2026-11-04 - Planning and Zoning Commission

I'm going to call the meeting to order. Um, we have tonight Townsend, Wade, Davies, Beining, Miller, and Elliott here present. Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak on an item that's

not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we will proceed with, um, case number VAC26-001. Uh, it's an alley between the Valley and Lincoln Avenue, an application for a vacation of approximately 4,037 square

feet of public right away. Um, staff, are you [OVERLAPPING] I am going to present this one. And rest it with neighborhood and development services. There we go. So, as the chair mentioned, this is a

vacation of public right-of-way. Um, the vacation is for the unimproved alleyway between Valley and Lincoln Avenue. It's shown on this map here in the white outline : this strip here, from the highway

to the east-west alley. And here's the zoning map. The properties surrounding the proposed vacation are in zone PRM, which is a multifamily zone. The applicant provided this exhibit showing the public

right of way in the middle and some encroachments that exist within that right of way. There's pavement, landscaping, um, a retaining wall, um, that are encroaching in the public right-of-way. And the

applicant also submitted this vacation plat showing the area to be vacated with the legal description. Just some background on this. Again, this is a request to vacate this public right of way. This

is not an application type that the commission sees very often. Um, it's to vacate the public right of way. Again, it's unimproved alleyway. Um, if granted, the vacation would allow that public right

of way to be conveyed to adjacent property owners, and those adjacent property owners would have the opportunity to, um, pay fair market value for the land prior to the conveyance. Here is- here are

some photographs of the alleyway. Again, it's unimproved, so it's kind of hard to see, but it's this area where the trees are. So this is from the east-west alley looking north. So the alley- the

public right-of-way, is in this area here, going north. And this is just another picture of the public right of way. Again, it's- since there's no pavement and it's not improved; it's trees, it's

grass. There's, uh, six approval criteria that should be considered when considering a vacation, so I will go through each of these one by one. The first criteria is the impact on pedestrian and

vehicular access. As I mentioned, the alleyway is unimproved and provides no opportunity for vehicular or pedestrian access. Um, the buildings have vehicular access from either Valley or Lincoln

Avenues or the east/west alleyway between the two streets. Um, and then the sidewalk access to the buildings is provided from Valley and Lincoln Avenues. The second criteria is the impact on emergency

and utility vehicle access and circulation. The right of way is not needed to provide public utility services or emergency access. Um, emergency vehicles do not use this public right of way for

access. They use, um, Valley and Lincoln Avenues. Those streets provide, um, access for fire and EMS and other emergency vehicles. The third criteria is related to impact on access of adjacent

property owners. Um, adjacent property owners have access to their properties from Valley and Lincoln Avenue. They do not use the alley for access. Um, some of the properties have encroached within

the right-of-way, as I showed you earlier, um, with retaining walls, pavement, and landscaping. Um, and this vacation would help to reconcile some of those encroachments. The fourth criteria is the

desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs. Um, staff has determined that there is no need to maintain the right of way for access or circulation. And again, since it's unimproved,

it provides no functional value. Uh, the fifth criteria is location of utilities or other easements. Um, engineering took a look at this. There are no existing utilities in this public right of way,

so no easements are needed for city utilities because there are none. Um, there is an existing Mid-American light pole, and we reached out to them, and they have no concerns with the vacation. Um, and

then the last criteria is any other relevant factors, and staff found does not believe that there's any other relevant factors to consider here. So our recommendation is approval of VAC26-0001,

vacation of the public right of way located between Lincoln and Valley Avenues. In terms of next steps, um, the timeline is that the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to city

council tonight. Um, the applicant is working with the city attorney's office on determining the fair market value of the public right of way. And once that, um, those conversations have concluded,

um, we will set a public hearing for this to go to city council. So with that, I'll turn it back to the chair. Does anyone have any questions for the staff? Can you just maybe- do the property owners

own both sides of the right-of-way? Like I'm kind of trying to understand. Are you asking if the applicant owns? Yes. So the applicant owns- there are three different ownership entities. Okay. And the

applicant is one of those. Okay. And, um, through the process of determining fair market value, the- I think it's [name]'s group, will reach out to all owners and offer them the opportunity to

purchase half of the- half of the public right of way that abuts their property. Okay. Understood. What happens if some of it's sold and some of it isn't sold? It needs to be all or nothing. Okay.

Yeah, I don't think we're going to sell a portion of it. Yeah. Any further questions? So just playing that out, if- if one property owner says, "I'm not interested," are the other property- like, is

the applicant who's like [OVERLAPPING] The applicant could purchase it. Purchase it. Okay. Yeah. Is the applicant here? Would you like to speak? Yeah, I would just give a little background

[OVERLAPPING] Can you [OVERLAPPING] Could you turn [OVERLAPPING] Come out to a microphone, please? And sign in and state your name? Yeah, so good evening. And first of all, thank you, [name] and

[name]. You've been great to work with. So I'm a new realtor, [name], and I'm representing the, uh, applicant. Uh, and as- what we're looking at is just the owner of six of the eight properties is

looking to sell. And so, just as an optionality thing, we're just going through a process to say, Do we want to sell this as the buildings? Do we want to sell this as a potential development, uh, you

know, option that would help out a lot of people? Um, and so we're just going through the process of what do we need to do and how do we need to get there? And, um, you know, we've- I think we've

contacted one of the property owners to possibly, you know, try to make maybe a, uh, high-end development, uh, somebody out of town, which would be great for the tax base. And we don't know where

we're at. We're just looking at some different options to go through that process. And sorry, this is my first time here, so you guys tell me what I need to answer. Thank you. Are there any questions?

No. Thank you, [name]. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Also, first timers here, thank you. My name is [name], and I am the

owner of Lincoln Avenue that does abut right to this as well. And I'm still just at the point of seeking information about this and the concerns I have, um, back on the map, it does show a lot of my

property that had grandfathered in a lot of concrete and a retaining wall. And my worry is if, um, it is approved and a fair market value is out of reach for me, um, with, again, not having a lot of

understanding of some past examples of this and the amount of money that might cost. If, um, someone else were in control of that eventually, what happens to my land that I've already been

maintaining, like, my parking lot? Do I have to tear part of it down? Do you have to tear my retaining wall down? Um, is there, like, potential litigation issue for me? So that's my concern with it,

but, um, otherwise, if I was able to afford the land adjacent to mine, I think that I agree with the staff recommendation; it makes a lot of sense since we all seem to have encroachments already on

this- on improved land. So that's my $0.02. Do you guys have any other questions for me, or do you have anything? This is my husband. He's here. First of all, thank you all for being part of this

mission. It's fun to interact with our, um, local community- local government. I think that's the question we had just been discussing in our household is- my understanding from staff communications

is that the applicant works with the city, um, to determine this fair market value. The photos there, you know, it's- there's a slight- there's a very angled- you know, what is that fair market value?

