HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-05 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Bergus, Mims, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner
Fruin, Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Hightshoe, Sitzman, Russett,
Lehmann, Sovers
Van Heukelom, Miglin (USG)
Staff presentation on the South District Form Based Code:
Teague: Well, good evening, everyone. It is 04:00 PM on October 5th, 2021. And you're looking
at the Iowa City city work session. And our first item is going to be a presentation by
staff on the South District Form -Based Code. Welcome, Geoff Fruin, our City Manager.
Fruin: Yeah. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, I hope you're all excited. This is a long time
coming. We've been, uh, working on this, uh, in some way, shape or form all the way
back to 2015 when we initiated the South District, uh, plan update. From that came a
discussion on Form -Based Code. We did a feasibility study and in 2019, we entered into
a consultant's agreement with Opticos to develop the Form -Base Code. That code has
been worked on, uh, not only by the consultant team, but by our staff team, uh, and has
been thoroughly reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission. And as you know, uh, is
before you tonight. Um, you'll see that we have both the work session dedicated to this
and the regular meeting dedicated this. There's a lot to get through. But it's also important
that we recognize that there are, uh, public hearings associated with, um, the actions
tonight. So what's going to, uh, guide the nature of the discussions at each of those. So
I'll- I'll explain at the work session today, we're largely going to provide you with a lot of
the background, uh, a review of what a Form -Based Code is, that's a reminder for- for a
lot of you, but really what the intent of a Form -Based Code is and how it's different than
a traditional zoning code approach. And then we're gonna review all the steps in the
process that got us here tonight, dating back to that 2015 South District plan update.
We're gonna save the detailed conversation on the comp plan amendment and the zoning
code text amendment, uh, for that public hearing. It's important that that be on the record
and be discussed with, uh, the notice that was given to the public. So if we interrupt, if
you have questions and we interrupt and say, let's save that for the public hearing. Just
know that that's our intent is to- to force a lot of that detailed conversation, uh, in that
public hearing environment. Uh, so, again, uh, feasibility study, I'm- I'm sorry, again, the
work session, uh, will be largely on the background and the process to get us here. So
leading you through the presentation, uh, tonight, we have our Senior Planner, Anne
Russett, our Associate Planner, Kirk Lehmann, and then we have our team from Opticos
here and they're all gonna participate in- in both the presentation at the work session and
the formal meeting tonight. So with that, I'll turn it over to Anne Russett, our Senior
Planner. Is that right?
Russett: Good afternoon, everyone. Anne Russett, Senior Planner with Neighborhood
Development Services. I'm actually gonna introduce Tony Perez with Opticos Design.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 2
He's here with Martin Galindez, who we've been working, um, with for quite some time
on this. So Tony's going to kick us off tonight.
Perez: Good evening or good afternoon still. Um, this is a little low, so sorry. I'll do- I'll do this.
Um, good afternoon. I'm Tony Perez with Opticos Design, I'm a Senior Associate there.
I've been with them, I'm going on my ninth year with the office, uh, doing just what you
see on the screen tonight. Working across the country with cities, uh, small and large, on
Form -Based Codes for neighborhoods and large parts of cities. And, uh, it's really
exciting to see this come to, uh, to you tonight in a work session where you can actually
talk, and have questions, and, uh, dig into this. So, uh, a lot of times you don't get this
opportunity, so- so thank you. But what is a Form -Based Code? Uh, very simply put, this
is a- it's an idea that came about about 30 years ago. Pro- some projects in Florida, uh,
where developers said, "You know, we're trying to build something down the road and
just build it again." And the county's rule- rules in that case didn't allow that to happen.
And they said, "Well, we can probably find a way to work something out, but isn't that a
problem?" And so they realized that they needed to look at zoning and a new way rather
than- than how conventional zoning does. And they realized the conventional zoning
didn't look at the way cities really are built and work. It was a great way to regulate, but it
didn't really understand what it was making as a system. So Form -Based Code focuses on
first, the public realm. Like where you are, like when you're out here in- in downtown
Iowa City or walking around these beautiful streets, and the trees, and you go in the
neighborhoods and there are houses and there are front yards, different environments, and
so the Form -Based Code focuses on the public realm first and then everything else behind
it. Second, and, uh, and as you see the defmition up there, it fosters a predictable built
results and high-quality public realm by using physical form rather than separation of
uses. And going back to the early, um, example about the conventional zoning, the- the
typical approach most cities have is that that focuses first and separating uses, and
second, if- if at all on form. So the comparison between the- and you're gonna hear this a
lot today. The conventional zoning, which 99 percent of cities have, and form -based
zoning or form -based coding, as it says on the screen, we're gonna be comparing those.
And the- the way that these compare on the screen, basically, again, you know, the
conventional system focuses on uses. The form -based approach does regulate use. So
contrary to a lot of misperceptions, it does regulate use, but it focuses on form. It says,
well, regardless of the uses, we're gonna, we're gonna figure that out. We're gonna say,
"Hey, this use is allowed here, this use isn't allowed here." But after we get that sorted
out, what kind of forms do we want and what kind of forms we want where? And
conventional zoning doesn't do that. You have to go through the process, time and
money, and also the neighborhood and putting into that and saying, "Well, we're not sure
what's gonna come out of this, so we have to come to all these meetings." The form -
based approach says, "Let's figure all that stuff out up front or as much as we can and
minimize the- the stuff that needs to be figured out later." The other, um, big difference
between the two approaches is that the conventional zoning uses a used -based map,
although it doesn't call it that, but that's what it is. It's a map that really focuses on what
land uses you can have where, and then it might have information about height. But in
terms of form and all these other things that people care about, all- all people, investors,
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 3
developers, neighbors, everyone, uh, it doesn't have information about that. The form -
based approach is just the opposite. You read the map and you can also- you can start to
see that the intensity of the color of the zone is starting to imply some intensity of use,
some intensity of form. And as the lighter color goes out, then the intensity of form,
intensive use drops. The, um, the transect is how most Form -Based Codes are informed.
