HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-19 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Z%--_ �=Pa COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
September 19, 2023
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing
supply, and encourage housing affordability (REZ23-0001)
Attachments: REZ23-0001 P&Z Packet 08-02-2023
REZ23-0001 P&Z Final Minutes 08-02-2023
Late P&Z Correspondence
Ordinance
City Council correspondence - Amy Charles.pdf
t
=
MEMORANDUM
�, _4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
t.k
Date: August 2, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and
encourage affordability (REZ23-0001)
Introduction
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. The City has focused on facilitating
the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within
neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households.
The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect
affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing,
staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 (Attachment 2) to continue to enhance housing
choice, increase housing supply, and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include:
1. Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices;
2. Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe,
attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods;
3. Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional
standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments;
4. Creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing (e.g., density bonuses and parking
reductions) that would encourage income -restricted units throughout the community; and
5. Address fair housing concerns to help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can
support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals.
Overall, the proposed zoning code changes are those supported by the City's current
Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, they can be implemented with only modifications to existing
code provisions, with the exception of the regulatory incentives for affordable housing and the
reasonable accommodations process. Other more substantial changes in support of affordable
housing have also been discussed previously, but they would likely require Comprehensive and/or
District Plan amendments along with a robust public engagement process.
The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 1) provides background regarding the proposed
amendments, including the public engagement process and rationale that lead it. In summary,
these amendments are the culmination of a series of efforts which began with the City's 2016
Affordable Housing Action Plan and were reinforced through the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study,
2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan, and most recently, City Council's FY23-FY28 Strategic
Plan. Over the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its
affordable housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps.
The amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can
help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, encourage affordability, and more
generally reduce barriers that prevent the construction of more affordable housing options as part
of the larger effort to facilitate affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become
a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents.
August 2, 2023
Page 2
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments and Analysis
This section discusses current and proposed regulations and analyzes their impacts. It is
organized by into 5 general topic areas with a separate analysis for each proposed amendment.
More detailed background on the rationale of each proposed amendment can be found in
Attachment 1.
Proposed Amendments: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
Iowa City's zoning code has increased in complexity over time. Iowa City's first zoning code in
1925 simply distinguished between residential, business, and industrial uses and zones and made
no distinction between the types of buildings in which people lived. Today, there are 14 residential
zones along with mixed use and commercial zones that regulate a wide variety residential of uses.
While new zones and uses add specificity to development, it often does so in a way that separates
and/or restricts housing types that are typically more affordable to lower income households. This
has typically led to conventional development patterns with segregated land uses and housing
types.
The first set of proposed changes to the code allows a greater variety of housing types throughout
Iowa City. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 1.
7: current &
tions
1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential
zones
Duplexes and attached single-family uses in
RS -5 and RS -8 zones are only allowed on
corner lots. [14 -4B -4A-2 & -5]
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily prov
Up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
on individual lots are allowed in RS -12 zones,
but they are not allowed if they are on a single
lot because it is considered a multi -family use.
[14-2A-2 & -4, 14 -4B -4A]
1c. Allow multi -family uses on the group
exception and provisionally allow multi -fa
Allow duplexes and attached single-family
uses in RS -5 and RS -8 zones to be anywhere
in a block.
ionally in the RS -12 zone
Provisionally allow up to 6 side-by-side,
attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS -
12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily).
df
mi
In most commercial zones, multi -family uses
are only allowed above the ground floor
(except under very specific circumstances in a
few Central Business zones).
Multi -family uses in CC -2 zones must be
located above the ground floor and require a
special exception.
[14-2C-2, 14 -4B -4A-7]
loor in most commercial zones by special
ly uses in the CC -2 zone
Provisionally allow multi -family uses in CC -2
zones and allow multi -family uses on the
ground floor in most commercial zones by
special exception with the following specific
approval criteria:
1. If in an existing building in a Historic
District Overlay (OHD) zone, a
rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission must be
completed prior to occupancy.
2. The units cannot significantly alter the
overall commercial character of the zone.
3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone,
dwellings are prohibited on or below street
level where 3 or more of the following
commercial storefront characteristics are
present:
a.The main entrance is at or near
August 2, 2023
Page 3
Analysis: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
These proposed changes would enhance housing diversity especially for missing middle
housing types like duplexes, attached single-family uses, and townhome-style multi -family uses
They also permit a wider variety of living arrangements and better accommodates residential
uses near commercial areas. These in turn benefit housing affordability and equity by removing
some barriers to housing types that tend to be more affordable, leading to more compact
neighborhoods, and reducing the potential for racial and class segregation caused by
exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning. These are possible with relatively
limited impact to neighborhood character by focusing on uses and building types similar to what
is currently allowed in those zones.
la. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones
Existing Comprehensive and District Plans consider duplex and attached single-family uses to be
compatible with detached single-family homes in most contexts. These uses are typically more
affordable than detached single-family homes. However, the number of these units permitted over
the past 30 years dropped from an annual average of 33 duplex and 13 attached single-family
units from 1992 to 2005 to an annual average of 11 duplex units and 8 attached single-family
units from 2006 to 2022 (Figure 2). This change corresponds to the adoption of a new zoning
code in 2005 which opened these uses to corner lots in RS -5 zones but restricted them from mid -
block locations in RS -8 zones. It also established more stringent design standards.
b.The front facade of the building is within 10'
of the front property line;
c. The front facade contains ground floor
storefront or display windows; and
d.The street level floor of the building was
originally constructed to accommodate sales
oriented and personal service oriented retail
uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses
Assisted group living uses are provisionally
Regulate assisted group living uses more
allowed in RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM, and
consistently with multi -family uses by allowing
CO -1 zones and allowed by special exception
it provisionally in RM -12, CN -1, MU, and CB
in RM -12 and CO -1 zones. Multi -family uses
zones and by not allowing it in CI -1 zones. For
are allowed by right in all multi -family and MU
CC -2 zones, allow it to the same extent as
zones, provisionally in CO -1, CN -1, and most
multi -family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1 c
CB zones and by special exception in CC -2
is approved or by special exception if it is not
and sometimes CB -10 zones.
approved).
X14-28-2, 14-2C-2, 14-48-4A-81
Analysis: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
These proposed changes would enhance housing diversity especially for missing middle
housing types like duplexes, attached single-family uses, and townhome-style multi -family uses
They also permit a wider variety of living arrangements and better accommodates residential
uses near commercial areas. These in turn benefit housing affordability and equity by removing
some barriers to housing types that tend to be more affordable, leading to more compact
neighborhoods, and reducing the potential for racial and class segregation caused by
exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning. These are possible with relatively
limited impact to neighborhood character by focusing on uses and building types similar to what
is currently allowed in those zones.
la. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones
Existing Comprehensive and District Plans consider duplex and attached single-family uses to be
compatible with detached single-family homes in most contexts. These uses are typically more
affordable than detached single-family homes. However, the number of these units permitted over
the past 30 years dropped from an annual average of 33 duplex and 13 attached single-family
units from 1992 to 2005 to an annual average of 11 duplex units and 8 attached single-family
units from 2006 to 2022 (Figure 2). This change corresponds to the adoption of a new zoning
code in 2005 which opened these uses to corner lots in RS -5 zones but restricted them from mid -
block locations in RS -8 zones. It also established more stringent design standards.
August 2, 2023
Page 4
Figure 2: Duplex and Attached Single -Family Units Permitted by Year
70
60
6 10
7
50
40 49 30 7
30 28 4 6 - 60 18 14
20 26 14
3432 12 14122319
10 26 6 1_ 6 2
01 1�■�1MEMO iMjjMW2 62
N co It LO CO Il- c0 O O N co It LO CO 00 O _O �_ N M_ V Cf) O 00 O O N
O 6) 6) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
� 14 � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
■ Duplex Unis Permitted Single -Family Attached Units Permitted
Lower density single-family residential zones (RS -5 and RS -8) constitute much of the City's land
and often act as a default zone for new development. Figure 3 shows where duplexes and
attached single-family uses are currently allowed. Areas that currently allow duplexes or
attached single-family uses provisionally throughout a block are relatively limited (green), while
areas zoned Riverfront Crossings allow these uses if they meet a valid building type (yellow).
On the other hand, most neighborhoods are zoned RS -5 and RS -8 which currently allows these
uses only on corner lots (orange). This limits their production unless a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD) zone is utilized.
Figure 3: Map of Zones that Currently Allow Duplex and/or Attached
Family Uses
August 2, 2023
Page 5
The proposed amendment would expand the potential number of existing lots in RS -5 and RS -8
zones that could contain a duplex use, as shown in Figure 4 (attached single-family uses would
likely require a re -subdivision). Lots that allow duplexes currently (green) are generally scattered
throughout the city. Lots that may contain duplex uses under the proposed amendment (yellow)
are generally located outside of the city's central core. Lots that do not meet the minimum
dimensional standards (e.g. lot size or width) for duplex uses under proposed amendments
(gray) are primarily located in older portions of the City, including the Northside, Morningside,
Twain, and Longfellow neighborhoods. However, some additional lots concentrated in other
areas of the city may also allow these uses if this amendment and the proposed lot dimension
reduction amendment (3a) occur (orange). Areas zoned with an OPD are excluded as they must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if the new use constitutes a significant
change to an approved OPD Plan.
Figure 4: Map of Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
Approximately 12,000 existing parcels may be impacted by the proposed amendment because
they are zoned RS -5 or RS -8 and are outside of an OPD zone (Figure 5). Of these, around
2,900 lots may allow duplex uses with the proposed amendment, while another 2,200 may
accommodate duplexes if minimum lot dimensions are also reduced as proposed in
Amendment 3a. The remainder can either currently contain a duplex use or cannot
accommodate duplexes even with the proposed amendments due to insufficient lot dimensions.
Note that these numbers only indicate lots that could accommodate duplex uses under the
proposed amendments. This analysis does not account for the fact that some lots already
contain such uses, some may be non-residential, or some may retain their current use. Allowing
a use does not mean it will be established, and staff cannot estimate where these uses may be
added. If conversions or redevelopment does occur, it will likely happen gradually which
provides time to adjust standards if needed. This is especially true given current market
conditions where loan rates and construction costs are high which limits incentives to redevelop
lots on which a structure already exists.
August 2, 2023
Page 6
Figure 5: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
Staff also reviewed the potential impact of the proposed amendment on parcels in the University
Impact Area (Figure 6), which includes neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus.
This area is subject to additional zoning standards to help prevent some negative effects
associated with concentrations of dormitory -style apartments. Staff identified 166 parcels zoned
RS -5 and RS -8 in the University Impact Area that would be able to accommodate a duplex use
with the proposed amendment, and an additional 93 parcels may become duplexes if
dimensional standards are reduced as proposed in amendment 3a. Of these 259 parcels, 66
are within an Historic or Conservation Overlay zone, which strictly regulates the demolition of
historic homes and the appearance of any conversions. The remaining lots could either become
a duplex use under current rules (37), were already previously converted into a duplex, multi-
family, group living, or commercial use (67), or would be ineligible for a duplex use due to lot
characteristics, even with other proposed changes (614). Most other zones in the University
Impact Area already allow duplexes throughout a block. As such, impacts to the University
Impact Area should be relatively limited.
Figure 6: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 in the University Impact Area That Allow Duplexes Under
Proposed Amendments
RS -5
RS -8
Total
Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex
4,679
1,490
6,169
does not meet current or proposed standards
48.8%
61.3%
51.3%
Allows Duplex Under Current Standards
632
100
732
on corner, meets current min. lot requirements
6.6%
(4.1%)
6.1
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a
2,375
498
2,873
not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements
24.8%
20.5%
23.9%
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a
1,905
342
2,247
not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements
19.9%
(14.1%)
18.7%
Total RS -5 and RS -8 Parcels w/o an OPD
9,591
2,430
12,021
Staff also reviewed the potential impact of the proposed amendment on parcels in the University
Impact Area (Figure 6), which includes neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus.
This area is subject to additional zoning standards to help prevent some negative effects
associated with concentrations of dormitory -style apartments. Staff identified 166 parcels zoned
RS -5 and RS -8 in the University Impact Area that would be able to accommodate a duplex use
with the proposed amendment, and an additional 93 parcels may become duplexes if
dimensional standards are reduced as proposed in amendment 3a. Of these 259 parcels, 66
are within an Historic or Conservation Overlay zone, which strictly regulates the demolition of
historic homes and the appearance of any conversions. The remaining lots could either become
a duplex use under current rules (37), were already previously converted into a duplex, multi-
family, group living, or commercial use (67), or would be ineligible for a duplex use due to lot
characteristics, even with other proposed changes (614). Most other zones in the University
Impact Area already allow duplexes throughout a block. As such, impacts to the University
Impact Area should be relatively limited.
Figure 6: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 in the University Impact Area That Allow Duplexes Under
Proposed Amendments
In summary, if the proposed amendments are adopted, it may allow an additional 5,120 new
duplex units in the community, of which 259 may be in the University Impact Area. However, the
number of units added would likely be significantly smaller. Staff anticipates that the effects of
the proposed amendment would be more pronounced on the edge of the community where it is
easier to meet the relevant lot standards through the creation of new lots in green field
development. It would also reduce the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or OPD
process for these housing types, which will streamline approvals.
Non -OCD/
OCD/
Total
Non-OHD
OHD
Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex
357
257
614
(does not meet current or proposed standards)
57.3%
72.6%
62.8%
Contains a Legal Non -Conforming Duplex, Multi-
51
16
67
family, Group living, or Commercial use
(8.2%)
4.5%
6.9%
Allows Duplex Under Current Standards
22
15
37
(on corner, meets current min. lot requirements)
(3.5%)
(4.2%)
(3.8%)
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1 a
128
38
166
not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements
20.5%)
(10.7%)
(17.0%
Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a
65
28
93
(not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements)
(10.4%)
7.9%
(9.5%)
Total RS-5/RS-8 Parcels in University Impact Area
623
354
977
In summary, if the proposed amendments are adopted, it may allow an additional 5,120 new
duplex units in the community, of which 259 may be in the University Impact Area. However, the
number of units added would likely be significantly smaller. Staff anticipates that the effects of
the proposed amendment would be more pronounced on the edge of the community where it is
easier to meet the relevant lot standards through the creation of new lots in green field
development. It would also reduce the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or OPD
process for these housing types, which will streamline approvals.
August 2, 2023
Page 7
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS -12 zone
From the exterior, townhome-style multi -family uses are virtually indistinguishable from attached
single-family uses. The primary difference is the lot configuration where attached single-family
uses are located on individual lots and townhome-style multi -family uses are located on one lot
(see Figure 7). While the proposed amendment would likely have limited impact in the number
of new units added, it would increase flexibility in terms of housing types within the RS -12 zone
by allowing limited multi -family uses that look like single-family uses in a single-family zone.
Figure 8 illustrates areas zoned RS -12 that do not currently allow townhome-style multi -family
with up to 6 attached units but would with the proposed amendment (orange).
Figure 7: Street View and Lot View of Attached Single -Family at 1101-1117 Mormon Trek Blvd
(left) and Townhome-Style Multi -Family 4717-4723 Herbert Hoover Highway SE (right)
M
RI W
August 2, 2023
Page 8
1c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special
exception and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC -2 zone
Figure 8 illustrates areas that currently allow multi -family uses, and areas that would allow multi-
family uses under the proposed amendments. Multi -family uses today are allowed by right in the
center of the city and in defined nodes which are zoned multi -family, Riverfront Crossings, and
MU (blue). Commercial zones that currently allow multi -family uses provisionally above the
ground floor (green) include CO -1, CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10. Areas zoned OPD may allow
multi -family uses based on an approved OPD plan.
CC -2 is the only commercial zone that currently requires a special exception for multi -family
uses (yellow), but the proposed amendment would remove this procedural barrier. This code
change would streamline the process for providing mixed use buildings along important
corridors and in other nodes missed by current zoning. This would also help support commercial
activity in those areas by encouraging more people to live in closer proximity to the goods and
services available there.
Additionally, allowing residential uses on the ground floor in commercial zones by special
exception opens the possibility for horizontally mixed-use projects where there are separate
commercial and residential buildings on a single site. Currently, most horizontally mixed-use
projects require an OPD or a subdivision and multiple zones; only vertically mixed-use buildings
are allowed (i.e. ground floor commercial with residential uses above). The proposed
amendment could lead to a greater mix of uses on under-utilized parcels, such as former big
box sites, but Board of Adjustment review will also ensure that existing and historic buildings are
appropriately protected and that the commercial character of these zones is maintained.
Map of Zones That Allow Multi -Family Uses: Current and Proposed
August 2, 2023
Page 9
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses
Assisted group living uses include group care facilities such as nursing and convalescent homes
and assisted living facilities. They are considered a group living use rather than a household living
use, even though they appear similar to other multi -family uses.
Figure 9 illustrates where assisted group living uses are currently allowed and where they would
be allowed under the proposed amendment. Currently, assisted group living uses are allowed
provisionally in higher intensity multi -family residential zones (RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, and CO -
1 shown in green) and allowed by special exception in the RM -12 zone (yellow). They are also
allowed in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zones (red) but not in any commercial zones that allow
multi -family uses (CN -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10, and MU, shown in orange). Areas zoned OPD
may allow assisted group living uses based on an approved OPD plan.
Figure 9: Map of Zones That Allow Assisted Group Living Uses: Current and Proposed
_
t mo
.�.�. ■ az---arfts�� � .. �ysx� ��-- — .. .
L
St
"I
M
Ly
- Currently Allows ProAsionally ° �+~ E
t �
Currently Allows by Spe dal t
Exception; Alows v —.
Provisionally Linder Proposed MroAFafard
Amendmerks r ■ t
Currently Goes Not Allow;o- t
Alows ProAsimallyLinder—
Proposed Amendments - t
Currently Allows bySpedaI j VL
11
-Exception; Does Not Allow __ t
Under Proposed
Amendmerks
The primary impact of the proposed amendment would be to allow assisted group living more
readily in commercial zones that already allow multi -family residential uses and to streamline
approvals for assisted group living in RM -12 zones. However, the amendment would also prohibit
assisted group living in areas zoned CI -1 as residential uses are not generally considered
compatible with these areas. Overall, the proposed amendment would provide for a greater
variety of living arrangements while maintaining a similar character for each zone involved.
August 2, 2023
Page 10
Proposed Amendments: 2. Modify Design Standards
Encouraging an enhanced standard of design helps maintain the high quality of life present in
Iowa City. To that end, the zoning code has a number of regulations regarding the building and
site design based on zone, use, and location to promote safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly
neighborhoods.
The second set of proposed amendments includes several recommendations to help reduce the
cost of compliance and streamline implementation without impacting the purpose of these
standards. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Current & Proposed Regulations
MODIFY2. DA -D
2a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility
Most multi -family and group living uses in
Eliminate those two requirements from the
buildings not built of masonry or stucco must
multi -family site development standards.
have a 2 -foot base of masonry, stucco, or
dressed concrete. Where wall materials
change around the corner of a building, the
material must wrap 3 feet around the corner.
[14-28-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-91-3 & -6]
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block
locations
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-
Modify standards for attached single-family
5 and RS -8 zones must have each unit's main
and duplex uses to allow entrances and
entrance and garage facing a different street.
garages to face one street, but limit garage
[14-48-4A-2, -3, & -5]
frontage to 60% of the building wall and limit
vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20') or 2
singlewide (10') garage doors facing each
street unless they are set back at least 15'
from the building fagade. In addition, require
alley access to be used where present.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family use
Buildings in multi -family zones cannot have
Allow the Building Official to waive this
parking within the first 15 feet of building
requirement for townhome-style multi -family
depth. This may be waived by minor
uses without a minor modification. This would
modification which requires a mailing and
be for streets not faced by main entrances to
administrative hearing.
dwelling units.
[14 -5A -5F -lb]
Analysis: 2. Modify Design Standards
These proposed changes to design standards are intended to reduce the cost and time required
to ensure attractive, visually interesting buildings that remain compatible with surrounding uses.
They will also facilitate mid -block duplexes and attached single-family uses in RS -5 and RS -8
zones in conjunction with proposed amendment 1 a and allow for more flexibility with regards to
building placement and architectural elements. For the most part, new structures are expected to
look similar to those built under current standards.
August 2, 2023
Page 11
2a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility
This proposed amendment would
affect multi -family, group living, and
institutional/civic uses in residential
zones and the Central Planning i4�r
District. However, it is not expected to
substantially impact the quality of fi
design or appearance of buildings 1
because other multi -family site
development standards that more ,
directly affect visual interest will remain .
in effect. These include standards �L
addressing building entrances and
scale, balconies and exterior 1
stairways, building materials,
mechanical equipment, and in the
Central Planning District, architectural
style. The image to the right is an example of a building
because it does not meet the durable base standard.
that would currently not be allowed
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block
locations
The implications of allowing duplexes and attached single-family uses throughout RS -5 and RS -
8 zones is explored in more detail above (proposed amendment 1a). However, this proposed
amendment helps mitigate the impacts of allowing duplex and attached single-family uses in lower
density residential neighborhoods by limiting blank garage walls facing the street. Limiting the
garage wall openings to a maximum of 20 feet facing a street continues to allow units on corner
lots to each have a doublewide (2 -car) garage facing a different street, or if they both face a single
street frontage, they could share one doublewide garage or have two separate single -wide
garages. Where additional parking is desired, garages could face away from a street or be set
back 15 feet from the front fagade.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family uses
The impacts of this proposed
amendment are very limited. The ■
diagram to the right illustrates the 15'
building depth line behind which
parking must be located in the current
code. The intent is that parking be
located behind occupied building
space so that it is not visible from the
front of the building. The proposed
amendment allows an administrative
waiver from this standard for -
townhome-style multi -family uses on a
corner lot. The waiver could only be
applied to the side street, not the front
street. The proposed amendment
maintains the intent of the current
regulation and would no longer require
a minor modification that tri ers
gg
neighbor notification and an administrative hearing, both of which add time to a project.
August 2, 2023
Page 12
Proposed Amendments: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
Another way to enhance the supply of housing and provide flexibility in the design of new
subdivisions is through modifying dimensional standards (e.g. minimum lot size) and allowing
different types of housing that can provide additional housing choices for a variety of households.
This includes removing barriers to the construction of accessory apartments, also called
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), granny flats, or mother-in-law suites. Proposed changes to ADU
standards are based on recommendations made by the Johnson County's Housing Action Team
of the Livable Community for Successful Aging and align with those from the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
This third set of proposed amendments is intended to reduce the cost of land as a portion of the
total housing cost on a per unit and per person basis. A more specific description of each
amendment is provided in Figure 11.
7 7: current & Proposed
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
Min. detached single-family lot standards: I Min. detached single-family lot standards:
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS -8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size
Size
Area/
Unit
Width
Front.
RS -5
8,000
8,000
60
45
RS -5*
6,000
6,000
50
30
RNS-12*
5,000
5,000
45
25
RM -12
55
RM -20
55
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS -8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size
Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 6,000
6,000 40 40
RS -8 4,350
4,350 35 35
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size
Area/
Unit
Width
Front.
RS -5
6,000
6,000
50
40
RS -5*
5,000
5,000
45
30
RNS-12*
3,000
3,000
30
20
RM -12
45
RM -20
45
* Only where rear access is provided
Min. duplex lot standards:
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
Size
Area/ Width
Unit
Front.
RS -5
10,000
5,000 70
70
RS -8
8,000
4,000 60
60
Min. attached single-family lot standards:
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
Multi -family dwelling units are limited to 3 Increase the number of bedrooms allowed
bedrooms and duplex and attached single- outside of the University Impact Area to 4
family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for
[14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4] duplex and single-family attached units.
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce
barriers to construction
Accessory apartments are only allowed in the Modify the standards to reduce barriers,
RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, RM -20, and RNS- including the following changes:
12 zones and must: 1. Allow accessory apartments in any zone that
1. Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a allows household living uses (including
detached single-family use; one per lot. RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow on any lot
that contains up to 2 dwelling units.
Size
Area/
Unit
Width Front.
RS -5
5,000
5,000
35 35
RS -8
4,000
4,000
30 30
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
Multi -family dwelling units are limited to 3 Increase the number of bedrooms allowed
bedrooms and duplex and attached single- outside of the University Impact Area to 4
family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for
[14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4] duplex and single-family attached units.
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce
barriers to construction
Accessory apartments are only allowed in the Modify the standards to reduce barriers,
RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, RM -20, and RNS- including the following changes:
12 zones and must: 1. Allow accessory apartments in any zone that
1. Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a allows household living uses (including
detached single-family use; one per lot. RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow on any lot
that contains up to 2 dwelling units.
August 2, 2023
Page 13
2. Be under the same ownership as the single-
family use; one unit must be owner -
occupied.
3. Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom.
4. Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30% of
the floor area of the principal dwelling if in a
principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area of
an accessory building if in an accessory
building, whichever is less.
5. Provide one extra off-street parking space.
6. When located within the principal dwelling,
must be designed so that the appearance of
the building remains that of a single-family
residence. Any new entrances should face
the side or rear yard, and any addition may
not increase the floor area of the original
dwelling by more than 10%. Exterior finish
materials, trim, windows, and eaves must
visually match the principal dwelling unit.
[14 -4C -2A]
2. Remove the requirement that one unit be
owner -occupied.
3. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms
and residents.
4. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or
50% of the floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Also, allow stand-alone
accessory apartments.
5. Remove the requirement for an additional
parking space.
6. Remove requirements limiting additions to
10% of a building and limiting entrances to
side or rear yards so long as it appears to be
a use allowed in the zone.
Analysis: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
These proposed changes share the goal of reducing the costs associated with housing and
allowing flexibility for a variety of living arrangements. Reducing minimum lot sizes and lot widths
can help lower the land costs associated with each dwelling unit, especially in lower density zones
such as RS -5. It would also bring the lot sizes of many areas developed before 1962 into
conformance with the zoning code. Increasing the bedroom cap would allow the City to
accommodate larger households in a wider variety of housing types outside of the University
Impact Area while retaining a lower bedroom cap where the demand for student rentals is highest.
Removing barriers to the development of ADUs allows an incremental increase in housing supply
in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of a neighborhood.
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
By reducing lot standards for single-family and duplex uses and allowing detached single-family
homes in RNS-12 zones with rear alley access to have reduced minimum lot sizes and widths,
the proposed amendment brings a number of detached single-family lots zoned RS -5 and RNS-
12 into conformance with the zoning code. Figure 12 illustrates the conformance or non-
conformance of detached single-family lots zoned RS -5 and RNS-12 under the proposed
amendment, excluding areas with Planned Development Overlays that can receive waivers from
lot requirements. As expected, most lots currently conform to the zoning code (green), but a
number of non -conforming lots would become conforming due to the proposed reduction in lot
size and lot width (yellow). These areas are primarily located in older areas of the City, including
the Morningside, Twain, Plum Grove, and Manville Heights neighborhood, among others.
However, a number of lots would remain non -conforming even with the proposed amendment
(red), especially near Towncrest and the Northside. Bringing lots into conformance with the
zoning code simplifies occupancy on the lot. Minimizing non -conformities is also considered
best practice.
Figure 13 provides the number of lots affected by the proposed amendment. There are
approximately 9,500 single-family detached lots zoned RS -5 outside of areas with an OPD, of
which nearly 1,750 or 18% are currently non -conforming. Another 278 single-family detached
lots are zoned RNS-12, of which 184 or 66% are non -conforming. The proposed amendments
August 2, 2023
Page 14
would bring nearly 1,550 lots zoned RS -5 and 91 lots zoned RNS-12 into compliance with the
zoning code, which reduces the total number of remaining non -conforming lots in these zones to
296. Many remaining lots are 50 -foot by 80 -foot reversed corner lots which have trouble
meeting parking and other dimensional and site requirements.
Figure 12: Map of Detached Single -Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status:
Figure 13: Detached Single -Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Current
and Proposed
The impact of the proposed amendment would be larger for new subdivisions containing single-
family and duplex uses because it allows a more flexible arrange of lots with reduced lot widths
and frontages. However, many lots in new subdivisions are larger than the minimum lot size
required. As such, the proposed change enables the creation of smaller lots but does not
mandate it as developers choose lot sizes based on the target market and subdivision. Another
impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. The
implications are discussed under the analysis for proposed amendment 1 a.
RS -5
RNS-12
Total
Currently Conforming Lots; Remain Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
7,756
81.6%
94
33.8%
7,850
80.2%
Currently Non -Conforming Lots; Made Conforming
Under Proposed Amendments
1,545
16.3%)
91
(32.7%
1,636
16.7%
Currently Non -Conforming Lots; Remain Non-
Conforming Under Proposed Amendments
203
(2.1%)
93
(33.5%)
296
Total SFD Parcels zoned RS-5/RNS-12 w/o an OPD
9,504
278
9,782
The impact of the proposed amendment would be larger for new subdivisions containing single-
family and duplex uses because it allows a more flexible arrange of lots with reduced lot widths
and frontages. However, many lots in new subdivisions are larger than the minimum lot size
required. As such, the proposed change enables the creation of smaller lots but does not
mandate it as developers choose lot sizes based on the target market and subdivision. Another
impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. The
implications are discussed under the analysis for proposed amendment 1 a.
August 2, 2023
Page 15
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
This proposed amendment accommodates a wider range of household types outside of the
University Impact Area. Current standards make it difficult to accommodate larger families in any
dwelling units that are not detached single-family. This creates higher housings costs for larger
families, especially those that are lower income. For example, Habitat for Humanity has built 5 -
bedroom attached single-family units for families in the past, but that is no longer possible. The
proposed amendment will positively impact the ability of those household types, including
intergenerational households, to find dwellings that meet their housing needs.
The proposed amendment will not apply to the University Impact Area (Figure 14). Bedroom caps
for multi -family units were implemented due to a proliferation of large dwellings near downtown
that effectively functioned as rooming units. Bedrooms for duplex and attached single-family units
were capped after the City lost the ability to limit the number of unrelated individuals living in a
household to 3. Maintaining a lower bedroom cap in the University Impact Area helps maintain a
balance of owner- renter -occupied units in neighborhoods in and around the University.
Numerous other rental permit standards will also remain in effect, such as minimum open space
standards, restrictions on the percentage of dwelling units that can be bedrooms, and paving
restrictions for rear yards.
Figure 14: Map of University Impact Area
August 2, 2023
Page 16
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers
to construction
Removing barriers to the construction of ADUs can increase the supply of housing and help older
homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters in seeking a wider range of homes,
prices, rents and locations. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for elderly or persons with disabilities in
1987, and widened it to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that
change, development has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at
an average rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 15). Of these, 16 (31 %) were constructed as part
of the Peninsula development. Current standards constitute a significant barrier to new ADUs in
most areas of the city.
Figure 15: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023
5
5
^L`
^W
LL
4
3
0
U)
2
m
U
Q 1
I AO 0 0 0
3 3
2
0
OhO�°O'1 O'b0°'000�00 030D 0�0�°O'1 OHO°�0�0'3Rh�°'� 'b000�1'�0`l'03
�O �O �O
Comparing the properties that could currently have an ADU to the number that do further
highlights the issue. Based on building characteristics alone, there are approximately 13,020
single-family detached dwelling units in zones that currently allow an accessory apartment.
However, renter -occupied properties are currently not allowed to have an ADU. The 2021 5 -year
American Community Survey estimates that approximately 76.4% of single-family detached units
are owner -occupied. This suggests that 9,947 single-family dwellings may have an ADU, of which
only 52 (0.5%) actually have a permitted ADU.
The proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by expanding the zones in
which ADUs are allowed to any zone that allows household living uses and by expanding the
building types to which ADUs can be accessory to any lot with 2 or less dwelling units. Figure 16
shows parcels that currently allow ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs
under the proposed amendments (yellow). The most notable areas ADUs would be allowed are
the RNS-12 zone, the lower density multi -family zones, and areas that contain a concentration of
duplexes. Note that the map does not account for properties with a current rental permit as
properties can switch between owner- or renter -occupied at any time. In total, staff anticipates
that this could allow for an additional 1,403 ADUs.
In addition, this proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the owner of the
property must live either in the primary home or ADU, i.e. ADUs could be accessory to properties
with a rental permit under the proposed amendment. This could potentially add 3,073 new ADUs
for single-family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental
permit. However, removing the owner -occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the
University due to a higher number of rental permits in that area. In a recent analysis from June
August 2, 2023
Page 17
30, 2022, the City estimated that approximately 32.5% of single-family and duplex units in select
neighborhoods near downtown have a rental permit. This would mean removing the owner -
occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those gained
from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. This generally supports the City's
sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, but there are also
additional constraints in this area that make it challenging to add ADUs including smaller lot sizes
and additional design considerations from Historic and Conservation District zones. As such, it is
difficult to fully anticipate the number of new units that may be added.
Figure 16: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Proposed
Proposed Amendments: 4. Create Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing
Staff also recommends new regulatory incentives including density bonuses, flexibility from
dimensional standards, and parking reductions that are tied directly to producing income -
restricted, affordable housing. The proposed amendments are similar to recently adopted
regulatory incentives for income -restricted affordable housing in Form -Based Zones. A more
specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Current & Proposed Regulations
4a. Create a densitybonus for affordable housin units in conventional zoningdistricts
Affordable housing projects can receive height
For conventional zones, create a 20% density
bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones
bonus where 20% of units in a development
and density bonuses in Form -Based zones,
are income -restricted affordable housing for
but conventional zoning districts only provide
20 years, to be administered through existing
density bonuses for alleys serving single-
processes. In addition, provide additional
family detached housing, for multi -family elder
flexibility from dimensional standards
August 2, 2023
Page 18
housing, for quality design elements in certain
zones, and for features promoting
sustainability. [14-2A-7, 14-2B-7, 14-2C-11,
14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F]
including allowing an increase in the maximum
height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction.
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
There is no minimum parking requirement for
Income -restricted affordable housing units in
affordable housing units in the Riverfront
all zones would not be required to have on-site
Crossings District or Form -Based Zones, and
parking if they provide affordable housing for
a minor modification is available in CB -5 and
at least 20 years in compliance with the City's
CB -10 zones which allows up to 30% of units
new affordable housing requirements.
in an affordable housing project to be
exempted from minimum parking
requirements. (14 -5A -4F-4]
Analysis: 4. Create Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing
The goal of these proposed amendments is to encourage developers to voluntarily provide
income -restricted affordable housing units. They do so by helping off -set the financial costs of
affordable housing through an increased number of units which improves revenues and reduced
parking space requirements which decreases the cost of construction. In addition, flexibility from
other standards can be provided where it is needed to make an affordable housing project work.
Both regulatory incentives would be administered by staff through the site plan or building permit
process, although the density bonus may also be reviewed by City Council during approval of a
subdivision or Planned Overlay Development (OPD) Plan.
4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts
In a 2020 study, Fannie Mae identified just over 1,000 inclusionary housing programs throughout
the United States.' The most common incentive to provide is a density bonuses (57%), and the
most common program requirements are that 10 to 19% of units are affordable, units are
available to households making 51 to 80% of the area median income, and that units are
affordable for a period of 30 to 39 years. Finding a balance between the incentive and the
requirements to be eligible for the incentive is an important factor in whether developers utilize
voluntary bonuses. Overall, the proposed amendment will help encourage new affordable housing
units throughout Iowa City by increasing the density of development that includes income -
restricted affordable units.
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
Fannie Mae's 2020 study also found that other zoning variances such as parking reductions and
design flexibility was the next most common incentive, active in 24% of jurisdictions with
inclusionary housing policies. The City's affordable housing requirement in the Riverfront
Crossings District is one such example, as are the parking reductions available to voluntary
affordable housing projects in the form -based, CB -5, and CB -10 zones. The impact of this
proposed amendment will be to reduce the minimum number of required on-site parking to zero
(0) spaces for income -restricted, affordable units. This also provides more flexibility in site design
and allows the affordable housing development to determine the appropriate number of parking
spaces for their future residents.
Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Prevalence, Practices, and Production in Local Jurisdictions
as of 2019, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), December 2020.
August 2, 2023
Page 19
Proposed Amendments: 5. Address Fair Housing
In addition to focusing on housing affordability, the City also works to make Iowa City a more
equitable place to live. Consequently, staff proposes two amendments to help enhance fair
housing as recommended by the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study. A more specific description of
each amendment is provided in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Current & Proposed Regulations
5. ADDRESS FAIR HOUSING
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
Per Federal Fair Housing law, the City must
Create an administrative "Reasonable
provide reasonable accommodations from
Accommodations Request" process with a
land use or zoning policies where they may be
defined approval procedure. Applications
necessary to allow persons with disabilities to
must be reviewed within 30 working days.
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
Proposed approval criteria include:
dwelling. The code has a few specific waivers,
1.The housing will be used by an individual
but they do not cover every accommodation
with disabilities;
and are not easily identified.
2.The accommodation is necessary to make
[14-8B]
housing available for the use and enjoyment
of an individual with disabilities;
3.The accommodation would not impose an
undue financial or administrative burden on
the jurisdiction; and
4.The accommodation would not require a
fundamental alteration in the nature of the
City's zoning program.
5b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use
Long-term housing operated by a public or
Eliminate the Community Service — Long Term
nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is
Housing use as a distinct use category and
classified as a Community Service — Long
instead regulate it as a residential use.
Term Housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently
Create a definition for permanent supportive
from residential uses. As a result, this use is
housing and specify that it is considered to be
only allowed in a few commercial zones
a residential use.
(including the CI -1 zone which does not allow
household living uses), but it is not allowed in
Specify that supportive services for residents
residential, CN -1, CB -10 or MU zones. Long
of a development may be considered
Term Housing uses allow higher densities and
accessory to a residential use.
less parking than residential uses and typically
have on-site supportive services, but they also
trigger additional process where it is near
single-family residential zones. They also
require a neighborhood meeting and
management plan which are not required for
other residential uses that house persons with
disabilities.
[14-2C-2, 14 -4A -3A, 14 -4A -6C, 14 -4B -4D-6,
14-5A-4, 14-9A]
August 2, 2023
Page 20
Analysis: 5. Address Fair Housing
The goal of these proposed amendments is to enhance equity by clarifying the process to request
reasonable accommodations and to treat housing for persons with disabilities as a residential use
rather than an institutional use. They are designed to be consistent with best practices.
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
The new process would ensure a systemic way to provide reasonable accommodations from
zoning regulations and processes consistent with best practices and federal law. The primary
impacts would be streamlining how grant reasonable accommodations requests are granted and
providing a clear set of criteria to evaluate such requests. While the City currently has a number
of provisions that allow persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,
these provisions can require administrative hearings (as a Minor Modification), and there is no
systemic way to address all requests. Finally, this proposed amendment provides clarity for those
who wish to utilize such requests. In total, it will help avoid calling attention to the disability of the
applicant and placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability.
5b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use
This proposed amendment would have a number of impacts by ensuring housing with supportive
services for people with disabilities is treated like any other similarly sized residential use,
specifically household living use. Generally, reclassifying the use would reduce the density
allowed and increase the minimum parking requirement, but it would also eliminate additional
required processes such as a neighborhood meeting, a management plan, and a special
exception when located near single-family residential zones. The proposed amendment also
would allow housing with supportive services for persons experiencing disabilities into any zone
that allows household living uses in single-family, duplex, or multi -family contexts, though it would
also no longer allow such uses in the CI -1 zone. Finally, it would allow supportive services to be
accessory to household living uses like any other amenities provided to residents of a housing
complex. This also applies to other assistance for a residents of a property, such as a live-in aid.
Overall, the proposed amendment will expand where and how these uses are allowed, but its
intensity would be regulated by residential use standards.
To date, 2 properties are classified as Community Service — Long Term Housing under the
zoning code. They are 820 Cross Park Place and 501 Southgate Avenue. Both are operated by
Shelter House, a non-profit agency, as permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing
disabilities who previously experienced homelessness. The proposed amendment would make
both uses non -conforming. The first would become non -conforming because the density of
dwelling units is higher than what is allowed for multi -family uses. The second would become
non -conforming because it is zoned CI -1 which does not allow household living uses. Staff
discussed the proposed amendment with Shelter House leadership, and generally there was
little concern so long as the current uses would be able to continue operating. As a non-
conforming use, both facilities could continue as they are, but they would not be allowed to
expand.
Zoninq Code Best Practices Related to Housing
All of the proposed amendments discussed above were developed by staff to reflect best
practice supported by a variety of organizations. The American Planning Association's (APA)
Equity in Zoning Policy Guide provides valuable insight into how to amend zoning codes to
improve equity, which in turn assists with affordability. Recommendations include:
• Allow a broader range of building forms, lot sizes, lot widths, and residential types in
low-density residential neighborhoods and avoid zones limited to only single -
household detached dwellings. Evidence shows that single -household only residential
August 2, 2023
Page 21
zoning has a disproportionate impact on the ability of historically disadvantaged and
vulnerable groups to access attainable housing and quality schools and services. In
addition, allowing a wider mix of residential and non-residential uses in existing zoning
districts can increase opportunities for historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations
to live closer to sources of quality employment, goods, and services.
• Reduce single -household minimum lot size requirements for different types of
housing and standards that effectively require construction of more expensive homes
that are less affordable to historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. While
large minimum lot sizes are often defended on the basis of preserving neighborhood
character or property values, their impact has been to perpetuate patterns of economic and
demographic segregation of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Many
neighborhoods with broad mixes of lot sizes and housing maintain high qualities of life
without perpetuating exclusionary impacts.
• Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the need for a public hearing, subject
to only those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring
properties. ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating
extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from tenants, but it may be
necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owner's primary
residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals.
• Treat assisted living facilities, retirement villages, and supportive housing types as
residential (not commercial) uses and allow them in a wide variety of residential zoning
districts where the scale of the facility is similar to other permitted uses in the district.
Classifying supportive housing types as residential uses and reducing the need for conditional
approvals expands opportunities for older adults to "age in place."
• Allow administrative approval of "Reasonable Accommodations" for persons
experiencing disabilities. This avoids a public hearing that will call attention to the disability
of the applicant and avoids placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability.
• Treat housing with supportive services for people with disabilities the same as similarly
sized residential uses. Ensure that the zoning regulations allow small group homes
wherever single -household homes are permitted and allow large group homes wherever multi -
household buildings of the same size are permitted.
In addition, the National Association of Counties' Matchmaker Tool provides customized
housing policy recommendations based on the trends in each county. Recommended policy
solutions for Johnson County, a "high-cost county with a rapidly growing population" include:
Make it easier to build small, moderately priced homes. In expensive metro areas, the
size of homes and the amount of land used per home are major factors in the price of
individual homes. Single-family detached homes on large lots are the most expensive
structure type. Rowhouses, townhomes, two -to -four family homes, and low-rise apartment
buildings have lower per-unit development costs than detached homes. Relaxing
dimensional requirements and allowing flexibility in housing design can help reach this goal.
Make the development process simpler and shorter. The length of time required to
complete development projects, combined with the complexity of the process, are significant
factors in the price of newly built housing. Development processes that make decisions on a
case-by-case basis, rather than following consistent, transparent rules, increase the
uncertainty and risk of development, which translates into higher costs. Allowing more
development by right can help with this issue.
Expand vouchers or income supports for low-income renters. Even in communities
where enough housing is built to accommodate increased demand, market -rate housing
remains unaffordable to many low-income households. Jurisdictions should support the
construction of affordable housing.
Additionally, groups such as the AARP have begun strongly supporting ADUs because they can
assist older homeowners maintain their independence by providing additional income to offset
August 2, 2023
Page 22
taxes and maintenance costs or by providing housing for a caregiver. ADUs can also become the
residents' home if they wish to downsize, allowing them to rent out the main house or to have
family move into it. As part of this effort, they drafted an optimal Model Local ADU Ordinance,
which identifies "poison pills" that substantially restrict construction including:
• Owner -occupancy requirements (because they give pause to homeowners and financial
institutions due to the limits they place on successive owners); and
• Parking requirements (because of the cost of building parking spaces and lot size, location
of the primary residence, and topography may make the construction impossible).
As noted, the proposed amendments were designed with these best practices in mind.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports creating "attractive and affordable housing for all
people — housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout
our city" (IC2030 p.7). To that end, the plan discusses the need for a mix of housing types within
neighborhoods to provide residential opportunities for a variety of households along with
integrated affordable housing options (IC2030 p. 21), that infill development should add to the
diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening
infrastructure (IC2030 p.21), and that narrower lot frontages and smaller lots sizes are important
to create opportunities for more moderately priced housing (IC2030 p. 23). The plan also
discusses strategies that support goals related to affordable housing including the following:
• Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households
of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. (IC2030 p. 28)
• Encourage development on smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable
single-family housing options. (IC2030 p. 28)
• Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older
parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29).
• Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development. (IC2030 p. 42)
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place. (IC2030 p. 28)
Reinforcing these policies, the Comprehensive Plan's future land use category with the lowest
density (aside from rural residential) allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Proposed changes to
allowable uses and minimum lot requirements support that vision. The plan also mentions that
when interpreting the future land use map, a diversity of housing types should be considered as
one of the neighborhood design principles that applies to all developments.
In addition, many of the proposed amendments have been identified in recent planning efforts to
help further affordable housing, including the 2016 and 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plans,
the 2019 Fair Housing study, and the City Council's most recent Strategic Plan. Specific
recommendations from these plans incorporated in the proposed amendments include:
Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including:
■ Waive parking requirements for affordable housing units.
■ Review possible changes to the multi -family design standards for all units in an effort to
reduce cost and expedite approvals.
■ Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area
■ Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density,
multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.)
(2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, Step 9)
...allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since
most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to
increase the density and types of housing allow[ed]... which also facilitates the creation of
August 2, 2023
Page 23
housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice
Study, Strategy 1.1)
• ...remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e.
attached single family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings). Specifically... explore expanding
the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi -family units and consider when this
would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. (2019 Fair
Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1)
• In some cases, appropriate units are not... available, especially for those with disabilities. In
such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units
accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ... To facilitate
this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to
their zoning ordinances and other policies. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.4)
• ...One simple change is to reclassify community service — long term shelter as a multi-
family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use.
(2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 4.2)
• Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit in single-family zoning districts
by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero -lot line structures.
(2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 1)
• Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures in single
family zoning districts (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 2)
• Allow multi -family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state or
federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program (2022 Affordable
Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 5)
• Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. (FY23-
FY28 Strategic Plan, Neighborhoods & Housing Action 4)
Overall, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City's current policy direction,
including the Comprehensive Plan.
Correspondence
Staff has received 3 pieces of correspondence related to these amendments at the time of the
publishing of this packet. They are available in Attachment 3.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance
land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage
affordability.
Attachments
1. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice,
increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability
2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including Summary Table
3. Correspondence
4. Enlarged Maps
Approved by: • Sl
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code
Amendments
t
=
MEMORANDUM
�, _4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
t.k
Date: July 5, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and
encourage affordability (REZ23-0001)
Introduction
Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. As a result, the City has increasingly
focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing
choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households.
The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect
affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing,
staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 to enhance housing choice and support a more
inclusive, equitable city. These include:
• Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices;
• Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe,
attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods;
• Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional
standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; and
• Creating incentives (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) to encourage income -
restricted affordable housing throughout the community.
The proposed amendments also include provisions to improve fair housing. This will help ensure
that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City's
equity and inclusion goals.
At your meeting on July 5, staff will provide an overview of the proposed amendments, answer
questions, and request feedback from the Commission. These amendments will not solve all
issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice,
increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Consequently, they are just one part of the
larger effort to encourage affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a
more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents.
Background
Affordable housing is complicated because it depends on a variety of factors including income,
household characteristics, education, the cost of necessities such as child and health care, and
the cost of housing itself. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
considers housing to be affordable if a household pays no more than 30% of its gross income on
housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments, other fees, and utilities. Most publicly
subsidized housing is targeted to households that make less than a certain percentage of the
area median income (AMI) based on household size and housing tenure, as noted in Table 1.
HUD defines households making less than 80% AMI as low income. For households with lower
incomes, it is often the case that the housing families can afford may not meet their needs, such
as a large family in a one -bedroom apartment, or they simply can't find housing that is affordable.
July 5, 2023
Page 2
Table 1: Household Income Limits Based on Household Size and Area Median Income (AMI)
Household Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
Owner Households
$64,650
$73,850
$83,100
$92,300
$99,700
$107,100
80% AM I
Renter Households
$48,480
$55,440
$62,340
$69,240
$74,820
$80,340
60% AMI
Effective June 15, 2023, and updated annually
One of the primary factors affecting housing affordability in Iowa City is continued growth. The
metro provides a great quality of life and the University of Iowa and University of Iowa Hospitals
and Clinics helps provide a strong economic base. These in turn draw new residents. However,
continued growth has also strained housing affordability, especially for lower income households,
because the demand for housing is not being met by an adequate housing supply of new
construction as noted in the City's recent residential development analysis (Attachment 1). This
leads to increased competition, rising rental prices (especially in neighborhoods near the
university), and higher sales prices. As a result, certain households can be priced out of the city.
Another factor that influences housing choice and supply, and therefore the cost of housing, is
the Zoning Code. Zoning is a tool used by the City to implement its Comprehensive and District
Plans by providing rules for how land can be developed and used, including what structures can
be built where and how they may be designed. The code must balance multiple goals, including
protecting property values, encouraging appropriate uses of land, providing for a variety of
housing types, promoting economic stability of existing and future land uses, lessening congestion
and promoting access, preventing overcrowding of land, avoiding undue concentration of
population, and conserving open space and natural, scenic, and historic resources. Given this
context, it is crucial to continually assess whether the code is addressing the policy goals of the
City as identified through public input processes and adopted plans.
