2026-11-02 - City Council Work Session

I want to welcome everyone in council chambers and those that are joining us virtually to the city of Iowa City work session on November 2, 2026. It is just after 4:00 P.M. And we're gonna have a

joint meeting, which is our first agenda item with our planning and zoning commissioner, so again, welcome to all of you. And we are excited to hear some comprehensive plan updates. So we'll yeah,

come on up, [name]. Thank you, Mayor, members of council, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We prepared a presentation for you tonight on where we're at with the comprehensive plan

update. [name], with Neighborhood Development Services. I am going to hand it over to [name]. He's a principal with Confluence, and we've been working with them for nearly two years on this update. So

he's going to walk you through the plan. Hey. Welcome. Mayor, thank you, Mayor, council members, Planning Commission members, [name], principal with Confluence, your consultant hired to help you

through this plan update process. Thank you so much for giving me your time and then coming in as a joint group. Like [name] said, we do have a presentation to review this draft with you. And of

course, you are benefited by your staff report that has some additional information. I have a lot of slides to go through. I'm going to go through quick. If I'm going too quick, give me the slow down

look. If I'm going too fast, give me or I should say, way too slow. Give me the speed up look, too. So I can go as quick and slowly as you want. But for the presentation outline, I want to walk

through just the project scope and schedule from a high level, but I want to get into that plan draft outline. What are the different components of the plan and then hit some of the key details in the

plan chapter as you maybe continue your review both as the Planning Commission and the elected body. Then real recap of what's next and definitely leave time. Should you have any questions or comments

for us as both city staff and then your consulting team. This has been broken into a five phase process. We're at the tail end of Phase 4, that final draft and evaluation. And so a lot of steps in

between, where we looked at the existing conditions on our analysis. We received and sought input from the community in Phase 3. That's when we were establishing those big ideas, and then Phase 4,

which has been the long phase here, is really where we're going through that process of drafting it, reviewing it with our Advisory Committee, and then rolling it out to the community for their

feedback and review and comment. So for that conference of plan, we have these seven core chapters. We do have a Chapter 1 for the introduction, why we have a conference of plan, why is it important

and useful tool. And, you know, as Iowa City, you have a strong history of doing a lot of great planning and using these as the important tools they are. And then Chapter nine is the summary of all

those goals, action items, implementation measures for those seven core chapter. And then just to try to keep this document for being so thick, we do have all these appendices which are on the project

website, also, existing conditions, public engagement, buildout analysis, and then just the summary on those fringe area agreements. A lot of useful information in a comprehensive plan, but we're

trying to keep it as succinct and relevant in certain chapters as is practical. Every of the core chapters, those seven core chapters, we do have the same format where we have the theme. What are we

trying to accomplish, the big goals, then those specific strategies, policies, and action items. And I'm going to spend a little bit of time going through the goals and the big picture strategies with

you. So as you continue your review, you'll understand them in context. So that first chapter, again, introduction, it's why we have a conference of plan? Why is that an important long range document

to help us guide our future decision making? What's our legal basis for having a conference of plan, how we're considering those SMRT principles for Iowa, recapping the process, talking about our

Advisory Committee, and even our project branding. And so, this is a guiding document. It's not your law, but it helps provide some basis for future decision making related to budget, capital

improvement planning, and also helps with some recommendations and guidance when you were getting into, say, the zoning code or zoning recommendations and decision making. We had identified seven

principles related to growth and development. Housing for all, sustainability and resilience, culture and placemaking, economic development, parks and recreation, transportation and mobility, and

ultimately that future land use plan, which is one of the major or most important components of any comprehensive plan. Really looking at that current and future layout growth, and development and

really development of the city. We have a vision statement based on all that community feedback and input. I'm just going to read the first part really quick. Iowa City is a vibrant, creative hub

where community oriented spirit meets a warm and welcoming atmosphere. And I think this is very true, especially with my role in here in meeting with your community members. So the super important

chapter, future land use, that is a reason why it is the first one. So we had these big themes that help then reinforce our goals. We want to support smart growth. We want to promote housing growth.

Housing would be that second largest component of this comprehensive plan, and I'll go through that housing chapter next. Big topic, very important to you, and your community members, and it is

reflected loudly within our plan. And then, of course, that efficient use of land. Now a couple of important notes, and the staff report goes into a little more detail. But all those different

district plans, we're pulling those out and summarizing the important parts in this comprehensive plan. So that is something we talked about early on in the process. We don't want to forget some of

those key elements, but it's really easy when you have separate plans to kind of lose its context with the longer range plan for the community. That affordable housing annexation policy, proposing

that that is not continued, housing diversity and supply, that being a big theme. And then where it identifies key intersections and interchanges Uh, where we think that commercial and industrial uses

are most appropriate so that we can also promote job growth and development. As important as housing is, jobs are also very, very important. This chapter also includes some of our housing analysis,

demographics, and projections outside of some of our initial analysis. And we show with availability of land, with investment, there is quite a significant demand for housing at all levels, especially

as we continue to grow, and then that will then obviously turn into population growth. We're in a growing region. As we work through the plan, we anticipate that continued growth. The land use plan

itself breaks out the community into these ideas of these different land use categories. And I have them all listed on the page. There's definitions for each one of them, and each one of them also

includes some kind of graphical representations of what we mean by that. The big takeaway for this plan flexibility. We're trying to add a lot more option and flexibility to promote job growth as well

as housing- housing density, trying to push the density, and we'll get into a little more in a second here on that. So here's an example of future land use categories, and those little representative

images within the plan, trying to make it kind of graphical. Again that little call out box. We were very intentional in this planning process, based on the feedback, analysis, what we heard on

promoting flexibility that we can look for different types of uses where they make sense in context with the neighborhood, with the neighboring properties, and really those opportunities that will

come up over time. So here you see that draft future land use map. We're planning outside the city limits, but within the context of our kind of growth boundary that's been previously worked out with

Johnson County, working very closely on those existing plans and you can kind of see how everything's laid out. The one thing I would note is the existing form based code districts are identified in

kind of that darker gray in those three major areas, four smaller with one little smaller area within this plan. I talked about those form based districts, so we do identify them, copy them over. We

just didn't show them as great a detail in this plan, but we did not make any changes to them. So for that future land use component chapter, we have these four major goals, support the implementation

of the comprehensive plan. Now, some of these you're going to think, it's a little bit of a no da, but we do need to state that just to confirm that we're taking this plan seriously, and we are

interested in seeing it move forward, both you as the Planning Commission and you as the elected body. We want to promote sustainable growth and development, expand housing development, and protect

employment land within Iowa City, again, that job development. And so those key features, again, we want that flexible land use policy as it relates to certain types of retail growth that we've shown

as desired, both within our neighborhoods, our transportation corridors, activating the Riverfront, and, of course, multifamily. So then the key actions, some of which has already started, is taking a

fresh look at our zoning code and our subdivision regulations on what can we update tweak to make our processes better to really affect the desires of this comprehensive plan. All right. Now the

housing chapter. I really love this chapter. The three key themes, housing affordability, housing choice and supply, housing quality and preservation. We have a lot of analysis in this chapter as well

as within our appendices about what we have today. What do we see as kind of those percent mixes? What's our community? And then the big goals. We want to ensure all residents of Iowa City have access

to quality housing, and that episodes of homelessness are rare, brief, and non reoccurring. We want to support a variety of housing types in Iowa City to address housing needs at a variety of price

points. Create a residential housing stock that allows residents to age in place, especially as we think we all evolve in our life of how we live, where we want to live, and continue to dedicate

resources to preserve housing quality and affordability within the city. So some of the key features, again, we want to push that diversity of housing and this is not a replacement for some of the

great previous planning work or studies that have been done such as your affordable housing plan. And then this chapter works very closely with our land use chapter, and that's why they are actually

even next to each other. Some of the other key action items, we want to continue to provide those housing programs and funding aimed at affordability for both our renters and homeowners, continue

utilizing our tax sales tax dollars to fund these housing initiatives, and then those considerations to amending the zoning code to support what we're calling that missing middle housing. And so

sometimes it's we see a lot of single family detached development, and maybe we see a lot of multifamily, say, apartment development. It's that stuff in between that sometimes is actually harder for

community. And we heard very loud and clear that desire for that missing middle, that, you know, duplex, row house, town home, buy attached, all the way up to four plex, eight plex, smaller rise

apartment buildings. Okay, Chapter 4, sustainability and resilience. Two big themes. We want to protect our sensitive lands, and we want to reflect our goals and desires related to climate resilience.

So we have a lot of good plans that we were able to build upon capture. We're not replacing them your climate action plan, and some of the other considerations. And so we reference those, of course.

