Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-03 OrdinanceItem Number: 8.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 3, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability (REZ23-0001) (Second Consideration) 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 r �®r,CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM 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. is Lurrenr a 7a. Allow duplex and attached single -tamely uses throughout single-tams/y 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. f14 -48-4A-2 & -57 in a block. 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. uses on In most commercial zones, multi-tamily 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, 14-48-4A-7] Provisionally allow up to 6 side-by-side, attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS - 12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily). zones Provisionally allow multi-tamuy uses in GL; -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: August 2, 2023 Page 3 Assisted group living uses are provisionally allowed in RM -20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM, and CO -1 zones and allowed by special exception in RM -12 and CO -1 zones. Multi -family uses are allowed by right in all multi -family and MU zones, provisionally in CO -1, CN -1, and most CB zones and by special exception in CC -2 and sometimes CB -10 zones. [14-28-2, 14-2C-2, 14-48-4A-8] 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 ourooses. Kegulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses by allowing it provisionally in RM -12, CN -1, MU, and CB zones and by not allowing it in CI -1 zones. For CC -2 zones, allow it to the same extent as multi -family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1c is approved or by special exception if it is not approved). 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. 1a. 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 50 40 49 30 3028 4 6 20 26 I ' 28 10 0 ■ ■ T T T T T T T 7 m T m 6 10 N M V N O O O O O O O O N N N N 14 19 14 12 23 1100N96 z■.� O O O O O N M V O O ON N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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. 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 1 9,591 1 21430 1 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 1a 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 723 Herbert Hoover Highway SE (right) 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. 8: 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 Uses: Current and Proposed 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. Current Proposed 2a. Eliminate some multi -family site deve % men t standards to row a flex/b/lit 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 a//ow 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-st le 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 -1b 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 1a 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 - District. However, it is not expected to— substantially impact the quality of A esign or appearance of buildings 1 = -- — r -- because other multi -family site development standards that more directly affect visual interestwill remain in effect. These include standards addressing building entrances and scale, balconies and exterior)_ 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 triggers 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. Figure 11: Current &Pro osed Re ulations 3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use Min. detached sin le-famil lot standards: in. detached sin le -family lot standards: Only where rear access is provided ` Only where rear access is provided Min. duplex lot standards: Min. duplex lot standards: 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 70 RS -8 55 4,000 60 RM -20 55 Only where rear access is provided ` Only where rear access is provided Min. duplex lot standards: 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 70 RS -8 45 4,000 60 RM -20 45 Only where rear access is provided ` Only where rear access is provided Min. duplex lot standards: Min. duplex lot standards: Min. attached single-family lot standards: Min. attached single-family lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. Front. Size Area/ Width Unit Front. 35 RS -5 12,000 6,000 80 80 RS -5 10,000 5,000 70 70 RS -8 8,700 4,350 70 70 RS -8 8,000 4,000 60 60 Min. attached single-family lot standards: 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 14-28-4, 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/ Width Front. Unit Size Area/ Width Unit Front. RS -5 6,000 6,000 40 40 RS -5 5,000 5,000 35 35 RS -8 4,350 4,350 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 14-28-4, 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. one owner -occupied. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents. 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. Remove the requirement for an additional parking space. 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 1a. 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 3.0% 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 1a. 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 a a� E 5 ' 0 ' 0 0 0 ' 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 density bonus for affordable h using 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-famil 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, 14-28-7, 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 amendmentwill 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. 1 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. Fi ure 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, 14-48-4D-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. Zoning 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 Consistencv 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: Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments r �®,,CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM 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 1) Renter Households $48,480 $55,440 $62,340 $69,240 $74,820 $80,340 60% AM I 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 Pro osed 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 5,000 5,000 55 40 osed nochan a no chane 45 no chap e RM- Detached Single-family ;Current rent 5,0005,0005520 os no chane no chane 45 no chap e 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: t� • % ^� 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 a 300 m 250 0- 200 150 50 loo 11111111111 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 2012 2013 100 27 140 488 16 8 143 171 2014 37 218 14 176 2015 2016 2017 47 340 150 499 556 203 6 12 8 137 172 157 11011 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 169 59 0 40 0 163 417 49 155 266 10 8 8 6 2 109 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 InfrastructureRequiredl 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 vacantduplex 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 0 Z) 400 a 350 3 D 300 CuW CL Z5 250 a c Q 200 150 100 50 0 ■ Multi -Family ■ Duplex ■ Single -Family 1FIN 1 1 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 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 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 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 w °r oar ac �y5 ryoo foo y ryoo � yQ o^� ycryon cap roti �C' gaiti O� 91 a O Go Attachment 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 1200 1100 1000 900 800 N 700 7 m 600 a� p 500 400 300 200 100 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 2632 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 �^ U �a `LO �0, ryU °m5 tiU �m ayQ ,ti0^ °55 ti� acD `LO aCw�`ra m�o� hoc Qm° a1Q-° �o� yd aye a� u 5 gai. G P Om°. �o UyoS Pa am G G° I CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 112r EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Neighborhood Et Development Services 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Adopted August 20, 2019 Chapter 5: Impediments &t 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 TvDes 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. Strategy 3: Continue investment in affordable housing 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. StrateQv 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: StrateQv 1: Emphasize Variety in HousinQ 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. StrateQv 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. StrateQv 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. StrateQv 1: Improve 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 Suooly-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. StrateQv 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 meaninQfullanguaQe 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. StrateQv 1: Improve Fair HousinQ 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. StrateQv 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. StrateQv 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. StrateQv 4: Improved 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 waithst 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 vi 202! F Iowa City Affordable Housing ACTION PLAN CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 20221owa 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 CD6G/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. 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 2016 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 20221owa 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 (HCDQ 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, or 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 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: 1) Require staff analysis and funding recommendations before i review; and 2) 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: o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to only those at that income. o 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 forthe next LI HTC 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-for-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 20221owa 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. 5. 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 20221owa 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 Al 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 20221owa 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 bytransit. • 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 ADi 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; 6) 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 20221owa 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 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects forfamilies 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 20221owa 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 (All 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 homeowners 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 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan 4. Downpayment 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. Downpayment 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 20221owa 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 housing 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 policy that 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 applyfor 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 X X X �i X X X CITY OF IOWA CITY 38 20221owa 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 11 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 (ADUs) 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 20221owa 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. 32-60% Median Income Recommendations Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance. Support and expand eviction prevention programs. 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 n3'. yyy CITY OF 10 UNESCO CIN - - 0 [.- IMPACT AREAS Neighborhoods & Housing 111x11:1avi1.1Is] ►1 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. ACTION PLAN 10 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 shiftingtowards 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 10 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 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 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 FY23-25 Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative Enhance City Manager's 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 Champion 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 LU ChampionAction . - Date Outline 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. LU 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 20 ChampionAction . - Date Complete 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 Managers 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 Managers FY26-28 workforce institutions. Office 20 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 Board 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 provision 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 1. INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR OF • 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 & -5 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 -family 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 mufti -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 1c CB zones and by special exception in CC -2 so zones. 2a. Eliminate some multi -family site develo Multi -family or group living uses in buildings not built of masonry or stucco must 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' around the corner. rl4-26-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-91-3 & -61 locations Attached single -tamely and duplex uses in KS - 5 and RS -8 zones must have each unit's main entrance and garage facing a different street. [14-46-4A-2, -3, & -5] buildings in multi -tamely zones cannot have parking within the first 15' of building depth. This may be waived by minor modification which requires a mailing and administrative to and to ensure Only allowed with rear access Min. duplex lot standards Size Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS -5 8,000 8,000 60 45 RS -5' 6,000 61000 50 30 RNS-12' 53000 53000 45 25 RM -12 45 55 RM -20 55 Only allowed with rear access Min. duplex lot standards Size Area/ Width Front. Area/ Width Unit Unit RS -5 12,000 16,000 80 80 RS -8 8,700 14,350 170 170 is approved or by : approved). iso 'I nent standards to ruminate inose two requiremems rrom multi -family site development standards. uses and duplex uses to allow entrances and garages to face one street, but limit garage frontage to 60% of the garage 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 allev access to be used where present. requirement for townhome-style multi -family uses without a minor modification. This would be for streets not faced by main entrances to use newer sta Only allowed with rear access Min. duplex lot standards: Size Area/ Width Unit Size Area/ Width Unit 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: Size Area/ Width Unit Front. RS -5 10,000 5,000 70 70 RS -8 8,000 4,000 160 60 Min. attached single-familv lot standards: I Min. attached single-familv lot standards: Unit I I I I I I I Unit 3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses outside of the UniversitV Impact Area swum-Tamuy awewng units are umnea to s bedrooms and duplex and attached single- family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. [14-28-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4] 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 dwellina unit. r14 -4C -2A7 4a. Create a density bonus for affordable h Affordable housing projects can receive height bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones and density bonuses in Form -Based zones, but conventional zoning districts 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. (14-2A-7, 14-28-7, 14-2C-11, 14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F7 i nere is no minimum parKing requirement Tor affordable housing units in the Riverfront Crossings District or Form -Based Zones, and a minor modification is available in CB -5 and CB -10 zones which allows up to 30% of units in an affordable housing project to be exempted from minimum parking requirements. [14 -5A -4F-4] Increase Sne number OT Dearooms aiiowea outside of the University Impact Area to 4 bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for duplex and sinale-familv attached units. a Modity 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. For conventional zones, create a 20% density bonus where 20% of units in a development are income -restricted affordable housing for 20 years, to be administered through existing processes. In addition, provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction. all zones would not be required to provide a minimum amount of on-site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements. 15a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoninq code I provide reasonable accommodations from land use or zoning policies where they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The code has specific waivers, but they do not cover every accommodation and are not user friendly. [14-88] ou. rtawaaauy cuiuiuuivay acr vices — iuny ac 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. As a result, the use 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. 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, 14-48-4D-6, 14-5A-4, 14-9A] urease an aaminisiranve r<easonaoie Accommodations Request' process with a defined approval procedure. Applications must be reviewed within 30 working days. Proposed approval criteria include: 5.The housing will be used by an individual with disabilities; 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 ung program. uses as a residential use Eliminate the community service — long term housing use as a distinct use category and instead regulate it as a residential use. Create a definition for permanent supportive housing. Specify that supportive services for residents of a development may be considered accessory to a residential use. Proposed Changes Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a s'•°�, ugh indicates deleted language. Article 14-2A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 14-2A-2: LAND USES ALLOWED: Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Sin le-Famil Residential Zones USE SUBGROUPS RR -1 I RS -5 I RS -8 RS -12 RNS-12 CATEGORIES Residential Uses HouseholdI Detached single- family I P I P P I P I 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 (15'). 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 asset 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 PRI PR PR Two-family uses (duplexes) PRI PR PR PR Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family uses 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 (15'). 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 asset 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 Re uirements 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 6 000 991 6.0008 9;999 50 698 8 n/a single- family, including zero lot line Duplexes 10422,000 5 000 699 70 99 70 99 4" Attached single- 5 000 6,499 5 000 6,499 1540 3549 4 family Other uses' 6 000 899 n/a 5060 4045 n/a RS -8 Detached 5,0008 5,000. 451 408 n/a single- family, including zero lot line Duplex 8 000 8,799 4 000 4,959 607-0 607-0 41-1 Attached single- 4 000 4,k59 4 000 459 30 35 30 35 41-1 family Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 40 n/a RS- Detached 5,0008 5,000 458 401 n/a 12 single-family, including zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 Attached single- 3,000 3,000 20/287 20 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. 40. 20. n/a RNS- single-family 12 Duplex 1 6,000 13,000 145 125 Multi -family uses 5,000 1 Existing^ 145 125 Other uses' Other uses' 15,000 1 n/a 145 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 Unit'} 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 maybe 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. FE&I biF9;iXtif-TAIl l►/69P151. 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 fAy feet (450') and the minimum lot frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit maybe reduced to five 64 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 maybe 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 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi-Familv Residential Zones Use Categories I Subgroups I RM -12 I RM -20 IRNS-20 RM -44 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 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones Zone/Use Duplexes PR PR PR Number Of Total Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family dwellings P P P P P Group living uses Assisted group living PRS PR PR PR PR Independent group living 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.) 14-2B-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Table 2B-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 `a57 n/a 12 single-family 407 and detached zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 13 Attached single- 3,000 3,000 20/286 20 13 family Multi -family 8,175 See table 213- 60 40 313 3 of this section Group living 8,175 See GhapteF 60 40 See GhapteF4, 4 article 14- article 14 -4B -G# 4Q of th 6; .,. Non-residential' 5,000 5,000 60 40 n/a RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 5 7 407 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 13 family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 60 40 313 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter 60 40 See chapter 4, 4, article 14- article 14-4B-Gf 4R of th 6 rairaio 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 25 3 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- 2B4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.) 