Public Engagement
City Council adopted its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action
steps based on goals in long-term planning documents and on previous public input about how
the City could help address housing affordability. Since then, the City completed 14 of the action
steps in the plan with the exception of regulatory changes to the code in support of affordable
housing. In addition, the City continued engaging stakeholders during and after this process to
identify additional solutions and barriers preventing the construction of affordable housing.
In 2019, the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which comprehensively reviewed
impediments to accessing housing because of protected class such as race, gender, or disability
as codified in the federal Fair Housing Act. This Study included recommended actions to
affirmatively further fair housing based on extensive public input such as targeted feedback from
stakeholder interviews and focus groups, a fair housing survey, public events, and a public
adoption process. One of the most significant fair housing issues identified was lack of affordable
rental housing, and improving housing choice was one of many strategies recommended to help
address this issue. The full list of recommendations is included in Attachment 2.
The City updated its Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 to build off previous efforts in support
of affordable housing. Its recommendations, included in Attachment 3, were developed following
nearly a year of data review and community engagement. Public input included the following:
• American Rescue Plan Act citywide survey with over 1,800 responses and listening posts;
• General outreach activities at Wetherby National Night Out, Fairmeadows Party in the
Park, and CommUnity Crisis Services and Iowa City Compassion Food Bank distributions;
• Meetings with targeted stakeholders such as the Disability Services Coordinating
Committee, University of Iowa Student Government leadership, Catholic Worker House,
July 5, 2023
Page 3
Agency Impact Coalition, Open Heartland, and community and economic development
organizations; and
Comments from the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association and Iowa City
Area Association of Realtors regarding development regulations and from the Housing
Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.
City Council drew upon previous planning work, studies, and community conversations to refine
strategies, determine action steps, and establish priorities for their FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. A
summary of the action steps, which includes advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022
Affordable Housing Action Plan, is included in Attachment 4. While the City has made significant
progress since 2016, the proposed amendments are another step towards achieving the City's
goals as the culmination of these extended efforts.
Zoning Code Amendment Summary & Justification
The proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning are intended to improve housing choice, increase
housing supply, and encourage affordability while also enhancing equity in Iowa City. The
following list describes current and proposed regulations, organized by topic. A future memo will
include specific language and more detailed analysis.
1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types
The City of Iowa City has regulated uses since the adoption of its first zoning code in 1925. Over
time, the ordinance expanded from simply distinguishing between residential, business, and
industrial uses and zones to more complex structures regulating housing types and household
arrangements, in addition to where they may be located. This has often resulted in zones that
segregate and discourage housing types which are more financially accessible to lower income
households in much of the community, even if they would not create substantial impacts.
Consequently, the City has identified the need to expand the range of housing types allowed,
especially in single-family zoning districts, in its 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, its 2019
Fair Housing Study, and again in its 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. The following changes
are intended to create flexibility and streamline processes for a variety of more affordable housing
types that would have limited impacts on neighborhood character.
a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones.
Currently duplexes and attached single-family homes are only allowed on corner lots in
the RS -5 and RS -8 zones. The proposed amendment would allow such uses to be
located anywhere in a block. This provides additional flexibility to facilitate the inclusion
of these housing types in more neighborhoods compared to current requirements.
b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS -12 zone. Currently up to 6
attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., one unit per lot) can be located in the RS -12
zone. The proposed amendment would allow up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
to be located on one lot. Generally, these two uses are indistinguishable from the street
since the only difference is the composition of lots. As such, this provides an additional
method to provide housing without affecting the appearance of the neighborhood.
c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception
and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC -2 zone. Currently, the code only allows
multi -family uses on the ground floor in a few Central Business zones under very specific
circumstances. In most commercial zones, multi -family uses are only allowed above the
ground floor. Additionally, multi -family uses in the CC -2 zone require a special exception
which must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed change would allow
multi -family uses provisionally in the CC -2 zone and would also allow multi -family uses on
the ground floor in most commercial zones through a special exception. This would mean
a ground floor multi -family use must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment to ensure all
July 5, 2023
Page 4
approval criteria are met while multi -family uses on upper floors would be allowed
provisionally in most commercial zones. This simplifies the process in most mixed-use
contexts while permitting ground floor multi -family uses only where they are appropriate.
d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses in RM -12,
CN -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 zones. Assisted group living uses, which include
assisted living facilities and group care facilities such as nursing homes, are currently
allowed in many but not all zones where multi -family uses are allowed. In some cases,
additional approval processes are also required. The proposed amendment would
regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses by allowing it
in more commercial zones, eliminating the need for a special exception in the RM -12 zone,
and removing it as an allowable use in the CI -1 zone. The CI -1 zone is an intensive
commercial zone where residential uses are typically not allowed. This provides for a
greater variety of living arrangements without impacting the character of each zone.
2. Modify design standards
Standards regarding building and site design based on zone, use, and location help ensure safe,
attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan
identified a need to review the multi -family site development standards to reduce cost and
expedite approvals, which has been supported by ongoing feedback from the Affordable Housing
Coalition and Homebuilders Association. Design standards continue to be important, but staff
recommends some adjustments to help reduce the cost and timing of compliance without
impacting the purpose of the standards.
a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility. Buildings
containing multi -family or group living uses not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2 -
foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete, and where wall materials change, they
must wrap 3' around the corner. This often requires additional material which has cost and
design implications. Removing these provisions will improve affordability and flexibility
while continuing to meet the intent of the multi -family site development standards.
b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block locations.
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS -5 and RS -8 zones are only allowed on
corner lots, and each unit's main entrance and garage must face a different street to
appear like a single-family home. The proposed amendment would allow attached single-
family and duplex uses in mid -block locations which would require different standards.
Staff proposes amending the use standards in such a way to facilitate mid -block duplex
and attached single-family uses consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood.
c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family uses.
Currently, townhome-style multi -family uses cannot have parking for the first 15' of building
depth. This makes sense for the front, but parking for end units must be set back 15' where
they abut a street. While this standard may be waived by minor modification, it requires
additional process and there is no similar requirement for attached single-family uses. The
proposed amendment would allow the Building Official to simply waive this requirement
for townhome-style multi -family uses without a minor modification.
3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing
Iowa City is always balancing the demand for student rentals near downtown with concerns
regarding quality of life for long-term residents and redevelopment in older neighborhoods.
Residents near the edge of the city are also often wary of new development. As a result, single-
family zones with lower densities, specifically RS -5 and RS -8, often become a default to try and
minimize neighborhood opposition. This has several impacts including more conventional
development patterns at the edge of the city that are often at odds with the City's sustainability
and equity goals. In some areas, RS -5 was also applied to historic small lot areas near downtown
July 5, 2023
Page 5
which created non -conforming lots. In addition, planned development overlays are often required
to recreate neighborhoods like those in the core of the city. Additionally, standards like bedroom
caps for non -single-family detached units and policies on accessory apartments (a.k.a. accessory
dwelling units) limit what housing types can serve households throughout the City.
a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use. Current and proposed dimensional
standards are noted in the table below. In some older neighborhoods, lot sizes and widths
do not conform to current zoning requirements, and standards for missing middle housing
types are well above those in recently adopted for form -based zones (14-2H). The
proposed amendment would reduce the minimum lot size and width for detached single-
family uses in RS -5 zones and allow the RNS-12 zone to utilize the single-family density
bonus which together align standards more closely to historic lot requirements. In addition,
it would reduce lot widths for detached single-family uses in RM zones to match those for
single-family uses in other zones. Finally, it would reduce minimum standards for duplex
and attached single-family uses in RS -5 and RS -8 zones to be closer to those in the
recently adopted form -based zones. These updates provide additional flexibility and
enhance the supply of housing in a way that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Zone
Use
Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Area/ Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot Width
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Ft.)
RS -5
Detached
Single-family
Current
8,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
8,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
60 (50 w/
rear access)
45 (30 w/
rear access)
Proposed
6,000
(5,000 w/
rear access)
6,000
(6,000 w/
rear access)
50 (45 w/
rear access)
40 (30 w/
rear access)
Duplex
Current
12,000
6,000
80
80
Proposed
10,000
5,000
70
70
Attached
Single -Family
Current
6,000
6,000
40
40
Proposed
5,000
5,000
35
35
Other Uses
Current
8,000
n/a
60
45
Proposed
6,000
n/a
50
40
RS -8
Duplex
Current
8,700
4,350
70
70
Proposed
8,000
4,000
60
60
Attached
Single -Family
Current
4,350
4,350
35
35
Proposed
4,000
4,000
30
30
RNS-
12
Detached
Single-family
Current
5,000
5,000
45
25
Proposed
5,000
(3,000 w/
rear access)
5,000
(3,000 w/
rear access)
45 (30 w/
rear access)
25 (20 w/
rear access)
RM-
12
Detached
Single-family
Current
5,000
5,000
55
40
Proposed
no change
no change
45
no change
RM-
20
Detached
Single-family
Current
5,000
5,000
55
40
Proposed
no change
no change
45
no change
b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached sinale-familv. duplex and multi-familv uses outside
of the University Impact Area. The code limits multi -family uses to 3 bedrooms and duplex
and attached single-family uses to 4 bedrooms. Staff recommends increasing the number
of bedrooms allowed outside of the University Impact Area (see map in Attachment 5) to
4 bedrooms for multi -family uses and to 5 for duplex and single-family attached uses. This
allows these uses to accommodate a wider range of family types in areas where
development pressure for student rentals is less than near downtown.
c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to
construction. Currently, accessory apartments are only allowed in conjunction with owner-
July 5, 2023
Page 6
occupied, detached single-family homes in a limited number of zones. The proposed
amendment would make several changes generally based on recommendations by the
Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Board (Attachment 6). Proposed changes include allowing accessory apartments on any
lot that allows household living uses and does not contain more than two dwelling units as
a principal use (including all single-family and duplex lots). In addition, the amendment
would remove barriers such as requirements for owner -occupancy, an additional parking
space, that additions not exceed 10% of an existing building's floor area, that the unit only
have one bedroom, and that detached accessory apartments not exceed 50% of an
accessory building's floor area. It would also increase the allowable size of a detached
accessory apartment to 1,000 square feet, though it still must be smaller than a percentage
of the principal use. These changes help increase the supply of housing by encouraging
the development of accessory apartments.
4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing
The proposed amendments above help enhance housing diversity and increase housing supply,
but they do not specifically create income -restricted affordable units for low-income households.
As such, staff also recommends creating new regulatory incentives (i.e., density bonuses,
flexibility, and parking reductions) for affordable housing in conventional zones. This would help
reduce the cost of units in exchange for providing housing for low-income households in ways
similar to other programs that directly subsidize affordable housing. As part of these changes,
staff recommends consolidating multiple sections that encourage the provision of affordable
housing into one section. This should enhance understanding and streamline administration.
a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts.
Currently the City offers height bonuses for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings and
density bonuses in Form -Based zones, but conventional zones only provide density
bonuses for alleys serving single-family detached housing, for multi -family elder housing,
for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. Staff
proposes adding a 20% density bonus in exchange for 20% of units in a development
being regulated as affordable housing for 20 years. The bonus would be administered
through existing processes, primarily during site plan, subdivision, or OPD rezoning review
depending on the project. This would help off -set the financial costs of providing affordable
housing by increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. The proposed change may
also include additional flexibility from dimensional and site development standards and
would consolidate multiple sections of the zoning code that address affordable housing
into a common set of definitions, requirements, and incentives.
b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones. Currently in the
Riverfront Crossings District and Form -Based Zones, no minimum amount of parking is
mandated for affordable housing. The code also allows a minor modification in CB -5 and
CB -10 zones to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in an affordable housing project from
the minimum parking requirements. These should be consolidated into a single
requirement exempting income -restricted affordable housing from minimum parking
requirements in all zones if it serves that purpose for 20 years. This requirement will help
offset the cost of providing affordable housing through an indirect subsidy equal to the
cost of building parking areas.
5. Address fair housing
In order to make Iowa City a more equitable place to live, staff also proposes amendments to help
enhance fair housing as recommended by the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study.
a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code. By federal
law, cities are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning
policies when they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal
July 5, 2023
Page 7
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Currently, the zoning code has some specific
waivers (such as a minor modification to allow a ramp in the front setback), but they do
not cover every accommodation and are not easily found. Adding a "Reasonable
Accommodations Request" process would streamline the ability to grant reasonable
accommodations with a defined approval procedure.
b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently,
long-term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities
is classified as a community service — long term housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently from residential uses. Major differences
include that community service — long term housing is only allowed in a few commercial
zones (including the CI -1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not
allowed in residential or the CN -1, CB -10 or MU zones. On one hand, long term housing
uses allow higher densities and less parking than residential uses in the zones in which
it is allowed, and it is typically accompanied by on-site supportive services. On the other,
it can trigger additional process where it is near single-family residential zones, and it
requires a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for any
other residential use that houses persons with disabilities. To date, only two properties
are classified as community service — long term housing uses.
The proposed amendment would reclassify community service — long term housing as a
residential use, and it would specify that supportive services only for residents are
considered an accessory use. Where supportive services are provided for a population
outside of a development, they would be considered a separate use. The proposed
amendment would allow housing with supportive services for persons with disabilities
more widely in the community while addressing a potential fair housing issue.
Next Steps
At the Planning & Zoning Commission's first meeting in August, staff will present proposed
changes to zoning code. A future memo to the Commission will provide a more detailed outline
of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, along with additional analyses. Draft code language
will also be available for public review, and staff will accept comments throughout the adoption
period.
Attachments
1. Memo Regarding Iowa City Residential Development in 2022
2. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Fair Housing Choice Study, 2019
3. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, 2022
4. Excerpt of the Action Plan from the FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan
5. Map of the University Impact Area
6. Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Board Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Approved by: 71 • J�
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 15, 2023
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: Iowa City Residential Development in 2022
Introduction:
Every year, the City of Iowa City analyzes residential subdivision and building permit data to track
development patterns and to compare recent and long-term trends. The goal is to provide
accurate information that can be used during land use and planning decision-making processes,
and to provide a discussion on implications for future growth. Key takeaways in 2022 include:
- 2022 continued the trend of low levels of residential lot creation from the past few years.
The number of dwellings units permitted increased slightly from 2021, but the City is still
seeing fewer units permitted than before the pandemic.
- Permit activity continues to outpace the creation of new lots, which diminishes the supply.
- If residential growth continues its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate
less than 6,300 new residents by 2030, compared to a projected demand of 10,240.
While redevelopment can provide some additional housing, the City is still on track to
experience unmet demand and deplete its supply of all vacant lots.
Where housing demand remains unmet, the City may see impacts to its population growth and
the growth of surrounding communities, which has implications on the City's sustainability and
housing affordability goals. One of the fundamental aspects of planning is being able to
accommodate new growth. Staff believes it is important to continue encouraging residential
development in areas with access to City services, as well as in the City's planned growth areas.
Background:
Residential development is the process by which land is prepared for new dwellings, either as
new construction on vacant land or redevelopment on land that was previously developed. It
includes a series of steps with each step provides more clarity to the size, type, and appearance
of the development. However, it is the final two steps of the land development process that provide
the best understanding of how many new dwelling units are expected in the next few years:
- Final Plats: A subdivision permanently delineating the location and dimensions of features
such as lots, streets, easements, and other elements pertinent to the transfer of property.
- Building Permits: The final administrative approval of building plans to allow construction.
In general, the City distinguishes between three types of development. Single-family development
includes one principal dwelling unit on a lot, which may be detached or attached to adjacent units
(such as townhomes) and which may include accessory dwelling units. Duplex development
includes two principal units on a single lot. Multi -family development includes three or more
principal dwelling units on a single lot, which may include apartments or condominiums. In
buildings with a mix of residential and non-residential uses, all dwellings are considered multi-
family.
March 15, 2023
Page 2
Analysis:
This section reviews short-term and long-term trends on the approval of final plats, the issuance
of building permits, and the number of vacant lots. This is used to estimate how long the supply
of lots will last given recent development activity.
Final Plat Activity
In 2022, City Council approved two final plats with residential components: Sandhill Estates Part
5 in the south and Hickory Trail Estates in the northeast. While they encompass 57.63 acres, only
18.65 will be developed with 38.98 acres dedicated as parkland. In total, these subdivisions
created lots that can accommodate 18 single-family units and an assisted living use with an
estimated 140 beds (which are counted as dwelling units in Figure 1). Both properties were zoned
Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
In 2022, the residential lots platted will accommodate the lowest number of single-family dwelling
units since at least 1990 with the exception of 2010 (long-term trends are in Attachment 1). This
is somewhat offset by the multi -family lot with a proposed 140 -bed assisted living facility. While
beds typically do not count as dwelling units, they do help accommodate some residential growth.
Overall, the number of lots produced were below the average lots platted from 2012 to 2021,
which would have accommodated an average of 128 single-family, 7 duplex, and 136 multi -family
units annually. Figure 1 shows residential lots subdivided by type from 2012 to 2022.
Figure 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 2012-2022
450
400
350
300
a�
250
d
200
C
150
100
50
0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
■ Multi -Family 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140
■ Duplex 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0
■ Single Family 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18
Over the previous 30 years, enough lots were created to accommodate an average of 133 single-
family units, 11 duplex units, and 123 multi -family units each year. This indicates that the
production of single-family and duplex lots has somewhat decreased over time, while the
production of lots accommodating multi -family units has increased. However, lot creation tends
to occur in cycles lasting about 10 years with a recent peak in 2015. The City appears to be near
the low point of its development cycle, though staff had hoped to see a larger rebound in
development trends after last year. If past trends hold, development may increase over the next
few years to peak around 2026. Several final plat applications are currently under review this year,
which should help numbers in 2023.
March 15, 2023
Page 3
Building Permit Activity
With regards to building activity, the City issued permits for approximately 363 dwelling units in
2022. Figure 2 shows residential building permits issued by type from 2012 to 2022. Trends for
building permits include the following:
- Single -Family: The number of single-family building permits sunk to 95 units from a brief
uptick during 2021 and is now well below the 10 -year (138) and 30 -year (145) averages.
Since 1990, 358 more single-family building permits were issued compared to lots created,
which has decreased the supply of vacant single-family lots over time.
- Duplex: Only 2 duplex units were permitted in 2022, which is lower than the 10- and 30 -
year annual averages of 10 and 22 respectively. However, relatively few duplexes are
permitted annually, which causes greater variation in numbers. Prior to the 2005 zoning
code update, duplexes were about twice as common. The supply of duplex lots also
decreased over time with 166 more duplexes permitted than lots created since 1990.
- Multi -Family: Permits for multi -family units increased to 266 units in 2022, but the number
is still slightly below both the 10 -year average (386) and 30 -year average (274). Of the
units permitted this year, 249 are due to a single building in the Riverfront Crossings
District. Notably, no multi -family units were in mixed use buildings this year.
Figure 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 2012-2022
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
■ Multi -Family, Mixed Use
■ Multi -Family
■ Duplex
■ Single Family
in
0 INN ONE 1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
100 27 37 47 340 150 169 59 0 40 0
140 488 218 499 556 203 163 417 49 155 266
16 8 14 6 12 8 10 8 8 6 2
143 171 176 137 172 157 109 80 97 133 95
Attachment 2 shows long-term trends in building permit activity. Similar to platting patterns, single-
family and duplex building permits occur in cycles, but they have trended downward the past 30
years. However, multi -family construction has increased over time, especially following the
adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2012. This has led to
redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, which is reflected in the recent peak in multi-
family activity that culminated in nearly 900 multi -family units permitted in 2016 alone. As a result,
the total number of units permitted has trended upward over the past 30 years.
March 15, 2023
Page 4
Development Potential
In general, the number of new building permits exceeded the creation of new lots for all
development types since at least 1990. Because multi -family development often occurs on infill
sites, it is less dependent on the creation of new lots compared to single-family and duplex
development. Figure 3 notes the number of vacant lots in Iowa City, the number of dwelling units
they can accommodate, and whether they still require infrastructure for a building permit to be
issued. This year's memo provides a more complete understanding than last year's because it
includes all vacant lots in Iowa City rather than just those in subdivisions platted since 1990.
Figure 3: Number of Vacant Lots by Type of Dwelling and Provision of Infrastructure
Dwelling
Infrastructure Required
Infrastructure Provided
Total
Type
Lots Units
Lots Units
Lots Units
Single -Family
124 124
270 270
394 394
Duplex
0 0
12 24
12 24
Multi -Family
4 56
16 709
20 765
At the end of 2022, the City had approximately 394 vacant single-family lots, of which 270 are
currently served by infrastructure. The City also contained 12 vacant duplex lots with infrastructure
provided. With regards to lots that still require infrastructure to be built, the City anticipates 18
single-family lots will become buildable next year in Sandhill Estates Pt. 5 which was recently
platted. The other 106 single-family lots that still require infrastructure are from older subdivisions
that are not likely to be built out anytime soon. Note that residential lots owned by adjacent
property owners and used as a single lot are excluded from these numbers because they are
unlikely to develop. Most vacant single-family lots available for development are in the Northeast,
South, or Southeast Planning Districts.
Multi -family development depends less on new lot creation because many new units are part of
redevelopment projects on existing lots. At the end of 2022, the City had around 20 vacant multi-
family lots, of which 16 had infrastructure provided. 14 of these lots are on greenfield sites and
are expected to accommodate at least 483 dwelling units (including the assisted living facility with
140 beds). The other 2 lots are on infill sites and concepts show them accommodating at least
226 units. The 4 multi -family lots that do not yet have infrastructure constructed are expected to
accommodate at least another 56 dwellings units. Vacant developable multi -family lots are spread
throughout the City, including the North (52 units), Northeast (70 units + 140 beds), Southeast
(75 units), South (36 units), Northwest (110 units), and Central/Downtown (226 units) Planning
Districts. Undevelopable lots are currently located exclusively in the South District. There is also
some capacity for additional units on partially developed lots that are not included.
Based on development trends from 2012 through 2021, the supply of vacant lots with
infrastructure would last as follows:
- 2.0 years for single-family units (down from 2.7 in 2021),
- 2.4 years for duplex units (down from 3.7 om 2021)
- 1.8 years for multi -family units (up from 1.7) — note redevelopment extends this timeframe.
Because this analysis is more complete than that conducted last year, the decrease in the supply
of vacant single-family and duplex lots points to an even larger deficit than previously understood.
March 15, 2023
Page 5
Discussion:
The year 2022 marks one of the lowest levels of residential lot creation in at least 30 years,
especially as it relates to single-family lots. It also reflects broader trends such as building permit
activity outpacing the creation of new lots. This has resulted in a diminishing lot supply which is
not meeting the demand. Ripple effects include increased competition for a limited supply of
residential lots, which can increase lot prices. Despite this, the number of dwelling units developed
has increased over the past 30 years, primarily due to multi -family redevelopment which does not
depend as heavily on the creation of new lots.
Looking forward, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPO) projects a
demand for 10,240 new residents in Iowa City by 2030. However, if recent trends continue through
2030, the City would only be able to accommodate new population as follows:
- 2,626 new residents based on the development of all vacant residential lots
(in 394 single-family units, 24 duplex units, and 765 multi -family units); or
- 3,189 new residents based on average annual residential lot creation trends from 2020
through 2022 (in 463 single-family units, 40 duplex units, and 933 multi -family units); or
- 6,297 new residents based on average annual building permit trends from 2020 through
2022 (in 1,083 single-family, 53 duplex, and 1,700 multi -family dwelling units)
Based on the most optimistic scenario, the City stills need to develop and build out all currently
platted vacant lots, and add lots accommodating an additional 689 single-family, 30 duplex, and
935 multi -family dwelling units over the next 7 years. This would still only accommodate 61 % of
the projected demand for new housing and would leave the City with no available lots for the next
decade. To meet the full demand projected by the MPO, the City would need to construct
approximately 3,430 dwelling units, on top of developing all existing vacant lots. Staff anticipates
the completion of several final plat and redevelopment applications this year which will help next
year's outlook. However, these trends continue to highlight a significant deficit.
If Iowa City cannot meet its demand for housing, it may see slower population growth along with
other repercussions. First, excess demand may locate in nearby cities, such as Tiffin or North
Liberty, which have seen a proliferation of new residential lots. This can create negative
environmental impacts as homes shift further from employment centers and car dependence and
traffic congestion increases. Other impacts include rising housing prices - when supply cannot
meet the demand for housing, Iowa City becomes less affordable. Regardless of the cost when
built, new homes are needed to help the City meet its demand for housing to achieve affordability.
Accommodating new residential growth is a fundamental aspect of planning for the future of Iowa
City. Staff believes it is important to continue to encourage residential growth in areas that have
access to City services, such as in infill locations, as well as in the City's designated growth areas
which are anticipated to become part of the City in the future.
Attachments:
1. Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
2. Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
Attachment 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
650
600
550
500
450
D 400
c
Z 350
m 300
CO
CL
'5 250
Q
200
150
100
50
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Multi -Family 194 0 44 22 20 4 262 28 89 434 118 233 54 413 117 169 11 142 31 0 60 64 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140
Duplex 12 0 40 6 22 116 8 0 0 0 2 0 24 26 4 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0
■ Single -Family 75 264 167 359 205 49 89 110 46 174 92 63 281 108 300 193 173 77 65 81 0 79 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18
GG �GG CV
qz °tQ
07NZ
p,
5 ���. v Q O°G• Oo ��05 Pa a� a V
Go
Attachment 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022
1200
1100
1000
900
800
4 700
c
600
a�
p 500
D
300
200 , ', • ., • • ■,
100
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Mixed Use" 17 82 45 42 56 0 16 51 100 27 37 47 340 150 169 59 0 40 0
- Multi -Family 203 140 312 235 335 166 218 185 97 152 267 310 402 486 220 141 138 83 85 71 80 76 140 488 218 499 556 203 163 417 49 155 266
■ Duplex 2 10 12 20 28 16 28 26 32 44 26 34 34 60 52 62 18 26 16 10 8 18 16 8 14 6 12 8 10 8 8 6 2
■ Single -Family 136 143 214 223 206 149 90 110 154 209 139 129 148 193 149 160 137 133 114 127 108 80 143 171 176 137 172 157 109 80 97 133 95
not collected prior to 2004
°4�- a°°�
Q ti �, ti ° ti
Od C6
II _
Aft
CITY OF IOWA 1TY
UNESCO CITY OF LITE ATEA E
FAIL ani iciKir_ runirr STUDY
2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Neighborhood Et Development Services
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Adopted August 20, 2019
Chapter 5: Impediments Et Recommendations
This Chapter analyzes factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, and increase the severity of fair
housing issues. Identifying contributing factors is important in assessing why members of protected
classes may experience restricted housing choice due to various reasons including, but not limited to,
segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, or other issues. Some
contributing factors are outside of the ability of the City to control or influence; however, such factors
should still be identified and recognized.
After discussing and identifying barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City, it is important to lay out
strategies to overcome those barriers. These strategies can then be prioritized and incorporated into
subsequent planning processes such as the Consolidated Plan. Ultimately, the City is responsible for
taking meaningful actions to move towards completing the strategies identified. Meaningful actions
are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively
furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access
to opportunity.
The City of Iowa City is committed to providing fair housing choices for all its residents. The City Code
has a broad definition of discriminatory behavior, an inclusive definition of protected classes, and is
clear in its lack of tolerance for discriminatory behavior in the housing market. The City's
Comprehensive Plan envisions a city with a variety of housing options for the city's diverse population.
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows for construction of a variety of housing types at difference price
points. And the City's Building Code does not impose conditions that could restrict fair housing choice
for protected classes. However, policies and practices can be improved upon and the City can take
additional steps to assure that all protected classes have fair access to housing in Iowa City. These
identified impediments to fair housing choice and some strategies to address them comprise the rest of
this Chapter.
171
1: Improving Housing Choice
One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of adequate housing choices throughout
neighborhoods in Iowa City for residents with protected characteristics, who tend to have
disproportionately lower incomes. This includes a lack of availability in addition to diversity in price
points, housing types, and locations that would facilitate equal access to housing across the City. While
many low-income households in Iowa City are nonfamily student renters, 21% are small families
(including single parents) and 15% are elderly. 31% of low-income households have a member with a
disability. Many are people of color. Large families face additional challenges in finding appropriate
units with the proper price points. Coupled with the City's expensive housing, this has negatively
impacted fair housing choice within Iowa City.
Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types to promote fair
housing choice, especially in areas that promote access to opportunity. This means encouraging the
provision of affordable housing for households of all types in Iowa City, including larger units for
families with children, smaller accessible units with supportive services for the elderly and persons
with disabilities, and adequate housing for students. When considering housing choice, transportation,
supportive services, school quality, and other important factors must also be considered. The City
should continue to support and encourage a diversity of housing types in areas of opportunity. The
following strategies assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice:
Strategv 1: Facilitate a Range of Housing Tvoes
One strategy to overcome this barrier is to allow a wider variety of development types in areas
throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will
require exploring ways to increase the density and the types of housing allowable in order to further
fair housing goals. This strategy includes promotion of more types of housing in more varied locations,
which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods.
Many non -single family residential developments require rezonings to increase density. The City can
proactively increase the amount of land available for development by -right for higher densities, as
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan along major arterials, intersections, and commercial centers.
This may be especially helpful where undeveloped land is zoned for single family and would allow a
variety of housing types as the land is developed. Staff could proactively look for areas intended for
higher densities and initiate a rezoning with the City as the applicant.
Eliminating the distinction between single family and multi -family residential zoning districts would
have a similar effect, thereby regulating by density rather than type of housing. Similarly, the City
could make flexible zoning arrangements, such as OPD overlays, provisional rather than negotiated.
This would encourage its use while simultaneously promoting a range of housing.
Another way to increase housing variety is to remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not
detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings).
Specifically, the code places a bedroom cap on these types of units, which may negatively affect the
ability of certain protected classes to find appropriate units, such as large families. The City should
explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi -family units and consider when
this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. While this does not
necessarily change the type of housing, it does allow a greater diversity of units within a specific type
of housing.
1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
StrateQv 2: Lower the Cost of Housin
In addition to facilitating a wider range of housing types throughout Iowa City, reducing the cost of
housing can also help ensure more varied price points, especially in the more affordable rental and
owner markets. The City is already in the process of working with the Home Builders Association to
explore ways of reducing costs through modifications to the zoning and development codes.
One way to lower the cost of housing is to evaluate building and housing permit fees and their effects
on housing costs. Given that these fees have a higher relative impact on lower cost units, it is
recommended that the City explore reducing or waiving fees for properties which are operated for
affordable housing by non-profit housing organizations to offset negative disproportionate impacts. This
could be used for properties in the private market receiving City assistance for a period of time for
affordable housing as well.
It may also be possible to use property tax policies to lower the cost of housing. While there are
already several such programs for the most vulnerable populations, including seniors, persons with
disabilities, and affordable rental housing providers, broadening property tax relief could further help
preserve lower-income homeownership opportunities for the more than 4,000 low income homeowners
in the City. For example, tax exemption policies could be used to increase the affordability of housing.
The ongoing viability of the existing housing stock becomes increasingly important as the cost of new
housing continues to rise. Continued improvement and maintenance of the current stock is vital.
Efforts towards energy conservation can also reduce heating and cooling costs when rehabilitating older
homes. All these factors can help lower the cost of housing.
Due to the number of student households in the community, the City should explore ways to increase
affordability and housing choice for this demographic. Incentives for housing programs should remain
available for students from low income families and students who are financially independent.
Strateev 3: Continue investment in affordable housin
There is a growing gap in the number of affordable homes for those with lower incomes. Continuing
affordable housing activities is crucial to creating a variety of housing types and price points within the
community. This can include new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and owner
properties. These provide a valuable opportunity to improve housing choice for members of the
protected classes who are often low- and moderate -income households. This also includes leveraging
City funds to obtain additional affordable housing investment in the community through LIHTC or other
programs that assist with the construction of affordable housing opportunities. Assisting renters'
transition to homeownership, in certain cases, may also help stabilize housing payments through fixed
rate mortgages in a market experiencing increasing rental rates.
Strategy 4: Retrofit Housing for Equal Access
In some cases, appropriate units are not be available, especially for those with disabilities. In such
cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Access may include physical access for
individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, installing ramps and other accessibility
features for individuals with mobility impairments, visual alarms and signals for individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing, and audio signals, accessible signage, and other accessibility features for
individuals who are blind or have low vision. To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a
Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies.
This would allow persons with disabilities to request a reasonable accommodation/ modification to
173
regulatory provisions, including land use and zoning requirements to facilitate the retrofitting of
existing housing.
In addition, because many low-income households are elderly and/or disabled, continuing to provide
assistance to allow those households to age in place is also important, as is continuing to invest in their
housing to ensure it remains safe, decent and affordable.
1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
2: Facilitating Access to Opportunity
Housing that affords access to opportunities, such as high -performing schools, public transportation,
employment centers, low poverty, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods may be cost prohibitive
or non-existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes. High
costs can have a greater effect on families with children who need multiple bedrooms and individuals
with disabilities who need accessible housing or housing located close to accessible transportation.
Currently, Iowa City appears to have some disparate access to opportunity, especially when it comes to
access to jobs and other quality of life factors such as affordable childcare.
The geographic relationship of employment centers, housing, and schools, and the transportation
linkages between them, are important components of fair housing choice. The quality of schools and
economic opportunities are often major factors in deciding where to live. Job and school quality are
also key components of economic mobility. Ensuring affordable units are available in a range of sizes,
locations, and types is essential to providing equal access to opportunities by meeting the needs of
individuals with protected characteristics. In Iowa City, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a
variety of jobs and training opportunities, is also vital. In addition, affordable childcare should be
available and close to a range of housing opportunities, and facilities should be fully accessible to
individuals with different types of disabilities to avoid further barriers.
As such, siting as it relates to the placement of new housing developments, especially those that are
affordable, becomes crucial. This includes new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of
previously unsubsidized housing. Local policies and decisions significantly affect the location of new
housing. In addition, the availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation including
buses and paratransit for persons with disabilities also affect which households are connected to
community assets and economic opportunities. As such, it is important to connect individuals to places
they need to go such as jobs, schools, retail establishments, and healthcare.
This study proposes a balanced approach to address disparities in access to provide for both strategic
investment in areas that lack key opportunity indicators, while opening housing opportunities in areas
with existing opportunity through effective mobility options and the preservation and development of a
variety of housing in high opportunity areas. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment
to fair housing choice:
Strategy 1: Emphasize Variety in Housing in Areas of Opportunity
Areas of opportunity are places where jobs are relatively plentiful and access to education, healthcare,
and other amenities is close at hand. Iowa City generally ranks highly when it comes to quality of life.
However, some areas of town have less access to opportunity as identified within this Study, especially
as it relates to affordable childcare and job access. Analysis suggests there are some discrepancies in
services and access to opportunity by race, income, and area. To some extent, this is likely due to
clustering of racial and ethnic groups. All protected classes should have an equal opportunity to live
throughout Iowa City. Increasing housing variety for a range of household types and price points, in
areas with affordable childcare and near job centers is one way to achieve fair housing choice while
improving access to opportunities. This strategy complements those related to increasing the variety of
available types and prices of housing.
The placement of the City's subsidized housing is governed by the Affordable Housing Location Model
(AHLM). The model serves to not place additional subsidized housing in areas that already have a
concentration of City -assisted housing and lower incomes as determined by elementary school
catchment areas. The model does not apply to housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, the
rehabilitation of existing rental housing or for homeownership. The AHLM does not necessarily promote
greater variety of price points in areas of opportunity. As such, the City could explore ways to use the
175
model or another policy to promote city -assisted housing in low poverty neighborhoods or
neighborhoods that provide good access to opportunity.
The goal of fair housing choice is to provide sufficient, comparable opportunities for housing for all
types of households in a variety of income ranges. Comparable units should have the same household
(elderly, disabled, family, large family) and tenure (owner/renter) type; have similar rents/prices;
serve the same income group; in the same housing market; and in standard condition. The goal is not
to necessarily have an equal number of assisted units within each neighborhood, but rather that a
reasonable distribution of assisted units should be produced each year to approach an appropriate
balance of housing choices within and outside neighborhoods over several years. An appropriate
balance should be based on local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for
different types of households as they relate to the mix of the City's population.
Strategv 2: Communitv Investment
It is recommended that the City pursue additional investment in neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of low income families, especially those with concentrations of persons with protected
characteristics, to improve the quality of life for existing residents. This may include a range of
activities such as improving housing, attracting private investment, creating jobs, expanding
educational opportunities, and providing links to other community assets. The quality and maintenance
of housing is especially important to community investment as survey respondents rank it as one of the
factors that varies most widely between areas of the City.
As a result, the City should continue targeted investment in infrastructure, amenities, community
facilities, and public services serving lower income households and in low income areas. Amenities such
as recreational facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks are especially important in maintaining
a higher quality of life. Housing rehabilitation is also important in maintaining the housing stock and
appearance, while new construction in areas that have not received as much recent investment can
also be beneficial. Special attention should be given to investments that increase access to housing or
that lower housing costs generally, such as energy efficiency improvements. Economic development
support near low-income neighborhoods also can create jobs, increase wages, and increase access to
amenities. This strategy in conjunction with providing a diversity of housing types in all new
neighborhoods creates opportunities of access throughout the City.
Preserving the City's existing affordable housing is also important as part of a balanced approach to
affirmatively further fair housing. This can include funding and indirect subsidies for rehabilitation to
maintain physical structures, refinancing, affordable use agreements, and incentives for owners to
maintain affordability. Similarly, efforts to repair and maintain the infrastructure of existing affordable
housing should be part of concerted housing preservation and community investment effort.
The City should continue encouraging private investment to advance fair housing from homeowners,
developers, and other nonprofit or business initiatives. Securing financial resources (public, for-profit,
and nonprofit) from sources inside and outside the City to fund housing improvements, community
facilities and services, and business opportunities in neighborhoods will help ensure access to
opportunities for all residents.
Strategy 3: Enhance Mobility Linkages Throughout the Community
Non -automotive transportation is an important part of ensuring equal access from housing to jobs and
other amenities in Iowa City. Transportation improvements could significantly improve access to
opportunity for employment and other services and amenities for those who rely on public or active
transportation. This complements policies to increase the range of housing opportunities near
opportunity and employment areas which can reduce spending on transportation -related expenses.
1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Strategies to enhance both active and public transportation linkages may include improved
coordination with service providers, expansion of active and public transportation to provide access to
jobs through improved infrastructure, providing late night/ weekend service, or ensuring adequate
coverage to assist with access to opportunities. Investment across the City can also include improved
transit facilities and equipment, including bus shelters, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Prioritizing ADA access is especially important to further fair housing purposes.
177
3: Increasing Education and Outreach
Based on public input, many residents of Iowa City lack awareness about rights under fair housing and
civil rights laws, which can lead to under -reporting of discrimination, failure to take advantage of
remedies under the law, and the continuation of discriminatory practices. Even those who do know
their rights do not always act on them due to feeling it would not be productive or fear of reprisal. This
suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding fair housing rights is a major barrier to fair
housing choice.
Ensuring access to information about housing programs and neighborhoods can also facilitate fair
housing goals. This is because individuals and families attempting to move to a neighborhood of their
choice, especially areas of opportunity, may not be aware of potential assistance or support. In those
cases, having quality information related to housing and affordability, available services, and
organizations that serve potential tenants, can help those moves be successful. Other relevant info
may include listings of affordable housing opportunities or local landlords; mobility counseling
programs; and community outreach to potential beneficiaries.
Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice.
Strategv 1: ImDrove Demand -Side Awareness
The demand-side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park
residents, and other who need and/or use housing. Generally, these groups do not have any formal
training or education regarding their fair housing rights, nor are they formally organized in most cases.
This makes it important to raise awareness through advocacy campaigns, education and outreach
activities geared toward the general public, and fair housing informational materials for both
homebuyers and tenants. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should especially be informed of their
rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. In addition to fair
housing rights, this should include how to report violations of those rights.
It is recommended that the City explore the development of new outreach, education, or informational
programs and activities to promote housing opportunities for segments of the community such as
persons of color, those not as fluent in English, and for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This
should be done in cooperation with other organizations working on furthering fair housing. Ideally, this
will increase knowledge of the laws, reduce discriminatory behavior, achieve a better understanding,
and reduce negative attitudes concerning people who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse or
who are disabled. A comprehensive program would help ensure that there is broad knowledge of legal
protections for all residents.
Beyond fair housing information, providing more generalized information about housing can be
beneficial. For example, information for tenants about leasing can improve rental outcomes and
homebuyer education can help those less familiar with homeownership, such as long-term renters,
overcome challenges as first time homebuyer. Those new to the HCV program can also benefit from
additional information about facilities and services available in each neighborhood to assist them with
their housing search. This may encourage voucher holders to look for housing in neighborhoods with
more access to opportunity. This information can also assist residents moving from high -poverty to low -
poverty neighborhoods that have greater access to opportunity assets appropriate for their family.
It is important that information is comprehensive (e.g. that the information provided includes a variety
of neighborhoods, including those with access to opportunity indicators) and up-to-date (e.g. that the
information is actively being maintained, updated and improved). The information should also alleviate
fears of retaliation and should showcase the process and concrete outcomes to address those who
"didn't know what good it would do" to report discrimination.
1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
StrateQv 2: Increase SuDDly-Side Awareness
The supply-side of housing includes lenders, appraisers, mortgage insurers, realtors, landlords, and
management companies. Unlike the demand-side, these groups are often provided formal training
regarding fair housing rights through industry groups or employee training. As such, they require less
guidance than the demand-side of housing. However, it is still important that they understand fair
housing rights and responsibilities as well, especially small landlords or others who may be less formally
integrated within the industry. As such, technical training for housing industry representatives remains
an important component of the City's efforts to affirmatively further fair housing in the community.
In addition to general fair housing rights, those on the supply-side of housing should also be made
aware of best practices and efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through equity, inclusion,
fairness, and justice. This could involve providing education regarding marketing in targeted
neighborhoods or for protected classes and encouraging advocacy groups to share opportunities for
their products and services. Similarly, additional technical training regarding civil rights may include
fair housing issues such as the appropriate application of arrest and criminal conviction records, credit
policies, prior evictions, leasing and lease termination decision making; and fair housing issues
affecting LGBTQ individuals. Pro -active outreach can widen the pool of participating rental housing
providers, including both owners of individual residences and larger rental management companies.
Meanwhile, the City should encourage these groups to regularly examine and update their policies,
procedures, and practices to avoid differential treatment of residents and applicants based on
protected characteristics. Similarly, supply-side providers should also be encouraged to examine their
clientele profiles to determine whether there are neighborhoods or groups that are underrepresented
or unrepresented. Doing so will help supply-side providers to go beyond just understanding fair housing
issues towards meaningfully furthering fair housing.
Strategy 3: Increase Regulator Awareness
The City must ensure those who make decisions regarding public policies and regulations, including
public officials, Commission and Board members, and staff, have adequate fair housing training. While
this will further fair housing, it may also help inspire confidence in the City's processes. In addition to
general training, one potential method of educating decision -makers would be to train them as fair
housing ambassadors who can then help spread the word about fair housing to both demand- and
supply-side groups.
Strategy 4: Provide meaningful language access
Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) includes anyone who does not speak English as their
primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. Often, this
is tied to foreign -born populations who may not understand English. Increasing meaningful language
access regarding fair housing information and housing programs would facilitate housing choice for LEP
individuals seeking housing. It is important that housing providers and policy makers ensure that all
individuals have access to information regarding fair and affordable housing, regardless of language. In
Iowa City, this is particularly salient due to the higher prevalence of foreign -born populations.
Relevant City departments maintain Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure equal access to
knowledge of fair housing and housing assistance. However, the LEP plan likely needs to be updated,
especially as the number of foreign -born residents has rapidly grown in recent years. In addition, the
City should explore what housing documents are most important to translate to achieve a better
understanding of fair housing choice by LEP speakers and to improve communication through language
access.
179
4: Operational Improvements
Several other barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City included smaller operational and planning
changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing. These include impediments such as
administrative processes and regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit
protected classes, a need for increased regional cooperation for issues that affect housing, a lack of
information that could help identify or address other barriers, and a need to improve the transparency
of fair housing enforcement. Most of these barriers can be addressed through operational
improvements at the City level, though accomplishing in cooperation with others may improve their
effectiveness.
Strategy 1: Improve Fair Housing Enforcement and Transparency
In addition to ensuring awareness of fair housing rights and process, the City needs to improve
enforcement and increase transparency in the process, so the public can be aware that complainants
obtain relief in a timely and effective manner. Doing so would fight feelings of helplessness and
provide certainty to complainants that filing a report helps combat fair housing violations. This may
include actively monitoring the outcomes of complaints, in addition to making fair housing complaint
information more easily visible to the public.
Fair housing testing may also assist with transparency and fair housing enforcement. Doing so allows
the City to identify whether landlords or realtors, and others involved in the housing market are
abiding by fair housing laws. In addition, these tests help the City to better identify and target fair
housing outreach.
Strategy 2: Review implementing procedures and regulations
The City has several new programs, administered by various staff and departments, with various rules
that can be confusing to understand, implement and enforce. This problem is exacerbated when the
program is combined with federal programs that have rigid, complex rules. This creates a challenging
regulatory environment, especially for affordable housing and public service programs. As such, there
are opportunities to harmonize, coordinate, streamline, and define administration and planning.
Possibilities include centralizing processes for affordable housing and ensuring they are online;
reducing uncertainty for service providers in allocating funds; and harmonizing rules between
programs.
Similarly, the zoning ordinance has been updated in fragmented ways since its initial adoption. While it
generally accommodates the City's fair housing goals, codes frequently updated can indicate a
need for a comprehensive reevaluation. This is a long-term effort. In the meantime, incremental
improvements can make the code easier to follow yet still comprehensive and flexible. One simple
change is to reclassify community service - long term shelter as a multi-family/mixed use, since it
is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. Another similar change is to
clarify the definition of nonfamily households; the current City definition is a holdover from before
the State modified law to prohibit regulating use based on familial characteristics.
In addition, administrative procedures may better promote fair housing choice as compared to some
decision-making processes. Updating administrative policies and practices may help support Council
objectives in ways that produce more impartial, predictable outcomes. The City should promote funds
to organizations committed to affordable housing and who have the capacity to administer long term
housing projects. Agencies receiving funds should have the capacity to administer the project for the
entire compliance period while enhancing fair housing. By doing so, the City increases the likelihood of
maintaining the units as affordable housing after City and federal restrictions are released.
1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Regardless, all changes to administrative, zoning, or other public policies and practices should be
preemptively evaluated through the lens of fair housing. This is also true as new policy continues to
develop, including potential changes to the housing and zoning following the State's disallowing the
use of a rental permit cap.
Strategy 3: Improve regional cooperation
Regional cooperation includes networks or coalitions of organizations, people, and entities working
together to plan for regional development. Cooperation in regional planning can help coordinate
responses to identified fair housing issues that cross multiple sectors—including housing, education,
transportation, and commercial and economic development—and multiple political and geographic
boundaries. As such, encouraging regional cooperation can further fair housing not only for Iowa City,
but the entire region. This was also mentioned as a need in many stakeholder meetings.
While the City and surrounding jurisdictions cooperate through regional transportation planning and
through the Fringe Area Agreement, there are still additional opportunities to better coordinate
housing and fair housing planning on a regional level. Projecting development and demand for different
types of housing and price points is one way to approach the issue. Doing so can start a discussion
about how to facilitate housing choice in each of the communities. Communication between staff can
also facilitate coordination between jurisdictions.
Strateev 4: Imoroved Data Collection
Another impediment is the need for increased data, analysis and reporting. While improving data
collection and analysis does not directly overcome a barrier to fair housing choice, it will help identify
potential barriers in the future. All of these can also be paired with equity mapping to identify areas of
opportunity using factors relevant to fair housing choice.
Currently, many of the City's local housing programs do not require the same level of tracking and
reporting regarding protected characteristics of beneficiaries as federal programs. As part of its annual
monitoring of these projects, the City should begin tracking and reporting the race, ethnicity, and
other protected characteristics of beneficiaries to allow finer levels of analysis and reporting regarding
fair housing choice. This will also allow better measurement regarding the extent to which policy and
practice changes are impacting outcomes and reducing disparities.
In addition, the City should regularly monitor HMDA reports of financial institutions and obtain
information on the location of properties that are the subject of loan applications. HMDA data can be
used to develop policies to act upon this information such as incentivizing banks with good
performance records by only depositing public funds in banks that meet threshold scores. Similarly,
location information can help the City guide lender education activities to promote fair housing.
Finally, ICHA should regularly analyze its beneficiary and waitlist data to ensure its preferences do not
have a disparate impact on those in protected classes and that it is serving the people most in need as
determined by the City's Consolidated Plan. As part of this, ICHA should periodically update an equity
analysis to identify if any disparate impacts are identified.
181
2022
Iowa City
Affordable
Housing
ACTION
PLAN
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITIES/GOALS
The City Council's Strategic Plan objectives include fostering healthy neighborhoods and affordable
housing throughout the City. The City strives to do this through:
1. Investing City and federal CDBG/HOME funds to create and/or preserve affordable homes, both
rental and owner -occupied housing throughout the City;
2. Supporting our most vulnerable residents, especially those experiencing homelessness or at risk
of homelessness, maintain safe, affordable housing;
3. Ensuring equitable growth for all Iowa City residents and minimizing displacement; and
4. Supporting innovation in housing and streamlining processes.
1 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS
The City has broad powers to support affordable housing through various requirements and funding
mechanisms. The City is willing to pursue courses of action to support affordable housing, except when
legally prohibited. For example, in the state of Iowa, cities cannot institute rent control. Cities are also
preempted by state law from regulating the provisions in a lease between a landlord and a tenant.