And then these four big goals, we want to strengthen the protection of natural amenities, and sensitive land features within the city. Integrate sustainable building and development practice to

promote that resilience, and promote climate adaptation strategies to reduce climate related effects and support sustainable lifestyle practices. And then we provide again, some very specific future

action steps for consideration. Some of the key features. So we're building upon all that past work, like I talked. And then consideration to certain updates to the zoning code, including looking at

what do we have in our landscape standards and requirements? And then the concept of do we want to add something relating to basically air conditioning requirements in our rental homes? What is a code

requirement today is heating. You have to have a furnace or some way to heat the property. Do we want to go so far as to have something related to cooling? And, of course, we're not proposing what the

actual answer is, but this is something worthy of future discussion, study, analysis, and consideration. All right, so culture and placemaking, fun topic for Iowa City and everything you have going

on. So we want to continue to enhance that community identity and support public life and our shared spaces. It's a big one from your community. Heard a lot about this. So with that, we do take a look

at those strategic planning areas within the community, our neighborhoods, but this is where we are taking those neighborhood plans and not forgetting about some of those key components that made each

one of them just a little bit different. So this chapter does say, preserve and highlight those and does still tie back to our future land use plan. So three big goals promote Iowa City's unique

identity in programming and policy efforts. Utilize a consistent brand identity with partners through design gateways and a sense of place, reinforce a shared experience of place by creating community

gathering spaces and incorporating place making initiatives. And of course, again, we have these specific strategies within the plan itself. Some of those key components working with our small

businesses and entrepreneurs on creating pop up spaces and businesses and creating those third spaces, those extra spaces in parks and other public spaces for our residents and community members. All

right. Almost done. Just a few more chapters to run through economic development. So big four themes on this employment and economic base, just as important as housing, right? Partnership,

partnerships and economic ecosystems, development and growth, readiness and high quality of life. So with that, we look at the different organizations. You have a lot of community organizations trying

to do some great work and how we can all tie together, consideration of small business and even our down-towns. So a bunch of goals in this chapter. So we want to support employment, opportunity, and

a diverse, resilient economic base, build those partnerships to support development, help provide quality commercial activity hubs throughout Iowa City. Prepare land and infrastructure to support

economic growth, support the redevelopment of key infill sites to spur employment and housing, and promote high quality of life. This chapter definitely also ties back to the future land use chapter

where we talk about identifying those areas for certain types of growth and development. Obviously, we all know that location matters, and so certain locations are better for business or maybe better

for housing. Or we definitely want to make sure housings nearby or logically oriented to some of our employment and activity centers. I'm sorry, there's one more. I turned the page, [name]. So enhance

transportation options also within the city. So we're looking at our current suggest looking at the current list of financial incentives. Consider the creation of a city led small business assistant

community, and again, performing that zoning audit, and in this case, specifically looking at what barriers we may have for childcare business within our community. Chapter seven, all about

transportation, mobility being the fancy word we use, say, all the different ways we get around, other than just by car. Um, Iowa City is already on the forefront of doing so many great things related

to this, so another fun chapter. So multi-modal safety, vulnerable road, uh, user infrastructure, public transit and transit-oriented development, traffic freight and asset management. Some big, uh,

big items, uh, to consider. Uh, but this plan does also have that kind of standard thing we need to have in there. So we look at the road network, we look at the bicycle and, uh, pedestrian network

and consider those future existing and future facilities. So we also have a big list of goals. We wanna consider- continue to enhance that safety throughout Iowa City, coordinate transit improvements,

uh, with our appropriate, uh, partners. Improve our sidewalk network to make it easier to get around as our pedestrians, expand that micro-mobility, uh, infrastructure. Sometimes it's that last step

on whether you're getting dropped off or you're- you're, uh, grabbing the bus somewhere and that- how do you get to your destination? Explore other opportunities to create transit-oriented development

along our critical corridors. Doing so can also even make transit more effective. Uh, and then continue to evaluate opportunities to enhance transit services and related amenities. Uh, and then Number

7 there on the list, provide efficient and quality improvements to our roadway infrastructure and policies throughout the city. So when you look at the key features here, um, lot of love and support

for your- your current fare free bus policy. Uh, people always want more. They love what they have and they want more. Whether they use it or not, they know how important it is to many of their

neighbors. Identify potential, uh, locations for traffic calming solutions, adopt a vision zero resolution for the city, uh, and then use the, ah, safe streets for all plan to identify and really

prioritize those critical corridor improvements, especially when we're making roadway improvements or at the time when we're trying to evaluate our priorities back to our capital improvement budget.

Update our 2017 bike, uh, master plan. Uh, plan for and install protected off street bike and multi-use facilities, identify and select transit-focused corridors for the future, and then study and

evaluate the feasibility, uh, for maybe a high capacity, rapid, uh, transit system or building upon that. Okay. Almost there. Parks and recreation. Another good chapter where we look at, um, big

themes, enhancing our park and trail experience, and new recreational opportunities. People love what they have and they always want more. That is very universal. We want more park facilities, more

opportunities, uh, more more, more, which you got to respect that. Uh, so we do- we did do that analysis of what we have today and especially some opportunities of what we might need at the, say, the

neighborhood level as we continue to grow and evolve. Um, so three big goals on this one, enhance that existing park experience by creating, uh, tactful facility and amen- amenity improvements. As

community preference changes, even what we provide for rec, uh, facilities, uh, changes over time. Uh, support trail connectivity in and around Iowa City. You're not alone on a community hearing that

one. Everybody wants better connectivity, more straight line, of course, easier, safer, better. Uh, establish recreation, uh, trends and use patterns, uh, to, uh, create those new recreational

opportunities, the diversification of your offerings, uh, within the community, um, may also attract new users cause not everybody is using, uh, park facilities today. Most people respect that they

know that maybe their neighbors are, but sometimes we can attract new users just with, uh, different programming, or equipment, or spaces. So update the park system master plan and natural areas

inventory and management plan. Explore new opportunities, uh, on how we can activate increase, uh, recreation along our Iowa River, and then continue the conversation about a sports complex. And that

one I'll stay quiet on. That's not controversial at all. So what is next? Uh, so do this presentation. Uh, this draft plan has been on our project website. We've had that good rollout to your

community. Received a lot of great feedback of which we've made edits and tweaks, uh, to this draft already that we've presented to you. Um, but we're looking to have a public hearing with our

planning commission, uh, with you on, uh, December 2nd. And then it's up to the planning commission, do you feel like you need another meeting? Uh, but we'll be looking for, then, uh, you to send

forward your recommendation to the city council, and we've tentatively, uh, scheduled that for January 19th. So with that, uh, absolutely happy to go through anything in greater detail or answer

questions. Yeah, I'd like to go right with your list at the beginning of things that are big changes. And I think the most probably provocative one is the removal of the affordable housing annexation

plan. That was a discussion that I know we had during the comp plan. It was a discussion that I didn't know was gonna for sure be in this plan or not, and it wasn't completely clear from what was

presented, um, on, I guess, the website about that. And the conversations that the comp plan committee had was that, you know, perhaps our current strategy is counterproductive, but I'd like to hear

more about that so everybody can hear that conversation from you. [OVERLAPPING] Yeah. And what is- why, if we want affordable housing, are we not requiring it? And what kinda data or metrics are you

comparing us to? Yeah, so- so, great question. And I- I'll- I'll start and then if there's anything you wanted to add. Um, so when you look at that current policy, you know, what are we trying to do?

We're trying to move the needle. We're trying to make something happen. And when you look at kind of the history of, you know, you've had just a handful of homes, uh, in that affordable index or units

be created. And so- [OVERLAPPING] They're proposing. Yet, during a very high residential growth period, you frankly haven't seen that residential growth. So it's appearing that this is just not doing

anything, but maybe even hindering other, uh, housing development. And so, is this actually doing anything good for you. So that'd be the first recommendation is, is this really doing anything? Can't

you- can you be more effective by doing a lot of the other recommendations in our big housing chapter? So that'd be Number 1, um, because we do believe in our analysis and- and listening to your

community, you need housing at all prices, at all levels. Um, move up, move in, entry level, I said, well, it's affordable and affordable at several different indexes. And so, is this doing anything?

That'd be the first thing. And so, ultimately, you know, I know you'll value the input of the planning commission, and then you as the elected body can decide what you want. I think just if I can add

some numbers to what [name] is saying, um, since 2018, when this policy was adopted, we've had one residential annexation, which so far has resulted in four affordable housing units. Um, in addition

to that, that's kind of onto what it has produced since it was adopted. In addition to thinking about, is it impacting just the supply of housing in general? Um, the past couple of years when we've

done our residential development analysis, the- the numbers have not been good. Um, last year, we had zero single-family lots plotted, zero duplex lots plotted. Building permits are down. Um, I do

want to say that the Riverfront Crossings, affordable housing policy will remain in place, um, for redevelopment within the Riverfront Crossings District. Um, we also have regulatory incentives in our

zoning ordinance for affordable housing, things like density bonuses, height increases, setback reductions, which we are- we are also not planning to change. I was trying to ask the same question.