This one is informed that way, not all of them are. And we like to use the transect as an
organizing principle in the Form -Based Codes that we help prepare because of the
simple, uh, principle. If you look at it, it goes from left to right, from T1 to T6. Imagine
T6 is the biggest buildings in downtown Iowa City and T1 way out there by Terry
Trueblood, all the- all the nature and then everything else between. There's country,
there's farm, there's neighborhoods. There's a little- more intense neighborhoods. Then
there's a smaller part of tha- downtown Iowa city. You have all six of them here. And
understanding which part you're working on and which ones you are thinking about
where is really important. And this system helps you articulate that and talk about it. So
in this code, you will notice that before all the zoning districts, there is T3 and T4, and
that's because we're only working with those two parts of this whole system. Could you
add more to it? Yes, it's built to do that. But for the South District right now, we're talking
about is only the T3 and T4. And by the way, those are two, what we call house scale.
We'll talk about that a little more. Those are house scale oriented zones. When we went
through this process with- with the -with owners, and the neighbors, and developers, we
talked about all the benefits of more detail, less detail. We could structure the code in
several different ways. And it was very clear that the majority of the people in the process
voted for the third option. And that's how this- this code is structured. It's structured on
the higher level of detail and you could see the three on the screen there. One is low
detail, but more questions and more time to process and figure things out sort of how it
works now under the conventional system. Number 2 is more detail, but- but still some
pretty big questions to answer. And number 3 is, let's figure out as much as we can and
provide the flexibility to adjust things when things come up that were unforeseen, and
that was the- the choice that- that was chosen. Switching gears, a big component of this
code and of what's going to happen through the code is what's called missing middle
housing. And it's basically everything between single-family detached houses and mid to
high rise apartments. And are- the founder of our office Opticos, Dan Parolek, he coined
the term missing middle housing about 12 years ago. And he said, "You know, I noticed
that in older neighborhoods," like here in Iowa City, it's no different. "You just see
neighborhoods where their houses, then there's a duplex. There might be a four plex
around the corner. There might be a courtyard. You see these and you have these
neighborhoods here." Well, after 1940 and 1945 or so, just to round the- the World War
II, uh, for a lot of reasons, cities went away from how they made those neighborhoods
and started making neighborhoods through all these other ways. And in that process, mis-
middle housing went missing, didn't get- didn't get produced anymore. And so that's why
it was missing. But it's really important to understand that this code produces those house
scale, duplexes houses, four plexes, six plexes, courtyards that you've seen around, and
that they're the size of houses. That's really important to understand. Um, I think, uh, I
think the other- other part to tell you about this is just- I didn't realize this slide is gonna
be in here. I'm sorry. This is a snapshot of those types from- from- from duplexes to- to
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 4
the courtyard buildings. And just to show you that, instead of leaving it up to- to just
straight numbers and saying, well, let'- let's do that project at 24 units to the acre and
let's- let's form it. Do it the other way and you say, well, you know, on these kinds of lots,
a sixplex would really fit nicely. On these kinds of lots, it's really about a duplex that
would fit nicely there and be too much, you know, that's- that's- that's enough. On these
other areas, maybe a courtyard with 12, 15, 16 units, it would fit better. So those choices
are on the screen and they're in this code because we know the sizes that make them
work, we know the lot sizes that make them work and then you turn that into standards.
So that's built in here and you could see that they're- they're assigned to different zoning
districts. And that's to say, I know it's hard to read on that screen, but this is to say, not all
of them are allowed everywhere, but, you know, they're allowed somewhere. And just
what I was articulating. And then the other thing that's built in your code is that this
missing middle housing approach, the zoning districts either allow them to be distributed
throughout the zone or they say no. You know what, these types are only allowed in this
area and so you'll see on the zoning map later m- in the evening. That the zoning map is -
is assigned zones because- to articulate these strategies to say no, you know what, those
more intense types really belong in McCollister. They don't belong on the side streets m
the neighborhoods. And strategies like that are- are at play here. The idea about doing
this isn't- isn't taken lightly. And so from the beginning we teamed up with a- a market
specialists, Zimmerman Volk Associates. And they had been working on projects like
this for, I don't know, 30, 32 years. And they- they know these types and- and these
markets and- and the kinds of markets to pursue these very, very well. And back a couple
of years ago and they did the report, they found that there was a market for this. Would
all the market be attracted to this? No. But there is a market for this kind of housing in
Iowa City. So a new approach to neighborhoods. Just a quick overview here of some
basic concepts. If you look at buildings, there are two categories. When you down- when
you boil it down, you, you get all of them and you sort them. There are two categories.
Buildings that are the size of a block or most of a block like here in downtown Iowa City.
And those are on the blue side of that slide. And buildings that are detached and the size
of houses small to large. And that's the buildings and the pink or the purple on the right.