I was able to look up past locations. Um, there's one comparable as far as square footage, a few years ago that the P&Z reviewed on Kirkwood Avenue. And it didn't really talk to how, um, fair market

value, like the amount, was established. But, I mean, at that rate, if it was a similar rate to that per square foot, I mean, so we're just trying to understand. So I guess my, um, my thought would

be- I understand the timeline here is that the applicant will- the P&Z would advance as the counsel, but I think it would be preferred perhaps that we have the chance to see the appraisal or fair

market value number, uh, and defer any action so that we have time to address that, as, um, this is kind of being led by the applicant, and we're kind of just kind of waiting for more information. So.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Can you state- can you state your name, sir, before [OVERLAPPING] [name]. Thanks. Tonight the commission is only considering the vacation. They don't vote on the

conveyance to you. So the questions of fair market value and who's going to be the ultimate owner are not really, uh, things that this body weighs in on. That's a city council-level matter. So right

now, the question for this commission is whether to vacate the city's use of that land, basically. Yeah, the question [OVERLAPPING] Can you state your name? You signed in? [name]? Sign in. Can you

sign in? Thank you. Yeah. The question I have is, I'm all for progress, but in this situation, uh, did all of the residents and owners agree to sell, or we use partial eminent domain to get this

property? I mean, that's one concern I would have about how we move forward as a city in terms of respecting and treating our citizens fairly. I don't know how the city became owner of this property.

It's been owned by the city for decades. So no eminent domain was used as far as I know. Anyone else would like to speak? Um, can I have a motion? Motion to approve? Will second. Discussion? I guess

I'm concerned- I have a concern that the homeowners have. Is how can they make a decision on whether they really want this to go through if they have no idea what this land is going to cost them? And

then what happens since they already seem to be encroaching on this alley? Uh, what do they have to do to make it right, to take- take back what they already have? So it seems to me we would want to

know the fair market value first before we could decide on whether or not, number one, they could buy what they've already seemed to think is theirs. Um, it just seems that that would be the proper

way to go about this; maybe bring it back to the Commission. That's [OVERLAPPING] Tonight, your question is whether the city should vacate its right. The city council decides on whether the city wants

to then sell it to the property owners. So there are two separate [OVERLAPPING] Well, there's actually [OVERLAPPING] Questions. Three because the property owners currently, uh, have things on that

land, on that alley that they've put there. So they'll have to take that off. But they would also, if they want to buy it; they need to know what the fair market value of that property would be. And

so those questions are- those go to the conveyance issue. That's a separate matter that city council considers. You guys consider whether the city should vacate its interest in this land, which means,

you know, that the public can't traverse it anymore. So that's what the question is before you tonight. Normally, in my opinion, an alley is a throughway that you probably travel and there's nothing

on it. Right. And it seems like this is something a little different. Which is why staff is recommending that the city vacate it because people aren't using it for the traditional purposes that people

use alleys for. It's being used by private property owners at this point. So does it make sense for the city to continue to, uh, treat it as right of way or- I mean, it looks like they're not taking

care of it anyway. [LAUGHTER] I'm sorry. Right. I'm generally supportive of this. I mean, it seems like a pretty clear example of the city has really no use for this space, and I could foresee, you

know, any number of discussions between the city and the private property owners to come to some kind of reasonable agreement of, you know, who takes ownership of, uh, you know, each individual space,

but I think that's kind of- to be determined later between either private properties or the city. Um, but to me, I don't see any reason that we should retain, um, ownership of this particular

property. And I guess I feel the same way. I mean, it's unresolved encroachment currently, it doesn't change the fact that that exists. If it's 80 foot wide lot and half the alleyway, maybe ten foot,

800 square feet, I mean, I don't foresee that it's going to be a financial detriment to property owner in the area. That's not for me to determine, so, of course, it'll have an opportunity for that

review with city council, but it does make sense to release the land from the city ownership and turn it back to private property owners. I agree. It seems like it's not- it's not- it's not and won't

be used as alley, so intended purpose. Um, can we- well, I'm gonna call for the vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. One opposed, Townsend. Um, our next item is case number IEC26-0008 [number]

Eastbrook Street. I'm gonna have to recuse myself, 'cause apparently [name] designed this before I started working there, but just to perceive- any perceived conflict of interest, I'll recuse myself.

Thank you. Thanks. [name], is this your presentation? Yes. [name], I'm a planner in neighborhood and Development Services. Here's an aerial image of the subject property. As you can see, three

multifamily buildings have been constructed on the north side of the lot. The subject property is a low density multifamily residential or RM-12 for shorthand. To the north and east is also in that

RM-12 zone. To the south is high density single family residential with a planned development overlay. And lastly, to the west is neighborhood public. To provide some background, in January of 2020,

35 acres of land containing the subject property was annexed and rezoned from county residential to interim development, single family residential. And as part of the city's annexation policy, Annex

property must dedicate 10% of total units to be used as affordable housing. Later in April of that year, the subject property was rezoned to low density multifamily residential. In September 2020, the

final plot was approved for Community View Part 1. In March of the following year, the owner made an agreement with the city to provide 17 affordable units within Community view. Of those 17, six

affordable units are required to be on Lot 2, which is the subject property. In April 2021, the site plan was approved. [name], the former owner, began construction on two of the six buildings.

However, construction ceased, and the property was purchased by [name], who completed construction of the three Northern buildings. The proposed rezoning is requested to finish development on the site

with 140 unit building replacing the unbuilt three smaller buildings. Here are a couple photos of the subject property? To the left, you can see the three existing multifamily buildings. To the right

is the view of the area where the proposed 40 unit building would be. This is from the internal parking lot facing American Legion Road. The next photo on the left is of the multifamily housing to the

west beyond the neighborhood public area. And the photo to the right shows the existing trees on the northern side of the subject property between the three existing buildings and Eastbrook Street.