Thank you for bringing that. But can you tell me, like, you just said, like, only since we had adopted this, uh, you know, policy, we only when- we had one annexation. Is this means- do you have any

data showing that because we have this policy, we don't have more, we will annex it? Um, that's- that's harder to kind of pinpoint. I mean, um, it's more anecdotal, not statistics, I would say. But,

um, the- I think there is some concern, um, that our neighboring, um, communities are seeing more development than we are, especially at the fringe. But anyone- you don't have received like an actual

application saying that I would do it if there is no, uh, like, the- the thing that eliminating them from doing is, uh, is affordable housing component to it. This is- [OVERLAPPING] I think this-

[OVERLAPPING] Nobody brought that to your attention. I- I will say someone has brought that to my attention, yes. Only one? I- I've heard it from one developer, yes. Yeah. Okay. Maybe relatedly, I

think that one of the concerns about eliminating that is that you'd have neighborhoods that don't meet our goals of having economically integrated neighborhoods, and you'd have large track

developments, which would be good for supply, but then you're sort of stuck with that forever. Are there comp plan strategies that could be employed that would be similar but not the same as the

affordable housing annexation plan we currently have that would require smaller lots or different kinds of distribution that would be, I don't- maybe less scary to developers, but still achieve our

goals of having economically integrated neighborhoods? Well, I guess, going back to the future land use map, we- at- on the fringes, we are recommending a land use category that does allow a mix of

land uses, and especially housing, but it also allows commercial for commercial nodes. And then if you look at our form-based land use plans, those do require diversity of housing types at the- at the

block level. So, um, it doesn't have an affordability component, but it would ensure that there's a mix of housing types. Um, and it's not just single-family detached suburban style development. Uh.

[OVERLAPPING] Before we adopted this- you wanna go? Sure. Um, I was just gonna ask, uh, I've heard similar things about the- the form base code in general of just developers coming and being like, I'm

not doing that. That's annoying. Um, so I'm just curious as to why, you know, and I think that there's been more even anecdotal evidence that the form based code is hindering development, like, why

are we getting rid of just this and the recommendation is to not get rid of the form-based code? Yeah, that's a- that's a good question. I think we have made several changes to our form-based zones in

the zoning ordinance, um, to address some of those concerns that we've heard from developers. Um, and I think we're probably gonna have to make some more changes with our zoning code update. So that's

something that is on our radar too, and we don't want that to be a barrier to development as well. Okay, before 2018, when- when we adopted this, uh, can you just ta- talk to me about how many

annexation have we done before that? Like a data? Like, is this also like it was railed, or yes, it was frequency and suddenly stopped? Um, yeah, we could- we could, uh, look that up and provide it. I

don't have it off the top of my head. Yeah. That's what I was- [OVERLAPPING] So you were thinking like, eight years before and eight years since kind of a comparison? [OVERLAPPING] Yes. Yes.

[OVERLAPPING] I mean, keeping in mind that there's gonna be other factors like, you know, COVID in 2020 that throw things off. And, I mean, you know, and I don't know what was the eight years before.

Exactly. But COVID will be after, so- [OVERLAPPING] Right. Right. Yeah. And we can- that's good to consider. Um, just to- anybody else? You want to go- [OVERLAPPING] Go ahead. - okay. Uh, just for,

you know, folks who don't necessarily want to comb through everything but want to listen to like some concerns that, uh, I've had brought up to me and that I have, as well, is, um, the- the correct-

the correct drive for more supply when it comes to housing versus the less than desirable outcomes that happen with kind of, like, single-family home, suburban McMansion sprawl that happens or even

not even McMansion, just kind of like suburban sprawl in general, and people have asked me, like, what kind of, like, road blocks are put into place that could discourage that, but also boost supply?

Yeah, I was just gonna say, our- our form-based land use plan is- is one of those policies where we are looking for very interconnected street networks, a diversity of housing at the block level.

We're incorporating civic spaces. Um, though we have had- uh, the commission and council have seen what is being proposed next to Wetherby Park, and it includes a diversity of housing types, uh,

connections to the park, new civic spaces. Um, so that- that is not our traditional suburban sprawl that I think people are concerned about. Yeah. Agreed. I have a couple- couple of questions. Um,

first, we do- do we actually say what affordable housing is in Iowa City? We keep using that term, but what- at what cost is affordable housing? Should that be a part of the comprehensive plan? My- I

don't know what's wrong with mic. What, um, how many organizations agencies in the Iowa City area are addressing affordable housing, and how much are we spending of public money to house these- these

organizations? And if we're using that money to address the problem that we all know, which is affordable housing, how can we make sure these org- these agencies are working together and not

duplicating, um, their re- their resources on the same things and not communicating? And how do we take some of that money and put it into actual affordable housing? Yeah. I'm gonna take your first-

[OVERLAPPING] Be cool. [OVERLAPPING] - your first question. Um, so there is a definition in there, and we're- we're following one of the definitions from your- your housing study. And so- um, but that

number, what is the actual dollars? We have some examples of what that is from an affordability index, but they get dated very quickly. And so, instead we use, you know, we talk about, you know,

average, uh, uh, uh, area income percents, uh, cost burden calculations, things like that, so that it's a little more, um, stands the test of time. Now, uh, we make reference to a lot of the- the

great work that's going on in the toolbox that the city currently is using, uh, for, uh, programs and- and sources. I don't have a specific number of all those different agencies and also don't have

the actual dollar spent because, again, that kinda changes year to year. Um, but that's sure something that, you know, we- we sure could do. Now, that duplication of effort, that's where between you

and the county, I think that's where you're really working as a- as kind of a little bit of a gatekeeper, certain- especially on certain funding sources. But what- what I had, ah, ah, multiple

conversations is how important they are to, ah, some of your nonprofit agencies because they really know what they're- they're doing in the specific community they're serving, that they really

understand, uh, their- their, um, constituent's needs best, and so, really, how can we all work collaboratively? And I think that's even that funding challenge, I think the council goes through every

year on, you know, who gets how much money and for what. Uh, so I don't have a perfect answer for you in the plan, uh, and mainly just because we're trying to make this as a longer term document. And

so the number of agencies and who's doing what does seem to evolve over time. But, yeah. But I still think we need to address that- [OVERLAPPING] Yeah. - area. That- how to- how to we address that

duplication of effort or get everybody to work together? Yeah. And how much of that is ownership versus rentals that we're putting into those- those, uh, housing units? Um, and we all know if you're

an owner, you're going to take better care of those units as opposed to a rental unit. And right now it's- we have a very diverse program. So there are things for owner-occupied, and there's a lot for

then that renter. [OVERLAPPING] A lot more for rentals than- [OVERLAPPING] And even supporting the- [OVERLAPPING] - than ownership? [OVERLAPPING] - the landlord for provision of housing. Okay. Yeah. I

don't have the exact breakdown though. Okay. Thanks, uh, uh, to both of you for coming and, uh, presenting this today. Lots of helpful information. Well needed, long time coming. A couple of

questions. Um, so affordable housing, the annexation, uh, that policy you all are suggesting, um, to kind of get rid of it. And can you speak to that a little more? Do you. Hi. Yeah. I was happy to

talk. I guess, um, I mean, it's something that- that we're proposing, and this is why we're having this conversation because we want to hear from everyone. I'm sure there's mixed feelings on this. I

think our main concern is that it hasn't resulted in a large production of affordable housing over the years. Since 2018, we've only seen one residential subdivision or one residential annexation and

four units produced. So that is a concern. The other concern is that, um, developers are choosing to develop in neighboring communities as opposed to Iowa City because it acts as a barrier, um, to

development. And it's one more requirement that we are putting on developers where our neighboring jurisdictions are not. So those are the concerns that, um, we are hearing about and trying to

address. Are there ways to still achieve the same goal of affordability through, um, you know, mixed use or the missing middle, or just through zoning? So, we are going to keep [OVERLAPPING] Or form

based code. Yeah. Um. So the form based code- a lot of the form based code is in areas that need to be annexed. So it wouldn't, um, require income restricted units, but it requires a diversity of

housing types at the block level. So, um, it does provide, you know, more opportunities for housing choice, but it doesn't get at the affordability thing. The one we are keeping our affordable housing

requirement Riverfront Crossings. You know, the city is committed to using- you know, my colleagues in neighborhood services; um, their whole focus is on how do we allocate funds and support housing

in our community. Um, so that is not going to change. And, um, and lastly, we do have regulatory incentives for affordable housing, which will not change either. Things like density bonuses. I do

worry that, um, we're going to be in a position as a city. Um, even when we talk about Riverfront Crossings, you know, developers can do a fee in lieu of. And when they do a fee in lieu of, you know,

we're sometimes doing something else [LAUGHTER], either capturing all of those, um, incentives in one location and not spreading them throughout the district. I worry about that. I worry about

selling, um, affordable units, um, even if it's one or two, and taking it away from even the downtown area, um, and then that's gone. We'll never get it back, um, potentially. Um, and so we're

creating areas, districts where there is no affordability or affordable units, um, for the most part, or they're so minimal. Um, so I'll just leave it at that. I know it's a hard topic. It has a lot

of elements to it. We have some tools that we try to, you know, entice developers to use, but, um, I think it's going to become more and more challenging if we don't have it actually as a requirement.

