City, which is when we found
out that Lucas and Governor Streets were zoned RM-12 multifamily and more three story
apartment buildings were planned. Investors were actively trying to buy properties. A realtor
called me and said I should get out while I can. In a hurried moment we considered selling but
we thought of the elderly neighbors who had welcomed us and the other young families that
were also making their homes on the western streets of Longfellow. We also knew long term
renters were drawn to the neighborhood for the same reasons we were. They too were
concerned about being displaced by new and more expensive student housing. We decided to
stay and fight for our neighborhood. This experience taught us that zoning can be a powerful tool
affecting our daily lives. We had our neighbors petition the City to rezone our neighborhood to
RNS-12. Investment companies that were buying up houses objected to our request but the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with us that Iowa City needs some
close-in neighborhoods that are sustainable and attractive to all sorts of households, owner-
occupied families as well as renters, young families, singles and retirees. Recent proposals for a
35-foot-tall houses in the RNS-12 zone have revealed a loophole that is counter to the intent of
the zone to stabilize and preserve existing neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to approve the
Northside Neighborhood’s request to bring the allowed building heights in line with existing
houses in the RNS-12 zone. This will not only apply to the northside but will be beneficial to
South Lucas and South Governor Streets as well. We have raised our family on South Governor
Street and at some point we will be ready to move on. We hope to sell to another young family
who will send their kids to Longfellow and walk to their jobs downtown. We hope that you will
support such families with good zoning policy. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for
serving on the Commission.”
Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) is one of the group of neighbors who approached the
City in 1993 who were concerned with a proposed development that they felt would dramatically
change the character of their neighborhood so they asked for help. The City responded by
changing the zoning from RM-12 to RNS-12, that was the solution the City came up with. Over
the years they felt that this was a serious undertaking and knew it would change the course of
their neighborhood. They discussed it, they contacted all of the neighbors, they explained the
differences between the RM-12 zone and the RNS-12 zone and wanted to make sure that
everyone understood and was on board for this change. Their neighborhood was the first, thanks
to the help of the City and over the years other RM-12 zones in the University Impact Zone also
requested to be rezoned to RNS because of the pride and love for their neighborhood. Most of
the homeowners in these neighborhoods are working class, they have worked hard to own their
homes and they are proud of them. At the time of the rezoning to RNS-12 the concepts of
historic districts and conservation areas were foreign to them, they wanted to give new neighbors
the dream of home ownership that they had experienced. They had faith new neighbors would
responsibly respect what was already there and for years that was true. Because of that their
neighborhood is an encyclopedia of housing styles, but all the houses no matter what style have
similar proportions, they are all one to two and a half stories tall. When they first were presented
with this zone, they discussed all these things over and over again because they realized that
this would make a big change in their neighborhood. They looked at the dimensions but were
naive and not as adept as someone in construction to understand what the 35-foot height limit
actually was. They looked around the neighborhood and looked at the height of all the houses in
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 7 of 14
the neighborhood and thought okay, this is a good height. Houses from the 50s and houses from
the 1900s are all pretty much the same amount in height so they did not realize that they had
allowed something to happen that they had no intention of having happened. Right now they
have reached a point where newcomers are interested only in their rights and maximizing their
investment. The investment those of them who live here and have made in creating and
maintaining a neighborhood is of no concern to them. Their properties become dark holes,
sucking the life out of the neighborhood. Everybody has been talking about the Comprehensive
Plan and what this means and how they're supposed to follow it. The zoning code was made up
to enforce the Comprehensive Plan. To quote from the zoning code on the purpose of the zoning
code, “the provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa's City's
Comprehensive Plan in a manner that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience,
prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City.” Carlson is asking the Commission
to amend the height to 27-feet which is what they thought was 35-feet when they did their thing
out of love for their neighborhood. She believes this is needed to continue the investment made
in creating and maintaining their neighborhood.
Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and walks a great deal.