13. Outside of the Universitv ImoactArea (see maD 28.1 in Section 14 -28 -ft 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 213-3: Maximum DensityStandards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -Family Zone Attached single- 2,500 2,500 20/286 20 11 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 31-1 875 3 -bedroom unit 2,725 3 of this 1,500 1,315 Ma....,UM RI -i .,ti,.r efef. beelF..ems p ud11 fam ly .L.•.JIw 4PA a 13 13 section Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 100 100 Group living 5,000 See chapter 40 25 See chapter 4, 4 article 14- article 14-4B-ef o 4R f+..o �i� +i+lo 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 chapter None 35 See chapteF 4 4 article 14- article 14 -4B -G# . 4R SR Ile ti11..e 1111.. 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 14-4B-Gf 4R of of th s; 1111 o1�110 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- 2B4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.) 13. Outside of the Universitv ImoactArea (see maD 28.1 in Section 14 -28 -ft 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 213-3: Maximum DensityStandards 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 Ma....,UM RI -i .,ti,.r efef. beelF..ems p ud11 fam ly .L.•.JIw 4PA a 13 13 13 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. RedFgnms that ^x^^^d "F 696iaF@ feet R GZ@ 9F have a RY h9FZ9Rta I El M@RG OR 9F@atPFthaR 46 feet A hall A914 a6; P OF FPAFG 14-2B-6: MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 14 -2B -6E. Building Scale: 1 ono 12 ono 20 Role 20 ono nn and Poon Zones 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 213.7 - Building Articulation :.1.:::: ::I : r.nllh] 1M Unacceptable Acceptable Acoeptable Acceptable 14 -2B -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 213.70 - Building Materials 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 Pxteri oryielln of bu laings that are not nrede ntl y masonry or stuGre must have e durable hese n inti nn of masonry, nfi Unnn OF dF@6 @d GQR9FGtG that evt@Rdr of leeot two foot (2') in height above grade If the here GORS into of nonnrete it must have a rlenoreti ve fere 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. gd the C a to the .. Ltge of the 161 El ng for at Igaet thF@e feet (Q')- 74 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 T - f r L A=p"a Aa"* unmeetpu6m 14-28-8: SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 14-213-8E. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F. "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 -5 310 CB -10 310 10 Residential uses: Group living Assisted group PR PR F� PR PR 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: Community P44 P--4 PRl PR PR Community service uses tl ,n Community service - shelter S S S PR PR S S General commu P SS 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 Zone' Zone Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit CO -1 310 CN -1 310 CH -1 n/a CIA n/a CC -2 310 CB -2 310 CB -5 310 CB -10 310 n/a = Not applicable Notes: 10. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-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 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 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 Two-family (duplex) 48 Attached single-family 48 2,725 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 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. Red;:noml; 4hat ^X^^^`I "F GORstFa Red by the PFGY 6 GRG .51111e 17 nhapter G ^HOUSi R9 Gede", of th s redo 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, CN -1 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 nnaX m��m�ml.,.r R bedreems n ult farm ly rl.iollinn ni4 3 a a 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. Red;:noml; 4hat ^X^^^`I "F GORstFa Red by the PFGY 6 GRG .51111e 17 nhapter G ^HOUSi R9 Gede", of th s redo 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.6 - 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 Pxteri or,.,fllc of bu Id nos; that are not uredo nfl„ marnnry nr stuppn must have -a- 4 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- 7- 5 uilding. 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 Ampbbie kopu le uhaCt mwe 14-2C-11: SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 14-2C-11 F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F. "Affordable Housing". Article 14-2G: RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT. ADi ireeco. The n of fhiA confine is fn. 1 Gppatp a meFe G1us ve, .ef and a eta Rabl.. la;.ya G ty; '� 0...1.'ee a nfr..fi one .S Io..• and m..dPFaf.. a h... m..h Q1d1; .n IQ;.ya (; ty 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 numberfor 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". thrOUgh the PFOVA OR of o of the follo..d RO .Shed& OR n.te OWR@F oGGup e.1 affordable hG616 h OR ; tP afferdabla rh-J hOI-I& f .W A foo In lla'I.. .d.I WAlo.. tom affordable ho61el RO 4md� d nff cite affordable hour..d/or e_ !`ordrl b1sie .56...d r If the o r des IWF@A to 14 1 ;ze method•. AR rod or !`Oo of thlA o otl OR, the GWReF .d establish that methods ubsentionc Gla r7h and G2g of this cention Gannet feaci bly be atsf£ed ably determined by the G ty hearl..o GR the ..r.1l r.ar.oe WPO.. app! Gatl OR for 19611Idl..o mB to RG#6I d aRY Table 14-2H-313-1: Uses Use Categories T4NS T4NS- O T4NM I T4NM- O T4MS I Specific Standards Institutional And Civic Uses Community Service Uses ter, FPFP U.. yRep, Ac Long Term WOU&mg 9 92a 4n nenn gr -0-44 Community Service - Shelter S S S S Sz 14 -4B -4D - 5(RM-44) General Community Service S S S S PR 14 -4B -4D - 3(CN-1) Day-care Uses I PR PR PR PR PR I 14 -4B -4D-7 14-2H-10: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: 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 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. 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 Supportive Housing residents in retaining 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: 144A -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, a -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 prny de tenann., f,.r IORg L.rr.. h9,,6,R0 f4.r P@FGGRG .,.th a;..ab1 t,,.6 whe opeFated h•, , „Lr,. ,. RGRpF94 , 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- r..r•.rP1_1R h, C...•. G@ I .. .. TeFFA 1196161 r•..- I .. g to FFA 1196161 r•g f..r PeFGGRG .doh ad Gab! hy operated by a Ublin or nonprof a 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 'R oC G ARd oC o Z,...,.,. N'_,Fnl;PFQfLJR1t&QR1Y0ReF r peFm tted .. r LS A m m, im a two (2) dwell R9 UR tG Fnay be attaGhed- h I .. at OR- (1r•...S the attashed dwell r•.. UR tS must be Insat ..1 .. a AAFRP-F LS Cptba ks- MURir1.T.1'Li OIKI rItIn 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 maybe 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. 1aL1f �^ ^^ ^ ^ orner Llots:-Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback may be reduced to zero feet (0'l. The t4a 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 v r ble #n , ani' or ontpd tovi,.a the street To rnppt th s standard the . n Pntrangp must faces the street, is be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) 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 41.3, located at the end of this subsection A3d, 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 413.3 - Examples Of Facade Articulation For Attached Single -Family Dwellings •a Li _Fl 19 Ali ruill- Ax,ptabla AO rdable Aae atz b c Ac gAable Altemative Facade Arfl"Iatlons Acceptable AltemaM Facade Alfidllatlons e. Garages (1) In the RS -5 and RS -8 zones, there maybe 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 On (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 (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. 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 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 (450) 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 oe G oe Q oe 10 once 19 onn 10 onn on once on nn.I Mll Zones a. i ogat on i ..,�tat on in oe 5.4nd oe Q pones- in the oe 5 and oe Q zones, two fomite, uses are only allowed on gornpr Info 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. bs. Entrances: (1) IR the RR 5 @Rd OQ 4 Z tO 9W the etre 1Gt11FP the R ^II ^ pp@aFaRG@ Gf a ^-'- the MR R @RtFaRG@ Of the Qth@F ElY.41 R9 UR t. (2) The main entrance(s) must be V 1; 131P fr..m ^^a n ^f^a fn,.,^ra^ the ^fr^^f TQ Meet th s ^f^^a^ra the m^,^ n^fr^^^n must face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) 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-d .e4 g 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 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 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. f^r ^ ' ^" ^^ ^^' ^ ^^' � AF 1...1 1..,.,^r.1 ^ alley ^ ate r r I^r... ' .. (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. Cvamnles Of Two Family I Icor In The QC 5 ARd QC R 70nor- 14-4B-4A-7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial 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 Alf 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 • ^Ile'^ ^ FP X@d HAP 13W Id ^^ any building containing a residential use must have at least one door A^ the ...,I..r.^r ..f the 1361;ld R9 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, a444-or for existing buildings, the ^ tY may aobift th;6 ro^,,;romont 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) On the ground level floor 'The floor to ceiling height must beat 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 level floor of the huiId nn ^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 10 zone, for the first two (2) floors of o 1961 Id R9, R6#61At RR m et Meet the 1361 Id R9 Godo a G f Aat or.e f49F ARMMP-FA aI i e ro C AREI ro 40 F=XG Pt or.- In the ro 5 ^na ro 49 Z pt a IaFek, ded I hn..nti OR A7.JA\ of thl6 6@Gt OR ^na o pt ^ allowed h•. 661136 .. t OR � UAlf of thle e....tle.. tThe 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 tT-he proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (CHID) zone en ^ prepeqdeC ^nated as an Iowa r t., historin landmark, aA rehabilitation plan for the property must be haCvvoeerreen 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 G@ 5nr GR 10 zone. (3) There We site n nrlitions or IDU Id no ohorooteri St i ns that make the street level of the Uhient IDU Id no or IDU Id cos unsu table for other uses ollou,Pd in the GR 5 or GR 1!1 7 (34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (CHID) zone ewa ladmafk preeppee.q 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 maybe 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 Cl 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. Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS 14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA: 144C -2A- Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted n the oc 5, oc sz RS - 12, RM 12, RM20 and DAIS 20 Zones iowner ed detached s ole family dwelli nos and de4ah.. ed o lot IIRe d..,elll nee and .n hi Id R96 , to these e e d..,elll ne t„eee provided the following conditions are met: 1- Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal EIW@11 R9 61Rmf use must obtain a rental permit from the Pep ^�^^' 9 Housing and Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cehapter 14-8, "Review And Approval Procedures", of flys f fle 2- Ownership And Occupancy: a owner of the property o .,hieh a aGGessery apartments; Ionated mustogGUpy at least one of the dwell i no un ts on the prem ses s the permanent legal Fes dentThe 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 dwell ng use must be under the same ownership- 9- � The total n ether of individuals that res de in aGGessory artment m note ed two (2)- 3- Site Requirements: a- Only one accessory apartment may be established per so ngle ffam ly lot- h In addition to the park i no requ red for the n RG al dwell i no un tone off street pa*no Fed for theaGGeGGeFy artmer.t The minimum lot size Trequirement of the underlying base zone must be met, but does not apply to a aGGessery apartment, , no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal use d•••^I t- 4- Design Requirements: a The aGGesseFy artmeRt may he Ionated .. dthln the PF RG al dwell) r.e a .dthln a b- The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal 6 ^^I^ fam ly dwell '^^ u ^4t 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 dwe4 ;g, the accessory apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any^ ^^I^ far"° r^^'d^^^^ ^^ new entrances she^Id fa^e the 6; de 9F Feap and of the and any addton for an aGGessery ailment m not nGrease the neer area of the OF g nal dwell ng by m e than. ten a ent (10%) Eexterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useUR 4- 5- Apartment Size: aGGessery ailment must he clearly suberdnate n area to the .dth the f..r. ollod e standards- , Foran aGGessory ailment lo^ated w thin a prnG nal dwell nn , n.t, 4The floor area of the accessory apartment un 4 may not exceed Lflyt" percent (530%) of the total floor area of the principal use dwelkag, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand ^'X h4dred^dr^d # (1 000650) square feet, whichever is less- ( Cera aGGesseFy artment Ionated Vi thin a R.GGesseFy bu ldl.... the floor apea of the aGGeGGeFy artment may of a ed f n nt (59%) of the total fleer @Fea of the a bu ldin^ or s v hundred fifty (650) square feet, whichever is less RGGesseFy ailment may main n e thane a hedroom Article 144F. AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION - 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, lust 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 keV 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 dwelling units in an amount established pursuant to Article 14 -2G -8- 144E-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. (PERS, and TIAA-CREF, not including 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 by Article 14-2G may 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 by 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 u 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 by up to fifteen percent (15%)- b- Maximum building height may be increased by 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) by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5')- 4- Additional Minor Adiustments: 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. Whereat 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 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 is increased by twenty percent (20%)- 2- Minor Adiustments to Certain Dimensional Standards. Whereat 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 maybe reduced by up to fifteen percent (15%)- b- Maximum building height 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: a 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 convening 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. 144F-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 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. 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 by the city. it may be satisfied by designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in Section 14 -4F -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 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 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 greater than the number of required affordable housing dwelling 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 SA -1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB -6 And CB -10 Zones, Except As Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14 -SA -4132 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 service space, plus 1 additional parking space for each adult area. occupant beyond 3. 0.1 space per temporary resident 25 percent For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking based on the maximum number of spaces plus 1 additional parking space for each temporary residents staying at the adult occupant beyond 3. Multi- All zones, Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per per employee based on the family except dwelling unit. maximum number of employees at uses PRM and 2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit - the site at any 1 time. C13 -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 14-21-6, map 21.1 nef'�or �„s-�,'�"^). 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 14-21-6, map 21.1 of th s Hrie). CR 2 7ene E#G GRGy and 1 bedroom un t& 075 spaG@ P@F et- 2 tied....m un t& 15 spaG@6 un4. per z tied...om 'An t& 25 s per n4 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 C13-2 Zones. In the PRM and C13-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Use Subgroups Parking Requirement Bicycle Categories Parkin 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. 14 -5A -4F-4. M nor Mod f gat on Fer Affordable Housing Parking Reduction In The grentral Res nessZones: Affordable housina dwellina units. as defined in Article 14-4F. shall be ex( regulated as affordable housing for a period of at least twenty (20) years pursuant to Article 14- 4F. I^ the ro 5 RREI ro 40;49R@e a Gdlf1..a11OR . be Rt@d G fl@d I14 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 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 C 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. Wthin 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 fled in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and Development services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant atthe 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 Adiustment. 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 Adiustment shall consider the approval criteria in Section 14 -8B -11C-1. 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers. the Board of Adiustment 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 aypw fable iysical or mental impairment that substant ally limits one or more of such person's major life 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: Wth 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. 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 Hiahtshoe; Kirk Lehmann; Anne Russett Cc: Jeff Kellbach; Jessica Andino; Scott Hawes; Leonard Sandler; Bob Untiedt Subject: P&Z Committee Meeting- July Sth Date: Sunday, July 2, 2023 10:00:10 AM A ** 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. I 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 A ** 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, Ann 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 S, 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 u WIN ,,7, aN-- ;,S Map of University Impact Area 111111�� � ��� fit- � �• � �� °� ONE ■■.■L...■� .plowl— ■r C aw N ORWr �r OUR MEW _.MEN :... � WINE \ t Map of Parcels That Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Ppoposed MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA 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 Throclmorton (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 staffs 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 4B 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. Grego 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 Swygard (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. 7'" 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. Its 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, its 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 I 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 Slonnecler (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 2na) 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 5a' City Council Public hearing. September 19th 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 2na, 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 Swiday, 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. I. 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. 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"(SIF/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. Navigate HOMES August 2, 2023 City of l owe City Attn: Tracy Hightshoe Iowa City City Hall 410E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Subject: Support thr Proposed Housing Code Amendments Dear Ms. Hightshoe, I 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 to express our wholehearted support for the proposed housing code 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, from 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 about 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, we can begin to alleviate the burden on low and moderate -income families, making the dream of homeownership a reality for more individuals. 733 Mai gion Trek Blvd Iowa CRY, IA 52246 (314)466-4300 Navigatehomeslowa.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 of 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 live, 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 Plamung 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 <cherylcrmise@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 A ** 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 gmail.com M0 DEFERRED TO 10/17/23 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 infilf 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 CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS 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 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 14 -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 and 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: fila = not a pplicable Notes 11 Outside of the University Imoact Area fsaa map 2B.1 in Section 14-28.61 the maximum number of bedreoms may be increased by ore (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. vo v a CD A � m Z 0 Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk Maximum Lot Maximum Minimum Covera ge Number Of Open Lot Size Area/ Lot Frontage Front bide Rear Maximum Minimum Minimum Total Front Zane/Use Bedrooms Space (Sq. Ft.