Yeah. I think one thing that I'm thinking about up here, too, is the difference between green space annexation, um, and annexation of already existing developed land. Um, and so, for instance,

Riverfront crossings, one of the mechanisms of the council, uh, before my time, but as I understand it, it was that in order to do that development, there was already existing affordable housing that-

that was sort of the trade-off there. If they wanted to put up something new and different, that there would be the fee in lieu. But I think that's historically fairly accurate. Um, but I'm thinking,

too, of other places around our community if we were to annex in existing properties to make sure that those were, you know, as opposed to a greenfield development, which adds extra units to our city,

um, you know, existing properties on the edge of our city for all intents and purposes are part of our housing stock already. So, you know, I would feel a little nervous about giving up a mechanism by

which we can make sure that if we annex in existing properties that we can have some sort of say in the, uh, affordability or maintaining the affordability of those properties. So that's just one of

the thoughts that came to my mind with this, um, but I very much appreciate raising the question, and you know, I think we should always ask with our policies. You know, what is it actually gaining

us? Uh, is it performing like we expect? Um, and I think, you know, I'll be ruminating about that. I just- you know, this is a fairly- I mean, since yesterday when I went through the packet. So I've

been kind of ruminating about that. But I also say yesterday I was out knocking doors in another neighboring community. And on a Sunday afternoon, literally next door to where I'm knocking, there's a

construction crew working on another fourplex. So, I mean, you know, so I think what you say, too, is, you know, that my own observations bear that out, that we're seeing development happening, but

maybe not as much as we would like to see it here in Iowa City. So. Can you actually go to the map, the proposed, and maybe can you talk with a little bit more granularity about how some of these

color-coded districts would be slightly different than what we are currently doing and then also talk about the sort of fringe area and what exactly business mixed use means in this comp plan and also

maybe get a preview of some of the zoning changes that might be necessitated by these modifications and zones? Absolutely. Happy to run through a little bit on this plan. I'm gonna work my way outside

towards the inside. And so, obviously, the majority of our planning areas within the developed community. Uh, little hard to tell exactly on this map. And so generally think of yellow as that low

density single family residential. Although, even in that definition, we've said, you know, duplex, triplex, quadplex. You know, so straying away from kind of the traditional model of this is single

family detached only. We're not showing that at all. But we have those kind of existing older developed areas or more, you know, near term residential areas in yellow, but it's all that future growth

area that we're showing a more intense color, those orange and browns. And so orange, think of that as that next level of density, where we're saying, Gosh, we really want to see, you know, the

attached product, maybe horizontally attached. So still thinking townhomes row houses, but it could be the lower rise apartment, multifamily stacked type of uses. Then with kind of infill, little

pocket in retail commercial business centers, something that we heard from the residents. They really like that walkability, the little corner store, things like that. And so, trying to get really

creative on those growth areas of the city, you know, where we have those spots where we're trying to promote and push that density. Same thing on those browns, which is more a little thinking that

urban scale, where it's much taller, multifamily residential, with retail, with office, with job centers, tucked also closer to the higher-traveled roadways, the higher activity areas to really kind

of support and feed ultimately some of the business development areas. So that's that darker blue out along the interstate, really wanting to reserve that for growth of job growth. Have a little bit

of a buffer on the west side of town. We do have the landfill out there, incredibly well operated, but we do have to think that's not necessarily the perfect spot. Uh, but it could be a spot

considering the future road network for some continued business development. But then in those light grays, kind of out on the fringes. So out on Highway 6 heading out of town or south of our big

form-based district on the southwest side of town, great future job centers. Uh, but then, you know, as [name] talked about, our big form based districts, you know, south of six, out to the west and

kind of in the center of town, uh, off of downtown, you know, where we see as that continued kind of fun activity center with the mix of uses. And so, um, that's the big thing is we're straying away

from some of the more traditional land use planning where this is for single family, this is for multifamily, this is where the retail goes, this is where the industrial goes to try to mix it up a

little bit, to add that flexibility and really promoting density. Now, with the follow-up on the zoning side of things, kind of like the form-based code is to support smaller lots, reduce setbacks,

reduce parking standards, so we can incentivize from a financial standpoint, density. This will be hard. Cost for construction continue to go up. No matter what, this is going to be hard. Land prices

in Iowa are high. So no matter what, this will be high- hard to do, but we're really trying to put those tools in place that we have that flexibility that with the right land owner, with the right

developer, we can get that style of what you're wanting to see this neighborhood building where it's not all one price point, where we're trying to mix it up. I have just some thoughts about that. I'm

just kind of wanting to talk generally about kind of flexibility. It seems like the land use map really targets the most flexibility on the fringe, which is sort of antithetical to a walkable bikable

community. And I want to maybe have a conversation about existing neighborhoods and how to encourage infill missing middle housing in those. I think, you know, the core developed neighborhood, as you

called it, you know, I think, is at a particular inflection point right now with the potential closure of neighborhood schools, um, you know, where those act as a really important third space and

anchor for those neighborhoods. So I'm wondering how we can kind of inject that same flexibility in those built neighborhoods. How do we add housing that could, you know, fill some of these schools?

It's a really important workforce component, too. You talked about, um, you know, job growth being important, as well as housing growth. You know, these areas are really critical to university faculty

and staffing. Um, and I worry about if we, you know, focus so heavily on adding this density on the outer fringe, um, of this plan that we're sort of ignoring a really good opportunity to add

affordable housing, you know, hit some of the themes and goals we talk about, you know, in this plan, which I think is really great, those themes and goals is, how do we do that in that core densify

that core, add some things that are kind of missing around there to really stabilize that. Yeah. That's really great feedback for us, and maybe I'm not doing as good of a job kind of covering all

areas of town. One thing I would note is the importance of this neighborhood residential land use category right here in the core, that light brown color. That is exactly doing what you hope it would

do. What you just talked about, is the thought that we can, where it makes sense, do that missing middle density up, you know, infill, upsell, if you will, um. Where we can kind of be real strategic

and pick those locations. Now, we also know, definitely you going through the process is, those are the hardest and they're going to be the furthest fewest in between. So we want to allow for that.

Absolutely. That's what makes Iowa City, Iowa City. Uh, but we also want to find those new opportunities because you have huge demand for population, huge demand for housing. You're going to only

achieve a small fraction of that with infill, because not everybody's going to want to sell and develop it. And frankly, you know the Nimbi factor. Every time you have a project come before you that's

infill surrounded by other housing or development, don't you get an earful. So we want to allow you to still have that opportunity where they make sense. And I think that's wonderful, and absolutely

that's what this plan says. But I do, and I, um, I do want to keep- recommend to you that we still have those areas for future growth and development because I only think a small proportion of some of

your demand will truly be infilled just because it is so hard. And then, you know, private property ownership. You've got different people that own the property they may not want to develop. They may

not- you know, it is hard to assemble houses for development. I think what [name], your question kind of targets the second part of my question, which is what is the corollary zoning changes that

happen after this effect? And what is the relationship between this comprehensive plan and forthcoming zoning changes? Because maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, but I was thinking about the

existing neighborhoods as more of a zoning strategy and the fringe areas is more of a comp plan strategy. But I might be thinking of it incorrectly. So can you-. Yeah, I think, um, I think it's both.

I think, you know, we need this change in policy direction before we can even consider zoning changes. So, if you remember back in 2023, we came to the council and proposed a number of changes to our

zoning ordinance that were really focused on increasing housing supply and choice. But we felt we could only go so far based on the existing policy direction of the plan. Our current plan shows most

of the yellow and most of this neighborhood residential as single-family duplex. So we weren't able to even think about changes to our zoning code that would allow triplexes, row houses, quadplexes,

small scale, you know, missing the middle in these areas because the policy wouldn't even allow it. So the first step here is creating this neighborhood residential category, which allows single-

family duplex, triplex, row house, quadplex. The same is true for this area and peach. It's the same housing types that would be allowed. The only difference is that this peach area does allow for

some small scale retail. Um, so we want to set that policy direction first, and then the changes that we would make are actual zoning districts that would allow single-family duplex, triplex,

quadplex. Um, sorry, if you want to follow up, you can. Real quick follow up, would there be an opportunity to add some of those other uses in neighborhood residential? Because I see local

neighborhood services gets, you know, very few call outs, and it gets very specific in terms of location. I'm just thinking of letting kind of the market bear out what it'd be appropriate for, uh,

place like, you know, [business] or something--. We didn't put on the future land use map, um, and that's a conversation we could have what we are putting forth is a neighborhood retail policy that

works in conjunction with this land use plan that says, if you're on, you know, on a- on a corner in a neighborhood residential area that is- it would be appropriate for maybe it's a high pedestrian

area would be appropriate for a place like [business] or something like that. Um, that's something that we would consider. It would need to go through a rezoning. Um, but it's something that we didn't

want to exclude, but we also didn't want to identify specific parcels of land where it's, This is okay for neighborhood residential or neighborhood retail, but this area over here isn't wanted to kind

of look at it case by case, depending on what opportunities came up in the future. Uh, I think that that was really, um, that was- a lot of what I was going to ask is, you know, because I don't- I

don't think many of us have a the full grasp of, you know, what the different stages are in a comprehensive plan and where you put actual- where the actual zoning comes in. So that was very helpful

because I was going to ask, you know, when it comes to the neighborhood and residential section there, what a lot of people want was exactly what you're saying, and what I get a lot of feedback for

is, I wish that there could be a corner grocery store. I wish that we could, you know, put a pool here. You know, I wish that, you know, someone could just have a little shop here in our neighborhood