Here's the proposed site plan. The three Northern buildings have been constructed, and the applicant has requested this rezoning to construct Building B to the south with that planned development

overlay to allow an increase in the maximum building height. The existing multifamily buildings are 35 feet tall, and the proposed building would be 42 feet tall. The addition of the proposed building

would require a total of 106 parking spaces, which would be provided between the buildings. As part of the site plan review, the applicant is required to include a landscaping plan. Trees and shrubs,

if the site plan is approved, would be placed according to zoning code standards. So the current zone is RM-12, which has the purpose to provide for the development of high density single family

housing and low density multifamily housing. The proposed zone RM-20 with a planned development overlay, its purpose is to provide for the development of medium density, multifamily housing, and that

planned development overlay is needed due to the request to increase the maximum building height. For rezonings that include an OPD, we use two sets of criteria. The first is specific to plan

development overlays, and the second is our standard rezoning review criteria. The first criterion for plan development overlay is that the density and design must be compatible with adjacent

development. The density allowed in RM-20 with OPD is 24 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed and use is a multifamily residential with 68 dwelling units, which would result in a density that's

below the maximum at 19 dwelling units per net acre. As for the mass and scale, this new 40 unit building will be four stories tall, which would result in four multifamily buildings on the lot.

Parking would be provided in between the proposed building and the existing building with on site private open space provided. There are two access points off Eastbrook Street existing and pedestrian

connections are provided throughout the site. And lastly, the applicant is requesting a height waiver to increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to 42 feet. And staff find that the proposed

developments density and design is compatible with adjacent development. The next criterion is related to existing streets and utilities, noting that the new development will not overburden these

existing features. Stormwater management plan will be reviewed during the site plan review process. And then for sanitary sewer and water, the site has access to city sanitary sewer, and existing

water lines would connect to the proposed building. Criteria number three, that the development will not adversely affect views, property values, and privacy. The neighboring town homes are the

nearest property located to the east. Development to the south is buffered by American Legion Road. There's neighborhood Public to the west, and across Eastbrook Street is owned RM-12. Staff find that

the proposed development is separated from other developments by the town homes to the East, the existing multifamily buildings on the north and American Legion Road to the south. The next criterion,

the combination of land uses and building types, and any variation from the underlying zoning code requirements will be in the public interest. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the maximum

building height from 35 feet to 42 feet, and staff finds that this request is justified as approximately 43% of the property will remain free of buildings, and the proposed building is separated from

the east and west property lines, as well as the existing three multifamily buildings by over 100 feet. That brings us to the rezoning review criteria. The proposed development must be consistent with

the comprehensive plan. The future land use map shows the subject property is appropriate for residential development at two to eight dwelling units per acre. This map is intended to serve as a

general guide and must be viewed in the context of the overall plan. The proposed development has a density of approximately 19 dwelling units per acre, which is above the range shown on the future

land use map. However, the property is already zoned RM-12, which allows 15 dwelling units per acre and has been approved for six multifamily buildings. The building would sit on an arterial, and

development would gradually decrease in height towards the existing single family neighborhood. The proposed development aligns with four elements of the comprehensive plan and the Southeast District

plan. The first section, land use includes the goals to encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods. Also, there's a goal to ensure that infill

development is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood. For the housing section, it includes the goal is to encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and

identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities. The third section, transportation includes the goal that new neighborhoods be designed in a manner that contributes to the

larger interconnected street patterns of the city. And lastly, the Southeast District plan includes the goals to encourage a mix of housing types within new neighborhoods. So there are options for

households of all types and a new subdivisions encourage good neighborhood design. So that single family two family and multifamily dwellings can all be integrated into the same neighborhood. And so I

find that the proposed development aligns with the goals outlined in both of these planning documents. The second criterion for rezoning review is compatibility with the existing neighborhood.

Surrounding zones include low density multifamily residential to the north and east. The land to the south is high density, single family residential, with a planned development overlay, and to the

west is neighborhood public. The proposed building is consistent with the three existing apartment buildings on the site. Directly abutting the proposed development to the east is a set of town homes,

and further east beyond the town homes is a neighborhood zoned, low density, single family residential. The town homes provide a transition zone between the RS-5 neighborhood and the planned

development. And staff find that the proposed building is compatible with the neighborhood. We received two pieces of correspondence that have been shared with the commission. Staff recommends

approval of REZ 26-0008. An application to rezone 3.5 acres of land located on Eastbrook Street from low density multifamily residential zone to medium density multifamily residential zone with a

planned development overlay to allow for the development of multifamily housing. That brings us to our timeline. The Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation tonight. At the next city

council meeting, November 18, the council would set the public hearing. And the following city council meeting, December 8 would be that public hearing in first consideration. And I will turn it over

to the chair. Thank you, [name]. I have a few questions. Starting with the density, it seems like there's two criteria for the density, and one it was below the requirement, and the other one it was

above. Is that right? So, I believe it's above the future land use map density and below the maximum allowed density for the RM-20 zone with the plan development overlay. Okay, so that's so I'm

reading that right? Yes. Okay. Parking, does it meet with these new units? I assume that the lot that's there right now is going to accommodate the new units or is there additional parking? Uh, there

will be, like, a handful of new parking spaces, but it will mostly be that lot. The applicant will know the exact numbers. So- so they're meeting the required parking, I assume. On site, they would,

yes. Right. My other question has to do with affordable housing. So originally, it sounded like there were 17 units for allotted for affordable housing. Does that change with more units being built in

this second phase? Yeah, so those 17 affordable units were a part of the annexation that happened in 2020 as part of our annexation policy. So from that two Lot 2 was supposed to have six units. So

yeah, given that the affordable housing was part of that annexation that happened in 2020, we'll just require that the applicant fulfill the agreement that they made for six on Lot 2. Okay. And is

there somewhere I felt I read that there was trails, bike trails, and things. And I couldn't see it. I didn't to identify that. Could you point that out? Is it along this- is it along American Legion

Road? There were two trail connections that were required with the original rezoning. I don't know if we have a map. I think they connect. There they go. So we can see one here. Can you point that one

out, [name]? Yes. Okay. Alright. Yep. Yeah. Can you see that? Yeah. That's the one trail, and the other trail is actually at the northern end of the single family development, which is not shown on

this, but there's a second trail that was installed that provides another connection into Scott Park. Okay, so that where your red dot is takes you to Regas Ranch, it looks like. Okay, all right.