} Unit 'Sq. Width (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.} Height (Ft) Building Setback Per Unity' (Sq Ft )10 FL FL Width Ft Coverage Coverage Detached single- 6 oaD 66 0DD r �D family, including �QQy 698 40450 156 5+2' 20 35 203 45% 504'o n.ra 500 r11GQq zero lot line Duplexes wulupr 7068 70$8 156 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50°% 41—' 300tunit nn RS -5 Attached single- 5 000 5 000 3544 35 48 156 0 or 20 35 203 45°% 50°% 4''—' 150 6;900 family 6808 — 105 Other uses' 66-999 fila 5060 40-45 20 5+22 20 35 203 45°l0 50°% n/a fila Detached single- family including 5,0008 5,000 458 406 156 5+22 35 203 45% 50% n/a 500 zero lot line nSeeote 9 RS -8 Duplex 000 60:9 60 ZB 156 5+22 See 35 203 45% 50% 411 300/unit note 9 Attached single- 41 4 3035 3035 156 1Q5 20 35 203 45°% 50% 4t1 150 Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 40 20 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% nha n/a Detached single- family, including 5,0008 50000 458 408 156 5+22 35 203 50% 50% n/a 500 zero lot line note RS- Duplex 6,000 3,OD0 55 40 156 5+22 35 203 5D% 50% 411 300/unit 12 note 9 Attached single -3000 3000 20t 20 156 0 or 20 35 183 50°% 5n% 41—' 150 family, , 26' 106 Multifamily uses 9 000 3 000 76 60 156 10 20 35 543 50% 50% 41' 150funit Other uses' 5,000 fila 45 40 20 5122 20 35 203 5D% 50% n/a n/a Detached single- 50002 50009 452 252 156 5+22 See 35 203 4D% 50% nfa 500 family note 9 Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 156 5+22 35 203 40°% 50% 411 3001unit RNS- notee9 12 101bedmorm Multi -Family uses 5,000 Existing^ 45 25 156 5+22 20 35 203 40°% 50% 311 but no less than 400 Other used .5,000 n1a 45 25 20 5+22 20 35 203 40°% 50% iia nla fila = not a pplicable Notes 11 Outside of the University Imoact Area fsaa map 2B.1 in Section 14-28.61 the maximum number of bedreoms may be increased by ore (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. vo v a CD A � m Z 0 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 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 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 Housino Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housing bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, "Affordable Housing". E. Amend Table 2B-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-2B-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 1 20 Residential uses: Household Detached single-family P P P living uses I 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 28-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-28-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Zone/Use zero lot line dwellings woomm Maximum AttachedDetached . dwellings ®®®.. Number Of Bedrooms Per Group.. Unit's Total Area/ Unit (Sq. Width - m==== Area Ft.) (Ft.) Group living Assisted group living (Sq. uses Ft.) RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 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 28-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-28-4: 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's Total Area/ Unit (Sq. Width Minimum ... Area Ft.) (Ft.) Frontage (Sq. (Ft.) Ft.) RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 a57 n/a 12 single- family and detached 407 zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 413 Attached 3,000 3,000 20/286 20 4t3 single- family Multi -family 8,175 See table 213- 60 40 3'—' . 3 of this section Group living 8,175 See chaff 60 40 .. See GhapteF article 14-415-ef 47 article 14 - this title 4B of th - title Non- 5,000 5,000 60 40 n/a ... residential' . RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 557 40' n/a 20 single- family and detached zero lot line Ordinance No. Page 7 n/a = not applicable Notes: 4'3 4'3 313- See '3See chapter 4, article 14- 413-a" 4- 46 " n1a n/a 41-3 13 11. 313 See egapter 4; article 14- 4 -of th-o�-chiF5rro +' Ip n/a 3'3 See chapter 4; article 14- 48 ef,�szi",e n/a 313- See ehapter 4, article 14- 48-ehthls-We n/a 13. 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 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 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter 4, 60 40 article 14-48-o€ this title Non- 5,000 n/a 60 40 residential' RNS- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 407 257 20 single- family and detached zero lot line Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 25 Attached 2,500 2,500 201286 20 single- family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 40 25 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See ^mhaapter4, 40 25 article 14-4B-ef thin title Non- 5,000 n/a 40 25 residential' RM- Multi -family 5,000 See table 28- None 35 44 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See Ghapter 4, None 35 article 14-413-o# thiss--title Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 residential' PRM Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- None 35 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See ehapter4, None 35 article 14 -4B --of this -title Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 residential' n/a = not applicable Notes: 4'3 4'3 313- See '3See chapter 4, article 14- 413-a" 4- 46 " n1a n/a 41-3 13 11. 313 See egapter 4; article 14- 4 -of th-o�-chiF5rro +' Ip n/a 3'3 See chapter 4; article 14- 48 ef,�szi",e n/a 313- See ehapter 4, article 14- 48-ehthls-We n/a 13. 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 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 26-3: 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. rnn_sr�a:ersr_ri-�uersrr�rrr�rrr+�ra�:xsifi _ H. Amend 14-213-61B: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development Standards, Applicability, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 3. For properties subiect to these standards located i„the T M 12 on S 20 RM 20 ^4' 14"ar v,t� X44• -cep 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. Amend 14-26-6E: 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 RM 12 ❑"A 29 RAIS 29 RM AA nRd Poen Zenes 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: MMMinimum lot area per unit (in square feet): 2-bedroorn unit Minimum bedroom • . 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. rnn_sr�a:ersr_ri-�uersrr�rrr�rrr+�ra�:xsifi _ H. Amend 14-213-61B: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development Standards, Applicability, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 3. For properties subiect to these standards located i„the T M 12 on S 20 RM 20 ^4' 14"ar v,t� X44• -cep 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. Amend 14-26-6E: 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 RM 12 ❑"A 29 RAIS 29 RM AA nRd Poen Zenes 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: 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 the 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: least two feet (2') n height above grade. if the base o9psisis 9f , it FAust have a decvFat Vcfvv� 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. FQF Wild RgS Wh8Fe the eXliP.FiAF NO -F211 FA94aFqA1 used on the side of a IDLI diRg 8 a nlat8dal must wrap aFound the romers to the sid@,; of the building for at least 1hFee fee (�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 28.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials A=ptaNe A aeptable unacceptmte K. Amend 14-28-8: 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 CO -1 CN -1 CH -1 CI -1 CC -2 CB -2 CB -5 CB- MU Categories 10 Residential uses: Group living Assisted group 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/_ PRI_ PR/ PR/_ PR/ PR/ P S dwellings S S S S S Institutional and civic uses: commuRity PPPf kF - RRJ PR, RR FSR Service long Wir 44 S S S Community Community S S S PR PR S S service uses service - shelter General comm P S S P P P P 5 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 GB -2 CB -5 CB -10 Maximum Number of Bedrooms Per Unit 310 370 n/a n/a 310 370 310 370 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 mav be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17 chapter 5. "Housina 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 48 48 38 See article 14-413 n/a 8. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 28.1 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. dimension gFeaieF than 16 feet shaII count as 2 9F;naFe bedFeams, as deteFFAIRed by the title -- , shapte 6, "Ho[i6iriig Code" of evw vr_ths Covv'c !``.r10 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. hR'-'R a FJ'_1rR_hIR base GGRSOMORO Bf FR&SORFY, 1311,113138. or &essed concrete that extpnds at 'east Me feet (2') OR heiEfW 8199'Oe @FadG, if the bass GORSiStS Gf r it Must haye a deGOFatiVe 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 dWeI4R9_Uf44 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. dimension gFeaieF than 16 feet shaII count as 2 9F;naFe bedFeams, as deteFFAIRed by the title -- , shapte 6, "Ho[i6iriig Code" of evw vr_ths Covv'c !``.r10 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. hR'-'R a FJ'_1rR_hIR base GGRSOMORO Bf FR&SORFY, 1311,113138. or &essed concrete that extpnds at 'east Me feet (2') OR heiEfW 8199'Oe @FadG, if the bass GORSiStS Gf r it Must haye a deGOFatiVe fano_ Ordinance No, Page 13 4.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. 6. Far buil ings where the extepiepi-vall material usad An the side of a buildiF;q 6 a diffe-reF+ material than W1121 iS 6168d OR the street fo.dng all the siFee1 fa.. '., ..I material must wFap afound the GaFneFS lia the sides of the bu IdiR9 �9F At least 1:40A fap-t / I �T —7.5 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 A-tptaw Acceptdk VnaxwWe Q. Amend 14-2C-11 Commercial Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the following underlined text: as 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: 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 I T41VIS Specific Standards Institutional And Civic Uses Community Service Uses Ordinance No. Page 14 I n 9 7.EIFR. l.l..,PSIRn &(GQ 4 7 Community Service - Shelter S S S S S2 144B -4D - 5(RM-44) General Community Service S S S S PR 14 -46 -4D - 3(CN-1) Day-care Uses PR PR PR PR I PR I 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 14-417 "Affordable Housing" U. Amend 14 -3A -4D-1: Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD), Approval Criteria, by adding the following underlined text: 1. The Ccity 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 swoortive housina to live ano when possiDle wont In the community. home occupations, accessory aweuing 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 o may provide tenanGy for leng term housing f. P ilh 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. A- QQA;R;61aiby98F:iGe�T-e4:Fn kassiRg: Leng teem hGWGiRq f^. PePSGRG With 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 Ordinance No. Page 17 an ee nA � nttaGhed 9h;5le Dwellings 1^ RS en, RM 12, Dole 20 RM 20 nRd hel f 7....0�• � , ..rv-cor�v. 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. 4 n^ eA # ^^ ^ ^Corner Llots ; Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback may be reduced to zero feet (0'). 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 48.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single -Family Dwellings c. Entrances: (1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that is ,,1 QPiPRtPd ..,,. aFd the street, To F et %his 6taR, aFd lh„ F:RaiA PtFa Ge .Ga faces the street, is be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) 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 o e_nings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet (151 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. f2) 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) containinq 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 (aces 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 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. a lot in an RS -12 zone unless aooroved throuah a rezoning. below another. d. Entrances: (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 e. Desitin 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 In tic 5, R8 9 tic 12 RINIS 12 one 42 Ren on Rnlc 20,-AfHJ MU ZeRes: a I oAptigx]_ Liroit7jiAp1 n RCS And I?CR zones: In the RS 5 and RC_R Z o two family Uses are only allowed GR GOMer lots. 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. bs. Entrances: (1) In the R2 4 and IRS 9 ZGReG, tG gmVe the 641_144e then FallappeaFanGe of SOPaPate GlWell'neS, nh dWell'n n:f MUM hnvn its m n1F-.nni. n nlnd teWaFdG a dio,ffeFA t ;#eAt than the FnaIR eRuanGe of the etheF d,. e'16F;@ nil ¢2-) The main entrance( must . To Fn.p t th- standard the Fn n entrance must 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( may not face an alley or private rear lane. (28) The duplex Each-dwe4ag 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, *he garage e^'ranee there may be no more than one doublewide or two singlawide garage openings facing any street unless the varking is set back at least fifteen feet 15' from the front of the building fa ade. For the exceed ten (101 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. 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 aaraae 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. aaraae entrances/exits must be accessed from said private rear lana or yublir_ allav 9.C... .. AR 5 lixa tiples Of Two Family U DC_r. And RS 8 Zoneasm Ordinance No. Page 20 7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial Zones CQ GN GG o ro 2, GIB 5 Ansi CB 10 Zones: a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level floor of a building, except as provided in subsections Ale and Alf 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- of this title. c. Residential Entrances: (1) To provide safe access for residents , any building containing a residential use must have at least one door en the exterieF ef the building 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 8q sloping building sites, for multi -family buildings with no commercial component, and -or for existing buildings-,#te city may adjust Fequi=emeRt. 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 (S) 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) On the @Feundl 1ev& k^^ -,'The floor to ceiling height must beat least fourteen feet (14% except it may 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 m w ssGt;e„TGround Flour Residential Exception: The board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi -family dwellings to be located on or below therg ound stfeet 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 taAdmafk,. aA rehabilitation pian for the property must be has bee 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 GB 5 9r GB --18 zone. r❑r❑�0ione. (34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone as 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. 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 Cl 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. 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 (16) 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 (6). 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, 14-26-4, 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. 14-4F-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 For buildings built on or before December 31, Zone 2008: 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 14-2B-6, map 2B.1 ^f'�-t:",e). 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 14-2B-6, map 2B.1 of hi&4ale). Ordinance No. Page 30 Use Subgroups CR P Zen test. 2 bedreem nits. + F s nit 2 hedrnArn , nils• 7 G spaGgG PeFnit Categories Elder 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living Parkin Community apartments units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for 10 percent service service assisted living units, except in the PRM and Community service - CB -2 Zones. 25 percent shelter In the PRM and CB -2 Zones, 1 space for every 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. r Z nits r 3 beds 25 peFGeH CC. Amend 14 -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: OWN. 667"iffial.—.101, 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 Riverfront 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 14-813: Administrative Approval Procedures by adding Section 14-88-11: 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 14-86-11C-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 substantial! limits one or more of such person's major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment: or alone with a record of such impairment. and is ----- '^^^ ^^^"^Ued BREJ ^f dRdefiRile dRMt OR. 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 2023. LM City Clerk Approved by City Attorney' O ice — 09/1412023 It was moved by and seconded by 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 Vote for passage: AYES: Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague NAYS: Thomas, ABSENT: Alter Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the Kellie Grace From: Han, Yulhwi <jangyulhwy-han@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:30 PM To: *City Council Subject: Proposal for Allowing Diverse Housing Options for Efficient Housing Supply RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Name: Han Yulhwi Residence: Iowa City Instructor: Dr. Frank I think the V amendment will effectively help the Iowa City to provide affordable housed to their residents. Permitting more flexibility in housing types eventually leads to increased output (units of housing) with lower input costs in construction. A duplex is generally more affordable than a single-family home. Nationally, constructing a single new duplex typically ranges from $285,000 to $537,000, In contrast, building a new single-family home falls within the range of $390,000 to $710,000 (How much does n.d.). Thus, allowing duplexes and attached single-family homes in single-family residential zones, for instance, may make it possible to construct two houses for the cost of building one detached single-family home. Consequently, the cost of input will be reduced as the material for building is reduced. This decrease in input will affect as an incentive for the constructors to supply more affordable house in Iowa City. Moreover, new construction companies specializing in duplexes will enter Iowa City's housing market. At the same time, existing construction firms will be willing to supply more affordable houses, as constructors can build various housing styles (duplexes, attached single-family homes, townhome-style multifamily units) and repurpose ground in commercial zones for multi -family uses with fewer resources. Consequently, due to the increase supply in housing, housing prices are expected to decrease compared to before, and the quantity of housing supplied will increase. In other words, it is anticipated that the first amendment will effectively serve the initial goal of providing affordable housing in Iowa City. Reference "How much does it cost to build a duplex?" (n.d.), Far. Available from: httpsf/www. ftxr.comlcosts7build-duolex [Accessed September 18 2023] Kellie Grace From: Mallett, Kyler O <kyler-mallett@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:46 PM To: *City Council Cc: Miller, Colin M; Kuehl, Jack W Subject: Thoughts on proposed zoning amendment 2 RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Iowa City Council, My colleagues and I are undergraduates at the University of Iowa, living in Iowa City, and we would like to announce our opinion Amendment 2 of the Zoning Code Amendments. We support the addition of Amendment 2 among the housing and zoning committee because it could help reduce the shortage of affordable housing within Iowa City by increasing the housing supply. With the modification of design standards brought by the implementation of Amendment 2, this could lower the cost of construction, thus making it possible for more housing to be built. The decrease in overall price to construct housing would allow for a larger supply of affordable housing and has the potential to decrease the cost of housing in the city. While it is possible that more affordable housing would decrease the property value of already existing housing, this decline should be minimal, as the amendment states the new design standards will create, "safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods." Another benefit of this amendment is that it may help reduce Iowa City's carbon footprint. The creation of "new pedestrian friendly neighborhoods" will increase peoples' incentives to travel by foot. Thus, reducing the use of fossil fuels and appealing to the sustainability goals of the city. The increase in affordable housing also benefits us as students as it gives us more potential space to live off campus and possibly even after graduating. Sincerely, Kyler Mallett, Colin Miller, and Jack Kuehl (All currently living in Iowa City) Kellie Grace From: Jesse Singerman <jesse.singerman@mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:40 PM To: *City Council Subject: Comment on proposed zoning changes R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Please make this part of the public record. September 19, 2023 Dear Iowa City Council Member, I am writing to urge you to defer consideration of the proposed zoning changes before you until the public and Iowa City neighborhood associations can be more meaningfully involved. These extensive zoning changes will affect every residential neighborhood in the city, but how they will change is completely unclear. Many unanswered questions create confusion and