so we don't have to necessarily walk or bus all the way downtown, which seems to be in line with our strategic plan. But then you get people who say, Well, wait a minute, if we allow for this zoning,

then what prevents, you know, a real Popeyes chicken from popping up, you know, instead of the fake one that we got. Um, but my point being, we do have a lot of room for creativity and when it comes

to writing our own zoning laws in Iowa City, is that correct? To a point. Okay. I mean, we still state law because we have no authority unless the state says we have the authority. And then there are

case law considerations. So, you know, not to pick on any business. We can't say that, you know, Popeyes is okay, but McDonald's is not, something simple like that. We have to treat everybody the

same. But we can sure talk about form and size. And, you know, I think, even with this boy, and we definitely heard it, people really do want that little neighborhood commercial. And I think they're

willing to go. We don't need a lot of parking lot with it, either. So that's where we can get very creative in thinking, we're gonna want to have some size limitations. That's gonna be one of probably

the best ways to kind of manage to make sure it's what we want in a neighborhood. And maybe there's even a concern with hours of operation or something. But then we can get away with, like, a smaller,

you know, maybe no onsite parking or something. [OVERLAPPING] So you do have that kind of flexibility within your zoning, yes. Now, there are some limitations when we get to residential, but you

already know how to wrestle with that, and that's okay. And last thing, the yellow suburban residential, I'm wondering just what the thought process is why that would not just be a neighborhood

residential. You know, why would- why designate it that way instead of just leaving it open for the future to become those, um, places that we're talking about? Yeah, I mean, that's a good question.

The- the neighborhood residential areas are really the core of our community where we do- we do see smaller lots, smaller blocks. So between the neighborhood residential and then the suburban

residential, the housing types are pretty similar, but the density is a little different. So in the suburban residential, you might still see a duplex, but it might be in a larger lot. Um, so I think

for neighborhood residential, the- the density is around 6-14 dwelling units per acre, whereas in suburban, it's more like 1-10, I want to say, units per acre. So it allows for that diversity of

housing type, but, um, the density is a little lower. Okay. Just based on the existing built environment and how it looks now. And very last thing, I'm so sorry, everybody. Are we allowed by law to do

minimum density, and has that been looked at? That is a great question. Let us get back to you on that one. Okay. Are you speaking to the mic, please? Yeah, I'm so sorry. Let us- as far as minimum

densities, let us get back and just see if there is anything specific on that one. That can be a challenging one. Probably the best way, though, to- to get to what you want is that flexibility of code

where we're allowing smaller lots, smaller setbacks, reduced parking standards. Naturally, the marketplace is going to want to kind of gel there. The other thing I would throw out is I- I think that

housing diversity, you do want some of the- the larger homes and the more- higher valued stuff. You- I- I would recommend, based on the feedback and input, that you have all those housing points. We

want the affordable stuff. We want the runner occupied. We want the owner occupied and all those different price points. And just to really allow that in your zoning. One of the things, by the way,

and I love when you explain a little bit more about what the different neighborhood residential versus suburban residential, and how that's different from the existing plan. That was actually

anticipated one of my questions. So thank you. Another one that I had was looking at the form-based code district and the mixed-density neighborhood district. So dark gray versus peach. It kind of

sounds like to me, and please correct me if I've got this wrong or help me understand it better. But they're kind of looking at the same sort of mixed-use neighborhoods, but one, the form-based code

has more of an aesthetic to it? Um, or how would- because- I'm kind of trying to piece out what the difference between the peach and the gray is in terms of how it would actually apply to the kinds of

buildings that would show up because they both sound sort of mixed use, right? Yeah, the- um, I would say the difference between the form-based areas and the peach is that, um, the form-based areas

provide kind of more con- conceptual idea of how it could be built out with streets. Um, and the zoning is more specific or the for- the categories are more specific, where we're saying this could be

an edge neighborhood. This could be a main street. Whereas with the peach, we're just saying, this is mixed density, and there's going to have to be some more planning involved probably at the

subdivision stage to figure out where those streets are, where those connections are, where it might make sense for some retail. Um, but the planning is more specific in- in our form based areas. So

it's- am I correct in understanding it's a question of flexibility in the two different areas in terms of what developers could eventually put in there? In- in the form-based areas, it's kind- it's

very- it shows, you know, this makes sense for this- this specific zoning district. Um, and you have specific block sizes that need to be met. We have that to some- some extent in the peach areas for

residential, we want to see smaller block sizes. Um, but, um, I think it is more flexible in the peach than- than it would be in these gray areas. I think one thing then- okay, so great. I think one

thing that I'd be interesting if the plan looks, we end up approving it, that'll give us an interesting sort of side-by-side comparison. Like maybe over the next 8-10 years of which area, if there's

any difference at all, and if so, what kind, you know, I mean, I actually- I kind of like that idea. That we've got two approaches that have got different flexibility, but put in different terms, and

then as we have this discussion about, you know, even, you know, we talk about the affordable housing component and other sorts of components, but this may give us perhaps an opportunity to, like,

have a real-time, you know, sort of experiment with these two different approaches to our- you know, as we expand out on the edges of our current community. Just my $0.02. Good question. I think

[name]'s been waiting to talk for a second. It's fine, [name]. Hi. Well, what you said, [name], actually, I hadn't been thinking about that, but it's a good question. It raises a question for me

about, um, could those larger lot sizes be- like if all the goals that are written in there about smaller lot sizes and increased density, what is the downside to zoning that so that it could be- like

a lot could be split and have a smaller lot in that- that's a lot of yellow, you know, in our city. With the larger- Well, right now, I mean, at least the land use definition would absolutely say yes

and support that, because you could do, you know, quadplexes and it doesn't have to be single-family. It could be small lot, single family, duplex, townhome row house, something like that. But,

[name], I think I'm missing your question. Oh, I mean, [name]'s question was, why not use the light brown neighborhood residential and make all the yellow the same? Like it sort of artificially

saying, we need all that yellow to be larger, lot sizes, suburban. Yeah, I see your point. A little bit was that we have a lot of existing homes. We're thinking of the NIMBY factor. Mm hmm. And just

maybe we can't change all of Iowa city that's developed. We can focus in on those maybe more key areas that are more ripe for a greater level of density. This is still- you're not doing a traditional,

um, conference of plan. This is a strong deviation from your current conference of plan with much more traditional suburban residential. And so maybe we should even come up with a new word for it. Um,

this has got- I mean, this 1-8 dwelling units per acre, that eight dwelling units per acre is pretty unheard of for what we call maybe a traditional reside- single-family residential. So we are

pushing the boundaries. But really, the thought process is, we've got a lot of existing neighborhoods that we did hear from them in the public input process, a big concern. Well, maybe I better just

move away because my neighborhood is not going to be, you know, what I moved in here for the lower densities and the quieter streets. It's- I'm going to live next to, you know, apartments with college

kids. And so that was, well, how do we modify that comment or concern just a little bit? We can still push the density and get some infill redevelopment, but maybe that more intense development is

still geared into some other areas, such as kind of closer to downtown core and then in some of those fringe growth areas. Makes sense. Didn't feel better at different scales. Yes, definitely. But I

just want to reiterate that the housing types would be the same. Yeah. So we would still be seeing quadplexes, triplexes in those yellow areas, too. That's great. The other piece I was wondering about

just- I really like all the, I think there's four, what do they called, flexible, um, and uses or opportunity area policies. The local neighborhood services, the transit corridor stuff, especially in

the multifamily, those- everything that's written in there feels like it's really healthy, good direction for Iowa City, but it all feels like it's like a recommendation, but not a direction, you

know, and so maybe that's the Chapter 9 that's not included the implementation chapter. Is that something you're still working on, I assume, and will we get to see that? Are there, like, specific

zoning changes you'll recommend or? So within the chapters themselves, so you can see them right now, there are some very specific strategies, and I just didn't go through all of them that you can

sure pay- piece through. But the tone of a comprehensive plan in general is a recommending document. We were using the, you know, should consider recommend, um, rather than the shall and the must

because it's not a document. It's not a city zoning code. And so, really, there's going to be that next future step where if there's certain things we want to really dig into and we want to, you know,

make this as a rule or requirement, that's going to be that next, you know, zoning code update or even rezonings and things like that kind of step process. And so there's- there's not more to come.

All the implementation chapter is- is a summary of those goals and strategies and recommendations within each plan chapter that's there right now. Okay. So then, I guess, sorry, [name]'s next. Yeah.