Anyone else have questions? Can we talk a little bit more about sort of the annexation process and just kind of how that went, just because I think that the late correspondence talks significantly

about that, and I know it kind of came up during discussion of the new comprehensive plan, so I'm just trying to understand the process and kind of how the existing units may have built some

affordable housing already, is that correct? Yeah, so the requirement for the affordable housing units is triggered at annexation, and 17 units are required, and the new owners must fulfill that 17

unit requirement. So far, four have been constructed- four of the 17 have been constructed, and three of those units are actually on this subject property. And three additional affordable housing

units would also be provided on the subject property. Okay. Um, and what are the- do you know the sort of requirements that's based on how many units are being- It's 10% of the anticipated number of

units, which was 171. Okay. Those- those affordable units, that's the 20 year? Yes. So there's no way we can get affordable units for the lifetime of the- The requirement is 20 years based on the

policy. So we're not solving the problem. We're just band aiding. Okay. Questions? Questions. My only question I see one of the things is the height- the roof height and the parapet considering that

to the HVAC equipment and also I think Eastbrook flats, further to the west of it. Do we have any sense of the height difference of this building, compared to those and also, like, is that to the top

of the parapet or what is that 42 foot height total height? What's the measurement on the top? Like does the parapet count against it or is it below that? So you're asking how height is measured on a

building with a flat roof? Correct. Okay. So it's based on average grade. So the average grade would be determined based on various elevation points on the property, and an average is determined based

on the average. And then it's measured from that average grade to the top of the parapet. So when I'm saying average grade, it's going to look- it's going to look like the applicant has explained from

the- because of the topography of the site, the shorter portion of the building is going to be on American Legion Road, and as the building slopes to the north slopes down to the north, it's going to

look taller on that northern side. But it's the average of the- it's the average height. It's not the height at multiple points. Does that make sense? Okay. What about on a pitch roof? Because, like,

Eastbrook Flats is a pitch roof. Is it to the peak of a pitch roof? It's to the midpoint. Midpoint on that. Okay. So am I understanding correctly that the necessity for that increased height is to

combat existing topography problems. Yeah, maybe the applicant can speak more to that, but that is part of the issue. Yeah. Okay. I've got one additional question. Is there any plan for the P1 lot

adjacent to this? That's Park? It's city owned. We had purchased it originally for a fire station. Okay. But I don't know the status of that. Got it. Any further questions before we ask for the

applicant to come up? Is the applicant here? Uh, thank you. I am [name]. I'm with [name], and we're the owner of this property. And, um, thanks, [name], and for your good, um, summary there. So just a

quick history, we purchased this property. There was one building complete and one building that was partially complete. It had already been annexed in and zoned and the site plan had been approved as

discussed. The project had been abandoned for almost two years, I believe, when we bought it. So we cleaned up the finished building. We completed the second building that was partially built. And

then we just this year, earlier this year, finished the third building that they showed you there on site. This is a unique site, as they mentioned, uh, it's got a slope from American Legion Road,

down to the north to the site, most of the building areas down that slope. And so the buildings to the south along American Legion will be built into that slope. Um, so when we bought this, we felt

the existing site plan wasn't very efficient and didn't use the available space very well. The buildings had a large footprint, but didn't utilize the horizontal- excuse me, they had a large

horizontal footprint, but did not use the allowed vertical space. So because of the slope, as originally designed, the buildings along American Legion Road would appear to be long one story buildings.

And we just felt that was not aesthetically compatible with the surrounding development in the area. So we wanted a better design, one that more efficiently used the space and was more visually

attractive. So we started with the allowed three story 28 unit building, which was the number of units that the site had left to build, which, of course, would have a two story then appearance on

American Legion Road. So doing this left a lot of unused horizontal land because of the reduced footprint of that building versus the two story buildings. So in every study or report or analyst done

by the city, there seems to be a clear under-supply of housing in Iowa City. Um, with the problem continuing to get worse every year. This leads to unmet demand and, of course, higher prices. So the

best way to provide additional housing, we feel is infill development. The infrastructure is already in place. There's no additional costs from the city and that are required, and it reduces urban

sprawl. And again, this was all mentioned in the report. So we started discussions with the staff, and we felt that this was an- we felt with them that this was a reasonable location for additional

units, compatible with the existing infrastructure that's there, the services, the open space, and the surrounding development and the fact that it's located on an arterial street. So the rezoning

that we're requesting tonight would allow for a more efficient use of that available land and infrastructure that's already in place and allow 12 additional housing units. And then a four story

building we felt would be the fact that it's built into that slope and would have a three story visual from American Legion Road is compatible and visually scaled with the adjacent building in project

to the west as shown in that picture there. So as also mentioned, as part of the original annexation, 10% of the units in the whole area were required to be affordable units. So this lot is currently

zoned for 56 units, and so the agreement was that this lot would provide six of those affordable units, which we assumed that agreement when we bought the lot. We have provided three of those units in

the existing 28, um, units that we have built there. So there's three affordable units, and people living there, and then we would continue to provide the additional three affordable as we build out

the project. With this request and the additional 12 units going 56-68, we would agree to provide another affordable unit. So we met that 10% criteria. So we would now have seven affordable units on

the site instead of six, which would be percent a little over 10% of the 68 units. So we would agree to do that if this was approved. We also purchased lot four, which is across the street was

mentioned. That lot is also owned or zoned RM 12, and that zoning allows for 48 units in three story buildings. There's no site plan approved for that lot yet, so but I would project that when we get

ready to move over there, that we would build out the 48 units that are allowed in three story buildings. That's what I would project that we would build over there. So there's also an agreement to

provide five affordable units on that lot as well, five, you know, being 10% of the 48 units. And we also assume that agreement and intend to honor that and provide those units as they're built out

over there. So happy to answer any questions, and appreciate your time tonight and listening to our request. And thank you. Appreciate it. Questions? I'd have questions if you can kind of elaborate on

your housing mix and your product, you know, specifically on the affordable if those are subsidized in any way. They are not subsidized. The agreement requires that the rent be affordable to those

earning at or below 60% of the area median income. So there's a maximum rent you can charge. And then the tenant has to meet that income level as well. They have to be at or below 60% of the area

median income. So we screen the tenants, we verify their income, make sure they're under that limit, and then we charge the appropriate rent as required by the city. And there's a requirement for two,