trepidation. For example: • What will the impact of these changes be on the Northside where over 50 percent of single-family structures are already rental properties? Will we end up with houses being torn down to make room for larger structures that command higher rents resulting in fewer affordable choices? • How do these changes interact with the Historic District designation? • Why will reducing design requirements, increasing crowding, and increasing housing types result in more affordable housing when these same techniques have not done so in Iowa City over the past ten years? • What will the results be on university impact zones in terms of livability and real day-to-day considerations like noise, garbage, and parking? These are challenges already. Those of us living in the neighborhoods most likely to bear the brunt of these changes need more time to understand the proposal and voice our legitimate concerns. Thank you, Jesse Singerman 219 Ronalds St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Kellie Grace From: Vazquez, Eric <eric-vazquez@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5:41 PM To: *City Council Subject: For Council Meeting 9/19/2023 A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good afternoon, Hello, my name is Eric Vazquez and I co-own my home with my partner Jared Knote at 1021 E Market. I am not able to make the city council meeting this evening due to other commitments. I did want to comment on the proposed zoning changes that would affect rentals on my block. My block is currently evenly divided between renters and owners in residence. The majority of the renters appear to be undergraduates at the University of Iowa. We have some great students, I should know I teach at the University. They are good kids. BUT my partner and I are deeply concerned that proposed approval of small units on a preexiting rental property with no requirement that rental property owners provide parking will produce onerous congestion specifically on our block and significantly alter the character of our neighborhood. Although a minority might find the lack of parking to be an encouragement for use of public transportation as whatever undergrad economics students might suggest, that wouldn't necessarily solve the overarching problem of available street space to accommodate students who already live in the area and those just moving in to these proposed units. It's common knowledge in our immediate surrounding blocks that students at parties will often double park behind the property where they are partying for that evening, and sometimes when they are visiting friends or when the number of renters does not correspond to the number of parking spaces available. These creative measures to address the lack of parking can lock neighbors into space until the double-parkers are made aware of the situation and they block of alleyways which can be narrow and made unsafe with so many cars. While I recognize that I moved to block with renters who will be students and in general we get along with our neighbors, I think adding additional units, again to my block specifically, would lead necessarily to a significant increase of noise, congestion (both walking and driving traffic) those realities, I worry, would reduce our property values. Thank you for your time, Eric VAzquez Kellie Grace From: Schmeltzer, Michael R <michael-schmeltzer@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:45 PM To: *City Council Cc: Frank, Sarah R Subject: Student Review of Planning and Zoning Packet R SH ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Board Members, Hello from freshmen students at the University of Iowa Carsen Williams, Michael Schmeltzer, and Jackson Daly. We all currently reside in on campus housing and are working on a project for our microeconomics class. We evaluated the planning and zoning agenda packet from August, and we are in support of amendment three. We have found that the methods outlined in amendment three such as increasing the ability to construct accessory dwelling units, along with changes in modifying dimensional standards will help to increase the housing supply in a positive way. An increase in housing supply will also cause a reduction in the price of housing, something that is especially important for larger low-income families within the Iowa city area. In today's housing market, there is no better time to increase our supply of affordable housing and create a variety of housing choices for many households. Sincerely, Michael, Carsen, and Jackson Kellie Grace From: Mathews, Nicholas J <nicholas-mathews@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:14 PM To: *City Council Subject: Comments on amendment to Title 14, Zoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; AmendmentsCityCouncil.pdf RISit *' This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hello Iowa City Council, My name is Nick Mathews. As a resident of Iowa City since 2017, I'd like to share my thoughts on Title 14, Zoning to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Please see the attached file with my comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me at nicholas-mathews@uiowa.edu. Thank you, Nick Mathews Nicholas Mathews Iowa City, 52246 9/19/23 To: Iowa City Council Subject: Comments on amendment to Title 14, Zoning Dear Iowa City Council My name is Nick Mathews. I am currently in my 3rd year of university at the University of Iowa, and I've been living in Iowa City since 2017. After looking at the Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Zoning Code Amendments, two amendments really caught my eye. The first amendment, "increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices," offers a pragmatic solution to boost housing supply. It proposes allowing multi -family housing units in areas originally designated for single-family homes. This is a very realistic plan that can rapidly increase available housing while keeping it affordable. The second amendment, "modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods," takes a more idealistic approach. It aims to reevaluate construction standards that might have previously driven up costs. Successful implementation could mean that houses of the same quality can be built at a fraction of the original cost. From an economic standpoint, both of these amendments work together to accomplish the same goal: increase the amount of available housing while reducing the average prices. As a citizen of Iowa City, I truly believe that these two amendments would make fantastic changes to the Iowa City housing market. Sincerely, JL4�� Nicholas Mathews Kellie Grace From: Britt, Claire M <claire-britt@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:33 PM To: *City Council Cc: Kenevan, Jake Ryan R Subject: Public Forum: Planning and Zoning Amendment 1 r RISiL . ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear City Council, We believe the Planning and Zoning Commission should pass amendment one. Passingthe first amendment would lead to an increase in housing supply, choice, and encourage affordability. There are two counterpoints which have little validity compared to the benefits amendment one provides. These points include the disruption of current aesthetic of residential zones and commercial zones. Also, a denser population of homes placed in the lot decreases the green spaces within these neighborhoods. These points are trivial when considering the immense benefit of increasing the housing supply and ultimately having more affordable homes. The noticeable increase in population paired with the decrease of land zoned for housing units has led to an immense deficit of homes. The first amendment will help push the market towards a better demand and supply ratio creating housing for all at an affordable price. Finally, this will better the town and encourage Iowa City to continue growing as an amazing city. Sincerely, Jake Ryan Kenevan Claire Britt Kellie Grace From: Lauren Balster <laurenbalster222@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:40 PM To: *City Council Subject: Approve Amendment I of the Iowa City City Council's Proposed Housing Plans RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Iowa City Council, My name is Lauren Balster and I am a freshman at the University of Iowa studying Marketing and Finance. I am originally from Saint Charles, Illinois, but I am currently living in Iowa City in Rienow Residence Hall. As a part of my Principles of Microeconomics class, I am pleased to have researched and written a statement on my opinion of your Council's Proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on my written piece. Through analyzing Proposed Amendment 1: Increase flexibility for a range of housing types, I would suggest the city approves this amendment and allows for more diverse housing options. One of the major issues in the City Council of Iowa City right now is affordable housing for a diverse group of individuals. Oftentimes single- family units are more expensive and many people can't afford to live in this type of housing. Other types of housing allow for many different options, most of which are more affordable and realistic for large families, young adults, or anyone else looking for a low -maintenance and diverse style of living. Additionally, flexible housing helps reduce segregation and inequity. Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types reduces the "potential for racial and class segregation caused by exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning" (Planning and Zoning Commission 4). All in all, the first proposed amendment in the City Council of Iowa City should be passed, providing more flexible housing options and increasing supply, affordability, and diversity, all while maintaining a similar character for each zone involved. Thanks so much! Sincerely, Lauren Balster Iaurenbalster222Cci�gmail.com 847-217-6310 Kellie Grace From: Gates, Claire <claire-gates@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:54 AM To: *City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To whom it may concern, Good morning. My name is Claire Gates and I am a student at the University of Iowa. I currently live in Coralville, but I plan on moving to Iowa City in the near future. As the new proposed zoning code amendments will affect me, I thought I'd voice my opinion on one of them. Implementing density bonuses and parking reductions would be successful in creating more affordable housing. The first effect of the bonuses being put into use and the units being built is an increase in supply (units of affordable housing). Once this happens, supplywill be disproportionately larger than demand at the original price; a surplus will occur. To combat this surplus, housing prices WILL lower. As suppliers lower the price of housing, demand will increase proportionately. This means that if the density bonuses and parking reductions are put into place and taken advantage of, it will result in affordable housing being supplied in larger quantities for a lower price. Thank you for your time, Claire Gates Kellie Grace From: Gojkovich, Hailey M <hailey-gojkovich@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:46 PM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning Amendments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello, My name is Hailey Gojkovich and I currently reside in Iowa City as a Freshman at the University of Iowa. I am taking Principles of Microeconomics and wanted to share my thoughts on the newly proposed zoning amendments. Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. Hailey Gojkovich 14- onillgAmeCldm,at opinion.pdf As the City Council is considering changing the zoning codes around Iowa City, I wanted to send in my opinions as a Freshman at the University of Iowa. I am currently enrolled in Principles of Microeconomics and have learned a lot about the economy in just S short weeks. I believe that Amendment 1 would not only allow for more diverse communities, but also increase the amount of housing which in turn boosts the economy and makes housing more affordable for the Iowa City community. If implemented, the first shock to the economy we can expect will be the increase in supply of housing. This would also cause the quantity of houses to increase (due to the different types allowed in different zones) and would also allow for the price of housing to decrease. Because there will be more houses available, (and to a more diverse population) the price of housing will become more affordable to all. One reason that someone may be against this amendment is the concern that the new housing put into zones may not be up to the standards of the current housing which would affect the characteristics and look of the neighborhood(s). But as stated in the Planning and Zoning Commission document, it is important to note that by focusing on the types and styles of buildings/housing currently allowed in those zones, there will be a limited impact on the appearance of the homes and character of neighborhoods. Therefore, I believe that the city of Iowa City should implement amendment 1 into city policy. It would create more affordable housing for all, while also allowing for a more diverse population of people and different types of housing to be seen in these communities/zones. Kellie Grace From: Murphy, Nicole E <nicole-murphy@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:28 PM To: *City Council Subject: Iowa City Zoning Codes A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good Evening, Myna me is Nicole Murphy and I am a student at the University of Iowa -currently residing in Iowa City. I believe the proposed changes to the Iowa City Zoning Codes will have an exponential benefit to the housing market in Iowa City. The over 5,000 eligible lots mentioned in Amendment 1 specifically, would create an influx in the supply of housing white decreasing the high levels of demand the city is currently facing -leaving the housing market in a preferred state of equilibrium. If the city council votes to implement the proposed zoning code, it will not only produce more accommodating residencies but in turn tower the prices as welt. This is very important given a significant audience of housing in Iowa City happens to be college students. The implementation of Amendment 1 has many additional economic benefits as it would bring in more people to support the commercial activity of the city and allow goods and services to thrive. Many citizens that are against the new zoning ordinances believe that it would Lower the economic value of their houses and bring in a "lower income" population. However, it would economically benefit the entire city by moving current lower income families into more affordable houses and limit gentrification and racial segregation faced by many due to the current zoning ordinances. Iowa City will experience extreme diversity in housing and can only economically benefit from the changes proposed to the proposed Iowa City zoning codes. Thank You, Nicole Murphy Kellie Grace From: Danes, Michael F <michael-danos@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 11:14 PM To: *City Council Subject: City Zoning Plans ft SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Councilmembers, My name is Michael Danos. I am a first year university student, and I currently live at 225 North Clinton Street. With the recent discussions of city zoning, I would like to share my support for an increase in the zoning for affordable housing options like duplexes and townhomes. Anecdotally, I have many peers searching for housing in the Iowa City area, and affordability makes all the difference. The mental and financial stress that housing places on university students can often send awry their experience. Considering students make up about 33,000 residents of Iowa City, and provide economic and cultural fuel for this city, the support of the government in tricky housing situations can dramatically shift the public eye. On a more economical approach, the recent proposal for five affordable housing amendments just makes sense. Iowa is home to the lowest median property prices in the country, and Iowa City exceeds those numbers by nearly $100,000. For anybody looking to settle down and start a career or family, Iowa City looks unattractive compared to other communities in our state. By decreasing the buy -in for housing in our city we might have a more competitive angle on the market for new residents and university students like myself. Thank you for your time and consideration of my opinions. All the best, Michael Francis Danes Kellie Grace From: Mugisha, Euan <euan-mugisha@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 12:37 AM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning proposal A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good evening Iowa City Council, My name is Euan Mugisha, and I would just like to express my thoughts on the zoning issues. This issue is very complex, so I appreciate all the thought that went into this. The housing market is a difficult topic due to numerous factors, such as limits as to how much supply you are able to have, because of a lack of builders, or maybe the difficult decision of whether to build single-family or multi -family units, it must have been tricky to come up with a plan. After reading the proposal, I would like to express that I like the detail and thought that went into expanding on the multi -family households, growing up in a family that has benefited from these types of homes, I can say firsthand that the affordability, of these homes, is what allowed my immigrant family and other families in similarfinancial situations to getup and running. Thank you so much, I hope to continue seeing more work on the zoning issues, Euan Mugisha Kellie Grace From: Rebecca Kushner <rebeccarafi@googlemail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:21 AM To: *City Council Cc: Rebecca Kushner Subject: Treatment of a person with disabilities at the last City Council Meeting R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Mayor Teague, dear Council Members, I was severely disappointed several times at the most recent City Council Meeting regarding the proposed zoning changes. Dangling a density bonus in front of developers will not result in affordable housing. The developers are in this business to make money, not for Caritas. Modeling the failed zoning results of other university cities such as Austin, Minneapolis, Ann Arbor, Madison, Denver and elsewhere is quite revealing. Nowhere is there a real success story, and the City Council shouldn't pretend that they are offering one. The number of student enrollments is steadily declining. Iowa City shouldn't plan only for short term rentals (many owned by one single developer), but also for long-term residents who have invested their life savings for a home in a safe neighborhood. Believe me, I've lived elsewhere among Section 8 housing. I've experienced this firsthand. Also, the ecological and environmental impact of lessening green space, trees and garden plots and replacing them with lots sealed with concrete and cement, is not how I imagine offering a creative response to climate change. It also did not escape me (and I wasn't the only one who caught their breath) that the former Mayor Jim Throgmorton was treated impatiently when he requested to ask a question. Then, as he self -admittedly was struggling with vision issues, he was cut off at the time limit of 3 minutes, although he had barely begun speaking. The treatment of a person admitting to a disability should not reflect disdain, arrogance or in a condescending manner on the part of the Mayor. I believe an apology to Jim Throgmorton is still outstanding. I should have stood up and said something. I'm ashamed of myself that I did not. Sincerely, Rabbi Rebecca Kushner Iowa City Kellie Grace From: Marybeth Slonneger <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 11:11 AM To: *City Council Subject: Proposed Changes to P&Z Code Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Zoning Letter to Council.pdf; ATT00001.htm R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. September 21, 2023 Dear Council Members, Last August, just before leaving on an extended vacation, as many do this time of year, I became aware of the P &Z Commission's new proposed changes to procedures—a dense and very lengthly document. Others may have missed it. There wasn't time to digest it all but a few things stood out. It was worrisome to me, as within this past year I've already seen two houses disappear, plus one turn -around, all within one block of my house in Goosetown on Davenport St. —all the work of a local developer; a fourth house is in the process of being torn down by its owner. So, starting with the two that were removed ... both were small cottages. I believe this is the cat- egory that you are encouraging. They were both replaced by significantly more expensive single family houses, one I was told was being offered initially in the $500,000 range, lowered to $300,00. Is that what you really mean by affordable housing? I support the effort to provide more housing for lower-income people but I hesitate when it translates into increasing profits for developers in this rapacious way. I don't see the benefit to low income families. I live among a wonderful cluster of modest homes, some with historic value. But Goosetown is probably the most threatened neighborhood in the city because the houses are small—the urge to tear down huge. We regularly get solicitations through the mail: letters, postcards and on the Neighborhood website to sell to developers who have vocally expressed in public meetings how Goosetown will be changed in two years. One particular developer owns multiple properties