Um, for- just maybe as a question for [name] process-wise. Would say there's a multifamily project that wants to be on a transit line or a neighborhood grocery store that wants to go in on a street

that's not- that's in a residential zone that's not zoned for that. It meets the criteria that's in- that's identified- that becomes like a spot zoning thing? Is it like every individual parcel needs

to be rezoned for that use, then? So the way- the way that I guess the- for the transit corridors, that's something that we could maybe change the map and say, you know, this is a high-volume transit

corridor. It maybe makes sense to change our zoning map to allow multifamily within this area. Um, for the local retail services, that's something that I can see staff using. When we get a call from

someone saying, you know, I'm looking at this house. I want to put in my office in this house, but it's zoned single-family residential. That infill- that infill policy, that retail policy gives us

the flexibility to say, well, it's on a corner lot. It's a high pedestrian area. Yes, it's all residential and it's, um, zoned residential. But based on these characteristics, it makes sense to have a

small-scale office building there, so we could work with them on a rezoning. So that's kind of how I see that retail policy working more on a case-by-case basis, whereas we might not be changing the

zoning map to say, here's- here's where neighborhood retail should go- here's where neighborhood retail should go. But as project- projects comes up, it gives us the flexibility to move those forward

based on the characteristics that exist. Does that make sense? I think so, it's not- it would not be considered a spot zoning then because it's [OVERLAPPING] We have rezoned, like, [business], for

example, to neighborhood commercial, [business], and [business] to neighborhood commercial. Yeah. So we've been able to work through that. Okay. I'm just curious why- why it wouldn't be more of, like,

a conditional use. Like, if it meets these criteria, it can be an administrative approval versus [OVERLAPPING] Well, that would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. That's an interesting thought,

though. Like, if we made it a special exception versus a rezoning. Alright. Thank you. I have one more question. Um, comprehensive plan, is that just covering what happens through the city or is that

Iowa City total that we should have information? The reason I say- the reason I ask that is I know habitat is doing a lot of affordable housing. They do the women's build every year, and, of course,

the women, whoever it's named after raises so much money to go into the cost of the house. House becomes affordable. [business] this year has given four lots to habitat. Two of those homes, one is

finished, and the family's there. The other one is almost finished. So they'll finish two affordable houses in that area. And I'm not sure how many others they have completed this year. But is that

going into our data as affordable housing- houses completed, because I think there was only one that was mentioned that was completed this year. Is that what I heard? So the short answer is, you know,

when we did our initial analysis, it included all available data. And frankly, we met with so many great housing nonprofit organizations and other nonprofit organizations to get their input and

numbers. And so we incorporated everything we could find. So on a short answer, at least our snapshot on kind of the state of the city if we could find it, we included that date. Well, you might want

to check your information on habitat. Yeah, absolutely. Because I'm sure that they have completed- they'll have at least three completed this year. And they do that every year. Yeah, absolutely,

absolutely. I just want to say thank you for all the work. I've been really impressed, particularly with the public engagement process around this comp plan development. I think I want to pull

together a few things that I'm hearing from commissioners as well as my colleagues and maybe say something a little more, uh, a little stronger. I don't like the idea of presupposing there will be

existing private property owners that don't like something, and therefore we have a policy level. You know, I don't want to anticipate a NIMBY problem. Sure. I think, um, this council and I think the

direction that this council is going and the level of sophistication that we've been able to build around the need for housing and how zoning changes interplay with the ability to increase supply has

really given us a vocabulary and an understanding of why some of those objections may not fly here or are not the same as they would be approached in other communities. So I just want to say that very

directly. And then looking ahead, when the comp plan is adopted and we're looking at a big zoning code overhaul, I think as much simplicity as possible, right, as much, you know, reducing all the

different things is- I know that's something that we're going for. And I would like to just imagine a world where, you know, what if there are essentially fewer colors on the map, right? And- and not

to take away at all from these distinctions that you've made. But I think our community is geographically small enough and still very diverse within it. You know, the yellow we'll keep- I'll just kind

of focus on that. I share some concerns with, like, the yellow South of Highway 6 being the same as the yellow around, like, City High in Rochester, right? Those are very different neighborhoods.

They're very different scales of homes. They're different scales of, you know, setbacks, even, I think. So I think if we want to make those distinctions, I want to make sure we're being really

intentional and careful about it. But also, I would say, what does it look like if we get rid of some of those distinctions and understand that it would be up to whoever is considering a rezoning to

really have a handle on what all that could mean, right? That we can't discriminate against certain uses based on certain parameters and imagine those worst case scenarios. In my time on council and

even, you know, looking at past councils, I worry a lot about taking away the affordable housing annexation policy. By the time it gets to us, that hasn't yet been an issue. I understand there's so

much that happens at the staff level, but I feel like I could name some of the issues we've had with annexations. That- that were, you know, maybe death by 1,000 cuts of other types and not about the

affordable housing component. So because it is one of the very, very few places where we can compel that, I would be really hesitant to eliminate it without better data, you know. Um, but if we could

look at, like, okay, if we were to retain that policy, but we know that when it comes to the zoning, there will be simplifications such that developers understand what they can and can't do better,

and it's not as variable, you know, within the complexity of the code. I think I share concerns that so much development happens in neighboring communities. And I think there's a reason that housing

in Iowa City is so desirable, and so much of it is the existing neighborhood character that we have and that we want to build that is different from Tiffin or, you know, the outer edges of Coralville

or North Liberty. So I- I personally don't want us to try to, like, conform to more of that, but rather simplify the ability for development in the ways that we want and that we think match our

community. Absolutely. Well, I had- [INAUDIBLE] an outlook. Okay. I just- I had, um, one sort of general-ish question, and then I had one pretty specific one. One is, you talked about, um, that

through the public, um, the listening posts and the feedback process that you did some revisions and tweaks based on that input. And I was just wondering, could you remark on that a little bit? Can

you point to some. Oh, man. I was worried you'd ask me that. I did. I don't have a specific list. Some, you know, we as silly as a typo, or this data here is a little hard to understand. Can you

expand it out? Um, uh. In terms of anything like, really subset shoot. I'm trying to think of a couple of little some were even housing related. Um, just even how we call certain things out, just to

be a little more clear, um, what was the one? Give me a second. The one thing that comes to mind for me is that, um, I think the original draft maybe didn't have as much in it on passenger rail as

some community members wanted. So that was one kind of more substantive change that we added some strategies, goals related to passenger rail. Okay. Well, so perfectly fine. You don't have to look

because my other question, I do want answers. No, so in let me see. It's in Chapter 6 that has to do with let me see economic development. That's where you actually address childcare. And one of your

recommendations is about performing zoning ordinance audit for childcare barriers and opportunities and that the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, which I've heard of, um, performs an audit

to say, could you have zoning that creates, you know, a childcare ready, you know, here you go, right? And I was just wondering, um, if you know, or if they tout it about cities in Michigan or

elsewhere that have had this, have they had expanded childcare center openings after having acted on these audits? Like, have they gotten the audits? Have they changed the zoning, and have they then

had childcare centers open up and say, that's what we were waiting for? And I don't mean it snarky. I mean, [OVERLAPPING] allowed in two, three. How's the outcome been you've been able to get that

these different municipalities have been able to get expanded childcare centers. Let us follow up and see if that information's available. Yeah, thank you. It's just one of those things where the

sounds really good and interesting. And I love the tie in. There's so many different levers, and there's so many different barriers to success for childcare. Zoning isn't necessarily one of those

things that pops to mind. And yet, it could be. However, I would love to know, like, is that actually one of the things that could be that moment that were, Ah, that could actually be successful. Or

are we or is this just something that it looks good? It could be a tick the box, but it doesn't actually move the needle. So I was just curious about some of the outcomes from that. Let us could

follow up, that'd be great. Yeah, let us follow up because that's a great question. We don't want to recommend something that maybe has a marginal impact. And maybe it is a marginal impact. There's

some little low hanging fruit things that we sometimes look about. That we've known has been effective in other Iowa cities, cities within Iowa is just following the state's classification. So in old

zoning, we talk about, you know, in home daycare being no more than six kids. Well, instead, we try to use language like following the state's classification of a Class A provider or a Class B

provider with, you know, two employees or whatever that standard might be, so it's a little bit easier for the actual in home daycare operator to just know that they can get this certification from

the state or licensure from the state and it'll work within their own, say, single family zoning. We can make it by right. And so some of those are little low hanging fruits that kind of help the in

home daycares. The other side of this is, though, truly, looking at the commercial side on, you know, is it our latest version of the building code? And are we able to make tweaks or what that? So let

us do a little bit of research and just see what their success rate has been. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I think we are in the same coaching. But Chapter 6, economic development, I just want to ask, What

do you mean by performing a biotic audit for existing incentive? Can you talk to me a little bit about that? Yeah, so what is not uncommon for us to recommend is you have this whole list of, like,

possible financial incentives you offer for different types of businesses. It's always healthy to kind of take a fresh look. And I think, especially with our recent state changes by the state to our

taxation, our budget caps, what do you want to do? Some cities have already made some pretty substantial changes on what they're willing to do. And I always think it's, you know, part of any strategic

planning process. Maybe healthy for you as the elected bodies if you want to take kind of a fresh look on what you're wanting to offer and when. Just so even your own staff kind of has your own

toolbox. There's various levels and degrees to which you might go about it, too. So that was kind of just the thought. It's always healthy to take a look at what you have and what you want to do, and

is it really meeting what you want it to do? And also, you said, like alignment with the community priorities. How do we know normally what the community port is? Yeah, so always a tough one. So, one,

we can look at the results of the Cumfreens of plan and know that housing was a big deal, as well as jobs, quality of life, other things that you even know from your own constituents, of course. And

then sometimes even in a council's strategic planning process, you may do some targeted surveys or even a follow up community survey if you do another community survey with some preference questions

related to business growth or development or incentives. Absolutely. Also, the chapter summarize the city current economic development programs, including Greater Iowa City and other, you know, we

grassroots organizations. You know, I don't see like did you, like, or have you soband the economic development list to a specific to some name organization because we say grassroots organizations and

yeah. We don't name them, but we can name Greater Iowa City. We can name Downtown District. We can name so of six, you know, like those organization. You understand? Absolutely. And this is one in

particular we very much struggled with. Do we try to list everybody in fear of forgetting somebody or with the plan having a ten plus year shelf life that over time names changing organizations coming

and going, and we're really leaving somebody off the list. And so we thought we kind of have kind of a certain list of the ones that have been around for a while. We can call them out as example and

then just kind of talk in generality about all those other great organizations, but we just had that fear of missing somebody and then that list getting dated over time. Yeah, that's really good. We

don't want to miss nobody. That's why we don't list nobody. Well, that is another option. We list no one. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, anyway. Yeah. I just want to add to that. We did in one part of

Chapter 6, identify a handful of specific grassroots organizations. So, um, they're in there. But like [name] said, it's not everyone. It's not everyone that's contributing to our local economy.