In 2015 the City of Iowa City adopted an ordinance to protect source of income. The measure prohibited
landlords from rejecting housing applicants based solely on their use of housing vouchers or other rental
subsidies. The purpose of the Iowa City Human Rights ordinance amendment was to reduce housing
discrimination and give all tenants the same consideration for housing. In 2021 the state prohibited
cities from passing or enforcing "source of income" ordinances. Any city who adopted a source of
income protection may not enforce it after January 1, 2023,
The City will continue to work with our various partners to support and encourage affordable housing
with the mechanisms and funding sources available to municipalities in Iowa.
The Committee's recommendations for City Council consideration are broken down into three sections:
Recommendations for existing policies and programs, recommendations for development regulations
and recommendations for programs or policies based on household income.
Existing Policies and Programs
The Affordable Housing Steering Committee reviewed the City's current policies and programs. Most
programs were found to be effectively increasing or preserving the supply of affordable housing;
CITY OF IOWA CITY 28
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
however, six recommendations were made to either enhance or make the policy or program more
effective.
1. Affordable Housing Location Model
The model currently aims to distribute subsidized affordable housing more evenly throughout the
community and avoid overconcentration in any one neighborhood. While the intent of the model is a
worthy goal, the model can restrict supply for much needed affordable housing projects. The committee
recommends shifting from a restrictive model to one that incentivizes or prioritizes affordable housing
projects in all neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing options
but does not go so far as to restrict supply of potential locations.
If the model is discontinued, it is recommended that there be close monitoring of changes in affordable
housing locations within the community. Achieving mixed -income neighborhoods throughout the City
should continue to be an overall goal.
Recommendation: Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or
prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods.
2. Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) Funding Allocation Process
The Committee observed that the current funding process for housing projects does not involve detailed
staff analysis of applications. Staff have years of professional experience and often understand the
funding sources and regulatory environment much more comprehensively than volunteer
commissioners. The Committee recommends that the funding process be restructured to ensure staff
scoring recommendations are provided upfront to the HCDC. Their recommendations should be
considered during the review process to ensure the City is supporting viable, federally compliant
projects that meet the City's priorities for the entire length of the required affordability period.
Ultimately, the HCDC can still make alternate recommendations to the City Council but the process will
be enhanced by inviting this input from the outset.
Furthermore, policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further improve
transparency in decision-making (e.g., full funding to top-rated applications, yr applications will be pro-
rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores, etc.). The Commission's final review and ranking
should be based on objective and established criteria, priorities, and data. Discrepancies with staff
scores should be included in the final recommendations to the City Council.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 29
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Recommendation: 1) Require staff analysis and funding recommendations before HCDC review; and Z)
Further define how funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top-rated
applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.)
3. Affordable Housing Fund Distribution
The overall funding should be increased with consideration given to the budget with a goal of a 3%
increase each year.
• Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds, for example:
❑ Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to only those at that
income.
a Include Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding with the Housing Trust Fund of
Johnson County (HTFJC) allocation. However, set as a preferred use but not
restricted required. If funding is awarded to a LIHTC project and the project does not
get funding from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), allow HTFJC to withdraw the award
and make those funds available for general applications rather than waiting for the next
LIHTC cycle.
• Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and implement a Risk Mitigation Fund. Typically, Risk
Mitigation Funds cover landlord losses, up to a certain value, but may also include a connection
to resources such as tenant/landlord education, credit repair, etc. to increase rental
opportunities for households who have difficulty finding a landlord who will accept them due to
criminal history, bad credit, bad landlord references, and/or a prior eviction history.
• Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds.
• Periodically review (every 5 years as part of the Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs and Services
for Low -Income Residents) the affordable housing fund distribution to ensure the set -asides
produce/contribute to the desired policy outcomes.
• Prioritize partnerships with not -fpr -profit affordable housing developers to preserve affordable
units as their mission is centric to preserving affordability.
Recommendation: 1) Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing fund with a goal of a 3% annual
increase; 2) Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during
the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to
make those funds available for general applications; 3) Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund, and 4)
Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not-for-profit affordable housing
developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units.
4. Support of Non -Profit Housing Provider Capacity
CITY of IOWA CITY 30
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Typically, developers receive a developer fee to build or rehabilitate housing projects. This fee is only
received if a project is funded. Funds, including operational funds and developer fees, should be
provided on a regular basis to non-profit affordable housing providers who build and/or rehabilitate
residential housing as long-term investments to build the capacity of local providers. This could include
technical assistance in various areas such as housing finance, market analysis, legal issues, property
management, green and/or sustainable building practices and affordable housing design.
Financial assistance for architectural and engineering expenses for the development of multi -family
affordable development, outside of LIHTC projects, is needed to support the development of
townhomes, small apartment buildings, and the rehabilitation of existing multi -family developments.
The City should increase access by non-profit affordable housing developers to various funding
opportunities to incorporate green or sustainable housing practices.
Recommendation: Allow non-profit affordable housing developers who build or rehabilitate
residential housing to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations; and 2) Allow
developers of affordable housing to apply for technical assistance needs from a variety of City
programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action
grants.
S. Annexation Policy
The current policy has only applied to one annexation and thus drawing conclusions is difficult. Staff and
some committee members have concerns about the cost implications and viability of requiring
permanent affordable housing or greater percentages and compliance periods. This is particularly a
concern in a regional housing market where outlying communities that are experiencing robust growth
do not have similar policies. Too stringent requirements could have an unintended impact of pushing
development into other jurisdictions and thus forgoing any affordable housing requirements and
constraining supply in Iowa City.
The Committee does believe that permanent affordable housing achieved through dedication of lots to
the City or a non-profit housing provider is a goal that should be vigorously pursued with future
annexations. If needed, the City should consider contributing funding or exploring unique partnerships
such as tax increment financing or tax abatement to achieve the goal of permanent affordable housing
in new residential annexations.
CITY of IOWA CITY 31
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Recommendation: Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential
annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure
permanent affordability when possible.
6. General Education
Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address
housing code problems, perceived discrimination, or other matters most effectively.
Recommendation: Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and
how to address housing issues.
Development Regulations
Development regulation is an umbrella term for rules that govern land development. At the local level,
zoning is the way the government controls the physical development of land and the kinds of uses to
which each individual property may be put. This includes the use, size, height, and design of buildings,
and historic preservation requirements. These regulations are contained in the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Iowa City as laws adopted by the City's Legislative body the Iowa City Council.
The following are recommended changes to the current land -development regulations to increase the
diversity and supply of housing throughout the City:
1. Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling units in zoning districts previously limited
to only free-standing single-family dwellings.
For example:
In Single -Family zoning districts, expand by -right building allowances to permit attached
single-family dwellings, such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures, in more locations.
• Allow accessory dwelling units in more circumstances and locations. To support student
housing, consider ADU's associated with rental housing (expand from owner -occupied).
• Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling (duplex and attached single-
family}.
2. Facilitate multi -family dwelling development.
For example:
• Continue to look for opportunities to purchase land for future resale/development.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 32
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
+ Conduct a City -initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas
supported by the Comprehensive Plan and served by transit.
Reduce the minimum amount of land needed to qualify for a planned overlay
district/planned development.
3. Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling in multi -family dwellings outside of the
University Impact Area.
Various state and federal housing programs incentivize housing developments that include units
with more than three bedrooms to accommodate large families. Allow larger bedroom sizes to
accommodate local, state and federal funding parameters.
4. Create Form Based Code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first
and then infill locations.
Recommendation: 1) Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling unit in single family
zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero -lot line
structures. 2) Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures in
single family zoning districts; 3) Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be
developed; 4) Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas
supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 5) Allow multi -family units with more than three bedrooms
when required to meet local, state or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC
program; f} Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum amount to land eligible
to apply for a planned overlay zoning; and 7] Create form based code regulations for additional
neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations.
Programs and Policies Based on Household Income
If additional funding is made available, the priority should be on housing for those with the lowest
income. In recognizing housing is needed to support a healthy housing market and there needs to be
housing options for all incomes and ages throughout the City, recommendations are made for housing
for households up to 100° of area median income.
0-30% Median Income Recommendations
1. Support a Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund for hard to house tenants.
Landlord risk mitigation programs are intended to add protection to landlords willing to rent to
someone with limited income, a poor rental history, or a criminal history. The funds can cover items
CITY OF IOWA CITY 33
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
such as excessive damages to the rental unit, lost rent, or legal fees beyond the security deposit. The
Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board plans to develop a program working in
collaboration with the City. These programs are most effective at a regional level for expanded housing
options and landlord participation.
Recommendation: Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants
and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with
regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and
landlord participation.
2. Support non-profit housing providers develop and maintain permanent supportive
housing/Housing First models.
The Housing First model is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing
to people experiencing chronic homelessness. The subsidized housing is provided with the ongoing
option to participate in supportive services but does not place conditions on the housing.
Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing in which housing assistance and supportive
services are provided to assist households with at least one member with a disability in achieving
housing stability.
The City supported Shelter House in the development of Cross Park Place, a Housing First project, that
opened in January of 2019. The project houses 24 one -bedroom apartments with on-site offices and an
exam room for case managers and partners with health and behavioral health clinicians. The City
converted 24 tenant based rental vouchers to project -based vouchers so that those renting at Cross Park
Place have a voucher to assist with rent.
Due to the success of Cross Park Place, plans are underway for the second Housing First project, "The
501 Project," for persons facing chronic homelessness. Construction started in 2021. The building will
have 36 apartments with a clinic for partnering health clinicians, computer workstations, laundry
facilities and a multi-purpose room for tenants. Like Cross Park Place, housing choice vouchers will be
converted to project -based vouchers to assist tenants pay rent.
The City should continue to provide support for existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects as
well as additional efforts to produce additional housing through acquisition, new construction, or
rehabilitation. The City should expand efforts to include permanent supportive/Housing first projects to
families experiencing chronic homelessness.
CITY of IOWA CITY 34
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Recommendation: Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects,
expanding into projects for families experiencing chronic homelessness.
3. Support major investments.
Support non-profit housing providers to significantly increase their supply of permanent supportive
housing when granted an opportunity, either through acquisition, new construction or by assisting
through creative approaches such as a master lease between non-profit providers and landlords. Under
a master lease scenario, a non-profit service provider enters a lease with one or more landlords to
secure housing for their participants. The participants in the program pay rent to the non-profit service
provider based on the requirements of the program. Consider converting housing choice vouchers to
project -based vouchers for projects assisting those experiencing or with a history of homelessness.
The City is currently collaborating with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County for the allocation of
ARPA funds. Funds will be dedicated to support larger investments in affordable housing for acquisition,
rehabilitation, or new construction. The goal for the projects selected will be permanent affordability
through deed restrictions, land leases or ownership by non-profit entities whose core mission is to
provide affordable housing.
Recommendation: Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in
affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and
households with lower incomes.
4. Maintain affordable housing through rehabilitation.
Efforts should include grant funds for those improvements that improve energy efficiency and lower
tenant utility costs. In all housing, support aging in place initiatives that supports the ability to live in
one's own home safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age or ability level. Support
safety improvements and emergency repairs to homes, including mobile/manufactured homes.
Recommendation: Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency,
lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants
where feasible.
31-60% Median Income Recommendations
1. Support security deposit assistance.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 35
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance that allows up to 2 months for those with
poor rental history to get housed. The City allocated $70,000 to security deposit assistance in FY22. The
amount has been increased twice due to demand to a total of $148,000. Previously, the program
allowed up to 2 months of assistance, but due to limited funds available for the remainder of the fiscal
year, assistance was limited to $1,000 in a twelve-month period with a preference for tenants referred
by Shelter House and the Domestic Violence Intervention Program.
Recommendation: Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance.
2. Support and Expand Eviction Prevention Programs.
Due to the pandemic, housing instability has increased dramatically. Evictions are a destabilizing event
that can send a family into a cycle of financial and emotional upheaval and affect their current and
future prospect for residential stability. The City has allocated over $850,000 to our community partners
to maintain housing for those impacted by the pandemic for eviction prevention and eviction diversion.
It is anticipated that additional funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) will be dedicated for
this purpose.
Efforts should expand community outreach, especially to landlords, to make more tenants and landlords
aware of eviction diversion and prevention programs. Increase efforts to intervene earlier before
evictions are necessary with opportunities to mediate, work out payment arrangements and file for
rental assistance programs.
Recommendation: Support and expand eviction prevention programs.
3. Energy Efficiency Improvements
Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or
homeowner's monthly utility cost. Increase partnerships with non-profit housing providers, including
public housing, to Complete energy efficiency improvements.
Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower
utility costs.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 36
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
4. Down payment Assistance
Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such
as 30 -year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership.
Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers.
61-100 Median Income Recommendations
1. Down payment Assistance
Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such
as 30 -year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership.
Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to
potential homebuyers.
2. Energy Efficiency Improvements
Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or
homeowner's monthly utility cost.
Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements.
CITY OF IOWA CITY 37
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Summary Tables
Recommendations and Actions Required for Existing Policies and Programs
Recommendation
Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider
incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable
mousing in all neighborhoods.
Require staff analysis and funding recommendations of
CDBG/HOME housing applications before HCDC review.
Further define how CDBG/HOME funds will be allocated to
improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top-rated
applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.).
Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing Fund with a goal of a
3% annual increase.
Affordable Housing Fund: Include the LIHTC reservation with the
HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual
allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA
funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for
general applications.
Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund.
Enact policythat prioritizes partnerships with not-for-profit
affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve
affordable housing units in all housing programs.
Allow non-profit affordable housing developers to apply for
additional funds to support ongoing operations (opportunity
Fund, HOME CHDO funds, etc.).
Allow developers of affordable housing to apply for technical
assistance needs from a variety of city programs, including but
not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and
Climate Action grants.
Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in
new residential annexations. With future annexations explore
{partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent
affordability when possible.
Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and
responsibilities and how to address housing issues.
Type of Action Required
Policy Increased
Change Funding Education
X
CITY OF IOWA CITY 38
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Recommendations and Actions Required for Development Regulations
Applicable to Both Single- and Multi -Family
Recommendation
Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum
amount of land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning.
Create form -based code regulations for additional
neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill
locations.
Type of Action Required
Policy Increased
Change Funding Education
X
X
Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations
Applicable to Single -Family
Recommendation
Allow by right more types of dwelling units in single family zoning
districts such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures in more
locations. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be
quired. Possible consultant.)
Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -
lot line structures in single family zoning districts.
Allow accessory dwelling units (AD Us) under more circumstances
and in more locations.
Type of Action Required
Policy Increased
Change Funding Education
X X
X x
Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations
Applicable to Multi -Family
Recommendation
Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be
developed.
Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or
mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan. (Note:
Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible
consultant.)
Allow multi -family dwelling units with more than three bedrooms
when required to meet local, state, or federal affordable housing
funding parameters such as the LIHTC program.
Type of Action Required
Policy Increased
Change Funding Education
X x
X X
X
CITY OF IOWA CITY 39
2022 Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
If additional funds are allocated/reserved for affordable housing, recommendations based on household
income are below.
0-30% Median Income Recommendations
Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding
to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities
(Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation.
Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects for
families experiencing chronic homelessness.
Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing
assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with
lower incomes.
Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports
aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible. J
31-60% Median Income Recommendations
Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance.
I Support and expand eviction Prevention programs. I
Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs.
Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers.
61-100% Median Income Recommendations
Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs.
Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers.
CITY of IOWA CITY 40
Strategic Plan
FISCAL YEARS 2023-2028
Adopted December 2022
ft
CITY OF IOWA CITY
14,
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
--
v
w_
Sir
-
s r
f.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
14,
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
--
I M PACT AREAS
Neighborhoods & Housing
FUTURE VISION
Iowa City is a collection of authentic, vibrant
neighborhoods and districts. By way of internal and
external streets and trails, each community member
has safe, easy access to everyday facilities and
services within a 15 -minute walk or bike ride.
Neighborhoods are compact and socially diverse,
with a variety of housing choices and at least one
place serving as its center. Permanent affordable
housing choices are dispersed throughout the
community. New higher density development blends
with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human -scale pedestrian environment. Public spaces
are inviting and active with people recreating and socializing in parks, natural areas, and tree -lined
streetscapes, all enhanced with public art and placemaking initiatives.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
• Update City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to encourage compact neighborhoods with
diverse housing types and land uses.
• Partner in projects that serve as models for desired future development.
• Create inviting and active outdoor spaces with unique and engaging recreation offerings.
• Address the unique needs of vulnerable populations and low -to -moderate income neighborhoods.
Q7
ACTION PLAN
WE
ChampionAction
Date
Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property
City Attorney
FY23-24
investors.
Act on building regulation recommendations outlined in the Accelerating Iowa
Climate Action &
FY23-25
City's Climate Actions Report; including TIF energy efficiency incentives, energy
Outreach and
standards for height and density bonuses, and a climate action building permit
Neighborhood &
rebate program.
Development
Services
Revamp the neighborhood PIN grant program and evaluate discretionary funding
Communications
FY23-25
for district/neighborhood grassroots projects.
Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Neighborhood &
FY23-28
Work with partners to undertake significant -scale affordable housing efforts.
Development
Services
Seek out and approve residential TIF applications for infrastructure when the
City Manager's
FY24-25
project provides community benefit such as permanent affordable housing,
Office
expansive public open space, or advancement toward stated climate action goals.
Consider a standard application of residential TIF for all new annexations to meet
permanent affordable housing goals.
Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more
Neighborhood &
FY24-28
broadly incorporate form -based principles with emphasis on growth areas first and
Development
infill areas next, expanded missing middle housing allowances, minimum density
Services
requirements, and streamlined approval processes
Explore pilot housing projects utilizing tiny homes, 3D printed homes,
Neighborhood &
FY24-28
prefabricated or manufactured homes, net -zero homes, or other innovative
Development
options.
Services
Bolster financial support for homeless services and evaluate shifting towards
City Manager's
FY25-28
shelter as service model.
Office
Expand the South District Homeownership Program to other targeted
Neighborhood &
FY26-28
neighborhoods and consider allowing relocation assistance to expedite
Development
completion.
Services
Provide all residents with public open space within a 15 -minute walk or bike ride by
Parks and
FY26-28
strategically executing agreements with local schools or other partners.
Recreation
WE
Mobility
FUTURE VISION
Community members of all socioeconomic statuses
easily, safely, and comfortably travel using multiple
modes of transportation year-round. Commuters
choose to walk, bike, or bus at least half of the time,
and an increasing number of trips are fueled by clean
energy. Regional collaboration has created a strong
multi -modal network that links Iowa City to
neighboring communities. Highly traveled corridors
have separated trails or comfortable, safe lanes for
bicyclists. When prioritizing, the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and other
emerging forms of transportation are weighted
greater than those of automobile drivers and
adjacent property owners.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
BIT
following strategies:
• Expand the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public
transit.
• Design and maintain complete streets that are comfortable and safe for all users.
• Grow and prioritize bike and pedestrian accommodations.
11
ACTION PLAN
12
ChampionAction
Date
Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero -fare transit
Transportation
FY23-24
system.
Services and
Finance
Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson
City Council
FY23-25
County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each
entity's elected officials.
Install additional permanent charging stations for vehicles, bicycles, and electronic
Climate Action
FY23-28
devices.
& Outreach
Identify additional opportunities for road diets, sidewalk infill, curb cut
Public Works
FY23-28
enhancement, and bike lane installation with a goal of at least two such projects
each construction season.
Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus
City Council
FY23-28
rapid transit, or pedestrian usage.
Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2 -way streets
Public Works
FY23-28
Secure federal funding for a relocated transit building that can accommodate future
Transportation
FY24-28
growth in service and electrification of the fleet.
and City
Manager's
Office
Consider adding or retrofitting bike pathways that are separated from streets or
Public Works
FY24-28
protected utilizing flexible bollards.
Expand the fleet of electric buses or other low/no emission -technology vehicles each
Climate Action
FY25-28
time a diesel bus is due for replacement and seek grants that can expedite the
& Outreach
conversion.
Consider an on -demand or subsidized voucher system for times and locations in
Transportation
FY25-28
which no fixed route service is available.
Services
Expand snow clearing operations at sidewalk corners in high priority pedestrian
Public Works
FY25-28
areas, bus stops, and bike lanes.
and Parks &
Recreation
Initiate and promote vehicle and bike-share/scooter programs.
Transportation
FY26-28
Services
Evaluate with the State of Iowa the possibility of a Burlington Street Road Diet
Public Works
FY26-28
utilizing flex zones in non -peak hours.
12
Economy
FUTURE VISION
Iowa City is the preferred location for businesses at
all stages of development. Start-up businesses
flourish and take advantage of mentoring and other
resources. The vibrant arts and culture community
attracts both visitors and new residents.
Technologies developed through the University of
Iowa are transferred to the local business sector,
creating business diversity and new value within the
community. Businesses pay living wages and support
skill development for their employees. Support
services - such as child-care and language assistance - are readily available for all, which means every
person who wishes to participate in the local economy can do so. Community members support each
other by spending their money locally.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
• Reinforce Iowa City as a premier community to locate and grow a business.
• Ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place for future business growth and development.
• Cultivate a strong entrepreneurial and small businesses ecosystem with a focus on creating new
pathways to success for systemically marginalized populations.
• Build Iowa City's image as the Greatest Small City for the Arts.
• Strengthen the Iowa River's role as a signature community amenity and tourism generator.
13
ACTION PLAN
14
ChampionAction
Date
Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative
City Manager's
FY23-25
partnerships with higher education, non -profits, and the business community.
Office and
Neighborhood &
Development
Services
Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in
City Manager's
FY23-25
the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that
Office and
build long-term support and wealth -building opportunities for systemically
Economic
marginalized populations.
Development
Partner with Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Community School District,
Economic
FY23-28
Iowa Labor Center, local trades, and other stakeholders to provide meaningful
Development and
career development opportunities, pre -apprenticeship, and apprentice
Neighborhood &
programs.
Development
Services
Increase small business technical assistance to aid in the creation, success, and
Economic
FY24-28
growth of home-grown businesses.
Development
Economic
FY25-28
Create flexible incentives to support the top goals of Iowa City's Self -Supporting
Development and
Municipal Improvement Districts and other commercial nodes, including
City Manager's
attaining a desired business mix that serves the surrounding neighborhood.
Office
Develop targeted marketing to promote Iowa City as a unique and attractive
City Manager's
FY26-28
place to do business.
Office
Develop a riverfront master plan in cooperation with the University of Iowa,
City Manager's
FY26-28
Think Iowa City, and other stakeholders.
Office
14
Safety & Well-being
FUTURE VISION
Our City supports the mental and physical well-being
of our community members. Public safety response,
whether from the City or a non-profit partner, is
nuanced depending on the specific needs of the
situation. Community members receive emergency
response services promptly and welcome
responders as problem -solvers. Inviting spaces for
social interaction, exercise, and regeneration are
equitably located throughout the community and
are lively with activity and use. New and long-time
community members alike, especially marginalized
groups, easily build networks and establish roots
within our community. Community members have
safe, healthy indoor spaces and are well-prepared
for climate -related changes.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
following strategies:
• Implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and
relationships within the community.
• Partner with non -profits to address the most emergent and foundational community safety and
well-being needs.
• Build community by fostering social connections and developing safe, accessible public spaces for
gathering.
15
ACTION PLAN
16
ChampionAction
Date
Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a
City Council and Police
FY23-24
community violence intervention effort in close cooperation with local law
Department
enforcement.
Leveraging American Rescue Plan Act funds, build capacity in local non -profits
Neighborhood &
FY23-26
that will help ensure they are able to meet future community demands.
Development Services
Build on the relationship with the University of Iowa College of Nursing to
Neighborhood &
FY23-26
increase participation in the Healthy Homes program.
Development Services
Expand the Mental Health Liaison program with CommUnity Mobile Crisis with a
Police Department
FY23-28
goal of 24-hour coverage by the end of FY28.
Actively promote 988 throughout the year and ensure that CommUnity Mobile
City Manager's Office and
FY23-28
Crisis has resources to meet community demands.
Communications
Continue critical exterior renovations to the Senior Center and continue
Senior Center
FY23-28
progress on Senior Center Facility Master Plan recommendations.
Integrate CommUnity Mobile Crisis into the 911 dispatch protocols.
Police Department
FY24-26
Consider and, where feasible, implement alternatives to routine non -emergent
Police Department
FY24-26
traffic stops.
Expand neighborhood -based programs such as mobile community
Parks & Recreation
FY26-28
social/recreation resources (fun patrol), nests or micro -hubs for kids/teens.
16
RESOURCES
Facilities, Equipment and Technology
FUTURE VISION
Municipal facilities are modernized and designed for
operational efficiency, capacity for growth,
employee safety and health, resilience, alignment
with Climate Action goals, and civic pride. Funding of
equipment and facility replacement funds and
partnerships with other entities result in joint
facilities, technology, and equipment that improve
access and services. City staff are encouraged to be
entrepreneurial in their approach and actively seek
to innovative and streamline processes while
improving service levels to the community.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the
following strategies:
• Invest in the next generation of public facilities
and equipment to create immediate operational efficiencies, boost workplace safety, health, and
morale, and improve cross -department collaboration.
• Promote high-performance governance leveraging technology, partnerships, and innovation.
17
ACTION PLAN
FU
ChampionAction
Date
Outline a municipal -wide facilities plan and initiate relevant action steps to keep
City Manager's Office
FY23-24
projects moving forward.
Complete a City Hall and Public Safety Headquarters space needs study and
City Manager's Office
FY23-24
develop a plan for next steps toward implementation.
Implement the asset management system and expand use for facility
Public Works
FY23-25
maintenance and management.
Develop and implement an electric vehicle transition plan.
Public Works and Climate
FY23-25
Action & Outreach
Pursue grant opportunities, bolster the Facility Reserve Fund, and explore
City Manager's
FY23-28
public/private partnerships to facilitate completion of key facility projects.
Office and Finance
Design replacement and renovated facilities to ensure alignment with Climate
City Manager's Office
FY24-28
Action goals and create safer and healthier working environments for public
employees.
Improve public transparency through a coordinated and centralized open data
City Manager's Office
FY26-28
platform.
Consider resourcing a Smart City initiative that prioritizes data -driven decision-
City Manager's Office
FY26-28
making through technology adaptation and data analysis.
FU
FUTURE VISION
The City is an employer of choice in the region and
viewed as a rewarding, long-term career choice.
Valuable benefits, flexible schedules, energizing
workspaces, remote and hybrid work arrangements,
and professional development and advancement
opportunities improve productivity, service to the
public, and morale. Employees enter an inclusive,
fun, and engaging environment each workday. City
staff, board and commission members, and
volunteers are demographically representative of
the City population at -large and every employee is
continuously building cultural awareness. Leadership
and elected officials ensure sufficient staff levels to
maintain baseline services, weather vacancies or
emergencies, protect against employee burnout, and
add capacity to act on special assignments and
strategic, long-term initiatives.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
• Establish the City of Iowa City as an employer of choice in the region with a pay plan, benefits
package, and flexible work options that attract and retain high-quality and motivated public
service employees.
• Carry out a multi -dimensional staff engagement initiative to ensure every City employee feels
welcome, informed, involved, and engaged at work.
• Build a diverse talent pipeline.
19
ACTION PLAN
WE
ChampionAction
Date
Complete and execute upon the results of an organization -wide classification and
Human Resources
FY23-25
compensation study. As part of study, review all job requirements to ensure applicability
and eliminate unnecessary barriers to employment, including testing, residency
requirements, education, and certification or license requirements.
Monitor implementation of new telecommuting and flexible work schedule policies to
City Manager
FY23-25
ensure public service standards are fully met and desired employee work arrangement
flexibility is pursued where possible.
Balance investment in new annual initiatives with staffing levels to ensure core municipal
City Manager's
FY23-28
service levels are maintained and reduce instances of burnout.
Office and City
Council
Elevate new and existing intra -organizational communication strategies to bolster
City Manager's
FY23-25
information sharing and improve productivity and connectiveness across the
Office
organization.
Create more opportunities to promote inter -departmental relationships, collaboration,
City Manager's
FY23-25
and problem -solving.
Office
Upskill City staff in implicit bias, cultural awareness, and inclusion.
Equity & Human
FY23-28
Rights
Develop recruitment network with local minority institutions.
City Manager's
FY23-28
Office
Take steps to promote more diverse representation on Boards, Commissions, and
City Council
FY23-28
Committees.
Ensure every single employee knows the City's strategic vision and can connect their role
City Manager's
FY23-28
accordingly.
Office
Strengthen volunteer engagement, management, and appreciation efforts.
City Council and City
FY23-28
Manager's Office
Implement increasingly relevant organization -wide training opportunities such as conflict
City Manager's
FY24-28
resolution and de-escalation training.
Office
Conduct comprehensive benefits review and implement changes based upon best
City Manager's
FY25-28
practices and modern expectations, exploring benefits such as paid volunteer time,
Office
wellness offerings, and flexible stipends for challenges such as childcare, transportation,
higher education and more.
Launch targeted apprenticeship program(s) in partnership with local education and
City Manager's
FY26-28
workforce institutions.
Office
WE
Financial
FUTURE VISION
City residents believe property taxes and utility
fees are fair and commensurate to service
levels, and do not experience erratic changes
in rates and fees. The City maintains sufficient
financial resources to proactively maintain and
replace assets, carry out strategic plan
initiatives, and be insulated from unanticipated
financial stressors. Partnerships, grant funding,
and other creative financing mechanisms are
routinely part of program and project financing structure. The City maintains a AAA bond rating,
resulting in lower borrowing costs for residents and businesses.
STRATEGIES
To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies:
• Grow the tax base, consider alternative revenue sources, and leverage outside funding to maintain
core services and pursue community priorities while maintaining equitable property tax rates.
• Exercise fiscal responsibility by maintaining and growing assigned and emergency reserve funds
and prudent debt management.
21
ACTION PLAN
22
ChampionAction
Date
Ensure Enterprise Funds are well supported through incremental rate and fee
Finance
FY23-28
increases and do not become reliant on large rate spikes, property taxes, or
unplanned debt issuance.
Coordinate with Iowa League of Cities, Metro Coalition, and the City's contracted
City Manager's Office
FY23-28
state lobbyist to oppose unfunded state mandates and detrimental tax reforms.
Maintain the City's AAA bond rating.
Finance
FY23-28
Increase the Emergency Fund balance by an annual target of 5%.
Finance
FY23-28
Significantly bolster the Facility Reserve Fund and develop an implementation plan
Finance
FY23-28
for use of funds that minimizes large debt issuances.
Create a centralized grant management initiative that will focus on securing
City Manager's Office
FY24-28
additional private, state, and federal funding opportunities, while ensuring proper
oversight and compliance.
Develop and maintain cost recovery guidelines for programs and services that
City Manager's Office
FY26-28
balance fiscal responsibility and equity.
Consider financial incentives and land use policies that aim to grow and diversify the
City Manager's Office
FY26-28
tax base (commercial, industrial, and residential).
Consider alternative revenue sources such as a Local Option Sales Tax that can help
City Manager's Office
FY26-28
achieve strategic plan goals, fund infrastructure and facility needs, and reduce
and City Council
reliance on property tax.
22
FROM: Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy
Boa rd
TO: Cities in Johnson County and Johnson County
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
DATE: December 21, 2022
The Housing Action Team believes that there are many benefits associated with the creation of
legal accessory dwelling units on lots in single family zones and in other districts. These include:
1. Increasing the supply of a more affordable type of housing not requiring government
subsidies;
2. Helping older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters seeking a wider
range of homes, prices, rents and locations;
3. By increasing housing diversity and supply, provide opportunities to reduce the segregation
of people by race, ethnicity and income that resulted from decades of exclusionary zoning;
4. Providing homeowners with extra income to help meet rising home ownership costs;
5. Providing a convenient living arrangement for family members or other persons to provide
care and support for someone in a semi-independent living arrangement while remaining in
their community;
6. Providing an opportunity for increased security, home care, and companionship for older
and other homeowners;
7. Reducing burdens on taxpayers while enhancing the local property tax base by providing a
cost-effective means of accommodating development without the cost of building,
operating and maintaining new infrastructure;
8. Promoting more compact urban and suburban growth, a pattern which reduces the loss of
farm and forest lands, natures areas and resources, while reducing the distances people
must drive and thereby reducing pollution that contributes to climate instability; and
9. Enhancing job opportunities for individuals by providing housing closer to employment
centers and public transportation.
Some cities in Johnson County already have code for ADUs (Iowa City and Solon). Johnson
County has code that covers the unincorporated areas of the County. Oxford utilizes the
Johnson County code. Swisher, Shueyville, Hills and North Liberty do not have code for ADUs. At
present, Coralville, Lone Tree and Tiffin do not allow ADUs. The codes that do exist, vary among
jurisdictions.
The Housing Action Team would like to provide our recommendations that minimize lengthy
application processes, high fees and harsh regulations that will prevent the development of
ADUs or encourage illegal ADUs. Our recommendation or specific recommended language for
each policy question is underlined and then followed by a rationale, if deemed necessary.
Recommendations for the Elements of an ADU Code/Ordinance
A. Definition- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel
as a single-family dwelling or a parcel of which a single-family dwelling is present or may be
constructed, that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It
may take various forms: a detached unit, a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such
as a detached garage, or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling.
[Rationale- Two common circumstances in which an ADU might be built before the primary
residence are (1) when a homeowner wishes to stage construction expenses and living
arrangements; and (2) when the homeowner owns an adjacent legal lot (typically used as a
side or backyard) and would prefer to site an ADU there rather than on the lot with the
primary residence.]
B. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District*- Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all
zoning districts which allow residential use, including mixed-use zones, townhouse zones
and single-family zones, subject to the requirements of the ordinance.
C. Number of ADUs Allowed per Lot in Single -Family Zones- Any lot with, or zoned for, a
principal single-family dwelling unit, may have up to two accessory dwelling units.
[Rationale- There are many ways to accommodate more than one ADU that are sensitive to
concerns about neighbor appearance. For example, two internal ADUs can be
accommodated by remodeling a large home, without increasing height or bulk. An internal
unit can be allowed along with an ADU over an attached garage, without increasing the area
of the lot occupied by structures.]
D. Minimum Lot Size in Single -Family and Townhouse Zones- Accessory dwelling units may be
created on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for a single-family dwelling or
townhouses. Attached and internal accessory dwelling units may be built on any lot with a
single-family dwelling or townhouse that is nonconforming solely because the lot is smaller
than the minimum size, provided the accessory dwelling units would not increase the
nonconformity of the residential use with respect to building height, bulk or lot coverage.
[Rationale- As a policy matter, it should not be necessary to establish a separate qualifying
lot size for ADUs if the purpose is to assure the retention of landscaping and privacy
between homes, because the setback and lot coverage standards can achieve those
objectives.]
E. Minimum / Maximum Size Area: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be
no more than the footprint of the primary structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
[Rationale- We recommend eliminating minimum size since the basic requirements for a
living space (kitchen, bathroom, living/sleeping space) and the housing market will establish
a minimum size. For situations in which the existing residence is very small, local
governments might consider authorizing ADUs up to 800 square feet when the primary
dwelling is smaller than 800 feet.]
F. Types of Structures- A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory
dwelling unit in any zone in which dwelling units are permitted. [Rationale- In recent years,
many off-site manufactured and modular ADUs are being produced; old conceptions of
what constitutes a manufactured or modular home are outdated. This language maximizes
the opportunities for ADUs by allowing any type of structure to be an ADU if that structure
is allowed as a principal unit in the zoning district.]
G. Lot Coverage Limits- An accessory dwelling unit (detached, attached, or built by expanding
the footprint of an existing dwelling) on a lot of 4,000 square feet or larger shall not occupy
more than 15% of the total lot area. For single family lots of less than 4,000 square feet, the
combined lot coverage of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling shall not exceed
60%. Accessory dwelling units built within the footprint of existing, legal, accessory
structures are considered not to have changed existing lot coverage. [Rationale- Lot
coverage allowances and limits intersect with setback requirements, floor -area ratio limits
and height limits. If detached or attached ADUs are significantly constrained by a lot
coverage limit, then the possibility of having a two-story ADU may determine whether the
investment in an ADU will generate a sufficient return to justify its construction.]
H. ADU Setbacks- 1. A setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall
be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure
or a new structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an
existing structure. 2. No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or
accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same
dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a
portion of an accessory dwelling unit; and 3. A detached accessory dwelling unit is not
permitted on the front half of a lot, except when located a minimum of 30 feet from the
front line or it falls within the Drovision of subsection 2.
I. ADU Height Limit- The maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit is 25 feet or the
height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the
lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less.
J. Architectural Consistency and Design Review- We recommend against establishing
separate architectural or design standards for ADUs. [Rationale- Highly discretionary
standards based on neighborhood "character" or "quality" can be serious obstacles to the
construction of ADUs. Vague standards hamper homeowners and decision -makers alike.
They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In
some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably
to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of
objective standards governing roof pitches, window orientation and siding. In some cases,
design standards should only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a
specified height or taller than one story.]
K. Orientation of Entrance- Regulations governing the location, type and number of entrances
into primary dwellings apply to accessory dwelling units. [Rationale- Not allowing an ADU
entrance on the same side of the house as the primary dwelling can compromise the design
and increase the cost of an ADU, substituting a more awkward and expensive entrance.
Following the general principal of treating ADUs like the primary dwelling, the authorization
and location of access doors and stairs for detached and attached ADUs should be the same
as for primary residences.]
L. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation- We do not have a specific recommendation
on this subject because a privacy regulation that is not applied to primary dwellings should
not be applied to ADUs. ADU regulations addressing privacy as a separate subject seem to
be rare.
M. Parking Requirements- No additional off-street parking is required for construction of an
ADU. If the ADU removes one of the existing off-street parking spaces it must be replaced
on site if required by the underlying zoning. In lieu of an on-site parking space, an additional
on -street parking space may be substituted if there's already sufficient curb area available
along the frontage for a parking space or by removing the parking space access ramp and
reinstalling the curb. [Rationale- Requiring an off-street parking space for each ADU is a
serious inhibition to the construction of ADUs for two reasons. First, the cost of creating off-
street parking spaces. Second, the lot size, location of the primary residence and
topography may make the creation of the space impossible.]
N. Short -Term Rentals- We recommend that jurisdictions do not adopt a limitation on short-
term rentals unless rental regulations or prohibitions exist for all housing in the jurisdiction
or zone. [Rationale- Many ordinances already have such limitations or prohibitions on the
use of homes as transient lodging in their land use regulations, and those could be extended
to ADUs]
O. Separate Sale of ADUs- We do not have a specific recommendation regarding this subject
since most ADU ordinances are silent on the separate sale of the units as condominiums.
We leave this policy question to the discretion of local jurisdictions.
P. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards- There should be no requirement that the owner
live on the same property (whether in the primary dwelling or the ADU) if there is no owner
occupancy requirement for primary residences. [Rationale- The practical impact of the
occupancy requirement is to inhibit construction of most ADUs. This requirement gives
pause to homeowners or institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they
place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house,
which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer or death. It can also make
financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of an ADU and because
it acts as a restriction on a mortgage lender's security interest in the property.]
Standards and Conditions Not Recommended for Application to ADUs
The following standards and conditions are not recommended for inclusion in ADU ordinances:
• Density limits on ADUs in a zone or district
• Age of principal dwelling
• Size of principal dwelling
• Tenure of current owner
• Limits on persons who can live in ADUs (age, relationship, disability)
• Annual renewal and monitoring of permits for ADUs
*Note on Historic Districts: Even historic districts can accommodate ADUs. Denver, Colorado and
Pasadena, California provide useful examples. A city may require a simplified pre -application
process utilizing a Design Review Committee to provide recommendations to a Landmark
Preservation Commission. The most common issues pertain to the massing, building material and
historic detailing on the elevations that face the street. The secondary elevations that face away
from the street only need to complement the primary structure. In some cases, the roof
treatment of an ADU's primary elevation is reminiscent of the primary building; while its
secondary elevations, which face the alley, may be flat to maximize interior space. This allows
homeowners the flexibility to create more usable spaces while still blending with historical forms
and traditions.
Incentives: Some cities around the country, recognizing the benefits of ADUs, have initiated
various forms of incentives to foster ADU development. Assistance with rent, down payments
and mortgages along with tax abatements have been utilized. The city of Des Moines, in January
2022, implemented a 10 year, 100% tax abatement for new ADUs.
We hope that the cities that already have an ADU ordinance will review these
recommendations and consider making revisions to be more in alignment with our advice. For
those cities without an ADU ordinance/code, we encourage you to utilize/consider these
recommendations as a template for the drafting of your ordinance/code. We would welcome
the opportunity to discuss with you how ADUs can be a useful strategy to support seniors and
also provide affordable housing in your city and across the county.
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including
Summary Table
Attachment 2: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Summary Table
1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential
zones
Duplexes and attached single-family uses in
Allow duplexes and attached single-family
RS -5 and RS -8 zones are only allowed on
uses in RS -5 and RS -8 zones to be anywhere
corner lots. (14 -4B -4A-2 & -51
in a block.
1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS -12 zone
Up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units
Provisionally allow up to 6 side-by-side,
on individual lots are allowed in RS -12 zones,
attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS -
but they are not allowed if they are on a single
12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily).
lot because it is considered a multi -family use.
[14-2A-2 & -4, 14 -4B -4A]
1c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special
exception and provisionally allow multi-famil uses in the CC -2 zone
In most commercial zones, multi -family uses
Provisionally allow multi -family uses in CC -2
are only allowed above the ground floor
zones and allow multi -family uses on the
(except under very specific circumstances in a
ground floor in most commercial zones by
few Central Business zones).
special exception with the following specific
approval criteria:
Multi -family uses in CC -2 zones must be
1. If in an existing building in a Historic
located above the ground floor and require a
District Overlay (OHD) zone, a
special exception. [14-2C-2, 14 -4B -4A-7]
rehabilitation plan approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission
must be completed prior to
occupancy.
2.The units cannot significantly alter the
overall commercial character of the zone.
3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone,
dwellings are prohibited on or below street
level where 3 or more of the following
commercial storefront characteristics are
present:
a.The main entrance is at or near grade;
b.The front facade of the building is within 10'
of the front property line;
c. The front facade contains ground floor
storefront or display windows; and
d.The street level floor of the building was
originally constructed to accommodate sales
oriented and personal service oriented retail
uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses
Assisted group living uses are provisionally
Regulate assisted group living uses more
allowed in RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM, and
consistently with multi -family uses by allowing
CO -1 zones and allowed by special exception
it provisionally in RM -12, CN -1, MU, and CB
in RM -12 and CO -1 zones. Multi -family uses
zones and by not allowing it in CI -1 zones. For
are allowed by right in all multi -family and MU
CC -2 zones, allow it to the same extent as
zones, provisionally in CO -1, CN -1, and most
multi -family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1 c
CB zones and by special exception in CC -2
and sometimes CB -10 zones. X14 -2B-2, 14- is approved or by special exception if it is not
2C-2, 14 -4B -4A-81 approved).
2a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility
Multi -family or group living uses in buildings
Eliminate those two requirements from the
not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2-
multi -family site development standards.
foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed
8,000
concrete. Where wall materials change
60
around the corner of a building, the material
RS -5*
must wrap 3' around the corner.
6,000
(14 -2B -6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-91-3 & -61
30
2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block
locations
5,000
Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-
Modify standards for attached single-family
5 and RS -8 zones must have each unit's main
and duplex uses to allow entrances and
entrance and garage facing a different street.
garages to face one street, but limit garage
[14 -4B -4A-2, -3, & -5]
frontage to 60% of the garage wall and limit
vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20') or 2
55
singlewide (10') garage doors facing each
street unless they are set back at least 15'
from the building fagade. In addition, require
alley access to be used where present.
2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family use
Buildings in multi -family zones cannot have
Allow the Building Official to waive this
parking within the first 15' of building depth.
requirement for townhome-style multi -family
This may be waived by minor modification
uses without a minor modification. This would
which requires a mailing and administrative
be for streets not faced by main entrances to
hearina. /14 -5A -5F -1b7
dwellina units.
3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based
standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use
Min. detached single-family lot standards: I Min. detached single-family lot standards:
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS -8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached sinale-familv lot standards:
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 6,000 6,000 40 40
RS -8 4,350 4,350 35 35
Size
Area/
Unit
Width
Front.
RS -5
8,000
8,000
60
45
RS -5*
6,000
6,000
50
30
RNS-12*
5,000
5,000
45
25
RM -12
55
RM -20
55
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 12,000 6,000 80 80
RS -8 8,700 4,350 70 70
Min. attached sinale-familv lot standards:
Size Area/ Width Front.
Unit
RS -5 6,000 6,000 40 40
RS -8 4,350 4,350 35 35
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards:
Size
Area/
Unit
Width
Front.
RS -5
6,000
6,000
50
40
RS -5*
5,000
5,000
45
30
RNS-12*
3,000
3,000
30
20
RM -12
45
RM -20
45
* Only allowed with rear access
Min. duplex lot standards:
Min. attached sin le-fam
Size I Area
lot standards:
Width I Front.
35 35
30 30
Size
Area/ Width
Unit
Front.
RS -5
10,000
5,000 70
70
RS -8
8,000
4,000 60
60
Min. attached sin le-fam
Size I Area
lot standards:
Width I Front.
35 35
30 30
3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses
outside of the University Impact Area
Multi -family dwelling units are limited to 3 Increase the number of bedrooms allowed
bedrooms and duplex and attached single- outside of the University Impact Area to 4
family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for
[14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4] duplex and single-family attached units.
3c. Encourage accessory apartments in
barriers to construction
Accessory apartments are only allowed in the
RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, RM -20, and RNS-
12 zones and must:
7. Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a
detached single-family use; one per lot.
8. Be under the same ownership as the single-
family use; one unit must be owner -
occupied.
9. Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom.
10. Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30%
of the floor area of the principal dwelling if in
a principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area
of an accessory building if in an accessory
building, whichever is less.
11. Provide one extra off-street parking
space.
When located within the principal dwelling,
must be designed so that the appearance of
the building remains that of a single-family
residence. Any new entrances should face the
side or rear yard, and any addition may not
increase the floor area of the original dwelling
by more than 10%. Exterior finish materials,
trim, windows, and eaves must visually match
the principal dwelling unit. [14 -4C -2A1
a broader variety of contexts and reduce
Modify the standards to reduce barriers,
including the following changes:
7. Allow accessory apartments in any zone that
allows household living uses (including
RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow for any lot
that contains up to 2 dwelling units.
8. Remove the requirement that one unit be
owner -occupied.
9. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms
and residents.
10. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square
feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal
use, whichever is less. Also, allow stand-
alone accessory apartments.
11. Remove the requirement for an
additional parking space.
12. Remove requirements limiting
entrances to side or rear yards so long as it
appears to be a use allowed in the zone and
limiting additions to 10% of building.
4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts
Affordable housing projects can receive height
For conventional zones, create a 20% density
bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones
bonus where 20% of units in a development
and density bonuses in Form -Based zones,
are income -restricted affordable housing for
but conventional zoning districts only provide
20 years, to be administered through existing
density bonuses for alleys serving single-
processes. In addition, provide additional
family detached housing, for multi -family elder
flexibility from dimensional standards
housing, for quality design elements in certain
including allowing an increase in the maximum
zones, and for features promoting
height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction.
sustainability. [14-2A-7, 14-2B-7, 14-2C-11,
14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F]
4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones
There is no minimum parking requirement for
Income -restricted affordable housing units in
affordable housing units in the Riverfront
all zones would not be required to provide a
Crossings District or Form -Based Zones, and
minimum amount of on-site parking if they
a minor modification is available in CB -5 and
provide affordable housing for at least 20
CB -10 zones which allows up to 30% of units
years in compliance with the City's new
in an affordable housing project to be
affordable housing requirements.
exempted from minimum parking
requirements. [14 -5A -4F-4]
5. ADDRESS HOUSING
5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code
Per Federal Fair Housing law, the City must
Create an administrative "Reasonable
provide reasonable accommodations from
Accommodations Request" process with a
land use or zoning policies where they may be
defined approval procedure. Applications
necessary to allow persons with disabilities to
must be reviewed within 30 working days.
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
Proposed approval criteria include:
dwelling. The code has specific waivers, but
5.The housing will be used by an individual
they do not cover every accommodation and
with disabilities;
are not user friendly. [14-8B]
6.The accommodation is necessary to make
housing available for the use and enjoyment
of an individual with disabilities;
7.The accommodation would not impose an
undue financial or administrative burden on
the jurisdiction; and
8.The accommodation would not require a
fundamental alteration in the nature of the
City's zoning program.
5b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use
Long-term housing operated by a public or
Eliminate the community service — long term
nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is
housing use as a distinct use category and
classified as a community service — long term
instead regulate it as a residential use.
housing use, which is considered an
institutional use and is regulated differently
Create a definition for permanent supportive
from residential uses. As a result, the use is
housing.
only allowed in a few commercial zones
(including the CI -1 zone which does not allow
Specify that supportive services for residents
household living uses), but it is not allowed in
of a development may be considered
residential or the CN -1, CB -10 or MU zones.
accessory to a residential use.
Long term housing uses allow higher densities
and less parking than residential uses and
typically has on-site supportive services, but it
also triggers additional process where it is
near single-family residential zones and
requires a neighborhood meeting and
management plan which are not required for
other residential uses that house persons with
disabilities. [14-2C-2, 14 -4A -3A, 14 -4A -6C,
14 -4B -4D-6, 14-5A-4, 14-9A]
Proposed Changes
Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a strikethro gh indicates deleted language.