In this south district code, we're talking about the buildings on the right. There's a little
area that's- that's proposed to be zoned for a little Main Street. That would be a portion of
the blue, but it's- it's- it's a small portion of it. The rest of it, the majority, I would say 99
percent of it is- is the- is the purple house scale buildings. Another big thing at play here
in this code and the approach to it, is not relying on residential density to regulate
outcomes. Yes, you can calculate the residential density of the buildings in the- in the
code but this code says, let's focus on form. Focus on what makes a good compatible
building next to another building. How to make those transitions in scale and size without
relying on density. And just to show you how unreliable the residential density approach
is, this- this picture or these two pictures, the one on the left is 30 per acre, three stories,
49 units, and you can't see the ends of it on that photo. The one on the right is a house
scale, what we would, you would call them multiplex building in New York code here.
And that has five units. And it mathematically calculates to 29 to the acre. So they're one
unit to the acre apart, but they couldn't be more different physically. And when- when I
talk to people about why to not use density as a regulator this is one of the pictures that I
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 5
like to show as an example. So three case studies of where this is being done and how it
works. This is a project that our office is designing and, and, uh, it's being built by
developer, uh, out of cider pa- Papillion, Nebraska. It's called Prairie. Queen. And you
can see that it's- it's a neighborhood with blocks and, uh, new streets and, um, and parks
and it's adjacent to this- to this area probably about like your Terry Blue blood lake there.
That that area, it looks like that what it's adjacent to. But if you notice here, there isn't one
house, it's duplexes through, four plexus through, courtyards through mansion
apartments. And that is this developer's choice. In the south district, houses are still
allowed. In this project, the developer said, you know what? I'm an apartment developer
and I really like this missing middle because it makes, um, pedestrian sized buildings.
And I don't want to have all this non -leasable area. I want every square foot that I built to
be leasable so this really fits my approach. And so this is a whole neighborhood of, of
missing middle types. The second project is in Wyoming in new Jackson. And a family,
uh, approached us to design this 235 acre area into a missing middle neighborhoods. And
this one will include houses just like yours. And then the last one is one that's been under
construction for about, I don't know, since 2003. So probably in its 16, 17th year,
somewhere around there outside of St. Louis, New Town, St. Charles. It's a little smaller
than the south district at 726 acres. But it's- it's a really beautiful and people, people find
it appealing because of the, the variety of the, the buildings, the, the streets, the way they
connect, the way they terminate on parks, all the kinds of things that are at play in your
code here. So lastly, the benefits of a form based approach. Just wanna acknowledge, you
know, really clearly an upfront. Yes, this is a different way of doing things and, and I'll
be the first to tell you. But it's intentionally different for all the reasons I was just saying
earlier that the conventional approach, you can only tinker with it so much and at some
point you just need to have in your system. And so what we fmd when we work with
cities, is there areas that they still want to use conventional zoning for, for a lot of
practical reasons. Auto dealerships, industrial areas, areas that don't wanna have walkable
neighborhoods m them, areas that are- exists that aren't gonna be walkable. Keep zoning,
those with conventional zoning, it serves them. But if you wanna make walkable
neighborhoods with all this proximity and transitions in a much gentler way, the form
based approach is the best way to do it. This diagram on the left-hand side shows you the
two, two factors, the clarity about outcomes. So what can we expect? And we being
everybody, everybody m this room, neighbors, developers, investors, visitors, we. And on
the bottom, predictability in the review process or certainty. You hear more and more
now neighbors and, and developers alike asking for the same thing. They might differ on
a lot of other things, but the thing they have in common, they both are asking for
certainty of what's gonna happen and predictability about the process or what's going to
happen. So this compares them and it's just a diagram. You know, we don't have a million
codes up here to say this is what happened m a million codes. But m our experience, the
clarity about the outcomes and- and the predictability about the process with conventional
zoning, because it leaves so many questions unanswered or even unasked the, the
conventional zoning score is lower. On the flip side, because the form based zoning
requires so much more input, you can see all the work that's gone into setting the
standards, into informing the standards, all the detail. Because of that, it's- it's higher. The
other big difference is building size is controlled. So on the right-hand side of the screen,
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 6
you see those two blue figures. The left, you know, the one on the left side of the
question mark, that's what the South district is proposing to do. It's saying, hey, let's make
pedestrian scale buildings that fit with other buildings that aren't too big. On the right-
hand side is what conventional zoning gives you. And in some cases a big building is
appropriate. But that's what it makes all the time. And you have to work with people to
make it smaller at they chip away- and they chip away very quickly. The city will remain
unnamed. But we were talking with developers in the city where a lot of people like to do
business and they said, you know, Tony, it's just really hard here because the zoning says
you can get this but by the time they chip us down, we get this. Over and over, we heard
that. And that's a real symptom of the conventional zoning approach because nobody's
really clear on what it's supposed to make. So everybody feels obligated to chip at it and
bang at it until it gets to where they think it should be. So, uh, so for that big reason,
building size is controlled and you'll hear people complaining about why is it being
controlled? And they resent de- developers. And I've- I've explained briefly why it should
be controlled. The numbers, you know, maybe there are- are adjustments to those
numbers, but you do want to control building size. Lastly, last slide. With all of that input
and with all that detail, you- you can expect that there will be something that you just
couldn't think of. Something out in the field that comes up, nobody saw that wasn't in any
report. A new archaeological fmd or some utility that was in the wrong place. And so for
that reason, there's a whole section in the code for adjustments. And those adjustments
recognize those, um, those situations. And if you can make the findings, then you can
adjust the standard. And I want to say very clearly, this is not a relaxing of the standards
as somebody asked forward, that's different. That's not what this is. This is simply hey,
something came up and we can't deploy the- the code completely as we'd like to- we need
to make an adjustment. So with that, it's a quick overview of why, um, and- and how this
code is constructed. And just really thank you for considering this and look forward to the
rest of the evening. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you.
