HF 161

An almost overlooked issue at last night's city council meeting was the announcement of the passage of  HF161, a bill in the Iowa House of Representatives that would eliminate the ability of cities to limit occupancy of homes based on family status. Most of U-Heights is zoned single family meaning a family of related individuals, regardless of size, may live in a house. By our zoning definition, however, no more than two unrelated adults comprise a family. As our city attorney observed last night, this is the bedrock of all of our zoning and housing regulations. I wrote about this two years ago when the same bill was in the Iowa House HF184 Do Something?

Check this story in this morning's Press Citizen for details.

Bill would end some single-home roommate restrictions

I would urge all of you to consider writing to our senators to express your feelings on this topic. A similar bill SF458 has the important difference of NOT eliminating the non-related standard for zoning. Here is information I shared with people at the council meeting last night:

Local Senators

joe@joebolkcom.org                   Johnson

robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov     Johnson

Kevin.Kinney@legis.iowa.gov        Johnson/Washington

rob.hogg@legis.iowa.gov             Linn

liz.mathis@legis.iowa.gov             Linn

wally.horn@legis.iowa.gov           Linn

Ask senators to oppose SSB1218, or SF458 or similar bills to HF161. The key is not to limit the ability of cities to restrict, via zoning, the number of unrelated adults that can occupy a property.

Points to mention: As a community of small homes (2 bedrooms, many under 1600 square feet) and narrow streets we would simply not be able to accommodate the amount of pressure this would put on our town. Street storage of autos, problems with garbage collection, and general wear on property are all problems exacerbated by increasing the number of adults living in a single property.

Other senators

Majority leader         mike.gronstal@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    bill.dotzler@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    matt.mccoy@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    amanda.ragan@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    mary.jo.wilhelm@legis.iowa.gov

Republican Leader:    bill.dix@legis.iowa.gov

Republican Whip:      jack.whitver@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: rick.bertrand@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: randy.feenstra@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: tim.kapucian@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: charles.schneider@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov

Find all Iowa Senators:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/senate

Latest One University Place Proposal

At Tuesday's regular council meeting we heard the latest site concept presentation from developer Jeff Maxwell and architect Kevin Monson. Here is the visual that accompanied their description:

You can download the PDF file HERE.

Let me give a bit of a summary here before we get to my thoughts.

The latest version of this project is similar to the version presented in September 2011. Like that plan the current proposal would have a 3 story mixed commercial/residential building in front and a five story residential building in the rear. This is a departure from the previous site concept shared in February 2014. That proposal had a one story commercial-only building in front and six plus stories of residential in back.

The major changes in the latest proposal, from the 2/14 one are these:

1. Increase residential units from 80 to 120 (same building footprints, smaller unit sizes)
2. 2 floors of residential above commercial in front building
3. Reduce commercial size from 20,000 to 15,000 square feet
4. Increase surface parking from 55 spaces to 108

Items number 1 and 4 would require a change to U-Heights Zoning Ordinance 180 this ordinance sets out maximum numbers for what could be constructed on the St. Andrew Church site. Major limits of the ordinance include:

UH Zoning Ordinance No.180

• 2 total buildings
• 80 residential units
• 20,000 sq/ft commercial space
• 45,000 sq/ft total building footprints
• 38' max front building height
• 76' max rear building height
• 185 parking spaces (min)
• 55 above ground parking spaces (max)

The increase in the number of residential units was to make the absorption rate (how quickly units sell) higher. It was stated at the meeting that it was hoped that 25% of residential units would be pre-sold. Smaller units will also carry a lower price tag, A ballpark number given was $200- $400K for units. The front building would consist of one bedroom units, while the back building would have 2 and 3 bedroom units. As has been true with all proposals, individual buyers could purchase more than one unit to combine into a larger condominium.

The reason for the increase in parking was explained as concerns by potential commercial owners that there wasn't enough customer parking. All residential parking will be underground in each building. It was noted that given the DECREASE in commercial space the total number of trips in and out of the property would likely remain similar to what was proposed before. I wrote about that here: Melrose Traffic.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
That's a rundown. Here are my thoughts.

I find it depressing that this project has had so many changes and turns and still has not been finalized. Every proposal we've had presented to us has had supporters and detractors.
 