within sight of my house. He has plans. My sense is that you are not taking into account that these people are not about community val- ues, but only profit. If this isn't somehow regulated, a lot of building material is going to end up in the landfill, Goosetown as we know it will have disappeared, and you will end up with blocky buildings with very high prices attached to them. Would it make more sense to incentivise low income families to own and maintain an already existing property with the use of a decreasing loan? or some such way to utilize what's already built? Also at issue here are concerns for the environment, for the waste of building materials, for the need for a bigger landfill. This is a hugely complex issue. Would you not slow down the voting process to really think out the impact on my neighborhood? It feels like another round of "urban renewal" with similar consequenses... obliteration. Finally, I don't know whether this is true or not, but I've heard from several realtors that Goo- setown is a highly sought after place to live, perhaps the most sought after. If you encourage the destruction of these modest homes, you are also destroying a popular destination. People will not be able to afford to live here. Marybeth Slonneger 1109 E Davenport St. Kellie Grace From: Schnell, Jocelyn <jocelyn-schnell@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 11:26 AM To: *City Council Subject: Economic Analysis: Proposed Amendment #1 A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Iowa City Council, It is clear that the proposed amendment to increase the variety and availability of housing (amendment #1) is knowledgeable and will provide efficiency throughout the community for living standards. By fulfilling this amendment, it will supply more diverse housing, creating more affordable housing, and in the end make everyone happy. Historically duplexes were only allowed on corner lots so this proposed amendment would allow for duplexes to be built anywhere in a city block. This is the same for other types of housing such as townhome style, multi -family, attached single-family housing, etc. Overall, this proposed amendment would provide for a greater variety of living arrangements while maintaining a similar character for each zone involved. This would also create a more affordable area for people to find housing. One con to fulfilling this amendment would be the neighbors, they may not be fond of the character of what they are used to changing. Although, the pros outweigh the cons. Thank you, Jocelyn Schnell Kellie Grace From: Enerson, Nataly <nataly-enerson@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 1:09 PM To: *City Council Subject: Affordable housing units RSH ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good afternoon, I'm Nataly Enerson and I live in Iowa City and am currentely going school at the University of Iowa. After reviewing all the amendments proposed by the city council, I think Amendment 2 creates incentives for developers to encourage them to build affordable housing units. It would make it easier for property owners to build properties more efficiently. In an article that talked about producing affordable housing in rising markets they mentioned that "Restrictive and complex land -use regulations have been shown to decrease the amount of new housing, particularly multifamily apartments, and increase housing costs" (Freeman,2017). This adds to the reasoning as to why the city should implement the 2nd amendment since it has been shown that there is a direct correlation between restrictive regulations and increased housing costs and a decrease in new housing. If some regulations were removed there would be more of a supply of affordable housing. Leading to making the pricing of housing go down and the quantity goes up. Changing these regulations is very reasonable and still will keep the high-quality design standards of the city. Kellie Grace From: Acosta, Abraham III <abraham-acosta@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:47 PM To: *City Council; opinion@press-citizen.com Subject: Zoning Amendments Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Econ zoning.docx I RISH ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Myna me is Abraham Acosta. I am a Freshman at the University of Iowa; my primary residence is in New Lenox IL, and I am living in Iowa City for University. Iowa City housing Market Economic analysis My name is Abraham Acosta and I am a freshman here at the University of Iowa. I currently live in the Mayflower dorm and plan on living off campus next year. As I look at the current housing market in Iowa City it is easy to see that it is inflated. This is why I am in support of proposed amendment 1 - Increase flexibility for a range of housing types. This amendment will allow existing buildings to host more units as housing requirements will become more flexible. From a students perspective this is the perfect amendment and will help the problem in the housing market. One of the benefits of this amendment is that existing complexes will be allowed to house multifamily units on the ground floor. This will increase supply for housing and help the prices drop. This amendment will also allow for more multifamily homes to be approved in zones they were previously not allowed in. Kellie Grace From: Milkowski, Ian 1 <ian-milkowski@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:52 PM To: *City Council Subject: Concerns about Duplexes in Single -Family Zones RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Iowa City Council Members, As a resident of Iowa City, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposal to introduce duplexes into our single-family zones. Introducing duplexes into Iowa City's single-family zones may pose significant economic disadvantages. Historically, detached homes have characterized these areas, offering a distinct architectural look we've embraced for years. Introducing attached homes risks disturbing this cherished neighborhood aesthetic, potentially impacting property values, as pointed out by my extensive research on the topic recently. Additionally, this increase in housing density might put a strain on the city's infrastructure, which includes our lovely roads, sewerage, and schools. While duplexes might offer affordable housing solutions, we must weigh this benefit against potential economic downsides and infrastructure stress. Thoughtful consideration is essential before changing zoning regulations, especially proposal la. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Ian Milkowski 414 South Dubuque Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Kellie Grace From: Bodett, Megan E <megan-bodett@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:04 PM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning Amendment Economic Analysis ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** J onin� Amendment Economic Anaiysis.pdf Economic Analysis: Amendment Two As a current student residing in Iowa City, I support the second proposal made in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Zoning Code Amendments which shows great potential in achieving the goal of increasing house supply while supporting an inclusive and equitable city. The proposal suggests "modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods". This means taking actions to correct and improve current design standards to then decrease the total cost for construction. Doing this allows for more housing to be created which then contributes to creating the best environment for living by providing more people with homes for a lower cost. From an economic standpoint, this proposal would have positive effects on the housing market. There is no doubt that the demand for housing is present. Various real estate data and local brokers release market updates which prove the lack of supply and the increased demand for housing. One site says, "The Iowa City real estate market had 80 homes for sale in August 2023, a 1.2% decrease compared to July 2023" (Rocket Homes, 2023). A 1.2% decrease of homes for sale in just one month shows the extreme demand for housing in the Iowa City housing market. To accommodate these heavy demands, action is needed to increase the supply of housing. A deduction in the cost of construction would create a first order effect of supply increase. This supply increase would then lead to a decrease in demand which satisfies people's needs by increasing the quantity of housing available while decreasing price at the same time. Some may take an opposing view to this proposal. The opportunity cost of creating and supplying more homes could be the potential use of funds and energy in other aspects of improving iowa city. Some may even say that cheap college rentals could be a blight on the community; however if the goal is to reduce the expensive market, then supplying more housing is the best way to handle this problem. The argument of not building more housing is addressed by Jenny Shuetz, an expert in urban economics and housing policy, "Cities and neighborhoods with strong labor markets and good schools --exactly the places in highest demand --are not building enough new housing, contributing to worsening afford abi I ity"(Shu etz, 2020). Shuetz emphasizes the importance of affordable housing especially now as prices of housing are skyrocketing. Iowa City is a great example of the cities she is referencing which are in high demand with no new housing being created to solve this issue. In order to address the worsening affordability of housing, supply must increase which is exactly what this proposal suggests. The proposal also emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and equitable environment. Implementation of this proposal would help ensure these qualities by placing more people in homes; therefore keeping people off the streets. In order to ensure safety in neighborhoods, in this case Iowa City, access to housing plays a very important role. Keeping people off the streets creates a safer and more pleasant environment which will improve the quality of life in Iowa City for everybody, not just people in need of housing. In regards to equity, increasing the housing supply decreases the price of housing which helps people afford homes. This prioritizes the basic need of having a place to live, and makes this need more obtainable. Making housing more affordable caters to people's individual needs, making Iowa City a more equitable place to live. Thankyou for listening to my opinion, and I hope the points I made prove the need to pass this zoning code amendment. Sincerely, Megan Bodett Sources- httos:llwww.brookings.edularticleslto-im prove-housing-affordability-we-need-bett er-a I ig n m e nt_of_ z on i n g -taxes -and -s u bsi d i esl h ttos:liwww, rockethomes. com/rea I -estate -trend sliali owa-city Kellie Grace From: Bodett, Megan E <megan-bodett@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:14 PM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning Amendment Economic Analysis A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** J 2MAmendment Economic Analysis.docx 100 Catlett Hall Iowa City, A, 52242 9/21/2023 Economic Analysis: Amendment Two As a current studentresiding in Iowa City, I support the second proposal made in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Zoning Code Amendments which shows great potential in achieving the goal of increasing house supply while supporting an inclusive and equitable city. The proposal suggests "modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods". This means taking actions to correct and improve current design standards to then decrease the total cost for construction. Doing this allows for more housing to be created which then contributes to creating the best environment for living by providing more people with homes for a lower cost. From an economic standpoint, this proposal would have positive effects on the housing market. There is no doubt that the demand for housing is present. Various real estate data and local brokers release market updates which prove the lack of supply and the increased demand for housing. One site says, "The Iowa City real estate market had 80 homes for sale in August 2023, a 1.2% decrease compared to July 2023" (Rocket Homes, 2023). A 1.2% decrease of homes for sale in just one month shows the extreme demand for housing in the Iowa City housing market. To accommodate these heavy demands, action is needed to increase the supply of housing. A deduction in the cost of construction would create a first order effect of supply increase. This supply increase would then lead to a decrease in demand which satisfies people's needs by increasing the quantity of housing available while decreasing price at the same time. Some may take an opposing view to this proposal. The opportunity cost of creating and supplying more homes could be the potential use of funds and energy in other aspects of improving Iowa city. Some may even say that cheap college rentals could be a blight on the community; however if the goal is to reduce the expensive market, then supplying more housing is the best way to handle this problem. The argument of not building more housing is addressed by Jenny Shuetz, an expert in urban economics and housing policy, "Cities and neighborhoods with strong labor markets and good schools --exactly the places in highest demand --are not building enough new housing contributing to worsening affordability"(Shuetz, 2020). Shuetz emphasizes the importance of affordable housing especially now as prices of housing are skyrocketing. Iowa City is a great example of the cities she is referencing which are in high demand with no new housing being created to solve this issue. In order to address the worsening affordability of housing, supply must increase which is exactly what this proposal suggests. The proposal also emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and equitable environment. Implementation of this proposal would help ensure these qualities by placing more people in homes; therefore keeping people off the streets. In orderto ensure safety in neighborhoods, in this case Iowa City, access to housing plays a very important role. Keeping people off the streets creates a safer and more pleasant environment which will improve the quality of life in Iowa City for everybody, notjust people in need of housing. In regards to equity, increasing the housing supply decreases the price of housing which helps people afford homes. This prioritizes the basic need of having a place to live, and makes this need more obtainable. Making housing more affordable caters to people's individual needs, making Iowa City a more equitable place to live. Thank you for listening to my opinion, and I hope the points I made prove the need to pass this zoning code amendment. Sincerely, Megan Bodeft Sources- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/to-improve-housing-affordabilitV-we-need- better-align men t -of -zon in q -taxes -an d-su bsidies/ https://www.mckethomes.com/reaI-estate-trends/ia/iowa-city Kellie Grace From: Noel, Kristen M <kristen-noel@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:23 PM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning Amendments RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello, My name is Kristen Noel and I'm a student at the University of Iowa living in Iowa City. After reading the Planning and Zoning Commission's recently proposed amendments, I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the matter, specifically in relation to Amendment 4. The second half of the amendment, 46, proposes that affordable housing would not be required to have on- site parking if they comply with the new affordable housing requirements. As someone who lives in the University Impact Area, I have experienced first-hand the difficulties that the lack of parking availability does to an individual and a community. I don't believe it is wise for the Planning and Zoning Commission to encourage affordable housing developments without parking, as it would create further economic boundaries and general life difficulties for the people who require both affordable housing and access to a car for work or school. Although I generally support these amendments and definitely support bringing more affordable housing to Iowa City, these proposed changes seem as though they are only small solutions to an overwhelming problem. More regulations, amendments, and changes will need to be made to make Iowa City housing affordable for families, individuals, and students like myself. Thanks, Kristen Noel Kellie Grace From: Khadiya, Tanvi <tanvi-khadiya@uiowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:51 PM To: *City Council Cc: Nabicht, Hannah M Subject: Zoning Commission Amendment Adoption RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good evening, My name is Tanvi Khadiya and I am a freshman at the University of Iowa. My classmate, Hannah Nabicht, and I believe, for the following reasons, that Amendment One of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Zoning Code Amendments should be adopted in order to address the ongoing housing shortage and affordability issues in Iowa City. Iowa City is a growing community that currently has a high demand for housing; however, this demand for housing has not been met, which is causing the price of available housing to rise. Allowing duplexes and attached single-family homes to be located anywhere in a block instead of just on corner lots would increase the housing supply in the Iowa City area. Allowing multi -family homes on the ground floor in commercial zones would also be beneficial in expanding the housing supply in Iowa City. This would address the problems of both a lack of available housing units and the rising housing prices. Allowing multi -family uses on the ground floor in commercial zones would also be beneficial to businesses in Iowa City because there would be more consumers in commercial zones, which would result in an increase in demand for businesses in these zones. If Iowa City decides to adopt Amendment One, it may allow for 5,120 new duplex units to be built. This will be extremely beneficial to the surrounding community and increase the number of consumers in Iowa City, which will help businesses in Iowa City make a profit. Iowa City should focus on building duplexes instead of single-family homes, as it would be a good way to expand the housing supply, maximize the land in Iowa City, and provide more affordable housing options for the community. We hope that you will consider adopting this amendment as it would be a great step toward solving the issues of housing in our city. Thank you for your time! Tanvi Khadiya and Hannah Nabicht Kellie Grace From: Elijah Moore <moore.elijah12@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 11:13 PM To: *City Council Subject: Allow townhome-style multi -family provisionally in the RS -12 zone A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed zoning code amendment in Iowa City that aims to increase housing diversity. As a current resident of Iowa City, I believe this change will have a positive impact on our community. The proposed amendment "Allow townhome-style multi -family provisionally in the RS -12 zone" seeks to make it easier to build different types of housing throughout our city. This could mean more options for housing, potentially making it more affordable for a wider range of residents. It also aims to ensure that these new housing options fit into our neighborhoods without drastically changing their character. I've reviewed the proposal, and it seems like a step in the right direction. It could mean more choices for where people can live, which is important for our city's growth and inclusivity. While it may not solve all our housing challenges, it's a positive move toward creating a more diverse and equitable Iowa City. Thank you for considering the benefits this amendment can bring to our community. Sincerely, Elijah Moore 1110 N Dubuque St, Iowa City 763-464-7700 Kellie Grace From: Padron Reyes, Lino J < lino-padrn@uiowa.edu > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 11:53 PM To: *City Council; Martin, Sabine F Subject: A Citizen's Opinion on the Proposed Amendments to the Iowa City Zoning Code R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To the Daily Iowan and the Iowa City Council, My name is Lino Padron, and I am a current Iowa City resident. As part of an assignment for my Microeconomics course, I was encouraged to analyze and voice my opinion on the proposed amendments to the Iowa City Council Zoning Code, as they are to affect me either directly or indirectly. Focusing on the fourth proposed amendment, I find this to be a small action, yet an effective way to decrease housing prices without having to reinvent the wheel. In simple terms: college students have a lower budget than most adults, the main composers of the demand end in the general housing market. For this reason, they are willing to pay less for a residence than the rest of the individuals in the housing market. Knowing this, increasing the density bonuses (allowing more people to live in a single lot) and removing parking requirements will create a larger supply of low-income (student -rented) housing. This larger supply, in the end, causes a lower price in the entire market, including the non -low-income residences. We are sure college students will rent all housing units, not concerned if they are less furnished than usual, as they obtain more satisfaction for paying less than having better amenities. I am not an economic theorist, but it is my duty as a citizen to share any findings that may be relevant. Best regards, Lino Kellie !Grace From: Rebecca Porter <rebeccaporter.porter@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:16 AM To: *City Council Subject: Affordable housing in Iowa City A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Councilors, The purpose of this letter is to express my thoughts regarding the work being undertaken to develop affordable housing in Iowa City. I have no moral dispute regarding the City's work on this issue. My greatest concern lies with the efforts that implementation is done prudently. That is, you ought to require City Planning to regularly meet with each neighborhood association prior to and during demolition in the development of housing projects; and that there are actual impact measurements in each neighborhood as even minor changes take place. More concisely, slow down. The inevitable unanticipated consequences may be irreversible. Many affordable housing projects in other college towns like Iowa City have failed. You have a chance to make this a success. I truly hope that you will require City Planners to publish a timeline to measure actual impacts on the pre -planned goals that City Planning has proposed. What are the measurable endpoints you will consider? What time frame will you require? The risks of not moving forward with clear intention to measure the impact (outcomes) at regular time periods related to these proposed sweeping changes to Iowa City risk destroying -- not enhancing -- our neighborhoods. My experience of living in an "affordable housing' community in a large East Coast metropolitan community was, to say the least, horrible. It was all rental apartments and homes. The neighborhood consisted of some people who worked, some Section 8 housing, and others who did not work for unclear reasons. The lifestyle of many neighbors was completely inconsistent with ours. We scrimped and saved money to put a down payment on a home in a working class neighborhood which was safely away from "affordable housing." Even then, we were struggling to make ends meet. We moved to Iowa City for work; and again saved as much as we could to buy a home. Our current home represents our greatest financial investment -- and I am guessing that investment represents most homeowners, including each of you. As we near retirement, the notion of losing or compromising the value of this investment is paralyzing. We live in a free market society. I cannot imagine that developers -- whose goal is to make money -- will not capitalize on these opportunities that Iowa City is providing. While there may be short-term incentives to build "affordable" housing, I cannot imagine that others will not be waiting to purchase those units, complete upgrades, and then flip the units for a substantive profit (as selling or capitalizing on the short-term rental market, such as AirBnB). I recognize that we, as a society, have a moral obligation to help others -- especially related to housing, food, and actively intervening in the climate crisis. As City leaders, I urge you to consider the moral value of prudence in the haste with which you enact "affordable housing" in Iowa City -- the changes must be for the better and must be measurable at regular intervals. Sincerely, Rebecca Porter 425 Hutchinson Avenue Iowa City �r wir®N% City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY October 2, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and 4:00pm on Monday. Late Handout(s): 8. Planning & Zoning Matters Item 8.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See correspondence from David Goodner & Daniana Trigoso-Kukulski, Co -Directors, Escucha Mi Voz Iowa; Clinton Dimambu & Ninoska Campos, Escucha Mi Voz members and Iowa City residents; Dr. Emily Sinnwell, Trustee, Iowa City Catholic Worker. October 2, 2023 City of Iowa City =;qB q, Late Handouts Distributed Kellie Grace From: Escucha Mi Voz Iowa <info@escuchamivozia.org> 10 — a Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:02 PM (Date) To: Geoff Fruin; Kirk Lehmann; *City Council; Anne Russett Cc: Daniana Trigoso; Iowa City Catholic Worker; CLINTON DIMAMBLI; sala3jcp@gmail.com Subject: Letter In Support of Zoning Code Changes Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; 10.2.23.LetrtoCityZoningChanges.pdf R SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. October 2, 2023 CASA DEL ESCUCHA MI VOZ IOWA Fighting for Worker justice CATHOLIC WORKER and Immigration Reform IOWA Cry OBRERO CATOLICO Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Iowa City City Council Attn: Geoff Fruin, Kirk Lehmann Iowa City City Hall 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Subject • Support for Proposed Affordable Housing Code Amendments to Expand Permanent Supportive Housing, Accessory Dwelling Units, Two -Family, and Multifamily Construction City Manager Geoff Fruin, Associate Planner Kirk Lehmann, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Iowa City City Councilors: We write in support of the proposed amendments to simplify the housing code, expand the use of permanent supportive housing services, and encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Although we support the proposed zoning code changes as written, including the provisions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), the concerns many in our community have are valid about the negative impact the changes will have on Iowa City's remaining historic homes. Without more public investment in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, real estate developers and landlords stand to benefit the most. Iowa City's remaining historic homes will continue to be demolished and replaced over time by rows of cookie - cutter townhouses and luxury skyscrapers. To best address community concerns, we recommend the city of Iowa City pass the housing code changes as written AND invest an additional $10 million in innovative, deeply affordable housing and permanent supportive housing projects. Background Escucha Mi Voz Iowa and the Iowa City Catholic Worker are member -led, housing and health services organizations. Together, we address the structural determinants of health through permanent supportive housing, community organizing, transformative education, and innovative public policy. Our joint mission is to win whole worker health equity by building the power of immigrant and refugee workers, leaders, volunteers, and advocates to achieve dignity and justice in society. In 2023, our housing and relief programs combined for over $7 million in impact. The five signers of this letter attended three public information and input sessions and interviewed dozens of directly impacted immigrant and refugee members of our organizations about the proposal. As part of our discernment process, we also read the original source of these proposed changes, the Biden- Harris Administration's 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan. The Administration's plan recommended local governments adopt zoning changes because restrictive and costly land use rules are a structural barrier to the construction of new, green, and affordable housing. "Local land use laws and zoning regulations limit where, and how densely, housing can be built. This constrains housing supply, perpetuates historical patterns of segregation, prevents workers from accessing jobs, and increases energy costs and climate risk," the 2022 White House action plan stated. The White House's action plan also tied the zoning changes cities like Iowa City are adopting to new eligibility requirements for federal transportation funding. Cities who do not pass the land use changes the White House wants risk their future competitiveness for future grants. The Administration's action plan also recommended pairing zoning deregulation with additional public investments in affordable housing through the American Rescue Plan Act and other government agency programs such as HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing. The $85 million Pro Housing includes among its eligible uses funding for cities to adopt zoning changes. `Every home should have a Christ room in it, so that hospitality may be practiced.' The Catholic Worker Movement has promoted the "Housing First" model since movement co-founder Dorothy Day opened her first house of hospitality in New York City in 1933, during the height of the Great Depression. One of her inspirations came from St. John Chrysostom, who wrote, "Therefore, set aside a room in your house, to which Christ may come; say, "This is Christ's room; this is set apart for him. " Even if it is very simple, he will not disdain it. Christ goes about "naked and a stranger "; he needs shelter: do not hesitate to give it to him. " Single families who want to create a "Christ Room" of affordable housing in their home could potentially construct a new ADU to do so. If 4,000 homeowners built an affordable housing "Christ Room" ADU, the city's housing supply would actually begin to meet demand. However, zoning policy changes alone will not make the construction of new ADU's affordable for most young working families. First-time homeowners are already saddled with student loan and mortgage debt and struggle with the rising costs of pandemic -related inflation to bread-and-butter, kitchen table products like food, gas, water, and electricity. Even assuming a relatively cheap construction cost of $100,000 for a 1,000 sq -ft ADU, construction to the scale of 4,000 new units would cost $400 million, excess wealth young working families and first-time homeowners simply do not have. The real cost could be double. The free market and private sector cannot marshall these kinds of resources alone. More public investment in affordable housing is also necessary if the ambitious goals of the proposed zoning changes are to be met. Affordable Permanent Supportive Housing, Two -Family Homes, and the Migrant Housing Crisis The lack of affordable housing nMatively impacts immigrant and refugee workers, their families, and all of society. Record high border crossings are the new normal, and big cities like Chicago are overwhelmed with an influx of refugees arriving by bus everyday from Texas and Florida. Recently arrived refugees from war zones like Colombia, Honduras, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have up to one year to apply for asylum and then have to wait six more months for their work authorizations to arrive. Both cost hundreds of dollars in fees to file. Many families report having to wait almost two years before they can first work legally. In the meantime, where will they live? How will they survive? The national migrant housing crisis is not just confined to big cities. It is here in Eastern Iowa. In Cedar Rapids, refugee resettlement agencies are filling entire hotels with recently arrived families. In Iowa City, long-standing permanent supportive housing groups like Escucha Mi Voz and the Catholic Worker House - who devote 100 percent of their units to free low-income housing - are filled to capacity even as more properties are purchased to meet the growing need. Many newly arrived refugee families report they are sleeping in their cars, or are forced to live in overcrowded, unsanitary, and substandard housing, all while paying exorbitant amounts in rent. The city's proposed changes will permit the new construction of two-family and multifamily dwellings for permanent supportive housing and the accessory use of space for related services. We wholeheartedly support these changes. But frontline community organizations with the demonstrated capacity to scale up their own housing supply need more public investment in order to take advantage of the proposed zoning changes as much as developers and landlords. Financial Analysis: Iowa City Has Up to $10 Million of APRA for Affordable Housing, May Have Already Applied for $85 Million PRO Housing Fund Iowa City has committed $6 million of its ARPA allotment to the development of undefined future affordable housing projects. The city also has more than $4 million of APRA still uncommitted towards any project. The Biden-Harris Administration's 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan tying transportation funding to housing code deregulation also called for increased public funding in affordable housing through HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing. PRO Housing is a new, $$5 million program to assist cities in making the housing code changes. Conclusion The city of Iowa City was not completely transparent with the public about the White House's role influencing the code changes with the carrot of PRO Home funding and the stick of decreased competitiveness for transportation grants. Despite this, the proposed housing code changes are welcome and necessary to expand housing supply in Iowa City. But free market changes to the housing code will not be enough on their own to reach the scale we need to solve the housing crisis. More public investment in deeply affordable housing and dynamic, base -building housing organizations is also needed. Recommendations We recommend the city of Iowa City: 1. Pass the housing code changes as written, including the sections expanding the use of Accessory Dwelling Units. 2. Invest an additional $10 million of American Rescue Plan funding in deeply affordable housing projects and permanent supportive housing organizations that can guarantee 100 percent of their units are affordable for Income -eligible Households. 3. Work with permanent supportive housing organizations who have the demonstrated capacity and community support to reach scale to jointly identify and fully fund deeply affordable housing construction projects. Thank you for your commitment to affordable housing and permanent supportive housing. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other community stakeholders on this issue. Sincerely, David Goodner and Daniana Trigoso-Kukulski Co -Directors, Escucha Mi Voz Iowa Clinton Dimambu and Ninoska Campos Escucha Mi Voz members and Iowa City residents Dr. Emily Sinnwell Trustee, Iowa City Catholic Worker October 2, 2023 ESCUCHA MI VOZ IOWA Fighting for Worker justice and Immigration Reform Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Iowa City City Council Attn: Geoff Frain, Kirk Lehmann Iowa City City Hall 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 CASA DEL CATHOLIC WORKER IOWA CII OBRERO CATOLICO Subject: Support for Proposed Affordable Housing Code Amendments to Expand Permanent Supportive Housing, Accessory Dwelling Units, Twos-Farni4,, and Multifirmily Construction City Manager Geoff From, Associate Planner Kirk Lehmann, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Iowa City City Councilors: We write in support of the proposed amendments to simplify the housing code, expand the use of permanent supportive housing services, and encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Although we support the proposed zoning code changes as written, including the provisions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), the concerns many in our community have are valid about the negative impact the changes will have on Iowa City's remaining historic homes. Without more public investment in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, real estate developers and landlords stand to benefit the most. Iowa City's remaining historic homes will continue to be demolished and replaced over time by rows of cookie -cutter townhouses and luxury skyscrapers. To best address community concerns, we recommend the city of Iowa City pass the housing code changes as written AND invest an additional S 10 million in innovative, deeply affordable housing and permanent supportive housing projects. Background Escucha Mi Voz Iowa and the Iowa City Catholic Worker are member -led, housing and health services organizations. Together, we address the structural determinants of health through permanent supportive housing, community organizing, transformative education, and innovative public policy. Our joint mission is to win whole worker health equity by building the power of immigrant and refugee workers, leaders, volunteers, and advocates to achieve dignity andjustice in society. In 2023, our housing and relief programs combined for over $7 million in impact. The five signers of this letter attended three public information and input sessions and interviewed dozens of directly impacted immigrant and refugee members of our organizations about the proposal. As part of our discernment process, we also read the original source of these proposed changes, the Biden-Harris Administration's 2022 H using Sup�tly Action Plan. The Administration's plan recommended local governments adopt zoning changes because restrictive and costly land use rules are a structural barrier to the construction of new, green, and affordable housing. "Local land use laws and zoning regulations limit where, and how densely, housing can be built. This constrains housing supply, perpetuates historical patterns of segregation, prevents workers from accessing jobs, and increases energy costs and climate risk," the 2022 White House action plan stated. The White House's action plan also tied the zoning changes cities like Iowa City are adopting to new eligibility requirements for federal transportation funding. Cities who do not pass the land use changes the White House wants risk their future competitiveness for future grants. The Administration's action plan also recommended pairing zoning deregulation with additional public investments in affordable housing through the American Rescue Plan Act and other government agency programs such as HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing. The $85 million Pro Housing includes among its eligible uses funding for cities to adopt zoning changes. `Every home should have a Christ room in it, so that hospitality may be practiced.' The Catholic Worker Movement has promoted the "Housing First" model since movement co-founder Dorothy Day opened her first house of hospitality in New York City in 1933, during the height of the Great Depression. One of her inspirations came from St. John Chrysostom, who wrote, "Therefore, set aside a room in your house, to which Christ may come; sav, "This is Christ's room; this is set apart for him. " Even if it is very simple, he rvill not disdain it. Christ goes about "naked and a stranger"; he needs shelter; do not hesitate to give it to him. " Single families who want to create a "Christ Room" of affordable housing in their home could potentially construct a new ADU to do so. If 4,000 homeowners built an affordable housing "Christ Room" ADU, the city's housing supply would actually begin to meet demand. However, zoning policy changes alone will not make the construction of new ADU's affordable for most young working families. First-time homeowners are already saddled with student loan and mortgage debt and struggle with the rising costs of pandemic -related inflation to bread-and-butter, kitchen table products like food, gas, water, and electricity. Even assuming a relatively cheap construction cost of $100,000 for a 1,000 sq -ft ADU, construction to the scale of 4,000 new units would cost $400 million, excess wealth young working families and first-time homeowners simply do not have. The real cost could be double. The free market and private sector cannot marshall these kinds of resources alone. More public investment in affordable housing is also necessary if the ambitious goals of the proposed zoning changes are to be met. Affordable Permanent Supportive Housing, Two -Family Homes, and the Migrant Housing Crisis The lack of affordable housing negatively impacts immigrant and refiigee workers, their families, and all of society. Record high border crossings are the new normal, and big cities like Chicago are overwhelmed with an influx of refugees arriving by bus everyday from Texas and Florida. Recently arrived refugees from war zones like Colombia, Honduras, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have up to one year to apply for asylum and then have to wait six more months for their work authorizations to arrive. Both cost hundreds of dollars in fees to file. Many families report having to wait almost two years before they can first work legally. In the meantime, where will they live? How will they survive? The national migrant housing crisis is not just confined to big cities. It is here in Eastern Iowa. In Cedar Rapids, refugee resettlement agencies are filling entire hotels with recently arrived families. In Iowa City, long-standing permanent supportive housing groups like Escucha Mi Voz and the Catholic Worker House - who devote 100 percent of their units to free low-income housing - are filled to capacity even as more properties are purchased to meet the growing need. Many newly arrived refugee families report they are sleeping in their cars, or are forced to live in overcrowded, unsanitary, and substandard housing, all while paying exorbitant amounts in rent. The city's proposed changes will permit the now construction of two-family and multifamily dwellings for permanent supportive housing and the accessory use of space for related services. We wholeheartedly support these changes. But frontline community organizations with the demonstrated capacity to scale up their own housing supply need more public investment in order to take advantage of the proposed zoning changes as much as developers and landlords. Financial Analysis: Iowa City Has Up to $10 Million of APRA for Affordable Housing, May Have Already Applied for $85 Million PRO Housing Fund Iowa City has committed S6 million of its ARPA allotment to the development of undefined future affordable housing projects. The city also has more than $4 million of APRA still uncommitted towards any project. The Biden-Harris Administration's 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan tying transportation funding to housing code deregulation also called for increased public funding in affordable housing through HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing, PRO Housing is a new. S85 million program to assist cities in making the housing code changes. Conclusion The city of Iowa City was not completely transparent with the public about the White House's role influencing the code changes with the carrot of PRO Home hording and the stick of decreased competitiveness for transportation grants. Despite this, the proposed housing code changes are welcome and necessary to expand housing supply in Iowa City. But free market changes to the housing code will not be enough on their own to reach the scale we need to solve the housing crisis. More public investment in deeply affordable housing and dynamic, base -building housing organizations is also needed. Recommendations We recommend the city of Iowa City: 1) Pass the housing code changes as written, including the sections expanding the use of Accessory Dwelling Units. 