Article 14-2A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
14-2A-2: LAND USES ALLOWED:
Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Single -Family Residential Zones
USE SUBGROUPS RR -1 RS -5 RS -8 RS -12 �RNS-121
CATEGORIES
Residential Uses
Household Detached single- family P P P P P
living uses dwellings
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2A-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
14 -2A -4E. Minimum Open Space Requirements:
1. Purpose: The minimum open space requirements are intended to ensure a minimum
amount of private, usable open space is provided to support the health, well-being and enjoyment
of the residents of the dwelling. The intent of the open space is to support passive recreation,
leisure activities, informal gathering, and opportunities for interaction with nature.
2. Minimum Requirements:
a. On lots that contain multi -family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be
provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred
(400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less
than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (16). On
lots that contain multi -family uses in the RS -12 zone, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space per unit shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no
dimension less than ten feet (10').
b. On lots that contain detached single family uses, a minimum of five hundred (500)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than twenty feet (20').
c. On lots that contain attached single family uses, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than ten feet (10').
d. On lots that contain two family uses, a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of
usable open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, located in one or more clearly defined,
compact areas, with each area not less than three hundred (300) square feet with no dimension
less than twelve feet (12').
3. Standards:
a. For multi -family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards as set
forth in subsections 14 -2G -7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except multi -family uses in the RS -12
zone shall comply with the standards in subsection 14 -2A -4E -3b.
b. For single family uses and two family uses open space shall be located behind the
principal dwelling in an area visible and easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall
consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and other
amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted
toward usable open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air
terraces or rear yard -facing porches, including screened -in porches (non -habitable space only)
may count toward the open space requirement.
4. Minor Modification: A minor modification may be requested according to the provisions
and approval criteria of section 14-413-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title, to reduce the required
open space for single family and two family uses in the following circumstances, provided the
additional approval criteria stated in subsection E4e of this section, are satisfied. Note that
reducing the open space may reduce the allowed occupancy of a rental property (see title 17,
chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code):
a. In order to establish up to two (2) off-street parking spaces (surface parking or in a
garage) on a lot that currently has fewer than two (2) off-street parking spaces; or
Detached zero lot line dwellings
PR
PR
PR
PR
Attached single- family dwellings
PR2
PR
PR
Two-family uses (duplexes)
PR
PR
PR
PR
Group households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Multi -family uses
PR
Group living
uses
Assisted group living
Independent group living
Fraternal group living
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2A-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
14 -2A -4E. Minimum Open Space Requirements:
1. Purpose: The minimum open space requirements are intended to ensure a minimum
amount of private, usable open space is provided to support the health, well-being and enjoyment
of the residents of the dwelling. The intent of the open space is to support passive recreation,
leisure activities, informal gathering, and opportunities for interaction with nature.
2. Minimum Requirements:
a. On lots that contain multi -family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be
provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred
(400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less
than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (16). On
lots that contain multi -family uses in the RS -12 zone, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space per unit shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no
dimension less than ten feet (10').
b. On lots that contain detached single family uses, a minimum of five hundred (500)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than twenty feet (20').
c. On lots that contain attached single family uses, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150)
square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension
less than ten feet (10').
d. On lots that contain two family uses, a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of
usable open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, located in one or more clearly defined,
compact areas, with each area not less than three hundred (300) square feet with no dimension
less than twelve feet (12').
3. Standards:
a. For multi -family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards as set
forth in subsections 14 -2G -7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except multi -family uses in the RS -12
zone shall comply with the standards in subsection 14 -2A -4E -3b.
b. For single family uses and two family uses open space shall be located behind the
principal dwelling in an area visible and easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall
consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and other
amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted
toward usable open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air
terraces or rear yard -facing porches, including screened -in porches (non -habitable space only)
may count toward the open space requirement.
4. Minor Modification: A minor modification may be requested according to the provisions
and approval criteria of section 14-413-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title, to reduce the required
open space for single family and two family uses in the following circumstances, provided the
additional approval criteria stated in subsection E4e of this section, are satisfied. Note that
reducing the open space may reduce the allowed occupancy of a rental property (see title 17,
chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code):
a. In order to establish up to two (2) off-street parking spaces (surface parking or in a
garage) on a lot that currently has fewer than two (2) off-street parking spaces; or
b. If the lot is a corner lot, is irregular in shape, substandard in size, or contains severe
topography, or other unique circumstance, such that there is practical difficulty meeting the
standard; or
c. The lot contains a manufactured home, where due to the shape/dimensions of the home
there is practical difficulty meeting the standard; or
d. The lot contains a detached zero lot line dwelling, where the side yard is designed to
serve as usable open space for the dwelling;
e. Approval criteria:
(1) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings,
paved areas, and vehicular use areas to meet the open space requirement. Such efforts may
include but are not limited to reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas and size of
new buildings or additions, and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property;
and
(2) The open space requirement will be satisfied to the extent possible in another
location on the lot, such as a side yard; and
(3) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent
possible.
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use
Minimum Lot Requirements
Maximum
Number
Lot Size
Area/Unit
Lot Width
Frontage
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Ft.)
(Ft.)
of
Bedroom
s Per
Unit
RS -5
Detached
6,000 8-,999$
6,0008 9,-009
50 608
40 458
n/a
single- family,
including zero
lot line
Duplexes
1042,000
5,000 600
7090
7090
4',
Attached single-
5,000 6,000
5,000 6,000
3540
3540
411
family
Other uses'
6,000 8-,G99
n/a
5060
4045
n/a
RS -8
Detached
5,0008
5,000$
458
408
n/a
single- family,
including zero
lot line
Duplex
8,000 800
4,000_4,350
60 7-0
60 7-0
41,
Attached single-
4,000 4;350
4,000 4;350
3035
3035
411
family
Other uses'
5,000
n/a
45
40
n/a
RS-
Detached
5,0008
5,0008
458
408
n/a
12
single- family,
including zero
lot line
Duplex
6,000
3,000
55
40
411
Attached single-
3,000
3,000
20/287
20
4'—'
family
Other uses'
5,000
n/a
45
40
n/a
Multi -family uses
[insert standards from reoriented table below]
Detached
5,000$
5,000$
45$
25$
n/a
RNS-
single- family
12
Duplex
6,000
3,000
1 45
125
1411
Multi -family uses 5,000 1 Existing4 45 25
Other uses' Other uses' 15,000 n/a 45
Table 2A-2: [REORIENTED FOR CLARITY]
Zone/Use
RS -12
Multi -family uses
Minimum Lot
Requirements
Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)
9,000
Area/ Unit (Sq. Ft.)
3,000
Lot Width (Ft.)
76
Frontage (Ft.)
60
Minimum
Setbacks
Front (Ft.)
156
Side (Ft.)
10
Rear (Ft.)
20
Building Bulk
Max. Height (Ft.)
35
Min. Building Width (Ft.)
543
Maximum Lot
Coverage
Total Building Coverage
50%
Front Setback Coverage
50%
Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit14
411
Minimum Open Space (Sq. Ft.)10
150 / unit
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
1. Other uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise
in chapter 4, article B of this title.
2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story.
Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards
in chapter 4, article B of this title.
3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75
percent of the building's length.
4. See the special provisions of this article regarding multi -family uses.
5. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4, article B,
"Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title.
6. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the
bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all
lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C,
"Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title.
7. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a
row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide.
8. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area
per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See section 14-2A-
7 of this article.)
9. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet, except in the Central Planning District and
Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots
equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100
feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision,
garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non -habitable)
breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width) will be considered detached accessory buildings and,
therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than
principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as
detached accessory structures/buildings.
10. Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14 -2A -4E of this section.
11. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached
single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing
Code", of this Code.
14-2A-7: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14 -2A -7A. Single -Family Density Bonus Options: For detached single- family dwellings and
detached zero lot line dwellings, the following density bonuses are allowed in the following zones
and under the following conditions:
1. RS -5 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are
allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty-five fifty feet (458') and the minimum lot
frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to five s+x thousand (56,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
2. RS -8 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are
allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty feet (40') and the minimum frontage to
twenty five feet (25');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to four thousand (4,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
3. RS -12 & RNS-12 zones: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is
restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional
requirements are allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to thirty feet (30') and the minimum frontage to
twenty feet (20');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to three thousand (3,000)
square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located
along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above
the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
14 -2A -7F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article
14-4F, "Affordable Housing".
Article 14-2B: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
14-2B-2: LAND USES ALLOWED
Table 2B-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi -Family Residential Zones
Use Categories
I Subgroups
RM -12
1 RM -20
1 RNS-20
RM -44
I PRM
Residential uses:
Household living
uses
Detached single-family
dwellings
P
P
P
Detached zero lot line dwellings
PR
PR
PR
Attached single-family dwellings
PR
PR
PR
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2B-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Table 2113-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use
Duplexes
PR
PR
PR
Total
Area/ Unit
Group households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Multi -family dwellings
P
P
P
P
P
Group living
uses
Assisted group living
RM-
PR
PR
PR
PR
Independent group living
n/a
PR
single- family
PR
PR
Fraternal group living
40 7
PR
S
PR
PR
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses
and special exceptions.)
14-2B-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Table 2113-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use
Minimum Lot Requirements
Maximum
Number Of
Total
Area/ Unit
Width
Minimum
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
(Ft.)
Frontage
Bedrooms Per
(Sq. Ft.)
(Ft.)
Unit
RM-
Detached
5,0007
5,0007
45 _r7_57
n/a
12
single- family
40 7
and detached
zero lot line
Duplex
6,000
3,000
55
40
413
Attached single-
3,000
3,000
20/286
20
413
family
Multi -family
8,175
See table 213-
60
40
313
3 of this
section
Group living
8,175
See e#apter
60
40
See Ghapter 4,
4; article 14-
article 14-4B-Gf
4Bof this
this
Non-residential'
5,000
5,000
60
40
n/a
RM-
Detached
5,0007
5,0007
45 55'
407
n/a
20
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
Duplex
3,600
1,800
45
35
413
Attached single-
1,800
1,800
20/286
20
413
family
Multi -family
5,000
See table 213-
60
40
313
3 of this
section
Group living
5,000
See e#apter
60
40
See Ghapter 4,
4; article 14-
article 14 -413 -of
4B ^f +ale
this title
Non-residential'
5,000
n/a
60
40
n/a
RNS-
Detached
5,0007
5,0007
407
257
n/a
20
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
Duplex
5,000
2,500
40
1 25
1413
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area
per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-
2134A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.)
13. Outside of the Universitv Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-213-6). the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5,
"Housing Code", of this Code.
Table 2113-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -Family Zone
Attached single-
2,500
2,500
20/286
20
413
Minimum lot area per unit (in
square feet):
family
Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,800
Multi -family
5,000
See table 213-
40
25
313
875
3 -bedroom unit
2,725
3 of this
1,500
1,315
Maximum number of
bedrooms normulti family
dwakag-un't
3
3
3
section
Minimum bedroom
size' (square feet)
100
100
100
Group living
5,000
See Ghapte
40
25
See ohapt
4, article 14-
article 14-413$f
4Bof this
this title
Non-residential'
5,000
n/a
40
25
n/a
RM-
Multi -family
5,000
See table 213-
None
35
313
44
3 of this
section
Group living
5,000
See ehapter
None
35
See chapter 4,
4, article 14-
article 14-413-ef
413of t�;tle
this#+tle
Non-residential'
5,000
n/a
None
35
n/a
PRM
Multi -family
5,000
See table 213-
None
35
313
3 of this
section
Group living
5,000
See chapter
None
35
See chapter 4,
4, article 14-
article 14-413-ef
413of t�;tle
this#+tle
Non-residential'
5,000
n/a
None
35
n/a
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
7. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area
per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14-
2134A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.)
13. Outside of the Universitv Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-213-6). the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5,
"Housing Code", of this Code.
Table 2113-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -Family Zone
Note:
Zone
RM -12
RM -20 And
RNS-20
RM -44
PRM
Minimum lot area per unit (in
square feet):
Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,800
500
435
2 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,800
1,000
875
3 -bedroom unit
2,725
2,700
1,500
1,315
Maximum number of
bedrooms normulti family
dwakag-un't
3
3
3
3
Minimum bedroom
size' (square feet)
100
100
100
100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of
the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in
size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as
specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room,
dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that exceed 775
square feet On size or have any horizontal dimension greater than 16- feet sh-All P-ount as 2 or more
bedreorns, as determined by the Gity. The maximurn number of bedreorns may be further
Eenst-uined bythe provisions of title 17 chapter r-. "Housing Code", of this Gode.
14-2B-6: MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
14-213-6E. Building Scale:
1 RM 12 RM 20INNS 20 RM 44 nRd PRM ZGReo Outside the Central Planning District:
Street -facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be articulated with bays,
projections, or recesses (see figure 2B.7 of this section) according to the following standards:
a. Bays and projections must be at least six feet (6') in width and at least sixteen inches
(16") but not more than six feet (6') in depth. Recesses must be at least six feet (6') in width and
have a depth of at least sixteen inches (16").
b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline
or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural
element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a change in window
pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation in
architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents.
Figure 2B.7 - Building Articulation
Unacceptat4e Aicep:able
Acoeptable Acceptable
14-213-6G. Building Materials:
1. In the central planning district, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of
clapboard style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco.
2. In the PRM zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be
constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including
concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material
when used in combination with other masonry finish.
3. In the central planning district and in the PRM zone, buildings not constructed of masonry
or stucco must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and
construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are
used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 213.10 - Building Materials
r
i ww aee�a _
'JNOrxk+ry
F4fw}
4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using
similar materials and design as the front facade.
5.
durable base Gens'StiRg ef rnaSORFY, StUGGG, er dressed GeRGrete that extends at least two feet
I
height abeve grade. if the base Gensists Gf GGRGrete, it must have a deGerative faG8.
Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a
street side lot line.
67. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the
change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
material thaR v.fhat is ---suedd Pon the qstrP-Pet faGiRg wall, the stFeet faGing wall material must wFap
fe —d the-cor'r"rc� the -sides ofthe bluilrliRg for at least trh Fee feet (3')r
79. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the
materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band
board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 213.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
_ .
=
Permitted
PR
WPM
�
fr
S
=
Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for
requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
r'Cvar �C
i,C:C:ab'C
Undv.�r a�C
14-2B-8: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14 -2B -8E. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to
Article 14-41F, "Affordable Housing".
Article 14-2C: COMMERCIAL ZONES
14-2C-2: LAND USES ALLOWED:
Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Commercial Zones
P
=
Permitted
PR
=
Provisional
S
=
Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for
requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
Use Categories
Subgroups
CO-1
CN-1
CH-1
CI-1
CC-2
CB-2
CB-5
CB-
MU
310
CB -2
310
CB -5310
CB -10
1 310
10
Residential uses:
Group living
Assisted group
PR
PR
PR
uses
living
Fraternal group
living
Independent
group living
Household living
Attached single-
PR
uses
family dwellings
Detached single-
P
family dwellings
Detached zero
PR
lot line dwellings
Duplexes
PR
Group
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
households
Multi-family
PR/
PR/
PR/
PR/
PR/
PR/
P
dwellings
S
S
S
S
S
S
Institutional and civic uses:
COMMURity
PR/
-
-
gR/
PR4
gR
PR
SP-PAG-19 - IG ;g
tom h.,
S
Community
service uses
g
Community
service -shelter
S
S
S
PR
PR
S
S
General commu
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
nity service
14-2C-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Table 2C -2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU
Zone9
Zone
Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit
CO -1
310
CN -1
310
CH -1
n/a
CI -1
n/a
CC -2
310
CB -2
310
CB -5310
CB -10
1 310
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
10. Outside of the UniversitV Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms maV be increased bV one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined bV the CitV. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17
"Housina Code". of this Code.
Table 2C -2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone MU
Zone
Use
Maximum Number Of
Bedrooms Per Unit
MU
Detached single-family and detached zero lot line
n/a
Two-family (duplex)
48
Attached single-family
48
Multi -family
38
Group living
See article 14-413
Nonresidential'
n/a
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
8. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum
number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached
single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension
greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum
number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17. chapter 5.
009 _ TI . 0Z.t"[M.9ii111 OTOT R
Table 2C -2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Commercial
Zones
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of
the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in
size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as
specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room,
dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that 8XGeed 225
square feet On size er have aRy herizental dimensiOR greater than 16 feet shaall G.GURt as 2 er rnere
byirhre- PFGViGiGR6 Gf title 17 GhapteF 5, "HOU...iii e", of thus Code..
14-2C-9: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN MU ZONE:
14-2C-91. Building Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional
Buildings:
1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements
incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are
used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Zone
Minimum lot area per unit (in
square feet):
CO -1, CC -2,
CNA And MU
C13-2
C13-5 And CB -10
There is no minimum lot area per
unit standard. However, the
number of 3- and 4- bedroom units
per lot may not exceed 30% of the
total number of units on the lot
Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit
2,725
435
2 -bedroom unit
2,725
875
3 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,315
Maximum number of
bedrooms p multi family
3
3
d
Minimum bedroom
size' (square feet)
100
100
100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of
the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in
size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as
specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room,
dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that 8XGeed 225
square feet On size er have aRy herizental dimensiOR greater than 16 feet shaall G.GURt as 2 er rnere
byirhre- PFGViGiGR6 Gf title 17 GhapteF 5, "HOU...iii e", of thus Code..
14-2C-9: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN MU ZONE:
14-2C-91. Building Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional
Buildings:
1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements
incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are
used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 2C.5 - Building Materials
ordow m
Lle�ry
2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using
similar materials and design as the front facade.
3. Extermer walls ef build'RgS that are not predern'RaRtly masenry GF StLAGGE) must have a
durable base Gens'StiRg ef rnaSORFY, StUGGG, er dressed GeRGrete that extends at least two feet
(2') height abeve grade. if the base Gensists Gf GGRGrete, it must have a deGGrative faG8.
Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a
street -side lot line.
45. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the
change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
th�A.n vihat ffis used- e.n the street-faGiRg wall, the street-far--ing wall material must wrap
aro �n�cGGme-ste the sides of the b uil d'Rg fer at least throe foo+ 3
.5 Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the
materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band
board or other trim, to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 2C.6 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
ACC@pnM kcepmtle Vna=i6ptaN4t
14-2C-11: SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
14-2C-11 F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article
14-41', "Affordable Housing".
Article 14-2G: RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM
BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
A Purpose: The purpose of this section is to•
1. C Bate a; MA -re jasta„d Iowa Gity;
UROVeMity and the City's � �rbr-
dahle to the nit y's wGr
vols to work and "Ven r Lei,
Icing for neenle with diverse -4
heuseholds• and
at of hemelessness
iiRg definitiens shall apply fn
to "GWRer o ied affer&
afine.t herein
err.
,raterd for nom more than the*[L
dj usted annually, and renter!
ome Housing Tax Credits (L -fl
the I IHTf runt limits for Igh�
mid
i horoin a heusehold is
'ed affordable hey using dwe4
Re
hU Rdred ton n ant (1 Allo
y. Gxnent a sot forth heroin
ental hey using if that heus(
.Affordable Housing Requirement: Except for developments providing affordable housing
pursuant to a development agreement with the city executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for
developments exclusively providing elder apartment housing, any development containing ten (10)
or more dwelling units on land zoned a riverfront crossings zoning designation is required to provide
affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the
total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units result
in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction
over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of affordable housing dwelling units. Any
exempt elder apartment housing developments shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure
compliance with the zoning code regulations of this title of such use.
B. Affordable housing shall be regulated pursuant to Article 14-4F. "Affordable Housing".
-2. Nllethed-s Qf..A.ruhip-��iRg A#erdability; The affeFdable housing requirement may be satisfied
thrni ugh the provision of one or more of the following methods:
a On site owner occupied affordable housing;
b On site affordable rental hn si W,
c 4 fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund;
d. Off site affordable housing;
e Contribution of land
if the owner desires to utilize methods in subsection C2d or C2e of this section, the owner M.
establish that methods in subsections C2a, '
and C2c of this section cannot feasibly
satisfied as reasonably determined by the city.
Article 14-2H: FORM -BASED ZONES AND STANDARDS
14-2H-3: USE STANDARDS:
Table 14-21HI-3B-1: Uses
Use Categories
T4NS
T4NS-
O
T4NM
T4NM-
O
T4MS
Specific
Standards
Institutional And Civic Uses
Community Service Uses
Community SeNiC-e-
I ong Term I-Iinn
S
S
S
S
S2
94_4�nD_
6(GO_47\
Community Service -
Shelter
S
S
S
S
S2
14 -4B -4D -
5(RM-44)
General Community
Service
S
I
S
S
S
PR
I
14 -4B -4D -
I 3(CN-1)
Day-care Uses
I PR
PR
PR
PR
I PR
I 14 -4B -4D-7
14-2H-10: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES:
A.PuFpose: purpose of this 68GtOGR io +n.
1-r.-reaCC a mn Tussive, just and su
levels; -2. EnGGUrage the distributinn of -affe.rd-able heusiRg throughout all areas of the Gity�,
—4. Pre -Mote a r--P-.Fn..rnunmty that provides hoUS'Rg for people kvith diversA iAGGMe
Tn red, ine the n, ember of housing Gest _bu Fdened households; onrl
6. Prmm��nou,;Phc)lds+ebml%d redFGe the thTea+ nf�hnrnplessn`e�.
B. Eligibility And InGentive Provisions: NA-b.A.4thst-anding any Gont 3 this Title,
provisions of this sen+inn shrill apply in all Form -Based Zones that allow residential uses are eligible
to utilize affordable housino incentives found in Article 14-4F "Affordable Housina".. ^�%at
B. Affordable housing shall be regulated pursuant to Article 14-4F, "Affordable Housing".
1. Parking Red Un+inn: No perking ..N.. Ges shall be required rdable hou
2. Density Bonus: For building types th-;;t Allei.v feur (4) or mem dwelling units, the maximu rn
n1_1rnbP_.r of dwelling units may be inGreased by twenty five PeFGent (250%) Of all additional units are
— 3. Minor adjustments tO GArtAin '7nntQ Standards" (14 2H 2). One P_f the fellov.fing adjustments
may be administratively approved in buildings that r__ontain afford -able housing units where
proposed adjustrne.nt fit -s the GharaGter0i_;t0r__q_ P_f the site and the surrounding neighbeFheed, and is
Gons stent with the intent ()f thp standard being adjusted and the goals nf h p h R
D06trint Plans--.
a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up fifteen feet (15'). This
. y be GOrnbined with redUGtiAMS fn -.r P-910-G-ation of utility easement or addition of new i i
spaGe nGt slhev.fn On the fulture land use rnap up to a GGrnbined maxim. -Um. of Wfenty five feet (25+
b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to fifteen PerGent 0
G. Minimum. Of faGade required within the fars-aardle ze-Ine may be reduGed by up to
fiuen+v neroent (20%).
4. MiRer adjustments W G8rtain "Building Type Standards" (14 2H 6). One of the fellel ' A ' fing
adjustments may be administratively approved for buildiRgG that Gentai affeirdable housing units
where the prepesed adjustment fits the GharaGteristir0s; of the site and the surround"49
neighborhood, and 06 GGRS'St8Rt with the Ontp-.nt A -f the standard being adjusted and the goals of the
Comprehensive and Dis+rin+ Plans:
a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to fifteeR peFGeRt 0
b. Maximum building height may be inGreased by up to 0.5 stGries. This bonus allows the
building height to eXGeed the maximum staw-jarc-1s, fn -.r primaFy buildings fE)URd in Itern 4a (Building
Form; Height),
of sen+inn 94_71..1_7 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5')
■_
■...... . .. . .......... . . ..............
„-
.,,
_. NOI
k
�.• .,,awan
Article 14-3A: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (OPD)
14-3A-4: APPROVAL CRITERIA:
14 -3A -4D-1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in
the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding
development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified
in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14 -3A -4D-3 or
Section 144F. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum
expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project
relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of
this title.
Article 14-4A: USE CATEGORIES
14-4A-3: RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORIES:
14 -4A -3A. Household Living Uses:
1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group
household, who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. The principal use of the property
is for long term residential living, with each dwelling unit containing its own facilities for living,
sleeping, cooking and eating meals, and with all spaces within the unit open to the entire household.
The dwelling or dwelling units are designed for residential living which includes Permanent
Supportive Housing and any accessory use shall be secondary to the use of the property as a
residence.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the subgroups listed below. The single family uses
are further divided into various dwelling types, because these dwelling types have distinct
dimensional and development standards based on the zone in which they are located. Group
households, given that they are a type of "household" rather than a type of dwelling, are permitted
in any type of dwelling listed in the three (3) other subgroups, as is Permanent Supportive Housing.
a. Group Households: Group households include only the following specific uses: elder
family homes, elder group homes, parental group homes, and family care homes, all as defined in
chapter 9, article A, "General Definitions", of this title.
b. Single Family Uses: A single family use is a household living use where there is no more
than one principal dwelling unit per lot. Single family uses include the following dwelling types.
(1) Detached single family dwellings. Farm dwellings; detached single family houses;
manufactured homes; modular homes; and mobile homes, if converted to real property and taxed
as a site built dwelling, as provided in the Code of Iowa, as amended. (See exceptions, below.)
(2) Detached zero lot line dwellings.
(3) Attached single family dwellings. Attached zero -lot -line dwellings; townhouse
dwellings.
c. Two Family Uses: Two family uses are household living uses in which there are two (2)
principal dwelling units within a single building and both dwelling units are located on the same lot.
These uses are often referred to as duplexes.
d. Multi -Family Uses: Multi -family uses are household living uses where there are three
(3) or more principal dwelling units within a single building and all dwelling units within the building
are located on the same lot. These uses include apartments, condominium apartments, elder
apartments, assisted living apartments, townhouse -style apartments and condominiums, efficiency
apartments, and dwelling units located within mixed-use buildings.
3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents'
vehicles: supportive services that assist Permanent Sugoortive Housina residents in retainina
housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and when possible work
in the community. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical
structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and breakfasts are accessory uses that are
subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this
chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the
property for residential living.
14-4A-6: INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES:
14 -4A -6C Community Service Uses:
1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local service to
people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or have employees at the
site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not just for special events. Included are community
centers or facilities that have membership provisions that are open to the general public to join at
any time, e.g., a senior center that allows any senior to join. The use may provide shelter or short-
term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use may nre„ide tenane„ for lone
term heusing fer peFSE)RS with disabilities wheR operated by a pub' OG er nORprefffit agenGy. The use
may also provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable
nature.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following three (3) subgroups:
a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride facilities;
senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities; some social service
facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally disabled; soup kitchens; surplus
food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as police and fire stations.
b. Community Service -Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
enerated by o u blin a refit o
3. Accessory Uses: Offices; meeting areas; food preparation areas; parking; health and
therapy areas; daycare uses; athletic facilities.
4. Exceptions:
a. Religious institutions and private clubs and lodges are classified as religious/private group
assembly uses.
b. Group care facilities where patients are residents of the facility are classified as assisted
group living.
c. Private, for profit athletic or health clubs are classified as indoor commercial recreational
uses.
d. Private, for profit art galleries are classified as sales oriented retail.
e. Social service agencies that consist primarily of office and counseling functions and
operate in a similar fashion to other office uses are classified as general office.
f. Parks and cemeteries are classified as parks and open space.
g. Uses where tenancy is arranged on a non -transient basis are residential and are classified
as household living or group living.
h. Alternatives to incarceration, such as halfway houses, where residents of the facility are
under supervision of sworn officers of the court are classified as detention facilities.
Article 14-4B: MINOR MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND
PROVISIONAL USES
14-4B-4: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR PROVISIONAL USES AND SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS:
14 -4B -4A-2. Attached Single -Family Dwellings In oc_G And ac_Q Zones.
a. Nu.mber Of Units. Only one prinGipal dwelling unit is permitted per let. A maximum 0
fide M\ dwelling units may be atteeher!
b. I enationOne ne of the ettaGhed dwelling units must he Ieeeted en a Berner let
F.. C �c� cs
SCREET
A' -LV
14 4B 3. AttaGhedS°iRgre-Fa,,�welll,,gs In IRS 12 RM 12 RNS 29RM20,neo
mss:
a. Number Of Units:
MOnly one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot.
(2) In RS -5 and RS -8 zones: A maximum of two (2) dwelling units may be attached
unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
(3) In all other zones: A maximum of six (6) dwellings units may be attached unless
approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
b. Setbacks:
(1) Interior Lots: The side setbacks for the attached dwellings may be reduced to zero
along the common wall side of the units. Each end unit in a row of attached single-family
dwellings shall have one side setback that is a minimum of ten feet (10'), unless the end unit is on
a corner lot.
_a'+ �� ^., ^ ^Corner Llots:—Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback
may be reduced to zero feet (0'). The the remaining nonstreet setback must be at least ten feet
(10') if it is a side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback. (See figure 413.2 below.)
Figure 413.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single -Family Dwellings
c. Entrances:
(1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that is Visible from and
eriented +eward the street. Te meet this standard the main n+raRGe must faces the street, is be
at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main
entrance may not face an alley.
(2) Each dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance
and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided.
(3) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must
be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side
facade of the dwelling.
d. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be
demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an
exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design
of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall
that faces a street-side lot line.
(4) If four (4) or more dwelling units are attached, the units must be articulated by at least
one of the following means in order to prevent monotony, but the units should be consistent in
architectural style and proportion. Figure 4B.3, located at the end of this subsection Aad, provides
some examples of acceptable building articulation. However, other designs meeting the
standards listed below are acceptable.
(A) Construct front and side elevations of the building of at least fifty percent (50%)
brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not
include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or
decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material.
(B) Construct front and side elevations of the end units of one hundred percent (100%)
brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not
include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or
decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material.
(C) Distinguish each unit architecturally through a change in the roofline and a jog in
the street-facing wall plane. The jog must be at least eighteen inches (18") deep and a minimum
of eight feet (8') wide; the change in the roofline must be in concert with the jog in the wall plane,
which may be accomplished by the addition of a gable, hip or similar roof that is perpendicular to
the primary roof.
Figure 4113.3 - Examples Of Facade Articulation For Attached Single -Family Dwellings
f�lI I til. ` L
Ax ^pta bl e
P.:.: epijble
i
Acce ote:3 e
Acceptable Altemalive Facade ArSodatlons
RcveMable ALtemoti ie Facade Ahiculatbons
e. Garages
(1) In the RS -5 and RS -8 zones, there may be no more than one doublewide or two
singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet
(15') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered
part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet (20') in width;
singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10') in width.
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street -side lot line. On
corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of
article 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site
development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Attached single-family
dwellings located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14 -2C -9N,
"Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (46), vehicular access is restricted to an
alley or private rear lane. Corner lots are exempt from this standard if vehicular access faces a lot
line that is at least forty five feet (45) in length.
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be
accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
g#. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street or rear
lot line.
hg. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from
the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The easement must ensure
access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall located on the lot line and other
common elements, such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a covenant on
the applicable lots. Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or
occupancy permit.
14 -4B -4A-3. Multi -Family Uses In The RS -12 Zone:
a. Number Of Units: No more than six (6) principal dwelling units maybe located on a lot in
an RS -12 zone unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
b. Principal dwelling units must be arranged as a townhouse -style multi -family building
such that each unit has frontage on the same street.
c. Principal dwelling units may not be stacked where one unit is located above or below
another.
d. Entrances:
(1) Each principal dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that faces the
street, is at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The
main entrance may not face an alley.
(2) Each principal dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian
entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided.
(3) A second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the
rear facade of each dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling.
e. Design Features and vehicular access: The multi -family use must meet all
requirements in Section 14-213-6 "Multi -Family Site Development Standards".
14 -4B -4A-5. Two -Family Uses In IRS 5, IRS 8, IRS _1 RNS 12, RM 12, RM 20 Rn S 20 And
M17oneS•
a Location Limitation In RQ_F And RS 8 ZeneS. In the DQ_F —A.A-I DQ_R ZeneS tWO-familly
uses are only allowed on corner Into
b. Central Planning District: Two-family uses located in the central planning district must
comply with the provisions of subsection 14-213-61, "Additional Standards In Central Planning
District", of this title, which will be administered through the design review process as set forth in
chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
bE. Entrances:
(1) In the RQ_G and RQ_A Zones, to givetheStn Ucfi ire the overall appearaRGe of Senara+^
dWel!;RgS, eaGh dwelliRg unit must have its maiR entranGe oriented tol.A.f-ards A- diff&FeRt stFeet thaR
the m entrance of the other dwelliRg Unit.
�2} The main entranced must hevosibl^ from an,+ e ented towards he street Te meet
this s+an,+ard_ the main entrance m„s+ face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees
(45°) from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entranced may not face an alley or private
rear lane.
(23) The duplex Each, dwat ^g must have a paved connection between the main
pedestrian entranced and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is
not provided.
(34) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must
be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side
facade of the dwelling.
d. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be
demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an
exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design
of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall
that faces a street -side lot line.
e. Garages:
(1) In the RS -5 and RS -8 zones, the garage entraRGe there may be no more than one
doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at
least fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building fagade. For the purposes of this section, a
porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet
(20') in width; singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10') in width. for a dwelling Unit must he
enented- tei.yards the sa.rne street aas the dwelling unit's Main PntranGeunless the
nnented toviard an alley or private roar lone '
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street -side lot line. On
corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard. In the MU
zone, garages are exempt from this standard, but are subject to the standards of subsection 14-
2C -9N, "Single -Family Uses And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular Access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of
chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site
development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Two-family uses located in
the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14 -2C -9N, "Single -Family And Two -
Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than eighty feet (80'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley
or private rear lane. Corner lots and double frontage lots are exempt from this standard if the
vehicular access for one of the dwelling units is located along a different street than the vehicular
access of the other dwelling unit, or if vehicular access for both dwelling units is located along a
street where the front setback line is at least eighty feet (80') in length. (See definitions of "lot
width" and "setback line, front" in section 14-9A-1 of this title.)
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be
accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
gE ja!�re�g.�• Examples Of Tine Family I Ices In The RC_5. Apr! rJC_R 7nnec.
SMUT
ALLEY
.I
I
I,n
14-4I34A-7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial Zones rn_1 GN -1 CC -2 CB -2 CB -5 And CR_
10 Zones:
a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level floor of a
building, except as provided in subsections A7e and A7f of this section.
b. Maximum Density: The residential density standards for multi- family uses in
commercial zones are stated in section 14-2C-4, "Dimensional Requirements", table 2C -2(c) of
this title.
c. Residential Entrances:
(1) To provide safe access for residents within a mixer, use h„ild;n^, any building
containing a residential use must have at least one door on the exter;nr of the buil ip„ that
provides pedestrian access to the dwelling units within the building. Said entrance must be
located on an exterior building wall that faces a street, public sidewalk, or pedestrian plaza and is
visible from and easily accessed from said street, sidewalk, or plaza. Access to dwelling units
must not be solely through a parking garage or from an alley.
(2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwelling units located above the ground
level floor of a building must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway.
Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are prohibited. However, the city may allow
exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code
requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a
street.
(3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level, the ground level floor height should
be no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. The
City may adjust this requirement for On sloping building sites, for multi -family buildings with no
commercial component, armor for existing buildings, the ^;+„ may adjust this requirement.
However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building
must be located no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian
plaza; and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more than three
feet (3') above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a
street -facing building facade.
d. Standards For Ground Level Floor Of Building:
(1) OR the ,.r„„nd revel fleet +The floor to ceiling height must be at least fourteen feet
(14% except it may be reduced for existing buildings or where dwelling units are permitted on the
ground level floor of the building.
(2) For the ground leye.1 floor of the building, ^Construction must meet the building code
specifications for commercial uses, except where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level
floor of the building.
[duplication of 14 -2C -8L-2] (3) in the GR_, n ZzGne, for the first two (2) Boors of
building, GGRStFUGtien must rneet the building Gede SpeGifiGat'GRS fGF GGRIMeMial uses.
e (`R_G and GB 10 EXGen+ion: in the GB 5 and GB 10 zenes, eXGept aprovided in
The
board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi -family dwellings to be located on or
below therg ound street level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) Where tThe proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic
District Overlay (OHD) zone ORa property designated a n Iowa City his+„riG lan.JmarL aA
rehabilitation plan for the property must be has reviewed and approved by the Iowa City
historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according
to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted.
(2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of
the subject zone.
(3) There are site conditions or building characteristics that make the street level ef the
subject building or buildings unsuitable fA-.r ethe.r uses allevM_d iP the G9 5 GF CB 10 zone.
(34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone on a
landmark property includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront
characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building:
(A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade;
(B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property
line;
(C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display
windows; and
(D) The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate
sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for
these purposes.
f. CB -5 Form Based Code Exception: For properties zoned CB -5 located within the area
bounded by Gilbert Street, Van Buren Street, Burlington Street and the midblock alley south of
Jefferson Street, residential uses are allowed on the ground level floor of buildings, provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) In lieu of the standards in subsections A7c and A7d of this section, the proposed
ground level dwelling units must be located within one of the following building types, as
described in the form based zoning standards in section 14-2G-5, "Building Type Standards", of
this title:
(A) Apartment building;
(B) Multi -dwelling building;
(C) Liner building;
(D) Townhouse.
(2) Building frontage(s) must be designed to meet the requirements of section 14-2G-4,
"Frontage Type Standards", of this title, as applicable for the chosen building type.
(3) In lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development
standards that generally apply in the CB -5 zone, buildings must comply with the same zoning
standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict of riverfront crossings as set forth in chapter
2, article G, "Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development
Standards", of this title, including all general requirements in section 14-2G-7 of this title. If the
ground level dwelling units are proposed as an integral part of a larger project on the same
property that includes a mix of building types, the standards that apply in the south Gilbert
subdistrict shall apply to the entire project in lieu of the dimensional requirements and central
business site development standards of the CB -5 zone.
(4) Buildings are subject to design review. Minor adjustments may be allowed by the
design review committee as warranted according to the provisions of subsection 14 -2G -7H of this
title.
14 -4B -4A-8. Assisted Group Living:
a. Maximum Density: Maximum density within an assisted group living use is as follows.
For purposes of calculating maximum density, staff and live-in staff of a facility are not considered
roomers.
(1) In the RM -12 zone: One roomer per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of lot area.
(2) In the RM -20, RNS-20, CN -1, CC -2, and MU zones: One roomer per five hundred
fifty (550) square feet of lot area.
(3) In the RM -44, PRM, CO -1, CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 and GI -4 zones: One roomer per
three hundred (300) square feet of lot area.
b. Facilities: The group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by
roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building And Housing", of this code. In addition,
the occupants may have access to a communal kitchen, dining room, and other common facilities
and services.
Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS
14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA:
14 -4C -2A. Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted in the R's 5, RS 8, Qe_
detaGhed zere IG)t "Re dwelliRgS and OR buildings aGGeSSGFY te these same dwelliRg types, provided
the following conditions are met:
1. Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the
principal dwelliRg unit use must obtain a rental permit from the Department- ^vf Housing and
Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cehapter 14-8, "Review
And Approval Procedures", of this le.
2. Ownership And Occupancy:
a.
least ape of the ,+,.,^Iliag ,pits eR the premises s the p eRt legal res The lot shall contain
no more than two (2) dwelling units as a principal use and shall be located in a zone that allows
household living activities.
b. The accessory apartment and the principal dwelling use must be under the same
ownership.
G. The tetal number ef individuals that reside in the aGGessery apaFtMeRt may not eXGeed
3. Site Requirements:
a. Only one accessory apartment may be established per single family lot.
b.
spaGe is red fer+he aGGessery ar+meRt
The minimum lot size area per unit requirement of the underlying base zone must be met,
butte to an Qesessery-apartment, i.e., no additional lot area is required beyond that
which is required for the principal use dwelling nit.
4. Design Requirements:
a.
accessory building.
b. The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions
independently from the principal single- family dwellin^ pA use. It must contain its own kitchen and
bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exterior.
be. When located within the a building with an existing principal use dwelling, the accessory
apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use
within that zone, and any Slagle- family ;PSideRee- ARp new entrances should face the sideorrear
yard of the building, and aRy additiop f^r an apartment may not increase the floor area
of the original dwelling by m e than ten p eRt (4 091� Gexterior finish materials, trim, windows,
and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useunit.
5. Apartment Size: The accessory apartment must be clearly subordinate in area to the
principal dwelling unit or to the accessory building in which it is located. Accordingly, it must comp4hy,
with the following standards
a For an accessory apartment located within a principal dwelling unit, tThe floor area of the
accessory apartment upA may not exceed fifesthirty percent (530°/x) of the total floor area of the
principal use dwe4k4g, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand -six hundred fifty
(1,000659) square feet, whichever is less.
b. FeF an ar-GeSSGry apai4meRt located within an accessory building, the floor area of the
accessory apartment may not exceed fifty percent 0
94) of the total floor area of the accessory
building or six hundred fifty (650) square foo+ whichever is less
c The accessory apartment magi contain no more than one bedroom
Article 14-4F. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SFCTION-
14-4F-1: Purpose
14-4F-2: Eligibility
14-4F-3: Definitions
14-4F-4: Regulatory Incentives
14-4F-5: General Requirements
14-4F-6: Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
14-4F-7: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing
14-4F-8: Alternative Methods Allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District
14-4F-9: Administrative Rules
14-4F-1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this article is to:
A. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
B. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City;
C. Increase the multi -family housing stock near the university and the City's urban core;
D. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
E. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key employment
centers;
F. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income
levels;
G. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households; and
H. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
14-4E-2: ELIGIBILITY
Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this section shall voluntarily
apply in all zones that allow residential uses, with the exception of developments on land zoned a
riverfront crossings zoning designation which shall be required to provide affordable housing
dwellina units in an amount established pursuant to Article 14-2G-8.
14-4E-3: DEFINITIONS:
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner -occupied affordable housing"
and/or "renter -occupied affordable housing", as those terms are defined herein.
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income
eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner -occupied affordable housing dwelling unit
located in the Riverfront Crossings District shown in Section 14-2G-2, Figure 2G-1 if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the
area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually, or if not located in the Riverfront
Crossings District, if that household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent
(80%) of the (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is
an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an
annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted
annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets,
excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households.
OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than
the most current published HUD homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an
income eligible household.
RENTER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the
HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and
rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent
limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household.
RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person
reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and
TIAA-CREF. not includina distribution of or income from the assets.
14-4F-4: REGULATORY INCENTIVES
Owners that provide affordable housing may utilize the following incentives:
A. Parking Reduction: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the
parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code, pursuant to Section 14 -5A -4F-4,
"Affordable Housing Parking Reduction".
B. Riverfront Crossings District: Affordable housing in zones established bV Article 14-2G ma
be eligible for additional floors of building height, pursuant to Section 14 -2G -7G "Building Height
Bonus Provisions."
C. Form -based zones established by Article 14-2H
1. For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the maximum number of
dwelling units may be increased by twenty-five percent (25%) if all additional units are affordable
housing.
2. Minor adjustments to certain "Zone Standards" (14-2H-2). One of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved in buildings that contain affordable housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of
the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted bV up fifteen feet (15'). This
provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new
civic space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of twenty-five feet
25' .
b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%).
c. Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to
twenty percent (20%).
3. Minor adjustments to certain "Building Type Standards" (14-2H-6). One of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain affordable housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of
the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted bV up to fifteen percent (15%).
b. Maximum building height may be increased bV up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the
building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a (Building
Form; Height) of section 14-2H-2 (Zones) bV 0.5 stories and bV five feet (5').
4. Additional Minor Adjustments: An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards"
described in subsection C2 and "Building Type Standards" described in subsection C3 may be
administratively approved where affordable housing units are income restricted to households
making fifty percent (50%) or less of the area median Income.
All Other Zones:
D. All Other Zones
1. Density Bonus. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a
development are affordable housing, the minimum lot area and minimum lot area per units is
reduced bV twenty percent (20%). Alternatively, where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling
units within a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone are affordable housing, the maximum
residential density is increased bV twenty percent (20%).
2. Minor Adjustments to Certain Dimensional Standards. Where at least twenty percent
(20%) of dwelling units within a development are affordable housing, one of the following
adjustments may be administratively approved where the proposed adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the intent of
the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Front, rear, or side setbacks may be reduced by up to fifteen percent (157/6).
b. Maximum buildina heiaht may be increased by up to five feet (5).
14-4F-5: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Methods Of Achieving Affordable Housing: Affordable housing may be provided through
one or more of the following methods:
1. Onsite owner -occupied affordable housing;
2. Onsite affordable rental housing; or
3. Alternative methods allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District, including a fee in lieu
contribution to an affordable housing fund, off site affordable housing; and/or contribution of land.
B. Affordable Housing Agreement And Deed Restriction:
1. Riverfront Crossings District.
a. Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation pursuant to Article 14-2G,
the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing
which method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the
public hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building permit to construct any
development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an
agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include
details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The City Manager is
hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records
of the Johnson County, Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense.
b. A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements, selected method
of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and
rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit or, in
the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed
contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed restriction shall
be recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed conveying title
of any such unit or land during the term of affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically
expire upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The City Manager is hereby authorized to
issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form
approved by the city attorney.
2. All Other Zones. Upon approval of an affordable housing regulatory incentive, the property
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize and
detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the applicable
programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing regulatory incentive.
The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be
recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction
memorializing these obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at
the owner's cost.
C. Term Of Affordability: Depending on the zone, an affordable housing dwelling unit shall
remain so for no less than the following number of years from the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed restriction described below.
1. Riverfront Crossings Zone established pursuant to Article 14-2G: Ten (10) years
2. All other zones: Twenty (20) years
D. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules
of this Article is a violation of this Article. It may also result in immediate suspension of any rental
permit issued for a renter -occupied affordable housing unit.
14-4F-6: OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Owner -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-
4F-5 and the following requirements.
A. Development Requirements:
1. Dwelling Unit Types: In the Riverfront Crossings District, the affordable housing dwelling
units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate
dwelling units within the development.
2. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least
eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall
have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City
Manager or designee. Outside of the Riverfront Crossings District, where a housing development
contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit, the percentage of affordable dwelling units
with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal to the percentage of non -set-aside dwelling
units with the same number of bedrooms.
3. Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the
development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable
housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
4. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and
issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
B. Program Requirements:
1. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of
affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
2. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the
HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and
verified by the city prior to close of the sale.
3. Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except
an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
4. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all owner -occupied affordable
housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to
closing on the sale.
a. Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income -eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual household income
according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609,
as amended.
b. Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the
purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(1) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(2) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(3) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly
issued building permit.
(4) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's
fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this Article.
14-4F-7: RENTER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Renter -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section
14-4F-5 and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements: Renter -occupied affordable housing shall be provided in
accordance with the development requirements for owner -occupied affordable housing set forth
in Section 14 -4F -6A.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD
metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no
more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households.
(1) in the Riverfront Crossings District, if a tenant initially deemed an income eligible
household for purposes of occupying an affordable housing dwelling unit pursuant to this Article,
but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of household
income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent
can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with the affordable housing requirement,
the next available rental unit in the project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an
income eligible household. To that end, the affordable rental units need not be specifically
designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development.
(2) In all other zones, if a tenant household is initially deemed an income -eligible
household, but is subsequently deemed to no longer be income -eligible upon annual examination
of household income, that tenant household shall still be considered an income -eligible
household until they vacate that unit. However, upon the vacation of that unit, the subsequent
tenant must be an income -eligible household.
c. Income Verification: The property owner shall annually verify that the renter -occupied
affordable housing dwelling units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the
commencement of a lease, the owner shall determine a potential tenant's annual household
income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR
5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, the owner may determine a tenant's
annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary bV the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
14-4F-8: ALTERNATIVE METHODS ALLOWED IN THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS
DISTRICT
If the owner desires to provide off-site affordable housing and/or contribution of land, the owner
must establish that on-site affordable housing or a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing
fund cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city.
A. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner
may contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by
the city. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city
council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for
the term of affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household.
The fund shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include
administration costs, in the riverfront crossings district.
B. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the
affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined bV the
city, it maV be satisfied bV designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the
riverfront crossings district as affordable housing dwelling units. Any transferred affordable
housing units shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide affordable housing units
within the development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general
requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5, these units must satisfy the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Provision Of Units: Off site affordable dwelling units, whether they are owner- or renter -
occupied, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner -
occupied affordable housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. The city reserves the right to deny a
request to transfer affordable housing units to a particular development if it would result in an
undue concentration of affordable housing units within that development.
b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of
newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no
later than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the
affordable housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager, or designee. Where the
affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off site dwelling
units, they shall be established as affordable housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The
marketing of the affordable housing dwelling units should occur no later than one (1) year after
the first market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final
inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon bV the City Manager. The affordable housing
agreement pursuant to Subsection 14 -4F -5B-1 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building
permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing.
2. Programming Requirements:
a. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be owner occupied affordable
housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied
affordable housing set forth in Section 14-41F-6.
b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be renter -occupied affordable
housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for affordable rental housing set
forth in Section 14-4F-7.
C. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements
cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it maV be satisfied by the
dedication of land to the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for
construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon
consideration of the following factors:
1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area
appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the city;
2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to
or areater than the number of reauired affordable housina dwellina units:
3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type
(single-family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which
would have been otherwise required;
4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the
developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers
provided by the city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city
agree; and
5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of
the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is
not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not
likely to construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner
due to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land
proposed to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in
accordance with the provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to contribute
a fee making up this difference in values.
14-4F-9: ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed
necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall
be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website.
Article 14-5A: OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS
14-5A-4: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB -5 And CB -10 Zones, Except As
Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14-5A-462 Of This Section
Use
Categories
Subgroups
Parking Requirements
Household
living uses
Multi -family
dwellings
CB -5 Zone
Efficiency, 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling
unit.
2 bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
CB -10
Zone
For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008:
Bedrooms 1-10: No parking required.