1 bedroom units, two, 2 bedroom units, and tow, 3 bedroom units. So it's a mix of the units without it within the project to be affordable. Okay. So- And all units are rentals, is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. There's a mix of one, two, and three bedrooms. Okay. I think in here, it tells the breakdown of the mix, but do you know that off the top of your head? Um, there's one, two, three,

four, six. There's 10, three bedrooms, and, um let's see, 10, 1 bedrooms and eight, 2 bedrooms currently. And in the new building, it would be a similar mix of, you know, one, twos, and threes pretty

even across the board. Thank you. [name], do you have a question? I do. I just wanted to confirm that I had interpreted correctly with the increased number of units that we'd have, as a result of the

zoning allowance, you'd be offering to add on an additional affordable unit that would be beyond what was required from the original annexation to correspond with those additional units? Yes. You

know, had this had 68 units, originally, when it got annexed in, it would have been required to have seven affordable units. So since it had 56, it was required to have six. So now that if this is

approved and we're allowed to do the 68 units, we would agree to do an additional at, you know, keep that 10% ratio and do an additional affordable unit. So we'd have seven total on this lot instead

of six. Okay. And then, again, there's additional five across the street when that gets built out. Yeah. Thank you. Has there been a traffic study done in that area? I know the streets are awful

narrow, Aden and Eastbrook and then we're adding, what, 68 units here, and then another 35 and 35. So 70 more units. Has there been a traffic study done? I'm not aware of one, and I don't know if one

was done when the original plat was approved, and it was annexed into the city. Is like all that's gonna end up on American Legion Road. Yeah, I guess I would just add that I don't believe that there

was a need for a traffic study with the original annexation and rezoning. This is an arterial street. The capacity Um, probably much way beyond what is currently traveling it. And I know that with

Aden and Eastbrook when this was originally approved, we looked at narrowing those streets for traffic calming purposes. So Aden and Eastbrook are both 26 feet wide. So those types of things were

looked at originally with the original rezoning in the subdivision. You have any questions? Can you- can someone point to lot four really quickly, just so I can understand? Right there. Okay. It's

basically right across the street from Lot two, and it runs from the from the sidewalk or the trail system over to the dog park to kind of where the grass changes color there. And that was part of the

original annexation then. Okay. Yeah, this lot is Lot 2, and that was Lot 4. That was part of the original plot, yeah. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, [name]. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Now it's time for public comment. If you would please come forward and state your name speak into the microphone and sign in, please. We're gonna limit this to 5 minutes.

Limit each person to 5 minutes. [LAUGHTER] My name is [name]. My family and I live at Winnsboro Drive, and we've lived there since February of 2022. We're directly at the intersection of Winnsboro and

Aden. [name], I'm having a hard time hearing you. Is a spare? Yeah. Alright. Thank you. Our side yard is our backyard, and it looks directly at the Provost development under review today. I'm here to

express my strong opposition to the resorting of this parcel. My family and our neighbors each bought into our community after reviewing the original planned urban plan approved by the city in 2020.

The existing plan had distinct separations in building density that stepped down from the high density apartments at the corner of American Legion and Scott Belch single family homes on Winnsboro

Aden. This plan disrupts that natural step down. In addition to the comments made earlier today, the original plan had two story apartments on lot four. So now that we're hearing that that is planned

to be three stories, I think that is an additional concern that we should consider as well. My primary concerns are the height and the density of the proposed development along with the adjacent

property owned by the same developer, Lot 4. The property sits along the top of a hill alongside American Legion Road. The existing apartments, undeveloped parcel, and outlot separating this

development from the single family homes is in a valley. The proposed height of this development would box in our neighborhood and adversely impact our views more than the previously approved

development. It's up on a hill or house down a hill, we're looking to a valley, so it's going to look much greater than that 40 some feet. During the Good Neighbor meeting, I asked the developer

multiple times how much taller this proposed development would be compared to the existing departments. I had asked the question four times before I got an answer. We were not shown renderings of what

this would look like from our home views to help conceal what this height impact would truly be for us. The additional density is unwarranted. Even with the remaining properties undeveloped, we're

already experiencing significant parking and speeding issues within our community, creating an unsafe environment. Aden has become a major thoroughfare and people trying to get from American Legion to

Court to connect to Taft to get to the interstate. The roundabout at Winnsboro Aden along with the valley in the middle of Aden have only further compound this issue. We regularly have people

traversing this road at a high rate of speed and taking the roundabout the wrong direction causing accidents. There's also consistent parking on Aden and Eastbrook. The dedicated lot for the existing

apartment complexes does not appear to support the additional density being requested. This will shift even more people to regularly park along the streets. This will only further compound once the

neighborhood is fully built out with the remaining apartment complexes. There is limited green space for the kids living in the existing apartment complex in the town homes in Aden. They often play in

the street and have to dodge vehicles there speeding through the area. The additional denseness proposal will compound those issues. Reached out to the city and the metropolitan planning organization

Johnson County multiple times regarding my family's concerns about Aden even before this development was proposed. Each time I was told someone get back to me regarding my concerns, and nobody ever

did. The good neighbor meeting was a Mirage. The developer had no intention of seeking community feedback to amend his proposal to better fit within the community. Meting was, this is what we're

doing. Like it or not? How do you utilize our feedback to strengthen the case for the hearing today? There was no it was mentioned at that time, there'd be six units in there that added one as a token

to try to get approval today. [name] is also the registered agent for the parcel directly north of this one. That parcel is bound by Eastbrook to the south and it's directly adjacent to single family

homes in North. The prior developers informed us that there'd be some sort of landscaping between the outlot behind our home and the apartment buildings. So eventually we built that parcel. We've yet

to see a plan, nor have seen any work to complete this. I'm concerned Mr. [name], who owns this property and has yet to share his plans, that this will create a precedence for rezoning or building

additional height beyond the two stories that we were originally shown when we bought our property by the initial developer. These two parcels were originally planned for the same style and height of

apartment complexes. I feel the developer of each- the development of the whole area needs to be reviewed globally to best fit the existing neighborhood. We need to understand what the final buffer

will be between our existing single family homes and additional apartment complexes. Developer already knew what was approved for this parcel prior to purchasing it. If it did not meet the revenue

targets they're hoping to achieve or live within the priorly approved plans, they should not have purchased the lot. Our neighborhood has a lot of concerns with development based on our prior

developer. Any proposed solution would be best to get community input early and often and partner together for a solution that meets the needs of all impacted. This request has failed to do that. Our

community is finally starting to heal and we do not need further changes to the plans. Throughout the last several years, I've contacted the city to express my concerns with the ongoing development.