In moving to the Northside Neighborhood, it's the whole walkability factor and the experience that
one gets living in the neighborhood. She showed an image not in the Northside Neighborhood
but represents something that is the kind of thing that they would want to avoid in the RNS-12
neighborhoods. The image is an apartment complex on Iowa Avenue. The apartment complex is
gigantic next to the single-family home. If they allow that kind of patterning that is a visual
dissonance, it disrupts the neighborhood, and makes the neighborhood a place that people don't
want to walk by and are less excited to live in. People don't want to live next to tall buildings that
are out of character. She likens it to the experience of when you pull up to an intersection and
someone has music blaring very loud, the first thing you want to do is get out of there and get
away from that car. This height differential in a neighborhood is not what she would want to live
in nor look at and feels other people who invested in their neighborhood and bought property
there would feel the same way. The next image shows a suburban neighborhood and that's
where they would find a 35-foot-tall building because in the back of the house there would be a
walkout basement but the front facades are well under 27-feet. In all the RNS-12 single-family or
duplex houses that are currently in the close to downtown area, the character is mostly one or
two stories, they can have walkout basements that are in the back, even then they're rarely 35-
feet tall for the residential dwellings. The next image shows apartments that are in the RNS-12
next to single-family homes, the ones in RNS-12 zones throughout the City are mostly under 27-
feet, there are very rare instances when they're above that. She next showed four instances
where there are nonresidential businesses, St. Wenceslaus, Preucil School, Bethel AME and a
daycare on Fairchild Street. Only two of them are over 35-feet tall, but they're on properties that
are very large and there's not the issue of keeping light and air away from the neighboring
buildings. The Bethel AME Church is under 27-feet and so is the preschool. In conclusion
DeGraw stated that the overwhelming character of Iowa City's RNS-12 zones consist of one- and
two-story houses and a few apartment buildings with three floors, but even those apartment
buildings are respectful of their neighbors in teRNS of height. There are a couple of taller historic
buildings, but they have generous setbacks and do not harm their neighbors. The intent of the
RNS-12 is to preserve the single-family character and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 8 of 14
infill development to be compatible with the existing character. The requested change in height
from 35-feet to 27-feet is consistent with those goals. The change will help preserve the quality of
life of the neighborhoods and it's a valid zoning code change. DeGraw stated it's very important
because of the consistency that will be brought to developers. If there's the two and a half story
height that is true for historic districts and conservation districts, then if they go to 27-feet high,
which is about two and a half stories tall in the RNS-12 zones that eliminates any confusion for
developers and would be a safe way to proceed.
Charlie Thomas (100 Currier Hall) is a student at the University and lives in a campus residence
hall. He would like note a brief take on the larger scope of this endeavor. He took a walk to the
northside area yesterday and while it's numerous trees, falling leaves and cozy homes he found
attractive, it’s clearly not sustainable. It lives on the border between a growing university and
near the downtown of a city with egregious housing demand. To implement a height restriction
like this legitimizes the economic enclave Northside represents. It is in the Commission's best
interest to code a city that provides for the numerous kinds of people that want to live there and
further cementing these low-density zones directly conflicts with that. There is no indication from
the data of approved demolitions that the current height limit gives an incentive at all to demolish
existing property. The fear of out of scale buildings is mitigated by the already existent and
limiting historic preservation measures and it is simply redundant to give this extra measure.
Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) stated she has lived in the Northside District for more
than 20 years, her sister Dana and her bought the house when they were in college. The home
was built in 1876 and once belonged to her great great grandparents. Today, her sister teaches
at the University and she works from home as a copy editor. Dana lives upstairs in the old house
and Thomann live downstairs. She likes her home and her neighborhood, she likes the vibrancy
of living near the downtown and the University. From the second floor of her house she is able to
gaze down at the flower beds she keeps in the front yard. Above this she sees a layered horizon
to the south that includes church steeples, as well as tall new structures as the trend in Iowa City
is to build up. That trend makes good sense in the right places, but historic districts are just not
the right place. In 2004, she stood at this same podium and voiced her support for the creation of
the Northside Historic District, a plan which included her block. Some property owners objected
so much that they were left out of the district and therefore several non-protected properties sit
across the alley from her house and two others are across from her on Fairchild Street. The two
properties that are across the street were built in 1890 and 1900, these are solid homes and are
rentals with large backyards. These structures are in the RNS-12 zone but there is no
conservation overlay for these homes. Currently, they could be torn down and replaced with tall,
dwarfing structures surrounding old homes and blocking sunlight and the skyline that her
neighbors and she enjoy. Tall structures would undoubtedly disrupt the scale and the harmony of
her block. As they all know, the RNS-12 was created to stabilize fragile residential areas. In his
August 15, 2023, letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo, former senior
planner for the city of Iowa City, explained that the height limit of 35-feet was meant to
accommodate walkout basements on sloping lots. However, they now realize few RNS-12
structures sit on sloping lots and his August letter Miklo states the limit of 35-feet is excessive
and should be changed to 27-feet and that would be in keeping with the two and a half story
houses that are commonplace in the neighborhood. Thomann agrees with Miklo and asks that
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 9 of 14
the Commission change the maximum height for houses and duplexes in the RNS-12 zone to
27-feet. This change will further stabilize the RNS-12 zone and protect her neighborhoods quality
of life. Thomann wants to stress she is not resistant to change, she realizes they need to
accommodate the growing population but tearing down good historic structures and sending
materials to the landfill is not the answer. She really hopes they can continue to take pride in
preserving the embodied energy of the older neighborhoods. Furthermore, she encourages City
staff, City Commissioners and City Council to explore ways to shake old properties from the grips
of the large rental companies. Imagine finding a way to make the old housing stock affordable so
that a new wave of various people can live here. She saw this new wave of various people last
night when she watched the City Council meeting. That was a long, emotional meeting, with
immigrants coming to the podium and an interpreter telling about their struggles to find housing
close in. Thomann would hope this new wave of various people would be included within her old
neighborhood, she really would love that. She realizes they don't talk about who lives in the
structures in planning and zoning but if they could integrate people like that and get more
homeowners in the neighborhood, that would be the ultimate stabilization plan.
Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) thanked the Commission for considering the zoning
amendment. He stated the amendment is really simple and it makes sense and it lines things up
with the Comprehensive Plan. Moore thinks this will be good for all neighborhoods, and blocks in
the RNS-12 zone or the residential neighborhood stability zone. More specifically, he’s here
today on behalf of himself because of a situation that has impacted his family and the people
living in his immediate neighborhood in the lower north side of Davenport Street and
Bloomington Street. It's an example of what can happen without this amendment. In fact, it is
evidence that the current height limit is an incentive to tear down and build big. What was torn
down was an 1840s Weaver's cottage at 319 North Van Buren. Formerly it was rentable and it
was affordable. The biggest property owner in the Northside, Prestige Properties, has proposed
a full 35-feet house with a nearly flat roof in his backyard. Moore showed images of the proposed
building from the east elevation noting its nearly flat. The north elevation shows the blank wall
would be what he’d be seeing over a small backyard for the next 20 years. It's huge and would
block the view and sunlight from his house. He showed another image capturing the scale of the
first building and then a second building was proposed which was actually taller. If the builder is
successful with this new model, he could build it elsewhere, there are other vacant lots in the
RNS-12 zone, just like the mansard roof apartment became a model for student housing in the
1980s. Back then the City actually created the RNS-12 zone to prevent more of them. Moore
reiterated this particular three-story design is injurious to neighboring properties and is at odds
with the compatibility asked for by the Comprehensive Plan and a bad precedent. At first he was
not sure really how tall 35-feet was but then as he walked around and looked at buildings to get a
sense it became clear this is like a tower, it is crazy and is like a monolith. How high is 35-feet,
the Englert Theater building is 35-feet high. He noted he and his wife have lived in their house for
45 years, somebody called it a century neighborhood and it's a little daunting to think that they've
lived there half the existence of the neighborhood, but apparently many of the houses are like
that. They raised two nice daughters there and do not want to be forced out of their
neighborhood because the quality of life will be diminished by a three-story house that they can
see out their south window, his work room. They don't want to be driven out by someone who's
trying to squeeze every dime out of one of the smallest lots in any core neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 10 of 14
Additionally, does anyone recall ever seeing any flat roof three-story houses anywhere else in
Iowa City. The tenants in the house directly north of this property will lose even more sunlight.
The residents on the other side of the busy alley with young grade school children will also be
affected. They appealed this twice to the Board of Adjustments and got letters of support from
every single owner-occupied home within 200 yards. The lower northside is a fairly moderately
income-based neighborhood. The most common complaint was the height. The Board of
Adjustments found that the building official made a mistake when she approved the setback
reduction to allow the 35-foot-tall building to be built two feet closer to the property line.
Spencer Blackwell (25 N. Lucas Street) is a renter and is concerned that this will add more
complexity to the zoning code and will reduce the amount of units being built. Whether it be
duplexes or single-family zoning houses, if less units are being built, everybody's rent starts
going up. This does affect more than just this neighborhood and over the last year most people's
rents have gone up over $100. If they limit the amount of housing they're going to build, they're
going to end up with higher rents and push people further out and away.
Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) stated on page four of the agenda packet is an image of the
stabilization area and there's little carve outs relatively gerrymandered around this one little
section of Market and Jefferson, he keeps coming back to it and has asked folks to get on
Google and just look at the 900 block of Jefferson Street and if they look across on Jefferson,
they’ll see four squares. If one is familiar with the 1920s type of architecture, you will see lots of
approximately 1000 square foot, single family ranches. The bar chart that showed most of the
recent buildings that were built in 2021, what came down was a farmhouse with a gable on it and
what was replaced there was a duplex. It is on an angled street which would explain the fact that
instead of having human scale where they see their neighbors, the back to the basement is really
a single story, then the second story or third story, which is a second story, but it's really quite
elevated. Then they've got to the attic area for more living and it really takes up the entire lot. On
the other side of Jefferson right in the middle of the block is a hole in the ground that used to be
another small tutor style home. The point being that once one of these houses started to go right
next to that duplex that was built is actually another duplex where it's actually two homes on a
single lot. Next, that was another two homes on a single lot. It’s not where his block is but if he
looks out his window, and Knote brought images from Google Maps to show the lots are non-
conforming lots, their houses are less than 1000 square feet. He is probably one of the people
who helped stabilize the block, because it was a student rental. He is working on his house every
single weekend and is concerned about destabilizing the neighborhood, in this stabilization zone
where they don't have any protections or overlays. What they've seen is once one house came
down and was replaced by a giant duplex and other builds, they have two houses on a single lot.
His neighborhood and his block is very diverse, by income, by rental status, by type, duplex, non-
duplex, students, nonstudents, families, racially diverse, and then one block over it's now gone
into price insensitive, monoculture, all students and more houses being knocked down
sequentially. Therefore, to say that there's no evidence that on single blocks where they're
seeing houses being taken down and replaced by price insensitive monoculture that it doesn't
destabilize blocks, that's just categorically in this case, not true. Knote thinks there's evidence to
that once that continues there's more and more momentum. Again he asks them to go to that
900 block of Jefferson and walk around the corner, the 900 block of Market and see that these
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 11 of 14
are pretty every type of housing stock, there's so much housing choice in these neighborhoods,
and at lots of different price points and lots of different types of people. But if they provide no
protection to the type of development that can go in these areas or have savvy developers who
can keep within the word, but push the spirit of what is described, they really will lose the stability
of the neighborhood.
Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) wanted to add the houses at greatest risk from the height
differential are ones located in the southeastern part of the Northside Neighborhood and in the
Court Hill District. Those houses tend be on smaller lots, they tend to be occupied by structures
that are valued in the $100,000s. Anyone who owns a house knows that assessed value in the
$100,000s is something very affordable in this area. It didn't used to be when he first moved
here, but it is now. So it's misguided to say, as a couple of speakers did, that this is sort of an
effort to preserve property rights or something like that in the Northside Neighborhood. The
biggest concern they have is for those properties outside of historic preservation districts and in
the southeastern side of the RNS-12 district.
Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) wanted to add two points that he didn't get in. The first is
they're talking about the RNS-12 stabilization district itself, not historical districts and overlay. He
keeps hearing 75% of the RNS-12 is covered by historical district and conservation overlay. Well,
25% isn't and don’t those people deserve to be spoken for as well. Secondly, this type of thing
has already been done. The South District has a two and a half story limit and so just considering
that this isn't out of the blue, this isn't something completely new, completely different. The South
District already has this type of restriction.
Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) wanted to finish his thoughts about going to the Board of
Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments had found that the building official made a mistake
when she approved a setback reduction to allow the 35-foot-tall building to be built two feet
closer to the property line and that issue prevented the building from being built. The issue that
prevented the building was incorrect setback, but not the height. One of the Board of Adjustment
members said a simple drive by could have cleared this whole thing up months ago, it's obvious
that this doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. They had hoped the developer might come back
with something that was a little bit more reasonable, but he came back with an even taller
building. Once again, the Board found that the building official made a mistake about the front
setback, again about the front setback, it wasn't the height, so the developer could propose
another building that would be injurious to the neighborhood and to the neighbors who live close
by. It's hard to believe that so much time and money was spent by citizens simply to fight off a
building that the Comprehensive Plan and Central District says shouldn't even exist in the first
place. This amendment would put an end to that kind of problem this amendment has broad
support all the owner-occupied homes in the immediate area signed off, many people in the
Northside and other neighborhoods, many organizations and very deeply experienced people
who wrote letters. Moore wanted to thank the volunteers from the Northside Neighborhoods for
walking the streets and doing the real measurements, finding out the real facts and putting this
proposal together.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 12 of 14
Quellhorst moved to maintaining the 35-feet as the maximum allowable height in the
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zones. Padron seconded the motion.