I am not willing to reject this proposal out of hand. Since I have been on council I have been very clear that I support a mixed use commercial/residential development at the site of this project. Given this is the intersection of our only two arterial streets it just makes sense. Smart Growth development shows that mixed use, walkable projects are beneficial to citizens and their communities. I've said that in this space numerous times. 

A residential-only project could be built here without any support from the city. I DO NOT support a project like that. Yes, it would provide revenue that our city could greatly use, but it does not provide any of the other community enhancements that would truly improve our town, and the quality of life of the people who live here.

I'm not completely sold on greater number of residential units but understand why the developer is making that request. A greater number of smaller units means more income to the developer. Commercial space is at BEST revenue neutral and most likely a "loss leader" for this project, that's why the residential structure is so important. I have not talked to the developer specifically about this latest proposal yet, but will do so. I'm certain that this proposal is the result of conversations bank lenders, investors, and Tom Jackson of the National Development Council regarding what is a viable project. 

I see three potential markets for the front building units; graduate/professional students, UI Hospital employees, and sports fans. The first group has long been a part of our town, and given the UI's commitment to increase student enrollment, housing for all student demographics will remain tight. There were speakers at our council meeting criticizing that the front building would have many students. I would much rather have students in one bedroom small units designed for that purpose than have them in single family zoned neighborhoods where our infrastructure (parking, garbage, etc) are less able to handle higher density. I don't understand what appears to be complete dislike of students. The last group will be here infrequently at best.

It's hospital employees that I'm most intrigues me. Many UIHC workers (nurses, custodial, food service staff) could greatly benefit from nearby  work force housing, decreasing the need for vehicle parking at the hospital. One thing I want to explore more is how affordable housing plays into the development. Council has a work session tonight (1/19/15) to talk about his topic with the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition.

The dreamer in me supported reducing surface parking in Ordinance 180 down to 55 spaces in 2010. We wanted a maximum of green space. Today I have sadly come to the conclusion that if we want commercial we will need to increase surface parking. In the future, if that parking isn't needed it can be converted back to green space. Several speakers at the meeting referred back to former councilor Stan Laverman, who proposed those parking limits in 2010. I talked to Stan after the meeting and he readily agrees with me that the increased parking is a necessary concession to get commercial. He also is of the opinion that due to changes in the greater Iowa City metropolitan area since 2010, that a greater number of smaller units is warranted.

That's a first run at my opinions. I'm certain to expand on them more here in the weeks to come.

As always, I welcome comments or other feedback.
 

September Council Meeting Summary

I'm doing a little clean up here, I neglected to post this to the blog earlier:

City Council held their monthly September meeting tonight below are some highlights. See more at September Agenda and attachments Police Chief Hired Kenneth Stanley, currently chief of the Village of Centuria, Wisconsin, has been selected by the University Heights City Council as Police Chief of University Heights, to replace the retiring Chief, Ron Fort.   Prior to his position in Wisconsin, Chief Stanley had a 30 year career with the California Highway Patrol. From 2003 to 2013 he served as a Sergeant and supervised in offices containing over 100 uniformed officers, as well as in an administrative capacity supervising a team of uniformed and non-uniformed personnel. Before that he worked in regional offices, public affairs, and the research and planning section of the patrol. ln the spring of 2013,he graduated from the School of Police Staff and Command at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, where he was elected class president. He holds a Bachelor’s of Arts degree from San Francisco University in Public Administration and Public Policy. Stanley is expected to begin his term on November 1. 2014.. Development Proposal Presented Thomas Galuski of GG Land Group presented an initial concept for an apartment development at 901 Melrose Ave. extrememe eastern edge of town) this would be a residential complex with 158 units housing 500 residents. Council directed him to hold open community meetings to present information to all interested citizens. Go here to see the proposal Building Moratorium Proposed Council will hold a special meeting on September 24th to continue discussing the possibility of a 90 day building permit moratorium to allow the zoning commission to discuss amending ordinance 79. Go here to read more about this.

Follow University Heights on Twitter Consider contributing to the University Heights Community Fund I also write a blog covering U-H and other timely topics, with my opinions expressed UHForward.blogspot.com As always it is a pleasure to serve as your city councilor. -Mike