Russett: Thanks, Tony. Mayor, Council, I have a presentation as well. This is Anne Russett again
with Neighborhood and Development Services. And I'm gonna provide a little bit more
background on the proposal that you'll be reviewing tonight. Let's see here. Okay. So I'm
going to jump right in. This is the planning area that we're- we are looking at. It's
approximately 900 acres. The vast majority of the area is vacant. It's never been
developed. There is around 10 different land owners that own large tracks of undeveloped
land. And you can see here that this- this is located within the South District. We have
Wetherby Park at the North end, South Gilbert on the west side, Alexander Elementary
School is in the center, and then the Sycamore Greenway on the eastern end of the
planning area. There are two items that we will be covering in more detail during your
formal meeting tonight. The first is a proposed amendment to the South District Plan, and
the second is a proposed zoning code amendment to create the form -based code and
standards. For the work session, I'm going to be providing some background on how we
got where we are today. So, first I'd like to start with our project goals. There are several
goals that we hope to achieve through this project, which include implementing the
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 7
comprehensive plan vision, and sharing areas that are safe for people to walk. Preserving
environmental resources, creating highly interconnected streets, allowing a variety of
housing types, and applying this code to other greenfield sites in the city, like the
Southwest district, which is the map that you see here on the right. As Geoff mentioned,
this project really started back in 2015 with the update to the South District plan. And m
that plan, it was recommended that a form -based code be considered to manage new
development, ensure a mix of housing, and encourage compact and connected
neighborhoods. With that direction, the city hired Opticos Design in 2017, to work on
phase 1, which is the project direction report. And the purpose of that report was to assess
the feasibility of implementing a form -based code m the South District. Based on the
work and outreach that was conducted m 2017, we heard from the public that there was a
need for small neighborhood centers, a variety of housing options, connected streets,
traffic calming, and environment that allowed aging in place. It was the study completed
in 2017 that determined to foreign-based code was feasible for the undeveloped portions
of the South District. And m 2019, the city council directed staff to execute a contract
with Opticos in order to implement the workshop direction from the 2017 report. In 2019,
a residential market study was completed, which Tony touched on earlier. And we also
completed the first draft of the form -based code, which was released as the initial draft
code where we requested feedback from members of the public. In 2020, we continued
outreach and made revisions to the code based on feedback, and then earlier this year we
released a revised version of the draft code and that's the code that you will be
considering tonight. Throughout that process, we worked with various stakeholders
starting in early 2019. And this- this table shows a summary of that outreach. We talked
to local builders, the development community, property owners, architects, affordable
housing advocates, and others. We also had meetings with the school district to better
understand their land use needs. We met with the Home Builders Association, the
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, the South District Neighborhood
Association and others, throughout the past two years. This slide summarizes some of the
main concerns and issues that we heard early on in the process. From developers and
landowners, we heard that the process is lengthy and uncertain and that's- that's exactly
what Tony touched upon in his presentation. They felt that if the process was more
predictable, more regulation would be acceptable. There was also some concern that the
market wouldn't support Missing Middle Housing. They recognized that there was a need
for more affordable housing choices. And there were some concerns with single loaded
streets along green spaces. And single loaded streets, are streets where you have open
space on one side, and development on- on the other, so it's single -loaded development
only on one side. From the community, we heard that open space was an- an amenity.
That there were some concerns from existing neighbors about development that would
happen next door to them. They felt quality housings- housing in neighborhoods were
expected. And they also, as we heard several times, affordable housing is needed as is
accessibility. So, based on the input that we received, we made some changes to both the
proposed plan amendment and the code amendment, to address some of these concerns.
And these revisions were incorporated into the revised draft that we released earlier this
year. First, we heard from several groups regarding the concern related to housing
affordability. This code will not regulate sales price or the rental price of housing. That
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 8
said, staff has created regulatory incentives for developers interested in providing
voluntary affordable housing. So this includes things like, height increases, density
bonuses, and Kirk, will touch more on that later- later tonight. In addition, about 50
percent of the land area in our planning area has not been annexed yet, so it will be
subject to the city's affordable housing annexation policy. We also heard that there was a
concern with accessibility, and this is something that we heard back in 2017 as well, that
people wanted options for aging in place. So based on this information, we made changes
to the frontage type standards. So a type of frontage is a porch or a stup or or- just to give
you a couple of examples. So the standards were changed for frontage types to ensure
that there were options for at -grade entries. We met on several occasions with
landowners, who had specific requests regarding the future land use map. Which will be
again talking about more when we discuss the comprehensive plan amendment tonight.
But we heard from some owners, who requested lower land use designations near golf
course. Other land owners who wanted more intense land -use designations along the
McCollister or again along those single -loaded streets. Lastly, we heard from members of
the South District Neighborhood Association, and they requested that liquor stores only
be allowed by special exception which we incorporated into the code. As I mentioned
earlier, the project includes an amendment to the South District plan, and- and design
code text amendment. And the proposed amendments do not include a change to the
zoning map. Staff has created a more detailed future land use map, because landowners
and neighbors, both want certainty in the land development process. That said, for land to
be developed in this area, it will still need to be annexed in some instances, and will need
to be rezoned, and it will need to be subdivided. All of which will need to be reviewed by
both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. I wanted to end with
some explanation beyond what Tony has already said about why we are pursuing these
amendments. And, you know, why do we need to shift the way that we are developing
land at the fringe of our community. And there- there are several reasons. One, Tony
mentioned this. Our- our current zoning code provides limited flexibility. In order to
create something different, um, it often requires a burdensome OPD rezoning process.