All additional bedrooms: 0.5 space per bedroom.
(For purposes of this standard an efficiency
apartment will be counted as 1 bedroom.)
For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per
dwelling unit.
2 bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB -5, CB -10,
Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District
Use
Subgroups
Parking Requirement
Categories
Categories
Household
Single family and two
For 1 -bedroom and 2 -bedroom units: 1 parking
living
family uses
space, plus 1 additional parking space for each adult
service
service
occupant beyond 3.
For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking
0.1 space per temporary resident
25 percent
spaces plus 1 additional parking space for each
shelter
based on the maximum number of
adult occupant beyond 3.
Multi-
All zones,
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per
family
except
dwelling unit.
uses
PRM and
2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
CB -2
3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
the site at any 1 time.
4 bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit.
Comm6lRity seWiGe
_ Ienrr term hey join..
1 spacePeF 3 URts, er-3—beds,
whiGhever is eo+er.
5 bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit.
University impact area: 1 space per bedroom (see
section 14-213-61 map 213.1 of +o —4t1e).
PRM &
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space per
C13-2 Zone
dwelling unit.
2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
University impact area in the PRM zone: 1 space
per bedroom (see section 14-213-6, map 213.1 of this
tifle).
GR -7 7ene
EffiGieRGY and 1 bedroom Rite 0.75 spa --
2 7 bedroom i ni+o• 1.5 ononec per
unit
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces nor gni+
Elder
1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units
apartments
and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted
living units, except in the PRM and CB -2 Zones.
In the PRM and CB -2 Zones, 1 space for every 2
dwelling units.
Use
Subgroups
Parking Requirement
Bicycle
Categories
Parking
Community
General community
1 space per 300 square feet of floor
10 percent
service
service
area.
Community service -
0.1 space per temporary resident
25 percent
shelter
based on the maximum number of
temporary residents staying at the
shelter at any 1 time, plus 1 space
per employee based on the
maximum number of employees at
the site at any 1 time.
Comm6lRity seWiGe
_ Ienrr term hey join..
1 spacePeF 3 URts, er-3—beds,
whiGhever is eo+er.
''�,t
14 -5A -4F-4. Affordable Housing Parking Reduction In The ren+rol
B Uoineoo 7e^ems: Affordable housing dwelling units, as defined in Article 144F, shall be exempt
from providing the parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code where those units are
reaulated as affordable housina for a period of at least twentv (20) vears pursuant to Article 14-
4F
14-5A-5: CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS:
14 -5A -5F -lb.
In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building
for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the street -facing building wall. On
lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback must be met along each street frontage,
unless reduced or waived by minor modification. The Building Official may also waive this
requirement along a side street for townhome-style multi -family units. When considering a minor
modification request, the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation,
location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where
the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain.
Article 14-8B: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES
14-8B-11: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS REQUEST:
A. Applicability: A reauest for reasonable accommodation may be made by anv individual with
a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with
disabilities, when the application of a regulation, policy, practice, or procedure in Title 14 acts as a
barrier to fair housing opportunities.
B. Submittal Requirements:
1. The applicant must file a written application for a reasonable accommodations request with
the Department of Neighborhood and Development services on application forms provided by the
City.
2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form or as
requested by staff to allow a full review of the request.
3. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the
City will assist to ensure that the process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant
as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and
shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law.
C. Approval Procedure:
1. Upon receipt of a complete application, staff will review said application for compliance with
the following approval criteria:
a. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be
used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws;
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the use and
enjoyment of an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws;
c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative
burden on the jurisdiction; and
d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of
the City's zoning program.
2. Within thirty (30) working days of the date a complete application is submitted to the City,
the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services will approve, approve with modifications
agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove the application consistent with fair housing laws.
3. If the Director does not act within thirty (30) working days and the applicant does not agree
to an extension of time, the application will be deemed approved.
4. The Director's findings on each application shall be set forth in a written decision, which will
be filed in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and Development
services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant at the time of filing. All written decisions
shall give notice of the applicant's right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the
appeals process as set forth below.
D. Appeals:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the reviewing authority's written decision, an applicant
may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from the adverse decision
shall be made in writing pursuant to the procedures in Section 14-8C-3, "Appeals".
2. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the City will
assist to ensure that the appeals process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant
as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and
shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law.
3. In deciding such appeal, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the approval criteria in
Section 14 -8B -11C-1.
4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the Board of Adjustment may, inconformity with
the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error,
reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from
and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that
end, shall have all the powers of the Director.
5. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other
state or federal remedy available.
Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS
14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS:
DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, someone who has a "orae
physical or mental impairment that s ,hely limits one or more of such person's major life
activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone with a record of such
impairment. aR d is eXpeGted to be IGRg GE)Rt' , ed and- of indefinite d uratiOR
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied
by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive
housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or
her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: With respect to land use and zonina. it means
individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility in the
application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or
waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities.
TARGET POPULATION: Persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including
mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, and may include, among other
populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults
aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and
homeless people.
ATTACHMENT 3
Correspondence
From:
william aorman
To:
Tracy Hightshoe; Kirk Lehmann; Anne Russett
Cc:
Jeff Kellbach; Jessica Andino; Scott Hawes; Leonard Sandler; Bob Untiedt
Subject:
P&Z Committee Meeting- July 5th
Date:
Sunday, July 2, 2023 10:00:10 AM
r
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Tracy/Kirk/Anne,
I reviewed the draft proposed revisions to the city's zoning code and I want to thank you for
your willingness to listen to and seriously consider the input of local organizations. I just have
two questions.
1. Is there an option to attend the P&Z Committee via Zoom? I want to attend the meeting
but I recently had surgery for a detached retina and it is advisable for me to remain
home. I currently cannot drive.
2. 1 have noted that a number of the Housing Action Team recommendations regarding
the city's ADU code have been integrated into the proposed amendments to the current
code. One recommendation that does not appear to have been accepted pertains to the
current requirement that "exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must
visually match the principal dwelling unit". Is that correct? If that is so, we would hope
you would reconsider and propose the removal of this requirement since it limits
options for homeowners and can drive up construction cost.
Thank you for all the time and effort your staff have put into these proposed zoning
amendments, not only pertaining to ADUs but more broadly for improving housing choice,
increasing the housing supply and encouraging affordability.
William Gorman
Chair, Housing Action Team
Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Team
The easiest thing of all is to deceive oneself; for we believe whatever we want to believe.
Demosthenes
From:
Freerks, Ann M
To:
Anne Russett
Subject:
Proposed Iowa City Zoning changes
Date:
Wednesday, July 5, 2023 1:01:55 PM
r
i
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
I served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for several years, including time as
chairperson. I was a member of the Commission when we updated the Comprehensive Plan
including the Central District Plan. I also participated in the redrafting of the Zoning and
Subdivision regulations.
I understand and appreciate the your work and I applaud the City's efforts to use zoning tools
in an effort to promote the development of more affordable housing. I believe that some of the
proposed changes before you have merit and may help our community achieve more
affordable and equitable housing opportunities.
I am however concerned that some of the proposed changes will have unintended
consequences in the older neighbors, such as Longfellow, Goosetown, the Northside, College
Hill and Green. and Miller Orchard. Having older houses, many of which are "fixer uppers",
these neighborhoods provide opportunities for individuals and families to purchase homes.
There is however stiff competition for these properties from investment owners who market
their holdings as rentals to University students. A group of students can pool their funds and
pay far more for housing than an individual or a family. When the City adopted the
Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the UniverCity Neighborhood
Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older neighborhoods are
concerned that some of the proposed changes to the zoning code will further tip the scale in
favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable
housing.
With the goal of finding zoning tools that will promote the creation of as well as the
preservation of affordable housing, I ask the neighborhood associations be added to the stake
holders involved in this process and be given an opportunity to meet with staff to discuss our
concerns and to offer solutions.
Sincerely,
Arm Freerks
443 South Governor Street
Iowa City
Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your
July 5th meeting. Thank you.
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
From: Tim Weitzel
Re: Zoning Code Amendments to Improve Housing Choice (REZ23-0001)
July 25, 2023
I am writing as a resident of Iowa City and past member of Iowa City's Planning and Zoning Commission
and past chair of the Historic Preservation Commission.
As stated in Mr. Lehaman's memo of July 5, affordable housing initiatives are not only desirable but also
important to the future of a diverse and inclusive Iowa City. Iowa City is relatively expensive for Iowa.
Despite being cheaper than many metro areas, the salaries are also lower here for many people. Along
those same lines, poverty is higher in Iowa City than surrounding communities. The disparity in incomes
also has an ethnic element. Minorities earn less in Iowa City compared to their counterparts in other
nearby communities, which places a greater burden on their ability to find housing. [Source:
Datacommons.org]
At the same time, Iowa City has a number of fairly unique factors. Iowa City has a large Big Ten university,
but is relatively small in size compared to other host cities such as Minneapolis, Madison, Chicago, Grand
Rapids, Ann Arbor, Columbus and so on. Most of these communities have large scale commercial and
industrial sectors in addition to the university. This allows for a more diverse revenue stream that in turn
could support more city -funded initiatives for affordable housing. Additionally, larger communities
generally can count on a larger portion of HUD funding per year.
In my reading, the proposed amendments are actually fairly conservative. They are not the sweeping
land zoning reform. Instead, the proposed amendments seek to increase opportunities to make more
affordable housing units while being responsive to the existing provisions of the zoning code. Many
existing provisions of code, such as setbacks, most design standards including building height, and I
presume requirements for runoff, such as maximum lot coverage and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, will
remain as they are. If so, the proposed changes would strike a balance between incentives to increase
the stock of affordable housing while retaining important regulations that support quality of life and
environmental concerns.
I did want to bring up a final comment and this is regarding our local preservation districts, both historic
and conservation districts. If the amendments are successful, I would recommend a directive to the
Historic Preservation Commission to develop specific standards for review of exterior design on ADUs.
There is no specific reason an ADU or other outbuilding needs to match the roofline of the primary
residence. Rather consistency with the time period for which the building is significant should be the
guide for the design. A contextual design will be more likely to be a good match for the existing
neighborhood. First preference should be given to existing outbuildings (garage, carriage house, etc.) and
the current regulations should cover that. However, when there is new construction that would not
eliminate a historic outbuilding I suggest a process to maximize the number of affordable units allowed
that remains smaller than the principal building. So, allow some increase in footprint provided all the
other conditions already mentioned and included in the zoning code are met.
TW/tw
ATTACHMENT 4
Enlarged Map
Map of Zones That Currently Allow Duplex and/or Attached Single -Family Uses
v -
-
-���.-� , :�- -..'::fir � - � �� -■ :�
MINES
ME
\ ��. A - - • -�� + �1� ■�iiiiii'����ii1�� �li�irr�!�:�...�� �j �
��ammi- r-�-
�;� � ��1�I � ■■■■ _ �, �
USES
1
0
N
N
d
1 �O, I
1 �� 1
4
��
c
E
m'
G
F
IM
v
�
Planned Development
McC0"sterB�`d
y�_ 1
Overlay (OPD)
S y
��
dt
Currently Allows
a
' i
�� 'Po.
Ir
s
Throughout Block
Currently Allows in RFC
Building Type
Currently Allows on
1
1
Corner Lots
1
1
Map of Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments
v -
�� �� �� ►w'
willSINEW MENEM
■■■■■■■■■m■
NEENKNEITIM
IIMEEWENEEM
��. ■ � ,� �\fes` � �,■■ ilr� ��� �i �: l �,� i
q ME
ION
Awd
111 0 A WE
MEN OUR
Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
Currently Allows Duplex
mcdolli
Allows Duplex Under
`-
_
Proposed Change
Allows • - •-
Proposed Change
Does Not• • -
Underor
Map of Zones That Allow Multi -Family Uses: Current and Proposed
vim►■
i
1
1
1
1
1
stn's,
Melrose
® Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
Currently Allows by Right
Currently Allows Provisionally
Currently Allows by Special
Exception; Allows
Provisionally Under Proposed
Amendments
Currently Does Not Allow;
Allows Provisionally Under
Proposed Amendments
� � C
1 ff
1�
oo
1
�Interstate'80
�a
NEESE
ME
�]■jl__]HEji_ FA
MCClid
16
II
1
—urn —SEE
10
Gott Blvcd
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I
1
1
1 \\erb�ert HToover Hwy SE
1 yJ"!
Is�
Map of Zones That Allow Assisted Group Living Uses: Current and Proposed
v -
10
■ [ELL] �J 1�� �1i�ir;rr► �� r
��� Iii •���• ; ��� � � �� � �-�� — .�.�:. • —■ ■■■■■��Z1�%
Currently Allows by Special
�ti � 'J ' . �� �' .� � � � � ° � �■■.111 I ' • �'1'°',
to - •
Exception; `GProvisionally \ Under--
Proposed�
WC
ter
Amendments
Currently Does Not• �l
Allows• •UnderProposed Amendments
AllowsCurrently by •-
Exception;Does NotAllow
•- ••• -•
Amendments �/
Map of Detached Single -Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Current and Proposed
Currently Non -Conforming;
Made Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Conforming;
Remain Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Non -Conforming;
- Remain Non -Conforming
Under Proposed
Amendments
Interstate'
�■SII■■■■■ ,� . _ 1
I T'1i F��-7�=�'■
JtJ.1` RM
= Ma01/is ! T
ter
i:
4
Mc
_\
Muscatine
v
-
r
i.
Currently Non -Conforming;
Made Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Conforming;
Remain Conforming Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Non -Conforming;
- Remain Non -Conforming
Under Proposed
Amendments
Interstate'
�■SII■■■■■ ,� . _ 1
I T'1i F��-7�=�'■
JtJ.1` RM
= Ma01/is ! T
ter
i:
4
Mc
_\
Muscatine
Map of University Impact Area
r
:,
'�111111�■� � ��: I
� ``vim / /, • �/
•� ■■■
. HE SII■■■■■
■M■ME
00
■■ ■
1
1 �
1 �
1 �
1
1
1
1
��Gott Blvct ;
1
1
1
1
Herbert Hoover Hwy SE
Z ' 1
' ' 1
ester.
Q E Court St
(n
Muscatine Ave Is
too h 1
y9h Ca A Highland Ave o~Qj4 y -1
1 retsC,
1
ROW
�i S �, d�CO
'o
CL oda
C.
01 o- m
\ N 1 C-21 1
MCC U)
1
61
,---Highway
1 16 -_ m 1 i ;-
1 1 �-
`-� 1 1
- � 1
1
1
Map of Parcels That Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Ppoposed
v -
�Illli��i �
\0 ya %
� � wk�hs OA
a
1 Melrose Ave
It C
i
1
1
1
1
1
h
RohretRd �dy2 �
Currently Allows If Owner -
Occupied; Allows If Owner -
or Renter -Occupied Under
Proposed Amendments
Currently Does Not Allow;
Allows If Owner- or Renter -
Occupied Under Proposed
Amendments
- /_
Benton S
Interstate 80
St
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
��oott Blvd i
1
1
1
Herbert Hoover, Hwy SE
N 1
r
E
L I�C7 1 N h ���
N �
? �p Highland Ave' y
Gs00,
St N i'
10
0 1 6 c m
1 1 A? E
r
MCC
o//iSte r '6xt
----�
1 ,__-_-•m 1 1
1 1 �-
`-� 1 1
1
1
I
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 2, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Chad
Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Lorraine Bowans, Donald MacFarlane, Wally
Plahutnik, Gregg Geerdes, Ellen McCabe, Tim Fleagle, Bob
Burchfield, Sharon DeGraw, Paula Swygard, Martha Norbek,
Nancy Carlson, Ross Nusser, Scott Hawes, Rebecca Kushner,
Karyl Bohnsack, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, Mary Bennett, Mary Beth
Slonneger, Ginnie Blair
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Title 14
Zoning as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing
choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability with the exception of the proposed
amendments related to accessory apartments.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend deferral of the proposed amendments related to
accessory apartments to the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood
associations to be conferred prior to that meeting.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ23-0001:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to improve housing choice, increase housing
supply, and encourage affordability.
Elliott stated she had a conversation with Bob Miklo, former planning staff member, regarding
these zoning changes on Friday, July 21, the conversation centered on the implications these
new rules may have on older neighborhoods but she can be impartial regardless of conversation.
Russett began the staff report providing some background information and noted this process
started with City Council adopting its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan
identified 15 action steps including changes to zoning regulations and the changes to the zoning
regulations were the only action items that were not completed after its adoption. In 2019 the City
adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which reviewed impediments to accessing housing
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 2 of 27
because of protected class, such as race, gender, or disability, as codified in the Federal Fair
Housing Act. This study included recommended actions to affirmatively further Fair Housing
based on extensive public inputs such as targeted feedback from stakeholder interviews, focus
groups, a Fair Housing Survey, public events and a public adoption process. One of the most
significant Fair Housing issues identified was a lack of affordable rental housing and improving
housing choice was one of the many strategies recommended to help address this issue. In 2022
the Affordable Housing Action Plan was updated to build off of previous efforts in support of
affordable housing. A number of public input sessions were held including a City-wide survey,
general outreach activities, targeted stakeholder meetings and other events. Later in 2022, the
City Council adopted the Strategic Plan, which drew upon previous planning work, studies and
community conversations. One of the action steps included in the Strategic Plan is advancing
prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. In addition to these
adopted plans and public engagements, there's been several meetings with this Commission. In
February 2023 staff from Neighborhood and Development Services provided a comprehensive
overview to the Commission of how the City works to address housing affordability and staff
discussed its efforts to support housing through financial incentives. Staff also presented an
initial summary of the proposed amendments that will be detailed tonight. In April, staff presented
the results of the 2022 Residential Development Analysis, which looked at housing development
over the course of the 2022 calendar year. This analysis determined that if residential growth
continues at its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate less than 6300 new
residents by 2030 when the projected demand is over 10,000 new residents. At the same
meeting, Councilmember Thomas presented the City Council Strategic Plan. Last month, staff
provided a comprehensive summary of the proposed zoning code amendments this Commission
will be considering tonight.
Russett stated housing affordability is a complex issue, there is no one solution and there are
many factors that influence housing affordability. The continued growth within the community
driven by the quality of life and strong economic base, in addition to a housing supply that is not
meeting the demand generated by this growth can result in continued high prices and rents,
which indicate there's an unmet demand for housing. When thinking about housing affordability,
there is a role for zoning. Zoning regulations can restrict development and act as a barrier to
create a diverse housing stock, or they can support and allow a diversity of housing options for a
community. Staff are proposing amendments to the code that help to ensure that zoning
regulations don't act as a barrier but instead allow and encourage a diversity of housing types.
The goals of the proposed zoning code amendments include increasing housing supply to meet
the current demand and increasing housing diversity to improve housing choice by removing
barriers for housing types that generally cost less than detached single family. Those can include
townhomes, duplexes, and accessory apartments. The City wants to incentivize income
restricted affordable housing through density bonuses and other tools, they want to address Fair
Housing issues to ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to housing and want to
implement the adopted Plans in place.
Russett presented a slide that showed the variety of Plans. In addition to the Comprehensive
Plan, the proposed amendments align with the adopted Land Use Policy direction as well as the
other plans already mentioned. Again referencing the Strategic Plan, the proposed amendments
are tied to the City's core value for racial equity, social justice and human rights. They're aimed
at removing and addressing systemic barriers present in all facets of City government, including
land use decisions, and also aligns with the Housing and Neighborhood impact areas which
encourages updating the zoning code to encourage compact neighborhoods and ensure a
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 3 of 27
diverse housing stock and addressing the unique needs of vulnerable populations in low to
moderate income neighborhoods. Finally, the Strategic Plan recommends advancing the
prioritized recommendations of the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Lehmann presented the proposed amendments, noting in the staff report they received was a
very technical description and in this oral report he will try and describe them in more generally
understandable terms. Again, the way they are reviewing these proposed amendments is that
generally they are a prerequisite to enable the construction of housing units that tend to be more
affordable within the community than what's currently allowed. Again, this really complements
other programs that more directly subsidize low- and moderate -income households and
affordable housing that is rent and sale price restricted. But with that being said, it does also
include incentives to produce affordable housing that is income restricted and rent and sales
price restricted. Lehmann acknowledged there will still be barriers to affordable housing within
the community as this isn't something that will solve affordable housing, but rather trying to make
sure the zoning code is not one of those barriers to affordable housing within the community.
The proposed amendments are organized under five general categories; increasing flexibility for
a range of housing types, modifying design standards, providing flexibility to enhance the supply
of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and then also more generally
addressing fair housing. The first set of standards related to increasing flexibility for a range of
housing types includes four different proposed amendments with the purpose of providing for
flexibility of housing types to help increase the supply of housing and also increase the diversity
of housing types available with a focus on housing types that tend to be more affordable to lower
income households, especially in standard detached single-family zones. Lehmann gave a
summary of the proposed amendments, the first change would be to allow duplexes and up to
two attached single family uses more widely in lower density single family zones, specifically RS -
5 and RS -8 zones. Currently these uses are only allowed on corner lots. The second change is
to allow townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family zones, which would be
RS -12 zones. Currently the code allows for up to six side by side single family townhomes but if
they're on a common lot it is currently not allowed. This would be allowing up to six side by side
multifamily townhomes on a single lot. The third change would be to allow second story
multifamily through a simpler process in certain commercial zones, specifically the CC -2 or
community commercial zone, and then also to enable the Board of Adjustment to allow ground
floor residential uses in commercial zones through a special exception which requires a certain
set of specific and general approval criteria are met. Generally the approval criteria are intended
to make sure that the commercial intent of the zone is maintained even with residential uses and
also to provide protections for historic properties. With a special exception, the general criteria
are generally related to impacts the surrounding property owners, compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, making sure there are utilities, etc. The fourth change would be to treat
assisted group living more similarly to multifamily uses. Assisted group living are things like
congregate or nursing homes, generally they look similar to multifamily uses and act similar to
multifamily uses. This would allow these uses in more zones then currently allowed and in some
cases streamlines the approval for these uses in those zones, specifically in the low density
multifamily (RM -12) zone. Additionally, this change would no longer allow this use in the
intensive commercial zone, which is generally a zone that shouldn't accommodate household
living uses.
Lehmann then went into more analysis of each change. For allowing duplexes and up to two
attached single family uses more widely in lower density zones, the existing situation is that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 4 of 27
these uses are only allowed on corner lots, but they do tend to be more affordable than the
detached single-family homes. The 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan recommends
expanding where these uses are allowed from just corner lots to additional lots in lower density
zones. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff started by looking at existing parcels and although
they believe the primary impact will be in greenfield sites this is going to allow these uses more
readily and in more locations. Again, they would expect the primary impact to be greenfield sites,
but for existing areas it would allow some existing lots to possibly accommodate duplex uses. If
the use would be allowed in existing parcels will be based on lot size and lot characteristics. This
proposed change would allow up to a maximum of 2900 lots around the community to
accommodate duplex uses. In addition to this amendment being adopted, there is a lot size
reduction proposed later in the code that would decrease the minimum lot size required for
duplex use in a RS -5 zone from 12,000 sf to 10,000 sf which could allow up to an additional 2200
lots that could accommodate these uses. However, based on experience in zones that already
allow duplex uses within the zone, specifically the RNS-12 zone (a zone located predominantly
near downtown that does allow duplex uses already) they haven't seen substantial
redevelopment in that area over the past 30 years. Since 1992, five single family homes have
been demolished to build a duplex and that's only about 1% of current parcels. Lehmann noted
what they've also seen over that time are more units converted from duplex to single family units
rather than vice versa. Again, staff believes this would be a modest change on existing parcels
with the primary impact being in newly developing areas. This change would also make it similar
to the new form -based zones the City has recently adopted. Lehmann showed a map of the
primary impact areas for those duplex uses, particularly where there could be new subdivisions
in greenfield sites but also some scattered through a number of areas located in older portions of
the City including areas near the Northside, Morningside, Twain, Longfellow, and Oak Woods
neighborhoods, as well as a substantial portion in the South District.
The second change is looking at townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family
zones. Lehmann reiterated up to six attached single-family townhomes are already allowed but
this change will just allow it on a single lot. Reasons for this change are because it does
facilitate a flexibility in a range of housing types, it also can be more affordable while providing a
similar look from the street. He showed two images, one an attached two single family townhome
and another multifamily style townhome noting they look very similar from the street with the
main difference being the lot arrangement. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't
anticipate this would have a large impact on the number of units produced but does add that
flexibility in which can make that cost of construction a little more affordable.
The third change is looking at multifamily uses in commercial zones. Currently second story
commercial in the Community Commercial zone requires Board of Adjustment approval which
requires additional time and resources. Also, currently multifamily uses are not allowed on the
ground floor in most commercial zones (that is mainly restricted to Central Business zones). In
terms of the anticipated impacts of the proposed changes, it would simplify the process to allow
mixed-use buildings where there is commercial on the ground floor and residential above which
is called a vertically mixed-use building in important commercial centers. This would allow the
Board of Adjustment to approve multifamily buildings in most commercial areas as long as the
approval criteria mentioned in the packet are met, and that in turn facilitates what is called
horizontally mixed-use development, where they might have a single lot with a multifamily
building and a commercial building on it. In the past to allow those would require an OPD
rezoning or would require different zones with different parcels, so this simplifies that process as
well. Again, he showed on a map where these proposed amendment would be allowed as long
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 5 of 27
as they met the certain standards
The final change in this category is to treat assisted group living uses more similarly to
multifamily uses. Lehmann reiterated assisted group living includes group care facilities like
nursing homes and assisted group living facilities. The standards for assisted group living uses
are generally more restrictive, but a best practice is to treat them similar to similarly sized
household living uses, which in this case that's multifamily. For example, Hickory Trails Estates is
a new assisted living use that's being built, it looks very similar to multifamily and has similar
impacts. In terms of the anticipated impacts, this would simplify the process to allow these uses
in lower density multifamily zones, specifically the RM -12 zone, and would allow group living in
all zones that allow multifamily which primarily expands it to commercial zones. This change
would also no longer allow group living uses in the intensive commercial zone.
Lehmann next reviewed the second set of proposed amendments related to modifying design
standards. In this category they have three different standards, the first is to eliminate two
multifamily site development standards to provide flexibility. He noted these are specifically
material standards such as currently multifamily uses must have a two -foot masonry and/or brick
base or it could be a dressed concrete base. The second is that facade materials must wrap
three feet around the corner of a unit. Reducing those material standards would increase the
flexibility allowed and would help reduce the cost of construction for those uses. The second
standard would be to adjust the design standard of duplex and up to two attached single-family
units in midblock locations, again specifically in those lower density residential zones. The
standard is the dwelling must be designed such that it would do so without having garages that
dominate the streetscape limiting garages to 60% of the fagade and also limit to 20 feet
combined of garage face. Lehmann explained this would allow either one double wide garage
with two parking spaces or two independent single wide garages. He did note the garages could
be wider if they're setback 15 feet, similar to what is required in form -based zones, but that does
prevent them from dominating the streetscape. Additionally, if there is a rear alley they must
utilize it. The third/final standard is related to townhome style multifamily uses, again this is to
simplify the process by which a setback is reduced and replace a minor modification process
with just an administrative process, and that's tied to allowing those uses more liberally in the
RS -12 zone especially.
Lehmann stated this proposed amendment would affect multifamily group living and institutional
and civic uses in residential zones in the Central Planning District having to meet certain design
standards. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amending some
of these standards and as a result the two standards of the two feet of masonry or brick must be
around the base of the building, and that materials must wrap three feet around the corner of a
building would no longer be required. However, it does retain other standards that more directly
address the visual interest in a building which includes things like ensuring visible entrances,
affecting the scale of the building, standards related to balconies and exterior stairways. Other
standards related to building materials, standards related to mechanical equipment, and also
architectural style standards in the Central Planning District would continue to apply. Again, the
goal is to decrease the cost of construction and increase design flexibility without substantially
impacting visual interest.
The second standard is related to allowing duplexes and up to two attached single family uses in
midblock locations, specifically in lower density single family zones. The current requirement is
that each unit's main entrance and garage are restricted to different streets, built around the idea
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 6 of 27
that these uses have to be on corners. This proposed amendment is to change that and have a
mid -block location while achieving a goal to prevent garages from dominating the street. If it
were to have rear access, which is required if there was an alley, the garage size wouldn't be
restricted as it wouldn't dominate the streetscape in that case. Also, if it's setback 15 feet it could
have more than 20 feet of combined garage face however would still be restricted to 60% of the
total width of the fagade. The goal is to make sure that these are uses or standards that keep
compatibility while still allowing the mid -block duplexes.
Finally is simplifying the waiver for townhome style multifamily uses, specifically as it relates to a
parking setback. In the current code parking must be setback from streets through 15 feet of
building depth and they cannot build parking within the first 15 feet of building depth. This poses
a problem for lots that are on the corner where a unit would need additional building space
between that and the side street. Currently that can be waived by minor modification, but that
requires additional time and process which includes an administrative hearing notification period.
The proposed amendment allows a straight waiver of that side street lot line which as a result
has very limited impact. It's a very specific proposed amendment, but again is tied to facilitating
those townhome style multifamily uses, especially in areas where attached single family uses are
already allowed.
Lehmann moved onto the third set of proposed amendment changes that are tied to providing
additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Again, there are three changes in this
category with the first reducing lot sizes for detached and attached single family and duplex
uses. This would specifically affect some zones, mostly lower density single family zones, but
does have some limited impacts on medium -density multifamily zones as well and would reduce
lot width and lot size for RS -5 and RNS-12 if there is rear access and only if there's rear access,
and it would reduce lot width for RM -12 and RM -20. For duplex and detached single family it
would reduce both lot size and lot width.
The second change would be to increase the bedroom limit for missing middle housing types
outside of the University Impact Area. Lehmann explained that would specifically be looking at
multifamily where there's currently a cap of three bedrooms for multifamily dwelling units and for
duplexes and single family detached there's currently a cap of four bedrooms for a dwelling unit.
This would increase that to four and five bedrooms respectively, specifically outside of the
University Impact Area.
The final change would be to allow and encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a broader
variety of contexts and to try to reduce barriers to construction. One of the reasons they're
focused ADUs is because they're a great way to increase housing supply without substantially
impacting the appearance of a neighborhood. A lot of these changes are based on those that are
recommended by the AARP, which has really encouraged ADUs in recent years and so has the
Housing Action Committee of the Johnson County Livable Communities Group, which includes a
number of stakeholders. Changes are things such as allowing these uses in any zone that allows
household living uses on any lot with two or less dwelling units. It would remove the requirement
that the unit be owner occupied and it would remove limits on the number of bedrooms and
residents as those would be capped by other standards that are in the rental code. This change
would allow increased size for these dwelling units, as long as they're less than half the size of
the primary use, it would remove the requirement for an additional parking space and also
simplify some design requirements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 7 of 27
Regarding the analysis of these proposed amendments, in terms of reducing lot sizes and
widths, the existing situation is there are many lots that were platted prior to 1962 that are non-
conforming as that was when the most substantial zoning code changed that increased the lot
sizes. Best practice is to reduce minimum lot sizes to perpetuate patterns of economic and
demographic segregation and it is also a best practice to reduce or minimize non -conformities
within the zoning code. In terms of the anticipated impacts, it wouldn't bring approximately 85%
of non -conforming lots in the RS -5 and RNS-12 zones into compliance with the zoning code and
around 300 lots would remain non -conforming in these zones but a lot of those are lots that are
flagged lots in historic areas. This also provides flexibility for the arrangements of lots in new
subdivisions, which includes smaller lots being allowed, especially in the RS -5 zone. For
example, in terms of the cost reduction that this could bring, assuming land prices are around $5
a square foot, the proposed reduction for an RS -5 zone could reduce the cost of construction by
approximately $10,000 so especially in lower price points that can be a significant factor in
affordability. Another impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety
of existing lots. Lehmann showed some examples of areas of the City that were platted long ago
with smaller lots, like the Morningside neighborhood. It's low-density single family residential but
has 50 -foot lots with 7000 square feet lots. Again, approximately 300 lots wouldn't become
conforming even with these changes, those are mostly in Towncrest and in the Northside
neighborhoods where lot sizes are smaller than even the proposed standards, but it does bring a
substantial number of these non -conforming uses into compliance. Finally, this would also bring
new developments closer into alignment with what's allowed in a form -based zone since form -
based zones do allow duplexes in even the lowest density residential zone.
The second change would be to increase the bedroom limits outside the University Impact Area.
Currently the number of bedrooms are restricted for duplexes, attached single family and
multifamily uses City-wide and the problem with this is that the bedroom caps limit where large
households can live and pretty much limits them to detached single family housing, which does
increase housing costs for those household types and as a result the 2022 Affordable Housing
Action Plan did recommend amendments to these standards. The impacts of the proposed
amendment would be to allow the construction of units for larger families outside of the
University Impact Area in a wider variety of housing types. In addition, it would retain the
bedroom cap for the University Impact Area to avoid some of the situations that caused the
bedroom caps to be adopted in the first place.
The final change is related to encouraging accessory apartments in a variety of contexts and
reducing barriers. ADUs have been allowed in Iowa City for quite some time, more than 40
years, but over the past 30 years the development has been relatively limited. The City has only
52 ADUs when there have been 13,000 eligible lots under the current code. There are barriers
within the code and some of the barriers that have been identified by AARP are things like the
owner occupancy requirement and additional parking standards. In the 2022 Affordable Housing
Action Plan it recommended trying to promote or encourage where ADUs are allowed and
expanding those. There is also a large demand for smaller units as approximately 36% of
households in Iowa City are single person households and more than 40% of renter households
are single person households. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't anticipate that all
eligible units are suddenly going to provide ADUs but the goal is really to encourage their
development and reduce those barriers. The 13,000 parcels that are currently eligible will remain
eligible under the proposed amendment however, there are new parcels that would be able to
accommodate ADUs and they would imagine that would happen gradually, like any change. This
would include up to 1400 new units allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which these
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 8 of 27
may be accessory. For example, allowing them in RNS-12 zones or allowing them in other zones
that allow single family detached uses, and also allowing them accessory to duplex uses. In
addition, it would allow up to 3100 new units by removing the owner occupancy requirements.
With that being said many of the renter occupied detached single-family uses are located within
the University Impact Area so that is something to be mindful of. With the changes proposed it
would allow standalone accessory dwelling units, and it is imagined that that's how many of
these would be constructed, in addition to there being other barriers to construction. Even with
the City trying to remove as many barriers as possible, they still have to have conforming lot
sizes and meet the other standards in the code with regards to lot area, coverage standards, and
open space. Those standards wouldn't change, it's just allowing an ADU if there's room for it. In
addition, staff anticipates that allowing ADUs in more areas supports the City's sustainability
goals. By increasing housing supply in those areas, they anticipate that those are the most
walkable areas of the community. That also ties into reducing the parking space that's required
because that ties into the goals of encouraging alternative transportations. The City is really
trying to encourage walkable communities. Lehmann showed a map of the areas that would be
able to build ADUs and noted they are scattered throughout the community, a lot of them are
located lot downtown, but the goal is to encourage ADUs throughout the community and remove
as many barriers as possible.
The fourth set of standards is tied to creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing,
specifically focused on income restricted housing, also rent restrictions and/or sales restrictions
for owner occupied housing. This is tied to increasing housing choice, diversity, supply, flexibility,
and reducing cost. The income and rent levels are determined based on the current practice in
the City which is generally 80% of the area median income for owner occupied and generally
60% of area median income for renter occupied. Lehmann noted rents are tied to fair housing
market rents and sales limits are tied to HUD sales limits. The two proposed changes are
creating a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zones and that would be a
20% density bonus, or 20% of units are affordable housing for 20 years. It would allow additional
regulatory flexibility as well, specifically tied to setbacks and building height. The second
standard would eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing, where that
housing is affordable for 20 years. It would only affect that 20% of units that are affordable, or as
many units as are affordable, it doesn't affect the market rate units in that development. In terms
of the impacts, a lot of these bonuses are already part of the Riverfront Crossings and form -
based zones that were recently adopted, especially density bonuses and parking reductions, but
they're not present in conventional zones. So, impacts would be to provide a voluntary incentive,
something that can encourage the construction of those income restricted affordable units, and
they'd be administered during the typical reviews. A lot of that would be site plan or building plan
review or it may be an OPD plan or subdivision depending on what standard is being requested.
The goal of additional units in terms of the density bonus is to provide additional rents that can
help offset the costs of affordable housing and density bonuses are one of the most common
affordable housing incentives seen in communities. Again, it may also provide flexibility for
setback and height standards, if those are needed, depending on the circumstance. Lehmann
noted there can also be a reduction in the minimum parking requirements to provide another
incentive by reducing the cost of providing those affordable housing units. Design flexibility is the
second most common incentive provided for affordable housing bonuses. The goal is to reduce
the cost and incentivize the construction of those income restricted units.
The final set of changes are related to addressing Fair Housing and are specifically focused on
persons experiencing disabilities. The first is related to providing a reasonable accommodations
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 9 of 27
process that is currently handled through disparate processes throughout the zoning code. It is
something that the City is required to do by Federal law, currently there just isn't a standardized
process that's clear and apparent, so this amendment is clarifying that process. It is best practice
provided as an administrative process and try to require as few hoops as possible for persons
experiencing disabilities so that it doesn't draw attention to their disability and doesn't become a
hurdle. The impact of the proposed amendment is to create a simple, comprehensive process to
evaluate all these requests and to reduce the need to call attention to the disability. The second
would be to reclassify community service long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently,
these uses are housing with supportive services for persons with a disability that are owned by
nonprofits. Currently, they're treated as institutional uses rather than residential uses and as a
result they're more restrictive in where they're allowed. Again, it is best practice to regulate
housing for persons with disabilities like similarly sized household living uses. By treating these
uses as residential the City would strike the community service long term housing use as a
distinct category and it would be allowed as a household living use, which would simplify the
process by which they're allowed and would also expand where they may be located. Group
living would also no longer be allowed in intensive commercial zones as it is determined that isn't
appropriate for household living uses. It would also eliminate some standards that are different
for this type of use. Currently, the standards have reduced parking requirements and increased
or higher density allowances for these zones. This would again treat them like any other
multifamily use if it was a multifamily building or be treated like a single-family use depending on
which kind of building the household use was located in. Lehmann noted currently there are only
two properties that are in this category and they're both owned by Shelter House. They would
become legal non -conforming uses and while it is best practice to create as few non -conformities
as possible within the zoning code, the purpose of treating housing for persons with disabilities
similarly to residential uses outweighs that creation of a non -conforming use in staff's opinion.
Staff did discuss this with Shelter House leadership and stated these uses would be allowed to
continue as they currently are allowed, they'd just become a non -conforming use. If the use was
terminated, it wouldn't be allowed to re -open. The proposed amendment also does specify the
supportive services that are accessory to a use, and that only serve the residents of a building,
would be allowed in a household residential zone. So, on a smaller scale, there could be a case
where someone has household help that lives with them and provides assistance or in a larger
use it could be a case where there's supportive services that help them live within their housing
unit, whether that be employment services or other things. However, since people come from off
site to use those services, it would become a broader separate use that would no longer be
allowed.
Lehmann explained in terms of the way that these amendments were constructed, all are based
largely on national best practices. They looked at organizations that have a really broad scope in
the way that they look at housing affordability and equity, one of them being the American
Planning Association, they also looked at information by the National Association of Counties
and then also AARP, the Association for Retired Persons. They looked at what's working
throughout the nation and what's not working in terms of enhancing equity and enhancing
affordability. In terms of equity, and in terms of the American Planning Association, they really
focus on the equity and zoning policy guide which has a number of different recommendations
with regards to zoning codes, things like allowing a broad range of housing types, reducing
minimum lot sizes, allowing ADUs, treating assisted group living and housing for persons with
disabilities as residential uses, allowing administrative approval of reasonable accommodations,
all things to further equity within the community. The National Association of Counties provides
specific recommendations for individual counties based on their characteristics. They classify
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 10 of 27
Johnson County as a high growth — high cost community so a lot of their housing policies are
focused on making it easier to build small, moderately priced homes, making the development
process simpler and shorter by streamlining approval processes and also expanding vouchers or
income supports for low income renters, which ties into things like incentives for affordable
housing. Finally, AARP is also very interested in affordable housing. A lot of the ADU standards
are tied to those AARP findings and recommended policies by the Johnson County Livable
Communities group. They did identify things like owner occupancy requirements, parking
requirements, conditional use permits, and discretionary standards related to design or
neighborhood character can really limit the use of ADUs. AARP pointed to recent changes seen
especially in California and Oregon's legislation and also in Seattle's 2019 Local Code revisions,
where a lot of them have moved away from rental restrictions. They have also seen this in other
communities such as Ann Arbor recently.
Staff is also recommending these proposed amendments because they do believe that they are
currently consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The vision statement for the
Comprehensive Plan is creating attractive and affordable housing for all people that is the
foundation of a healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout the City. The Plan lists
strategies and goals such as ensuring a mix of housing types, encouraging development of
smaller lots, ensuring a balance of housing types, and supporting infill development in areas
where infrastructure is already in place. The Comprehensive Plan also has a Future Land Use
Map that shows where different uses might be allowed. Within most of the community it notes
that it's appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre and that is the lowest density future
land use designation. Staff did take that into effect when looking at the proposed amendments as
well. Within the Comprehensive Plan it really does stress that even with these density limits that
a variety of housing types should be encouraged throughout all areas of the community.
Lehmann did note staff did receive seven pieces of correspondence, three were included in the
agenda packet, and four were submitted late, so those were handed out tonight and have also
been emailed to the Commissioners separately.
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance
land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage
affordability.
In terms of next steps, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a
public hearing would be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The earliest possible time
that could occur is September 5, and then they would have a third consideration and possible
adoption by October 3 at the earliest.
Hensch asked what the date on the Comprehensive Plan was. Lehmann noted it was adopted in
2013 and the City is currently in the process of developing an RFP for a comprehensive plan
update since it's been about 10 years, which is pretty standard.
Hensch asked under amendment number one to increase flexibility for range of housing types,
why not just think about expanding the use of RS -12 since that allows all the multiple types.
Lehmann acknowledged that is a possible amendment that could happen however, the problem
is that would not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan since the current Comprehensive
Plan specifies that two to eight dwelling units per acre would be allowed. Staff focused on
amendments that comply with the current Plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 11 of 27
Hensch asked regarding the amendment to the modified design standards and having to put
masonry or brick or requirement to the ground, that's essentially the same as what it is for single
family residences, meaning there's no requirement for a single family to have that. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct and there is no requirement and this is just making it the same standard
Hensch noted amendment number three provides additional flexibility to enhance the supply of
housing. Why increase the number of bedrooms when demographics show family sizes are
significantly shrinking, it seems contrary to the reality and these additional rooms are just going
to be filled up with a bunch of people who are renting rooms essentially. Lehmann stated it's
really tied to the fact that there's an unnecessary restriction for different housing types seen
especially outside of the core. The just renting out rooms is a very real concern, especially in that
University Impact Area, so that's why that area is excluded from the proposed amendment.
Lehmann shared the example of Habitat for Humanity had proposed attached single family uses
with five bedrooms in the South District and currently that's not allowed under the code.
Lehmann noted a lot of the times it's tied to intergenerational households and also larger families
that just can't find housing in Iowa City and so a lot of those people have to either find a
detached single-family home or move to a different community where that might be allowed.
Hensch noted if they are increasing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the lot sizes, so
where do kids play. Lehmann stated the City does have open space requirements and rear
setback requirements that would continue to be in effect and those standards are intended to
create room for children to play.
Hensch asked regarding the University Impact Area, when was that determined, looking at the
map it just looks too small and doesn't reflect the reality of where students live. Lehmann stated
he believes that was adopted in 2012 and was specifically tied to parking standards, it was tied
to the zoning districts at the time, specifically limited to areas that aren't lower density single
family zones.
Hensch asked about the accessory dwelling unit issue and isn't a real barrier to the creation of
accessory dwelling units the cost of construction, particularly detached ADUs because if it is
something that people had a need for constructing only 52 ADUs in 30 years is like one and a
half year, so the demand clearly isn't there. His first thought is affordability because
intergenerational households would jump all over this because it seems to be the answer to
things. Lehmann agreed that the cost of construction and obtaining financing are barriers to
ADUs but staff really has made its recommendations based on the fact that they don't want the
zoning code to be that barrier to the construction of ADUs. Some of the barrier could be tied to
the fact that current zoning standards are unnecessarily limiting construction.
Hensch noted wouldn't it just be an expansion of houses that are used as rentals because
investors who have the deep pockets are going to be the only ones that can afford to build these
and then rent them out to students. His concern is about neighborhood integrity, he has been in
Iowa City since 1985 and it's pretty obvious where rentals are where they're not and
neighborhoods start declining where there are lots of rental houses because they are just not
maintained with the standards that people maintain their personal dwelling. He thinks it's very
important to be respectful of people who want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. If
someone spends everything to buy their house and now the houses on both sides are rentals
that changes the integrity of the neighborhood. He feels organizations are going to purchase
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 12 of 27
these properties and it's just another way to get another rental in there. Lehmann acknowledged
that's a possibility but what staff was focused on is making sure that the zoning code is not a
barrier. Hensch stated he loves the concept because he a big fan of generational housing.
Padron doesn't understand how increasing the number of bedrooms will create more affordable
housing. Additionally, if they have more houses with more bedrooms is there a way to ensure
that those are going to be owned by families and not just rented to multiple people. Lehmann
replied it really is a matter of specifically accommodating different household arrangements
within different household types. Currently, single family homes don't have a cap on the number
of bedrooms that they can have but everything else that has a cap on the number of bedrooms
so single-family homes are currently the only dwelling types that can accommodate larger
families. However, those are also more expensive than other housing types such as multifamily
and attached single family or duplex uses. The City has gotten requests for some of those larger
uses in more affordable housing types but it is not allowed under the current code. Regarding
restricting owner occupancy or renter occupancy, Lehmann stated the zoning code doesn't really
consider owner or renter occupancy, except in the case of accessory dwelling units, the rental
code tries to address those situations.
Craig noted these proposed changes seem to be doing some things that provide more flexibility,
similar to the form -based code. The neighborhood she thinks of is the Peninsula that was
deliberately designed to include multiple living arrangements in one building. There are a lot of
apartments and ADUs, that's a neighborhood that was designed specifically to have denser
housing, it that the same as form -based code. Lehmann confirmed that is correct, approximately
a third of the 52 ADUs are in the Peninsula neighborhood. In terms of the form -based code these
standards are significantly closer to what's allowed in them. For example, the proposed minimum
lot sizes for RS -5 and RS -8 are similar to what's allowed in the T3 (suburban transect,
neighborhood edge and neighborhood general zones) in the form -based code. Duplexes are
also allowed in all the T3 zones. both side by side and stacked. There is no corner requirement
for duplexes in the form -based zones. In terms of other changes, the duplex use are still
significantly larger in an RS -5 zone than is allowed in the neighborhood edge zone but uses that
are allowed are similar and single-family lot sizes would be similar.
Elliott noted at the July 5 meeting she had asked a question about somebody coming in and
tearing down an affordable single-family house and making it higher cost and having more
people living on the land. The response was something about covenants controlling that, what
does that mean. Lehmann stated private covenants are another barrier to different housing
types in communities. Covenants are legal restrictions that run with the land, often homeowner
associations, and they often restrict what type of housing can be built, such as only single-family
detached housing. That's a barrier to housing but that's something that's not considered here
because they do expire after 21 years unless they're renewed, so they can change over time.
Quite a few areas have private covenants that restrict to single-family detached only, mostly in
outlying areas. They became common in the 60s, when there were still racial covenants that
restrict where persons of color can live. Nowadays it can only restrict to type of building such as
single-family detached only.
Elliott asked about the neighborhoods close to downtown that have historic and conservation
districts and explain more about why their lots sizes are not an issue. Russett stated in the local
historic districts and local conservation districts the only place the demolition of an existing
structure would be allowed if it's deteriorated beyond repair so a demolition in a historic
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 13 of 27
conservation district and a new structure being built is unlikely. Elliott clarified that there are
some historic and conservation districts that are outside University Impact Area. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct for Longfellow, but there are none on the west side.
Elliott noted by looking at the numbers in the northside, there could possibly be over 2000
accessory units and including the University Impact Area it would be 3100. So if 75% of those
units that are allowed by removing the owner occupancy requirement would be in the University
Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct but they still have to meet all other regulations.
noted part of what comes from the previous question about private covenants and then also
about smaller lot sizes, lots do have to be conforming lots to have an ADU, they do have to meet
the open space standards, setbacks, and coverage standards. There are a number of standards
that are in place to ensure high quality places, and that rear yards still exists. Staff's analysis did
not look at that detail of each lot because to do so they'd have to look individual lot by individual
lot basis, calculate the amount that's covered by a building, etc.
Elliott asked about the percent of single-family duplex uses in areas close to the University that
are rental based but not exactly in the University Impact Area. Lehmann noted it's hard to come
up with those numbers because rental units change all the time.
Hektoen stated initial development of covenants usually are not put in place until after a
development has been started so wouldn't it apply to the initial development of a greenfield site
within a subdivision, they could potentially be implicated if someone wanted to redevelop an
existing lot. Elliott stated there could be developments out there that can exist now with all the
houses in the subdivision as single-family houses. Hekteon stated that is more of a historic relic
and she hasn't seen them very recently but again, the City's not involved in approving those or
enforcing them, they're imposed by the developer after the developments been built, so if a
developer wants to put duplexes in the middle of a block under the proposed amendments
private covenants wouldn't restrict that necessarily.
