March Council Meeting Summary

 

Fellow U-Heights residents,

City Council held their regular March meeting Tuesday night, below are some highlights. For more information please look at the full agenda and attachments. 

One University Place Ordinance First Approval

Following a recommendation from the Zoning Commission last week, city council held a public hearing on a zoning amendment for One University Place  and heard community comment. Council also heard from the developers regarding their request to increase the residential unit number from 80  to 104 and surface parking from 55 to 108. Their plans show a reduction in commercial space and the footprint of the front building. The back building would remain 5 stories. Due to a petition filed by 20% of residents within 300 feet of the property, council approval would require a super majority of 4 yes votes. Council approved the first reading tonight 5-0. A second reading of the amendment will be held at the April meeting. 

FY16 Budget Approved.

Following a public hearing council approved the FY16 budget. City budget years begin on July 1. The carryover projected at the end of FY16 is $779. The re-estimated carryover for the end of FY15 (June 30, 2015) is $13,665.

Parking Passes Created

Police Chief Ken Stanley announced a policy where any resident hosting a gathering can contact the police department and request parking passes for guests who may be leaving their car on a city street overnight. He also passed out several passes to each council member for them to distribute to any neighbors if needed.

Upcoming Events

• City Council Work Session on Tax Increment Financing MONDAY MARCH 23, 6:30 pm (tentative) 
• City Council Meeting TUESDAY APRIL 14 7:00 PM 
• Annual Spring Clean Up Day is SATURDAY APRIL 25th 9-noon 
• Arbor Day Tree Planting Ceremony will be SUNDAY APRIL 26th 
• Farmer's Market starts TUESDAY JUNE 2nd
• City-Wide Garage Sale will be SATURDAY JUNE 6th throughout town 
• RAGBRAI comes through U-Heights! SATURDAY July 25th

• 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
  Join the community at Nextdoor University Heights!
  
  As always it is a pleasure to serve as your city councilor.

  -Mike

   

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

Housing Costs, Density and You

I don't think its an overstatement to say that the One University Place development project has always been on my mind for 6 years. It is the single issue that has occupied a majority of time in my 3 terms on city council. 

This past week council voted to refer to the Zoning Commission the developer's latest request to increase the

number of residential units and parking spaces allowed for the project. The size of the buildings remains the same however so that there will be smaller units created. This has understandably raised concern among our citizens some of whom have voiced that at our meeting, others who have contacted me directly. I wrote last month about some of my thoughts regarding this latest proposal.

It is impossible to also consider our project without looking at housing costs. On January 19th City Council held an affordable housing work session. I asked about "workforce housing" options at that meeting. Median household income in U-Heights has declined from $67,430 in 2000 to $59,018 in 2012, similar declines are found throughout Johnson County. Our median household income is the highest in the county. The county-wide median in 2012 was $53,993. I always benchmark these against what a first year teacher with a BA degree makes in the Iowa City Community School District. In 2014-15 that is $39,200.

While median income was dropping median household value was increasing from $216,100 to $246,800 in the same time period. By definition a person is considered "cost burdened" if they pay more than 30% of their income in housing costs. After adjusting for inflation housing costs in U-Heights have increased 14.2% from 2000 to 2012. At the same time, again adjusted for inflation, incomes have decreased 12.5%. More home owners are now considered cost burdened than in 2000. So the most important figures to me are these: 

• 20% of U-H home owners pay more than 30% of their income in housing in 2012
  Up from 16% in 2000
• 50% of U-H renters pay more than 30% of their income in housing in 2012
  Up from 29.3% in 2000

This and much more useful information can be found at the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County's website. This data above came from their Update to the 2007 Affordable Housing Market Analysis for the Iowa City Urbanized Area (published September 2014).

Given these concerns about affordable housing, I proposed at at our work session and later in a private meeting with the developer that if the City should consider an increase in the number of proposed residential units only IF 5% (6 units) were specifically marked for workforce housing.

I also continue to read and hear national stories that become filtered through my "local lens" to consider their impact here in U-Heights. Here are three that I've run across this week, that I found interesting:

Small Homes Make Better Cities
This article looks at several projects around the country (I'd already heard of the "apodments" but the others were new to me.) At 350 sq. ft. these units are half the size of the smaller units proposed for the front building. 

Walking: The Secret Ingredient for Health, Wealth, and More Exciting Neighborhoods
It's no secret one reason I've pushed for a mixed use development with commercial property is we need somewhere for people to walk to!

With Porches And Parks, A Texas Community Aims For Urban Utopia
Our older portions of town already have this and we have continued to build community among our citizens, our location near the UIHC will always make us attractive, but we do need continue to think about what else can we do to enhance our community. See also the next day's follow up regarding racial tensions in this community.

So those are a few more of my thoughts, I'm always interested in hearing other people's feedback.

February Council Meeting Summary

Fellow U-Heights residents,

City Council held their regular February meeting Tuesday night, below are some highlights. For more information please look at the full agenda and attachments.

Curbside Composting Announced

Look for more information soon about a curbside composting program being added to regular Tuesday garbage and recycling collection. Red composting bins will be available for a refundable $25 deposit. Paper compost bag liners will be available at Fareway grocery. More information will be posted on the city website and put in recycling bins. Progress is also being made for a recycling program at Grandview.

Building/Zoning Ordinance Updates

Citizens commented at a public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance 187.  Sketches illustrating terms and a diagram of measuring building height were presented. Further revisions will be undertaken.

Request sent to Zoning Commission

A request to change  zoning ordinance 181 submitted for the One University Place project was received. Council asked the Zoning Commission to consider this and report back to council.

Upcoming Events

• City Council Meeting TUESDAY MARCH 10 7:00 PM
• Annual Spring Clean Up Day is SATURDAY APRIL 25th 9-noon
• Arbor Day Tree Planting Ceremony will be SUNDAY APRIL 26th
• City-Wide Garage Sale will be SATURDAY JUNE 6th throughout town
• Farmer's Market starts TUESDAY JUNE 2nd
• RAGBRAI comes through U-Heights! SATURDAY July 25th

Follow University Heights on Twitter
Consider contributing to the University Heights Community Fund

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.