Exactly. That's exactly what my sometimes it concern me because some people will say, yeah, we are economic development that means, like, if we list somebody by the vault, they are the one who going

to receive the incentive and they're the one, you understand? That's a concern in the community. And I'm telling you that because I receive concern. Sure. As in, even though we know like some specific

economic development organization, they've been working us for a long time, contribute very good staff in this community, help the city in many ways. And, you know, we're gonna cure them forever. But

just listing people, this is a concern now in the community. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you for that. I had a quick question as it relates to the increased flexibility. You had used that term

housing for all, which I think is beautiful. I think Iowa City is a community for all, and I think it's wonderful to also have housing for all. However, with those concerns regarding the annexation,

I'm curious if you have any data to support the idea that perhaps some of the affordable stock is consumed by people that might want to pursue housing in the yellow, for example. Is it anticipated

that some of the affordable units will be freed up? So yeah, that's a great, great question. And as far as having an ability to show, like, specific numbers or direct correlation, that's tough. But we

do kind of talk about move up. And so, in general, the more pressure there is on housing supply at any price point. So let's say there's a lack of higher end housing, it does by default to somebody

who absolutely I want to live in Iowa City pushes them down the chain and then puts pressure on that housing supply, you know, one level below, maybe their affordability. So to some extent, you see

that with your students. You know, Iowa City does have some higher housing costs. It's probably because there's quite a little demand from our students. Some students are able to pay more than others,

of course. They're subsidized maybe by their parents. And so that is a natural thing we'd see. So, to some extent, you're probably seeing that here that some of our housing prices or even a lack of

housing may be driven by certain gaps in our housing supply. And that's why we do talk about we're recommending that you have upper end, middle end and housing that's on the more affordable level at

all price points, really, not to leave any part of that housing, um, segment alone. Now, the reason why the plan talks about so much energy and effort with the affordable is the marketplace is able to

provide that higher end housing more readily. The market's able to deliver, whereas, frankly, affordable housing and entry level housing seems to always need some sort of subsidy or significant

assistance. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. But as far as the specific numbers, it's a little more back to just kind of the housing truisms and anecdotal evidence. Yeah. Okay. Is any part of this, the

communication of some of these changes, which seem dramatic to the community afterwards? I mean, I'm thinking of being on planning and zoning and having some of the discussions really change. So the

version, minus a couple of the edits and tweaks we made based on public input, was what we've revealed in the Phase 4 rollout to the community. So our public, you know, um, our small group meetings,

our stakeholder interviews, and our public, um, workshops. And so this is what we conveyed with way too many boards, but a whole bunch of boards, and it's been on our project website. So, um, yeah,

this is what we shared. This is the version we shared. I guess I'm suggesting there'll be some kind of communication plan, and maybe that's not your role, but just to communicate all these changes or

some of the dramatic changes, um, to the community. Oh, okay, I see your point. Maybe upon adoption, how we roll this plan out. Yeah, that's a great comment. So because we definitely did quite the

communication plan on, hey, folks, here's the draft. We'd love your feedback and food input. But maybe after the fact, as it's going through the adoption process day, hey, folks, here's your new plan.

Here's where it is. Here's what it says. Yeah, I like that. It's really quick. With this, Chapter 9 talks about implementation, but we don't talk a lot, or I may have missed it about, like, the

measurements of success afterwards. The KPIs. We have the- the housing data dashboard, which is great. But is there anything else that will come out of this as far as kind of our KPI. Is this, um,

expected results versus what was implemented and so on? Yeah, that's a great comment for us. And so, from a big picture that Chapter 9, you know, in addition to Chapter 2, you know, some of the

chapters that more readily get updated or revised, um, the implementation summary would be one of those things that as an initiative is taken down or completed or maybe adjusted, you know, those

should be reviewed and updated. In fact, kind of, from a big picture standpoint, you as the Planning Commission, frankly, every development project, every rezoning, you're analyzing or looking at the

conference of plan. And then at least annually, we should be looking at the conference of plan for, you know, its success, its changes, what might need to be tweaked. Um, now, as far as, like,

specific CPIs, you know, we don't have anything, um, you know, to say, Hey, here's our specific metrics of success. That gets tough at the conference of planning level since we're looking over such a

long horizon, and implementation is so, um, policy based. It requires rezonings. It requires, you know, the certain little areas that our comprehensive plan is really focused in on. So that's always a

challenge for us. There might be something we could specifically try to call in on, though. The other question I had, and this one's going to be another challenging one. And, [name] I don't want to

put you on the spot. But, um, you know, one of the big factors, especially for planning and zoning, is we look at the population trend, the units needed, and how our units are currently trending. And

we have a huge Delta and have for the past few years. So well, one of the factors that with Annexation change or otherwise, we'd expect to see is closing that gap and, you know, expanding the

boundaries of Iowa City. I guess right now, we're just faced with, you know, most of the Iowa City area has been utilized. And so if we don't get bigger, then we don't have much opportunity. To want

me to be the bad guy and say that? Well, I think it has to be both. I think we need to redevelop from within. We need infill development. We need redevelopment. But I mean, the plan supports both. And

it supports, you know, growth at the fringe that is, you know, protects our natural resources, that incorporates the diversity of housing types. But it also encourages infill development and

redevelopment in the core. Uh, can we just talk a little bit about that targeted. Uh, I think 6.5 mentioned, um, key infill sites, and are there any specific strategies on how to kind of, you know,

um, instigate that sort of infill development? It seems to me that, like, that's the most easy to get online because it's infrastructure ready, um, you know, it's already walkable, bikable, you know,

if it's in those kind of gray areas. So are there strategies discussed on how to kind of spur that? So- so yeah, and great question. So probably the- the first one is, uh, tweaks and updates with the

zoning, you know, to really make it easier, uh, making sure we're getting what you want. Uh, in some cases, it might even be strategic, uh, proactive rezonings. Uh, so let's say today, you know, I'm

just going to say it's, you know, boring, it's ag land zoning, but it's ripe for development. Well, let's look at the comp plan future land use map and decide, Oh, we think this zoning district would

be appropriate. So sometimes proactively rezoning can make a difference, um, as well as then just really understanding, are we going to, uh, offer any special incentives or not? And I think that's

going to be a tough one for the city going forward. It's tough for every single city going forward, uh, to really make it as attractive as possible to the development community. So those are probably

the big three I'd look at. And- and we do reinforce that in the plan. So, [name] and [name], I want to make sure that if you're wanting anything else from the council and commission, that we take a

moment to capture that because we are nearing the end of our time. Has an hour and a half gone that fast? [LAUGHTER] Yes. That was way- you guys are way too much fun. [LAUGHTER] Man. Okay, see y'all.

Thank you for putting this together, [name]. Yes. I- I guess I would just offer, if, um, you spend more time with the plan and have questions or comments, um, please feel free to pass those on. Okay.