Our current code tends to separate land users. Our code does allow accessory dwelling
units and duplexes on corner lots in single-family zones. However, that has not resulted
in a mix of housing types. Additionally, zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes
and single-family zoning, have resulted in more exclusive communities. Currently, 81
percent of the city's residential land is zoned for single-family. And we- we need to
explore other options to ensure a mix of housing types and this code does that. Lastly, the
city has many climate action goals. Conventional zoning can result in auto -oriented
development, which doesn't help to achieve those goals. So while- while the proposed
plan and code amendment will not solve complex issues like climate issues, equity issues,
and sustainability, it can help. The proposed form -based code, allows a wider variety of
housing types, provide more housing options for members of our community. In addition
to including minimum lot sizes- lot sizes, it includes maximums. It requires a mix of
building types by block. It includes regulatory incentives for affordable housing, it
ensures highly interconnected street networks through specific block standards. And it
identifies neighborhood nodes, either through open space or small commercial centers. It
slightly reduces parking standards and also ensures more compact development. So, these
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 9
are a few ways that the code can help address and help the city address some of its equity
and sustainability related goals. And that concludes my presentation for the work session.
And again, at the formal meeting we'll be providing a lot more information on the
amendments. So, thank you.
Teague: Thank you. All right council. Questions for staff and for Opticos.
Thomas: Well, I have some detailed questions, but it sounds like, er, it would be more
appropriate to, um, raise them at the formal meeting, um, regarding certain aspects of the
project, so I'll just wait on some of these more detailed comments and concerns.
Teague: As far as like equity and affordability, is- is that something you all plan to expound
upon.
Russett: We'll- well get into more specifics of the portions of the code and the, uh, land use
designation which help achieve some of those goals? yes.
Teague: Sure.
Salih: And also, I guess you went too fast. I'm not sure, but I- I think I- I thought something
saying that the developer said, uh, the market is not supporting the middle kind of
housing. I wanna hear like you know Optocos what do you think about that? Is that right?
Perez: Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I think your question is about, um, if there was a
market for the middle housing and that- and that some developers might have said there
wasn't. Yeah, there were questions back when we started the process and there might still
be. But that's what Zimmerman Volk Associates addressed in their report, which I
assume you all have access to. And the summary of that is that they found a market for it.
In our- in our, experience across the country, there is an increasing market for it, is that
everyone know that right now the big- the big simplest way to summarize who the market
for missing middle housing is, it's people like me, baby boomers, with our kids just
fmished college, and they don't wanna live in the house that we have. They wanna live
closer to town or closer to that neighborhood, main street or standing in a smaller unit.
Um, s- and then yes, so it's both ends of the spectrum. It's our kids in the baby boomers.
Pretty- pretty funny, but-
Salih: Thanks.
Teague: I do have a, er, follow-up question and a little bit similar. Well, why do you- why do
what are some of the rationales for not desiring some of those livable, er, spaces. Could it
be because you're a side-by-side with someone when you're- when you're talking about
duplexes or apartment? And are there materials that can provide some soundproofing
between units?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 10
Perez: Oh, no- no, sorry- sorry. I was saying that the- the- the young kids who, er, our kids, the
baby boomers kids, they wanted- they don't wanna live in the big single-family house
with a big yard and all that stuff. They want to have a smaller unit in a duplex, or
fourplex, or, you know, like here in the buildings that you have any- anything other than
had it seems. And so the missing middle approach, um, provides new options as- as- you
know, because sometimes the only other option is a smaller single-family house or big
high-rise, and they can't afford it, so the mi- middle housing provides those options.
Teague: And I understood that. I'm sorry. As from the developers perspective, what do you think
some of the hindrances were?
Perez: Yeah, well some, uh, and I- I'm not speaking for developers, so I'm simply speaking on
experience that we have with them. Uh, a big- a big impediment for them is that, well, I
don't do multi -family I do single-family houses and that's what we've done, and we've
gotten really good at. And that's, you know, a lot of people are really good at what they
do because that's what they do. That's one. The other one, is, uh, well, I do apartments,
but I only do them in batches of 100 or big projects. And so that Prairie Queen project in
Nebraska is- is an example of one of those developers saying, yeah, I did it like that, but
now I'm gonna do whole project that looks like a neighborhood that doesn't all belong to
me that I manage. It doesn't negates. It doesn't have anything. It's, I don't know, it's 12, 13
blocks, and, but it's all his. He manages it, and he might sell some of it off. Uh, but that's
one. But usually, that- that's one of the- the big things people will say, well, I- I do 50
unit building story, not six.
Fruin: Yeah, If I could- if I could add to that. That argument seems to- to carry more weight
when you have a housing market as hard as we do here in Eastern Iowa and Johnson
County. Not only is that what they're comfortable with, you know, with doing. That
they've done that for a decade or more, um, but they're selling, and they're selling fast and
the prices are going up, so the- the resistance is often the demand is clearly showing that
more single family houses are being desired. Why are we putting the brakes on that and
trying some untested, uh, product in the market. That's- that's what yo- you'll probably
hear the most.
Taylor: We've heard a lot from our south district, uh, friends and neighbors that, uh, there's a big
need for retail there and that South district. And maybe we'll get into this later. And, um,
or could- could we ask now or get some answer towards what Opticos feels the kind of
retail and commercial would be appropriate for that area. What we might see.