Wade asked about the rear access requirements, and if there's an alleyway on a duplex, does
that require that the garage access is off alleyway. Lehmann confirmed that is correct.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jim Throqmorton (814 Ronalds Street) stated he is co-chairing the Northside Neighborhood
Association steering committee and began by distributing a written statement. City staff proposed
a series of major amendments designed to improve housing choice, increase housing supply and
encourage affordability. Just on Friday staff issued the long complicated supplement to the initial
report and he has spent much of the last couple of days reading it and trying to digest it. On
Sunday his co-chair Sherry McGraw and he guided a zoning matters community forum about
staff's proposed changes, roughly 50 Iowa Citians, some of whom are here right now, attended
the event at the library. Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the
proposed amendments. The questions and comments ranged from purely technical ones like
what is an ADU to the expressly political ones. The technical comments revealed that most
residents do not understand the zoning processes and political comments revealed a very broad
range of political views. Throgmorton commends City staff for carefully considering how to
promote the development of more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. He finds
himself agreeing with and supporting most of the proposed changes. Many of them seem to
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 14 of 27
open up existing future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS -5, to a more
diverse range of housing types. Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that in
cities all over the country conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design.
However, the proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the zoning code in
nearly 20 years and changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied
and discussed by all affected stakeholders. To the best of his knowledge, there were no
consultations with the general public or neighborhood associations prior to the issuance of the
proposed amendments. Additionally, to the best of his knowledge there have been no reports to
the local news media. The steering committee thinks it is extremely important for the
Commission to defer voting on proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways to in which a
broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. They strongly
believe that neighborhood association meetings must be recognized as key stakeholders in this
process. The Northside Association finds it difficult to fully assess how the amendments would
affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the UTA. However, they think some of the effects
might be harmful. This concern largely stems from the fact that the housing market in these
neighborhoods is profoundly affected by the intense demand for off -campus student housing.
Although all of the UTA neighborhoods are affected by this demand, the particular effects vary
from neighborhood to neighborhood. In each case, it is important to account for the social and
material realities. They have recently completed an inventory of property of the Northside
Neighborhood. This inventory of 994 properties reveals that the Northside is already quite
diverse in housing types, ages, ownership and assessed values. The written statement provides
more details. The most important the 2023 assessed values of the 467 single family homes. The
single-family owner -occupied properties range from $76,000 to $1.1 million. Almost 14% of the
single-family properties are assessed in the $100,000 range or below, 46 are assessed in
$200,000 range. Moreover, the inventory reveals that 175 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)
and other incorporated entities own property in the Northside. These private enterprises own and
presumably rents 27% of the properties classified as being single-family owner. One individual's
various LLC owns at least 56 properties in the neighborhood. Again, the details are available on
the written statement. As he read the staff's August 2 supplementary memo, the possibility of
perverse effects applies primarily to the proposals concerning accessory dwelling units,
especially items 3C, 4A and 413 in combination. With this mix of amendments and incentives,
especially the removal of the requirement that one unit be owner occupied, private investors are
likely to sweep up properties in the RNS-12 parts of the Northside and Goosetown, they are
likely to demolish older, lower cost, owner -occupied structures and replace them with larger
rental structures coupled with rentable ADUs. The overall supply of housing increases the
supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. Throgmorton strongly opposes
applying the staffs proposed ADU changes to the RS -8 and RNS-12 parts of the Northside for
the unique reasons associated with neighborhoods in the UTA. He noted what he has said is very
consistent with the conversations he's had with other members of the steering committee and
with neighbors who attended that forum on Sunday.
Lorraine Bowans (925 Barrington Drive) currently lives in Windsor Ridge but spent 30 years in
the Longfellow area, along South Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery. She has
served in a lot of capacities in different things. She is a member of the Johnson County Livable
Communities, but is not here tonight representing them, these are her personal views. She is
100% behind the ADUs but has also lived in a historic house. Their house on South Governor
was built in 1864 and there used to be a lot of duplexes and rooming houses on that section of
street when they moved in there in 1985. It was 80% rental at one time then around 2000 many
of those have been converted from duplexes and rooming houses back to single family homes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 15 of 27
Their house was a duplex when they bought it, the house next door was a triplex with a unit in
the garage and it was a duplex house. Bowans noted they can be made beautiful but she wants
to preserve the historic buildings they left. She worked for the City engineering department in
1978 and it broke her heart to see all the historic houses on Johnson and Van Buren and all
those places just demolished for housing for students. She also worked with Ann Freerks to
make Longfellow, the South Governor and Lucas Street areas into the second conservation
district. They put a lot of time and effort in keeping neighborhoods historic. She noted they can
have ADUS and can be converted back to duplexes and things and not ruin the integrity, they
have to be very careful. Bowans noted the conservation districts and the historic districts all have
very strict guidelines, just to change a front porch they had to go in front of the Historic
Commission to make sure they were doing the right thing. She would like to see the conservation
and historic areas owner -occupied to help preserve that, because Governor Street, when they
moved in, was a distressed neighborhood, their property taxes were basically nothing, and when
they left they had gone up from around $700 a year in 1985 to over $6000. When the
neighborhood was owner occupied, and even when they were rentals, looked nice and was
taken care of. She would like to suggest part of the reason there are not more ADUs is they only
had a one story -one stall garage. Their lot was a third of an acre and they wanted to build a
carriage house because everybody along their alley had carriage house because they backed up
to Summit Street. They couldn't build carriage house because it was non -conforming by City
code so when they did build their large garage, which was 26 by 40, they thought about putting in
something and were going to go in and argue about it to be the place where her parents would
move into when they retire. Unfortunately, things got too pricey and they couldn't afford to build.
But on larger lots one can make the carriage house and make it look beautiful for an ADU. She
encourages some outside the box ideas. Bowans noted the other thing are covenants, when a
subdivision is developed, they develop lots, where the roads are going to go and things like that.
When a developer gets a plot of land, they subdivide it, they put in their streets and everything,
and then they decide what buildings to build. Covenants usually last 20 or 22 years, and then
they are renewable twice for 11 years, and then they're gone. She lives in Windsor Ridge and
they no longer have covenants. Their house was built in 1996, but it's for the neighborhood to
have kind of a uniform design. Additionally, she is a member of that AARP advocacy team and
there are some changes to Medicaid coming and in Iowa they lost 23 nursing homes last year
and six this year so far. The one in Iowa City is almost being shut down.
Donald MacFarlane (620 Summit Street) was the founder of the Summit Street Historic
Neighborhood Association, which is a carve out from Longfellow. He strongly endorses the
thought that the Commission should not vote on this tonight until they've had a chance to talk to
the neighborhoods. They should talk to the neighborhoods because the motivation for this
change does not come from reality, it comes from theory. It comes from theories set 50-70 years
ago, and by and large have never been proved to be either right or not right. He likes to live in
this town because of its vibrancy and its vibrancy comes from young people who come to this
town. They come as students and they need student housing, and how much student housing,
they need enough for 26,000 students. There is also a need for married student housing, and
after that young faculty housing, and after that senior faculty housing, plus all the other people in
town. These constituency groups were never mentioned, students were never mentioned,
neighborhoods were never mentioned, historic and conservation districts were almost never
mentioned. They haven't done a survey of X number of college towns, because college towns
are very, very different than other towns. Have a look at them and see if there's something that
was better than what they've done. Don't go to some theory, from an organization somewhere,
there's never actually done this. He is not sure if there is a constituency for affordable housing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 16 of 27
When he was young, he bought a house, it wasn't affordable, it was terrifying. It was way beyond
his imagination. He couldn't think he could possibly own that house but did it because they
wanted to live in a beautiful house. They did it because it was going to be a beautiful
neighborhood and they thought they would invest in that and eventually it will become a family
asset. And all of those things have become true, the house is in RS -5, the map shown was hard
to see but this amendment is staying his street is going to be rezoned for duplexes, why convert
those beautiful houses to duplexes. The answer is that young people who want to buy the best
possible house that they can even though unaffordable, will not come to Iowa City, they go to
Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, or wherever. They won't want to buy a house on Summit Street,
which is moderately expensive, because of the probability that house prices will decline and not
rise, they will not have a family asset if they buy a house on Summit Street, because some
theory tells us that our big beautiful houses should actually be duplexes.
Wally Plahutnik (430 North Gilbert St) stated he is not part of any organized group, he is a
Democrats and no one ever went broke overestimating the averse corporate landlords in Iowa
City. He asks the Commission to keep that in mind when they're offering the possibility for them
to double their money on a lot. He'd also like them to consider postponing this vote to get in
touch with neighborhoods. He served on planning and zoning during the last writing of this code
and during the previous development of all the district plans. What some regard as poison pills
in that code was really carefully thought out and they regarded them as features rather than
bugs, AARP disagrees with that, but they had a consensus of folks who did agree that they were
features and not bugs. The first question is if this is indeed about affordable housing. He failed
somewhere to find the numbers of results that are they're going to get from this. When they have
a plan like that, that's great, he wants to see what the plans goals are to increase some
affordable housing. At some point from staff it'd be great to hear if they proceed with this plan
what X percent increase in affordable housing will be achieved. Like mentioned, the UI impacts
zone, which he lives in, seems like it's going to be immune from quite a few of these things, but
that's not the issue. By expanding bedrooms what they're doing is expanding the UI impacts
zone and not shielding the impact zone. The duplexes on the corners were really carefully
worked on, thought out, talked about, discussed and again, they saw that it's a feature not a bug.
He asked a theoretical question of how many duplexes on a block is okay, if they are on the
corners and now in the middle, and more between the middle and the corners, well that's a
whole different block, and with accessory houses in the back, it's going to make a serious impact
on any neighborhood. Please consider postponing this and going through some of the processes
of community engagement before a final proposal, because there's a lot of good ideas in there
but there are some unintended consequences.
Gregg Geerdes (890 Park Place) lives in mosquito flats but has a rental property in Goosetown
and a rental property on Summit Street. He noted one of the things that apparently happened
over the last 10 years been a trend away from this idea to preserve neighborhoods. He
remembers when this whole controversy about conservation districts, historic districts and all
those things came into play, and the idea was that they wanted to preserve the neighborhood
because they were attractive to people and places for people wanting to live. Now it seems like
they're getting away from that. The accessory dwelling units apparently can be built in most
zones including conservation zones and historic preservation. Does Historic Preservation require
construction requirements, or any other design standards, these things which are built in historic
or conservation zones and the answer appears to be no because that would be an impediment
or an obstruction to expanding housing. Now the overall principle here seems to be one of
density. Densities now becomes good but that's a big leap for a lot of people have chosen to
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 17 of 27
leave Iowa City to build in North Liberty or Tiffin or Solon or variety of other places because they
have been able to find desirable places to live and raise their family due to denisity. These
owner occupiers are building in RS -5 but he asks them to keep in mind that there is competition
out there. If they make this less desirable for families, they've got other places to go and that's
what they will do, they're already doing that. The objective could be to bring them back not drive
more out. Geerdes noted regarding group homes, two weeks or maybe months now, there were
several articles in the paper about halfway houses, so what is a group home, is a halfway house
or people getting out of prison home a group home. Perhaps that is something that they want to
address again, they're seeking to extend a desirable community. He encourages them to note
the examples in Portland and San Francisco mentioned, obviously if they read The New York
Times, Washington Post, there's a great deal of coverage about how those zoning and
accessible housing ordinances in those areas have failed and have given the exact opposite
result. There is a bill this week where Minneapolis which famously outlawed single-family zoning
in the last few years, is now rethinking its position because developers have abandoned and are
going to St. Paul and adjacent suburbs that don't have those restrictions. Tread lightly, Iowa City
is a good community, it's attractive to people, that's why they come here. Don't put anything in
front of them that deters that or detracts from the desirability that they all enjoy.
Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund in Johnson County) stated diversity in housing options can
help make more housing more affordable. In addition to further incentives to add housing that is
affordable need to be put in place. She works with developers everyday who want to create
housing that is affordable, and they can work to lower the barriers that they face, including the
design standards, it may not sound like brick on the facade is an issue but the developers
expressed that every single aspect of the process adds cost. The Housing Trust Fund supports
changes that will help the estimated 13,450 households with low incomes in Iowa City who are
spending more than 30% of their income on their housing. That is the same cost burden by their
housing.
Tim Fleagle is a student at the University of Iowa and is a homeowner on the Northside, he
wanted to say he believes that the proposed changes to the zoning code will benefit not just him
as a homeowner and in certain neighborhoods, but him as a student. He has a young family,
they're trying to grow that young family, and they may be priced out of their neighborhood
because of the lack of affordable housing in that neighborhood. The zoning changes put forth
today would allow for an increase in diversity of housing, whether that's renting or owning, and
allow them to stay in the neighborhoods they want to be in. These are evidence -based policies
that have shown through rigorous peer reviewed articles to improve outcomes in certain
neighborhoods. A lot of opposition he's heard today are people who are speaking out to
continue to have exclusionary zoning for the purpose of excluding other people, mostly students,
of which the City is made off of students. A lot of the comments are they don't want students in
their neighborhoods.
Bob Burchfield (1107 Muscatine Avenue) has owned a home on Muscatine Avenue for over 49
years, his neighbors always got a mix of students, houses that are rented as homes, and
longtime homeowners. He was a student here, he loves students, they're not anti -students. He
just objects to the process being used to rush these amendments through. October is just a few
months away, and this is such a massive change. He objects to most of the proposals, but what
he finds most objectionable is they are writing language that is being used to deceive and
distract from what's really being done here. Everyone is for affordable housing but they know that
in truth what this really does is allow developers to continue to make more money. He generally
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 18 of 27
doesn't see developers living in these neighborhoods, students are living in these
neighborhoods, the developers aren't living in these neighborhoods. He doesn't think he heard
anything tonight that wasn't directed towards developers can't do. He didn't hear anything about
what those of them in their neighborhoods can do to maintain viable and stable neighborhoods.
He doesn't generally attend these meetings or speak because he doesn't expect this City staff or
Commission or City Council to be any different than the ones that throughout the years have
allowed developers to profit by attacking the downtown, and their neighborhoods, he just wishes
for once that they'd be honest about what they're really doing.
Sharon DeGraw lives in the Northside and after the July 5 Planning and Zoning meeting took
place, a few of them started to actually read what was in the code, the code changes and
realized the different variables and the way that they would interact to cause so many different
things that they weren't sure they could predict everything. They wondered if the people on the
Planning Commission also felt the same way and if they could predict all the outcomes and staff
could and if City Council will. So they put together this little meeting and called it a neighborhood
forum. There was one week between announcing it and actually having it so they felt scrambled
and they didn't know who would show up. But 50 people from different neighborhoods, mostly in
the University Impact Areas did show up and they were responding to many of the things that
people were talking about at this point. She asks that the Commission defer voting on this
because there are many that would wish to meet and talk about variables.
Paula Swvqard (426 Douglass Street) noted they've heard a lot of general comments, she
comes with some specific comments about how this might impact particularly her. Maybe the
answers are somewhere in all that documentation, but she couldn't find them. At the end, they
have an appendix with lots of red strikeouts and little bit of black with all the amendments in
there. Her questions pertain specifically to stand-alone accessory apartments and is there
specific approval criteria for a standalone accessory apartments, do the setback requirements for
those conform to the underlying zone, what is the setback between the principal dwelling and the
stand-alone, what is the height limit for the stand-alone. Swygard gave the example of her little
single family three-bedroom house, in an RS -8 zone, it is only 832 square feet and her
neighbor's home, in the same zone right next door, is 672 square feet. Many apartments are
larger than her house, but there are also many small homes like hers in older parts of Iowa City.
So calculating the dimensions of the house behind her, at the current 30%, a detached unit of
368 or 468 could be built, depending how the square footage of the four seasons porch is
considered. At 50%,under a new proposal, either a 613 square foot or a nice 781 square foot
home could be built on her lot, both of those are comparable to her house and her neighbor's
house that are considered single family homes. So given the size of her house, she has a hard
time thinking of a detached apartment of nearly 800 square feet as a separate apartment and not
two single family homes on the same lot. Investors alike find this to be a way to increasing
housing on their properties. However, the cost of building a detached unit, the size of a small
house, and therefore the rent to make it a good investment, won't make it affordable. One other
comment on page 21 of the staff memo sites the APA equity and zoning policy guide regarding
ADUs it states quote "but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary
dwelling unit is the owners primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when
used as short term rentals" and that is Iowa City in a nutshell. The best practice of requiring that
one unit be owner occupied should remain especially when it comes to detached accessory
homes.
Martha Norbek (906 S. 7th Avenue) is a local architect who specializes in the green building. She
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 19 of 27
first wanted to say the staff did a great job putting this together, there's so much research, the
maps, the data, she's very impressed. One of the things she noticed was they said up front that
affordable housing is complicated, so is climate action and those two go together very nicely.
When they're increasing density of units, they're reducing transportation and carbon from
transportation. When they can do a duplex reducing the amount of carbon that is required to
build that building, they're creating a common wall so the total amount of heat that's required to
heat those two dwellings is less than if it were two separate dwellings. It's a win for climate. One
of the things about climate action and affordable housing is there's no one solution. There's no
big idea that's going to solve the problems. This is going to be thousands of ideas cumulatively
put together addressing the issue. She is very excited about many of these proposals, they have
imperative to act on both housing and climate and if they're sitting here like, oh this possible bad
outcome for me personally might affect me negatively, then they're never going to create
change. She hears people say they are scared of density, that as a proxy for classism and she
thinks they just need to call it out for what it is. The existing neighborhoods are not going to be
just ransacked and she knows this because she designed her mother's house at 1618
Muscatine, after a house that had been horribly neglected was demolished, which is one of the
52 ADUs. They had to work really hard to come up with a solution to provide an apartment to a
young man who's economically stressed for $500, utilities included, and her mom is still going to
be able to pay for the entire construction costs of that unit in 15 years, and when she's less able,
they can have someone living upstairs who can take care of her and check in on her every day.
This is the reality of an aging population. Her mom's needs are what ADUs are all about, it's
been a huge success for her. Norbek is also working on a project at 724 Ronalds where a house
was demolished after being neglected for many years, they are working with the Historic
Preservation Commission and it has not been easy. It is $300 to $350 a square foot to build on
that property so it's not like people will just waltz in, tear things down and build new, it's just not
going to work. If someone pays $150,000 to $200,000 for a property that has an existing house
just to tear it down and build new at $300 to $350 a square foot, no one's going to buy that
house. They're $150,000 out before they even buy one wood stud, it just doesn't make sense.
Therefore, the concept that people will come in and demolish neighborhoods isn't rational, she
has studied it, she has considered buying properties in those neighborhoods, she's looked at
adding ADUs, it's very difficult and it's very expensive, epecially in historic preservation areas.
Also, when they're talking about theory, let's look at ourselves and our hearts and what we're
thinking and question how to they want to support those less than us, this guy who's renting from
her mother for $500 a month, that's the story that they want. They have created affordable
housing with that ADU. Norbek gave an example of a new house on Bloomington Street where
they tore down a house on a corner lot and now they're trying to sell that house for $500,000 and
guess what, no one's buying, it's been on the market for months so good luck to them to actually
make their investment back. These fears about the existing neighborhoods are not based in
reality, they're based in fear. Norbek is desperate to see climate action accelerate and these
proposals will help make that happen.
Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) stated all of them want affordable housing, they want
everybody to be able to afford to live and to have a living space, that isn't the question. If they
were 1 Dream of Jeanie or whatever TV program from back in the 50s where the genie or the
whatever could wiggle her nose and everything would turn out perfectly. It's too bad they don't
live in a city like that, where they could wiggle their noses and go poof and it was all be solved, it
would be wonderful, unfortunately that was a TV program and this is reality and if they are going
to deal with living here they need to live in the situation that they are in. She has lived in her
house on Jefferson Street for 40 years. It was a working-class neighborhood and she has
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 20 of 27
watched structure after structure, whether is was house owned by a working class person, or if it
was rented out to a lower class person, she has watched over the years these houses either
being changed into rent -by bedrooms or torn down and turned into a rent -by bedroom situations.
It's it has been sad to watch her neighborhood disappear so that these people could do
structures with rent -by bedroom structures. Carlson has nothing against students, they need a
place to live affordable just like others do. The problem is that they acquired the neighborhood
and that doesn't allow anybody else to live in the neighborhood and have access to housing and
that's why she is very much afraid of these ADUs because she is afraid it's going to be another
rent -by bedroom thing developers will do. Regarding the expense, developers have other
developments and write those things off. The individual person who lives in their house and does
an ADU does not have that. A developer can depreciate it out over 20 years. So she is asking
them to please stop and think about not how wonderful the idea of having all these ADUs are
and what they could do for the community because while they could she thinks they need to stop
and think about what is the reality of the places where they live. They need to take into
consideration not only providing housing for people but to make sure that by these actions they
are not decreasing that.
Ross Nusser (202 N. Linn Street) is a local real estate agent and developer and also a resident
of the Northside. He commends the City's attempt to try and help assuage the problem of
affordable housing and trying to do something. He thinks the density is what happens when
density can come affordable housing. He also respects the right to comment and to engage the
public and is in total support of his fellow neighborhoods wanting to have more of an input on
this. But by and large, he thinks that if they want to address a problem, they have to do
something. Nusser thinks that this code amendment shows that they can do something, this is
substantive change that can entice affordable housing and can entice different types of
developers. He doesn't buy into the slippery slope fallacy as allowing ADUs will create a boon
for developers investing in. Construction prices are too high, it's too expensive and cost
prohibitive to remodel some of these older structures and then to build in the rear of the lot,
assuming that they have the appropriate setbacks, it doesn't seem like it would likely work out
financially.
Scott Hawes (Executive Director, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity) stated Habitat for Humanity
focuses on home ownership, specially affordable homeownership. He thinks this is an idea that
everybody understands but wanted to bring it to the forefront of how impactful homeownership
can be specifically for children and for families. In addition to being an asset, actually owning a
home allows children to stay in the same school district, allows them to get to know their
teachers, allows them to get to go to school with their peers for as long as they live there. There
are other benefits in addition to actually the financial ones that come with owning a home. The
way he looks at these amendments is that it improves the opportunity for people who are of low
income to purchase a home, specifically, the amendments to the zero lots or attached single-
family amendments. It is cheaper, especially at Habitat, if they can build a zero -lot line, it is much
cheaper than a detached single-family house. Because those costs are lower it makes it more
affordable for folks to purchase and provides more opportunities. Hawes supports especially the
provisions that would allow more diverse housing. In response to a question that Mr. Hensch
said, specifically about increasing the size of bedrooms in a home, it might be true that families
are starting to decrease in size, but there's still going to be larger families and they're going to
need housing and all that's available is smaller homes, then they're not going to have a house.
Hawes asks that they just consider that. Yes, there might be some demographic changes or
trends going one direction, but it won't be the end of larger families with multi generations. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 21 of 27
last thing that he has to say is that great neighborhoods come in a lot of different shapes and
different sizes, and they look very different. You can have a great neighborhood with a duplex or
a zero -lot on the corner and mid -block. You can have a great neighborhood with an ADU, you
can have a great neighborhood with a smaller lot where the children play in a common space or
at the park. He likes that the City is making an effort to recognize that neighborhoods look
different and they can be great no matter what they look like and that zoning won't be a barrier to
having a great neighborhood.
Rabbi Rebecca Kushner (325 Ferson Avenue) stated she fails to be convinced that density
bonus benefits a neighborhood necessarily, especially with traffic concerns, she lives in Manville
Heights and they've had an extreme increase in traffic density since the building the construction
in North Liberty. Some streets are almost impassable, she doesn't even walk them anymore.
Also, Manville Heights has no grocery stores, no convenience stores, why are they packing so
many people in position whether it's no bus route, no way to walk downtown, it's pretty far. She
is also not understanding why diversity and divisive come in balance and it's balancing one
against the other. Of course everybody wants housing for everybody. Everybody wants the world
to be Kumbaya and function and yet she would have really welcomed if the decision had been
transparent for the neighborhood associations. She learned of this just by chance and that
seems like something is being kind of bowled over against or despite the neighborhood's
development.
Karel Bohnsack (Executive Officer, Greater Iowa City Area of Homebuilders Association) is also
on the Johnson County Livable Community Coalition, the Johnson County Affordable
Homeownership Coalition, and she has been a past board member of Iowa Valley Habitat for
Humanity. She wants to thank the staff for taking the time to meet with and answer questions
with the ABA, the Affordable Homeownership Coalition, the Affordable Livable Coalition, this is a
good start but as the memo says it's not going to resolve all the issues related to housing
affordability. There have been a lot of compromises that have been made about design
standards, the way ADUs look, the way the duplexes look, there's been multiple moving parts to
this in the eight and a half years that she's been the executive officer and meeting with City of
Iowa City staff. Bohnsack wanted to say that they support these changes and proposals that are
being made to zoning code, it's the things that zoning can do to help with affordability. The
Livable Community Coalition supports the accessory dwelling units, not to make neighborhoods
a plethora of rental opportunities, but so people can continue living in place in their homes, so
that someone can either look in on an elderly person or if you're living at home you can live in the
ADU in the backyard, or someone else can take care of your family and understand the use of
that whether it's aging and its abilities, so it's a good thing. As far as the group homes, three of
the student build houses that were done in Iowa City were for Reach For Your Potential and
there were areas that they could not build those homes and the students couldn't get that
education. The zoning changes will help to be able to build those home and treat them like every
other multifamily house, rather than an institution so they support that as well.
Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) a member of the South District Neighborhood
Association but is here in her personal capacity to say she supports these changes. She also
wants to specifically thank City staff for answering questions and for mentioning that they have
looked at other college towns and seen what they've done with their zoning. She wants to
remind everyone here that the old regulations in place have caused problems. In 2015 it was
found that Iowa City was the 14th most economically segregated city in the country and they've
been working on fixing that ever since. This change will finally start to make some of the bigger
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 22 of 27
changes needed in housing types in order to address these issues. The fact that Iowa City is that
economically segregated areas has caused problems for the schools over and over and over.
Her kids go to Alexandria Elementary in the southeast part of Iowa City but they have been
assigned to go to middle school at Northwest Junior High in Coralville because of how
economically segregated Iowa City is. So she appreciates that they're finally doing something
about this. She has been participating in all of these meetings for almost a decade at this point,
and the reports that the staff presented are not new, this is not surprising. It's not being put on
people at the last minute, staff have come and talked to the South District Neighborhood
Association regularly, they come and talk about zoning issues, they've talked about form -based
code a lot when that was affecting their area. This is not something that is being dumped on
people at the last minute. These are people who have not participated in this process because
they didn't think that affordable housing was going to affect them until they found out that it was.
The City is moving in the right direction. There's free bus service, they are reducing parking that
is true, but they're adding a lot of incentives. This is going to help avoid sprawl, this is going to
help be more environmentally friendly. She loves this inclusive zoning, she enjoys that this is
going to make things more walkable and more bikeable, which is what a lot of young people
want. It is unlike North Liberty, Tiffin and other cities in the area. She just wants to really
emphasize this has been a decade long process, City staff is always accessible, they will talk to
you about anything you have questions about.
Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) She has watched Planning and Zoning as well as the
Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. She's heard arguments for 45 years on what
some of these plans are to be, she's been on a planning committee for some of these things as
well. Yet she did not know about this until Sunday and she is plugged into what's going on. She
knows it's not deliberate for the City to hide this information but if it's going to impact her, she
wants to have input. Therefore, she encourages the Commission to defer any vote or decision on
this until they do gather input. She applauds all these progressive leaders that have come up to
the podium, whether they're from Habitat for Humanity, or whatever sector that helps the
disadvantaged of the community, but it sounds like the City has been in rather intimate
conversation with them for quite a long time, and not with other people. She doesn't want them to
be turning their backs on 50 years of successful historic preservation activity in this town, which
many dedicated people have spent an equal amount of time trying to educate and inform people
about the community's history and the ties that bind us and give us a level of stability that's often
lacking in other communities. Bennett acknowledged they live in stable neighborhoods but she is
not classist, she resents being accused of that, and she's not sexist, and she's not racist. They
all want affordable housing. She sat in these planning and zoning meetings and bought the bill of
goods that said they need density downtown to combat urban suburban sprawl and keep things
out by the Highlander as farm land but then at the same time, they're having developers come in
with plans for every single square inch of this county and surrounding area. On a personal level
she just had a friend who's been waiting for years to return to Iowa City, since 1985, but the
market was pricing her out. Unfortunately, she paid double the value of a house over on
Burlington Street. The classic example is of a former University of Iowa football player who's a
millionaire who came in and brought the property and is turning it off for twice that amount. He
didn't address the drainage and sewer pipe issues in the basement, he just had the windows
painted shut up and put carpeting over the hardwood floors. Now anyone coming back into that
neighborhood has even higher costs trying to rehabilitate that property because of the historic
building. So how does a single mom afford to rehab these houses that have been allowed by
landlords to turn into blight ridden places where they haven't kept up the moisture problems and
the drainage problems where they haven't addressed lead paint problems. If they want to talk
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 23 of 27
about climate change, well every time they tear down a house, where does that material end up,
it ends up in the landfill. People want yards where they can step out onto the porch, they want to
have gardens, they want walkability, these are all things the neighborhoods in this University
Impact Zone enjoy. Bennett stated they are not elitist, they're living in mixed neighborhoods,
there are students and she love students, she taught students for 45 years, students are the
future. But they also have to live with old people, middle aged people, young people and children
and she thinks some of this plan is very much a slap in the face to some of the older people in
this community who have dedicated their lives to making it a better place to live, and enjoy the
neighbors and the friends, and the things that this town has offered. She asks that they please
wait and listen to them, they do support what they're trying to do. There's a lot of wisdom in the
report which she appreciates and applauds, but it's also textbook oriented and it's not in
humanist values embedded in it other than to use the shield of diversity and disability to again
excuse what the developers are doing. They're lining their pockets at others expense and she
means those who've been below the highest income levels in this town. This has repeatedly
happened her entire life in Iowa City, she has been marching up to this podium trying to
encourage sensitivity among the leaders at whatever level they're at. They're investing an
enormous amount of time, but she asks that they give this some time and don't always look at
the bottom dollar.
Mary Beth Slonneger (937 E Davenport Street) lives in Goosetown and stated she has not in any
way absorbed everything in the 65 page report, but she just found out about this recently so she
is in the group that says please hold off a little bit longer to listen to the neighborhoods. She
thinks the value for Iowa City is that what they have that North Liberty and Tiffin and all the other
areas don't have is the historic neighborhoods and beautiful houses that reflect that. In
Goosetown, in the 1990s, her husband and her were given a grant by the City and so she is
trying to suggest possible other ways of looking at encouraging affordable housing. Goosetown
is probably at the bottom or near the bottom of the list of wealthy homes and they were given a
grant, a depreciating grant, that if they put money into restoration that loan would be taken away,
it was possibly 10 years, would there be a way of doing that, giving people grant money to
upgrade some of these very small homes instead of getting them out to the landfill and letting
developers come in. She encourages the Commission to think about creative ways of looking at
some of these properties rather than just alliterating them.
Martha Norbeck wanted to make clear that this is not changing historic or conservation district
requirements and that none of the historic preservation or conservation district rules are being
changed by any of these things. Hekteon confirmed that was correct.
Sharon DeGraw wanted to clarify about the one house that was referred to at the corner of
Bloomington and Union Street. What happened was the little cottage that was there was listed or
valued for around $160,000 and when the new house was constructed it has three bedrooms
upstairs and a bedroom in the basement, or studio or something in the basement and that house
was originally listed for $590,000 and it didn't sell. Subsequently bedrooms have been rented out
and they've seen them listed for about $900 - $1000 per bedroom, per month. If you multiply that
by four, that's getting close to $4,000 a month, those are pretty expensive prices. Some people
will priced out that. If one were to take the cottage in the Goosetown area cleared a lot, removed
the house, would it be possible to do a duplex, have four college students in each duplex and
charge again somewhere between $700 and $1,000 per person. And then do ADU in the back
with two bedrooms again, that seems like it's getting close to $7000 to $10,000 per month and
that's a game changer. That's more what they're worried about in terms of transforming the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 24 of 27
neighborhoods in the Northside area.
Jim Throqmorton stated they have to ask if they really understand what staff has recommended.
Are they confident that they understand how these proposals will actually affect development in
this City. If the answer's no, then they should not vote tonight. Another thing he'd like to say is
they have a council election in November and there are four seats up for election. A large part of
this particular proposal, technically good though a key part of it is the politic aspect. He knows
this Commission is not making political decisions but are they confident of the political will in the
City to make the biggest change in the zoning code in 20 years and to make it before the council
elections.
Nancy Carlson stated at this point, their area, the impact area, has the highest land property
taxes per square foot of any area in the City. One of her fears is if they continue to allow more
and more development on each of these lots, does this make each of these lots more valuable
and does that mean that the people who are live in this area will see their property taxes go up.
If it does, and these changes are allowed, and there is more development they are going to price
out some of the people who don't have a lot of money who are trying to stay in the neighborhood
because of the rise of property taxes.
Ginnie Blair agrees with a lot of what has been said, she is all for affordable housing and is very
fond of the idea of ADUs, which originally she thought meant accessible dwelling units and they
were supposed to be the granny flat version of the back of a lot to help people age in place, and
it was important that was for owner occupied as an extra dwelling, that all makes perfect sense.
Affordable housing is important but she doesn't understand how extra housing is necessarily
going to make them affordable, because there's this voluntary part. Developers can build a
certain way and get a deal, but they don't have to. She is also wondering if all the townhouses
that are being built up around town, are those less expensive places to live because it doesn't
seem so. She loves Habitat, and The Housing Fellowship and is in favor of climate change but
doesn't see any regulations for any of that. She wishes the City would work with those people for
the greater good.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of Title 14 Zoning to be amended as illustrated in
Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice,
increase housing supply, and encourage affordability.
Padron seconded the motion.
Craig noted as everyone has said tonight this is a very complicated issue but when they look at
what started all this five years ago, there was a charge to look at the zoning code and it's taken
that long and worked through many housing affiliated organizations to get to where we are today.
She thinks the staff has done an outstanding job and they're here to find solutions, to improve
housing choice, increase the housing supply, and encourage affordability. Will any of these
things actually happen, they don't know because they're not in charge of that, someone has to
build these places. She also thinks there are bad landlords and bad developers and there are
good landlords and good developers and people who want to preserve the feel of community in
Iowa City but just can't afford to do it right now. The City has to give them the tools that let the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 25 of 27
good people do the good stuff. She thinks staff has brought forward a proposal well researched
that is trying to give people the tools that we think they need. People want absolutes, they want
predictions, but no one can predict what's going to happen. There's no assurance that it's going
to work, they are just doing their best to give the good people the right tools to do the good things
and that's why she supports this.
Padron doesn't have much to say, she likes the proposal and her main reason for supporting it
would be the sustainability part that was mentioned, mainly reducing carbon emissions and sees
density as less transportation and more ways of walking. She wants to give it a shot and it may
not work out but it may.
Hensch stated he is in favor with the majority of this, but like others have said tonight, he'd like
some more discussion and an opportunity to vote on these separately. He thinks he would vote
no on this because he really wants to vote on them separately. He might be able to be
persuaded on a couple of things. Hensch asked if this motion is voted down, is this just it, if this
motion fails then is this done tonight. Hekteon stated the Commission could ask for it to be
presented again at a future meeting or it could just go to City Council without Commission
recommendations. Additionally, the amendment on the floor could be amended.
Hensch stated he would support this motion if he could make some amendments to it because
his big concern is there should be an ownership requirement for the ADUs, particularly for the
attached ADUs. He would support this if they could have an amendment to allow that.
Wade wanted to share a little bit from where he is coming from and then the second part on the
ADU. He agrees there's no single solution, looking to bring back people to the community that
couldn't afford originally and also retain people in the community, from affordability. As far as the
ADU portion, he looks at that in two ways, from private ownership that was a good example of
the age in place and having somebody living on the same property that helps later in life but also
for private ownership, that's the owner occupied and provides a pathway for private owner to
essentially build value within their existing property to make it more affordable for their personal
ownership. That's the reason he's leaning towards private ownership on ADUs.
Elliott first wanted to thank everybody who's been here, it's been very helpful to hear everybody's
opinions to help them understand the issues. She was really impressed with the packet, all the
information was very helpful. She remains somewhat up in the air, she comes from one of those
historic district situations and really values the neighborhoods there. She doesn't want to upset
the neighborhood feel but does feel they need to move forward. With hesitation she will support
this.
Craig stated if they can pass majority of this tonight, she is willing to amend her motion to take
out 3C.
Craig amended her motion to recommend approval of everything except the language
related to accessory apartments, which should be discussed more.
Craig stated she is not in favor of the owner occupancy requirement and feels like concerns have
been concerns that the neighborhood associations should have been involve. She would like the
staff to give the neighborhood associations an opportunity to discuss and then based on that
discussion bring this back at a later time.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2023
Page 26 of 27
Padron seconded the amendment to remove the section of proposed amendment 3C
regarding accessory apartments and talk about it later.
A vote was taken supporting the passage of all proposed amendments except the
proposed amendment regarding accessory apartments (3C). The motion passes 5-0.
Craig moved to defer the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments (3C) to
the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood associations to be
conferred prior to that meeting. Padron seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 19, 2023:
Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 19, 2023. Craig seconded the motion, a
vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett announced that a new commissioner was voted in last night by Council so hopefully they
will be joining the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Elliott moved to adjourn, seconded by Wade and the motion passed 5-0.
Congratulations: "Affordable" Iowa City
Life in a University town is expensive, and Iowa City is no exception. However, the
latest move on the part of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is not
designed to really address the deeper issue. Based on the argument that Iowa City
needs more "affordable housing," a widespread rezoning is to be implemented within
a very short time frame. However, there is really no such thing as "affordable
housing," which is really a convenient, misleading buzzword. Affordability is not, and
has never been, an intrinsic quality of a building. We rally to our most noble of
intentions when we talk about it as though it is, however: Developers don't build
affordable apartments or unaffordable apartments. They build apartments. Some are,
no doubt, nicer than others, but this alone doesn't make them expensive or
inexpensive. That only happens when those apartments are sold or rented. At that
point, the price is determined in a transaction that is influenced by market forces,
public policy, or both. Construction and borrowing costs have substantially escalated
in Iowa City. The costs for construction will necessarily be passed on to owners or
renters, given that the LLCs will be the only groups that will be able to afford the
building costs. No wonder so many people are moving to North Liberty, Solon, Tiffin
and Coralville.
How does Iowa City intend to provide the infrastructure necessary to support high
density neighborhoods? No bus route, no grocery stores, no play areas for children? It
seems to me that the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is overly eager to
distribute a "density bonus" to developers (as was mentioned in the meeting August
2nd), without considering many of the variables that make a desirable, successful
neighborhood: Walkability, (meaning less, not more vehicle traffic) schools,
accessible green spaces and the tradition of a part of town that has grown with a
characteristic history and flavor. This sweeping rezoning threatens to inevitably
disrupt many established neighborhoods, also given the planned timeline: September
51 City Council Public hearing. September 191 second consideration by City Council.
October 3rd action being taken by City Council. This timeline seems indeed very
hurried, given the magnitude of the changes. Neighborhood associations have not
been contacted, nor has there been any media coverage of this proposed major change.
It did not escape my attention that at the meeting on August 2nd, developers and real
estate agents seemed quite familiar and obviously comfortable with the particulars of
the proposed plans. The impression many were left with after the meeting was that the
Commission was systematically pursuing rezoning efforts with a minimum of
publicity, as well as a lack of transparency and involvement with those whose
neighborhoods and property values will be adversely affected.
I strongly urge the Iowa City Council to postpone voting on these critical issues until
a robust public conversation with all neighborhood associations can be initiated.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Rebecca Kushner
Jim Throgmorton's Statement to the P&Z Commission
August 2, 2023
Good evening. My name is Jim Throgmorton, and I live at 814 Ronalds Street in the
Northside neighborhood. I speak to you as a retired professor of urban and regional planning, as
a former city council member and mayor, as a 28 -year resident of the Northside, and as a co-
chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee. My comments have
been shaped by those experiences as well as by many conversations with Northside neighbors
and other members of the steering committee.
At the July 5 meeting of the P&Z Commission, City staff proposed a series of major
amendments to the Zoning Code. The amendments are designed "to improve housing choice,
increase housing supply, and encourage affordability." On Friday the staff issued a longer, more
detailed, and more complicated supplement to that initial report. I have spent much of the last
two days reading that document. And on Sunday, Shari DeGraw and I guided a "Zoning
Matters" community forum about the staff's proposed changes. Roughly 50 Iowa Citians
attended the event at Iowa City's Free Public Library.
Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the proposed
amendments. The questions and comments ranged from the purely technical (e.g. what is an
ADU7) to the expressly political. The technical comments revealed that most residents do not
understand zoning processes and language. The political comments revealed a very broad range
of political views.
The proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the Zoning Code in
nearly 20 years. The changes address everything from the placement of duplexes and other
multi -family housing, to reducing multi -family parking requirements, to providing incentives for
the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). And more.
I commend the City staff for carefully considering how to promote the development of
more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. I find myself agreeing with, and
supporting, most of the proposed changes. Many of the proposals seek to open up existing and
future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS -5, to a more diverse range of
housing types.' Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that, in cities all over
the country, conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design.
However, changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied and
discussed by all affected stakeholders. In its initial report, the staff identified a series of reports
and public engagement processes which provided background for the current proposal. To the
best of my knowledge, there were no consultations with the general public or neighborhood
associations prior to issuance of the proposed amendments. And, to the best of my knowledge,
there have been no reports about them in the local news media.
We on the NNA's Steering Committee think it is extremely important for the P&Z
Commission to defer voting on the proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways in which
a broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. And we strongly
believe the City staff, the commission, and the city council must recognize neighborhood
' The staff's proposed amendments could have a major effect on future neighborhoods, but it is not clear how the
amendments might affect existing low-density residential neighborhoods; an unknown number of them impose
private rules through restrictive covenants.
associations as key stakeholders in a collaborative process of considering the proposed.
amendments.
Here's one possibility: you could spread your consideration of the staff's proposal over
your next four meetings. That way you could focus your attention on, one by one, each of the
four major categories of proposed amendments. This would provide an opportunity for interested
stakeholders to understand better the meaning and consequences of what the staff is proposing.
Meanwhile, candidates for city council could be interacting with likely voters about the political
merits of the staff's proposals.
Let me turn now from process to substance.
The staffs July 5 memo articulated how the staff trained the topic. The memo reported
that economic growth has been attracting new residents to the region. However, the supply of
housing in Iowa City has not been keeping pace with demand. This has been driving up housing
prices and rents. In response, the staff argued we need to increase the supply of housing and the
diversity of housing choices in Iowa City. Doing so would alleviate increases in residential
prices and rents. Basically, the staff s proposed amendments seek to "encourage affordability."
Based on numerous conversations, I would say that we in the NNA find it difficult to
fully assess how these amendments would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the
University Impact Area (UTA). However, we think some of the amendments might produce
multiple harmful effects. The potential adverse effects largely stem from the fact that the housing
market in these neighborhoods is profoundly affected by the intense demand for off -campus
student housing.
Although all of the UTA neighborhoods are affected by this demand, the particular effects
vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In each case, it is important to account for the social
and material reality of the neighborhoods and not think solely in terms of what low-density
single-family residential zones are like in the abstract.
Let me connect this directly to the Northside. We have recently completed an inventory
of property in the neighborhood.' This inventory reveals that the Northside is already is quite
diverse in housing types, ages, ownership, and assessed values.
Of the 994 properties in the Northside, 48% are classified as "single-family / owner -
occupied."' Another 19% of the properties in the neighborhood are duplexes or single-family
structures that have been converted to 2 -fancily, 3 -family, etc., up to 9 -family occupancies.
Thirteen percent (13%) of the properties are condominums. There are at least 29 stand-alone
apartment buildings and another 29 rooming houses. And so on.
Structures in the Northside are also quite diverse in terms of age. The 600 single-family
and 2 -family structures range in age from one built in 1845 to one built in 2011. Almost 20% of
the structures were built in the 1800s. Seventy-two percent (72%) were built in the first half of
the 20a' century.
2 This inventory is derived from information contained in the Johnson County Assessor's Property Information
Viewer (PIV) at: https://gis.johnsoncountyiowa.gov/piv/. It is a great resource. But it can also be tricky to use. This
is especially true for counting condominiums.
3 Many properties designated as "single-family / owner -occupied" (SF/00s) are owned by LLCs and presumably
are rented. Consequently, I have not been able to determine which SF/OOs are actually occupied by their owners.
When I asked the City Assessor about this, he responded, "Our office does not have direct computer access to the
city rental permits, so in general we have not entered most properties as rentals when they are rented out. This
classification does not impact the assessment, credits, or exemptions in any way. The owner occupant is a default in
our computer system and we had not considered editing that up to this point."
The 2023 assessed values of the single-family properties range from $76,000 to $1.1
million. Almost 14% of the single-family properties are assessed in the I00,000s or below. 46%
are assessed in the $200,OOOs. The single-family properties containing old, one-story structures
assessed in the $100,000s or less are susceptible to being demolished and transformed into larger
and more expensive rental units unless steps are taken to guide their transformation.
Property ownership is quite diverse as well. 175 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and
other incorporated entities own property in the Northside. These private enterprises own (and
presumably rent) 27% of the properties classified as being "single-family / owner -occupied."
One individual's various LLCs own at least 56 properties in the neighborhood.
Given this existing diversity, it is difficult for us to see how the staff's proposed
amendments would have beneficial effects in the Northside neighborhood. To the contrary,
when combined, several of the proposed incentives are likely to have perverse negative effects.
As I read the staff's August 2 supplementary memo, this possibility applies primarily to
the proposals concerning Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Item 3c in the staff's
supplementary memo (pp. 12-13) would:
(1) allow accessory apartments in any zone that allows household living uses
(including RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow them on any lot that contains up to
2 dwelling units;
(2) remove the requirement that one unit be owner -occupied;
(3) remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents;
(4) increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the
principal use, whichever is less, and allow stand-alone accessory apartments;
(5) remove the requirement for an additional parking space; and
(6) remove requirements limiting additions to 10% of a building and limiting
entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the
zone.
Items 4a and 4b (pp. 17 and 18) would:
(1) for conventional zones, create a 20% density bonus where 20% of units in a
development are income -restricted housing for 20 years, to be administered
through existing processes;
(2) would provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards, including
allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction;
and
(3) income -restricted affordable housing units in all zones would not be required to
have on-site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in
compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements.
With this mix of amendments and incentives — especially the removal of the requirement that one
unit be owner -occupied —private investors are likely to sweep up properties in the RNS-12 parts
of the Northside and Goosetown, demolish older, lower-cost, owner -occupied structures, and
replace them with larger rental structures coupled with a rentable ADUs. The overall supply of
housing would increase, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink.
In sum, I urge you to slow down and give yourselves and the public a couple months to
understand and consider the details of the staff's proposal. At the moment, I generally support
most of the changes the staff has proposed, including many of the ones pertaining to ADUs.
However, we in the Northside are quite worried that the amendments would have perverse
negative effects in the neighborhood. I strongly oppose applying the staffs proposed ADU
changes to the RS -8 and RNS-12 parts of the Northside neighborhood. I would, however, like to
learn whether several of the ADU amendments could be used in those districts when the entity
wanting to build an ADU is a non-profit provider of income -restricted housing.
f i Navigate
HOMES
August 2, 2023
City of Iowa City
Attn: Tracy Hightshoe
Iowa City City Hall
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Subject_ Support for Proposed Housing Code Amendments
Dear Ms_ Hightshoe,
am writing on behalf of Navigate Homes. a community -driven real estate development
company committed to enhancing housing options for residents in Iowa City. I am writing
this letter tc express our wholehearted support for the ,proposed housing cede
amendments put forth by the city.
We commend the City of Iowa City for recognizing the need to address the current
housing challenges and taking the initiative to propose amendments that foster
increased housing options, reasonably priced new construction homes, and less
stringent design requirements. These changes represent a significant step forward in
ensuring a more vibrant and inclusive community for all residents.
Firstly, we wholeheartedly endorse the efforts to increase housing options in the city. As
the demand for housing continues to rise, it is crucial to provide diverse housing options
that cater to the varied needs of our community members_ By accommodating different
housing types, ffom single-family homes to townhouses, duplexes, condos, and
apartments in all areas of town, we can create a more inclusive city that welcomes
individuals and families from all walks of life.
Secondly, we are enthusiastic abort the proposal to encourage reasonably priced new
construction homes. The availability of affordable housing is a pressing concern in Iowa
City, and these amendments represent an opportunity to address this issue proactively,
By removing barriers for builders and developers who offer attainable housing options,
e can begin to alleviate the burden on low and moderate -income families, making the
dream of homeownership a reality for more individuals.
M Mai non Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 466.4300
N avigateho rues lowa,co m
Lastly, we fully support the idea of easing design requirements_ While quality and safety
should never be compromised, excessive design restrictions can stifle creativity and
increase construction costs, ultimately impacting housing affordability. By striking a
balance between preserving the city's unique character and allowing for innovative
design, we can create a dynamic urban environment that reflects the values and
aspirations cf its residents.
In conclusion, Navigate Homes stands firmly behind the proposed housing code
amendments and encourages the City of Iowa City to move forward with their
implementation. These changes are essential for cultivating a vibrant and diverse
community, providing affordable homeownership opportunities, and nurturing a sense of
pride and belonging among residents.
Thank you for your dedication to making Iowa City a better place to lige, work, and raise
a family. This is a great first step in achieving the stated goals, and we look forward to
working together on further code revisions that can take us to the next level of more
attainable housing, We are eager to collaborate with the city and other stakeholders to
help shape a future that benefits us all_
Sincerely,
Dave Oyl
President
Navigate Homes
From: Diana H.