My voicemails often went unanswered. I was repeatedly told, we feel your pain, but unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. The city now has a golden opportunity to support the existing residents of

the neighborhood. I'm pleaing with you to please deny the rezoning request and hold the developer to the previously approved plans for this parcel. Thank you. Thank you, [name]. Anyone else like to

speak? No, it's fine. Go first. My name is [name], and I live at Eden Street. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. So what I want to talk about is comment Number 3 in a general plan

and development and approval criteria. The statement reads, due to the separation in adjacent properties and street right away, staff finds a proposed development will not adversely affect views,

lights, air, property values or neighboring properties. And this is my reply to that. This statement is just an opinion. It's not fact. And it should be looked at as just an opinion. With that

opinion, my opinion, which I live on higher ground Eden Street, looking down at this development and the planned development. I find that the increased height will adversely impact my views. Over the

new requested height, it will completely impact my view of the tree and skylines toward American Legion. As well, the requested increase will create an issue with parking. I don't believe with the

additional construction that the existing parking will accommodate the residents. I performed a visual count on October 27th, approximately about 6:00 PM at night and found only 47 free parking

spaces. And that was six o'clock at night. That wasn't even further into the evening. And that's just with the existing apartments. So I suspect that with the additional and the growth, that there

will be a challenge with parking, which in turn will spread out on Eastbrook, will spread out on Eden, and it will compound traffic, and it will impact our neighborhood and the residents that live

there. Each of us have bought our homes, because of the existing planning. The change of this changes our view. And I believe it will also impact our property values. I suggest and I hope that this

plan is denied and continue on with the existing plan that we bought our homes for, and because of. I do thank you for your time. And once again, the statement that was made about the staff finding

the development did not adversely affect lights, property values, and neighboring. I believe that statement is very ambiguous. It's not fact. It's an opinion. I hope you make a decision not on

opinion, but fact and try to do a little more research about parking, traffic, and vote accordingly. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, [name]. Hello, commission members. Is this good for. My

name is [name], Winnsboro Drive, Iowa City. I'm speaking to in opposition of the proposal for this Annex. I'm a special education teacher in the Iowa City Community School District. My current and

former students reside in this neighborhood with me. We are new to the neighborhood. We moved last year. In fact, it's just a year. But I'm not new to Iowa City. I've spent my whole life here. A year

ago, my husband and I sold our former forever home that we spent the last 14 and 21 years respectively, renovating for the property that you can't quite see, but it's right up where that Eastbrook

says, over on Winnsboro. We fell in love with the lot and the neighborhood. The view, the quieter traffic, safer for our children to grow and play. This piece of land in the city was like a peaceful

oasis. The goals were simple, as I told you, quieter neighborhood, when we casually looked, where our children could safely play outside, more space for our growing children. We had a wonderful

neighborhood on friendship Street, but people often sped down the street, even after the speed bumps, which caused significant damage to our vehicle on multiple occasions and made us uncomfortable

with our children being out front. We just weren't comfortable with them even practicing riding their bikes given the street. What sold us on this house was the appeal of a cult sac, where they could

bike, play, and be safe with other kids. The houses- our house overlooks the floodplain, which I've now learned is Lot 4. We can hear the dog park. It's beautiful to watch the deer, the seasons change

and see the cornfields, just over those apartment buildings right now. My kids play in that field when there's not too many birds, they fly kites, they play soccer, they play football. It's the dream

we left our former forever home for to make this our forever home. When we moved in, as Mr. [name] said, there were far fewer apartment complexes. We could see the fields on the other side of American

Legion. We were not part of the original homeowners who saw the plans, so we were told that was a floodplain. And when they broke ground on the new apartments, I'll admit we were a little disappointed

to lose part of that view. We've come to understand there would be another complex, but thought it would be the same or comparable size to the current apartments. This substantial height differential

is already available, like they've said, where it sits up. With this extended height and additional units, I have my own personal concerns, like the bright lights shining into my house, the increased

traffic we thought we'd left behind. And I do believe it will adversely impact my property value, the parking and traffic, and ultimately my daily view and experience. It will be far less peaceful. I

am- I wrote this before we got here. So what I said was, I'm very concerned about now knowing Lot 4. That faces opposite of the current complex and backs up to that floodplain closer to my house and

the future implications for that property. I see them plowing that space, but there's been no acknowledgments of any future builds. We are very against increased density to that area, as it would

substantially increase or right now, the traffic and the density. It's disheartening to learn at this meeting right now that what sold us on this neighborhood will be gone and become parking lots or a

three story apartment complex view. Honestly, I don't think we would have left our former home had we known. The current parking lot that exists is typically full. And many folks are parking on the

side street on Eden or Eastbrook already. There simply isn't enough room to accommodate this increased capacity with vehicles. As I mentioned, I'm a parent and a teacher in this community, and so I

see this in another light, which is safety. Some of these students are my neighbors. They play in the street as they don't have a ton of play area. Sometimes, yes, they play over on Lot 4 at the Hill

too. But it's terrifying to watch people speed down Eden with these young children running out to get a ball. With the on street parking, you cannot fit two vehicles through, but it doesn't deter the

speed. Adding this higher density building will not decrease the traffic and safety concerns, but will exacerbate the concerns of increased traffic with less options for safety. We love having the

varied neighborhood with the habitat for humanity homes, the single family homes, the town homes, and the apartments. Our immediate neighbors are first time homeowners from another country, and this

is a substantial upgrade from their prior apartment building. What I find most concerning is the timeline of this information and the scope of community and neighborhood provided with the notice and

the lack of transparency. We received the notice of the good neighbor meeting and this meeting with very minimal time to make arrangements to attend. I've actually been at work since 7:30, and I

haven't been home yet. The neighbors that were able to attend, we are here, but many of us- many of the neighbors I spoke with did not know. They didn't receive the letter as they live one house

beyond. They overlook the same property, and they should have been informed. When I talk to. [name] your time. Sorry. Bring it to an end, please. Yes, sorry, I am on my last sentences. They sent you a

letter, but I know it's after the 4:00 PM deadline. I feel that everyone in this neighborhood should have been informed, and that lack of information really isn't trying to get our neighborhoods input

then. It's just trying to move it through in a quick timeline. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, [name]. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Hello. My name's [name]. Good evening,