Russett: Sure. We- well touch on that more at six o'clock. But I guess, just generally, one thing
that the new future land use mop- map does, is it provides an identifies kind of
community, um, centers which allow non-residential and some commercial land uses in,
kind of, the centers of neighborhoods. And we'll have maps that can show where those
are located. And I guess, just add one more thing, the- the map also identifies a small
main street which will allow commercial.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 11
[mumbled]
Perez: Council member, um, I can't see your full name from here.
Taylor: Taylor.
Perez: Yeah. Uh, something else about the non-residential in this code is, and I'm not talking
about the map, just the approach, is that one area, we talk about are main street, you
know, say a block long, and that's- that's one commercial way of doing things. The other
areas, they might support some small main street in the future. But as a way to get started,
um, this code allows non-residential uses in very specific locations because that is a node.
So instead of just willy-nilly and case-by-case basis, part of what this approach does is it
says, well, let's identify nodes and at those nodes, if somebody does want to do a non-
residential use, they could. It's their choice. They're not required, but they could in a way
to try and think about that, um, Peninsula. I know peninsula has a lot of- a lot of- um- a
lot of questions and a lot of issues over the years as any mature project does. But if you
think of that little green there where the little cafe, you know- uh, that area, in the South
district could be an example of over time, if somebody wanted to run a attorney's office
on the ground floor of one of those buildings, not just the cafe but the buildings around it.
Uh, if somebody wanted to run a small use, uh, say a- a small, uh, medical office, or, you
know, something that fits in a house size building, you know, the whole building can't -
isn't bigger than this. If it can fit in there and it's an approvable use, then it allowable use,
then it could be around one of those nodes without having to be a main street. So that -
that's also in here as it's allowed, not required. Er, and the last thing on that, er, big part of
that why it's allowed not required is that's a, um, that's a big, uh, failure of zoning over
the past 50 years is people said, well, let's put commercial in there and then it's
commercial and that's all you can do with it and stays vacant and you know what that
looks like. You get the dead property next door that nobody can do anything with. So this
flips it and says, let's allow it if there's a need but not require it.
Teague: Thank you
Teague: Okay. I do have a question if it's- and maybe, this is more staff. If there's gonna be, er,
like allowed but not required, how do you flip back between it being residential and
commercial for taxes.
Russett: That might be something we'll need to talk with the assessor about that, but I- I don't
know if they reassessed at a change of use. I don't know if you have any answer for that.
Fruin: Yeah, we -the assessor would- would take care of that. So, um, we'll- we'll communicate
with the assessor when needed. But generally, they're on top of that, and we have those
spaces already. Some of the, uh- some of those, uh, on council for awhile may remember,
um, the old town village space, uh, um, near Blackstone restaurant. There's a, uh,
apartment building built on the east side of that square type of development. Now that
came to council, and I forget if it was a rezoning or for some approvals, but we
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 12
essentially allowed them to do residential on the first floor so long it was- it was
constructed to commercial standards to where there could be, uh, commercial uses there
in the future. And we've- we've done that in a few sp- a few locations just to make sure
that that space is convertible in the future if needed.
Teague: And since you mentioned, um, some of the standards for commercial use, I think in the
beginning when-uh, er, that conversion can be cost prohibitive, so I don't know if there's
any way to take that into account for adjacent spaces that are- that could be flexible. Um,
I just know that, er, it's going to be a challenge and potentially cost prohibitive.
Fruin: Yeah, a lot of it makes sure it is- just making sure that kind of the bones of the building
are appropriate for commercial. So that oftentimes, may mean things like higher ceiling
heights on that first floor. Because if you have residential ceiling heights that won't
convert well to commercial use, so sometimes the residential, um, foundation or
framework is expanded a little bit, and that allows for the easier conversion. It may not
be, uh, simple, but it's easier.
Teague: Uh-hum, yeah.
Weiner: Could you explain a little bit, please, about what the- the conversation with the school
district centered like because my- my understanding is Alexander is pretty full. If you
sort- if you really expand out there, what is- what does that look like? And are they- how -
how do they bec- how did they view this expansion?
Russett: Yeah, they, er- based on what they told us that they're gonna need some additional land
for another school in the area, but not within the 900 acres that we're looking at. So
within the planning area, um, within that 900 acres, we're not identifying any additional
school sites, but the school district will likely need, um, additional land near there, but
not within that 900 acres.
Weiner: Okay. Thanks.
Salih: I just say- I hear like some of the complain is like parking, uh, it's just like avoided
complains. It has no parking for those- or parking space available when we build this
kind of houses?
Russett: Sure. The, um, we are gonna touch a little bit on parking standards, I think in our
presentation tonight, but, um, there are minimum parking standards in this code. They are
slightly reduced from our current code, um, the main street zone does have a max, a
parking max, but the other zones do not. Additionally, all of the streets would allow on -
street parking. Um, we have reduced the parking slightly. Eric told me if I'm going far
into discussing that, the code.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 13
Goers: I wouldn't get too much further than that. I mean, I'm- I'm glad to hear you say that you're
planning on addressing some of that in the formal and so forth. But i -i- if it's okay, Mayor
Pro Tem Salih.
Salih: Sure. Yeah. No problem with that.
Goers: Thank you.
Teague: I also invite US- USG to just jump in on this conversation as well.
Fruin: I may- if I could ask, uh, Opticos a question I think might be helpful for the Council and
the public to hear. Thanks, Tony. Um, so the- the case studies that you, uh, presented
showed situations, I believe, in which there's a single developer where the property is
under sole control of one development group. Obviously in this case, I think, uh, it was
mentioned that we maybe have 10 large property owners and probably a few smaller
ones. Um, hopefully the flexibility we built into the code can adjust for, uh, some of the
different, uh, um, views that those property owners may bring to the process. But any -
any advice to the city, um, in working with multiple property owners in a- in a- on a code
like this?