2) Invest an additional SIO million of American Rescue Plan funding in deeply affordable housing projects and permanent supportive housing organizations that can guarantee 100 percent of their units are affordable for Income -eligible Households. 3) Work with permanent supportive housing organizations who have the demonstrated capacity and community support to reach scale tojointly identify and fully fund deeply affordable housing construction projects. Thank you for your commitment to affordable housing and permanent supportive housing. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other community stakeholders on this issue. Sincerely, David Goodner and Daniana Trigoso-Kukulski Co -Directors, Escucha Mi Voz Iowa Clinton Dimambu and Ninoska Campos Escucha Mi Voz members and Iowa City residents Dr. Emily Sinnwell Trustee, Iowa City Catholic Worker �r wir®N% City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY October 3, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Monday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Handout(s): 8. Planning & Zoning Matters Item 8.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See email from the City Attorney regarding the attached memo from Associate Planner Lehmann, and correspondence from Karen Kubby. October 3, 2023 City of Iowa City Kellie Grace From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Councilors, ::�a0 Eric Goers Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:15 PM Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; Shawn Harmsen; Laura Bergus; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Andrew Dunn Kellie Grace Late Handouts Distributed Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability item (8.a.) 2023-10-03 Late Council Memo Final.docx i 0-3-23 (Date) One Council member contacted planning staff with questions regarding one of tonight's zoning matters —the Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability item (8.a.) So as to ensure all Council members benefit from planning staff's answers, I asked them to provide me with a memo which I could in turn share with you. It is not confidential, so you are free to share the contents. Planning staff also plans to attend the meeting tonight and will be available to answer Council questions should that be desired. See you shortly. Eric R. Goers (he/him/his)* City Attorney 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5030 esoersC&iowa-cftv.or SIA ♦ �vegil CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY ©F LI7 ERATURE *1 include my pronouns in my email signature so people know how they should refer to me and so those who receive my email know I am interested in how I should refer to them. ` FARE FREE Iowa City Transit is now FARE FREE! �--- IOWA C I T Y Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the internet, the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to the City Attorney's Office that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with the City Attorney's Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorney's Office will assume you assent to such communication. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. It should not be forwarded to anyone else without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you. I r R CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2023 To: Eric Goers, City Attorney From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Change to the Zoning Code Amendments — Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability (Agenda Item 8.a) Introduction Staff received a call yesterday from a member of Council about the zoning code amendments related to housing choice, supply, and affordability. Specifically, the call discussed the proposed amendment which would allow duplexes in RS -5 and RS -8 zones to be located anywhere on a block instead of restricting them to corner lots. The Council member noted a possible change may be proposed whereby duplexes would be allowed on non -corner lots in RS -5 and RS -8 zones only if one of those units is affordable. The Council member asked for a written answer about what kinds of effects such a change may have. Background Nationally, most programs that require affordable housing mandate that 10% to 20% of units be affordable. Providing a small number of affordable units compared to the overall number of market rate units helps allow rents or sale prices for market rate units to somewhat cross - subsidize the affordable units, though additional government subsidy is still often required. At the same time, most affordable housing requirements also place a minimum threshold number of units that must be in a development before affordable units are mandated. For example, 10 units must be part of a development in the Riverfront Crossings District before the affordable housing requirement is triggered. This is because it is difficult to make small projects with affordable units work financially. The possible change to the affordable housing amendment would be akin to creating another voluntary program. With voluntary programs, an incentive must be provided that is high enough to entice builders to opt into the program to produce affordable units. Analysis In the case of the possible change, allowing duplexes in mid -block locations in the RS -5 and RS -8 zones would be considered the incentive. In return, one unit in a two -unit project (50% of dwelling units in a duplex) would need to be provided as affordable housing. Staff believes the possible change would likely cause the provision to go unused. This is because one additional unit in exchange for a 50% affordability requirement for mid -block duplexes in lower density single-family zones would likely not support the cost of building the duplex. This is true City-wide but would be especially true in the University Impact Area (UTA) where each unit is capped at 4 bedrooms (note that duplexes outside of the UTA could have 5 bedrooms under the proposed amendments). While there is a small chance an affordable housing provider that receives additional funding may utilize the provision, staff anticipates it would be infrequent due to capacity limitations for affordable housing providers. In addition, it may be challenging to justify such a change from a policy perspective. Two units, a single-family unit and accessory dwelling unit, are already allowed in mid -block locations on October 3, 2023 Page 2 lots in RS -5 and RS -8 zones. On corner lots, the City already allows duplexes as well. It seems inconsistent to specifically require that 50% of units in duplexes in certain zones in mid -block locations must be affordable but that it is not be required in these other contexts (or other zones allowing duplexes). Conclusion The practical result of the possible change would be to not expand the areas of the City in which duplexes are allowed because the requirement would prevent the construction of most new duplexes. As such, the proposed amendment would do little to encourage housing diversity and increase the supply of housing. To reiterate: The affordability requirement (50%) for duplexes in mid -block locations in RS -5 and RS - 8 zones is high enough to act as a barrier to the construction of this housing type. The incentive offered (one additional unit) is not enough to actually encourage the construction of affordable housing. Justifying the proposal would be difficult as two units are allowed in mid -block locations already in RS -5 and RS -8 zones, and duplexes are allowed in midblock locations in other single-family zones as well (i.e. RS -12 and RNS-12). -48,0� Kellie Grace From: Karen Kubby <karen@beadologyiowa.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8:34 AM Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Subject: request articulation (Date) A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** City Council, You have the second reading of the zoning changes in item 8a this evening. There has been a bit of confusion in the community about one aspect of this ordinance. I wondered if someone could clarify in your remarks tonight or if staff could. Some think that the ability to have a duplex or townhomes on a lot is embedded as a right in the zoning code, others think that right is only afforded if affordable housing is provided. Could someone clarify before your second vote? Many thanks for considering this request. Karen Kubby 1425 Ridge Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Item: g.a HANDOUT DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL IN MEETING: By: Marybeth Slonneger, Iowa City Resident � r � CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Vt 7JJ7 t?1 At the end of July, I was informed that a 40 -some page packet of proposed changes to zoning was under- way. I was leaving on a 3 -week vacation so didnt have time to read through this quite dense document but a number of items stood out that raised concern. When I got back, I took time to speak with some neighborbors on both sides of Davenport St. None of them were aware of the document or of the proposed changes, some probably still aren't. It concerns me that this will impact homeowners in a big way and they haverft received a notification letter from the city. The other concern is that it is happening very fast. Per- sonally, I think the process should be slowed down to be absorbed by those who will be impacted. Secondly, because I recall no letter from the city, I felt I had to find out on my own who owned properties, who rented properties and who held them in some company's name. I came up with the following num- bers for Goosetown including Dodge to Reno, Bloomington to Ronalds. By my count, there are 269 homes owned by 52 LC, LLC, management companies, trusts, and 2 Housing Fellowships for a total of about 30% of GT already being rented and that doesn't count unknown rentals by individual owners. That means that about every third house is a rental, creating great turnover, not knowing neighbors, lack of stability and a fear that some developer is coming in to replace the house next door with a possible 2 -unit & a 3rd be- hind ... please try to imagine this happening in your own neighborhood. One neighbor told me that she had meant to build a lovely matching garage to her home, but found out a developer had bought next door and was reluctant to invest now, not knowing what he would build. Her concern is correct, in the last year, 4 nearby houses have been demolished. A small, historic cottage at 935 Bloomington was one of those, its rebuild sold recently for $536,220. Is this what is meant by afford- able housing? Please consider the profits for developers that this is creating. GT is at their mercy and we have been forewarned. At a P & Z meeting last Oct 19th—I quote a developer who spoke—he said "In the next 2 years, GT will change & it will change quickly." He said he has 7 projects underway around our cottage (given Landmark status in October) and 2 properties that are slated to be demolished. I remind you, about 30% of GT is not owned by homeowners. We are in the process of erasing this neighborhood, similar to what happened during Urban Renewal. The city has expressed interest in providing low-income housing. It's already here, if we don't let it slip away to the $500,000+ bracket. GT has renters everywhere including many, many students who daily walk by my house or live across the street. Those who own their homes like living in GT. I've been told by 2 realtors that it is a very popular destination for young families just getting started. It is a neighborhood of creative people, of a distinct culture, and an historic past. It was a neighborhood of immigrants, and, if you look at the names of home owners today, it still is. The answer is here, please dont let it slip away to those whose interest is in huge profits. More than every 3rd house is now a rental, how many more are we going to be asked to carry? Marybeth Slonneger Pa ,af Nu.Il : 1010191001 - - - aA¢d Matsu: VANGORKOM, DAINEN D_d f W., 2i ROSE RTS' MICHAEL P,ePa,ty Add— 935 E BLODMMGTON ST IOWA CITY IW TM4 PDDNE55 Ppp Hama:RESIDENTIAL CJ_a RESIDENTIAL MAP AAAA: 204W S Lok -0f w. OL 6 - Legal Legal r-wipUon: IOWA QTV (ORIGINAL TOWN) E 40' OF N 1501 OU rLOT 6 Oatina Signatuu:: f10MGSIEAO TAX U(gjL"�U)SUBMISSION MI II'ARY RVI'x TAX 'KPMP{'tON APf+I LL l()N ij l SUBMISSION P" 1010191001 Photo Prcpe" Report P.!SQP.ER?Y G�j[j_ fj�. 1;4 i;;I LED OCT 03 2023 P_J M -t— 1010183016 iWm4 Holder: LARSON, MICHELLE A City Clerk f peaty Add— 934 E DAVENPORT Sr IOWA QTY PTfi -�,�� ;owa City, Iowa POP Name: RESIDENTIAL Clan: RESIDENTIAL Map Area: 204 RES S_TwP-RP9r -- Lot-Bwek:OL8- L,Wai D—ripUose IOWA (71V (ORIGINAL SOWN) E 50' OF S 1S0' OUTLOT 8 Oelme S1gn..— LA1454-028) SUBMISSION EYFMFTION AiOLCAII(NJ 154146 SUBMISSION P"'. "Y Re"'! !'RV '+ERTY (IEMNi'I' (PLtF PRE), Currentvaw as a ivn , ryQY, 2023 -Tax S0 PeYaa ltrdmUer 2024;q�Yd"k�arch 205 ...... .. , -... ...., ..„F -. ° ' END OF HANDOUT it T CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX WWW.i cgov.o rg Item Number: 8.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 3, 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) (Second Consideration) Attachments: REZ23-0006 - Staff Report w-Attachments.pdf Late Correspondence-Combined.pdf PZ 8.16.23 minutes.pdf Ordinance STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ23-0006 715 N Dodge St. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant & Co-Applicant/Owner: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern Date: August 16, 2023 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(cDuiowa.edu City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)-356-5230 Rezone this property to become an Iowa City Historic Landmark To designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark 715 N Dodge Street 3,982 Square Feet Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) North: Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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) Single -Family & Duplex Residential Central C1 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. July 28, 2023 September 11, 2023 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 14-26- 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 tc the City Council. Per 14-8E-1 E 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 rd 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: Location Map 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 ®® 1 2 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 fagade 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 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 fagade (NE corner) 715 North Dodge Street — front fagade (SE corner) Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Neighborhood and Development Services Iowa City July 27, 2023 Dear Ms. Bristow, As the owners of the house at 715 North Dodge Street, we are writing to request that the city consider designating our house as a local landmark in light of its history as the first location of the Emma Goldman Clinic. Please let us know if you need any further information. Sincerely, Q 9�;Jennifer Glanville and Benton McCune 715 North Dodge St Iowa City, IA 52245 Site Inventory Form Inventory #: 52-01404 State Historical Society of Iowa Criteria Considerations 102712005 Printed from Database Opinion Source - Year A B C D A B C D E F G Roof: Asphalt Contributing in District Consultant -1981 Listed on NRHP NPS -2004 Y N Y N N N N N N N N Contributing in District SNRC-2004 Y N Y N N N N N N N N 8. Statement of Significance In District: 52 -00002 Goosetown Historic District 52 -00007 Brown Street Historic District Criteria Considerations Review & Compliance #: 1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 9/2912004 Non -Extant: No Non -Extant Year: historic name: House N other names: Y C: Architectural Characteristics 2. Location C: Birthplace or Grave N G: Less than 50 Years of Age street & number. 715 N Dodge St City: Iowa Ci tv Vicinity: No County: Johnson Legal Description: (If Rural) (If Urban) Subdivision: Block: 32 Lot:8 S. Classification Category of Property: Number of Resources within Property Buildina(s) Contributing: Non -Contributing: 1 0 Buildings 0 0 Sites 0 0 Structures 0 0 Objects Name of related survey or MPS 1 0 Total HADB: 52 - 012 Jacobson, 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 Evaluation of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City, Iowa: An Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Amendment to the Multiple Property Documentation Form "Historic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa" 8. Function or Use Historic Functions DOMESTIC/single dwelling Current Functions DOMESTIC/sinale dwellina 7. Description Architectural Classification Late 19th & Early 20th Century American Movements: Bungalow/Craftsman Materials Foundation: Walls: Metal I Aluminum Roof: Asphalt Other: Asphalt 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria Criteria Considerations Y A: Significant Events N A: Religious Institution N E: Reconstructed N B: Significant Persons N B: Moved N F: Commemorative Property Y C: Architectural Characteristics N C: Birthplace or Grave N G: Less than 50 Years of Age N D: Archaeology N D: Cemetery (Y=Yes N=No M=More Research Recommended) Area of Significance Architecture Community Planning and Development Significant Person: Architect: Significant Dates C etrucb. Year: 1920 [ J c'"a Other Dates: Builder 10 Geographic Data UTM References: Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot Year: Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot Year: P 1540 14 1981 IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM CFN 259-1357 11/26/90 40kAati= and Functional Information 1 2 3 4 6 Historic Name(s) Common Name(s) _ Street Address _ City Subdivision Survey ID Number 52-96-032 Database ID Number R & C Number �inity L 1 t). County jonnson (s) 32 8. Lot(S) _8 9. Legal Description: (if rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter of Description Ssda 10. Historic Function(s) single family dwelling 01A 11. Current Function(s) Multi -family dwelling 01B 12. Owner North Side Develonment Phone N Address 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) NJ 1111 11111 ?I IN1111"R110-1,"I'M 11111 OMEN.11: Mill. ;.'_'1= • 00 11111 :111 11111 11 ISM JmII'u 111111•:111=� 11111• 1111 _1111= !1111= 11111 1111 _ _ .1 I 1111 I I 11111: �III�� .1 ' 1 N f�oho/ds I�- Source: I.C. Planning & Community Development -1997 INTEGRITY NOTES: Roll/Frame 6/0 Photographer: M. Neubauer View: facinq northwest Good integrity. Location of Negatives: _State Historical Society of Iowa EVALUATION SHEET Address: 715 N. Dodge St., Iowa City, IA Architectural Significance and Associated Context(s): oris. Town Plat Survey - Pharma i Applicable National Register Criteria: [Xj A [`[] B [x] C [ ] D National Register Eligibility: Individual: Yes _.2L_ No District: _ CContributing Non -Contributing Reviewed by / Date: Jan Nash / 3/14/97 This vernacular house is heavily influenced by the Craftsman style. The boxy, gable -front shape with its prominent front porch is a house form often given Craftsman details during this time period. Many ready -cut houses available through catalogs such as Davenport's Gordon -Van Tine Co., or Sears Roebuck, offered houses very similar to this one. Craftsman details include the use of many vertical -light windows, exposed rafter ends and purlins, and the combination wood - shingle -over -narrow siding wall cladding. Continuation Sheet [ ] ,, Historical Significance and Associated Context(s): Applicable National Register Criteria: [ j A [ ] B ( ] C [ ) D National Register Eligibility: Individual: _ Yes _ No District: Contributing Non -Contributing Reviewed by / Date: Jan Nash / 3/14/97 The entire block on which this house sits was originally deeded to John Neinner in 1846. Neinner also purchased other discontiguous lots in the north side area in 1846, but this block was his largest single holding as well as being farthest from the new state capitals 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 Address _ Affiliation Continuation Sheet [ ) '1 Date Jan, 1997 Telephone 319/354-6277 Property Characteristic Form - RESIDENTIAL Abb N 259-1402 Survey ID Number 52-96-032 11/27/90 Database ID Number Street Address: 715 N Dodae City Iowa City County Johnson Legal Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter of Location integrity: Original Site (0S) Moved (MV) Moved to Original Site (MO) Oyler Endangered?: N or Y if yes, why? Ground Plan: a. Building Shape(s) _Irregular b. Width 27 by Depth 50 in feet Architectural Style/Stylistic Influences vernacular /Craftsma_n influence Materials: Founda Walls Roof Rey Stylistic Attributes Number of Stories VA Roof Shape Gable Builder(s) Unknown Architect(s) Unknown Original Construction Date Modification/Addition Date: Code 07E Continuation Sheet ( ] Significant interior Components: Unknown, Continuation Sheet [ ] Surveyor Comments: Well maintained house. Continuation Sheet [ ] Sources: Field inspection 8/27/96. City Assessor records. 