Quellhorst noted he lives in Longfellow in an historic home and shares a lot of the concerns that
have been voiced today but this area appears to be well protected by historic and conservation
district overlays. He thinks the appropriate remedy is expanding those overlays rather than
pursuing a niche carve-out to the zoning code. He also doesn’t see any indication of a large
influx of tall homes, staff indicated that they don't have any record of homes over a 27-feet being
constructed since the 1990s. Finally, he shares staff's concerns that the proposed amendment
would be inconsistent with that standard in most other residential zones and would result in
varying height limits based on purpose, which isn’t a sufficient justification.
Padron stated she read the staff proposal and it makes more sense to her. She has listened to
all the neighbors, and they just don’t convince her that their reasons are reason enough to lower
the height.
Townsend stated she can't vote in accordance with this because she thinks the 27-foot is tall
enough in these residential areas. She lives in one of those areas and would hope that they
wouldn't get a 35-footer and in her neighborhood.
Craig asked staff if the building they saw that has galvanized a lot of this reaction, the 35-foot
building, where is it in the approval process, and it isn't part of the approval that it has to fit in
with the neighborhood. Russett replied it needs to meet the standards in the zoning code. Her
understanding is they did have a building permit issued for it but it's not moving forward in terms
of construction. It doesn't have to meet subjective character standards, it just needs to meet the
height, the setbacks, and other zoning standards.
Hektoen cautioned them away from focusing too much on that one example, this is a change to
the text of the code that would apply in multiple situations.
Craig understands but is interested in knowing what protections are in place without changing
the code and if there is a protection that they have to meet some standard and some type of
conformity as in fitting in with a neighborhood, that's what is important to her. Russett replied
that particular property is not in a historic or conservation district so the zoning code doesn't have
any design standards that it needs to meet, there's no design standards or regulations related to
it fitting in with RNS-12.
Craig stated another building that is often brought up as an example is the one on the
Bloomington Street but she drives down that street two or three times a week for 30 years and
doesn’t know any big monstrous building there. She looked up the address and the building that
they're talking about looks very much like a single-family home and fits in with the neighborhood.
It did replace a very small decrepit house, but it's got a yard and they built a double car garage
off the alley in the back. She doesn’t know why anyone would complain about that being in their
neighborhood. Criag noted the issue is it didn't sell as a single-family house, it’s being rented by
the room and so instead of having a five member family in there they have five students.
However, if they had a five-member family in there, she doesn’t think anyone would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2023
Page 13 of 14
complaining about it. That's the struggle for her when that is used as an example of what they
don't want in their neighborhood and yet if it had two adults and three children, they’d be happy
to have it in their neighborhood.
Craig also asked staff about why in one neighborhood is the limit defined as two and a half
stories and in another 27-feet or 35-feet. Russett would prefer that it would be in feet and not
stories in this zone.
Elliott stated walking into that neighborhood and can't imagine having a three-story structure, it
just doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood. She also feels like lowering it to 27-feet
adds to the affordability of the neighborhood and is consistent with the strategic plan.
Wade will be supporting the denial. He hears the concerns and lived up in the Northside
Neighborhood for a long time. He is familiar with the house on Jefferson, also on the corner of
Market and Jefferson, along the alleyway used to be a white house there that was torn down and
replaced with the duplex up on Market Street and Rochester. Also smaller houses that were
replaced with newer houses. None of these became intrusive to their neighborhood and for that
reason can’t support lowering it to 27-foot and will support leaving it at 35-feet.
Hensch noted the difficulty always is this question of affordable housing and that's what causes
him the quandary. He is extremely concerned about the proliferation of rentals throughout the
City and that the whole City is just going to become rental. Additionally, he doesn’t see any
evidence that more rentals is reducing the price of rent, so that's not the answer to affordability.
He will oppose this motion because it's reasonable and particularly what really stayed with me
him was Robert Miklo’s comment that the original 35-feet was just to deal with the slope on some
of the lots and not for any other reason.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting).
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave an update from last night's Council meeting. The Council approved the City's
submission for the pro-housing grant to the Housing and Urban Development Department and
matching the leveraging funds of $2.8 million from the City so that application will be submitted
later this month.
Elliott noted there is now a walkway on Riverside Drive which makes it so much safer. Craig
stated that’s been on the City's books for many years but the railroad was supposed to move
their things and they refused so ultimately they took the space out of the street.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded by and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2024
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 10/4 10/18
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X 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 O/E X X X X X
PADRON, MARIA X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
QUELLHORST, SCOTT -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X
SIGNS, MARK O/E O/E X X X X O/E O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X
WADE, CHAD X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member