Perez: Yeah, that's a great point. This- we have worked on codes that have multiple owners, but
yeah, this- the three- the other two that I showed you tonight were not. Um, yeah. Things
to make sure that you advice would be, you know, the- the work that's been put into
trying to figure out how to connect all the properties. You know, when- when cities are
working with multiple owners and they don't have a plan and they don't have a code like
this, that's ultimately what a lot of people are trying to get at. They're trying to connect
things, make it so that you get from one end of town to the other, um, one end of the big
development to the other. That the park system makes sense, that the trails be connected,
that the bike lanes makes sense and, you know, get to one. Well, that developer didn't
wanna do it, you have to go this way, get to the rest of the bike- bike network. That it all
makes sense and be master planned, if you will, but being executed by a number of
developers. And that- that you have that. Yeah, people have questions. They have
preferences on how they might have done this or that. But there's flexibility in the code to
adjust the- the- what's there as long as it meets the standards and I'm just saying, you
know, somebody comes to you with a new idea, it- it might be good, but don't throw it
out because somebody might say, "Well, that's, you know, I can't work with this." There's
a lot to work with already. There's a lot to work here. There's a lot of agreement on what
you see on the screen. Maybe people will get up tonight and say, no, I don't agree with
this, I don't agree with that, but that layout, that is as- as detailed as it is and as much as
people might say, hey, I didn't- I didn't put the street exactly where I would put it. There's
a process to allow adjustment to that, but more importantly, there's a lot of
interconnectivity that people working by themselves wouldn't probably have achieved.
And that is really- already- already there and to be improved and to- and- and that's
probably one of the easiest ways to- to dilute this plan is to have somebody come in and
say, "Well, you know, I don't get along with that on our own, I don't get along without
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 14
one, so I wanna do something this way," and all of a sudden chipping away, chipping
away, next thing you know, you've got something else out there. So, um, the initial
projects will test that, uh, or that probably be when it gets tested or challenged and I'm
just saying there's a lot of accord in what's down there and a lot of benefit, uh, and what's
laid down and people need to move beyond that and say, "Well, okay, I might have done
it a little differently. Maybe I can- my 50 acres, I can adjust a little bit here and there and
I can express my buildings a little differently." Let them do that and let them all add up to
something pretty cool as opposed to people starting to siphon it off- to silo it off to the -
their own desires and then all of a sudden you have 10 different projects. So that's
probably a longer answer than you asked for.
Fruin: I appreciate. Thank you.
Perez: Yeah.
Thomas: One- one thought I'm having on that- that piece of this is that, um, you know, the- the
code that's being developed for this land is based on the transect. You know, it's two- T3,
and T4. So there isn't a great deal of, um, difference. So I guess I might say, in terms of
how the land is going to be developed. So I would- I would think, um, you know,
developer or landowners are interested, among other things, in the profitability of their
land. But it- it's, uh, my sense is that profitability as it relates to the land that's covered
under this code change. The wealth is- is well distributed. I'm not sensing that, you know,
one property owner is going to be favored because it allows for considerably higher
density over another area. It's all pretty much an even keel, seems to me, with some
differences allowed for but that all 10 or however many landowners there are- they all get
a more or less than equal piece of the pie if- if- if that sounds accurate.
Fruin: Well, maybe I'll just wrap up with one final thought. Councilor Weiner, did you have a
question?
Weiner: Yeah, I just wanted to ask if- you- you- you touched on climate aspects. I wanted to ask
if you're planning on addressing them in- in greater detail this evening with Council. I
mean, just this sort of you- you- touched on, um, affordable housing and- and how- how
that piece would work.
Russett: Yeah, we- we have a couple other slides that kind of summarize the connection between
this code and- and some of those sustainability related goals. And if you have more
questions during the formal meeting, we can certainly answer those.
Weiner: Thank you.
Teague: And for affordable housing as well, some of the incentives you'll bring them up.
Russett: Sure.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 15
Fruin: Anne touched on this in her comments and just something to keep in the- in the back of
your mind as you navigate this- the next several meetings, um, we are not initiating a
rezoning into the form -based code. That's not what we're proposing at the conclusion of
this. Um, so individual landowners will still have to apply for that rezoning. So, um, if
you are a landowner in this district now, uh, in the city limits, you have a zoning district
assigned to you and you could still develop under that traditional zoning district. We are
hoping that they will see the benefits, developers will see the benefits of, um, corning into
the form -based code. Much like we've, um, worked on in Riverfront Crossings, where,
uh, developers have opted into that code because of the benefits that that provides. But do
know that this is not, um, rezoning the district into the form -based code, that it's gonna
have to come with the individual owners. Likewise, when you annex in, i- if you- if you
don't want to develop- develop under the form -based code, we're not forcible- we're not
forcibly annexing anybody. And that's not- not- not at this time and that's not certainly
part of any discussion that we- we've had at the city. So, uh, I just want you to, um, have
that in the back your mind as you're, um, thinking through, um, the form -based code over
the next few meetings.
Teague: If someone does annexing they still have the option?
Fruin: No, at that time, we would say- we- we would- like we- we would require, um,
annexation into the form -based code. Presumably, that's not a staff determination, but that
would be our recommendation to- to Council at the time of annexation.
Tegaue: Great. Anymore questions? I guess I have one last one. So when they do want to utilize
the form -based code, then they'll have to go through P and Z and then final with Council.
Fruin: Correct.
Teague: Correct. Okay. Great. Any other comments? Questions? All right. We're good.