Commissioners. I live at Eden, which is right where Eastbrook and Eden Street kind of come together. And you have a lot of email correspondence from me sitting in front of you, but I thought I would

say my bit too, and some of the questions have been answered, but I'm just going to read what I prepared so I don't get too off track. I have four concerns primarily with this proposal, the first

being affordable housing. When Community View was annexed, the city required that 10% of its units be affordable. And that would have been set at 17 units for Part 1, six of them on this lot. And

that's a fixed number. So the approved plan has 56 apartments here. The rezoning would allow 68. So with those 12 extra units, there had been no plan from the developer to do right by that agreement

and increase. I appreciate saying here today that they would add an extra one, but it is still really disheartening that what six years after the annexation, we have four units out of 17, and there's

a lot of severely rent- struggles with rent and affordable housing in this community. And so in the applicant's paperwork saying that increasing density would allow for more affordable units, it

didn't. They didn't offer that initially. And also the third addendum signed in March still describes the six buildings on the lot. And so that paperwork would need to be caught up. I say, go big in

our community with so much difficulty for people making rent, I would like to see all 12 of the additional units be affordable housing, but at least more than one, which would just be the bare

minimum. And we need more of that in Iowa City. The second concern is scale, as you've heard from some of my neighbors. This lot was approved as a six building development with 8-10 units. This would

be 40 units with four stories, and the waiver would raise the height limit by seven feet. But if you look closely at the architects drawings, it shows 44 an 8.5" to the top of the parapet with the air

conditioners put on the top of the roof. So I would really ask for a hard 42 foot cap, which includes the rooftop equipment, just because it is already so much taller than anything else, with the

exception of that development across another field to the west of our development. The third concern is our neighbors. Staff found no added effect on views, light, and air compared with the previously

approved development. But the standard is a conventional development, and the approved plan initially had smaller buildings. And so we didn't see at the Good Neighbor meeting any rendering or

sightline study from the homes on Winnsboro or further down on Eden Street. So I would ask for one before you vote because the taller side of the building will face the neighborhood. And based upon

the architectural design, that is a very long, white wall, with very skinny windows and no balconies, it honestly kind of looks like a prison. And that's what would face the neighbors further up on

Winnsboro. And fourth, as a lot of people have brought up is parking. So the plan provides the minimum amount of spaces required with none to spare. And the streets around us, Eden, Eastbrook, of

course, American Legion, you can't park on already have parking limits. And so without accounting for the extra cars of tenants, any of their guests, any deliveries, I just question where that

spillover is going to go. Um, will they end up parking in the parking lot of the apartment complex further to the west and taking up those spots? Will they eventually park? You can't see it on the

map, but there's a parking lot for the dog park. Are they going to park in that parking lot and walk up to their apartments? And so that's a really big unanswered question because as my neighbors have

said, there's already a lot of traffic and a lot of parking on the streets in the neighborhood. So I would ask to not approve this or defer it until the November 18th meeting, so we can get some of

these questions answered or some of the agreements or some of the conditions in agreement. Thank you. Thank you, [name]. Anyone else like to speak? Good evening, everybody. My name is [name]. Um, so I

came across this, um, this rezoning plan professionally, but I guess I'm coming to you, um, as a resident of Iowa City just as much as I am from somebody who works in nonprofit housing. Um, and the-

I'm going to encourage you to support this, um, rezoning for a few different reasons, um, based on a couple of principles that we really need here in Iowa City. And the first one is we need housing

units. Um, part of the reason that housing is so expensive here is because, um, we just have a shortage of supply of housing, and any plan that will increase the number of units is something that we

should support as a community. Um, so if we can get 12 units out of the same piece of land, we should- we should encourage that and support that. The second thing is that this is a- a really nice and

beautiful neighborhood. And what I really like about this neighborhood is that there's different types of housing at different, um, price points and income levels. Um, there are housing units that

appraised for a little over $300,000, and then a little bit down the road houses, um, that not appraised for, but are assessed at over $1 million. Um, and all of that is within maybe a two or three-

block radius. And so adding, um, more units to this area where there's mixed incomes so that people can live together, play together, go to school together, um, is something that I want to see in Iowa

City, not just on this block. So I think that this is turning into something that, um, is a model that I like to see over and over and over in other areas and other neighborhoods in Iowa City. And

having, um, a more dense building here is an important part of that. So um, I like you guys to consider those points, and thank you for listening to me. Thank you, [name]. Hi, my name is [name], and

my husband and I reside. [name], we can not hear. Sorry. Thank you. My name is [name]. Um, my husband and I reside at Winnsboro Drive, which directly is right across the way from this, and, um, we are

very new to the neighborhood. We just moved there about six months ago. And so this is all very new. I didn't have anything really planned to say because, like I said, we had very little notice, um,

about these plans. But from the- I did go to the Good neighborhood meeting, and just a lot of questions that we had, they weren't really able to clearly answer as to the height that did take a while

to get anything out. But from what they said at the meeting, it was going to be two full stories above what is clearly there right now, which is to me, the only thing I can think of is what these

buildings look like is what Mayflower looks like going down. We're just going to be coming down American Legion Road. There's just going to be a big block right there, just tall. And when you pull

into where we live, you're just going to see nothing but this big giant building. So um, I just think it was not- there's not a clear plan that we were able to get out of them, which is way different

than what was originally planned when we bought the house. So again, like I said, I didn't have much plan to say. I just oppose this just for the fact that information is not forthcoming, and there

seems to be a little bit of level of deceit on what is actually going to be put there as to what was originally planned. So thank you. Thank you, [name]. Anyone else like to speak for the public?

Seeing no one comes back to us, do we have a motion from the commission? I would make a motion to approve. I second. [name] the second. Discussion. [name], I wondered if you could pull up the GIS and

show, Lot 4 and the outlet behind it, just to put some public concern to rest about the development of that floodplain there. I can pull it up if you guys want to start discussing while we pull it up.