To: Anne Russett
Subject: Please forward to Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:31:36 PM
* * This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
To Planning and Zoning Commission,
Because I cannot attend your meeting on Wednesday, August 2, I am sending this email. I request that you postpone
consideration of the proposed zoning changes as drafted by city staff. Neighborhood organizations as well as the
wider population should have a chance to read, understand, and comment on those proposed changes.
Thank you,
Diana Harris, 523 Brown St., IC
From:
Kirk Lehmann
To:
"Cheryl Cruise"
Cc:
Anne Russett
Subject:
RE: August 2 memo to P&Z
Date:
Monday, July 31, 2023 7:44:07 AM
Thanks Cheryl, we'll pass along your comments to the Commission.
Regards,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
319-356-5247
-----Original Message -----
From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcruise@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 1:01 PM
To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>
Subject: August 2 memo to P&Z
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. ** Kirk,
In Analysis 4a of this memo you go into a Fannie Mae "study" but I think it may lead to erroneous conclusions
about current policies. It was Grounded Solutions that did the study of 1,019 IZ programs and Fannie Mae
summarized results. Many programs are combinations or choices of AMI levels. For the one choice AMI level, 75%
of programs are at 80% AMI paying 30% of income. Iowa City is a complete outlier using Fair Market Rent (which
is 40-45% AMI) for our income restricted, rent controlled units. Grounded Solutions thinks we are 60% AMI paying
30% of income. Our practice since 2016 is no where near the averages found in the study.
If 50 new construction units are increased to 60 then 12 will be required to be income restricted. Average real
world income losses are now $500/unit/month. Even our flawed fee in lieu formula shows a loss of
$5000/year/affordable unit.
With current vacancy rates, increased interest costs, increased insurance costs, and increasing labor and supply
costs, there is no incentive in this plan.
Inclusionary zoning only works in a high development scenario.
Feasibility is the most important word in the equation.
This is also why the AH committee recommended to drop the mandatory affordable housing requirement from
annexations.
Cheryl Cruise
Iowa City IA
Sent from my iPad
From: Rod Sullivan
To: Anne Russett; *City Council
Subject: Upcoming Planning and Zoning consideration of changes to the Zoning Code
Date: Sunday, July 30, 2023 5:39:16 PM
r
i
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
7/30/23
Dear Iowa City Planning Staff, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, and Iowa City
Council:
My name is Rod Sullivan, and I am a 39 -year resident of Iowa City. Nineteen months ago my
family and I moved from the Court Hill neighborhood to the Northside neighborhood. I am
writing to you today regarding the proposed changes to the Iowa City Zoning Code.
Please allow me to begin by stating that I am very glad we have a City Council that is
committed to increasing the amount of affordable housing available in this community. That
has not been the case for the majority of my time in this city, and I truly do appreciate the
current status.
The proposed changes to the Zoning Code come to you with some commentary about
affordable housing; this change "might" result in more affordable housing; this change
"could" lead to more affordable housing. I want to challenge those assumptions.
Let's begin by looking at some raw numbers. The Iowa City Housing Authority has a waiting
list of almost 3,000 households. There are undoubtedly a few hundred households who do not
even bother to apply. Let's call this number 3,300 units.
Iowa City grows by about half a percent each year. That amounts to about 400 people.
Assuming 2.5 people per household, that is another 160 units that need to be added each year
just to keep up with demand. Added to the 3,300 units above, we are at 3,460 units needed.
I have heard numerous realtors claim that Johnson County is short "hundreds" of units. Let's
call that 500. Half of Johnson County's population is in Iowa City, so let's add 250 units to
our number above. We are now at 3,710 units of housing needed, with 3,500 or more of that
need for affordable housing. And remember, we need a few hundred more units every year
just to keep up. We will not affect the current supply and demand imbalance with these
changes.
The proposed changes to the Zoning Code will not create 3,500 affordable housing units. They
simply will not. So we need to be very careful when we hear that these changes "could" or
"might" make an impact. The odds are good that they will make virtually no impact at all.
If I may make an analogy: I could stand to lose a few pounds. I could go up and down my
stairs an extra two times per day. I would burn a few more calories. It "could" or "might"
make an impact on my weight. On the other hand, I could instead focus on things that are
proven to help one lose weight. I would like to see Iowa City focus on the proven methods of
creating and maintaining affordable housing.
What are the proven methods of creating and maintaining affordable housing? There are two —
carrots and sticks. You can pay people to create affordable housing, you can require people to
create affordable housing, or you can do both. I would urge you to do both.
Meanwhile, please do not consider these proposed Zoning changes as even a partial solution to
our affordable housing crisis. They are not that, and they should not be sold as such.
Sincerely,
Rod Sullivan
514 N. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-7199
Rodsullivan29 & email. com
�r
�.aae�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Late Handout(s):
City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet
5. Consent Calendar - Resolutions and Motions
Item 5.d Landfill Equipment Buil -
September 18, 2023
9. Planning & Zoning Matters
Item 9.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See
correspondence from Jim Throgmorton, Mary Murphy, John Engelbrecht & Bev Brandt,
Raymond Helmer, Tara Atkinson, Kyle Nilson & Amanda Crosby Perry, Sandy
Heisdorffer & Joan Jehle.
Item 9.b Rezoning - 715 N Dodge Street - Local Historic Landmark - See
correspondence from Sondra Smith & David Leshtz, Deborah Nye.
10. Regular Formal Agenda
Item 10.b FY24 Budget Amendment Public Hearing - See correspondence from
Vincent Shoppa.
September 18, 2023 City of Iowa City
I r I
�`` " P
���ii
City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet
CITY OF IOWA CITY September 19, 2023
Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Monday and 3:00 pm on
Tuesday.
Late
9. Planning & Zoning Matters
Item 9.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See
correspondence from Torin Brown & Will Searfoorce, Kevin Anish & Philipp Deurer.
September 19, 2023 City of Iowa City
Item:
HANDOUT TO FOLLOW:
By:________________________________________________________
9.a
Nancy Carlson, Iowa City Resident
Received from Nancy Carlson during public comment.
our ywishispr Vroom
&t
LAA
si-v-' tvvb
tov% ckvw�\
voil-,<Ckv A'&-5tne;cj
AV0 1 C-- tZ. b i2v
4, t'u4 0 vv, viva
Effim
r50 fo-Ir
acto koos-�-- bviW-
C�'aA I k-r.'Ort 're t -vv -h
6� ivy T&%foo alvl'49
tau
&VIP bi"Or
k3.
L
lr�Vvp�l tot- Pr
I
ov S< V*
Ici, scAA-.,
tnfN' Ckv Lon"
� —�TA77
M
J.
71
&t
LAA
si-v-' tvvb
tov% ckvw�\
voil-,<Ckv A'&-5tne;cj
AV0 1 C-- tZ. b i2v
4, t'u4 0 vv, viva
Effim
r50 fo-Ir
acto koos-�-- bviW-
C�'aA I k-r.'Ort 're t -vv -h
6� ivy T&%foo alvl'49
tau
&VIP bi"Or
k3.
L
lr�Vvp�l tot- Pr
I
ov S< V*
Ici, scAA-.,
tnfN' Ckv Lon"
's ^zYNiI
p
�,... "4g to � ! � _ � 4 4 t, � k';�f'`<N ` ,,�+Y•..4; ,'+
�,M�<. ,�, 'f..,'yt, rr ..,iv- ]*"y. y _� .��r � 'sr`as. ° "5!. `,v,l, i ',i.,S �••1,h.
_ 7V � .t!'i fk� - r ��+ _ — _� a+� v�..,� F. i �•, �js .iP.�1'�y, iel
_ � �. � V -'t :4 �+.. _i - 117. •, i _.i _ I ��iq[ `�i-{�• •�44 i � _ �,:r T.y���7i �,.
-... '_ - it 1 ' i• ' �. ,i{`. 1. 2 _ is"
r—�
__ r 477f
-_'�j,. ,j v1'.�yyv± �•--��rr`dd f_ 1
•� J` iv -r F.. 1 �""'.i �•�-
ere,*,
Ty
�.,i'L., .. ._ . � �. •'<� .. ?!55.�}f.'.r`' a ....t.s '-=�4•.�-i,� f��. _ ' �.'� d_ � .. +_�{. _�:ii."'yji•
HANDOUT CONCLUDED
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0001)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice,
increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability (REZ23-0001)
Whereas, the City first adopted an Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016; and
Whereas, the Action Plan recommended considering regulatory changes to the Zoning Code,
including waiving parking requirements for affordable housing units, reviewing changes to the multi-
family design standards to reduce cost and expedite approvals, increasing allowable bedrooms
outside the University Impact Area, and permitting more building types by right; and
Whereas, City Council adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study in 2019 (Resolution 19-225) after
disseminating information, soliciting public input, and holding a public meeting on its analysis,
identified impediments, and recommendations; and
Whereas, the Study recommended exploring ways to increase the density and types of housing
allowed especially in low density, single-family residential zones, to expand the number of
bedrooms allowed in attached single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings, to adopt a
Reasonable Accommodations procedure for the zoning ordinance, and to reclassify community
service — long term shelter as a multi -family or mixed use category; and
Whereas, City Council adopted an updated Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 after
reviewing new data and engaging the community to build off efforts in support of affordable housing;
and
Whereas, the 2022 Action Plan recommended increasing number and/or type of dwelling units
allowed by right in single-family residential zones, increasing the allowable number of bedrooms in
duplex and zero -lot line structures, and allowing multi -family units with more than three bedrooms
when required to meet affordable housing funding requirements; and
Whereas, City Council further drew upon previous analysis and community engagement to
establish priorities in its FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan (Resolution 22-304), which includes advancing
prioritized recommendations from the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types within each
neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes, encourages
development on smaller lots that conserve land and allows for more affordable single-family housing
options, and promotes identifying and supporting infill development and redevelopment
opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place; and
Whereas, the City's zoning code implements the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the adopted policy direction, adopted actions, and recommendations of the Fair Housing Choice
Study, Affordable Housing Action Plan, and Iowa City Strategic Plan; and
Whereas, the proposed amendments increase flexibility for a range of housing types and
facilitate housing choice, modify design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating
safe and attractive neighborhoods, provide flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, create
Ordinance No.
Page 2
regulatory incentives for income -restricted affordable housing, and address fair housing concerns
to support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set
forth below and recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 at its meeting on July 5, 2023.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
amended as follows:
A. Amend Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Single -Family Residential Zones in Section
14-2A-2: Single -Family Residential Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following
underlined text:
USE iSUBGROUPS
CATEGORIES
RR -1
RS -5
RS -8
RS -12
�RNS-12
Residential Uses
Household
living uses
Detached single- family
dwellings
P
P
P
P
P
Detached zero lot line
dwellings
PR
PR
PR
PR
Attached single- family
dwellings
PR
PR
PR
Two-family uses (duplexes)
PR
PR
PR
PR
Group households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Multi -family uses
PR
Group living
Assisted group living
uses
Independent group living
Fraternal group living
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for
provisional uses and special exceptions.)
B. Amend 14 -2A -4E: Single -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, Minimum
Open Space Requirements by adding the following underlined text:
2. Minimum Requirements:
a, On lots that contain multi -family uses or group living uses, usable open space
shall be provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less
than four hundred (400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact
areas, with each area not less than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no
dimension less than fifteen feet (15'). On lots that contain multi -family uses in the RS -12
zone. a minimum of one hundred fiftv (150) sauare feet of usable open space per unit
shall be provided located in the rear yard with no dimension less than ten feet (10').
Ordinance No.
Page 3
3. Standards:
a. For multi -family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the
standards as set forth in subsections 114 -2G -7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except that
multi -family uses in the RS -12 zone shall comply with the standards below.
b. For single family uses; aDd two family uses, and multi -family uses in RS -12
zones, open space shall be located behind the principal dwelling in an area visible and
easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall consist of open planted green
space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and other amenities that support
passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted toward usable
open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air terraces or
rear yard -facing porches, including screened -in porches (non -habitable space only) may
count toward the open space requirement.
C. Amend Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones
in Section 14-2A-4: Single -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by
adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
nla - not ar4)licable
Notes
11 Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B 1 in Section 14-28-6) the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom
within a multi -family; attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or
more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code"
of this Code.
Minimum Lot Requirements
Minimum Setbacks
Building Bulk
Maximum Lot
Maximum
Minimum
Coverage
Number Of
Open
Lot Size
Areal
Lot
FrontageFront
Side
Rear
Maximum
Minimum
Total
Front
Zone/Use
Bedrooms
Space
(Sq. Ft.)
Unit
Width
(Ft.)
(Ft.)
(Ft.)
(Ft.)
Height (Ft.)
Building
Building
Setback
Per Unit
,u
(Sq Ft)I0
S Ft.
Ft
Width Ft.
Coverage
Coverage
Detached single
family, including
6,000
6,000
40 458
156
5+22
^0
35
203
45%
50%
n/a
500
8 98
zero lot line
$ tl
�
Duplexes
^�
�
7094
70 88
156
5+22
�0
35
203
45%
50%
4'1
300/unit
RS -5
Attached single-
5.000
5.000
35 49
35 48
156
0 or
,0
35
203
45%
50%
150
6,588
family
6;8883544
—
105
Other uses'
6,000
,0006--888
n/a
50 b8
40 45
20
5 2'
20
35
20'
45%
50°10
n!a
n!a
"99
Detached single
e9
family. including
5,0008
5,000
458
408
156
5+22
35
2�'
45%
50%
n/a
500
zero lot line
note
PS -8
D' -'flex
8.000
4.000
60 W-5
60 78
156
5+22
See
35
in s
45%
5011/0
41-1
3001unit
6498
449
—
note 9
Attached single-
4.000
4,000
30 35
303145
156
U or
20
35
203
45%
50%
41-1
150
458
tairnily
4_I8
—
—
105
Other uses'
5,000
n/a
45
4n
20
5+22
20
35
203
45%
50%
n/a
n/a
Detached single-
See
family; including
5,0008
5 OW
4511
408
158
5+22
35
203
50%
50%
nla
500
zero lot line
note 9
FSS-
Duplex
6,000
3,OD0
55
40
156
5+22
9
35
203
50%
50%
4'
300/unit
12
note
Attached single-
3,000
3,ODO
201
20
156
0 or
20
35
183
50%
50%
4i
150
famil
28'
105
Mufti -family uses
9.000
3,000
76
60
156
10
20
35
543
50%
50%
4"
150/unit
Other uses'
5,000
ii'a
45
40
20
5+22
20
35
203
50%
50%
n/a
n/a
Detached single-
5 DOOM
5 OOOtl
4`ia
25�
156
5+?2
See
35
203
40%
50%
n/a
5O0
famil
note 9
Duplex
6,000
3,000
40
25
156
5+22
35
203
40%
50%
4L''
300!unit
RNS-
note
12
10/bedroom,
Multi -family uses
5,000
Fxisti%14
45
25
156
5+22
20
35
203
40%
50%
311
but no less
than 400
Other uses'
5,000
nla
4;i
?5
20
5+22
20
35
2D3
4D%
5U%
n!a
n/a
nla - not ar4)licable
Notes
11 Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B 1 in Section 14-28-6) the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom
within a multi -family; attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or
more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code"
of this Code.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
D. Amend 14-2A-7: Single -Family Residential Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the
following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
A. Single -Family Density Bonus Options: For detached single- family dwellings and
detached zero lot line dwellings, the following density bonuses are allowed in the
following zones and under the following conditions:
1. RS -5 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is
restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional
requirements are allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty-five f ftyy feet (459') and the
minimum lot frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to five &+X thousand
(59,000) square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also
located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty
inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
2. RS -8 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is
restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional
requirements are allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty feet (40') and the minimum
frontage to twenty five feet (25');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to four thousand
(4,000) square feet; and
c. The minimum front .setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also
located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty
inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
3. RS -12 and RNS-12 zones: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking
spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to
dimensional requirements are allowed:
a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to thirty feet (30') and the minimum
frontage to twenty feet (20');
b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to three thousand
(3,000) square feet; and
c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also
located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty
inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.
F Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housing
bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F Affordable Housing".
E. Amend Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section
14-213-2: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following
underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Use Subgroups RM -12 RM -20 RNS- RM -44 PRM
Categories 20
Residential uses:
Household Detached single-family P P P
living uses dwellings
Ordinance No.
Page 6
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for
provisional uses and special exceptions.)
F. Amend Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones in
Section 14-2B-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding
the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Zone/Use
Detached zero lot line
dwellings
PR
PR
PR
Maximum
Attached single-family
dwellings
PR
PR
PR
Duplexes
PR
PR
PR
Group households
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Width
Multi -family dwellings
P
P
P
P
P
Group living
uses
Assisted group living
PRS
PR
PR
PR
PR
Independent group living
(Ft.)
PR
PR
PR
Fraternal group living
PR
S
PR
PR
P = Permitted
PR = Provisional
S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for
provisional uses and special exceptions.)
F. Amend Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones in
Section 14-2B-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding
the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Zone/Use
Minimum Lot Requirements
Maximum
Number Of
Bedrooms Per
Unit '
Total
Area/ Unit (Sq.
Width
Minimum
...
Area
Ft.)
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Sq.
(Ft.)
Ft.)
..
RM-
Detached
5,000'
5,000'
45,557
n/a
12
single- family
and detached
407
zero lot line
Duplex
6,000
3,000
55
40
..
43
Attached
3,000
3,000
20/286
20
4'3
..
single- family
Multi -family
8,175
See :able 2B-
60
40
33
..
of this section
Group living
8,175
See GhapteF 4,
60
40
..
See Ghapte
article 144B -e+
4, article 14-
th6s t4le
4Bofof this
..
Non-
5,000
5,000
60
40
n/a
residential'
..
RM-
Detached
5,0007
5,0007
45 55'
40'
n/a
20
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
Ordinance No.
Page 7
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
4'—s
4L3
3,3
See chapter
4, article 14-
4B am of +his tetlfle
n/a
n/a
4
4L3
3
See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of thds Wle
n/a
3
See rah
4, article 14-
4B of +hie
n/a
33—
See Ghapter
4, article 14-
4B of thi title
n/a
13. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the
maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a
multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has
any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as
Duplex
3,600
1,800
45
35
Attached
1,800
1,800
20/286
20
single- family
Multi -family
5,000
See table 213-
60
40
of this section
Group living
5,000
See e#apteF 4,
60
40
article 14-4B-Gf
this title
Non-
5,000
n/a
60
40
residential'
RNS-
Detached
5,0007
5,0007
40'
257
20
single- family
and detached
zero lot line
Duplex
5,000
2,500
40
25
Attached
2,500
2,500
20/286
20
single- family
Multi -family
5,000
table 2B-
See-
40
25
of this section
Group living
5,000
See GhapteF 4,
40
25
article 14-4B-ef
tai s, 4 tom
Non-
5,000
n/a
40
25
residential'
RM-
Multi -family
5,000
See
None
35
44
of this section
Group living
5,000
See chapter.
None
35
article 14 -413 -et
this
Non-
5,000
n/a
None
35
residential'
PRM
Multi -family
5,000
See _
None
35
of this section
Group living
5,000
See EhapteF 4,
None
35
article 14-413-9f
this
Non-
5,000
n/a
None
35
residential'
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
4'—s
4L3
3,3
See chapter
4, article 14-
4B am of +his tetlfle
n/a
n/a
4
4L3
3
See chapter
4, article 14-
4B of thds Wle
n/a
3
See rah
4, article 14-
4B of +hie
n/a
33—
See Ghapter
4, article 14-
4B of thi title
n/a
13. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the
maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a
multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has
any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as
Ordinance No.
Page 8
determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained
by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code.
G. Amend Table 213-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -
Family Zone in Section 14-213-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional
Requirements, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for
purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger
than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the
egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living
space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a
bedroom. BedFG Gmv that eXGeed 225 square foot IR size nr have @Ry hGrizeRtal
diMeRSiGR greater thaR 16 feet shall GG61Rt as 2 or more bedrGems, @S deteFMiRed by the
t tie 17, Ghapter 5, n
H. Amend 14-213-613: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development
Standards, Applicability, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
3. For properties subject to these standards located -m the RM -12, RNS 20 RM 29
and Qnn 44 7. Res outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this section will
be administered through the site plan review process, as set forth in title 18 of this Code.
For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone, the regulations
of this section will be administered through the design review process as set forth in
chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
I. Amend 14 -2B -6E: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development
Standards, Building Scale, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the
following text with a strikethrough:
1 Rin 12 RM 20. RNS 20 RM nn And RRI\n ZooRes Outside the Central Planning
District: Street -facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be
articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (see r+acre 2B.7 of this section) according
to the following standards:
Zone
RM -12
RM -20 And
RNS-20
RM -44
PRM
Minimum lot area per unit
(in square feet):
Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,800
500
435
2 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,800
1,000
875
3 -bedroom unit
2,725
2,700
1,500
1,315
bedreoms per multi family
3
3
3
Minimum bedroom
size' (square feet)
100100
100
100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for
purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger
than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the
egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living
space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a
bedroom. BedFG Gmv that eXGeed 225 square foot IR size nr have @Ry hGrizeRtal
diMeRSiGR greater thaR 16 feet shall GG61Rt as 2 or more bedrGems, @S deteFMiRed by the
t tie 17, Ghapter 5, n
H. Amend 14-213-613: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development
Standards, Applicability, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
3. For properties subject to these standards located -m the RM -12, RNS 20 RM 29
and Qnn 44 7. Res outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this section will
be administered through the site plan review process, as set forth in title 18 of this Code.
For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone, the regulations
of this section will be administered through the design review process as set forth in
chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
I. Amend 14 -2B -6E: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development
Standards, Building Scale, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the
following text with a strikethrough:
1 Rin 12 RM 20. RNS 20 RM nn And RRI\n ZooRes Outside the Central Planning
District: Street -facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be
articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (see r+acre 2B.7 of this section) according
to the following standards:
Ordinance No.
Page 9
a. Bays and projections must be at least six feet (6') in width and at least sixteen
inches (16") but not more than six feet (6') in depth. Recesses must be at least six feet
(6') in width and have a depth of at least sixteen inches (16").
b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the
roofline or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other
architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a
change in window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or
parapet height; or variation in architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals,
stone or tile accents.
J. Amend 14 -2B -6G: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development
Standards, Building Materials, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the
following text with a strikethrough:
5.
6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that
faces a street side lot line.
67. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a
building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
8. FeF buildings wheFe the exterieF wall material used GR the side Gf a buildiRg !S a
different FnateFiai thaR what is used OR the street faGiRg wall, the stFeet faGiRg Wall
MateFial FRUSt WFap aFG61Rd the GE)rRers tG the sides ef the buildiRg fer at least three feet
4+
7g. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building,
the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier
course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 2B.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
Ac�ert3wie
K. Amend 14-213-8: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the
following underlined text:
E. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable
housing bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, 'Affordable Housing
=f
K. Amend 14-213-8: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the
following underlined text:
E. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable
housing bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, 'Affordable Housing
Ordinance No.
Page 10
L. Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Commercial Zones in Section 14-2C-2:
Commercial Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following underlined text and
deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
P
=
Permitted
PR
=
Provisional
S
=
Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for
requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions)
Use
Subgroups
I
CO -1
CN -1
CH -1
CI -1
-2
CB -2
CB -5
CB-
I MU
Categories
I
JCC
10
Residential uses:
Group living
Assisted group
PR
PR
S
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
uses
living
Fraternal group
living
Independent
group living
Household
Attached
PR
living uses
single-family
dwellings
Detached
P
single-family
dwellings
Detached zero
PR
lot line
dwellings
Duplexes
PR
Group
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
households
Multi -family
PR'
PR
PR/
PR_'
PR_
PR/
P
S
dwellings
S
S
S
S is
Institutional and civic uses:
GGMMuR+tY
PP
-
-
P-P�
PR4
P4R
PR
GeFV+^gig
term
S
S
S
Community
9
Community
S
S
S
PR
PR
S
S
service uses
service -
shelter
General comm
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
unity service
Ordinance No.
Page 11
M. Amend Table 2C -2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The
MU Zone in Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding
the following underlined text:
Zone
CO -1
CN -1
CH -1
CI -1
CC -2
CB -2
CB -5
CB -10
Maximum Number of Bedrooms Per Unit
31'-
3 "
''3,,
n/a
n/a
3`
3,
3")
3'
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
10. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6) the
maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a
multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has
any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms as
determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained
by the provisions of the title 17 chapter 5 "Housing Code" of this Code.
N. Amend Table 2C -2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone (MU) in
Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following
underlined text:
Zone
Use
MU
Detached single-family and
detached zero lot line
Two-family (duplex)
Attached single-family
Multi -family
Group living
Nonresidential
n/a = Not applicable
Notes:
Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit
n/a
4p,
4
3`'
See article 14-413
n/a
8. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6) the
maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a
multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has
any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms as
Ordinance No.
Page 12
determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained
by the provisions of the title 17 chapter 5 "Housing Code", of this Code.
O. Amend Table 2C -2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In
Commercial Zones in Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements,
by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for
purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger
than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the
egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living
space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a
bedroom. Bedroo,ms that exGea 225 square feet, .n size or have aRy hGriZeRta1
title -1 7, Ghapter 5, "Heusigg Cede" of this Cede.
P. Amend 14-2C-91: Commercial Zones, Site Development Standards In MU Zone, Building
Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional Buildings, by
adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim
elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood
clapboards are used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 2C.5 - Building Materials...
2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be
constructed using similar materials and design as the front facade.
3.
have a durable base GORSiStiRg Of FRaSGRFY, StUGGO, er dressed GeRGFete that eAeRds at
least twe feet (2') iR height above gF@de. if the baSe GGRSiStS ef GGRGFete, it must have -a
d eGGrofiye fano
Zone
Minimum lot area per unit
(in square feet):
CO -1, CC -2,
CN -1 And
MU
CB -2
CB -5 And CB -10
There is no minimum lot area
per unit standard. However, the
number of 3- and 4- bedroom
units per lot may not exceed
30% of the total number of units
on the lot
Efficiency or 1 -bedroom unit
2,725
435
2 -bedroom unit
2,725
875
3 -bedroom unit
2,725
1,315
bedrGems per Fnylti family
dwelliRg-URit
3
3
3
Minimum bedroom
size' (square feet)
100
100
100
Note:
1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for
purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger
than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the
egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living
space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a
bedroom. Bedroo,ms that exGea 225 square feet, .n size or have aRy hGriZeRta1
title -1 7, Ghapter 5, "Heusigg Cede" of this Cede.
P. Amend 14-2C-91: Commercial Zones, Site Development Standards In MU Zone, Building
Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional Buildings, by
adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim
elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood
clapboards are used and mitered at the corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves.
Figure 2C.5 - Building Materials...
2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be
constructed using similar materials and design as the front facade.
3.
have a durable base GORSiStiRg Of FRaSGRFY, StUGGO, er dressed GeRGFete that eAeRds at
least twe feet (2') iR height above gF@de. if the baSe GGRSiStS ef GGRGFete, it must have -a
d eGGrofiye fano
Ordinance No.
Page 13
. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that
faces a street -side lot line.
4-5. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a
building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building.
d'ffeFeRt mateF'al thaR what is used en the street faGing wall, the StFeet faGing Wall
material miAst wFap aFGLARd thG GGFRers te the sides of the buildiRg fer at least thFee feet
0+
75 Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building,
the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier
course, band board or other trim, to provide a transition from one material to the other.
Figure 2C.6 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
Ac-, + tCl
A -cel t,b= i ax�tkN.
Q. Amend 14-2C-11: Commercial Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the following
underlined text:
F. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housing
bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, "Affordable Housing
R. Amend 14-2G-8: Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based
Development Standards, Affordable Housing Requirement, by deleting the existing
provisions and replacing it with the following:
A. Riverfront Crossinas Affordable Housina Reauirement: Except for developments
providing affordable housing pursuant to a development agreement with the City executed
prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments exclusively providing elder apartment
housing, residential uses on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation are
required to provide affordable housing pursuant to Article 14-4F "Affordable Housing.
S. Amend Table 14 -2H -3B-1: Uses in Section 14-2H-3: Form -Based Zones and Standards,
Use Standards, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Use Categories
T4NS
T4NS-
O
T4NM
T4NM-
O
T41VIS
Specific
Standards
Institutional And Civic Uses
Community Service
Uses
Ordinance No.
Page 14
I nnn Term 1=14u"
S
Is
S
S
Is,
14 r-413 4D
Community Service -
Shelter
S
S
S
S
S2
14 -4B -4D -
5(RM-44)
General Community
Service
S
S
I
S
S
PR
14 -4B -4D -
I 3(CN-1)
Day-care Uses
PR
PR
PR
PR
I PR
14 -4B -4D-7
T. Amend 14-2H-10: Form -Based Zones And Standards, Affordable Housing Incentives, by
deleting the existing provisions and replacing it with the following:
A. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses in Form -Based Zones are eligible to
utilize affordable housing bonuses pursuant in Article 144F "Affordable Housing.'
U. Amend 14 -3A -4D-1: Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD), Approval Criteria, by
adding the following underlined text:
1. The CEity will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed
in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with
surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not
exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as
allowed by subsection 14 -3A -4D-3 or Section 14-4F. Actual residential density allowed,
however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical
constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and
the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title.
V. Amend 14 -4A -3A: Use Categories, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses,
by adding the following underlined text:
1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household
or group household, who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. The principal
use of the property is for long term residential living, with each dwelling unit containing its
own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals, and with all spaces within the
unit open to the entire household. The dwelling or dwelling units are designed for
residential living and any accessory use shall be secondary to the use of the property as
a residence.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the subgroups listed below. The single
family uses are further divided into various dwelling types, because these dwelling types
have distinct dimensional and development standards based on the zone in which they
are located. Group households, given that they are a type of "household" rather than a
type of dwelling, are permitted in any type of dwelling listed in the three (3) other
subgroups as is permanent supportive housing.
3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for
residents' vehicles; supportive services that assist permanent supportive housina
residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their abilitv
to live and when possible work in the community. Home occupations, accessory dwelling
units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and
breakfasts are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article
Ordinance No.
Page 15
C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter. Any accessory use of the property
shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living.
W. Amend 14 -4A -6C: Use Categories, Institutional And Civic Uses, Community Service Uses,
by deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local
service to people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or have
employees at the site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, notjust for special events.
Included are community centers or facilities that have membership provisions that are
open to the general public to join at any time, e.g., a senior center that allows any senior
to join. The use may provide shelter or short-term housing when operated by a public or
nonprofit agency.
The use may also provide
special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable nature.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following three (3) subgroups:
a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride
facilities; senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities;
some social service facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally
disabled; soup kitchens; surplus food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as
police and fire stations.
b. Community Service - Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit
agency.
X. Amend 14 -4B -4A: Specific Approval Criteria For Provisional Uses And Special
Exceptions, Residential Uses, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the
following text with a strikethrough:
Ordinance No.
Page 16
ALLEY
In •.Y '
STREET
Ordinance No.
Page 17
14 413 4A 3. AttaGhed SiRgle Family DW8IIiRgS IR IRS 12, RM 12, RNS 20, RM 20,
AAI 1 Z9ReS:
rvro-cvrn�
a. Number Of Units:
Only one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot.
(2) In RS -5 and RS -8 zones: A maximum of two (2) dwelling units may be
attached unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
(3) In all other zones: A maximum of six (6) dwellings units may be attached
unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning.
b. Setbacks:
(1) Interior Lots: The side setbacks for the attached dwellings may be reduced to
zero along the common wall side of the units. Each end unit in a row of attached single-
family dwellings shall have one side setback that is a minimum of ten feet (10'), unless
the end unit is on a corner lot.
_C?J—'f ^^�^ + ^^ ^Corner Llots:-Either the rear setback or nonstreet side
setback may be reduced to zero feet (0'). The t#e remaining nonstreet setback must be
at least ten feet (10') if it is a side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback.
(See figure 413.2 below.)
Figure 413.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single -Family Dwellings
c. Entrances:
(1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that is visible frem
faces the
street, is be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45') from the street, or opens onto a
porch. The main entrance may not face an alley.
e. Garages
(1) In the RS -5 and RS -8 zones there may be no more than one doublewide or
two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least
fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a
porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed
twenty feet (20') in width; singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10') in width.
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not
exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same
street -side lot line. On corner lots only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must
meet this standard.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular access points and garage entrances must comply with the
provisions of article 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the
single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title.
Attached single-family dwellings located in the MU zone are also subject to the
standards of subsection '_1:_ "Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone",
of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (45), vehicular access is restricted
to an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots are exempt from this standard if vehicular
access faces a lot line that is at least forty five feet (45) in length.
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present garage entrances/exits
must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
gf. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street
or rear lot line.
hg. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be
secured from the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The
Ordinance No.
Page 18
easement must ensure access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall
located on the lot line and other common elements, such as drives and aisles. This
easement must be recorded as a covenant on the applicable lots. Proof of such
recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or occupancy permit.
3. Multi -Family Uses In The RS -12 Zone:
a. Number Of Units: No more than six (6) principal dwelling units may be located
on a lot in an RS -12 zone unless approved through a planned development overlay
rezoning.
b. Principal dwelling units must be arranged as a townhouse -style multi -family
building such that each unit has frontage on the same street.
c. Principal dwelling units may not be stacked where one unit is located above or
below another.
d. Entrances:
(1) Each principal dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that faces
the street, is at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a
porch. The main entrance may not face an alley.
(2) Each principal dwelling must have a paved connection between the main
pedestrian entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a
sidewalk is not provided.
(3) A second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20')
of the rear facade of each dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling.
e. Design Features and vehicular access: The multi -family use must meet all
requirements in Section 14-213-6 'Multi -Family Site Development Standards
5. Two -Family Uses IR RS 5, RS Q RS 12, RNS 12 Rae 12, RM 20 R. jS 20 4RGI
MU Z=9ReS:
a. LOGatiOR I iFn4a+inn In RS 5 ARGI RS Q 7onec In the RC_5 anti RS 8 Zonec
Central Planning District: Two-family uses located in the central planning
district must comply with the provisions of subsection 14-213-61, "Additional Standards In
Central Planning District", of this title, which will be administered through the design
review process as set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures",
of this title.
be. Entrances:
(1)
separate dwel''RgS, eaGh dwe!''Rg 61R4 must have its maiR eRtFaRGe eFieRted tewai:ds -a
different tree+ than the main entranne of the other liW8'!inn i snit
u
The main entranced must he vis hde from anrd o enter! tG aFds the street
Te Fneet this sttandarr1 the main en+ranGe MUS face the street, be at an angle of up to
forty five degrees (45') from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entrance(s) may
not face an alley or private rear lane.
(23) The duplex EaGh dW8IIiRg must have a paved connection between the
main pedestrian entrance(s) and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where
a sidewalk is not provided.
(34) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling. a second entrance to the
dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on
either the rear or side facade of the dwelling.
d. Design Features:
(1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must
be demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the
Ordinance No.
Page 19
building has an exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or
inappropriate to the design of the building.
(2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building
wall.
(3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any
building wall that faces a street -side lot line.
e. Garages:
(1) In the RS -5 and RS -8 zones, the garage entrance there may be no more
than one doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the
parking is set back at least fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building facade. For the
purposes of this section a porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide
openings may not exceed twenty feet (20') in width: singlewide openings may not
exceed ten (10') in width,
private roar lona
(2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not
exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same
street -side lot line. On corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must
meet this standard. In the MU zone, garages are exempt from this standard, but are
subject to the standards of subsection 14 -2C -,9N, "Single -Family Uses And Two -Family
Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
f. Vehicular Access:
(1) Vehicular aAccess points and garage entrances must comply with the
provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the
single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title.
Two-family uses located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of
subsection '_'=2C -9N, "Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title.
(2) If the lot width is less than eighty feet (80'). vehicular access is restricted to
an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots and double frontage lots are exempt from this
standard if the vehicular access for one of the dwelling units is located along a different
street than the vehicular access of the other dwelling unit, or if vehicular access for both
dwelling units is located along a street where the front setback line is at least eighty feet
(80') in length. (See definitions of "lot width" and "setback line, front" in section
1 of this title.)
(3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present garage entrances/exits
must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley.
g. Figure 413.5 Examples Of Twe Famll\/ Uses in The RS 5 Rd RS Q 7nnesi
V
Ordinance No.
Page 20
7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial Zones CC) 1, GN 1, GQ 2, SB -2, GE3 5, ARd
GB _ 1 fl 7nnoo•
a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level
floor of a building, except as provided in subsections A7e and A7f of this section.
b. Maximum Density: The residential density standards for multi- family uses in
commercial zones are stated in section 2C µ, "Dimensional Requirements", table 2C-
2;---, of this title.
c. Residential Entrances:
(1) To provide safe access for residents With R a mixed use buildip1g, any
building containing a residential use must have at least one door ^^ the exteFier of the
buildiRg that provides pedestrian access to the dwelling units within the building. Said
entrance must be located on an exterior building wall that faces a street, public sidewalk,
or pedestrian plaza and is visible from and easily accessed from said street, sidewalk, or
plaza. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage or from an
alley.
(2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwelling units located above the
ground level floor of a building must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and
stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are prohibited. However,
the city may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot
otherwise reasonably meet code requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not
located on a wall of a building that faces a street.
(3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level, the ground level floor height
should be no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or
pedestrian plaza. The City may adjust this requirement for 9a sloping building sites, for
multi -family buildings with no commercial component af�d-or for existing buildings -,44e
However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the
ground level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one foot (1')
above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the floor height of the
ground level floor of the building must be no more than three feet (3') above the level of
the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a street -facing
building facade.
d. Standards For Ground Level Floor Of Building. -
(1 )
uilding:(1) The floor to ceiling height must be at least
fourteen feet (14') except it may be reduced for existing buildings or where dwelling
units are permitted on the ground level floor of the building.
(2) Construction must meet the
building code specifications for commercial uses. except where dwelling units are
permitted on the ground level floor of the building.
e.
sA^}��4-Ground Floor Residential Exception: The board of adjustment may grant a
special exception for multi -family dwellings to be located on or below the ground street
level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) Where tThe proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a
Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone
la rd aA rehabilitation plan for the property must be has been reviewed and
approved by the Iowa City historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the
property must be completed according to this plan before an occupancy permit is
granted.
Ordinance No.
Page 21
(2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial
character of the subject zone.
G R 1vv 1 0 zrnTe.
(34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone erg a
landmark ert includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront
characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building:
(A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade;
(B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front
property line;
(C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display
windows; and
(D) The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to
accommodate sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has
historically been used for these purposes.
8. Assisted Group Living:
a. Maximum Density: Maximum density within an assisted group living use is as
follows. For purposes of calculating maximum density, staff and live-in staff of a facility
are not considered roomers.
(1) In the RM -12 -zone: One roomer per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of
lot area.
(2) In the RM -20, RNS-20, CN -1.. CC -2, and MU zones: One roomer per five
hundred fifty (550) square feet of lot area.
(3) In the RM -44, PRM, CO -1, CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 and GI 1 zones: One
roomer per three hundred (300) square feet of lot area.
b. Facilities: The group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for
use by roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building And Housing", of this
code. In addition, the occupants may have access to a communal kitchen, dining room,
and other common facilities and services.
Y. Amend 14 -4A -6D: Use Categories, Institutional And Civic Uses, Community Service Uses,
Community Service — Long -Term Housing by deleting the existing provision and replacing
it with the following:
6. Reserved
Z. Amend Chapter 14-4, Use Regulations, by adding Article F. Affordable Housing as follows:
14-4F-1: Purpose:
The purpose of this Article is to.-
A.
o:A. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
B. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City;
C. Increase the multi -family housing stock near the university and the City's urban
core;
Ordinance No.
Page 22
D. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's
workforce;
E. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key
employment centers;
F. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse
income levels;
G. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households; and
H. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
14-4F-2: Definitions:
For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:
Affordable Housing: The collective reference to "Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing"
and/or "Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing", as those terms are defined herein.
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Income Eligible Household: Except as set forth herein, a household is an Income
Eligible Household for purposes of purchasing an Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
dwelling unit located on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant
to 14-2G if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten
percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually, or
if not located on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation, if that household
has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the (AMI) for Iowa
City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible
household for leasing Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing if that household has an
annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as
adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) in assets, excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households.
Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than
the most current published HUD homeownership sale price limit for existing and new
homes to an income eligible household.
Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD
fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and
rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more
than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an
Income Eligible Household.
Retirement Assets: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a
person reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension
accounts, (PERS, and TIAA-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the
assets.
14-4F-3: Required Affordable Housing:
A. Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement. Except for developments
providing Affordable Housing pursuant to a development agreement with the City
executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments exclusively providing elder
apartment housing, any development containing ten (10).or more dwelling units on land
zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation is required to provide Affordable
Housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the
total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling
units result in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole
number for any fraction over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of
Affordable Housing dwelling units. Any exempt elder apartment housing developments
Ordinance No.
Page 23
shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure compliance with the zoning code
regulations of this title of such use. Affordable Housing shall be regulated pursuant to
this Article.
B. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units required on land zoned a
Riverfront Crossings zoning designation in accordance with this Article shall be exempt
from providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning
code.
14-417-4: Incentivized Affordable Housing:
A. Form -Based Zones. Owners of land zoned a Form -Based Zone pursuant to Article
14-2H "Form -Based Zones and Standards" who voluntarily provide Affordable Housing
in accordance with this Article may utilize the following incentives:
1. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be exempt from
providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning
code.
2. Density Bonus. For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the
maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by twenty-five percent (25%) if all
additional units are Affordable Housing.
3. Minor Adjustments to Certain Zone Standards Set Forth in 14-21-1-2 "Zones".
Where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of dwelling units within a development are
Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments may be administratively approved
on lots that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the
characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the
intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District
Plans:
a. Up to a fifteen feet (15') adjustment for the building type design site depth
standards. This provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility
easement or addition of new civic space not shown in the future land use map up to a
combined maximum of twenty-five feet (25').
b. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) adjustment for the building type design site width
standards.
c. Up to a twenty percent (20%) reduction for minimum amount of facade required
within the facade zone.
4. Minor Adjustments to Certain Standards Set Forth in 14-21-1-2 "Zones" or 14-21-1-6
"Building Type Standards". Where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units
within a development are Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments may be
administratively approved for buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the
proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the
goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) adjustment for building main body and wing
standards.
b. Up to a 0.5 stories increase to maximum building height. This bonus allows the
building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a
(Building Form; Height) of section 14-21-1-2 "Zones" by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5).
5. Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment allowed above
may be administratively approved where Affordable Housing units are rented or sold to
households making fifty percent (50%) or less of the Area Median Income.
B. All Other Zones. Owners of land that are not zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning
designation pursuant to Article 14-2G "Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use
Districts Form Based Development Standards" or a Form -Based Zone pursuant to
Ordinance No.
Page 24
Article 14-2H "Form -Based Zones and Standards" who voluntarily provide Affordable
Housing in accordance with this Article may utilize the following incentives:
1. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be exempt from
providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning
code.
2. Density Bonus. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a
development are Affordable Housing, the minimum lot area and minimum lot area per
unit may be reduced by twenty percent (20%). Alternatively, where at least twenty
percent (20%) of dwelling units within a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone are
affordable housing, the maximum residential density may be increased by twenty
percent (20%).
3. Additional Incentives. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of the dwelling units
within a development are Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments to the
standards set forth in 14-2A-4, 14-213-4, or 14-2C-4 "Dimensional Requirements" may be
administratively approved in principle buildings that contain Affordable Housing units
where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the
goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) reduction for any individual front, rear, or side
setback.
b. Up to a five foot (5) increase to the maximum principle building height.
14-417-5: General Administrative and Programming Requirements:
A. Methods of Achieving Affordable Housing.
1. Required Affordable Housing may be provided through one or more of the
following:
a. Onsite Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing;
b. Onsite Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing;
c. Contribution to an affordable housing fund pursuant to 14 -4F -8A;
d. Offsite Affordable Housing pursuant to 14 -4F -8B; and/or
e. Contribution of land pursuant to 14 -4F -8C.
2. Incentivized Affordable Housing may be provided through onsite Owner -
Occupied Affordable Housing and/or onsite Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing.
B. Affordable Housing Agreement and Deed Restriction.
1. Agreement. Upon rezoning to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation
pursuant to Article 14-2G, the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing
agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize. Upon application for a
building permit to construct any development in which Required or Incentivized
Affordable Housing is provided, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with
the City detailing which how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of
the applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be
executed prior to issuance of a building permit for the project containing Affordable
Housing dwelling units. The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such
an agreement, which shall be recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at
owner's expense.
2. Deed Restriction. A deed restriction documenting the Required and/or
Incentivized Affordable Housing dwelling units, selected method(s) of achieving
affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and rental
restrictions shall be placed upon the Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling
unit(s) or, in the case of the Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing, shall be placed upon
the land being developed contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of
Ordinance No.
Page 25
occupancy. This deed restriction shall be recorded with Office of the Johnson County
Recorder at owner's expense and referenced in any deed conveying title of any such
unit or land during the Term of Affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically
expire upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The City Manager is hereby
authorized to issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and
appropriate, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
C. Term of Affordability. An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no
less than the following number of years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
for the Affordable Housing dwelling unit:
1. Required Affordable Housing. Ten (10) years
2. Incentivized Affordable Housing. Twenty (20) years
D. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions
and rules of this Article is a violation of this Article and may result in the immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for a Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing unit.
14-4F-6: Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in
Section 14-4F-5 and the following requirements.
A. Development Requirements:
1. Dwelling Unit Types: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the
same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the
development.
2. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The Affordable Housing dwelling unit size shall
be at least eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the
same type, shall have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or
as approved by the City Manager or designee. Housing developments with Incentivized
Affordable Housing dwelling units that contain a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling
unit shall provide a percentage of Affordable Housing dwelling units with a particular
number of bedrooms that is similar to the percentage of non -set-aside dwelling units with
the same number of bedrooms.
3. Location: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the
development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the
Affordable Housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
4. Timing of Construction: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be constructed
and issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate
dwelling units in the development.
B. Program Requirements:
1. Occupancy: An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the
Term of Affordability, be occupied by an Income Eligible Household as the household's
primary residence.
2. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined
according to the HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR
5.609, as amended, and verified by the city prior to close of the sale.
3. Rental Restriction: An Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing unit may not be
rented, except an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
4. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all Owner -Occupied
Affordable Housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or
designee, prior to closing on the sale.
a. Approved Purchasers: A seller of an Affordable Dwelling unit must sell the unit
only to an Income Eligible Household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual
Ordinance No.
Page 26
household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income
codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended.
b. Sale Price: The sale price of any Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall not
exceed the purchase price paid by the original Income Eligible Household purchaser or
the HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following
exceptions:
(1) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(2) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the
seller to a licensed real estate agent.
(3) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling
unit due to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller
pursuant to a properly issued building permit.
(4) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any
finder's fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this
Article.
14-4F-7: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing
Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in
Section 14-4F-5 and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing shall be
provided in accordance with the development requirements for Owner -Occupied
Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14 -4F -6A.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City,
Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance
Authority, no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b. Occupancy: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing units must be rented to
Income Eligible Households. If a tenant initially deemed an Income Eligible Household
for purposes of occupying an Affordable Housing dwelling unit pursuant to this Article,
but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of
household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an Affordable Housing
dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with
the Affordable Housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of
comparable size or larger must be rented to an Income Eligible Household. To that end,
the Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing units need not be specifically designated in a
fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development.
c. Income Verification: The property owner shall annually verify that the Renter -
Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling units are occupied by Income Eligible
Households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, the owner shall determine a
potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8,
regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or
renewal of a lease, the owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based
upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the City
that it is in compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation
as deemed necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include
examination of the documents used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this
requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the
applicable unit.
Ordinance No.
Page 27
14-4F-8: Alternative Methods to Provide Required Affordable Housing.
For Required Affordable Housing, the owner may use one or more of the following
methods to meet the Affordable Housing Requirement. If the owner desires to provide
offsite Affordable Housing and/or a contribution of land, the owner must establish that
onsite Affordable Housing or a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund
cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the City.
A. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing Affordable Housing dwelling units, an
owner of land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant to 14-2G may
contribute a fee to a Riverfront Crossings District affordable housing fund to be
established by the City. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially
by resolution of the City Council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference
between renting a market rate unit for the Term of Affordability and renting a dwelling
unit affordably to an Income Eligible Household. The fund shall be'utilized solely for
affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in the Riverfront
Crossings District.
B. Transfer Of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner
establishing that the affordable housing requirement cannot be satisfied onsite, as
reasonably determined by the City, it may be satisfied by designating offsite existing or
newly constructed dwelling units in the Riverfront Crossings District as Affordable
Housing dwelling units. Any transferred Affordable Housing units shall in no way waive
or reduce any obligation to provide Affordable Housing units within the development to
which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general requirements set
forth in Section 14-4F-5, these units must satisfy the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Provision Of Units: Offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units, whether they are
owner- or renter -occupied, shall be provided in accordance with the development
requirements for Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. The
City reserves the right to deny a request to transfer Affordable Housing units to a
particular development if it would result in an undue concentration of Affordable Housing
units within that development.
b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the
provision of newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass
final inspection no later than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the
development creating the need for the Affordable Housing, unless otherwise agreed
upon by the City Manager, or designee. Where the affordable housing requirement is to
be met through the provision of existing offsite dwelling units, they shall be established
as Affordable Housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the
development creating the need for the affordable housing. The marketing of the
Affordable Housing dwelling units should occur no later than one (1) year after the first
market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final
inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager. The affordable housing
agreement pursuant to Subsection 14 -4F -5B-1 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a
building permit for the development creating the need for the Affordable Housing.