Clarification of Agenda:
Teague: We're gonna move on to clarification. I1.1 thank you all for being a part and of course we
will be back at 7:00 and have more discussion.
Teague: Six [LAUGHTER] Yes. I have to get that ingrained in my head. All right. Clarification
of agenda items is next. Hearing none.
Information Packet Discussion [September 23, September 301:
Teague: We will go on to info packet September 23rd. The next info packet is September 30th,
and we will have our joint entities meeting. All right. Oh, you have something from the
23rd? Sorry. Okay. Ah, September 30th info packet, um, we're gonna have our- there is
the IP4 item for joint entities meeting. And so typically, we try to figure out a topic or a
topic at least, one topic to discuss. So any thoughts or ideas?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 16
Salih: To discuss where? What do you say?
Teague: For the joint entities meeting?
Salih: Okay.
[mumbled]
Teague: Joint entities meeting. -try to figure out if there's anything we wanna bring to the- all the
entities around us?
Bergus: I think I asked for it the last joint entities meeting too, but any updates on ARPA, um,
plans? And I don't know what the school districts pandemic relief funding is like as far as
timelines and amounts, but I- I think since the district at- is at that meeting, that might be
helpful to hear what they have as well.
Teague: I think the last time, there was only Johnson County and the city that had any ARPA
updates, but I- I think you're right. It- it would be a good idea and maybe, um, we can talk
to the school district beforehand, just to make sure that they're prepared or have someone
present.
Weiner: It's sort of- I mean, together with that on the school district, I'd really like to hear what -
what their plans- what their testing plans are. I mean, testing for- for COVID has been an -
an issue all over the state. The Des Moines - uh, community school district has now
worked with one organization to basically create drive through rapid testing for anyone
from the- anyone from the school district who wants or needs it. Uh, and I know there
were- there were funds available. There were funds that the Governor sent back to
Washington. I'd be curious to just to get a sense from the school district as to where they
stand on being able to do rapid testing.
Teague: Any other ideas? Yeah, I think I- I sense people will support that, both of those being on
the agenda. All right. Anything else from September 30th? Is there anyone that we want
specific to give our update? I know that Rachel did our presentation.
Fruin: Give our update with- for the joint meeting?
Teague: Yes, for the joint meeting.
Fruin: Yeah, one- one of us in the City Manager's Office can do that.
Teague: Okay. Great.
Fruin: Mayor, I did wanna, um, call attention to the tentative meeting schedule because I think
there's been some proposals to, uh, change the November meetings?
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 17
Tegaue: Yes.
Fruin: That's on Page 3 of the IPs-
Teague: Yes.
Fruin: -for those that haven't seen it.
Teague: So the November meetings, just wanted to maybe look at those meetings and make sure
that everyone is good with those. We wouldn't have a meeting at the beginning of
Novem- um, we will have two minutes in November, but those meetings will be the 16th
and the 30th.
Fruin: And then one meeting in December is what's listed?
Teague: And then one meeting in December, which will be the 14th. Just wanted to make sure
that we're all good there.
Salih: Yeah, 14th.
Teague: Okay. All right. Great.
Weiner: The- the othe- I just thought the- the item about the, um, the Navigator Assistance
Program for commit- for communities in need that the Fire Department is now
implementing was just, uh, was- is a very interesting initiative. I don't- I'd be interested
once that really gets launched and- and hearing how it's working.
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees:
Teague: Okay- okay. Council updates on Assign Boards Commissions and Committees.
Bergus: I have one from the UNESCO City of Literature, the Iowa City Book Festival is later
this month. I guess, technically, right after our next meeting. But it is October 18th
through 24th, and information is available at iowacitybookfestival.org with lots of cool
stuff happening there. And our last, uh, UNESCO City of Literature meeting was, um,
held at the UI Main Library in the gallery space on the first floor, on the north end, which
is currently, uh, an exhibit about Fyodor Dostoevsky, um, which was really fascinating
and that's still open and is one of their most popular exhibits that they've had there. So
encourage people to check that out.
Weiner: Yeah. The, um, so ECICOG has be- has launched- has been working on, ah, basically
strategic planning through 2030 and beyond, not just similar to the- the project that Better
Together has undertaken. Uh, and- and ECICOG did had a base- had of pretty much full
day workshop last Wednesday with people from around the- the multi county area. Uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.
Page 18
and the what the facilitator largely focused on was what the trend- where the trends are
headed, um, and- and how different- different ways that not that these communities, and
counties, and the rural areas, and everybody working together can- can choose to meet at
the moment. Um, I'm not, you know, I'm- I'm not sure 100 percent how successful that
was because we started out with a- with quite a large group, and I think that after- after
they broke us into, um, a breakout rooms to discuss some of these different scenarios,
the- I had the sense that a lot- that there are a number of people from the rural areas
dropped out. Um, but the- ba- basically, the- the outcome of it for now is that essentially,
if we don't really look toward, um, take- take it- make- get a good grasp on the- the
trends, and look to more, um, learning -based and technology-based in a variety of other -
variety of other options to push us forward, we may be, sort of, um, stuck. But they're
gonna be doing, um, outreach meetings in all the different counties over the next month
or so. And then I hope that we'll be able to, sort of, have some, kind of, comparison and
wrap up and see where that's- where they're headed as opposed to, um, as opposed to the
Better Together version. So that's interesting, that is.
Teague: Anything else? We will be back at 6:00 PM. All right. See you soon.
This represents only a reasonably accurate closed captioning transcript of the Iowa City City
Council work session of October 5, 2021.