I can start. I'm certainly sympathetic, you know, to all neighborhood concerns and really want to make sure that, you know, we're listening to those and taking them into account into our decision

making. I think, you know, the concerns to me about size and kind of buffering, um, and this particular building, I don't have too much concern because really the buffering is going to be on that

north Lot 4, you know, toward the single family, you know, I think this is a really good place to put some of this added density because it is abutting that major arterial street, it seems well

landscaped and buffered toward that street. So it doesn't seem to be abutting any single family directly. So to me, that sort of mitigates some of those height concerns because you'll be looking kind

of over and you know, additional buildings by the time this plan is sort of finished in Lot 4 and then those additional three buildings and then a parking lot, and then this building, you might be

able to see the top of that building, for sure, from some of these neighborhoods. But to me, the buffer concern is minimal. I do kind of foresee, you know, sympathetic to the traffic concerns as well,

but I think thinking logically about where most of the people living in this particular building would be going, I imagine they're going directly to American Legion. Um, so I think that, you know,

some of those concerns about going north on Aden seem minimal in that respect, too. But I know that, you know, people drive strange directions for things all the time. But I think I have kind of few

concerns. I think it is a good place to add density that we desperately need. I think getting housing- affordable housing of any kind is really important right now. So I'm generally supportive of the

rezoning. I think it just makes a good infill opportunity. It seems like there's existing infrastructure there we are on an artery road. There's flexibility in terms of the types of housing that are

there. I really appreciate the thought to, you know, not only increase the variety and diversity of housing in that area as it's still compliant, you know, zone, but also the increase in affordable

housing. I think that's much needed in our community, as well as the increase in the stock. Um, and it just seems like it makes sense to best utilize that land with the higher density to get more

housing units. There you go. Yeah, we just came off another meeting talking about comprehensive plan and the housing deficit we're running into. I understand change or different direction, and our

developments always difficult. But being on a major Ontario street, it does really align with what the city's trying to do to bring more housing and more affordability and availability to Iowa city.

So for that reason, that's why I'd be supportive of it. Again, my concern is the traffic in that area. But also, the affordable housing that's there is going to be rentals. It's not going to be permit

housing. It's not going to be housing that the families will be able to buy. It's for a 20 year period, 20 years goes awful fast. So then we're back to the same place we were before with those units

going back up to fair market price. Correct? Correct. They're required to maintain it for 20 years. Okay. So it's a step in the right direction, but I don't know. Okay. I feel like we need housing

density. It's infill property. I love the fact that it offers a variety of housing types in the community. I look at all that green space, and I'm jealous, when I look at this particular map. So, um

I'm supportive of the property, and I appreciate the addition of- of the more affordable housing unit. I think that's great. Was there something we wanted to see on this map? I think [name] just

wanted to see you to see it was more zoomed out. The Lot 4 doesn't extend. That's Lot 4. It's not the remainder of the property behind the homes, right? So that's an- A lot that would not be

developed. Thank you. So that shown in Turquoise is an outlot right now. Unbuildable. Correct. Got it. Yeah, so that sort of acts as another further buffer between the single family housing and this

particular building, which is pretty far removed from single family. I think if there are traffic concerns, you know, going north on Aden and I encourage the residents to kind of continue reaching out

to sort of city public works and explore whatever can be done kind of on traffic calming. But for me, I just think that it seems logical that most of this particular building traffic would just

proceed south directly onto American Legion from there. Any further comment? For staff. On the approval request, do we need to add the condition for the seventh unit or what's the- Did you hear that,

[name]? Yeah, to add a condition about the additional portable unit? Yeah. I think there's authority for entering into an addendum to the existing agreement without it being a condition of the

rezoning. Um, we can sure if you want to, that's great. I don't think you have to. Okay. Okay. I just want to just further make the point that, you know, we really need housing of all types. I know

people don't really want it in their backyard all the time, and we can't really dictate the terms of, you know, affordable, you know, periods. We just have to follow the letter of the law. And if the

city staff believes they're following the annexation policy, I feel confident that this is a quality project that's going to add much needed housing and affordable units, which I think is great. I

want to thank everybody for coming and speaking. We appreciate your voice. I'm going to call for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Unanimously approved. Thank you. Meeting minutes from September 12.

We've got [name] coming back up. I move to approve them. Second. [name] second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Planning and zoning information. I just wanted to mention one thing. This hadn't

come to your commission, but it did go to city council. I think it was not the last meeting, but the meeting prior. There's a property on East Davenport Street- East Davenport, which has an existing

home. The new owners purchased the property and split it. They approved a re subdivision of the property to get one more lot, and they are going to be building one more, um, single family home and ADU

on that lot. So, East Davenport is going to get an accessory dwelling unit. The new East Davenport lot is going to get a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit. So another example of infill

coming in the city. That's great. I have a few things I wanted to I wanted to take an opportunity to thank [name] and [name] and our past commissioner [name], for serving on the comprehensive plan

after sitting at that meeting just being in awe of how much time and effort went into that and what a great product, that is, just thank you for representing us on that commission or whatever it was

called. Luckily, you're strong staff, 'cause that's a monster document. Yeah, it is a monster document. That's a good way to put it. And then I just wanted to acknowledge, I don't know if people knew

that [name] and [name] were recognized by the African American Museum as being, um, trying to find the term here, [name]. History Makers. History Makers. And recognized for the years of service to the

community public service. And in the press release, it just said, many, many committees and commissions that you've served on. So- Thank you. Congratulations. That's it. And, do we want to adjourn?

Can we just talk the next steps with a comprehensive plan that's coming in December, correct? Before the- Yeah, at your next meeting, we're going to request that you set a public hearing to discuss

the comprehensive plan at the first meeting in December. And in terms of kind of the shape of that meeting, can you talk about what is that just a more presentation material? Anything? Well, I think,

yeah, there will be a presentation, and there will be a staff report. But we have not figured out what the presentation looks like yet, but yeah. Is that meeting to basically approve the draft that

would then be approved by city council or is that- It would be to make a recommendation or if the commission has some questions or concerns, and you need another meeting to discuss it, we can discuss

it at the second meeting in December. We kind of put in that buffer in our timeline in case we need two meetings for it. Okay. Makes sense. Thanks. And you are considering not taking out that

annexation of affordable housing. We'll make the recommendation at the meeting. Yeah. Just want to keep that in. Move to adjourn? Anyone? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.