All right. I would- I would just like to say, I know that we've been, like- it seems like we've been, like, nitpicking, but I think we can all agree that so much really good work was done into this,

and this is a really good plan. We just are all passionate about it, so I just wanted to say that, yeah. And hopefully keep the fixation. [LAUGHTER] Yeah. The- just a quick shout out, too, to the city

staff on some of the outreach. I know I was able to go through the tent at the Latino Fest. And I don't think they, the people that were working knew who I was, which was kind of nice, 'cause then

they treated me very, very well as just a regular member of the community, [LAUGHTER] which is always like that nice little- nice little test, but they did a great job. It was the-the maps that were

up there were really well done. I could have spent probably another half an hour poring over those if I'd- if I'd have felt like it. So- so nice job for some of that community outrage, too. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Thank you both. Thank you. All right. And thanks to all of the commissioners for your time and for the work that you do always. Thanks. See y'all. That's good. Thanks. See you in a

couple of days. [LAUGHTER] Have a good one. Have a good one. Move this in so you can get out. Gotit. Got it. All right. [NOISE] All right. Well, welcome to our staff for joining us, and we're going to

continue with our work session. And we're going to go to Item Number 2, which is University of Iowa Student Government Updates USG. All right, welcome, welcome. Hi. Okay. Um, basically, recently we

started a new initiative that- well, we're continuing it from last year. It's our 100 orgs and 100 days where we're basically reaching out to all the different student organizations on campus, kind

of, explaining how they can use USG funding because we do have a lot of money that we want to give to these student organizations, they just don't know how to get that money. So hopefully, then we can

collaborate more with other orgs. Also, you might have seen my email, but we're starting Counselor One on once again. I know this was done a couple years ago, but I really want to bring it back just

to build a better relationship. So thank you for those who have responded, but please get that to me before We want to get it done before we go to break, um, just 'cause, hopefully, then we would

forget about it. So, if you can respond before then, that'd be great. Ooh. Um, also reintroduce myself. I'm [name], and I'm her deputy, so my second meeting here. I'm loving it so far. Um, tomorrow is

election day. So USG is really encouraging students to vote. Uh, we have our Hawk the Vote group that's been working for months to try to do that. But really, really encouraging that. Um, and then we

should have more USG initiatives to bring to you guys soon. Um, we're just now kind of getting into the swing of, like, our senate's cycle, so like, we're seeing some, not sure on all the details yet,

but, like, we're seeing some that are going to be coming down the pike, and we can use your collaboration on. But thank you guys. Great. Great. And welcome, again. All right, we're going to move on to

Item Number 3, clarification of agenda items. Nothing from the formal agenda. Moving on to Item Number 4, information packet, October 22nd and October 29th. I'll attach this to pending work session

topics. I really appreciated the discussion we just had, but I'm unclear whether or not staff and the city manager got the direction they needed from that work session to move forward or what the

process is moving forward. Is it just reach out one-on-one and talk with you guys? No, I mean, I think we're marching forward to taking the plan to P&Z. So if there's- if- if you want to pause that

process. N- no, but the conversation about the affordable housing annexation plan, I think, was that everybody kind of talked about it, but we felt like it was kind of left in the ether is what I'm

getting at. Yeah, I think it's still left in the ether. I mean, there was some requests for additional information on annexations. Okay. And we can provide that. Um, we would take that through the

normal P&Z process. And, you know, when it comes to you, uh, staff recommendation is going to stay the same, which is to, uh, remove it. That was also the, um, recommendation of the 2022 Affordable

Housing Action Plan. But if you want to leave it in there, that's fine. We can just- we can work through that when the item comes to you. Okay. If you would like a work session to deliberate on that

more and ask us to hold off on taking it to P&Z, we can do it that way, too. But I think it's- at this point, I think it's fine to start that planning and zoning approval process. And so it would be-

because that would be starting next week with P&Z? No. I think we're January., is that kind of what? December. Sorry, December, we still have. Okay. I mean, go ahead, [name]. I just want to report

that Iowa City Housing Authority waiting list is 1,366, uh, you know, hou- housing vouchers waiting list, and, uh, public housing 742. I was just gonna say I'm- uh , for my own personal opinion, I'm

okay with P&Z moving forward, and if we need additional time after they finish with our, you know, um, then kind of see where they go with it now that we've all had our discussion, let them do their

work and then see what they come to and then react to that. Okay. And the additional data. So this would be maybe a City Attorney question. If they propose something, promote it to us, must we accept

it as is, or do we need to send it back if we want to make a change to it? Well, if it's a substantive change, uh, you would probably want to send it back unless they've already opined. That is, if

you've got a- a new idea that council comes up with that you'd like to see as part of the comprehensive plan, then you would probably want to send it back so that you get their, um, input on it. But

if it's something, you know, for example, the annexation policy, well, they've- certainly, by the time it comes to you, they will talk about it thoroughly and- and giving whatever thoughts they have

to you. So you would say we would not need to [OVERLAPPING] send it back for a specific nod. Okay. Yeah, in that context, you would not need to send it back. Thanks. Sure. Because of the joint meeting

that we just had. Well, no, because it would be, um, a matter that they've already spoken to. That is, normally, we want to make sure that, uh, they have an opportunity to, um, give input into a given

item. Um, but- I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I feel like I'm missing your question. No, I just want to make sure. Because typically, before I close the public hearing. Yeah. [LAUGHTER] You have

to [OVERLAPPING] I have to see if, you know, council is inclined to vote with P&Z. Yeah. And if they're not, then I halt. Yeah. And we don't have discussion. Right. And I know that that's true of

rezoning, so I'm quickly checking to see whether that's true of comprehensive planned, uh, amendments. Um, I do not have that on my sheet. I will need to, uh, I'll need to get back to you on that. All

right. Sounds good. Thank you. Um, I just want to bring up on IP 5 unless there's more conversation. Just this is the strategic plan progress report and just what an awesome job it is, uh, to see sort

of as we worked our way through it and to actually see the updates and sort of the- the- It's like reorgs to the information so that we could see what was in progress, what's been completed, um, and

what the accomplishments are. Um, really, really good job. And, um, it says volumes about the work that the city has put into making kind of our- our plans become reality. So, it's really good read. I

agree. I- I just want to also- uh, I wasn't being attention, you're talking about this. while you read the numbers. But, uh, you know, what the point is then then, they come here and, like, uh, give

us this, if they're going to approve whatever they have right now, or they're going to propose the same thing to the P&Z. So when they come here, they want feedback from us, so they can make the

necessary adjustment and take it to the P&Z. Yeah, I think if there was clear direction from the council on a particular item, we could make that adjustment. I didn't- I didn't pick up any clear

direction from council on. A lot of us talk about annexation. Correct. That is didn't. Nobody asked us to say, how many people maybe they don't want that in. Right. So for example, you had requested

some annexation information for the eight years prior versus eight years after, so I was under the impression that that was still a topic that people were un- um, unsettled on right now and- and

wanted to debate at a future meeting. Oh, you mean, like, we can debate by ourselves later before they recommend something to the P&Z? No, if you want to pause the process and- and take the time to do

that, it's- you certainly would have that ability. Um, our plan right now is to take that to P&Z and then allow them to get public input, to debate it themselves, to share with you their thoughts. And

then you could take their thoughts, the public input received and whatever additional information staff provides and make a decision to either leave it in the plan or take it out of the plan. I think

you asked a good question about. Let's get some data. Hmm. Because yeah, I- I'm willing to do something that sounds counterproductive or counter intuitive if we have good data that points us that

direction. I think that's just it's gonna be hard to find that, but it- I think getting- the more information is a good thing before we determine what we want. Yeah, but I guess, um, I'm worried that

it will be only at the P&Z while we did not, like, know the data, and after that, that discussion was there, and again, we don't agree and have, you know, all this. Like, why we go around? I- I wonder

if, um, so we have- he may be looking for it. Uh, like what happens if, you know, the majority of council don't agree with P&Z? I- I wonder if we would just have this on a future, uh, work session and

just kind of get some of these answers. We'll spend a little more time having a discussion. Are people open to that? Mm hmm. Yeah. So to be- to be clear, if it goes through P&Z, P&Z approves it, and

then it comes to us. We're like, this is great. We just want to keep the annexation policy as it is. We are allowed to do that without sending it back to P&Z? That's correct. Okay. Okay. So I don't- I

don't think that we need the work session for- for that. Sure. I think we can get the information that was requested, and we can have that conversation after. Cool. And we can talk about that

particular piece. That one piece on the meeting. Yeah, I agree. Yes. I'm- if that's okay with you, Mayor? Yes. Yeah, but we won't know. I mean, yeah. Uh, totally fine with me. I just, uh, worry if we,

uh, get it here, and then we can't move forward because [OVERLAPPING] you have to have a consult with P&Z. So that's what [name] is gonna. Yes. He's working up right now. I think so. Will be. Maybe

not. I was scrambling for that, but, um, I'm not there yet. Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. Okay. But- but I think whatever you said right now, that we can take that- only that piece out

if we agree and move forward with it, then there is no problem. Yeah. Right. So- so I think if- if the answer that [name] has, um is, we won't have to send it back to P&Z, then I think if that's the

case, then we can move forward with the process as it is. If it is not the case, then I- I think council would wanna, uh, have a work session. So we're not wasting time. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. That's good

plan. Great. Mayor, you'd have the authority to place that on the agenda, so I don't think we need to- Sure. - do anything with the plan- pending list now. All right. Sounds great. Any other item from

October 29th? No. All right. Item Number 5, council updates on assign boards commissions and committees. Uh, the committee- I'll be quick. The committee that, um, uh, that- that meets to discuss the-

with CSH Corporation for supportive housing for the Net Zero homelessness plan that is being developed, um, have had a couple of meetings since last reported on it, and, um, it's just kind of getting

into the weeds of certain strategies other communities have used to fund raise. So I'm just really happy about that that it's getting into not just, you need more of it, but, like, how do you get more

of it. So, things like pay for success, things that Denver has done, other communities. So yeah, I'm happy with it. It's going good. Since we might be joining today? Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. All of us work

there. Most of the people. Most of us, yeah. Yeah. Great. Anything else? Hearing nothing, we're adjourned until 6:00 P.M.