2. Programming Requirements:
a. Where the offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units are to be Owner -Occupied
Affordable Housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for
Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6.
b. Where the offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units are to be Renter -Occupied
Affordable Housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for Renter -
Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-7.
Ordinance No.
Page 28
C. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing
requirements cannot be satisfied onsite, as reasonably determined by the City, it may be
satisfied by the dedication of land to the City of Iowa City or an entity designated by the
City of Iowa City for construction of Affordable Housing dwelling units in accordance with
the provisions of this section, upon consideration of the following factors:
1. Location. The land shall be located in the Riverfront Crossings District, in an area
appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the City;
2. Number Of Affordable Housing Units. The total Affordable Housing dwelling units
possible on the land shall be equal to or greater than the number of required Affordable
Housing dwelling units;
3. Dwelling Type. The land shall allow for the provision of Affordable Housing units
of equivalent type (single-family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of
bedrooms to that which would have been otherwise required;
4. Land Value. The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of
the developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified
appraisers provided by the City, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a
developer and the City agree; and
5. Right To Refuse. The City reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in
satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion,
that such a dedication is not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a
determination that the City is not likely to construct or administer an Affordable Housing
development project in a timely manner due to the unavailability of funds or other
resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be dedicated is less
than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the
provisions above, the City reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee
making up this difference in values.
14-4F-9: Administrative Rules
The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules
deemed necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy
of the rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website.
AA.Amend Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB -5 And CB -10 Zones,
Except As Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14-5A-4132 Of This Section, in Section 14-
5A-4: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking Requirements, by
adding the following underlined text:
Use
Subgroups
Parking Requirements
Categories
,Household
Multi-
CB -5
Efficiency, 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per
living uses
family
Zone
dwelling unit.
dwellings
2 bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per
dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
CB -10
12008:
For buildings built on or before December 31,
Zone
Ordinance No.
Page 29
Bedrooms 1-10: No parking required.
All additional bedrooms: 0.5 space per
bedroom.
(For purposes of this standard an efficiency
apartment will be counted as 1 bedroom.)
For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space
per dwelling unit.
2 bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces
per dwelling unit.
Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling
units.
BB.Amend Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB -5, CB -
10, Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District in Section 14-5A-4: Off
Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking Requirements, by adding the
following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
Use
Subgroups
Parking Requirement
Categories
Household
Single family and two
For 1 -bedroom and 2 -bedroom units: 1 parking
living
family uses
space, plus 1 additional parking space for
each adult occupant beyond 3.
For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking
spaces plus 1 additional parking space for
each adult occupant beyond 3.
Multi-
All zones,
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per
family
except
dwelling unit.
uses
PRM and
2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
CB -2
3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit.
4 bedroom units. 3 spaces per dwelling unit.
5 bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit.
University impact area: 1 space per bedroom
(see section .' _E: , map 2B.1 4-+ 4
PRM &
Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space
CB -2 Zone
per dwelling unit.
2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces
per dwelling unit.
University impact area in the PRM zone: 1
space per bedroom (see section ' 4-2B-6, map
—
2B.1 e +hvrcrri�).
Ordinance No.
Page 30
Use
Subgroups
(`B 2 Zen -re
EffinieRGy and 1 bedFeem i R4S# 0.75 mono
nom
h edam^ Am RT' tST1 5 SpaGeS noTr Unit-
3bedreem YRits� 2-5SpuEpCe no
Elder
1 space per dwelling unit for independent living
Parkin
apartments
units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for
1 space per 300 square feet of
10 percent
service
assisted living units, except in the PRM and
floor area.
CB -2 Zones.
0.1 space per temporary
25 percent
In the PRM and CB -2 Zones, 1 space for every
resident based on the maximum
2 dwelling units.
Use
Subgroups
Parking Requirement
Bicycle
Categories
Parkin
Community
General community
1 space per 300 square feet of
10 percent
service
service
floor area.
Community service -
0.1 space per temporary
25 percent
shelter
resident based on the maximum
number of temporary residents
staying at the shelter at any 1
time, plus 1 space per
employee based on the
maximum number of
employees at the site at any 1
time.
GGmmi init�' ceFVdGe
_ long form hG icing
}
1 spaGe t.^.,er 3 beds,
whinhever is groo#or.
25 n rt
CC. Amend 1 4 -5A -4F-4: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking
Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with
a strikethrough:
4. N44RC)F ME)difiGatiOR Fe Affordable Housing Parking Reduction IR The GeRtra4
BusaRess ZeRes: Affordable Housing dwelling units allowed and regulated pursuant to
Article 14-4F shall be exempt from providing the minimum number of parking spaces
otherwise required by • • •••IR the GB 5 @Rd GE3 10
c;,QGti9R 14.�
thirty PeFGeRt •� ..
the City.
DD. Amend 14 -5A -5F-1 b: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Construction And
Design Standards, Standards For Structured Parking In Multi -Family, Commercial Zones,
The Eastside Mixed Use District, And The River -front Crossings Zones, Parking Within
Building, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a
strikethrough:
b. In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level
floor of the building for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the
street -facing building wall. On lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback
must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or waived by minor modification.
Ordinance No.
Page 31
The Building Official may also waive this requirement where a townhome-style multi -family
unit has parking along a side street. When considering a minor modification request, the
City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation, location of
primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where
the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain.
EE.Amend Article 14-86: Administrative Approval Procedures by adding Section 14-813-11:
Reasonable Accommodations Request, as follows:
A. Applicability: A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any
individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing
for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a regulation, policy, practice, or
procedure in Title 14 acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities.
B. Submittal Requirements:
1. The applicant must file a written application for a reasonable accommodations
request with the Department of Neighborhood and Development services on application
forms provided by the City.
2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form or as
requested by staff to allow a full review of the request.
3. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable
accommodation, the City will assist to ensure that the process is accessible. Any
information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as
to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public
inspection unless otherwise required by law.
C. Approval Procedure:
1. Upon receipt of a complete application, staff will review said application for
compliance with the following approval criteria:
a. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation,
will be used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws;
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the
use and enjoyment of an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws;
c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the jurisdiction; and
d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of the City's zoning program.
2. Within thirty (30) working days of the date a complete application is submitted to
the City, the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services will approve, approve
with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove the application consistent with
fair housing laws.
3. If the Director does not act within thirty (30) working days and the applicant does
not agree to an extension of time, the application will be deemed approved.
4. The Director's findings on each application shall be set forth in a written decision,
which will be filed in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and
Development services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant at the time of
filing. All written decisions shall give notice of the applicant's right to appeal and to request
reasonable accommodation in the appeals process as set forth below.
D. Appeals:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the reviewing authority's written decision, an
applicant may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from the
adverse decision shall be made in writing pursuant to the procedures in Section 14-8C-3,
"Appeals".
2. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the
City will assist to ensure that the appeals process is accessible. Any information identified
Ordinance No.
Page 32
by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy
rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection unless
otherwise required by law.
3. In deciding such appeal, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the approval
criteria in Section 14-813-11 C-1.
4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the Board of Adjustment may, in
conformity with the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto,
affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement,
decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision
or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the
Director.
5. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any
other state or federal remedy available.
FF. Amend 14-9A-1: General Definitions, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text
and deleting the following text with a strikethrough:
DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, someone who has a
verifiable physical or mental impairment that substentlall limits one or more of such
person's major life activities anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or
anyone with a record of such impairment.
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is
occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that
assists_ the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her
health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the
community. The target population is defined as persons with low incomes who have one
or more disabilities. including mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic health
conditions and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors,
families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system,
individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: With respect to land use and zoning, it means
providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities.
flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies,
practices and procedures, or waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to
eliminate barriers to housing opportunities.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and
publication, as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 33
Passed and approved this day of
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
2023.
Approved by
Z,f
City Attorney' O ice — 09/14/2023
It was moved by and seconded by
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS
First Consideration
Vote for passage
NAYS: Thomas,
ABSENT:
09/19/2023
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Alter
Bergus
Dunn
Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
AYES: Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor,Teague
ABSENT: Alter
that the
Attachments:REZ23-0006 - Staff Report w-Attachments.pdf
Late Correspondence-Combined.pdf
PZ 8.16.23 minutes.pdf
REZ23-00006 - Ordinance
Item Number: 9.b.
September 19, 2023
Ordinance rezoning property located at 715 N Dodge Street from Medium Density Single-
Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 in order to
designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. (REZ23-0006)
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ23-0006 715 N Dodge St.
Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning
Intern
Date: August 16, 2023
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant & Co-Applicant/Owner:
City of Iowa
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)-356-5230
Jennifer Glanville & Benton McCune
715 N. Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA
jennifer-glanville@uiowa.edu
Contact Person: City of Iowa City
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)-356-5230
Requested Action: Rezone this property to become an Iowa
City Historic Landmark
Purpose:
To designate the property as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark
Location:
715 N Dodge Street
Location Map:
Size: 3,982 Square Feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Medium Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD)
2
South: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD)
East: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD)
West: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD)
Comprehensive Plan:
Single-Family & Duplex Residential
District Plan:
Central
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C1
Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the subject property
received notification of the Planning and
Zoning Commission public meeting. A
Landmark Designation sign was posted on
the site.
File Date: July 28, 2023
45 Day Limitation Period:
September 11, 2023
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
715 N Dodge Street was proposed as a Local Landmark by Kevin Boyd, former Commission
Chair, in order to highlight an important feature in Iowa City’s history as the original location of
the Emma Goldman Clinic. Staff contacted the owners of the property, Jennifer Glanville and
Benton McCune, who expressed support for the designation and provided a letter requesting
the designation of 715 N Dodge as a Local Historic Landmark. 715 N Dodge Street is single-
family, owner-occupied home located within the Brown Street Historic District.
The property itself was built in the 1920s as a Craftsman-style home. While the architectural
style of the property is important, the history of the property itself is the focus of this proposal.
The Emma Goldman Clinic began in this property in the year 1973 just months after the
landmark ruling Roe v. Wade passed. The clinic was founded by a group of ten young women
who wished to create a new kind of welcoming and untraditional feminist healthcare for the
people of the Iowa City area. As the clinic expanded, they acquired the home next door to the
Dodge location and eventually expanded into the clinic’s current location on North Dubuque
Street – a former pediatrician’s office. This year marks the Emma Goldman Clinic’s 50-year
anniversary of existence, and a Local Landmark designation would highlight the importance the
clinic has had to countless individuals within that time.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Medium Density Single-Family Residential
Zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8). The purpose of RS-8 is primarily to provide
for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. The purpose of the Historic District
Overlay Zone is to designate local historic landmarks and historic districts. The property is
currently a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District.
3
Proposed Zoning: Since this property is already located within a Historic District Overlay Zone,
the zoning for the property will remain OHD/RS-8. However, in order to designate the property as
an Iowa City Historic Landmark the rezoning process is required. As is currently the case, any
exterior modifications to the building that require a regulated permit will need to go through the
historic review process. In addition, the property is eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-2B-
8 of the zoning code) that allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning
requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. The property will also
continue to be eligible for financial incentives such as tax credits and the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Fund to be available.
Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Local landmark designation is a Historic District
overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
the City Council. Per 14-8E-1E the Commission’s role is to review the proposed designation
based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as proposed public improvements and
plans for renewal of the area involved.
715 N Dodge Street is in the Central Planning District. The Central District Plan encourages
preservation of historic homes, resources, and neighborhoods, especially in areas close to the
University. The plan also encourages a mix of housing types in a neighborhood (p. 2). This
property is roughly 100 years old and reflects the Craftsman Style catalogue houses popular at
that time.
The Historic Preservation Plan highlights numerous goals, including: Goal 1: Identify historic
resources to Iowa City’s Past. Under this goal the Commission is charged with continuing to
research and evaluate properties and to pursue local landmark designation when appropriate
(pg. 31-33). The Comprehensive Plan mentions taking opportunities to preserve historic
features of a site to add character and amenity values to neighborhoods (pg. 20).
Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Plan encourages pursuing local landmark designations when
appropriate to provide protection for important historic resources. In the case of 715 N Dodge
Street, since it is already contained within a Historic Overlay Zone, the main purpose is to tell
the story of the creation of the Emma Goldman Clinic and highlight a part of the women’s
reproductive rights movement within Iowa City and Iowa.
SUMMARY:
In summary, Staff supports the local landmark rezoning of 715 N Dodge Street from Medium
Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to a Local
Landmark Designation within a Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/RS-8). The Comprehensive Plan, the Central District Plan, and the Historic
Preservation Plan all contain language about protecting historic resources through regulatory
measures and conserving historic neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS:
At the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 10, 2023 meeting, the Commission
recommended approval of designating the property at 715 N. Dodge Street as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark. The Commission found that the property is significant for its role in our local
feminist history and women’s healthcare and met the following criteria for local landmark
designation:
- Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture;
- Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship;
- Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; and
4
- Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or
represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the rezoning will be
considered for approval by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715 N Dodge Street as
an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Staff Report to the Historic Preservation Commission; August 10, 2023
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
ATTACHMENT 2
Staff Report to the Historic Preservation
Commission; August 10, 2023
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Memorandum
Date: August 2, 2023
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: 715 North Dodge, Original Emma Goldman Clinic
In an effort to tell a more complete history of Iowa City, and in conjunction with the upcoming 50-year
anniversary of the forming of the Emma Goldman Clinic, former Commission Chair, Kevin Boyd, and
representatives of the Clinic have proposed local landmark designation for the property at 715 North
Dodge. Staff contacted the owners of the property, Jennifer Glanville and Benton McCune, who have
expressed support for the designation and have provided the attached letter. Staff has submitted the
application for rezoning on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of
any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property
eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain
zoning requirements and for State Tax Credit funding of rehabilitation work as well as funding through
our Historic Preservation Fund for eligible rehabilitation projects. Since the property is already
classified as a Key Property in the Brown Street Historic District, landmark designation will not change
how the property relates to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance.
As the attached site inventory form describes, this house is a gable-front house with some Craftsman
Style detailing built between 1920 and 1926. It is very similar to catalogue houses that were popular at
the time, and it may be a representative of this type. The house has a full front porch with a solid
balustrade and grouped, battered columns on tall piers. The house has narrow lap siding with corner
boards at the first floor. A mid-level band board at the level of the second-floor window sills
demarcates a change to shingle siding with mitered corners and a ribbon coursing pattern. On the
north side, the house has a single-story, square projecting bay with a shed roof. A full length shed roof
dormer punctuates the main gable roof on the north side. The house has five-over-one double hung
windows in pairs on the front façade and singles elsewhere. On the rear, an attached garage has a
shed roof and connects to an enclosed rear porch to the south.
The attached history of the home details its significance to women’s history, social history, and health
and medicine at the local level. In 1973, following the landmark ruling in Roe vs Wade, a group of
young women formed the Emma Goldman Clinic to provide feminist health care. They formed this
clinic in a neighborhood house to provide a new kind of healthcare, one that was welcoming and
unlike traditional medical offices. As they expanded, they acquired the home next door and then
expanded to the location on North Dubuque Street. The house at 715 North Dodge Street is
significant as the founding location for this pioneering organization in women’s healthcare.
Landmark Designation
The Commission should determine if the property meets criterion A. and B. and at least one of the
criteria C., D., E., or F. for local designation listed below:
a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture;
b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship;
c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history;
d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or
represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.
Staff finds that the property is significant for its role in our local feminist history and women’s
healthcare. As the location of the founding of the Emma Goldman Clinic meets local Criterion A and
C. As an intact example of a Craftsman-detailed house from the 1920s, the property meets Criterion B
and in Staff’s opinion, Criterion E. Staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the
property meeting Criterion F at this time.
Based on the information provided, staff finds that the property meets criteria A, B, C, and E, and
therefore qualifies as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Attachments include Site inventory forms for
the property, a history of the property as the Clinic, a location map, and photos.
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve the designation of 715 North Dodge Street (Original Emma Goldman Clinic) as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria A, B, C, and
E.
Enclosures:
Letter of Support from property owners
Iowa Site Inventory form
Emma Goldman Clinic History
715 North Dodge Street – front façade (NE corner)
715 North Dodge Street – front façade (SE corner)
715 North Dodge Street – attached garage (NW corner)
Site Inventory Form
State Historical Society of Iowa
1012712005 Printed from Database
Inventory #: 52-01404
Opinion
Cont ri b uting in Di str i ct
Listed on NRHP
Source-Year
Co nsultant-1981
NPS-2004
Criteria Considerations
ABCD ABCDEFG
YNYN NNNNNNN
Contr ib uti ng in Di strict SNRC-2004 Y N Y N N N N N N N N
In District: 52 : 00002 Goosetown Historic District
52 : 00007 Brown Street Historic District
Review & Compliance #:
1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 9/29/2004 Non -Extant: No Non-Extant Year:
historic name : House
other names:
2. Locati on
street & number: 715 N Dodge St
City: Iowa City
Legal Descripti o n:
Vicinity : No County: Johnson
(If Rural)
(If Urban) Subdivision: Block:32 Lot:8
5. Classification
Category of Property:
Building(&)
Number of Re so urces within Property
Contributing: Non-Con tributing :
1 Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Buildings
Sites
Structures
Objects
Name of related survey or MPS 1 Q Total
HADB: 52 • 012 Jacobsen, James E., 1981 • Goosetown Historic District Nomination
HADB: 52 • 028 Svendsen, Marlys A., 1992 • Historic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa
HADB: 52 • 029 Nash, Jan Olive, 1997 ·Survey and Eval uation of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City,
Iowa: An Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Amendment to the Mu ltiple
Property Documentation Form "Hi storic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa"
6. Functi on or Use
Historic Functions
DOMESTIC/single dwelling
Current Functions
DOMESTIC/s ingle dwelling
7. Descripti on
Arc hite ctural Cla ssification
Late 19th & Early 20th Century American Movements: Bungalow/Craftsman
Materials
Fou ndation:
Walls: Metal / Aluminum
Roof: Asphalt
Other: Asphalt
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
y A: Significa nt Events
~ B: Significa nt Persons
y C: Arc hitectural Characteri stics
~ D: Archaeology
(Y=Yes N=No M=More Research Recommended)
Area of Significance
Architecture
Community Planning and Development
Significant Person: Architect:
10. Geographic Data
UTM Refe rences:
Criteria Considerations
N A: Relig io us In stit utio n
N B: Moved
N C: Birthplace or Grave
N D: Cemetery
N E: Reco nst ru cted
N F: Commemo ra tive Property
N G: Less t ha n 50 Years of Age
Significant Dates
Construction Year:
1920 D Circa
Other Dates:
Builder
Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot
14
Year:
1981
Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot Year:
f 1540
IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM
CFN 259-1357
11/26/90
catiop •nd rupgtiopal xnform&tiop
Survey ID Number 5 2 -96-032
Database ID Number ------
R & c Number ------
1. Historic Name(s) -----------------------------
2. Cormnon Name(s) --___,.-=--...,....----=--~~--------------------
3 . Street Address ___ . ..L_7~J 5;L.-...... N~. ~D!.lo!o~dg~e~Sclo.t..._. -~-:-:-"':"'""""':-:-----;---;--;:---::---:------:::--;-----
4. City Iowa City Vicinity [ 1 5. County Jobnson
6. Subdivision -----loU.__ ____ 7. Block(s) 32 8. Lot(s) ........_ _____ _
Section Quarter of Quarter ___ of __ _ 9. Legal Description: (if -rural) Township Range
Dtag;iRtiOD
10. Historic Function ( s) _a.S1~· n~q~lJii.e_.fii.Siamiww.a.lvL...lodw..-.el ... l .... i..,.n~¥.a __________ _
~
OlA
11. CUrrent Function ( s) _Mu~liWt ... i.;;;.-~fama.w.~i.-ly.L..ld.u~w~&e..,ll ... iw.n~q------------01B
12. OWner
Address
North Side Deyelonment Phone#--=~=~-
730 N Van Buren St City/State Iowa City. IA ZIP 52245
BHP Sources: Cty. Resource (] HABS (] Photo [] NR [] Tax Act [] Grants [] DOE [] R&C []
(Plat Map) ' (Sketch Map)
N N
•flJkl•HIIII•§IliH:;;RI~ Ill R~illlll~
,....--ni"""1AnS z STREE ~ §I 85§1 1 W~W E!~tjiiiii~R ·III~IIIILE~ ~8 I IIB~ttHI @iiiiiiii~!DJ]§I 1~111111~
..J CHURCH ·. > ~ II lid §lll!::lld,lllt=l := 1111 ·11 R I H I
111118§11§·§;3 -lH . §11111111111
F' AIRCHILO u.wtn ~ . Ill II R § lllH §J IOIAAt Ld S I F9 Ill R (
~lief.
~ \J
0 ~
0 ~
· 15~old.S ~-
Source: "I.e. Planning & Community Development-1997
INTEGRITY NOTES:
Good integrity.
EVALUATION SHEET
Address: 715 N. Dodge St., Iowa City, IA
Architectural Significance and Associ~ted Context(s):
Applicable National Register Criteria: [~) A [~) B [x) c [ J D
National Register Eligibility: I~div~dual: ___ Yes _x_ No
D ~str~ct: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing
Reviewed by I Date: Jan Nash I 3/14/97
~is ~ernacul~r house is heavily. influenced by the Craftsman style. The boxy, gable-front shape
Wl~ 1ts prom1nent front porch ~s ~ house form often given Craftsman details during this time
per1od. Many ready-cut houses ava1lable through catalogs such as Davenport's Gordon-Van Tine
Co., or Sears Ro~uck,.offer7d hous es very similar to this one. Craftsman details include the
us7 of many vert~cal-~~~ht w1ndows, exposed rafter ends and purlins, and the combination wood-
shlngle-over-narrow s1d1ng wall cladd1ng.
Continuation Sheet [ )
Historical Significance and Associated Context(s) =-----------------------------------------
Applicable National Register Criteria: [ J A [ 1 B [ ] c [ ] D
National Register Eligibility: Individual: _ Yes _ No
District: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing
Reviewed by I Date: __ ~J~anML~N~a~sh~~~~~J~/~1.4~/9~7~---------------------------------------
The entire block on which this house sits was originally deeded to John Neinner in 1846.
Neinner also purchased other discontiguous lots in the +lOrth side area in 1846, but this block
was his largest single holding as well as being farthest from the new state capital's downtown
area. There were other nearby whole blocks still on the market in 1846 so there is no clear
reason for his. choice. The lot on which this house was built is not mentioned again in the
transfer records until 1913 when John Goss and his wife give a quit claim deed to Leo Goss .
The land does not leave the Goss family ownership until Fred A. Goss, et al, deeded it to Fred
Racine in 1921. Racine deeded the northern third of the lot on which this house sits to Peter w. Prizler in December, 1925; Prizler promptly deeded it to his wife, Florence A. Prizler, in
January of 1926. The Prizlers likely had the present house built at that time and did not sell
it until 1944, when ownership was transferred to Anton and Mary H. Piek.
Peter Prizler was a truck driver in for Lenoch and Cilek according to the 1928 city directory.
Prepared by --~Ran~d~y~C~a~rp~e~n~t~e~r~~--~~---=~~~~-----------
Address ~-----9~3~1~Ma~i~d~en~~L~an~e~·~I~o~w~a~C~i&tYLL·-I~Aa-~5~2~2~4uO~----------Affiliation Tallgrass Historians L.C.
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Date ~----~J~an~~·~1~9~9~7~~-
Telephone --~3.1,9~/3~5~4~-~6~2w7~7--
Property Characteristic For.m RESIDENTIAL
N 259-1402 Survey ID Number 52-96-032
11/27/90 Database ID Nuinber ----:-----
Street Address: _.7.15~N~Po~d~q~e~-------------~---City Iowa City County Johnson
Legal Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter
of
Location Integrity: Original Site (OS) Moved (MV) Moved to Original Site (MO) _QS__
Endangered?: 11 or Y If ye~, why? ------------------------------------------------
Ground Plan: a. Building Shape(s) Irregular b. Width _27..._ __ by Depth _so-. __ in feet
Architectural Style/Stylistic Influences
vernacular/Craftsman influence
Key Stylistic Attributes
Materials: Foundation ~c~o~n~c.rKe~te~b~l~o~c"k~--~----------------------------
Walls ___ t~h~1~·n~w~oQo~d~C~l~a~p~b¥oa~r~d~s~-----------------------------Roof asphalt shingle
Number of Stories -w.,......-
Roof Shape
Builder(s)
Original Construction Date -------
•
Architect (s) Unknown
Modification/Addition Date:
10
02
08
Code
07E
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Significant Interior Components:
Unknown.
Surveyor Conunents:
Well maintained house.
Sources:
Field inspection 8/27/96.
City Assessor records.
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Sanborn Map Co. fire insurance maps, 1920 and 1933 (updated to 1944).
Johnson County Land Transfer Records.
Abstract of Original Deeds (located at the Johnson County Recorder's Office).
See also bibliography in project report.
Needs Furtl:ler Study /Anomaly ( l
Surveyor Marie Ne\Jbauer
Continuation Sheet [ 1
Date August 27. 1996
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 2 of 18
{Padron joined the meeting}
REZONING ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ23-0006:
Location: 715 N. Dodge Street
An application for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic
Landmark.
Russett began the staff report showing a map of the location of the property. This property is
already within a Historic District and is a contributing property to the Brown Street Historic
District. It is zoned RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay. This property is being proposed as a
Local Historic Landmark because it was the original location of the Emma Goldman Clinic.
Russett showed some pictures of the property from the 1970s when the property was operating
as the Emma Goldman Clinic. She explained that even though the property is already protected
because it's within a local Historic District, the purpose of this landmark designation is to share
the story of feminist healthcare and the history of the Emma Goldman Clinic as they are going to
be celebrating a 50th anniversary this year. The home is a craftsman style catalog home and
again is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. Russett reiterated this
designation relates to the mid-70s feminist healthcare movement in the United States as it was
the fourth feminist healthcare clinic in the nation, the first three were located in California.
The current zoning designation is RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay and the proposed zoning
is RS-8 with a Historic District Overlay so the zoning is not changing. The Commission's role in
this review is to demonstrate that a landmark designation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Russett explained there are goals and objectives within the Central District Plan and within
the Historic Preservation Plan that speak to the importance of protecting historic buildings,
identifying historic resources significant to the community's past, and identifying and pursuing
landmark designations for those properties.
Staff did receive two pieces of late correspondence related to this request, both in support of the
landmark designation. Russett shared those with the Commission members.
Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715 North Dodge Street
as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Russett noted last week at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting they unanimously
recommended approval of this landmark designation so after the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes its recommendation tonight it will move forward to City Council.
Quellhorst asked what the practical difference between a Historic District Overlay and
designation as a Historic Landmark is and does that impose additional obligations on the owner
of the property or what's the practical impact of that classification. Russett explained because
this is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District there is no difference in how
the building is regulated in terms of exterior modifications, those are the same with the landmark
designation and they would be required as they are today to go through historic review for
exterior modifications and they would be subject to the same guidelines that the property is
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 3 of 18
today, the landmark designation is largely symbolic.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ginalie Swaim (Iowa City) started this is a big thing to her, it is symbolic but more than that it is
really historically significant as a local example, and a midwestern example, of an enormous
movement in American social culture and healthcare. In the early 1970s there was a whole crop
of nonprofits that sprung up in Iowa City dealing with teenagers, with medical care and many
other things, it was a very rich and fertile and vital time. Emma Goldman was one of the major
movers in that and one thing that often alerts preservation to people is when a building is really
the crux of local history and helps tell a local story and how it fits into a national context. Here is
a very local story and many may have had experiences here and know about the excellent care
and the pioneering spirit of this entity, but it fits into this national movement of a whole new way
of delivering healthcare, and particularly women's healthcare. Swaim is excited about it receiving
a landmark designation, which, besides a symbolic sense of it, it shows a special honor and
recognition and significance of an individual building that really says something about the
community and about the national history.
Kevin Boyd (Iowa City) is the former chair of the Historic Preservation Commission but is no
longer on the Commission. At his last meeting in June, he talked about the importance of telling
a more full history of Iowa City and making sure that they preserve and share parts of Iowa City’s
history that reflect the values and the community as it is today. One of the historic preservation
work plan goals is identifying opportunities to highlight Iowa City's history as a leader on social
justice, racial equity and human rights and preserve the stories and structures that helped to
define that history. This nomination fits that objective as well as the others that have been
highlighted. This is a project that got started before he left the Commission, it's an opportunity to
add a unique story. The story of these founders, radical college age feminist badasses, who 50
years ago this month were preparing to open the Emma Goldman Clinic to shift the power
dynamic in healthcare. As Boyd researched the history of the Emma Goldman Clinic for this
project, he was really in awe of these founders and what they were able to accomplish together
and how radical it really was, and yet how relevant that this fight for women's healthcare remains
today. These founders’ story, along with the property at 715 North Dodge, which is now a
residential home again, is so much a part of the history and deserves to be among the properties
listed on the list of Iowa City local landmarks. Boyd urges the Commission to support this
landmark nomination. He also wants to thank the property owners, Jennifer and Benton for their
open mindedness and supportive sharing their property’s history.
Susan Shullaw (Iowa City) is representing the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering
Committee and they heartily endorse this recommendation and want to thank both the Historic
Preservation Commission, this Commission and all those involved in the nomination. They are
extremely proud that this landmark is located on the Northside and are very pleased that the
property owners also joined in endorsing this recommendation. Shullaw stated it’s indeed a
major piece of history and they hope that people can remember it for many decades to come.
Karen Kubby (Iowa City) lives in the Mark Twain neighborhood and shares a lot of history with
the Emma Goldman Clinic. She started volunteering there in 1983 when there were threats of fire
bombings. That was a time when the anti-choice community was not interested in hurting people
but destroying property and disrupting the provision of services in that way, so as a younger
woman she would stay up all night at the clinic and move around a lot so they could see that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 4 of 18
there were people inside. The Clinic is really at this point a very important landmark nationally
because now it is the oldest feminist clinic in the country. Some of those California clinics are no
longer providing services. There is that nexus between the local importance of this form of
healthcare and the specifics of the organization that is not only a healthcare provider, but a
public educator, and needs to do a lot of political education as well. Kubby was very privileged to
be the director there for 10 years and stated there's going to be a reunion in September with
many community events available (panel discussions and movies at Film Scene). The property
owners are supporting this and it clearly meets the criteria that the City has outlined for such a
designation so she hope this Commission will unanimously and heartfeltly support this
nomination.
Regina Bailey (Iowa City) lives in the Goosetown neighborhood and as Boyd and Kubby
mentioned the Clinic is getting ready to celebrate its 50th anniversary which will happen over
Labor Day weekend. Kubby mentioned some public events and one of them will be a movie at
Film Scene, a documentary, at 3:30 on Sunday afternoon. It's called From One Place to Another
and it was made at the 20th anniversary and talks about an organization that starts out as a
collective. Bailey noted they are all probably very familiar with boards of directors of that kind of
organizational structure but think about people getting together, meeting and consensus-based
decision making to start a clinic. They started this shortly after Roe v Wade in 1973 and in
September they opened up the Clinic. With that collective spirit of meetings and getting together
in nine months they launched the fourth feminist clinic in the country so it's real notable history.
Staff mentioned that it's symbolic, but as Swaim says it's more than symbolic, it tells an important
story about feminist healthcare and about women doing something because women's history
weren’t the stories that they heard growing up. Iowa City can join together and tell this story by
designating this landmark.
Jim Throgmorton (Iowa City) has lived in the Northside Neighborhood for 28 years and lives
about a block and a half away from this building. He never had any idea that the Emma Goldman
Clinic started in that particular building just down the alley from where he lives. It was a real treat
to learn about it and discover that these young women got together back then to create this
Clinic and to do what they did. Throgmorton also discovered that three Molotov cocktails were
thrown at the building at one time, so it shows the power of stories. He stated it's a real joy to be
here and support this, he wanted to praise Kevin Boyd for proposing the idea and to praise the
owners, Jennifer and Benton, for enthusiastically supporting the idea. He wants to praise the
Historic Preservation Commission, and the planning staff for proposing it.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Elliott moved to recommend approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715
North Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Craig seconded the motion.
Elliott echoed what everybody who came to the podium said and she appreciates them coming
up and sharing the history and the support.
Craig noted she came to Iowa City in 1970 and her high school counselor cried because she was
coming to this den of iniquity. She wanted her to go to a Christian girls school in Missouri that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 16, 2023
Page 5 of 18
had 300 people, all women. Anyway, she loves Iowa City for many, many reasons and the
Emma Goldman Clinic is one of them.
Townsend strongly support this but noted on the documentation regarding the landmark
designations it says that the staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the
property meeting criterion F at this time, F is regarding information important to history, why
would that not be. Russett explained that's a criteria that the Historic Preservation Commission
evaluates and determined that F didn't apply because typically F applies to things that are
archaeologically or prehistoric significant.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ23-0005:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in
the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35-feet to 27-feet.
Russett stated this is a proposed amendment to the zoning code that started originally with a
meeting with representatives of the Northside Neighborhood. Staff met with them several weeks
ago when they reached out regarding a change that they would like to see in the RNS-12 zone to
reduce the maximum allowable height in that zone. Staff had recommended that they petition
City Council with that proposed change, which they did, and at the June 6 work session City
Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. Staff’s understanding of
this change was it to be a reduction of the maximum allowable height from 35-feet to 27-feet in
the RNS-12 zone.
Some background on the RNS-12 zone, it was created in 1992 when there was a project that
was proposed to add more than one residential structure to a single lot in the RM-12 zone.
Owners of nearby properties petition City Council due to concerns that allowing more than one
structure per lot in the RM-12 zone would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. In
1993, the City Council adopted the RNS-12 zone to preserve the single-family character of the
neighborhood and prevent new multifamily residential development. In addition to the creation of
that new zoning district, there were also several map amendments that started in 1993. Russett
shared a map showing all the properties that were zoned from a multifamily zoning designation,
whether it was RM-12 or RNC-20 to the RNS-12 zoning designation. The last map amendment
was to a portion of South Governor where there was a proposal to change the zoning from RNS-
12 to RS-8, which was approved by City Council.
In terms of the current regulations, all the City's single-family and multifamily residential zones
have a maximum height limit of 35 feet. The form-based zones do regulate height differently, but
single-family and multifamily residential zones have a maximum height of 35 feet. The RNS-12
Zone allows single family detached units with duplexes allowed midblock duplexes and duplexes
on corner lots. It also allows daycares, religious institutions and educational facilities. It does not
allow new multifamily uses and the maximum height is 35 feet. Russett showed a map of the
properties that are zoned RNS-12 and pointed out the Northside Neighborhood Association
boundary.
Russett also talked about the Historic and Conservation District overlay zones noting properties
within those overlay zones require additional review. Properties are subject to the guidelines
Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern; 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ23-0006)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance rezoning property located at 715 N Dodge Street from Medium
Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Historic District Overlay
(OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 in order to designate the property as an Iowa
City Historic Landmark. (REZ23-0006)
Whereas, the applicants, the City of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and Jennifer
Glanville and Benton McCune, have requested a rezoning of property located at 715 N Dodge
Street from Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Historic District Overlay
(OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 in order to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark;
and
Whereas, 715 N Dodge Street is .currently a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic
District; and
Whereas, this structure was the original home of the Emma Goldman Clinic; and
Whereas, through the landmark rezoning process the story of the significance of the Emma
Goldman Clinic's role in our local feminist history and women's healthcare can be shared; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of historic buildings; and
Whereas, Goal 1 of the Historic Preservation component of the Comprehensive Plan calls
for identification of resources significant to Iowa City's past with the objective of designating
individual buildings as landmarks; and
Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic
Landmark designation, has found that it meets the criteria for landmark designation in its
significance to Iowa City history, integrity of location and design, association with events that have
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, and embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic
Landmark designation rezoning and has found that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goals of preserving historic resources.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Historic Landmark Approval. Property described below is hereby reclassified to
Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) zone:
Iowa City Original Town, North 50 feet of Lot 8 in Block 32.
Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
Ordinance No.
Page 2
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all
as provided by law.
Section IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section V. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2023.
Mayor
Approved by:
Attest: Z/�,�
City Clerk City Attorn y's Office
(Liz Craig — 09/14/2023)
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: . ABSENT:
Alter
Bergus
Dunn
Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
First Consideration nA/i q/ 202-1
Vote for passage: AYES: Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas
NAYS: None ABSENT: Alter
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
II 1
="..m14
�tiii
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Late Handout(s):
City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet
September 18, 2023
5. Consent Calendar - Res-0tutionsand Motions
Item 5.d Landfill Equipment Building Replacement - See Attachment A.
9. Planning_&Zoning Matters
Item 9.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See
correspondence from Jim Throgmorton, Mary Murphy, John Engelbrecht & Bev Brandt,
Raymond Helmer, Tara Atkinson, Kyle Nilson & Amanda Crosby Perry, Sandy
Item 9.b Rezoning - 715 N Dodge Street - Local Historic Landmark - See
correspondence from Sondra Smith & David Leshtz, Deborah Nye.
10. Regular Formal Agenda
Item 10.b FY24 Budget Amendment Public Hearing - See correspondence from
Vincent Shoppa.
September 18, 2023 City of Iowa City
Prepared By:Nicole Davies, Finance Director
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact:No impact.
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Commission Recommendations:N/A
Attachments:Notice of Public Hearing
Ordinance
Item Number: 10.a.
September 19, 2023
Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finance, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled
"Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties", of the City Code to increase
or change charges and fees.
Executive Summary:
The Finance Department requests the City Council set a public hearing for September 19,
2023 to consider amending Title 3, Chapter 4 of the City Code.
Title 3, Chapter 4 amendments include updating Section 4 "Wastewater Treatment Works
User Charges" and Section 5 "Solid Waste Disposal" to match the language in Section 3
"Potable Water Use and Service" on the 10 percent delinquency charge that was approved in
October 2020. It was inadvertently missed in Sections 4 & 5. It also includes amending
Section 5 to increase the amount of pounds to 600 for the minimum fee in lieu of tonnage fee.
Background / Analysis:
Title 3, Chapter 4 of the City Code is the ˜Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines
and Penalties"
Delinquency Charge on Past Due Bills
In October 2020, the Iowa City City Council approved increasing the delinquency charge on
past due bills from 5% to 10%. Identical language for this charge is located in Sections 3, 4
& 5. In October of 2020, it was only updated in Section 3. This amendment is to update the
language in Sections 4 & 5 to match Section 3.
Minimum Fee in Lieu of Tonnage Fees
In May 2023, the Iowa City City Council approved increasing the minimum fee in lieu of
tonnage fees (300 pounds or less). This amendment will increase the pounds to 600 pounds
or less. Increasing the pounds to 600 is due to the current amount charged per ton, it would
be equal to 600 pounds for the minimum fee.
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held at which the Council will consider:
Ordinance amending Title 3,Entitled
"Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4,
entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges,
Bonds, Fines and Penalties," of the City Code
to correct wastewater system, and solid
waste disposal charges and fees.
Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa
City, Iowa. Copies are available by telephoning
the City Clerk at 319/356-5043 or emailing
kellie-fruehling@iowa-city.org.
The public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on
September19, 2023, in the Emma J. Harvat Hall,
City Hall, Iowa City. Persons wishing to make
their views known for Council consideration
are encouraged to participate.
Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk
Prepared by: Nicole Davies, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5085
Ordinance No.
Ordinance Amending Title 3, Entitled "City Finances, Taxation And Fees,"
Chapter 4, Entitled "Schedule Of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, And
Penalties" of the City Code to increase or change charges and fees
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 384, Code of Iowa (2023), the City of Iowa City is authorized to
establish and provide for the collection of rates to pay for the City's utility systems, including the
City's wastewater treatment system and solid waste disposal services at the municipal landfill, and
Whereas, the City increased the delinquency charge on current billed portion of the outstanding
amount on combined water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste account that is not paid
within 22 days of billing date from 5% to 10% on October 20, 2020; and
Whereas, the City's City Code was updated for this increase in Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 3,
entitled "Potable Water Use and Service"; and
Whereas, the City's City Code was not updated for this increase in Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 4,
entitled "Wastewater Treatment Works User Charges" nor in Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 5, entitled
"Solid Waste Disposal"; and
Whereas, the Iowa City City Council proposes to update City Code for this increase in both Title 3,
Chapter 4, Section 4, entitled "Wastewater Treatment Works User Charges" and in Title 3,
Chapter 4, Section 5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal"; and
Whereas, the Landfill's minimum fee in lieu of tonnage fees (300 pounds or less) was increased
effective July 1, 2023; and
Whereas, the Iowa City City Council proposes to change the (300 pounds or less) to (600 pounds
or less) to coincide with the minimum fee per pound.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendment.
1. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates,
Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 4, entitled "Wastewater Treatment Works User
Charges," of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as
follows:
3-4-4: Wastewater Treatment Works User Charges:
Sanitary Sewer Service Charges; Description Of
Amount Of Fee, Charge, Bond,
City Code
Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty
Fine Or Penalty
Chapter, Article Or
Section Reference
Minimum monthly charge (includes the first 100 cubic
$8.31
16-3A-4
feet of water used)
Monthly charge for each additional 100 cubic feet of
4.07
16-3A-4
water used
Low income discount
60 percent of monthly minimum
16-3A-4
charge
Ordinance No.
Paae 2
Monthly surcharge:
Charge
Yard waste collection fees:
BOD (per pound) 300 or less MPL'
Included in charge for 100 cubic feet
16-3A-4
Low income discount
of water used
Untreated wood waste
BOD (per pound) from 301 MPL to 2,000 MPL1
$ 0.290
16-3A-4
$3.50
BOD (per pound) greater than 2,000 MPL'
0.434
16-3A-4
Appliance collection, per item collected
Suspended solids (SS) (per pound)
0.232
16-3A-4
Monthly minimum, unmetered user
34.03
16-3A-4
Manufactured housing park, monthly minimum per lot
34.03
16-3A-4
Holding tank waste - plus landfill fees
0.033 per gallon
16-3A-4
Holding tank waste hauler - annual permit
925.14 per year
16-3A-4
Deposit and delinquency fee for combined City water
16-3A-5, 16-3A-7
and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection
75 percent of monthly charge
accounts:
Residential owner account, per combined residential
0.00
service for City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or
solid waste collection service
Residential tenant account, per combined residential
120.00
service for City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or
solid waste collection service
10 percent delinquency charge on current billed
10.0 percent current billed portion.
portion of the outstanding amount on combined
Can be waived once every 12
water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste
months
account that is not paid within 22 days of billing date
Delinquency deposit fee for combined City water and/or
An amount equal to an average 2-
16-3A-5
sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts
month billing for the delinquent
account. Can be waived if the
account holder enrolls in SurePay
2. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates,
Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal," of the Iowa City
Code is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows:
3-4-5: Solid Waste Disposal:
Description Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty
Charge
Yard waste collection fees:
Per dwelling unit, per month
$3.50
Low income discount
75 percent of monthly charge
Untreated wood waste
Free
Additional yard waste carts over 1, per month
$3.50
Collection of large items fees:
Appliance collection, per item collected
$20.00
Bulky solid waste
$20.00 per stop and 1 item; $10.00 per
additional items
Tire collection
$3.75 per tire; $7.50 tire and rim
Residential solid waste collection fees:
Curbside household refuse:
Per dwelling unit, per month
$14.00
Low income discount
75 percent of monthly charge
Ordinance No.
Paae 3
Per sticker for each additional bag beyond each unit's monthly
allotment
$ 2.50 each
Additional refuse carts over 1, per month
$14.00 each
Per 2 rooming units, per month (in addition to the dwelling unit
fees)
15.90
Electronic waste
TVs or monitors $21.50 per item
Curbside recycling:
Per dwelling unit, per month
$7.50
Low income discount
75 percent of monthly charge
Iowa City community compost
$20.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum
Wood chip mulch
No charge
Deposit and delinquency fee combined for City water and/or sanitary
sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts:
Residential owner account, per combined residential service for
City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection
service
$ 0.00
Residential tenant account, per combined residential service for
City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection
service
120.00
10 percent delinquency charge on current billed portion of the
outstanding amount on combined water and/or sanitary sewer
and/or solid waste account that is not paid within 22 days of billing
date
10 percent current billed portion. Can be
waived once every 12 months
Delinquency deposit for combined water and/or sanitary sewer and/or
solid waste collection service
An amount equal to an average 2 -month
billing for the delinquent account. Can be
waived if the account holder enrolls in
SurePay
Special wastes disposal fees:
Disposal of special wastes (except for asbestos containing material
and contaminated soils)
2 times the landfill use fees in this section
Minimum fee
2 times the landfill use fee for 1 ton
Asbestos containing material (ACM):
Nonfriable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a
Property Tax and City owned property
$100.00/ton
Nonfriable ACM, from other locations
105.00/ton
Friable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a Property
Tax and City owned property
100.00/cubic yard
Friable ACM, from other locations
105.00/cubic yard
Minimum fee for any regulated ACM
100.00
Contaminated soil:
50.00/ton
Minimum fee for contaminated soil
150.00
Disposal of large items fees (see also Collection of large items fees
above):
Appliance disposal fees:
Commercial per item disposed
1.00/cubic foot
Residential per item disposed
$12.50 (at landfill scale house)
Tire disposal fee:
Per pound
$ 0.15
Ordinance No.
Paae 4
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect on upon approval.
Passed and approved this day of 20
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by /
' G
City Attorney's ffice — 09/11/2023
Subject to minimum fee
3.00
Untreated wood waste and yard waste:
24.00/ton
Minimum
2.00
Landfill use fees:
Arriving at the landfill with an unsecured or uncovered load:
First instance in trailing 12 months
Warning
Second or subsequent instances in trailing 12 months
$50.00
Electronic waste
$3.00 per item; TVs or monitors $15.00 per
item
Solid waste from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax and
City owned property:
Total landfill fee per ton (includes State fee per ton)
$45.00
All other solid waste:
Total landfill fee per ton (includes State fee per ton)
$50.00
Minimum fee in lieu of tonnage fees (600 pounds or less):
Solid waste from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax
and City owned property
$14.00
All other solid waste
$15.00
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect on upon approval.
Passed and approved this day of 20
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by /
' G
City Attorney's ffice — 09/11/2023
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Alter
Bergus
Dunn
Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
First Consideration 09/19/2023
AYES: Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas
NAYS: None ABSENT: Alter
Second Consideration
Date Published:
Prepared By:Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director
Fiscal Impact:None
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Commission Recommendations:N/A
Attachments:Ordinance
Item Number: 10.c.
September 19, 2023
Ordinance amending Title 2, entitled “Human Rights,” Chapter 1, entitled “General Provisions,”
to eliminate the prohibition on landlords discriminating against Housing Choice Voucher (aka,
Section 8) holders. (Pass & Adopt)
Executive Summary:
The City Code prohibits landlords from refusing to lease to tenants who have Housing Choice
Vouchers (aka, Section 8), which is unenforceable as of Jan. 1, 2023 due to a recent change
in state law.
Background / Analysis:
The City Code prohibits landlords from refusing to lease to tenants who have Housing Choice
Vouchers (aka, Section 8). In 2021 the Iowa legislature passed and the Governor signed SF
252, which is codified at Section 364.3(16) of the Iowa Code, preempting local governments
from enforcing an ordinance that prohibits a landlord from “refusing to lease or rent out the
dwelling unit to a person because of the person’s use of a federal housing choice voucher
issued by the United States department of housing and urban development” after Jan. 1,
2023. This ordinance removes the discrimination provision because it no longer is
enforceable under state law.
Prepared by: Eric Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
Ordinance No. 23-4911
Ordinance amending Title 2, entitled "Human Rights," Chapter 1, entitled
"General Provisions," to eliminate the prohibition on landlords
discriminating against Housing Choice Voucher (aka, Section 8) holders.
Whereas, the City Code prohibits landlords from refusing to lease to tenants who have
Housing Choice Vouchers (aka, Section 8); and
Whereas, in 2021 the Iowa legislature passed and the Governor signed SF 252, which is
codified at Section 364.3(16) of the Iowa Code, preempting local governments from enforcing
an ordinance that prohibits a landlord from "refusing to lease or rent out the dwelling unit to a
person because of the person's use of a federal housing choice voucher issued by the United
States department of housing and urban development" after January 1, 2023; and
Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 2, entitled "Human Rights," Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions," Section 1,
entitled "Definitions," is amended by deleting the strike -through text and adding the underscore
text as follows:
Public Assistance Source of Income: Income and support derived from any tax
supported Federal, State or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security,
supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family
investment program, general relief, food stamps, and unemployment compensation;
housing Gh„iGe gig, inheF subsidies and similar but not including rent subsidy programs.
Housing choice voucher subsidies and similar rent subsidy programs shall also be
included in this definition immediately upon the event of either of the following:
A. The repeal of Iowa Code section 364.3(16) (Iowa Code 2023) and any similar
statutes preempting cities from prohibiting owners, lessors, sublessors, managing
agents, or other persons having the right to lease, sublease, or rent out a dwelling
unit from refusing to lease or rent out the dwelling unit to a person because of the
person's use of a federal housing choice voucher issued by the United States
department of housing and urban development; or
B. A court with lawful jurisdiction invalidates Iowa Code section 364.3(16) (Iowa Code
2023) and any statutes of similar effect.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not'affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 19th day of September 2023.
Ordinance No. 23-4911
Page 2
M or
Attest:C
City Cle k
Approved by
City Attorne s Office — 09/06/2023
Ordinance No. 23-4911
Page 3
It was moved by Dunn and seconded by Harms
the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Alter
x Bergus
x Harmsen
x Taylor
X Teague
- x Thomas
x Weiner
that
First Consideration 12-06-2022
Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None
Second Consideration 09-05-2023
Voteforpassage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Dunn
NAYS: None ABSENT: None
Date published 0912817021