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. s~ Needs Further Study/Anomaly [ ] Continuation Sheet [ ] Surveyor Marie Neubauer Date Auaust 27. 1996 715 N Dodge Street - Original Emma Goldman Clinic The Emma Goldman Clinic was founded by a group of ten local, college-age, feminist women who decided in the wake of the January 1973 Landmark US Supreme Court Case Roe vs. Wade to provide health care services differently to women. These Founders created a clinic focused on feminist health care - health care for and by women, delivering health care as a woman would have to receive it. It was a pioneering and radical approach to health care at the time.' The Emma Goldman Clinic opened at 715 N. Dodge on September 1, 1973, less than eight months after the Supreme Court decision. It was the first feminist health care clinic in the Midwest and just the fourth in the country - the other three were in California.' The house itself was a symbol of health care done differently - a place that removed the power dynamic of traditional male -dominated health care .3 The Founders knew they needed a place to house the new approach to health care. So they pooled their resources to purchase the property and fund the start-up costs. Roxie Tullis, one of the founders, used the death benefit of her husband, who died in the Vietnam War. Others got small loans from family and friends. One of the parents paid the women to paint their house rather than a loan .4 The property at 715 N Dodge was selected out of necessity and opportunity. The Collective needed a property that was zoned commercial, close to campus, and affordable.5 The vernacular house, heavily influenced by the Craftsman style, was built around 1920.1 By 1973 was being used as a rental property with three furnished apartments - one on each floor and a third in the basement. And it was for sale. The owners also wanted to leave the furniture behind, so not having to furnish the clinic was a selling feature. The basement apartment continued to be rented and provided additional income for the clinic in the early days .7 Once the property was acquired, the Founders went to work to prepare for the clinic's opening. They were a collective, so each decision was made collaboratively. All were equal in the decision-making. One of the easier decisions was the namesake, Emma Goldman, a feminist pioneer in women's health care, among other things. FBI Director J Edgar Hoover called her the ' Iowa City Press Citizen; 26 Jan 2018; Kubby, Karen; "Emma Goldman Clinic has endured and blossomed through 45 years of changes." and "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; August 1995; Mediaburn.org; httos://med iaburn.org/video/from-one-place-to-another-em ma-goldman-clinic-stories/. z Iowa City Press -Citizen; 30 Aug 1973; Lentz, Rose Mary; "Clinic for Women To Offer Abortions;" Pages 1A and 2A. 3 The Des Moines Register; 23 Feb 1975; Hollobaugh, Dix; "Iowa City clinic's goal: improve women's health care;" Page C1. "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; 1996; Mediaburn.org; httos://mediaburn.ora/video/from-one-place-to-another-emma-aoldman-clinic-stories/. 5 "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; August 1995; Mediaburn.org; httos://mediaburn. ora/video/from-one-place-to-another-em ma-aoldma n -clinic -stories/. 8 Site inventory form for 715 N Dodge. 7 "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; August 1995; Mediaburn.org; httos://mediaburn. ora/video/from-one-place-to-another-em ma-aoldma n-cli nic-stories/. most dangerous woman in America. She spoke to the power dynamics the Founders were trying to change.8 By September 1, the clinic opened at 715 N Dodge St. Six women had appointments for the first day.' They built a comprehensive women's clinic, providing abortions, birth control consultation, gynecological care, self -exam clinics, breast screenings, alternative counseling, positive pregnancy groups, well-child clinics, and a 24-hour hotline.10 All patients had a patient advocate." The nature of the property, a home in a neighborhood, was part of the point - to provide an atmosphere that was welcoming, familiar, and removed the power dynamic of a traditional medical office. 12 The house also emphasized that their services were routine health care procedures. One of the founders, Deborah Nye, said in 1973, "We want the women to be in comfortable, cheerful surroundings. Because it's not a serious operation, it's a minor operation."13 Press account described the waiting room that could be anyone's living room, highlighting the art, books, thriving plants, throw pillows on chairs, and classical music playing in the background.14 The kitchen was converted to a laboratory but retained the cabinets and countertops. Upstairs, exams rooms looked like bedrooms they once were, with floral curtains and hardwood floors, and canvas director chairs.15 The Emma Goldman Clinic was home to protests and even an attempted firebombing in the early morning of June 13, 1978. Three Molotov cocktails made from gasoline -filled wine bottles were thrown at the clinic. One landed on the roof and did minor damage. One rolled off and caused minor fire damage in the yard. A third didn't explode.16 No one was charged. A month 8 "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; August 1995; Mediaburn.org; httr)s:Hmed iabu rn. ora/video/from-one-place-to-another-em ma-aoldman-clinic-stories/. 9 Iowa City Press -Citizen; 30 Aug 1973; Lentz, Rose Mary; "Clinic for Women To Offer Abortions;" Pages 1A and 2A. 10 The Des Moines Register; 23 Feb 1975; Hollobaugh, Dix; "Iowa City clinic's goal: improve women's health care;" Page C1. and The Cedar Rapids Gazette; 2 Sep 1973; Clark, Ford; "Clinic Run by and For Women Opens in Iowa City;" Pages 1 B and 4B. 11 "From One Place to Another: Emma Goldman Clinic Stories;" Produced by LeAnn Erickson; August 1995; Mediaburn.org; https7Hmed iaburn.ora/video/from-one-place-to-another-em ma-goldman-clinic-stories/. 12 The Sunday Dispatch (Moline, IL); 7 Mar 1982; Swanson, Beth; "Women's clinic just like home;" Page 31. 18 Sunday Times Democrat (Davenport-Bettendorf, Iowa); 2 Sep 1973; Donovan, Deborah; "'Homelike" Abortions;" Pages 1A and 2A. 14 Sioux City Journal; 25 Sep 1974; "Clinic Takes Humanistic Approach to Health Care;" Page Al2. and The Des Moines Register; 23 Feb 1975; Hollobaugh, Dix; "Iowa City clinic's goal: improve women's health care;" Page C1. "The Sunday Dispatch (Moline, IL); 7 Mar 1982 Swanson, Beth; "Women's clinic just like home;" Page 31. 16 The Daily Iowan; 14 Jun 1978; Boshart, Rob and Don Hrabal, "Goldman fire-bombing 'part of U.S. trend';" Page 1. later, the community held a rally supporting the Clinic." One of the many times the community rallied to support the Emma Goldman Clinic. As the Original Emma Goldman Clinic expanded, it acquired the home just south of 715 N Dodge St.18 By 1985 they purchased and moved to a former pediatricians clinic on N Dubuque Street." Originally called the Emma Goldman Clinic for Women, eventually the name changed to just the Emma Goldman Clinic to be more reflective of the comprehensive services it provides. Eventually, the house at 715 N Dodge was converted back to a single-family home. It looks much like it did in 1973, with some modest changes - commercial railings removed, the front porch opened, and the synesthetic siding removed. The original "Emma Goldman Clinic for Women" signage was moved from 715 N Dodge but is on display at the current Emma Goldman Clinic. The ten founders include Ginny Blair, Robin Christensen, Melissa Farley, Dianne Greene Lent, Darca Nicholson, Deb Nye, Patty Pressley, Carmen Salas, Roxie Tullis, and Barb Yates. 17 Iowa City Press -Citizen; 10 Jul 1978; Seifert, Curt; "Clinic supporters hold 'wonderful' rally in park." Page 9A. 18 The Sunday Dispatch (Moline, IL); 7 Mar 1982, Swanson, Beth; "Women's clinic just like home;" Page 31. Ig Iowa City Press Citizen; 26 Jan 20181 Kubby, Karen; "Emma Goldman Clinic has endured and blossomed through 45 years of changes." From: Dave Tinowald TO: Anne Russett Cc: Dave Tnawald Subject: Support for Local Historic Landmark designation of 715 N Dodge St Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 10:35:51 AM ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Ms. Russett: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments for consideration of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This email is to communicate to the commission my support for the designation of 715 North Dodge Street as a Local Historic Landmark. I am the owner and resident of 631 North Dodge Street, a key property of the Brown Street Historic District. Recording now the history of 715 North Dodge Street as the original site of the Emma Goldman Clinic for Women, while this history remains in living memory, is an important step. Too many details of this neighborhood's history have been lost due to the absence of such foresight. I look forward to hearing of the commission's positive consideration. Thank you! Dave Tingwald 631 N Dodge St Iowa City, IA 52245-2009 dave n tingwald.net From: lames Ponta To: Anne Russett Subject: REZ23-0004 Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 2:11:32 PM A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** I received your letter discussing the local landmark designation request for 715 N Dodge. A number of years ago, I served 9 years on the city's Historic Preservation Commission, during which time we considered several recommendation for landmark designation. With my previous knowledge and experience, and after reviewing public information regarding this particular request, I support local landmark designation for 715 N Dodge and urge Planning and Zoning to approve it. Thank you. Jim Ponto 618 Brown St 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 RE723-0006, 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 F -Ce Doc ID: 032176360003 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 10/06/2023 at 10:11: Fee Amt: $17.00 Pape 1 of 3 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder STATE OF IOWA )SS JOHNSON COUNTY 28 AM _I .:1112+JtpNat � City of I, Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 23-4912 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of October 2023 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this -5 day of October 2023. Kellie K. Grace City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 *FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern; 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ23-0006) Ordinance No. 23-4412 Ordinance rezoning property located at 715 N Dodge Street from Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHDIRS-8) to OHDIRS-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 (OHDIRS-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 (OHDtRS-8) zone: Iowa City Original Town, North 50 feet of Lot 8 in Block 32. Section Il, 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. 23-4912 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 3rd day of ortobar .2023. ako - Ma Approved by: / fAftest ity Clerk City Attorru6s Office (Liz Craig - 09/14/2023) It was moved by Taylor and seconded by . Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: X X NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration 09/19/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Alter Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published 10/12/2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Dunn, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting in which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Harmsen Item Number: 9.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 3, 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. (Second Consideration) 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 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(cDiowa-city.org. The public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 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. 23-4913 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. 23-4913 Page 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 MPL' $ 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. 23-4913 Paqe 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: JTPoewrdwelling unit, per month $7.50 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. _23-4913 D A 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 3rd day of October 20 23 May ) Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney' L 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 3rd day of October 20 23 May ) Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney' L 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: Item Number: 9.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 3, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 16, entitled "Public Works", Chapter 3, "City Utilities", Article C, "Potable Water Use and Service", Section 1, "Definitions", and Section 3, "Connection to Distribution Water Main". (First Consideration) Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Staff Recommendation: Commission Recommendations: Attachments: Ordinance Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Jon Durst, Water Superintendent Liz Craig, Assistant City Attorney Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager None Approval N/A Executive Summary: Water service lines are privately owned underground water pipes that connect homes or buildings to the City's drinking water distribution main. Some service lines are made of lead or galvanized iron that have been exposed to lead, which leads to lead deposits. The EPA has found that lead in drinking water is known to cause health problems. The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the City Code to promote the removal of lead and galvanized iron contaminated by lead from water service lines connected to the potable water system by prohibiting the repair of lead service lines and requiring full replacement of lead service lines when they develop a leak or other defect. Background /Analysis: Lead is naturally occurring metal and is known to be toxic. Lead and lead -containing materials exist in some Iowa City water service lines due to the materials used at the time of construction. Additionally, when water service lines are made of galvanized iron, the line may become contaminated by lead that is upstream in the water distribution system. Iowa City's current ordinances require property owners to maintain their water service lines at their own expense from the water meter on private property to the point of connection to the City's drinking water distribution main. This includes repairing leaks or defects in the service line. A partial repair of a lead service line causes a disturbance in the line that has been shown to increase lead levels in drinking water. The drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan highlighted the importance of lead abatement at the local level. In 2021 the EPA passed revisions to federal drinking water regulations that require drinking water systems to implement methods for lead service line removal and educating residents on the sources of lead in drinking water. In the interest of public health and to adhere to the EPA's new drinking water regulations, this proposed ordinance amendment will prohibit the repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of a lead service line to a distribution water main. Any lead service line that develops a leak or other defect must be fully replaced with lead-free materials in lieu of repair. The owner is required to report the replacement prior to commencing work, and the cost of the replacement is the responsibility of the property owner. The effective date of this ordinance amendment is January 1, 2024. Staff is cognizant of the expense that property owners bear when replacing a lead service line, whether that replacement is voluntary or involuntary. Some homeowners' insurance policies cover this cost in certain situations. As part of the City's efforts to reduce the financial impact on property owners, staff will be presenting Council with a related agenda item at this meeting asking Council to consider authorizing an agreement with Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. for the marketing of service line protection plans. These plans offer property owners the opportunity to purchase optional service line repair plans from a third -party service provider. An exterior water service line plan covers the cost of the replacement of a leaking or defective lead service line up to $8500 per service call. Additionally, at the third reading of this proposed ordinance amendment, staff will ask Council to consider a resolution authorizing the use of ARPA funds to fund a Lead Reduction Program that will offer cost-sharing assistance to help property owners pay for the replacement of lead service lines. Prepared by: Ronald Knoche, Public Works Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5138 Ordinance no. Ordinance amending Title 16, entitled "Public Works", Chapter 3, "City Utilities", Article C, "Potable Water Use and Service", Section 1, "Definitions", and Section 3, "Connection to Distribution Water Main" Whereas, water service lines are privately owned underground water pipes that connect homes or buildings to the City's drinking water distribution main; and Whereas, water service lines also include stop boxes, pipes, tapping saddles, sleeves, connectors, and valves between the distribution water main and the point of service or building served; and Whereas, under Iowa City Code Section 16 -3C -3(C), water service lines are to be maintained at the expense of the private property owner from the point of connection on private property to the City's drinking water distribution main; and Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found there is no safe level of exposure to lead, and lead in drinking water has been determined to cause health problems in young children, pregnant women and their unborn children, and is also potentially harmful to adults; and Whereas, when water service lines are made of lead, they may become significant contributors to lead contamination of drinking water or create lead deposits within galvanized iron pipes; and Whereas, the disturbance of lead water service lines, particularly partial lead service line replacement, has been shown to increase lead levels in drinking water; and Whereas, full replacement of lead service lines, as opposed to partial replacement, can reduce exposure to lead in drinking water; and Whereas, it is in the public interest and for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare to prohibit the repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of existing lead services lines or lead contaminated galvanized iron service lines, and instead require full replacement of any lead service line that is requiring repair; and Whereas, the City desires to amend the City Code to promote the removal of lead and galvanized iron contaminated by lead connected to the potable water system. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment. Title 16, Chapter 3, Article C, Section 1 entitled "Definitions", is amended by adding the underlined text as follows: Lead Service Line: A lead service line is a pipe laid from the distribution water main to the point of service or building served that contains any lead piping, fittings, fixtures, solder, connectors, goosenecks, pigtails, or galvanized iron pipes that are or were downstream of a lead service line. Ordinance No. Page 2 Full Lead Service Line Replacement: The replacement of the entire length of the lead service line such that the service line is lead-free, as defined by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR 143.12. Title 16, Chapter 3, Article C, Section 3 entitled "Connection to Distribution Water Main", is amended by adding the underlined text and deleting the strike -through text as follows: C. Maintenance Of Service: All service lines shall be maintained at the expense of the owner of the property. Any leak or other defect in the service line shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the owner, as set forth in this section. If not repaired or replaced promptly, the water may, after written notice to the owner, be turned off by the city until such repairs or replacement have been made. E. Repair or reconnection prohibited: Repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of a lead service line to a distribution water main is prohibited. F. Lead service line replacement requirement: Any lead service line that develops a leak or other defect shall require a full lead service line replacement in lieu of repair. The method of connection at the distribution water main shall comply with the City's adopted tapping policies and approved materials. The owner shall report to the Iowa City Water Division any planned lead service line replacement prior to commencing work. The cost of such replacement shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 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. The effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 2024. Passed and approved this day of , 2023. Mayor Approved by Attest: City Clerk City Attor y's Office (Liz Craig — 09/27/2023) Ordinance No. Page 3 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 10/03/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Harmsen Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published